Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: Barrels: Nitrided Stainless vs. Chrome Lined 4150CMV

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    301
    Feedback Score
    0

    Barrels: Nitrided Stainless vs. Chrome Lined 4150CMV

    I'd like to know your opinions, experience, and any advice you can give regarding this specific barrel comparison: Noveske stainless steel 16" Recon with an aftermarket nitride treatment vs Noveske 16" Light Recce. (Yes, I know the Recce is M249 barrel steel with double the chrome lining thickness, not standard chrome lined 4150.)

    Lets compare the two on the following points:

    Durability
    - Which will wear faster than the other? This sort of rehashes the "Nitride vs Chrome Lining" debate, but I'd like to specifically compare the M249 barrel steel and lining to the wear reduction benefits of Nitriding when applied to 416 stainless steel. I've already looked into this to a certain extent, and I've found that both offer good corrosion resistance (with nitride being slightly superior to hard chrome) and relatively equal hardness (65-70RC for nitrided 416 and 70-75RC for hard chrome). The hardened layer gained by the nitriding is thicker than the thickness of standard hard chrome plating, with the typical thickness of nitriding being 0.01-0.02" (0.25-0.5mm) and hard chrome barrel lining being around 0.0005" (0.0127mm) IIRC. I would assume that the M249 lining, being double thickness would be approximately 0.001" thick, which is still 1/10th the thickness of nitriding. This, when considered in conjunction with the hardness similarities, would lead me to believe that nitriding would be at least as good if not better than hard chrome for resisting simple erosion. What I couldn't find is how the two compare in terms of heat resistance, or erosion resistance when heated - the factors that actually wear out a barrel. I'm really not interested in "Well my barrel has X,000 rounds through it and still shoots fine." That's great and all, but its an uncontrolled environment and really doesn't prove anything one way or the other. What I would like is someone with an engineering/metallurgy background to share their knowledge or if anyone has a link to any articles that could shed some light on this.

    Reliablitity - Chrome lined CMV is pretty tried and true, no argument there. What I am concerned about is 1) the use of stainless steel in a pressure vessel (what a barrel actually is) and 2) the effect of the 900-1000 degree Fahrenheit nitriding process on the temper of the stainless steel. If you don't understand what this has to do with anything, you probably won't understand any explanation I try to give either, so I'm not going to try. Again, it's probably a engineering/metallurgy type thing.

    Accuracy - Of course many of you wonder (and will likely make comments about) why I'm concerned with any of this at all and why don't I just buy a barrel and be happy? Well, the balance of accuracy to durability is the key. I'm attempting to build an "all purpose" type of rifle that can effectively fill both a traditional combat rifle role as well as an SPR role. I'm looking for better ability to withstand rapid fire and high volume fire than naked stainless while maintaining at least 1MOA accuracy in a standard weight barrel. I'm not convinced I'm going to get that kind of accuracy out of a chrome lined barrel, but maybe someone can prove me wrong. Just going with the Light Recce would definitely be the less expensive option.

    And here... we......... go. Discuss.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,422
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    You're over thinking the issue.

    The reality is, there's a noticeable difference between 65-70 Rockwell and 70-75. Hardness also affects other properties of metal and that varies from alloy to alloy.

    Chrome is hard, but that's all it is. It's good for plating, but not much use by itself. It's not much better than the base material.

    Nitriding gets into the metal. It does not change the dimensions of the part it's applied to, unlike chrome. I suppose it isn't much better than the base material.

    If you really want to know which is better, you'll have to figure out what the cost per shot of the barrel is. For example, if a barrel costs $500 and it's worn beyond acceptable limits after 10k rounds that barrel cost five cents per shot. A barrel that costs $250 that's worn by 7500 shots only costs 3 cents per round. It's shot out at a lower round count but costs less per shot.

    Problem is, there are too many variables that affect barrel life. Best thing to do is simply get a barrel that shoots good and shoot it until it don't.

    The more realistic view of cost per shot is this- A $500 barrel costs fifty cents per shot if 1000 rounds are run through it. A $250 barrel costs a quarter per shot. That makes the $250 barrel a better value
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    FL -Where it's summer 10.5 months out of the year
    Posts
    4,114
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Mist gives solid advice.

    Also, determine what your definition of "accuracy" is. 2MOA @ 100 yards? 4MOA @ 100 yards? Etc.

    Once it fails to meet that standard, gitchu a new burrel.
    "That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892

    "The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    301
    Feedback Score
    0
    I appreciate your thoughts, and respect your opinions, but I'm looking to go a different direction with this discussion. I'm not looking to be told that I'm over thinking the issue... I'm doing so intentionally. There is a reason I'm considering buying a $550 top tier barrel and then spending additional money having it nitrided, rather than just buying a BCM or DD and being happy. I'm not looking for standard milspec, good enough, or merely acceptable. I want to push the envelope. If everyone was satisfied with the current technology and status quo, we'd all still be shooting muskets.

    I'm not saying you have to be of the same mindset, but if you don't want to discuss the issue please don't insinuate that it's not worth discussing just because it doesn't matter to you. I'm hoping that there are other members who would want to engage in this sort of discussion, otherwise we may as well just send letters to all the top tier manufacturers and tell them to stop funding R&D and just keep offering what they have.

    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    If you really want to know which is better, you'll have to figure out what the cost per shot of the barrel is. For example, if a barrel costs $500 and it's worn beyond acceptable limits after 10k rounds that barrel cost five cents per shot. A barrel that costs $250 that's worn by 7500 shots only costs 3 cents per round. It's shot out at a lower round count but costs less per shot.
    That's not my definition of "better" in this instance. I'm looking for a realistic comparison on performance, not value. I understand that cost wise, running uber cheap barrels till they puke and then replacing them with another uber cheap barrel is more cost effective than buying a higher quality barrel that may give you twice the life, but at triple the cost. In your example, the $500 barrel is the better barrel IMO even though it will end up costing more per shot to use, assuming everything else is equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post
    Also, determine what your definition of "accuracy" is. 2MOA @ 100 yards? 4MOA @ 100 yards? Etc.
    Consistently 1MOA or better, as stated in my original post. Effective range will be 0-400 meters, but that's beside the point really.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,512
    Feedback Score
    0
    Did you search? Hasn't this topic been covered extensively, multiple times?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    301
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brahmzy View Post
    Did you search? Hasn't this topic been covered extensively, multiple times?
    Nitriding has been covered. Noveske stainless steel barrels vs Noveske chrome lined barrels has been covered. Nitriding stainless steel barrels has been mentioned, but not discussed in depth, and a specific comparison between a nitrided Noveske Recon barrel and a Noveske Light Recce (obviously non-nitrided) has not been discussed at all, unless I missed something. If I did, I apologize and ask that you please direct me to that thread.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    616
    Feedback Score
    0

    Re: Barrels: Nitrided Stainless vs. Chrome Lined 4150CMV

    If it's worth it to you and you have the money for a $550 barrel then go for it if that's your thing. Me personally, it's not worth it the price/performance ratio.

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,422
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger89 View Post
    ...I understand that cost wise, running uber cheap barrels till they puke and then replacing them with another uber cheap barrel is more cost effective than buying a higher quality barrel that may give you twice the life, but at triple the cost. In your example, the $500 barrel is the better barrel IMO even though it will end up costing more per shot to use, assuming everything else is equal...
    If everything else is equal, the lower cost barrel certainly is your choice because accuracy will also be equal. However, if accuracy was your primary concern, why include the chrome lined bore in the discussion? Not that chrome lined barrels offer poor accuracy, but they are generally less accurate than non-chromed barrels

    My point wasn't about running an uber-cheap barrel to death simply because it's cheaper. If the balance of accuracy to durability is the key as you claim in your first post, you have to know the per shot cost of each barrel to make a comparison. Without that, it's just guessing. The problem is that barrel life is dependent on how the rifle is shot and maintained and what type of ammo is used.

    I didn't make these points to stop the discussion about nitriding. I gave you these points to give you another angle to ponder. From the initial information given in your first post, my conclusion is that the matter is being over thought. It's simple. You don't have to spend $500 plus the cost of nitriding to get an accurate barrel. I paid $325 to have a 20 inch Lothar-Walther SS barrel delivered to my door complete with bolt matched to the barrel. As bolts were going for roughly $50, that means I got a very accurate barrel for $275 and it will last for thousands of rounds.

    To get a 20 inch barrel from Superior with their "hard blue" (which I believe is a nitride finish) with matched bolt would have cost $525. Superior claims extended barrel life with their hard blue finish, but is it enough to be worth the extra money? The only way to tell is to get one and shoot the snot out of it.

    The fact is, with any well made modern barrel, short of abusing it with mag dumps, it's going to take a pile of ammo to wear it out
    Last edited by MistWolf; 04-08-13 at 02:25.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,954
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Why would you nitride a stainless steel barrel? Doesn't nitriding decrease the corrosion resistance of stainless steel?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,321
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)

    Re: Barrels: Nitrided Stainless vs. Chrome Lined 4150CMV

    Hardening of an SS barrel can theoretically lengthen barrel life but I do have concerns with the corrosion question. However, I don't see how that couldn't be overcome with simple care. The bore would be much less prone (assuming its hand lapped and burr free) to damage by clumsy cleaning procedures.

    Where are you guys getting > $500 for a nitrided SS barrel? WOA barrel $300 + nitriding only adds up to about $400 from the reputable treatment companies.
    Buying a Noveske barrel for $100 more than a WOA is a separate issue. The treatment is only roughly $75 plus shipping.

    Nitride, Melonite, Tennifer, etc. have all been used successfully on stainless pistol slides and haven't lead to massive corrosion. There was an isolated case with a batch of S&W M&P slides I believe.
    Last edited by Waylander; 04-08-13 at 09:44.
    "If force can take away liberty, force is necessary to preserve it. It is the hatred of violence alongside the willingness to use violence that preserves liberty. In order for us to live as free men, we have to hate the violence that takes away liberty, yet at the same time, we must embrace the violence that preserves it. That is the paradox our founders appreciated and made work for over 200 years."

    -Christopher Brownwell

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •