We use nitrided barrels.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We use nitrided barrels.
I think more than anything it's beneficial in that it shows attention to detail/TDP/etc. In a similar manner that MPI really has little benefit these days when failure rates are statistically zero, and properly dimensioned parts are far more important.
If the intent of building a gun is to adhere to the TDP as much as possible, if they neglect to parkerize the area under the gas block, what other steps/procedures/dimensions/tolerances do they neglect as well. I agree there is probably little benefit, but the fact that they do something so trivial probably also means they pay attention to other seemingly trivial details that may, in fact, affect the function of the gun.
Of course there are also exceptions such as LMT that still produce excellent products despite overlooking some parts.
I'm not cool. I just do this stuff for fun.
I like M4s - both to use, and also for retro collection purposes. If you want one - I would suggest a 6921 - not an attempted clone of it from another company.
But let's face it - it came out in 1994 - the car of the year was the Toyota Supra. Would you all be trying to buy 1994 Supra's in 2011? No.
Colt knows the M4 is not the best way to make a rifle - that is why their IC competition rifle has improvements.
What if the designer preferred the ability to have a more precise fit between the barrel and gas block? How does that mean they are not paying attention to details?
Last edited by rsilvers; 12-04-11 at 00:24.
Notice I specifically mentioned the TDP, the standard by which guns are judged around here.
I probably should have mentioned KAC as a counter-point, as they heavily diverge from the standard yet are an excellent product/design.
Without the baseline, how do you know that their intention is for a more precise gas block to barrel fit? How do you know they are not just lazy? Without other qualifiers you can't make that distinction.
Also, I wouldn't use a car like a Supra as an analogy. There are people selling early 90's Supra's for $30k+ on up to one I saw for $82k, a 1994. Pick a less desirable car, people aren't interested in building 8 second '94 Honda Civics like they are Toyota Supra's and R32 Skyline's.
I'm not cool. I just do this stuff for fun.
I would only pick a less desirable car if I wanted to bash the M4, and I do not. I like the M4. The 1994 Supra was the best at the time, and so was the M4. The 1994 Supra is very desirable today with certain people, and so is the M4. The 1994 Supra, however, has things that would be done differently if it were made today, and so should the M4. I am not a fan of the stepped barrel, for example. And I prefer nitrided barrels over chrome lined. And I would tend to use a low profile gas block over a FSB. And the CTR stock is better than the M4 stock. And I would use more of a mid-length gas system. And more can be done with advanced finishes on the working parts. And Geissele triggers are better than the stock ones.
You guys sure know how to BS over minutia.
If gas-block fitment (to that kind of precision) made a damn bit of difference they'd be made to interference fit.
Wouldn't it also be fair to say that just because YOU prefer XYZ doesn't mean someone else would? What makes the design changes that you have superior to what they are right now?
I understand where you're coming from. Please don't take this as an argument. Just pickin your brain...
I agree. Personally, the way I have read A LOT of information on M4C is the "Mil Spec" is the level that you should never go under. Better is always good...less is well...less.
Thanks for your information!
Here's another question for you:
How much better would your changes be over what the "Standard" is?
For this, I'll consider the "Standard", milspec. Just to pick one thing, let's say nitriding over chrome lining.
Bookmarks