Ah, no worries, it happens to the best of us.
I remember the thread. Unfortunatly I can't remember there being a whole lot of empirical data being thrown around in it one way or the other.to clerify how I understood, nitriding was better for the main part of the barrel, but chrome was better for protecting against throat erosion - which is more important for high volume barrels.
Let me try to find the thread-which I should have done in the first place- instead of posting what is starting to look like hearsay, I'm sure. I dont know the specs for all the materials so I cant reallygive solid info at this time.
Edit : Haha, its a thread you were active in. : https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...=83495&page=20
I only read it in the early stages and missed the last 12 pages or so. Just got caught up. I screwed up twice in one day... time to start reading more...
OP the very long thread above is well worth the read.
In my learning from sources other then those related to firearms (firearms related nitriding sources are pretty biased because they are trying to sell something) what ultimatly makes the difference in the effectivness of nitriding is the alloy used.
If it is a high quality alloy, then the material will be harder (and deeper in depth then chrome is thick) then chrome and will prevent throat erosion just as much or even better. If the base metal is a cheaper ordinary steel, then nitriding may not be able to perform as good as chrome. Although nitriding, regardless of base metal, still has a natural, inherent lubricity as a factor of the process that chrome simply cannot match.



Reply With Quote
Bookmarks