Not to mention Bushy's flattops are in spec...

When it comes right down to it, it's worth the money to buy a Bushy, just for the barrel. The chrome is there on Mil-Spec rifles for a reason-longetivity of the bore(effectively 2x that of unchromed barrels), lubricity of the chamber(aids extraction), and rust prevention. OK, so that's three reasons. It makes sense to spend the money on the chrome lining if you plan to shoot it extensively rather than buy another barrel when your unlined barrel is shot out, which will be before your chrome lined barrel is shot out.

Of course, if I just want a plinker for the lowest possible cost, then I wouldn't waste my money on chrome lining the bore(and of course, the Mil-Spec 1913 Picattiny rail on the flattop), and get an RRA or a Oly Arms plinker. I wouldn't trust my life to it either, though.

Juggernaut

Quoted: NO...not worth the money.  To be honest, if the RRA and Bushy cost IDENTICAL...I'd still go with RRA. I concur with the earlier statements that I'd pay MORE for a NON-chrome lined barrel...better accuracy.  How many people on this forum are out in the jungle for long periods of time and need a chromed bore?  My guess is less than .001%. Longer life?  On paper, yes the chrome lasts longer.  But if you take care of a rifle, the barrel will last your lifetime (unless you're shooting 10,000 rounds a year at a fast cyclical rate...in which case you probably have enough money to buy a new barrel or gun every year too!!!). My $0.02.  Now the difference is only $149.98.

I hereby state that pratical combat accuracy is unaffected by the Chrome lining of the Bushy bore. What are you going to lose, maybe 1/10th or 2/10 of an MOA? What is that, even out at 600 yards?

Sure, if you plan to build the fly swatting wonder match target AR15, the you'll want an unlined barrel, to get every spec of accuracy from the gun-but then you're going to pick a Shaw 24" barrel, not an RRA made of 4140(unlike the Bushy's 4150 barrel steel).

Also, why does your gun have to go to the 'jungle' to corrode the bore? All you have to do is unfortunately leave the gun sitting in your closet for a week or three, and if there is moisture in the air, it will go to work on the raw steel of your barrel, and that includes "chrome-moly" steel(stainless steel excluded, it's another match option, though still not as long lasting as chrome).

And no, Wilson barrels are not chrome lined.

Juggernaut

BTW, just to be clear, I am not dissing RRA, simply pointing out that they, like many American manufacturers of AR15 rifles and parts primarily for the civilian market, have for cost reasons, eliminated a integral part of the rifle's design orginal design for relibility and longetivity under heavy use and poor conditions.

Oly does it, Armalite's Eagle Arms line does it, DPMS does it, Wilson (generic .223 barrels) does it, and for either project plinkers, budget guns or match rifles, it's seen as an acceptable cost cutting measure to eliminate the rifle's chrome lined bore and chamber, and to make the rifle's barrel from 4140 rather than 4150 steel.

However, for those who are going to bet their life on the gun, especially if they didn't just pull it out of a safe with a dehumidifier, lightly lubed, and well tended to, it's basically considered a bad move to cut this particular corner, of all those you could cut. Strictly recreational users may never see the difference, but please, please don't tell me that this skipped step is actually an advantage. I work with PC's, I hear, "It's a feature, not a bug" often enough.

Is it essential that the chrome lining be on every bore of every AR15 in the world? no, people save some cash, and build plinkers and range guns, others spend some cash and build match rifles. I don't buy them even for post ban plinkers because the extra cash on the chrome saves me worry and time, not mention making sure that the range rifle I'm going to put thousands of rounds through for fun will last and stand it.

Is it worth it?(the original question)

Are the features, the quality of the Bushmaster worth the extra $150 or so? Sure. That said, I would consider an RRA built with a Bushmaster, Armalite or Colt barrel to be just as good(though the 4150 steel of the Bushy is another plus over the other barrel choices). I own one a complete RRA lower receiver, and put a Bushy post ban upper on it. Works great, and I like it.

But the real question for me is, if this is your do-or-die gun, are the Bushmaster's slightly pricey advantages worth it?

Well, how much is your life worth? Could it make the crucial difference that your chose a Mil-Spec rifle or carbine, be it Bushy or Colt?

That's up to you.

Juggernaut

Oops!

True, Chrome's not in the "design original design". I rewrote that sentence twice, and it came out sort funky.

The design I meant to refer to(but obviously didn't) is the A1 Mil-Spec, which is not the original design.

The chrome bore is a specification that has been around since the A1 series were fielded. The A1 upgrades were, as QCMGR has pointed out, put in place for a very good reason-the rifle didn't work dependably without them(well, the forward assist is still a questionable inclusion, but the chrome, ball powder and cleaning kit are not).

My bad(even though I'm still not wrong about the chrome's worth).

Juggernaut