Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 62

Thread: 9310 Bolt Data

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    USA (Washington DC/Northern Virginia)
    Posts
    766
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by prepare View Post
    According to H&M Metal Processing They have developed a proprietary process using lower temperature and exposure time that achieves the benefits of SBN while maintaining core hardness.
    prepare, thank you for looking into this and reporting back.

    Assuming what H&M says is true, now the trick is to find out which bolts have been nitrided by them using this process. My understanding (which could be wrong) is that there are not a lot of companies that do large scale nitriding on firearms parts in the U.S.

    Joe Mamma
    "Reliability above all else"
    NRA Certified Pistol and Rifle Instructor, Life Member
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Beretta & Sig Sauer Certified Pistol Armorer
    Colt Certified 1911 & AR-15/M16/M4 Law Enforcement Armorer

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Former USA
    Posts
    3,134
    Feedback Score
    0
    I hope to get some additional information I requested from H&M.

    Currently I'm only certain of 2 manufactures that have their BCG's nitrided at H&M. Not sure if any Tier one manufactures use them or not?
    You won't outvote the corruption.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    779
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by prepare View Post
    The hype stems from the amount of circulated misinformation. Even from industry insiders and so called industry "professionals".
    exactly..

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Posts
    142
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Anyone have bolt lug wearing or shearing with their 9310. Seems it's more common than on a C158 bolt.
    God, Family, Freedom.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    64
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeBobJoe View Post
    .... bolt lug wearing or shearing with their 9310. Seems it's more common than on a C158 bolt.
    What sort documentation or proof do you have that makes this statement a fact, instead of an opinion ?

    9310 can / should be better than C-158, but it all depends on who does the heat treatment.


    AR bolts do fail, you should carry a spare.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    16
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by prepare View Post
    When were 9310 bolts first introduced?
    Early on there were some issues with properly heat treating that led to breakage. Has that since been corrected? If so when?
    Some say a properly heat treated 9310 is better than mil-spec C-158?
    C-158 bolts are available in both phosphate and nitride, it appears all 9310 bolts are nitride only?
    Has Crane tested 9310 bolts with the latest heat treatment processes?
    Are there any drawbacks to a properly heat treated 9310 bolt?
    Are 9310 bolts still considered unproven?
    Phosphate 9310 bolts exist.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bora Bora
    Posts
    6,047
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Steels are a funny material, you gain something, you give something up. Increased hardness can lead to a brittle steel if not properly heat treated. Also, a shitty C-158 heat treat will be just as disastrous as a shitty 9310 heat treat.

    I'll remind everyone the TDP was written a long long time ago and there has been SIGNIFICANT advancement in metallurgy since that time.

    You need look no further than what is happening in the knife world to realize there are probably other viable options that exceed the performance of C-158 for use in bolts.

    Be open minded to change and learn about the better options that are very likely out there.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,799
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    The big plus of the LMT bolt is the extractor spring(s) are a more sensible length to coil ratio.
    Unfortunately, that hasn't always translated into better spring life. Early LMT bolts suffered extraction problems. I have an early LMT E bolt and had extraction problems from the start due to weak extractor springs. I fixed the problem by counting the coils of the original springs and cutting down springs of the same diameter to the same count. With the same coil count, the replacement springs were longer and applied greater force to the extractor.

    The springs I used were from an LPK, detent springs or something (I don't remember exactly which spring). So far, the extraction issues haven't returned.

    As far as print changes go- How much it costs to change a print depends on what's being changed. Changes to prints are expected and routine. It shouldn't cost a half mil to update a print change letter and add a line to the materials list, especially one as simple as for manufacturing an AR bolt. A change to the body of the print wouldn't be necessary.
    The number of folks on my Full Of Shit list grows everyday

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

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    539
    Feedback Score
    0
    I have heard that 9310 is supposed to be a lot stronger and a much better performing bolt. I have heard that 9310 can last upwards of 10k rounds were as 158 is 3-5k. That being said I have a 158 that has somewhere around 8-9k and its still fine. Actually all my 158 bolts are still rocking and over 3k for each at least. I love constant improvement and I am guilty of every new improvement to a system automatically means that the previous one is shit now. I feel and have seen multiple testings done that do show 158 lugs shearing well before 9310, just never had it happen in my life. I think if you are shooting a lot of 855 A1 or other very high pressure rounds then there may be a difference, but I think at the rates that civilians shoot, I see it as negligible.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    779
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by chamber143 View Post
    I have heard that 9310 is supposed to be a lot stronger and a much better performing bolt. I have heard that 9310 can last upwards of 10k rounds were as 158 is 3-5k. That being said I have a 158 that has somewhere around 8-9k and its still fine. Actually all my 158 bolts are still rocking and over 3k for each at least. I love constant improvement and I am guilty of every new improvement to a system automatically means that the previous one is shit now. I feel and have seen multiple testings done that do show 158 lugs shearing well before 9310, just never had it happen in my life. I think if you are shooting a lot of 855 A1 or other very high pressure rounds then there may be a difference, but I think at the rates that civilians shoot, I see it as negligible.
    I would suspect that many aren't opposed to a better material for a bolt like 9310. The concern I have is whether or not there will be a standard to which a 9310 bolt will be manufactured to meet, and will that standard be followed? Milspec doesn't always mean the best, but it is a spec.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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
  •