Quote:
|
I wonder which barrels folks would choose - chrome, nitrate, or other if they knew it was going to be on a dedicated M16 which will see a good amount of full-auto and/or 3-burst fire? I'm not aware of anything better than chrome, but I really haven't researched this in a long time either.
|
A select fire rifle with full auto or 3 round burst is the only application I would spend the money on a chrome lined barrel for. That type of barrel eating use is what chrome lining was created for.
Lots of almost, but not quite, correct information here. First off, chrome isn’t necessarily “detrimental” to accuracy. Once upon a time this was true, but technology has advanced such that the technique is easier to “get right” these days. That being said, it is still more difficult and expensive to make a chrome lined barrel as accurate as a standard chrome-moly or nitrided barrel. You want an moa capable chrome lined m4 barrel? Completely possible, but will cost a fair bit more (last I checked, which admittedly has been a few years, about double the price) more than a nitrided barrel.
Likewise, I’m convinced that a nitrided barrel barrel is much better than the old chrome moly barrels without nitriding. While not as hard and wear resistant as chrome, it is quite tough and for standard use (a few thousand rounds a year) think you would get a couple of decades of service before accuracy began to suffer greatly. I think melonite treatment has made the expense of a quality chrome lined barrel about pointless for probably 99% of your standard civilian ar15 owners. I’m also convinced that I prefer all of the above to stainless due to cost. If I’m going to drop SS money, I’ll get a chrome lined barrel.
That chrome lining will be worth it if you engage in mag dumps or FA fire. That heat build up will soften even nitrided steel enough to induce throat erosion much quicker than it would with chrome.