Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/8/2003 5:29:50 PM EDT
Does anyone know the difference in the Chrome and Titanium Bolt Carriers and Assem.? Is one lighter than than the other? Is the Titanium worth the extra few $$ or not?

Thanks,
Nick
Link Posted: 9/8/2003 5:48:39 PM EDT
IMHO: Titanium, and chrome are not worth spending the extra money on. If your weapon and parts are Mil-Spec, with proper maintenance and cleaning, they will last you a lifetime. Also Titanium may be light and strong, but it is also brittle, and subject to breakage and chipping.
Link Posted: 9/8/2003 5:56:49 PM EDT
Actually, I shoot Service Rifle Cometitions.. Sorry I forgot the add that. I have a CMP rifle--Not Mil-spec
Link Posted: 9/8/2003 6:05:33 PM EDT
In that case, you are even more meticulous in the care, cleaning, and feeding of your baby. I personally still can't see the point in spending the extra, unless you just want a chrome carrier. Lighter carriers will not aid your accuracy, and since you don't shoot rapid fire, no 1/10 of a millisecond quicker unlock/lock up time would not help you anyway. Clean up on a chrome may be easier, but that is about the only benefit I can think of. Wait till Troy shows up, he can probably give you better guidance than I can.
Link Posted: 9/8/2003 10:31:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2003 10:33:27 PM EDT by Lockedon]
I'd always advise against chrome BC. This is an excerpt from the Bushmaster "Knowledgebase": "There are several technical reasons not to use chrome bolts and carriers. Mil. spec. in the Viet Nam era required chroming the bolts and carriers to guard against rust and corrosion, but it was found that chroming caused problems. The hydrogen present in the chroming process was sufficient to create a condition called hydrogen embrittlement wherein the hydrogen would react with the highly hardened steel of the bolt and/or carrier - and make it susceptible to catastrophic breakage if a final stress relieving process was not correctly followed. Additionally, if the chroming process was not done correctly, the chrome could “flake” up from bolt or carrier surfaces and effectively gouge or scrape off the receiver's baked lubricant coating and subsequently gall on the aluminum surfaces inside the receiver. This condition could very quickly stop the rifle's firing cycle - all good reasons why the Mil. Spec. does not now call for chromed carriers or bolts." [url]http://www.bushmaster.com/faqnew/content_by_cat.asp?contentid=156&catid=95[/url] No clue about titanium, but i hear that the standard weight is optimal, and making a bolt-carrier too light causes problems. But thats just what i HEARD
Link Posted: 9/8/2003 10:34:29 PM EDT
Neither carrier is lighter than the other or more brittle than the other. One is completely Hard Chromed finish to steel. The other is Titanium Nitride plated steel. The difference is the plating. Titatium Nitride is gold colored the hard chrome is a silvery grey. Milspec carriers are hard chromed inside where the bolt rings rub to increase service life and decrease friction. This will be the case for all of the hard chromed parts if you got a 100% hard chromed bolt and carrier. However if the parts are not propperly heated to release hydrogen you can have what is called hydrogen enbrittlement where the hydrogen is in the steel and you can have bolts break in half at the cam pin hole. Baisically if done right the hard chromed bolt and carrier will be a little slicker, more corrosion resistant and clean up a little easier than a milspec (maganese phosphate coated) carrier but its not worth the additional cost or risk of hydrogen enbrittlement for your application. Titanium nitride is often used as a coating for drill bits etc as it increases surface hardness and its going to do nothing at all for your accuracy either. So... is one lighter than the other? NO Is it worth the extra cost? NO
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 7:00:15 AM EDT
The last couple rifles we got here from DPMS came with hard chromed bolt carriers as standard equipment. I really like them. Cleanup is much, much, much easier. Can't tell any difference in function. Hardchrome is not new voodoo in the firearms industry. Companies like Accurate Plating (www.apwcogan.com) and Checkmate have been doing it for years with no ill effects. Because of its durability, hard chrome is actually the preferred metal finish for many competition handguns. -Z
Link Posted: 9/10/2003 10:32:04 AM EDT
I don't get it, you HAVE to chrome in your barrel and chamber, but not the bolt and carrier? Anyway, a very good reason to have these parts chromed or TiN plated is for corrosion protection. Not everyone would need this, but for an AR-15 kept for defense on the high seas, in very harsh, humid conditions, having these parts, as well as the fire control group, chromed might be just the thing.
Link Posted: 9/10/2003 10:58:09 AM EDT
Some of my first firearms were muzzleloaders so I got the hang of keeping them clean at all times. I, as a matter of habit, run a patch and lube my firearms every month, of course, I live in Tennessee where humidity is high and rust can be a problem. That's why I got a stainless steel fluted bbl. and hard chrom bolt and carrier when I ordered my AR kit. From Model 1 Sales a chrome bolt and carrier is only $75 bucks more and a stainless, fluted bbl was only an extra $100. That's cheap insurance against rust IMHO. Plus, as has been mentioned, chrome is slicker and eaiser to keep clean. In the real world you could probably get by with a standard bolt and carrier and even a standard barrel without chrome lining but I think the extra price is worth it to have a weapon I don't have to worry about when it comes to rust. It's your call, if ya' got the money then go for it. Talk at ya'll later. TN.Frank
Top Top