Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/7/2003 3:02:29 PM EDT
I have been told by the AR15 Wizard that the diffrence in 4150 and 4140 is a subject for litle old ladies to worry about ,and for every one else there is no diffrence in preformance.He has been building them for 25 years and has an excelent rep . anyone have any imput ?
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 7:37:54 PM EDT
Its pretty much true for the most part. 4150 "is" the better steel, but the differences are slight and the truth is almost no casual shooter will ever run into a situation where they would notice the difference. However... that being said, 4150 is the better steel and when I have the chance, I go for the better steel. After all... it is better! [:P]
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 3:10:37 AM EDT
I'm sure everyone trying to sell you non-milspec steel barrels will say that 4140 steel is fine. Just like the folks who don't have chrome bores....... -- Chuck
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 5:39:22 AM EDT
I talked to a guy who was a metallurgist for a living. Since we were making small talk and I couldn't think of anything else to ask a metallurgist I asked him what the difference between 4140 and 4150 was and he basically said that 4150 has a slightly higher carbon content and is probably a tiny bit better in barrel applications.
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 5:47:36 AM EDT
I'd also like to add that if you shop around you'll often find mil-spec 4150, chrome lined steel barrels for the same price as the 4140 ones. So why not get the better quality barrel for your money![:D]
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 5:49:01 AM EDT
4140 has .40% carbon in the alloy,4150 has .50% carbon in the alloy. Iron+carbon=steel. In these particular alloys I believe there is also molybdenum and chromium hence the name chromemoly steel. 2 of my favorite blade steels(I`m a knifemaker) are 1084 and 1095-like the 41 series steels the last two digits indicate the carbon content,1095 having nearly 1% carbon and 1084 having just a bit less.Due to the carbon content 1095 takes a slightly keener edge,and holds it a bit better than the 1084 BUT the 1084 is a bit tougher than the 1095 and would resist breaking a bit better if the knife was abused,these differences are very slight. So what does this mean to the barrel buyer? we`re dealing with .1% difference between 4140 and 4150-the difference would probably be infinetesimal,what would matter would be the manufacturing processes that the barrel goes through. I wouldnt care which one my barrel was made of,what would matter to me is how well the barrel was made. Bossman
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 10:03:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2003 10:38:56 AM EDT
Thanks for the info .So why the hell would most AR manufacturers use 4140 if the price is close to the same? I thought RRA and armalite were supposed to be a cut above the rest .And I was all excited about the new a4 upper I ordered from legal transfers , bummer.
Link Posted: 8/9/2003 11:15:01 AM EDT
It's been a long time since I've looked through a machinists reference manual, aren't the 4120 and 4150s non-stainless steels? Aren't there a couple makers using 410 and 416 series stainless steels? I've heard that some of the stainless steels can be problematic due to the way the alloy may have been made and how the various metals might be pooled through out the length of the barrel. Consistency problems essentially in some parts of the metal being softer or harder. Probably what it boils down to, to some degree or another, is that it's possible for there to be bad steel no matter what the exact alloy. I can't remember for the life of me what steels Blackstar barrels used but I seem to recall it wasn't too common a steel.
Link Posted: 8/9/2003 11:58:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2003 7:58:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2003 10:16:13 PM EDT by tac17]
Not trying to sound like a smarty pants but I am honestly curious what exactly is considered to be, "large volumes of rapid fire?" Are we talking about full auto for ten to fifteen minutes or what? Military suppresion type fire on full auto? I would think even in a defensive role that one would not usually be employing large volumes of rapid fire without pauses for cooling or such. Someone set me straight if my thinking is flawed.
Link Posted: 8/10/2003 12:39:16 AM EDT
Not trying to sound like a smarty pants but I am honestly curious what exactly is considered to be, "large volumes of rapid fire?" [b]These are abused I've seen 800-1000rds through an M16A2 in about 10 minutes that is why the gov't buys the better steel--- because some untrained dumbasses are always going to try to ruin the piece of equipment for fun. Barrels cherry red from Front post to Flash hider are not terribly uncommon on military ranges when guys are trying to amuse themselves and have lots of ammo to burn and are encouraged to burn it up. [/b]
Top Top