AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/17/2008 9:20:45 AM EDT
|
Gents,
I see lots of recommendations on this site and others regarding chrome bores. A lot of folks buy chrome bores because it's "Mil-Spec", and if it's good enough for our G.I.'s it's good enough for them. Honestly I really don't don't have a problem with that, but maybe some of us might like to make a more informed decision. When I assembled my first AR I gave it a lot of thought, and finally decided to go with a regular chrome-molly steel barrel, not chrome lined. Here's why: Chrome lined barrels are more corrosion-resistant, true. When AR's were first issued in Viet Nam, they did not have chrome chambers or bores ("If it needed a chrome bore, Eugene Stoner would have designed it that way!"). With the humid climate in Southeast Asia, there were lots of problems with bore corrosion. First chrome chambers were added, then the entire bores were chromed to solve the problem. In my situation, since I won't be using my rifle in combat conditions in a terribly humid environment (though Kentucky in July and August gets pretty sticky), I will ALWAYS be able to give my rifle a good cleaning after use. Chrome lined barrels are not as accurate, however. In order to make a chrome-lined bore, the bore is actually drilled out oversize by a thousandth or so. The various plating materials are then applied, which build the bore back up to something close to the correct diameter. However, the chrome-lined bore will never be manufactured to the same degree or precision in terms of bore diameter or sharpness of rifling as a plain chrome-molly barrel. I will mainly be using my rifle to punch holes in paper, and perhaps may try out a little NRA Service Rifle competition. I'd rather opt for the accuracy. I also wondered about cleaning solvents. I notice that the military (with rifles with chrome-lined bores) recommends CLP as a do-all for cleaning, lubricating, and preserving their rifles' bores. Why not something like Hoppes No. 9 or other good copper solvent? Let's look at the chrome-plating process for our answer. According to Wikipedia, chrome plating "is a technique of electroplating a thin layer of chromium onto a metal object. The chromed layer can be decorative, provide corrosion resistance, or increase surface hardness." So far so good. Now tell me more: "The most expensive and durable process involved plating the steel first with copper, and then nickel, before the chromium plating was applied." Note that the process involves plating with copper. Why is this? Simply because chromium cannot be made to stick directly to steel. They first have to plate the steel with copper, because copper will stick to steel. But they're still not done, because chrome still won't stick to copper. But nickle will stick to copper, and chromium will stick to nickle. So, they next plate the copper with nickle, then finally they plate over the nickle with chromium. Now comes the rub. Let's say that you decide to give your rifle a really good cleaning, so you drag out your bottle of Hoppes No. 9 or something similar - a copper solvent - and swab the barrel down with that. Because you think the bore is really copper fouled, you decide to let the copper solvent sit in the bore and soak for a while. What happens? I'll tell you a story. Years ago my brother bought a revolver that was nickle plated - I know....a real pimp pistol. There's no accounting for taste, is there? After shooting it, he decided to give it a good cleaning, and resorted to the stuff he used to clean his shotgun and his Winchester 94 - good ol' Hoppes No.9. The problem was that he got the Hoppes slopped all over the outside of the pistol, specifically the crown and the breech of the barrel, and the chamber mouths of the cylinder. Lo and behold the copper solvent did it's job and ate away at the copper plating UNDER the nickle. The result was that the nickle plating started to flake off around the edges, wherever the three layers - steel, copper, nickle - were exposed. Now, I've seen cautions on this site about using copper solvents, and not letting them sit in the bore. Now you know why. So, I think the moral of the story is this. Are you buying your chrome-lined barrel because that's the way the guvuhmint buys 'em....well maybe it's time to rethink that. If you've already got a chrome-lined bore, and you decide to use a copper solvent for cleaning, just make sure you really, really, get all of the solvent out of the bore, and don't leave it "soak" in. Finally, if you really don't need the advantages of a chrome-lined bore, mainly the extra corrosion resistance, you may be better off going with a plain steel barrel. On my A2 that I just put together, I saved $45.00 by deleting the chrome bore. That's 100 rounds of ammo. Quib, anybody, what am I missing? |
|
Very good, Sir. Thank you. Sounds like a very well-informed thought process which is always respected/appreciated.
While I agree with most of the above... Personally, because I would intend to use my AR for potential SHTF/Defensive purposes and not just punching paper (though that's likely all my AR would ever see  ), I'd like every bit of reliability, no matter how remote the chances are that it would make a difference, the $45 is worth it to me. If and where possible, it seems like adhering to the suggestions put forth in the "What Parts Break in a Carbine Course" thread is a good idea, and a chrome-lined barrel/chamber is standard on most/all of the guns recommended there.
Now, with that said... Quoted:
...I, too, would appreciate some more input on this from others.
...Quib, anybody, what am I missing? |
|
Aberdeen PG also showed a chrome lined chamber improved extraction reliability (particularly in carbines).
Chrome lined = longer bore life, easier cleaning, corrosion resistance (yes I've been known to shoot in the rain), and improved reliability in extraction. I've also found companies willing to chome the bore are more likely to use the proper M16 chamber instead of a .223 SAMMI chamber (again goes to reliability and ability to use both 5.56 and .223 ammo). |
| good post. Although i think most people on this forum know that chrome lining isnt necessarily "better", its just most people have carbines with 16" barrels and would rather have a more corrosion resistant barrel than a little more accuracy. On the other hand, if I were to get a coyote or varmint AR, i could care less about chrome lining and would prefer the accuracy. Like I said, good post. |
|
Quoted:
Anyhow, as far as accuracy, you must be a hell of a lot better shot than 99% of the people here to have the chrome effect your group size.  This is a good point for the new guys. The majority of shooters are not good enough to actually tell a difference between CL and CM when talking about accuracy. |
|
Cold hard fact. A non-lined barrel with NOT last as long as one that is chrome lined.
You have to break in a non-lined barrel. You don't have to break in a chrome lined. You can fire a lined barrel and let it sit for a while without worrying about bore deterioration from corrosion...and yes...even a 24 hour period can be detrimental if you do it several times over the years...the tiny bits of corrosion that take place during those "I'll clean it this weeked" definately add up over the years. The reason that the military strictly only allows CLP to be used is simple. There are so many different types of solvents and cleaners available. Some of these are much stronger and even more caustic than others. Some will strip the parkerizing right off of the exterior metal. The military prevents this by keeping it simple and restricting it to CLP. CLP has no chemicals in it that can strip the finish off of parts. That is why troops get article 15 if they use brake cleaner on their weapons and show back up to the armory with silvery shiny barrels (on the outside). Also, CLP is not as caustic to human skin as many other cleaners. This reduces the hazmat problems that the military would have to deal with in regards to troops cleaning weapons otherwise. The decision to use CLP has absolutely nothing to do with its effect or lack thereof on chrome lined bores. Leaving solvent in a chrome lined barrel will not hurt it as described above. Only a bore that has begun to wear through the chrome lining can be affected by this. Chrome lining is not porous like a standard bore is. If the chrome lining on a bore starts to wear through, then it will have already lasted far longer than a standard barrel and it's time to replace it. These subjects are covered in the Colt armorer's course and you can discover if a bore has reached this level by inspecting it with a bore scope. Chosing not to have a chrome lined bore when one is available doesn't make any sense unless you are specifically going for better accuracy by way of a stainless match barrel. |
Wikipedia 
Maybe... you should've read about the difference between decorative chrome and industrial chrome plating –– pay attention to the fact the copper nickle base is for decorative applications, heck the nickle is what they are going for really, the chrome application is very light and only protects the nickle... and gives it that cool blue tone. Oh, industrial hard chrome is entirely different... sorry. |
|
Quoted:
Wikipedia
Maybe... you should've read about the difference between decorative chrome and industrial chrome plating –– pay attention to the fact the copper nickle base is for decorative applications, heck the nickle is what they are going for really, the chrome application is very light and only protects the nickle... and gives it that cool blue tone. Oh, industrial hard chrome is entirely different... sorry. This is correct, |
|
Great, now we have an entire thread devoted to excuses why somebody went with the cheapest POS barrel they could find.
I wonder what other tidbits of information that you've chosen to ignore regarding ARs? Did you also decide to not stake the carrier key? Maybe you will torque the barrel nut a single time? Didja get a 14.5 barrel and decide to not get a long FH permanently attached? Or perhaps you've forgotten that all US service rifles have had Chrome chamber and bores since before the M16 was adopted? Or perhaps you're just a big fan of idiots like macnmara who was the original idiot who said "If the M16 was supposed to have a chrome bore, then stoner would have designed it with one."? Not to mention the obvious issue of industrial vs. decorative chrome plating as another poster already pointed out. This thread is full of absolute fail and don't come crying when your gun doesn't work right. |
| Next time we are LTI'ing M4s in our armory, I will take some bore scope photos of some barrels with and without chrome lining that have similar round counts through them so that you guys can compare them. You will be shocked at how poorly a non lined barrel holds up and how fast the gas port washes out into that horrid figure 8 shape compared to a chrome lined barrel and also how much sluffing takes place. You can only see this with a bore scope. It can not be seen with a bore light and naked eye peering down the bore. You won't even know it's happening. But it's hell on your rifle. |
|
Quoted:
Next time we are LTI'ing M4s in our armory, I will take some bore scope photos of some barrels with and without chrome lining that have similar round counts through them so that you guys can compare them. You will be shocked at how poorly a non lined barrel holds up and how fast the gas port washes out into that horrid figure 8 shape compared to a chrome lined barrel and also how much sluffing takes place. You can only see this with a bore scope. It can not be seen with a bore light and naked eye peering down the bore. You won't even know it's happening. But it's hell on your rifle. Please do. That would be very educational. |
|
Quoted:
Wow! No wonder they call you grumpy! Lets face it. We've got people on this site that know the AR system inside and out. We've debated, cussed and discussed every aspect of the AR platform ad nauseum. There is a lot of good knowledge here if one simply chooses to dig and find it. Listening to those who have done the research and laid the groundwork is no bad idea. But when somebody comes in here with less then a year on the site, and somehow magically thinks that they are going to shift the paradigm of virtually an entire site, filled with some extremely knowledgeable and extremely intelligent people uesing a half-assed, ill thought through, poorly researched theory, backed up with faulty information, retarded quotes of men who were proven wrong over 30 years ago, it isn't going to happen. As they say in the south, "Son, that dog just ain't gonna hunt.". You may call me grumpy, irritable, or just downright ornery. The fact of the matter is that I do not suffer fools lightly. Take it as you wish. |
Sorry, I'll stick with chrome lined. As for accuracy, My chrome lined Colt's barrel ( back in the day ) certainly didnt hold me back from getting my master in NRA HP. The gun ( and barrel ) could always shoot better than I. It's even more so today .
Other good points have been mentioned concerning the benefits of Chrome lined bores and chambers, but a big +1 for the fact that only an extremely small percentage of the best of the best could ever tell the difference in the accuracy department ( all other things being equal ). I'm glad your happy with your purchase, but 100 rounds of ammo is nothing. I'll take the added benefits over 5 boxes any day.  The extra $45.00 I spent on my RRA's Entry Tact was cheap. And yes. I have cleaned many a chrome lined AR with Hoppes #9 with NO side effects. Only thing I really miss thats not chromed on my AR's now is the BCG, which will be rectified when Bravo gets some more back in.
|
|
The modern chrome lining process and the end result is vastly superior to what it was 30 years ago. It has not been require to make the bores oversize for quite some time now.
Standard bores are electro chemicly "machined" ( for lack of a better term ) out a few ten-thou of an inch and then the plating replaces what was removed. This all done with a uniformity that wasn not even hoped for 30 years ago. |
|
Quoted:
MarineSniper, About the gas port, does the chrome go all the way to the exterior surface of the barrel? I guess what I'm asking is if they're lined before or after drilling the port. They are (usually) lined before drilling. This is another reason that we also pre-inspect our new barrels before putting them in service. Sometimes you will find metal "fringe" still attached to the edges of the port where it was drilled. This can and should be removed so that it isnt blasted back into the gas system. Anyways...although the drilling is done after the lining...the wear does not occur from under the lining outwards. It occurs from the bore surface upwards and toward the gas tube. Chrome lined bores resist this "wash out" effect far better than plain ones do. |
A neglected barrel will have a short life, no matter what it is made of.
I have a bunch of Garands with WWII dated barrels that are just fine. Those are NOT chrome lined, and they were fed corrosive ammo. Its all in how you take care of the barrel. More barrels are ruined by improper cleaning than shooting conditions. |
|
+1 to what bigbore said.
This is also where you get into what type of steel your barrel is made of. Those who have 4140 steel barrels will experience faster wear than those with 4150 and especially those with CMV barrels. Service rifle type weapons should not have barrels made from 4140 steel. It is way too soft. But that is a whole 'nother story :) |
| When I bought my RRA Entry Tactical, I was very new to the seen and didn't understand all the advantages of chrome-lined barrels. I talked to a sales rep at RRA and he convinced me that unless you will be shooting thousands and thousands of rounds fully auto, there really is no advantage of having a chrome-lined barrel as long as you clean it properly, and that the non-chrome lined are a little more accurate. So I bought the rifle non-chrome lined, and later wished that i had gotten chrome lined after reading that they last twice as long. However, the way i look at it is the amount of money required to shoot enough ammo thru a non-chrome lined barrel to wear it out vastly outweighs the cost of a new barrel. So I shoot it, clean it, and enjoy it. I just bought my second RRA last week, a Standard A4 flat-top, and this time I got chrome lining. |
|
Quoted:
Wow! No wonder they call you grumpy! yeah but him and marinesniper are correct. your decision to save $45 was a cheap one.if you were after accuracy you would have stainless not the one you are trying to justify.it sounds to me like you are trying to convince yourself you did the right thing and are here for proof. |
|
Quoted:
... and later wished that i had gotten chrome lined after reading that they last twice as long. However, the way i look at it is the amount of money required to shoot enough ammo..... People need to quit worrying about nothing. The boring fact about any barrel on a semi auto AR carbine for any practical application (properly cared for) stateside, is it will be a functional minute of man barrel for at least 15K rounds. Thats about $7,000 worth of ammo. |
|
Quoted:
Next time we are LTI'ing M4s in our armory, I will take some bore scope photos of some barrels with and without chrome lining that have similar round counts through them so that you guys can compare them. You will be shocked at how poorly a non lined barrel holds up and how fast the gas port washes out into that horrid figure 8 shape compared to a chrome lined barrel and also how much sluffing takes place. You can only see this with a bore scope. It can not be seen with a bore light and naked eye peering down the bore. You won't even know it's happening. But it's hell on your rifle. I am interested in seeing the results from the pictures. I feel chrome lined is the better option from all I have read. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Next time we are LTI'ing M4s in our armory, I will take some bore scope photos of some barrels with and without chrome lining that have similar round counts through them so that you guys can compare them. You will be shocked at how poorly a non lined barrel holds up and how fast the gas port washes out into that horrid figure 8 shape compared to a chrome lined barrel and also how much sluffing takes place. You can only see this with a bore scope. It can not be seen with a bore light and naked eye peering down the bore. You won't even know it's happening. But it's hell on your rifle. I am interested in seeing the results from the pictures. I feel chrome lined is the better option from all I have read. When I get some pics taken I will ressurrect this thread. The standard bores look like a train wreck compared to the chrome lined ones. |
|
Quoted:
+1 to what bigbore said. This is also where you get into what type of steel your barrel is made of. Those who have 4140 steel barrels will experience faster wear than those with 4150 and especially those with CMV barrels. Service rifle type weapons should not have barrels made from 4140 steel. It is way too soft. But that is a whole 'nother story :) Tell me that story!
Seriously, I'm curious. I made the decisions to buy my Bushies (M4A3 and 20" A2) based on the chrome-lined bore/chambers and the 4150 barrel steel. But I did it with little knowldge regarding the true benefits, just wanting to get the most for my money. In fact, I just recently got the M4A3 after years of wanting a carbine. I could have afforded a cheap DPMS sooner, but just couldn't bring myself to "cheap-out" on something and save a little money, when I knew that I should spend a little more and get the best that I can afford. Also, I've had the A2 for 5 years now and I clean it with Hoppes #9. I've usually left the bore with with CLP for storage though. But I just remembered that I've had Hoppes #9 sitting in the bore of my new M4 for 2.5 weeks. That's what I usually leave in the bores of my other rifles (including my chrome-lined M1A). I guess I should swab them both out tonight and put CLP in there? Does CLP do much good at removing lead, copper and/or fouling from chrome bores then? If so, I should just use it on not confuse myself by using #9. I've just always used #9 figuring that it'll keep my barrels from rusting and also might continue to soften-up any copper/lead in there so I can get it out easier later on. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
+1 to what bigbore said. This is also where you get into what type of steel your barrel is made of. Those who have 4140 steel barrels will experience faster wear than those with 4150 and especially those with CMV barrels. Service rifle type weapons should not have barrels made from 4140 steel. It is way too soft. But that is a whole 'nother story :) Tell me that story!
Seriously, I'm curious. I made the decisions to buy my Bushies (M4A3 and 20" A2) based on the chrome-lined bore/chambers and the 4150 barrel steel. But I did it with little knowldge regarding the true benefits, just wanting to get the most for my money. In fact, I just recently got the M4A3 after years of wanting a carbine. I could have afforded a cheap DPMS sooner, but just couldn't bring myself to "cheap-out" on something and save a little money, when I knew that I should spend a little more and get the best that I can afford. Also, I've had the A2 for 5 years now and I clean it with Hoppes #9. I've usually left the bore with with CLP for storage though. But I just remembered that I've had Hoppes #9 sitting in the bore of my new M4 for 2.5 weeks. That's what I usually leave in the bores of my other rifles (including my chrome-lined M1A). I guess I should swab them both out tonight and put CLP in there? Does CLP do much good at removing lead, copper and/or fouling from chrome bores then? If so, I should just use it on not confuse myself by using #9. I've just always used #9 figuring that it'll keep my barrels from rusting and also might continue to soften-up any copper/lead in there so I can get it out easier later on. Hoppes is a solvent. Not a lubricant/protectant. In essence...it is the "soap" that you use to get the dirt off. You should always remove the excess solvent when you are done cleaning and then put a thin coat of actual oil or lube on for storage or operation. But don't get all wrapped up about that. Just get the excess off. A little residual solvent won't hurt anything. And besides...Hoppes is not very aggessive. Well, at least not as aggressive as something like Montana Extreme (which is good stuff btw). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
+1 to what bigbore said. This is also where you get into what type of steel your barrel is made of. Those who have 4140 steel barrels will experience faster wear than those with 4150 and especially those with CMV barrels. Service rifle type weapons should not have barrels made from 4140 steel. It is way too soft. But that is a whole 'nother story :) Tell me that story!
Seriously, I'm curious. I made the decisions to buy my Bushies (M4A3 and 20" A2) based on the chrome-lined bore/chambers and the 4150 barrel steel. But I did it with little knowldge regarding the true benefits, just wanting to get the most for my money. In fact, I just recently got the M4A3 after years of wanting a carbine. I could have afforded a cheap DPMS sooner, but just couldn't bring myself to "cheap-out" on something and save a little money, when I knew that I should spend a little more and get the best that I can afford. Also, I've had the A2 for 5 years now and I clean it with Hoppes #9. I've usually left the bore with with CLP for storage though. But I just remembered that I've had Hoppes #9 sitting in the bore of my new M4 for 2.5 weeks. That's what I usually leave in the bores of my other rifles (including my chrome-lined M1A). I guess I should swab them both out tonight and put CLP in there? Does CLP do much good at removing lead, copper and/or fouling from chrome bores then? If so, I should just use it on not confuse myself by using #9. I've just always used #9 figuring that it'll keep my barrels from rusting and also might continue to soften-up any copper/lead in there so I can get it out easier later on. Hoppes is a solvent. Not a lubricant/protectant. In essence...it is the "soap" that you use to get the dirt off. You should always remove the excess solvent when you are done cleaning and then put a thin coat of actual oil or lube on for storage or operation. But don't get all wrapped up about that. Just get the excess off. A little residual solvent won't hurt anything. And besides...Hoppes is not very aggessive. Well, at least not as aggressive as something like Montana Extreme (which is good stuff btw). Thanks for the info man. For some reason I thought I'd read on a Hoppes bottle that it was also a good protectant to leave in the barrel. Anyways... this was bugging me, so I went and swabbed-out all my barrels (two AR's, M1A, Rem 700, Interarms Mk X, Winch 1300, Ruger 10/22) with dry patches. And then I put a wet patch with CLP on it and ran it down the bores a few times. I used to always do that with my first Bushy AR, but for some reason I started just leaving Hoppes in there. I'll have to look at that Montana Extreme stuff for cleaning. But I'm going back to just leaving a coat of CLP in the bore for storage from now on. No point in risking it. |
|
Quoted:
The reason that the military strictly only allows CLP to be used is simple. There are so many different types of solvents and cleaners available. Some of these are much stronger and even more caustic than others. Some will strip the parkerizing right off of the exterior metal. The military prevents this by keeping it simple and restricting it to CLP. CLP has no chemicals in it that can strip the finish off of parts. That is why troops get article 15 if they use brake cleaner on their weapons and show back up to the armory with silvery shiny barrels (on the outside). That reminds me of something that happened in boot many years ago. Just before final inspection, our DI's brought in some strong solvent and had our whole platoon soak our bolts and carriers in it, so they would be spotless for final inspection. I thought that was kinda strange, since it's like they were teaching us that it's OK to break the rules. But whatever they had, it really worked.  I'm pretty sure that some of the bolts and carriers got mixed up from their rifles, too. I think our DI's would have been in deep shit if they had been caught...
|
|
I have a Colt SP1 that was manufactured in 1983. It doesn't have forward assist, thats how long ago it was manufactured. I have literally 10,000 rounds through this rifle and it still has the origional barrel in it. The barrel is not chrome lined and it still shoots great. I took it out three weeks ago and shot a 1 3/4" group at 100 yards. To me thats perfectly acceptable accuracy in a SHTF application.
I just bought my latest RRA. The barrel is not chrome lined. This was my decision and it was not made for money. To each their own. What I hate is the attacks and smart ass remarks by certain members. There is no reason to be abusive to members even if they get some things wrong. If they get something wrong then correct the issue and move on, thats why I read the whole thread. Question...How does SS compare to chrome lined? It is my understanding that the only downside to SS is the shiny surface of the barrel, weight and the cost but the upside is accuracy and maintenance. Is this the whole picture? Thanks in advance |
|
Quoted:
Wikipedia
Maybe... you should've read about the difference between decorative chrome and industrial chrome plating –– pay attention to the fact the copper nickle base is for decorative applications, heck the nickle is what they are going for really, the chrome application is very light and only protects the nickle... and gives it that cool blue tone. Oh, industrial hard chrome is entirely different... sorry. winrar |
| I have had a few ar's over the years, and I believe that at the end of the day a chrome lined bore is better than a non chrome lined bore. That being said, for 99% of us it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference. My Bushy is chrome lined, my DPMS isn't. When I clean my rifles, it may take an extra 4-6 patches to clean the DPMS. Big deal. When I am at the range, my DPMS is on average 1/8th to 1/4 inch more accurate at 100 yards than the Bushy. Again, big deal. Any non chrome lined barrel is going to last a long time if it is reasonably cared for. Most of the guys I shoot with have non chrome lined ar's and none of them have had any extraction problems. Like I said, I think chrome is more than likely better but most of us are not in situations or habits to realize the advantages. The M-1 Garand was not chrome lined and believe me, many of those rifles saw treatment much harsher than most of us will ever dream of in our wildest zombie appocolypse fantasies and they never skipped a beat. Short of crawling around in the mud of the Mekong Delta or some other comparable place, your non chrome lined ar will more than likely perform just fine, punching paper or protecting your behind. Just my opinion. |
| All of my ARs are retro, so 1:12 twist. All are chrome lined except t he XM16E1 upper. (The one which gave people such fits in VN.) I haven't had time to shoot it yet, but I expect it to work just fine on the range here in AZ. If I were in a more humid part of the world, and using it for defensive/offensive purposes, I'd want a chrome chamber at minimum, prefer totally chrome-lined, as it's mainly a maintenance (lack of) issue. There's a reason the US military changed the spec on the barrels they get. I think the extra $45 or so is well worth it. |
|
I may have left the wrong impression about the $45.00 thing. One of the factors in finally deciding to push me to the chrome-molly barrel was the fact that the kit supplier that I chose was out of stock on the chrome lined barrels, and it would have added several weeks wait to my order. It was approaching election time, and I figured, depending on the outcome, that there would be panic buying, and I wanted to get my rifle before the rush.
I have been shooting for a LONG TIME - probably longer than some of the posters on here have been alive - and I own a lot of rifles without chrome lined bores. Some of these rifles fought WWII, and except for some muzzle wear from jointed steel cleaning rods, still show good bores and shoot with accuracy. I have seen issues in the past regarding plating having bad interaction with bore cleaning solvents. All of these factors combined pushed me into the chrome-molly camp, and for now I'm not sorry. Besides, I think of an AR-15 as a "Lego Rifle" - if I decide I want a chrome bore in the future, I'll just pony up for a new barrel and bolt and swap 'em out. |
|
Quoted:
Gents, I see lots of recommendations on this site and others regarding chrome bores. A lot of folks buy chrome bores because it's "Mil-Spec", and if it's good enough for our G.I.'s it's good enough for them. Honestly I really don't don't have a problem with that, but maybe some of us might like to make a more informed decision. I quit reading here. |
AR Sponsor