Long Term NP3

[hk_shootr]

I soak bolt carrier groups in Seafoam overnight......everything wipes off with a paper towel.

[user]

I have one too and agree with everything except this statement. Now, depending on how you define "clean" it may do just that, and does for pretty much the entire BCG. The exception is the bolt tail. If you want it spic-and-span then some elbow grease is required. To be fair, I have yet to find a coating/treatment that just "wipes off" the baked-on carbon from the bolt tail (I have a Cryptic Coatings Mystic Black BCG but have yet to put it in a weapon).

Only caveat to cleaning a bolt tail done in NP3 is don't use brass or steel brushes, or even the old Army green "scratchy pads" (this is per a conversation with Robar themselves). You have to use a nylon brush to clean it without damaging the NP3 finish. It's certainly doable, just need to keep that in mind.

True about the tail, your right. Didn’t know about the nylon brush requirements. Thanks!

[calvin118]

I have been using a Sionics NP3 BCG in one of my uppers. In under 1000 rounds, it appears to have significant wear of the finish at the contact points. It is perhaps best seen in the third picture linked below. The same pattern can manifest on phosphate bolt carrier groups, but I had hoped the NP3 would be a bit more durable than the phosphate. And yes, I do lubricate the gas key, rails, and port holes before every range session.

As we know, the bolt carrier group only makes contact with the receiver at contact points such as the four carrier rails and the gas key. If the NP3 is worn through in these areas, then any lubricity advantage with NP3 in regards to reliability becomes moot. You quickly end up with 8620 steel on anodized aluminum at the contact points, even if the parts of the carrier that glide along without contacting the receiver are coated in NP3. As such, I question whether this carrier would have any reliability advantage in adverse conditions over a standard phosphate carrier. If anything, it may be at a disadvantage if the non-contact points of the carrier hold on to lubrication with less affinity.

The carrier has worked flawlessly, and to its credit is incredibly easy to wipe clean. When I contacted Sionics I was told that the wear was normal, but they offered to allow me to return the carrier and discuss the issue with Robar. If this is indeed normal, I reasoned that it would not do any good to have it re-coated because it would quickly return to this condition when I shot it again anyway. I would not argue that it is defective or inferior to phosphate carriers, but I am now skeptical that there is any advantage to NP3 beyond ease of cleaning because the coating appears to wear off the contact points fairly quickly.

Have others had this experience?

https://ibb.co/fo4BCK
https://ibb.co/jdENKz
https://ibb.co/hhjdsK
https://ibb.co/m9h9zz
https://ibb.co/bXc9zz

[Dionysusigma]

That looks more like mere polishing of the NP3 than deep wear... I wouldn't worry a bit.

[calvin118]

That looks more like mere polishing of the NP3 than deep wear... I wouldn't worry a bit.

I considered that. You cannot see it well in the pictures but there are still scattered traces of finish in most of the worn areas reminiscent of what phosphated contact points look like with wear. It also looks suspiciously similar to a worn nibx bcg that was definitely not merely polished because the worn surface was a different color. In person it appears to be more worn off than polished, especially on the gas key. Additionally the listed depth of the NP3 is 1/1000 inch. I question whether that is deep enough to yield a polished surface. I do however remain open to the fact that I may be mistaken.

[Iraqgunz]

All types of coatings are going to exhibit some wear. Robar has told us that the NP3 penetrates into the substrate. The fact that the carbon wipes off from that area indicates that the process is working. If it is troubling you, then I would recommend sending it to SIONICS as they offered and allow Robar to examine and then provide feedback.

We have thousands and thousands of these in use with gov't/LE and civilians and virtually no issues at all.

[BufordTJustice]

All types of coatings are going to exhibit some wear. Robar has told us that the NP3 penetrates into the substrate. The fact that the carbon wipes off from that area indicates that the process is working. If it is troubling you, then I would recommend sending it to SIONICS as they offered and allow Robar to examine and then provide feedback.

We have thousands and thousands of these in use with gov't/LE and civilians and virtually no issues at all.

This was my understanding of Robar as well; that it permeates the surface like
Glocks original tennifer. Where the black could wear off but the performance was still there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[titsonritz]

I am considering a coated BCG in a suppressed upper for ease of cleaning. I have heard some negative feedback on NIB coatings, but most of the feedback related to NP3 seems to be positive. Has anyone experienced any chipping, flaking, etc with NP3? What kind of round counts have people managed without any trouble? Thanks.

I have been using a Sionics NP3 BCG in one of my uppers. In under 1000 rounds, it appears to have significant wear of the finish at the contact points. It is perhaps best seen in the third picture linked below. The same pattern can manifest on phosphate bolt carrier groups, but I had hoped the NP3 would be a bit more durable than the phosphate. And yes, I do lubricate the gas key, rails, and port holes before every range session.

As we know, the bolt carrier group only makes contact with the receiver at contact points such as the four carrier rails and the gas key. If the NP3 is worn through in these areas, then any lubricity advantage with NP3 in regards to reliability becomes moot. You quickly end up with 8620 steel on anodized aluminum at the contact points, even if the parts of the carrier that glide along without contacting the receiver are coated in NP3. As such, I question whether this carrier would have any reliability advantage in adverse conditions over a standard phosphate carrier. If anything, it may be at a disadvantage if the non-contact points of the carrier hold on to lubrication with less affinity.

The carrier has worked flawlessly, and to its credit is incredibly easy to wipe clean. When I contacted Sionics I was told that the wear was normal, but they offered to allow me to return the carrier and discuss the issue with Robar. If this is indeed normal, I reasoned that it would not do any good to have it re-coated because it would quickly return to this condition when I shot it again anyway. I would not argue that it is defective or inferior to phosphate carriers, but I am now skeptical that there is any advantage to NP3 beyond ease of cleaning because the coating appears to wear off the contact points fairly quickly.

Have others had this experience?

https://ibb.co/fo4BCK
https://ibb.co/jdENKz
https://ibb.co/hhjdsK
https://ibb.co/m9h9zz
https://ibb.co/bXc9zz

Is chipping and flaking like you were concerned about in the OP? Then don't sweat it.

[titsonritz]

This was my understanding of Robar as well; that it permeates the surface like
Glocks original tennifer. Where the black could wear off but the performance was still there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is my understanding (granted limited) as well.

[MegademiC]

Np3 is a plating and doesnt penetrate the surface.
However, it will fill valleys of the sustrate surface. The surface of the plating will polish, and even if worn down to the peaks of the substrate, will still offer benefits of increased hardness and lubricity from the PTFE.

Tenifer is a conversion coating and does, in fact, penetrate into the substrate.

Similar effect through different methods, i guess.