170,000 rounds costs $77,000
I don't believe the SW test.
I don't care about a bottom feeding AR-15 that sells for $700 that is made for losers, inbreds, and bubbas at sporting goods stores.
A CL hammer forged barrel made from CMV steel will outlasted a cut or button rifled barrel made out of inferior 4140 steel, especially when the throat is burned away regardless of surface treatment.
Melonite or any other treatment cannot stop throat erosion from burning high pressure gun powder.
Last edited by scottryan; 06-21-11 at 18:56.
"Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm
Is this a real question?
Because a surface treatment that is microns thick cannot resist a jet flame into steel which is a conductor of heat.
I don't need to explain anything further, its simple science.
Do you realize how stupid your argument is? Its like saying you can't take a blow torch and cut through a Glock slide because it has a melonite/tenifer treatment.
Barrel treatments are not put on to prevent throat erosion. They are put there to prevent the rifling from wearing out due to bullets traveling down the bore.
What would you rather have?
1. A barrel that is more resistant to throat erosion (which is something I can realistically measure with a throat erosion gauge) which will maintain is accuracy over a longer period of time and be more resilient to heavy amounts of rapid fire.
2. A barrel that has a theoretical unproven life, with an amount of ammunition that costs 100 times more than what the gun costs in the first place.
Last edited by scottryan; 06-21-11 at 20:54.
"Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm
====================================
Educated guess...
Generally, a S&W Melonite coated barrel will outlast a Noveske chrome lined barrel.
....because someone that is buying a cheap S&W rifle is not going to spend the money to buy large quantities of ammo to shoot and train with it...so that gun will be shot less meaning it will last longer.
But maybe it's just me...
.
For those who haven't seen it before, there's an actual US Army study of barrel wear with different finishes. Download it here:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
In short, they concluded that nitrocarburizing significantly increased barrel life vs. plain steel, but chrome plating increased barrel life to an even greater extent.
Another study on machinegun barrels can be found at:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
That study didn't look at ordinary chrome plating. It determined that Stellite liners were by far the best, with nitrocarburizing far ahead of plain steel.
It is just possible that the study results have a connection to the US military's current use of chrome-lined bores in most small arms, where pure durability and full-auto use is emphasized in design considerations.
I'm not in any way arguing that Melonite is a bad process - for many civilian uses it is probably better overall than chrome plating. But the studies above indicate that, as of 1969, it was not as good for pure durability.
I am very curious what exactly S&W is claiming about barrel life. Only that there was some rifling still present at 85k? Or that the exterior looked OK? Maybe the number is a misquote and they're actually claiming the bores were in good condition at 8,500 rounds each, which is in the realm of plausible.
Bookmarks