Page 6 of 50 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 493

Thread: S&W Melonite coated barrel vs Noveske chrome lined barrel.

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    1,612
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by scottryan View Post
    What do the following price point hobby grade firearms all have in common?

    1. Bushmaster ACR
    2. SIG556
    3. S&W Sport AR-15

    A nitrided barrel.
    Just like some of HK's firearms.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    230
    Feedback Score
    0
    Scottyryan: Hey, I have no dog in this fight, but I do have a question for you. Do you think that a salt-bath nitrided will be any less robust/durable than a CL barrel?

    FWIW, in addition to my CL BCM middy, I just had an upper put together using a Rock Creek barrel that uses 4150 CMV steel with 5R rifling. The barrel was nitrided by Rock Creek in a salt bath, which is supposed to be the most effective means of nitriding a barrel. As long as it's not any worse than CL, I'll be happy, as initial range groups appear to show that it's probably gonna be a 1 to 1.20 MOA rifle with 75gr TAP.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by urbankaos04; 06-24-11 at 19:33.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,432
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CC556 View Post
    And you could just as easily come up with an even longer list of hobby-grade rifles that have chrome lined barrels. It doesn't prove anything. Do you have any hard data at all, or are you just hoping you can toss out some disingenuous and simplistic responses to distract people?
    Quoted for truth.

    Has anyone shot any of those hobby-grade rifles' barrels to destruction to know how durable they are or aren't? Has anybody shot to destruction a chrome-lined vs nitrided barrel to prove definitively which one is superior?


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009


    "When young men seek to be like you, when lazy men resent you, when powerful men look over their shoulder at you, when cowardly men plot behind your back, when corrupt men wish you were gone and evil men want you dead . . . Only then will you have done your share." - Phil Messina

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,799
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Has anyone shot any of those hobby-grade rifles' barrels to destruction to know how durable they are or aren't? Has anybody shot to destruction a chrome-lined vs nitrided barrel to prove definitively which one is superior?
    Not that I know of for #1.

    For #2, the US Army has done so, see the first study linked in my post #20 (which is a small arms barrel study and different from the machinegun study that was posted by both me and another). That is of course 1969 level technology and results might have changed since then.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,922
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    The fact that those barrels had a Stelite insert in the throat area makes it an invalid comparison.

    Stelite is some serious shit. We used to dog the living crap out of M-60's with leftover ammo and the barrels took it and asked for more. The barrel was the best feature on the Pig.

    Ma Deuce also uses them too.
    My brother saw Deliverance and bought a Bow. I saw Deliverance and bought an AR-15.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,432
    Feedback Score
    0
    Situational awareness fail for me for reposting the same study you did.

    Having said that, as I stated the study invalidates itself as a comparative tool since it does not test a standard chrome-lined barrel against an otherwise-equivalent nitrided barrel. Facts have been pretty well nonexistent where the benefits of chrome-lining vs nitriding are concerned. A lot of hearsay, but no numbers to prove or disprove. Scott definitely has a point in the expense involved in such testing, but without somebody shelling out that cash we'll never know definitively.

    Take ten equivalent barrels, five chrome-lined and five nitrided, and shoot them to destruction. It's really the only way to settle this.


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009


    "When young men seek to be like you, when lazy men resent you, when powerful men look over their shoulder at you, when cowardly men plot behind your back, when corrupt men wish you were gone and evil men want you dead . . . Only then will you have done your share." - Phil Messina

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Cost is no proof of effectiveness
    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

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,246
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I have no specific studies or scientific data to offer up, but I can tell you that the salt bath ferritic nitrocarburization process is becoming more popular in the benchrest game. Many of the hot running 6mm cartridges popular in that sport induce throat erosion and general wear and tear on the barrel in a suprisingly small round counts. Unfortunately I can't find the thread, but there was a discussion on the Hide about this. One member who shot 6mm benchrest did a comparison between an untreated barrel and one that had been nitrocarburized. He measured throat erosion and kept a round count for both. Since I can't find the post I don't have numbers but the gist was that the treated barrel was resisting wear markedly better than the untreated (it was also equally accurate). Now, granted, the control barrel was not chrome lined for obvious reasons so the comparison is not 100% relevant for AR type rifles. But, I think one thing we can take out of this is to find a middle ground. I think we can agree that in SOME applications, the nitriding process is a good choice. Perhaps in a precision rifle where chrome lining would be a detriment to accuracy and the user didn't want stainless. I guess what I'm getting at is you can't simply call the process junk, or assume that it's just a cheap alternative to something better. The accuracy freaks in the benchrest game obviously believe there is merit to the process. Only time will tell if it's a legitimate alternative to chrome lining. As to why you're only seeing it appear on rifles on the lower end of the spectrum, think about it this way...the users that purchase expensive top of the line AR's are generally pretty knowledgeable, and what comes with that is that they're set in their ways. They're not going to shell out the big bucks for something they see as "experimental" when they just "know" that CL'ing is the way to go because that's what they're used to and that's what's MILSPEC. I simply don't think it would sell well. Maybe the uninformed purchasers of low end AR's that you're seeing these nitrided barrels on are being used as beta testers for the process by the manufacturers. They'll never come out and say that but it's not an unreasonable notion. Time will tell I suppose.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    947
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by scottryan View Post
    Do you really believe a glock slide can withstand a blow torch because it has a melonite/tenifer treatment? I noticed how you couldn't answer and didn't addres this point in your poor rebuttal.
    1. It's not a blow torch.
    2. A cutting torch provides sustained heat from a 6,500* flame whereas a round going off in the chamber is only a split second.
    3. Cutting torches don't use heat to melt or cut steel. They use heat to induce a super intensified rusting of the metal from pure oxygen.
    4. The steel is able to be cut with the oxygen jet before it becomes molten.

    What does all this mean? That heat is only one of many factors in throat erosion. After being a boilermaker I've learned a few things about the performance of various metals at elevated temps for prolonged periods of time and I'll tell you right now that hardness is ABSOLUTELY a major player in the matter.

    Metal gets soft at elevated temps. Soft metal wears easily. Carbon is very abrasive. Hot gases are very abrasive. Burning gun powder is full of both. Therefore the whole game is about finding a metal that stays hard and resist corrosion at high temps. Nitriding does both exceptionally well and that's proven fact. So what are you arguing? That it doesn't or that it's not as good as chrome? If the former then the facts say you're wrong. If the latter then show us what you base you're argument on.

    To be honest most of the steels used for barrels aren't even the best choices. Theirs some pretty amazing alloys out there that would blow people away that are in regular use for boiler systems as well as other high temp applications (and I've cut most of them with a torch).

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    1,612
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy View Post
    That is of course 1969 level technology and results might have changed since then.
    Are you saying there is a possibility that new technologies may have emerged since Eugen Stoner first designed the AR back in the early 60's?

Page 6 of 50 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •