For those of you who have had your weapons cerakoted, is the coating that much better for rust and corrosion prevention than standard Mil-Spec Type III anodizing? Or is it mainly cosmetic?
Printable View
For those of you who have had your weapons cerakoted, is the coating that much better for rust and corrosion prevention than standard Mil-Spec Type III anodizing? Or is it mainly cosmetic?
I like it because you can get a different color. It also adds extra protection.
Now that receivers are avaliable in anodized black, tan, and OD, and soon to be multicam, I see no reason to own a gun that is painted
[QUOTE=scottryan;1360036]Now that receivers are avaliable in anodized black, tan, and OD, and soon to be multicam, I see no reason to own a gun that is painted[/QUOTE
+1 I agree, type III penetrates into the base metal and is very durable.
When anondizing the color varies form batch to batch. Thats why most companies still dont do it.
Colt.
They have shown it at SHOT, they had a digi desert to I belive.
I know they are doing the tan anodizing right now on a limited run.
http://gunwebsites.net/wp-content/up...olt-CM9011.jpg
http://gunwebsites.net/wp-content/up...-CM901-091.jpg
I cant find any pics of the multi cam but i know ive seen a video of it
I wouldn't say its just cosmetic on aluminum. You also can't readily anodize ferrous metal, ie steel, the same as you would non-ferrous metal, ie aluminium. There are ways to place oxide layers on steel, but the finish is generally called black oxide, not anodizing. Also not very corossion resistant. Iron oxide is rust.
The only advantage cerakote has over anodizing is color consistency and flexibility. Anodizing is very hard, but very brittle.
In reality, anything that damaged my rifle(s) was enough to also dent/mar/etc the base aluminium.
I haven't been too impressed with any anodized camo finishes. I also doubt they are type III.
There's no reason you can't have both. Just to clarify, I called Cerakote about having a Sig done as I had concerns about blasting the anodizing off the aluminum frame. They advised me that rather than blasting the anodizing away, they rough the surface of it, providing a good base for the coating. This should induce no harm to the anodizing and retain all the benefits of it.
FWIW, the larger gun manufacturers who do Cerakote in house do not blast the anodizing away prior to applying the coating either, as stated above.
Tspeis
Perhaps if we were talking about something like krylon, then yes. I'm pretty sure cerakote is more than just paint and I'm passing on what was stated to me by them just this afternoon as I felt it was relevant to the OP's question.
Feel free to call them yourself if you disagree.
Tspeis
STS Arms in Mapleton, OR did an AR for me in FDE. Here's their skinny on how cerakoting addresses those questions.
http://stsarms.com/Coating.html
"better" is subjective, each has pros and cons. Im a big fan of Cerakote, when you look at the other after market applied finishes Cerakote stands out IMO. Many manufactuers are choosing Cerakote as their primary finish.
Here is my LMT cerakoted Burnt Bronze
http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/...onsarII002.jpg
My ak is coated black in Cerakote. The first time I adjusted the front sight the coating flaked off just from using the sight adjustment tool. It's parkerized underneath so its not a biggie but I dont think any if the spray on coatings are as durable as good old phosphate or anodized on something that is gonna get used a lot.
Colt coming out with anodized receivers other than black is one of the most significant developments in the AR-15 world over the past 10 years.
How can COLT or anyone else for that matter anodize an actual pattern like that multi-cam/real-tree type they did...
I'm fairly familiar with the whole process and I can't for the life of me figure it out... unless they are using a water transfer type film for the dying/printing process after the initial etching.... as in.... etch to the specified mil thickness then instead of dipping it in a heated dyeing solution, they dip it into a water transfer film and that is absorbed into the "corrosion" instead of a standard dye... its that or they are actually taking the time to anodize specific colors in specific orders for patterns or some type of splash effect.... which I can see as being very labor intensive and not really cost effective...
any info?
that definitely isn't Type3-Hardcoat is it?
I have yet to see an anodize version of tan/FDE that looks right. To me they end up looking too bronze/gold looking. The plastic parts never look right next to it.
Cerakote aint paint. They have something special there. That heat cure and inorganic backbone make it a really tough coating. Plus they have their Stealth modification for IR camo that you can use on the whole gun, not just the aluminum parts.
Anodizing is a great finish but a coating like cerakote does stuff that anodizing can't.
It depends on the pattern and the person doing the work. For anno that is in a digi like in the picture they will use a film like taping off something for painting. It just has to be strong enough to hold up to the process. Designs like splashes some places use a substance like hot glue.
If you want to see some truly amazing anno jobs look at some pics from companies who do paintball markers. Those company's will also do receivers. The colors you see that have multi colors it is type II. Type III is only available in a very few colors from what i have heard but i have only seen grey and black.
It is a two step process it is put in the hot electrified tank to apply anno then put in a dye tank.