Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/28/2003 2:46:13 PM EDT
Just curious as to when military guns started having chrome line barrels? Are their any old CandR guns that had them at any point? And what about many of the other guns that at one point or another didn't have chrome lining (i.e., FAL), but then did at another point?


Anybody know anything about this? I've got a few general ideas, but am wondering if I am wrong or right about them.
Link Posted: 10/28/2003 5:21:27 PM EDT
I'm only guessing but I'd say the AK-47 was the first to be chrome-lined followed by the M-16A1. I know the original issue M-16 wasn't chrome lined.

Don't know about the SKS & don't care about the FAL.
Link Posted: 10/28/2003 5:25:10 PM EDT
The SKS and M14 were chrome lined.
Link Posted: 10/28/2003 5:33:54 PM EDT
Some of the WWII Japanese rifles had chrome bores.

The Makarov handguns have them.

I'd like to know more too.

Dennis Jenkins



Originally Posted By ShamusMcOI:
Just curious as to when military guns started having chrome line barrels? Are their any old CandR guns that had them at any point? And what about many of the other guns that at one point or another didn't have chrome lining (i.e., FAL), but then did at another point?


Anybody know anything about this? I've got a few general ideas, but am wondering if I am wrong or right about them.

Link Posted: 10/29/2003 11:38:29 AM EDT
I'm pretty certain M1 Carbines had chrome chambers and bores.
Link Posted: 10/29/2003 11:55:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2003 3:36:21 PM EDT by djenkins]
I wonder who started chroming bores?

Some of the Russian sks were chrome bored and some weren't.

The lowly Albanian skses were chrome but the YUGO's are not.

Not sure about the Chinese.

Dennis Jenkins


Originally Posted By Fruit_of_the_Looms:
I'm pretty certain M1 Carbines had chrome chambers and bores.

Link Posted: 10/29/2003 12:33:48 PM EDT
My M1 Carbine is not lined but my Chinese SKS is.
Link Posted: 10/29/2003 10:47:28 PM EDT
The Japanese with the Arisaka 99.
Link Posted: 10/30/2003 12:26:24 AM EDT
According to something reputable I was just reading the barrel of the original M16 wasn't chrome lined becuase the technology for lining small calibre bores didn't yet exist.
Link Posted: 10/30/2003 5:08:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tweak:
According to something reputable I was just reading the barrel of the original M16 wasn't chrome lined becuase the technology for lining small calibre bores didn't yet exist.



In Tales of the Gun, they said the Army wanted the M-16 chrome-lined since that's how all their guns had been since WWII. MacNamara said no cause Armalite didn't chromeline the AR-15. It wasn't until after the problems in Vietnam that the M-16A1 came out with the chrome-lined barrel.
Link Posted: 10/30/2003 10:24:45 PM EDT
From p 218 of "The Black Rifle":

"Chrome plating of the bore and chamber in all new US military small arms had been a specifically stated requirement of the Ordnance Corps since about 1957 (discussed in US Rifle M14) This policy had been set forth in OTCMs (Minutes of the Ordnance Technical Committee) in consequence of the experiences with rusty chambers and bores in the South Pacific during World War II. Unfortunately, however, at the outset of the M16 program the technology to produce chromed .22 calibre barrels simply did not exist. Early in the program Springfield Armory had recommended to the TCC that efforts begin forthwith to develop processes for chrome- plating the bores and chambers of M16 barrels. Reportedly, acting on the advice of Gene Stoner, who claimed that the AR-15 bore and chamber needed no further improvement, OSD vetoed the Springfield recommendation. Had this proposal not succumbed to yet another Department of Defense "direction", the most serious problems experienced with the M16 rifles in Southeast Asia might well have been avoided, and it would not have been necessary to retrofit so many rifles a few years later with chrome-chambered (and still later fully-chromed) barrels."
Link Posted: 10/31/2003 4:56:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tweak:
From p 218 of "The Black Rifle":

"Chrome plating of the bore and chamber in all new US military small arms had been a specifically stated requirement of the Ordnance Corps since about 1957 (discussed in US Rifle M14) This policy had been set forth in OTCMs (Minutes of the Ordnance Technical Committee) in consequence of the experiences with rusty chambers and bores in the South Pacific during World War II. Unfortunately, however, at the outset of the M16 program the technology to produce chromed .22 calibre barrels simply did not exist. Early in the program Springfield Armory had recommended to the TCC that efforts begin forthwith to develop processes for chrome- plating the bores and chambers of M16 barrels. Reportedly, acting on the advice of Gene Stoner, who claimed that the AR-15 bore and chamber needed no further improvement, OSD vetoed the Springfield recommendation. Had this proposal not succumbed to yet another Department of Defense "direction", the most serious problems experienced with the M16 rifles in Southeast Asia might well have been avoided, and it would not have been necessary to retrofit so many rifles a few years later with chrome-chambered (and still later fully-chromed) barrels."



I'm a big Eugene Stoner fan but the lack of chrome chambers and the lack of cleaning kits (not needed per Stoner) lie directly at Stoner's feet.

Yes, the biggest fuck-up belongs to the Army for making the powder change without notifying ArmaLite, Colt, or Stoner. However, the lack of chrome chambers and cleaning kits would have been problems even had the Army not changed from IMR to Ball powder.
Link Posted: 10/31/2003 6:37:31 AM EDT
There were many things wrong with the AR15 when it was first introduced. One only needs to loo at the twist rate, selector or charging handle to see that. It was by no means perfect and still isn't.

The problems weren't Stoner's fault as much as OSDs. The "whiz kids" circumvented normal military adoption procedures which would have turned up many of the weapon's faults long before it saw widespread fielding. Many problems were corrected early on before the McNamara gang stepped in. They shot down many other requests for changes. Hll, the SF units that initially handled it reported the lack of proper cleaning supplies and the report was ignored.

There hasn't been a small arm introduced that didn't go through changes during, and after, adoption. The M16 was the first one that literally had to be debugged during a war because of micromanagement in its adoption.
Link Posted: 10/31/2003 7:27:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tweak:
There were many things wrong with the AR15 when it was first introduced. One only needs to loo at the twist rate, selector or charging handle to see that. It was by no means perfect and still isn't.

The problems weren't Stoner's fault as much as OSDs. The "whiz kids" circumvented normal military adoption procedures which would have turned up many of the weapon's faults long before it saw widespread fielding. Many problems were corrected early on before the McNamara gang stepped in. They shot down many other requests for changes. Hll, the SF units that initially handled it reported the lack of proper cleaning supplies and the report was ignored.

There hasn't been a small arm introduced that didn't go through changes during, and after, adoption. The M16 was the first one that literally had to be debugged during a war because of micromanagement in its adoption.



Jim Sullivan and Bob Fremont designed the AR-15. Sullivan has publicly stated that not chroming the chamber was their mistake. Stoner sold the idea that no cleaning kits were needed.

I hate McNamara's worthless ass but the above was not his or his people's fault.

5sub
Link Posted: 10/31/2003 7:46:01 AM EDT
I bet it all started with some guy going overboard on making himself a bling-bling chromed gun in the early 1900's. Then he probably discovered the bore stayed cleaner and showed less wear.

Link Posted: 10/31/2003 8:51:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Stoner sold the idea that no cleaning kits were needed.



And as I said, in a standard Ordnance adoption process all of these idiot things the designers did would have been found out and rectified. No weapon is good to go right off the builder's bench and the military, of all organizations, knows this. The military, more accurately, the government, failed in its duty to protect this nation.

One need only look at the lack of fully curved M16 magazines, and the ability to upgrade to same, and a too thin extractor rim on the 5.56 to see that the knowledge base of most small arms designers is limited. This has always been the case and is the reason for the overly conservative, unduly lengthy, and incredibly thorough testing that military weapons receive before they are adopted.

I'm not arguing that Stoner had a limited grasp of small arms useage in military combat or in weapons system design. I am arguing that past a certain point it wouldn't have been his decision to make in a standard adoption scendario.
Top Top