AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Chrome Lined - Melonite Comparison (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/13/2016 10:31:34 PM EDT
| Very interesting post over on Accurateshooter comparing Chrome Lined and Melonite AR barrels from a very knowledgable shooter/gunsmith. http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/chrome-bore-melonite.3897276/ Vic |
|
So basically, they are superior in just about every way? I can't see any negatives to buying one over a chrome lined barrel.
I have a ballistic advantage QPQ/Melonited barrel, I'm very happy with it. It's easy to clean and I love the hanson profile. The Nickel Boron chamber is a nice feature also. |
|
Quoted:
Anyone here use corrosive ammo in thier AR? Anyone getting pitting from non corrosive ammo? The pitting noted in the article was due to poor maintenance habits. I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but it was probably due to neglect, aggressive solvent use, or it was hydrostatic in nature, as most modern propellants aren't prone to pitting. |
| My understanding is that a chrome lining adds material (chrome) to the bore, effectively tightening it. This doesn't impact function at all, but is known to cut down on accuracy. Melonite, on the other hand, is a chemical treatment that conditions the existing surface metal to be extremely hard without changing the dimensions, resulting in good accuracy. Bottom line: Melonite is better, but the finish may be a little weird if you're used to phosphate. |
|
Yep, melonite>chrome. Beats chrome in all categories, but the main thing, the better the base metal(4150 best) and as long as it's cut perfectly, the better final product.
http://www.burlingtoneng.com/melonite.html |
|
As a hobby, I measure throat wear on as many of my barrels as possible (if I have a throat erosion gage that will fit that rifle/bbl). I've done it on my 300 Blackout bbls for several years, and now do it on my .223/5.56 bbls. Here's some calculated bbl lives on 300 BLK bbls. For many years, the US Military considered a bbl worn out when the throat had worn 1" and made their throat erosion gages to reflect that 1" amount. Having worn out a few 30/06 machinegun bbls and having the opportunity to gage a worn out M16 bbl, I agree with that 1" worn throat standard (accuracy would shortly fall apart when the gage reached the "reject" line of the gage). Calculation: jacketed rounds fired multiplied by throat erosion divided into 1" = bbl life at 1" of throat erosion. My firing regimen is 5 shots followed by bbl cooling to ambient temperature, so I'm pretty easy on the barrels. No bbls have shown a decrease in accuracy that I could notice. In the Blackout, plated bullets show the same wear as jacketed. Compressed lead frangible bullets and cast bullets give about 3 times the life of jacketed bullets (I have a couple of bbls mainly fired with lead bullets).
300 Blackout calculated bbl life with jacketed bullets based on throat wear so far: Daniel Defense CHF, nitride, 4150 steel: 14,190 rounds Robinson Arms chrome lined 4140 steel: 16,740 rounds PSA chrome lined 4150 steel: 22,666 rounds CORE15 416R stainless steel: 17,450 rounds Remington M700 plain 4140 steel: 11,820 rounds I have other Blackout bbls, but need more rounds through them before I can give some worthwhile calculations. The above are my highest round count jacketed bullet bbls. The calculations ASSUME they will continue to wear at the rate they've exhibited so far...who knows, the throat wear might speed up or even slow down as more rounds are fired. Included in my other BLK bbls are some more nitrided ones. Looking at their throat wear, they are wearing faster than chrome lined. I know it's been said many times on the Internet that nitrided lasts longer than chrome lined, but I'm not seeing it in 300 BLK. I'm also seeing that plain (no nitride or chrome treatment) 4140 CHF barrels are wearing slower than non-CHF plain 4140 barrels. Not enough data to report on my .223/5.56 bbls at this time. |
|
Quoted:
Yep, melonite>chrome. Beats chrome in all categories, but the main thing, the better the base metal(4150 best) and as long as it's cut perfectly, the better final product. http://www.burlingtoneng.com/melonite.html That link is to a service provider of Melonite treatments. Not saying it is incorrect, but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It's like Whole Foods telling you that organic food is better for you. |
|
Quoted:
My understanding is that a chrome lining adds material (chrome) to the bore, effectively tightening it. This doesn't impact function at all, but is known to cut down on accuracy. Melonite, on the other hand, is a chemical treatment that conditions the existing surface metal to be extremely hard without changing the dimensions, resulting in good accuracy. Bottom line: Melonite is better, but the finish may be a little weird if you're used to phosphate. The thickness of the chrome is factored for when they cut the initial rifling. It is intentionally cut oversize, since the (hopefully) even layer of chrome lining brings it back into spec. |
|
Quoted: Yep, melonite>chrome. Beats chrome in all categories, but the main thing, the better the base metal(4150 best) and as long as it's cut perfectly, the better final product. http://www.burlingtoneng.com/melonite.html People often claim melonite is harder, but testing usually shows otherwise. Hard chrome is above 70 rockwell, melonite is usually softer- I've yet so see anything nitrided close to that hardness. Example here with AK barrels: https://youtu.be/kp5dQ-763KE There have been tests by the military as well as private contractors like Boeing who have tested both head to head. Chrome has won every time by a long shot. Boeing test: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/waterfield.pdf Military test: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0500112 The result was basically theres a few barrel insert liners better than chrome lining, but they're too expensive, but chrome lining beat melonite/nitride by a large margin in barrel life and durability. |
|
I haven't seen much hard (get it) data on the effects of nitriding on durability or accuracy in AR15 barrels. I don't believe nitriding has been in wide enough use for long enough in ARs to draw firm conclusions about it. In theory, it should not affect accuracy, and should increase corrosion and wear resistance. Theory and reality often don't match up all that well.
I think it's a safe bet that nitriding improves corrosion resistance over untreated steel. I doubt there's any significant difference between nitriding and chrome lining for wear or corrosion resistance for recreational users. There are plenty of reports that nitriding does not negatively affect accuracy. At the same time, I'm not seeing the best precision barrel makers pushing it. |
|
Quoted:
I haven't seen much hard (get it) data on the effects of nitriding on durability or accuracy in AR15 barrels. I don't believe nitriding has been in wide enough use for long enough to draw firm conclusions about it. In theory, it should not affect accuracy, and should increase corrosion and wear resistance. Theory and reality often don't match up all that well. I think it's a safe bet that nitriding improves corrosion resistance over untreated steel. I doubt there's any significant difference between nitriding and chrome lining for wear or corrosion resistance for recreational users. There are plenty of reports that nitriding does not negatively affect accuracy. At the same time, I'm not seeing the best barrel precision barrel makers pushing it. I agree with everything in this post, but do note that national competition benchrest shooters have been nitriding their stainless match barrels for some time now to improve the number of rounds they can get out of a barrel before having to replace them. Those are bolt guns, however. |
|
i have a LWRC barrel with about 4000-5000 rounds thru it and they use nitriding correct? i rarely clean the chamber, like once every 1500-2000 rounds and never had a stuck case so i'd say its slipperiness is on par with chrome.
what i would like is to get a nitrided barrel for scope shooting, i've had stainless with wylde chambers that didnt like being dirty and after 500 rounds or so they would exhibit sticky extraction. especially with a live round in a hot dirty chamber. |
|
Quoted:
Chrome lining is inferior. This chrome lined SR-15 fired 21,000 rounds, then shot a 1 moa group. Imagine how good it would've done nitrided 
 http://youtu.be/UvPmJYcgBSo
not sure what the point of hipster beard boys video is and how it relates to this topic. the only thing i see in that vid a dork pouring sand on his rifle then proceeding to mag dump. it has nothing to do with the price of tea in china nor this thread. does KAC make magic unicorn rifles that find the target magically too? |
|
Quoted:
That link doesn't really show melonite beating chrome, it offers no data about comparing hardness and durability against chrome lining. The video I linked above shows a good chrome lined barrel shooting 1 moa at 100 yards with after 20,000 rounds of HARD use. I have not seen anything done similar with nitriding.(those same guys did start testing a lwrc with a nitrided barrel, if I remember right testing stopped due to problems with the lwrc's barrel- I could be wrong- they have a website with the info) People often claim melonite is harder, but testing usually shows otherwise. Hard chrome is above 70 rockwell, melonite is usually softer- I've yet so see anything nitrided close to that hardness. Example here with AK barrels: https://youtu.be/kp5dQ-763KE There have been tests by the military as well as private contractors like Boeing who have tested both head to head. Chrome has won every time by a long shot. Boeing test: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/waterfield.pdf Military test: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0500112 The result was basically theres a few barrel insert liners better than chrome lining, but they're too expensive, but chrome lining beat melonite/nitride by a large margin in barrel life and durability. Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, melonite>chrome. Beats chrome in all categories, but the main thing, the better the base metal(4150 best) and as long as it's cut perfectly, the better final product. http://www.burlingtoneng.com/melonite.html People often claim melonite is harder, but testing usually shows otherwise. Hard chrome is above 70 rockwell, melonite is usually softer- I've yet so see anything nitrided close to that hardness. Example here with AK barrels: https://youtu.be/kp5dQ-763KE There have been tests by the military as well as private contractors like Boeing who have tested both head to head. Chrome has won every time by a long shot. Boeing test: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/waterfield.pdf Military test: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0500112 The result was basically theres a few barrel insert liners better than chrome lining, but they're too expensive, but chrome lining beat melonite/nitride by a large margin in barrel life and durability. Good points and I understand but then why did you say chrome lining is inferior in your post above? Sarcasm? Nitro carburizing has been around since the early 60's, there's many different forms(tennifer, Meli 1(melonite), gaseous ferritic, plasma-assisted nitro carburizing, etc.). Glock has a similar finish that is 0.05 mm (0.0020 in) thick and produces a 64 Rockwell C hardness rating via a 500 °C (932 °F) nitride bath. So there are obviously different methods. I have both CL, non CL, and melonite QPQ. I just don't see any negatives with nitride or melonite and personally think it will eventually replace the military's 40 year old standard. Sometimes mil spec isn't the best, is the way I take it. Barrels like in the WASR, ACR, LWRC and SCAR have been out and work flawlessly. I find my QPQ barrels to be easier to clean and don't mar up easily, so corrosion resistance is a non issue. I still stick to my thoughts, CL is not quite as good as a nitrided/melonited barrel, providing it has been done right on good 4150 steel. No I haven't put 32,000 rounds down a pipe to compare, just going off my experience. |
|
Quoted: not sure what the point of hipster beard boys video is and how it relates to this topic. the only thing i see in that vid a dork pouring sand on his rifle then proceeding to mag dump. it has nothing to do with the price of tea in china nor this thread. does KAC make magic unicorn rifles that find the target magically too? Quoted: Quoted: Chrome lining is inferior. This chrome lined SR-15 fired 21,000 rounds, then shot a 1 moa group. Imagine how good it would've done nitrided http://youtu.be/UvPmJYcgBSonot sure what the point of hipster beard boys video is and how it relates to this topic. the only thing i see in that vid a dork pouring sand on his rifle then proceeding to mag dump. it has nothing to do with the price of tea in china nor this thread. does KAC make magic unicorn rifles that find the target magically too? So how does showing the durability of a chrome lined barrel not have anything to do with a thread about chrome lined vs nitrided barrels? Thanks for being the topic monitor, your post added great value to this thread. |
|
Quoted:
The only point is, that is a pretty well documented chrome lined barrel, shooting 20,000 rounds, and still shooting a 1 inch group. It has nothing to do with sand, or kac. It's strictly a testament to the durability of chrome lined barrels. They have a website somewhere with breakdown of round count of barrel at each range trip. So how does showing the durability of a chrome lined barrel not have anything to do with a thread about chrome lined vs nitrided barrels? Thanks for being the topic monitor, your post added great value to this thread. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Chrome lining is inferior. This chrome lined SR-15 fired 21,000 rounds, then shot a 1 moa group. Imagine how good it would've done nitrided
http://youtu.be/UvPmJYcgBSo
not sure what the point of hipster beard boys video is and how it relates to this topic. the only thing i see in that vid a dork pouring sand on his rifle then proceeding to mag dump. it has nothing to do with the price of tea in china nor this thread. does KAC make magic unicorn rifles that find the target magically too? Thanks for being the topic monitor, your post added great value to this thread. someone needs to. i still dont see anything in that video that proves 20,000 rounds. |
|
Quoted:
Good points and I understand but then why did you say chrome lining is inferior in your post above? Sarcasm? Nitro carburizing has been around since the early 60's, there's many different forms(tennifer, Meli 1(melonite), gaseous ferritic, plasma-assisted nitro carburizing, etc.). Glock has a similar finish that is 0.05 mm (0.0020 in) thick and produces a 64 Rockwell C hardness rating via a 500 °C (932 °F) nitride bath. So there are obviously different methods. I have both CL, non CL, and melonite QPQ. I just don't see any negatives with nitride or melonite and personally think it will eventually replace the military's 40 year old standard. Sometimes mil spec isn't the best, is the way I take it. Barrels like in the WASR, ACR, LWRC and SCAR have been out and work flawlessly. I find my QPQ barrels to be easier to clean and don't mar up easily, so corrosion resistance is a non issue. I still stick to my thoughts, CL is not quite as good as a nitrided/melonited barrel, providing it has been done right on good 4150 steel. No I haven't put 32,000 rounds down a pipe to compare, just going off my experience. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, melonite>chrome. Beats chrome in all categories, but the main thing, the better the base metal(4150 best) and as long as it's cut perfectly, the better final product. http://www.burlingtoneng.com/melonite.html People often claim melonite is harder, but testing usually shows otherwise. Hard chrome is above 70 rockwell, melonite is usually softer- I've yet so see anything nitrided close to that hardness. Example here with AK barrels: https://youtu.be/kp5dQ-763KE There have been tests by the military as well as private contractors like Boeing who have tested both head to head. Chrome has won every time by a long shot. Boeing test: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/waterfield.pdf Military test: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0500112 The result was basically theres a few barrel insert liners better than chrome lining, but they're too expensive, but chrome lining beat melonite/nitride by a large margin in barrel life and durability. Good points and I understand but then why did you say chrome lining is inferior in your post above? Sarcasm? Nitro carburizing has been around since the early 60's, there's many different forms(tennifer, Meli 1(melonite), gaseous ferritic, plasma-assisted nitro carburizing, etc.). Glock has a similar finish that is 0.05 mm (0.0020 in) thick and produces a 64 Rockwell C hardness rating via a 500 °C (932 °F) nitride bath. So there are obviously different methods. I have both CL, non CL, and melonite QPQ. I just don't see any negatives with nitride or melonite and personally think it will eventually replace the military's 40 year old standard. Sometimes mil spec isn't the best, is the way I take it. Barrels like in the WASR, ACR, LWRC and SCAR have been out and work flawlessly. I find my QPQ barrels to be easier to clean and don't mar up easily, so corrosion resistance is a non issue. I still stick to my thoughts, CL is not quite as good as a nitrided/melonited barrel, providing it has been done right on good 4150 steel. No I haven't put 32,000 rounds down a pipe to compare, just going off my experience. Scar/ CL WASR/ CL ACR/ I think I have seen CL and Nitride LWRC/ Nitride |
|
Not one shred of evidence showing melonite makes a barrel last longer has ever been posted.
All the real testing results i've seen show chrome to last longer granted results i saw were not ar barrels. Id also like to see some comparison of gas port erosion since its a concern for those of us running sbr's It may be more economical to use melonite when some real numbers are shown even if they do wear out faster. |
|
Quoted:
Not one shred of evidence showing melonite makes a barrel last longer has ever been posted. All the real testing results i've seen show chrome to last longer granted results i saw were not ar barrels. Id also like to see some comparison of gas port erosion since its a concern for those of us running sbr's It may be more economical to use melonite when some real numbers are shown even if they do wear out faster. I don't disagree, but given the low cost of barrels, ultimate long life is not the be all end all. It is without question that nitride extends barrel life dramatically compared to untreated 4140 or 4150 barrel steel, and also for stainless. It is also beyond question that QPQ provides saltwater corrosion protection to the entire barrel 10 times the exposure time for CL. It is also beyond question that it makes the exterior of the barrel extremely resistant to abrasion, scratches and is so hard it dulls out high speed drill bits. What attracts me to QPQ nitride is that it does not change the dimensions of the barrel, preserving the pristine contours of the lands and grooves of the rifling, preserving the inherent accuracy of the barrel. Please show me where any top level national competition benchrest or precision shooter uses a chrome lined barrel except in some service rifle class wbere the rules require it. The answer will be "none." And stainless match barrels are now being nitrided. Now, in fairness, if I needed a barrel for high cyclic rate sustained fire, I will admit that CL is better. Full auto or mag dumps. But this incessant chest beating on untimate round count superiority of CL grows old for many of us. I get it. But for most of us, even with pretty heavy use, we will probably upgrade or change the rifle before we could reach the round count that would make a difference. In the mean time, we can enjoy the immediate benefits of nitride. And, all but precision match barrels are cheap and easy to replace. |
|
Quoted: someone needs to. i still dont see anything in that video that proves 20,000 rounds. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Chrome lining is inferior. This chrome lined SR-15 fired 21,000 rounds, then shot a 1 moa group. Imagine how good it would've done nitrided http://youtu.be/UvPmJYcgBSonot sure what the point of hipster beard boys video is and how it relates to this topic. the only thing i see in that vid a dork pouring sand on his rifle then proceeding to mag dump. it has nothing to do with the price of tea in china nor this thread. does KAC make magic unicorn rifles that find the target magically too? Thanks for being the topic monitor, your post added great value to this thread. someone needs to. i still dont see anything in that video that proves 20,000 rounds. Here is more documentation every few thousand rounds. http://ballisticradio.com/endurance-tests/kac-sr-15-mod-2/ 20,000 rounds of freedom munitions 55 gr 5.56 were donated for this. The bolt/upper/barrel were not cleaned one time. Upper at 16,000 rounds:  That exact rifle on display at the KAC booth at shot show:  I have 4 bcm chrome lined barrels, and a few nitrided. My last being a 14.5 voodoo that I built into a good quality upper. So far, I still prefer chrome over nitride. Me and my wife shoot A LOT, at least once a week, more than once in the summer. My main concern is durability. Many are OK with either, that's fine. For me it comes down to the future and uncertainty. I have enough brass, powder, primers and bullets to burn out a few barrels, and I don't know how hard its gonna be to get barrels in 5-10 years. I've made it through multiple panicks, and it sucks. In 10 years, an ar15 barrel could cost more than a complete AR today. That, and so far I have one specific chrome lined barrel with so many rounds I couldn't even guess. It's a 14.5 bcm CHF, and it's still more accurate than either of my nitrided barrels. Maybe with time the evidence will sway me the other way, until then I prefer chrome. |
|
Quoted:
Yep, melonite>chrome. Beats chrome in all categories, but the main thing, the better the base metal(4150 best) and as long as it's cut perfectly, the better final product. http://www.burlingtoneng.com/melonite.html no difference in 4150 vs 4140 baseline here as the nitride creates same hardness. I forget the measure but it's negligible |
|
Quoted:
no difference in 4150 vs 4140 baseline here as the nitride creates same hardness. I forget the measure but it's negligible Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, melonite>chrome. Beats chrome in all categories, but the main thing, the better the base metal(4150 best) and as long as it's cut perfectly, the better final product. http://www.burlingtoneng.com/melonite.html no difference in 4150 vs 4140 baseline here as the nitride creates same hardness. I forget the measure but it's negligible I am curious how a nitride SS barrel is in comparison to a 4150 nitride barrel. I mean if the barrels are made as equal as possible except the SS vs 4150 different base metal. |
|
Quoted:
Very interesting post over on Accurateshooter comparing Chrome Lined and Melonite AR barrels from a very knowledgable shooter/gunsmith. Vic http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/chrome-bore-melonite.3897276/ holy shiite, A LOT of presumptions as well as oversimplifications about the arguments trying to be made. IMO there are 2 sides trying to be made: 1. chrome is better for high round use 2. salt baths are better than just steel and is better than chrome for "accuracy" The problem is when you mix the arguments like when people say salt bath treatments are better than chrome in "high use" barrels. |
|
People should read through this article link, though it's mainly talking about wear on SS, it does briefly cover coatings, but it's as easy read and not to technical.
These coatings are nothing new. Working in a corrosion/mechanical testing lab I've had the opportunity to test a lot of different metals, coatings etc.. in various conditions. I will say that there are companies out there in the oil & gas industry that rely on some very critical parts that are nitrated(where corrosion isn't a factor). And nitrating can handle heat from a gun barrel, it's a great coating in a strictly mechanical wear role. |
|
Quoted:
People should read through this article link, though it's mainly talking about wear on SS, it does briefly cover coatings, but it's as easy read and not to technical. These coatings are nothing new. Working in a corrosion/mechanical testing lab I've had the opportunity to test a lot of different metals, coatings etc.. in various conditions. I will say that there are companies out there in the oil & gas industry that rely on some very critical parts that are nitrated(where corrosion isn't a factor). And nitrating can handle heat from a gun barrel, it's a great coating in a strictly mechanical wear role. Nitriding is not a coating, its a treatment. The chrome lining provides an insulative barrier for the steel, and nitriding does not, this is the reason heavy machine guns like the saw get a thicker chrome lining than an m16. |
|
Quoted:
In the first few seconds of the video he mentions the 21000 round count. If you don't believe that, understandable. Here is more documentation every few thousand rounds. http://ballisticradio.com/endurance-tests/kac-sr-15-mod-2/ 20,000 rounds of freedom munitions 55 gr 5.56 were donated for this. The bolt/upper/barrel were not cleaned one time. Upper at 16,000 rounds: <a href="http://s95.photobucket.com/user/xprocharged/media/knights-funk-730x730.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l136/xprocharged/knights-funk-730x730.jpg</a> That exact rifle on display at the KAC booth at shot show: <a href="http://s95.photobucket.com/user/xprocharged/media/knights-case.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l136/xprocharged/knights-case.jpg</a> I have 4 bcm chrome lined barrels, and a few nitrided. My last being a 14.5 voodoo that I built into a good quality upper. So far, I still prefer chrome over nitride. Me and my wife shoot A LOT, at least once a week, more than once in the summer. My main concern is durability. Many are OK with either, that's fine. For me it comes down to the future and uncertainty. I have enough brass, powder, primers and bullets to burn out a few barrels, and I don't know how hard its gonna be to get barrels in 5-10 years. I've made it through multiple panicks, and it sucks. In 10 years, an ar15 barrel could cost more than a complete AR today. That, and so far I have one specific chrome lined barrel with so many rounds I couldn't even guess. It's a 14.5 bcm CHF, and it's still more accurate than either of my nitrided barrels. Maybe with time the evidence will sway me the other way, until then I prefer chrome. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Chrome lining is inferior. This chrome lined SR-15 fired 21,000 rounds, then shot a 1 moa group. Imagine how good it would've done nitrided
http://youtu.be/UvPmJYcgBSo
not sure what the point of hipster beard boys video is and how it relates to this topic. the only thing i see in that vid a dork pouring sand on his rifle then proceeding to mag dump. it has nothing to do with the price of tea in china nor this thread. does KAC make magic unicorn rifles that find the target magically too? Thanks for being the topic monitor, your post added great value to this thread. someone needs to. i still dont see anything in that video that proves 20,000 rounds. http://ballisticradio.com/endurance-tests/kac-sr-15-mod-2/ 20,000 rounds of freedom munitions 55 gr 5.56 were donated for this. The bolt/upper/barrel were not cleaned one time. Upper at 16,000 rounds: <a href="http://s95.photobucket.com/user/xprocharged/media/knights-funk-730x730.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l136/xprocharged/knights-funk-730x730.jpg</a> That exact rifle on display at the KAC booth at shot show: <a href="http://s95.photobucket.com/user/xprocharged/media/knights-case.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l136/xprocharged/knights-case.jpg</a> I have 4 bcm chrome lined barrels, and a few nitrided. My last being a 14.5 voodoo that I built into a good quality upper. So far, I still prefer chrome over nitride. Me and my wife shoot A LOT, at least once a week, more than once in the summer. My main concern is durability. Many are OK with either, that's fine. For me it comes down to the future and uncertainty. I have enough brass, powder, primers and bullets to burn out a few barrels, and I don't know how hard its gonna be to get barrels in 5-10 years. I've made it through multiple panicks, and it sucks. In 10 years, an ar15 barrel could cost more than a complete AR today. That, and so far I have one specific chrome lined barrel with so many rounds I couldn't even guess. It's a 14.5 bcm CHF, and it's still more accurate than either of my nitrided barrels. Maybe with time the evidence will sway me the other way, until then I prefer chrome. If the future uncertainty bothers you buy several cheap but accurate (yes they can be both) nitride barrels now and stockpile them now like you do with your ammo components. One 8 pound cannister of powder costs more than the typical basic carbine barrel. It's not like you need a gunsmith (as with some bolt guns) to replace an AR barrel. |
|
Quoted:
Nitriding is not a coating, its a treatment. The chrome lining provides an insulative barrier for the steel, and nitriding does not, this is the reason heavy machine guns like the saw get a thicker chrome lining than an m16. Quoted:
Quoted:
People should read through this article link, though it's mainly talking about wear on SS, it does briefly cover coatings, but it's as easy read and not to technical. These coatings are nothing new. Working in a corrosion/mechanical testing lab I've had the opportunity to test a lot of different metals, coatings etc.. in various conditions. I will say that there are companies out there in the oil & gas industry that rely on some very critical parts that are nitrated(where corrosion isn't a factor). And nitrating can handle heat from a gun barrel, it's a great coating in a strictly mechanical wear role. Nitriding is not a coating, its a treatment. The chrome lining provides an insulative barrier for the steel, and nitriding does not, this is the reason heavy machine guns like the saw get a thicker chrome lining than an m16. Yup, you'd be correct. But CL is a coating vs. a material altering process and I just lumped them together since it's mainly irrelevant. Post up some solid mechanical data between the two if you have experience with it. |
|
From Krieger Barrels, Inc.
Do you recommend salt bath nitriding? No. There have been many praises of this surface hardening treatment applied to rifle barrels in relation to extended barrel life, easier cleaning, non existent copper fouling. However there are some concerns that must be understood if you move forward with this. The temperature that the steel is brought up to during this process is within the range that can remove the temper from the steel if not properly finished potentially causing the steel to become dangerous and not contain the pressures your cartridge will produce. Any heat treating process done after the rifling process can lead to bore and groove dimensions and uniformity being changed. Also, the salt bath nitriding process produces a very hard surface finish. If the barrel is not broken in prior to this process being done, it will never properly break in. If the barrel is broken in there could be traces of copper left in the bore (even in the pores of the steel) and it will react with the nitriding process in the form of pits or corrosion in the barrel where it reacted to the copper. The person or company you choose to do this operation must be aware of these items and should assume responsibility for what happens to your barrel as all of these operations and procedures are out of the control of Krieger Barrels, Inc. For these reasons, we do not recommend salt bath nitriding. ... |
|
Quoted:
I don't disagree, but given the low cost of barrels, ultimate long life is not the be all end all. It is without question that nitride extends barrel life dramatically compared to untreated 4140 or 4150 barrel steel, and also for stainless. It is also beyond question that QPQ provides saltwater corrosion protection to the entire barrel 10 times the exposure time for CL. It is also beyond question that it makes the exterior of the barrel extremely resistant to abrasion, scratches and is so hard it dulls out high speed drill bits. What attracts me to QPQ nitride is that it does not change the dimensions of the barrel, preserving the pristine contours of the lands and grooves of the rifling, preserving the inherent accuracy of the barrel. Please show me where any top level national competition benchrest or precision shooter uses a chrome lined barrel except in some service rifle class wbere the rules require it. The answer will be "none." And stainless match barrels are now being nitrided. Now, in fairness, if I needed a barrel for high cyclic rate sustained fire, I will admit that CL is better. Full auto or mag dumps. But this incessant chest beating on untimate round count superiority of CL grows old for many of us. I get it. But for most of us, even with pretty heavy use, we will probably upgrade or change the rifle before we could reach the round count that would make a difference. In the mean time, we can enjoy the immediate benefits of nitride. And, all but precision match barrels are cheap and easy to replace. Quoted:
Quoted:
Not one shred of evidence showing melonite makes a barrel last longer has ever been posted. All the real testing results i've seen show chrome to last longer granted results i saw were not ar barrels. Id also like to see some comparison of gas port erosion since its a concern for those of us running sbr's It may be more economical to use melonite when some real numbers are shown even if they do wear out faster. I don't disagree, but given the low cost of barrels, ultimate long life is not the be all end all. It is without question that nitride extends barrel life dramatically compared to untreated 4140 or 4150 barrel steel, and also for stainless. It is also beyond question that QPQ provides saltwater corrosion protection to the entire barrel 10 times the exposure time for CL. It is also beyond question that it makes the exterior of the barrel extremely resistant to abrasion, scratches and is so hard it dulls out high speed drill bits. What attracts me to QPQ nitride is that it does not change the dimensions of the barrel, preserving the pristine contours of the lands and grooves of the rifling, preserving the inherent accuracy of the barrel. Please show me where any top level national competition benchrest or precision shooter uses a chrome lined barrel except in some service rifle class wbere the rules require it. The answer will be "none." And stainless match barrels are now being nitrided. Now, in fairness, if I needed a barrel for high cyclic rate sustained fire, I will admit that CL is better. Full auto or mag dumps. But this incessant chest beating on untimate round count superiority of CL grows old for many of us. I get it. But for most of us, even with pretty heavy use, we will probably upgrade or change the rifle before we could reach the round count that would make a difference. In the mean time, we can enjoy the immediate benefits of nitride. And, all but precision match barrels are cheap and easy to replace. As tired as the rest of us get of this kinda nonsense Quoted:
Yep, melonite>chrome. Beats chrome in all categories, but the main thing, the better the base metal(4150 best) and as long as it's cut perfectly, the better final product. http://www.burlingtoneng.com/melonite.html I got no problem with melonite i think options are a good thing. I do have a problem with blanket nonsense being posted as fact. How many pitted chrome lined barrels have you had issue with due to salt corrosion anyway? 
I've only shot out 4 ar barrels to the point that i got rid of them god willing and the creeks don't rise i'll shoot out a few more before i die. |
|
Quoted: From Krieger Barrels, Inc. Do you recommend salt bath nitriding? No. There have been many praises of this surface hardening treatment applied to rifle barrels in relation to extended barrel life, easier cleaning, non existent copper fouling. However there are some concerns that must be understood if you move forward with this. The temperature that the steel is brought up to during this process is within the range that can remove the temper from the steel if not properly finished potentially causing the steel to become dangerous and not contain the pressures your cartridge will produce. Any heat treating process done after the rifling process can lead to bore and groove dimensions and uniformity being changed. Also, the salt bath nitriding process produces a very hard surface finish. If the barrel is not broken in prior to this process being done, it will never properly break in. If the barrel is broken in there could be traces of copper left in the bore (even in the pores of the steel) and it will react with the nitriding process in the form of pits or corrosion in the barrel where it reacted to the copper. The person or company you choose to do this operation must be aware of these items and should assume responsibility for what happens to your barrel as all of these operations and procedures are out of the control of Krieger Barrels, Inc. For these reasons, we do not recommend salt bath nitriding. ... |
|
Quoted:
Wow, that's pretty damning. Quoted:
Quoted:
From Krieger Barrels, Inc. Do you recommend salt bath nitriding? No. There have been many praises of this surface hardening treatment applied to rifle barrels in relation to extended barrel life, easier cleaning, non existent copper fouling. However there are some concerns that must be understood if you move forward with this. The temperature that the steel is brought up to during this process is within the range that can remove the temper from the steel if not properly finished potentially causing the steel to become dangerous and not contain the pressures your cartridge will produce. Any heat treating process done after the rifling process can lead to bore and groove dimensions and uniformity being changed. Also, the salt bath nitriding process produces a very hard surface finish. If the barrel is not broken in prior to this process being done, it will never properly break in. If the barrel is broken in there could be traces of copper left in the bore (even in the pores of the steel) and it will react with the nitriding process in the form of pits or corrosion in the barrel where it reacted to the copper. The person or company you choose to do this operation must be aware of these items and should assume responsibility for what happens to your barrel as all of these operations and procedures are out of the control of Krieger Barrels, Inc. For these reasons, we do not recommend salt bath nitriding. ... The problem with this information is that it makes sense and makes me wonder about the actual quality of my two QPQ barrels. However, they have both ( 10.5 inch one Aero one KAK) been extremely accurate for the year or so I have had them. |
|
Quoted:
The problem with this information is that it makes sense and makes me wonder about the actual quality of my two QPQ barrels. However, they have both ( 10.5 inch one Aero one KAK) been extremely accurate for the year or so I have had them. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From Krieger Barrels, Inc. Do you recommend salt bath nitriding? No. There have been many praises of this surface hardening treatment applied to rifle barrels in relation to extended barrel life, easier cleaning, non existent copper fouling. However there are some concerns that must be understood if you move forward with this. The temperature that the steel is brought up to during this process is within the range that can remove the temper from the steel if not properly finished potentially causing the steel to become dangerous and not contain the pressures your cartridge will produce. Any heat treating process done after the rifling process can lead to bore and groove dimensions and uniformity being changed. Also, the salt bath nitriding process produces a very hard surface finish. If the barrel is not broken in prior to this process being done, it will never properly break in. If the barrel is broken in there could be traces of copper left in the bore (even in the pores of the steel) and it will react with the nitriding process in the form of pits or corrosion in the barrel where it reacted to the copper. The person or company you choose to do this operation must be aware of these items and should assume responsibility for what happens to your barrel as all of these operations and procedures are out of the control of Krieger Barrels, Inc. For these reasons, we do not recommend salt bath nitriding. ... The problem with this information is that it makes sense and makes me wonder about the actual quality of my two QPQ barrels. However, they have both ( 10.5 inch one Aero one KAK) been extremely accurate for the year or so I have had them. The response from Krieger is an if, and, but, maybe response lol. The only really problematic thing is the treatment messing with the heat temper. I have not heard of a single nitride barrel exploding or defecting with normal use.(IRAQVET8888 blew one up with a lot of non stop full auto fire) Krieger has a reputation for excellent accuracy. So it seems they are not denying the advantages of nitride but say it is possible that maybe possibly you risk creating a dangerous barrel by treating it. Also that you can't properly break in the barrel or if you do you risk treating over copper residue. |
|
Snip... "I have 4 bcm chrome lined barrels, and a few nitrided. My last being a 14.5 voodoo that I built into a good quality upper. So far, I still prefer chrome over nitride. Me and my wife shoot A LOT, at least once a week, more than once in the summer. My main concern is durability. Many are OK with either, that's fine. For me it comes down to the future and uncertainty. I have enough brass, powder, primers and bullets to burn out a few barrels, and I don't know how hard its gonna be to get barrels in 5-10 years. I've made it through multiple panicks, and it sucks. In 10 years, an ar15 barrel could cost more than a complete AR today. That, and so far I have one specific chrome lined barrel with so many rounds I couldn't even guess. It's a 14.5 bcm CHF, and it's still more accurate than either of my nitrided barrels. Maybe with time the evidence will sway me the other way, until then I prefer chrome."
I agree, the panics suck and the political landscape is not growing more favorable towards gun owners. I think you need more barrels!! Either nitrided or chromed! 
|
|
Quoted:
My understanding is that a chrome lining adds material (chrome) to the bore, effectively tightening it. This doesn't impact function at all, but is known to cut down on accuracy. Melonite, on the other hand, is a chemical treatment that conditions the existing surface metal to be extremely hard without changing the dimensions, resulting in good accuracy. Bottom line: Melonite is better, but the finish may be a little weird if you're used to phosphate. No, it does not 'tighten' the barrel.... When chrome plating a bore the bore is chemically etched the make the bore bigger so after plating, the bore is the same size. |
|
Quoted:
QPQ/Nitride maybe the future. But it probably won't seriously pick up until the Army or something adopts it, who knows how long that could be. People THINK the military has the best idea of what's in a good rifle. 
It's already picked up steam because it's so cheap. It used to be bare vs chrome, is it worth the extra money? Now it's just nitride vs chrome. Never seen a thread asking if bare vs nitride is worth the extra money. With the price difference cut from $50 to usually nothing nitride is probably going to take over. In the last few years the idea of milspec has lost its position of "best". |
|
Quoted:
It's already picked up steam because it's so cheap. It used to be bare vs chrome, is it worth the extra money? Now it's just nitride vs chrome. Never seen a thread asking if bare vs nitride is worth the extra money. With the price difference cut from $50 to usually nothing nitride is probably going to take over. In the last few years the idea of milspec has lost its position of "best". Quoted:
Quoted:
QPQ/Nitride maybe the future. But it probably won't seriously pick up until the Army or something adopts it, who knows how long that could be. People THINK the military has the best idea of what's in a good rifle.
It's already picked up steam because it's so cheap. It used to be bare vs chrome, is it worth the extra money? Now it's just nitride vs chrome. Never seen a thread asking if bare vs nitride is worth the extra money. With the price difference cut from $50 to usually nothing nitride is probably going to take over. In the last few years the idea of milspec has lost its position of "best". Anyone who claimed milspec was best is wrong, milspec is merely a minimal standard. The sad thing is that up until a few years ago most companies couldnt meet that standard. Chromelining is not going anywhere at least not in the military, the military will go to mlok before they go to nitrided rifle barrels. |
|
Quoted:
Anyone who claimed milspec was best is wrong, milspec is merely a minimal standard. The sad thing is that up until a few years ago most companies couldnt meet that standard. Chromelining is not going anywhere at least not in the military, the military will go to mlok before they go to nitrided rifle barrels. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
QPQ/Nitride maybe the future. But it probably won't seriously pick up until the Army or something adopts it, who knows how long that could be. People THINK the military has the best idea of what's in a good rifle.
It's already picked up steam because it's so cheap. It used to be bare vs chrome, is it worth the extra money? Now it's just nitride vs chrome. Never seen a thread asking if bare vs nitride is worth the extra money. With the price difference cut from $50 to usually nothing nitride is probably going to take over. In the last few years the idea of milspec has lost its position of "best". Anyone who claimed milspec was best is wrong, milspec is merely a minimal standard. The sad thing is that up until a few years ago most companies couldnt meet that standard. Chromelining is not going anywhere at least not in the military, the military will go to mlok before they go to nitrided rifle barrels. you are right about milspec but the market share chrome enjoys will continue to erode. The biggest problem for anyone who holds a market is the question why. Right now consumers are asking that of chrome lining and the only answer is that it's maybe better in select tests that involve extreme rates of fire. |
|
I really don't have any confidence in someone who 'loses' AR barrels to rust. That's just sad...
I would also be skeptical of his source for barrels. Are these $100 barrels? Or double chrome lined mil (or better) barrels? Travis Haley claimed to have 40k rounds through one gun, and it was supposedly still exceptionally accurate. Isn't mitriding/meloniting/etc more of a cost savings effort? Not just because the process is cheaper than just any normal nitride job, but also because it's not cheap to do a high quality chrome job? Just some push back. |
|
Quoted:
I really don't have any confidence in someone who 'loses' AR barrels to rust. That's just sad... I would also be skeptical of his source for barrels. Are these $100 barrels? Or double chrome lined mil (or better) barrels? Travis Haley claimed to have 40k rounds through one gun, and it was supposedly still exceptionally accurate. Isn't mitriding/meloniting/etc more of a cost savings effort? Not just because the process is cheaper than just any normal nitride job, but also because it's not cheap to do a high quality chrome job? Just some push back. It can be cost saving, but not the sole goal for national champion benchrest shooters who are having their very expensive custom match grade stainless barrels nitrided. Their goal is not necessarily saving cost, though frequently replacing the softer but more precisely machined 416 stainless barrels ain't cheep. They are extending barrel life because their loads have to be csrefully worked up and customized for each barrel. At that level no two barrels shoot the same. Once they have a load (actually a range of loads) and barrel matched, they want to shoot the combo as long as possible and avoid having to start over again as long as they can. |
|
Quoted:
QPQ/Nitride maybe the future. But it probably won't seriously pick up until the Army or something adopts it, who knows how long that could be. People THINK the military has the best idea of what's in a good rifle.
Apparently CL is superior in CMV barrels so....... However it does seem to hold promise in SS barrels. |
|
Quoted:
My ballistic advantage barrels shoot better than the FN ones I've owned when it comes to accuracy. They are cheap enough to have a few. Besides if you can afford to shoot a barrel out - you can afford new barrels.  That is a cop-out answer. That answer tells me we should all shoot the cheapest non CL/Nitride barrel because we can just replace them at leisure. I feel when most people ask the question of CL vs Nitride you need to add the phrase "if that is the LAST barrel you could ever obtain." (You know SHTF/Gun parts banned kinda barrel) I think the true answer is to have backups. For example, if nitride was proven the best treatment for a barrel you still do not know if the barrel is defective from a manufacturing problem. This defect may not present itself till SHTF. Warranties do not work in SHTF. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Chrome Lined - Melonite Comparison (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor