AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/7/2003 11:11:49 AM EDT
|
I'm in the research stage of putting together my first AR-15. I live about 20 min from Quantico Arms so the choice of striped receiver is a no brainer. I'm looking at J&T for a A2 kit and I am wondering if the chrome carrier assy. is worth the extra money. Since modern ammo isn't corrosive what is the point? Thanks |
|
Do some more research, a lot more research before you spend money on an AR15. Just seeing [i]Quantico Arms lower receiver, J&T[/i] and [i]chrome carrier[/i] in the same sentence tells me you're very unfamiliar with this weapon system. Assuming you want reliability, the very best systems mimic the military weapons as far as possible. These will have a chrome bore and milspec internal parts, materials, and finish. This automatically excludes J&T and chromed parts (other than the firing pin, interior of the carrier, and bore). -- Chuck |
|
[b]Chuck- lighten up. this guy said J&T, AND wondering if the chrome carrier is worth the EXTRA money. Not "I am buying a J&T Chrome Carrier assm." mentioning Coke and Pepsi in the same sentance doesn't mean I think they are both produced by the same company[/b] The higher echelons of the Armed Forces are experimenting currently with alterations that extend service life and time between maintenance regimens and make maintenance easier to perform in less time. These include: modified gas systems and Nickel Boron plated Carriers (VIA Troy Industries) The Nickel Boron plated carrier is availible via Troy Ind but it is very expensive. I have a Chrome (Les Baer bolt) (Smith Enterprise Carrier) in my Ar and they work great and clean very easily (carbon does not stick to Chrome like it sticks to steel. The parts clean in about 1/5th of the time consumed cleaning their steel counterparts. Also with the Les Baer bolt you get a McFarland Gas ring which eliminates the need to stagger the rings< or the worry of staggering them as I have heard this "may" not be necccassary. You won't want to buy the LES BAer extractor though as its spring is not "captive" as in the Mil Spec model. I used a DPMS extractor for mine. I checked with both of these companies and they both go through the proper processes to eliminate hydrogen embrittlement. [b]Remember the military doesn't do everything because it is "RIGHT" a lot of what they do relates to "the right price" chrome lined bores and chrome plated carriers solved problems in Vietnam.[/b] |
| I would not trust any of the manufactureers of HARD chrome plated carriers and bolts. If you must have them chromed buy COlt or Bushmaster parts and have them HARD chromed yourself buy a reputable company that specializes in hard chrome firearm finishes and if not then dont bother. |
| To answer the basic question, the chrome carrier is NOT worth any extra money. Based upon minimum wage, the saved time in cleaning will pay for the difference in price after approximately 37,000 cleanings. The McFarland single piece gas ring is another "sounds nice" item but not needed. I have had the same G.I. gas rings on my bolt for the past 6,000 rounds and have no signs of needing replacement. They will stay there until I can find out how long they will last. |
|
It is odd, some guys swear you MUST have a hard chromed bore and chamber, but criticize the other chromed parts. While it is true that in the past SOME have been poorly done, chrome carriers from sources such as DPMS, Armalite, and other good suppliers are of good quality. But I would not pay extra for one. However, a DPMS upper I purchased recently came with a chromed carrier, but a regular bolt. Did they have too many chrome ones in stock, needed to get rid of a few? Dunno, don't care. I don't object, and don't want to change it out. I do note that both a hard chromed carrier or unchromed one are both much harder than the aluminum receiver. But, if the AR15 is properly lubed, it does not matter one bit. Don't pay extra for chromed parts, unless you have a reason (a rifle for use in wet, saltwater conditions?), but there is no problem with them either. On another note, I recently bought a J&T kit, too, and it is top notch. Nice quality parts, and yes, looked mil-spec quality to me. I have a few AR's, seen a lots more, and played with them for more than a few years. The J&T stuff is as good as any, and better than some I have seen. |
|
Quoted: It is odd, some guys swear you MUST have a hard chromed bore and chamber, but criticize the other chromed parts. Well, I'm one of those guys. A chromed bore and chamber have been proven effective (and I'll say necessary) for proper operation and enhanced reliability. Now what does chroming the others parts buy me? Easier cleanup? I clean my rifles in less than 15 minutes anyway. Not a big advantage. I run the risk of bad plating. I pay extra. Lastly, from [url=http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/theseriousar.msnw][b]AR-15s for Serious Use[/b][/url] [b]Parts to Avoid (Other than FN)[/b] There are several parts out there that are sold as ‘upgrades’ and ‘better than spec’. Most of these parts are intended to separate you from your money with little to no improvements offered, and a possibility of reduced reliability. These parts include Chrome plated bolt carriers, Chrome plated bolts, TiN coated parts (bolt carrier, fire control), and Titanium firing pins. [b]Chrome plated bolt carrier[/b] were first used back in the 60s, they helped reduce corrosion and made cleaning easier. However it was found out that these bolt carrier caused excessive wear on the upper receiver, Since the 70’s the military has regulated chromed bolt carriers training units and are forbidden in deployable weapons (i.e. rifles that will be used in battle). [b]Chromed Bolts[/b] are allowed, however they are no longer in spec. Then why avoid them you ask? Simple, no top tier (Big 3) manufacture makes them. I know of one person who is now on his THIRD chromed bolt, as they seem to be prone to breakage (one broke after 200 rounds). If the process isn’t done just right the steel gets brittle and that leads to breakage. The same problems with the chromed parts apply to the TiN parts. Until the military starts requiring them in duty weapons your best bet is to stay away from them. Some people go to the [b]Titanium firing pins[/b] to ‘solve’ a mythical slam fire problem. Sorry folks, that was solved 35 years ago, and the result is the current chromed steel pin. In a modern AR-15, slam fires are caused by either using very soft primers (like pistol primers) and/or not seating the primers deep enough (so the bolt face hits the primer). Titanium firing pins will not offer an accuracy improvement for non-match rifles, and due to the nature of Titanium have a tendency to wear out and chip (chipping can lead to pierced primers – something you don’t want to happen). Save your money and keep the rifle reliable – use standard parts from quality vendors. |
|
M38, I just assembled an A2 flat top receiver J&T kit with a lower from Century Arms. No chrome and no nickel titanium parts that were an option. 20" barrel which comes with the gas block and upper assembled. Did it with just a basic set of punches. Did have to bend the gas tube over just a bit to get a smoother bolt carrier slide. And had to shorten the mag release spring slightly. Only launched one spring that I was lucky enough to find. And put in a JP single stage trigger that was actually great fun to install. The video that came with was most helpful. Functions check out OK and fit and finish seem fine. Have one crappy 30 round mag I got locally, which will be upgraded today with a green follower and one decent 10 rd mag. Off the range this weekend for the first shots, barrel breakin and zero. Will post my results and let you know what I think, so far so good. It really has been an awful lot of fun. |
|
"To answer the basic question, the chrome carrier is NOT worth any extra money. Based upon minimum wage, the saved time in cleaning will pay for the difference in price after approximately 37,000 cleanings. The McFarland single piece gas ring is another "sounds nice" item but not needed. I have had the same G.I. gas rings on my bolt for the past 6,000 rounds and have no signs of needing replacement. They will stay there until I can find out how long they will last." [b]I don't know how you came up with 37,000 cleanings but the way I slice it: 1 30 minutes to Inspection clean (and then lightly oil) a bolt and carrier and component parts (that might seem anal but are you going to risk your life with a dirty bolt? 2 6 minutes to do the same to a chrome B/BC 3 savings of 24 minutes 4 =48.5 cleanings at minimum wage (given a value of $100 difference in price for my setup) 5 I don't work for minimum wage 6 I don't buy rifle parts for their low cost. Finally I think that the lubricity of Chrome and the fact that it does not foul as quickly in the long run will mean that my rifle will function better for longer while dirty than it would with a GI bolt and carrier. How much longer? I don't know but I do know that (except for not buying nickle boron from Troy Ind) I did not compromise on that. [/b] |
|
30 minutes to Inspection clean (and then lightly oil) a bolt and carrier and component parts You spend 30 minutes cleaning a normal bolt and carrier? (that might seem anal but are you going to risk your life with a dirty bolt? I'd say that you are much more risk averse than I am - and if spending less than 5 minutes on disassembly, cleaning, inspection and reassembly of the GI bolt & carrier = dirty bolt in your mind, then yes, I feel quite comfortable with that level of risk. However, I am curious to hear how we arrived at such different conclusions on maintenance based on our experiences? What type of experience do you have with the AR15-series of weapons that suggests that 30 minutes is appropriate for a non-chromed carrier and bolt? |
|
Having seen the chrome carrier argument many times on ar15.com I finally decided to research the issue myself. I started with the book “The Black Rifle” found where they changed the specifications from chrome to parkerized then looked up the documents pertaining to those changes. My research indicated that the change was made purely for cost saving reasons, not for any wear related issues. This makes since when you think about it because regular steel is harder than aluminum anyway and chrome plating tends to make things “slicker”. Try this experiment; take a block of anodized aluminum. Take a slick chrome plated carrier and a parkerized carrier rub each across the aluminum block several hundred times. Guess what? The mildly abrasive parkerized carrier will cut into the anodized layer of the aluminum where as the slick chrome carrier will just polish it. Bottom line, the chrome carrier is an improvement (however slight) over a standard carrier. Why, It cuts down on cleaning time, the natural “slick” properties of chrome aid in the lubrication the rifle, and corrosion resistance. My own test indicates that I have a greater Mean time between failures (without cleaning) when using my chrome carrier in my suppressed M16 (very dirty). However my Chrome carrier is a Young’s NM model, which is slightly heaver than my standard (Colt) M16 carrier an this may have something to do with it. |
|
Your research is incomplete (you mention documents, but don't provide even quotes) or the cost savings had unintended good consequences. Infantry units in RVN had all their chrome carriers replaced [i]in the field[/i] in the fall of 1968 with an attendent increase in reliability. This change of carriers was considered so important that -- hard to believe -- maintenance contact teams went out to the rifle companies to do the work. Cost savings won't justify [i]replacement[/i] of perfectly good (or claimed superior) parts. Changing a million bolt carriers is not a trival exercise. -- Chuck |
|
Every time this topic comes up, I don MOPP4 gear, because the bullsh*t from the anti-chrome crowd is sure to fly...the only thing close is the "civvy wearing MARPAT" issue! CHROME AWAY! It doesn't hurt anything! Too much extra money? Sheesh! These same "experts" will put on a scope that costs more than the gun itself, not to mention encrusting it with other pricey gewgaws! |
|
"Infantry units in RVN had all their chrome carriers replaced in the field in the fall of 1968 with an attendent increase in reliability. This change of carriers was considered so important that -- hard to believe -- maintenance contact teams went out to the rifle companies to do the work." This remark is absolute Bull Shit. A friend of mine was in the Army Infantry in 1971 in Vietnam and his carrier was Chrome plated (I called him up and asked him last time we were hashing this issue out. And yes I also asked him what he thought about it- he said the M-16 was reliable and he didn't hear of any problems with the chrome plating.) [b]My training is just normal Army infantry training (I've only cleaned M-16's the "ARMY Way" about 300 times (not counting field cleanings) The Army gives us a couple minutes for a basic field clean [just wipe down the bolt, wipe down the inside of the upper and re-apply oil. in bizarr cases cleaning of the chamber] In the rear we get 1.5-3 hours to clean weapons (mostly because privates clean 2-3 M-16's (their's and a couple officers, or NCOs who have earned the right to slack off). When the M-16's get turned in they better be CLEAN cleaning the bolt, and chamber takes most of the time. 45-50 minutes is totall time to inspection clean and lightly lubricate one M-16 (so why not make it 20 minutes with a chrome carrier for when I am not being paid to clean the fucker). |
|
I think people forget that a chrome bolt and carrier from 1968 is a far cry from a chrome bolt and carrier from 2003. Mettalurgy has come a long way, even if some people's thought processes haven't. Also, I might not be totally getting the big "cost" thing here. A Les Baer chrome bolt and carrier assembly (complete with firing pin, carrier key, and McFarland gas ring) is $189. A new Colt AR-15 bolt and carrier assembly (the real one with the full circle at the rear, the way Eugene intended) is $199. A new Colt Sporter bolt and carrier assembly (the bastardized monstrosity foisted upon us by Colt as we can't be trusted) is $179. It's a big, whopping $10 difference! If you want the real deal AR-15 carrier, the chrome is cheaper! One thing is for certain - the chrome is much easier to clean!! Particularly after running the gun with a suppressor - all kinds of crap gets blown back into the bolt & carrier! (One of the design flaws - the FAL avoids this problem and is a much cleaner design, but what do you want for a decades old design?) Get chrome if you want - you won't regret it! Buy an ultrasonic cleaner if you don't - you definitely won't regret that - makes all the cleaning a breeze! |
|
Chuck, According to "The Black Rifle, M16 Retrospective" by R Blake Stevens and Edward C Ezell thought by many to be the definitive book on the development of the M16. It was the BUFFER that was field replaced to improve a light primer strike problem (Bolt bounce) Known as the buffer retrofit program, it was completed in late fall of 1967 pp 202, 203, 211. No mention of any field replacements for the chrome carriers is made in this very detailed 400 page history. The chrome carrier key was changed as one of 123 request for Technical Action (RTA) that were part of contract "508" which were approved. The actual specification was: Bolt Carrier Key finish altered from electrolyzed to chrome plated interior/parkerized exterior. This came from Col. Yount's testimony to the ichord subcommittee pp 225. As for the carrier itself the change wasn't listed in any of the recommended changes to improve the rifles performance/function. And the change came about during a time period 67-68 when there was a lot of gripeing over the cost of the rifle needing to have a chrome plated bore. Theo |
|
When the M-16's get turned in they better be CLEAN cleaning the bolt, and chamber takes most of the time. OK, government property I can see doing that. Believe me as a sailor returning M16A2s to a Marine armory, I know how the spotlessly clean routine goes (that's why God created brake cleaner and liquid Tide). Heck, most of the things I did when cleaning government rifles where actually detrimental to their functioning (like never lubing the rifle prior to turning it in because there was no chance it would pass the incredibly anal inspection with CLP on it drawing out gunk from some microscopic crevice). For that matter hot water and liquid Tide will clean a rifle very nicely - as well as remove all the dry film lubricant in the upper receiver over time. so why not make it 20 minutes with a chrome carrier for when I am not being paid to clean the fucker). I guess this is where we arrived at different conclusions based on similar experiences. Instead of thinking "How can I make spotlessly cleaning my bolt and carrier easier for my own rifle?" I thought "Why clean it to the same ridiculous level when I know that spending 5 minutes on it will do the job just as well?" My personal rifle now has a permamnent black mark baked on the gas tube and even on a just cleaned rifle, if you stick your hand in the upper, chances are good it is coming back with a greasy black smear of CLP and carbon - but it does work with 100% reliability and it is corrosion free. That is all I need from my cleaning routine. |
|
[s]Sonny[/s]Greeno -- Absolute Bull Shit? I don't think so..... I was a career infantry officer during the period in question and personally witnessed the removal of chrome bolt carrier groups in my rifle company in the fall of 1968 and further witnessed the improvement in reliability in our XM16E1 rifles and XM177E1 submachineguns. If your friend's rifle slipped thru the cracks we both know that stuff happens. What unit was he in? -- Chuck |
|
I was saying the logic (my unit got Non-chrome carriers; therefore the entire Army got Non-chromed carriers.) He was not a career soldier (actually was forced to go to the Army) and his unit was decimated (from 330 to 18 men) when his firebase was overrun, he was transferred twice so he had 4 units in 1 tour. He said that everyone of his units the entire time had the Chrome carriers [b]and standard 20inch M-16's[/b]. That Regular Army unit status (not drafted) might get you replacement parts other units wouldn't get. We don't get that fancy stuff (brake cleaner etc) and we shoot the guns so we inspection clean and then lightly oil them [only twice a year do we actually inspection clean them and turn them in dry] My personal weapon I probably wouldn't maintain as well either if I shot it all the time but I only shoot twice a month or so on my own. It's not a big deal. If I ever had to depend on a weapon for my life I would deffinitely use the down time to clean it as meticuosly as the military requires (it'll give you peace of mind). I've probably fired 8000 rds through my issue weapon and it has only jammed once with live ammo in normal use and (3 times when I was over-heating it with about 360 rounds in 2.5 minutes). I don't know why but when the M-16 gets really hot it begins to have malfunctions [failures of the bolt to close the last 1/4inch] more often. I assume it is the gas tube getting hot faster than the carrier key and actually expanding to the point that it slightly restricts forward movement of the carrier. It is easilly solved by wacking the forward assist. |
AR Sponsor