I would like to have some input from you guys regarding long-term experience with stainless barrels.

I have made the observation on two Sako SS barrels that they seem to become rather brittle after about 2,000 rounds. I use a borescope to inspect my barrels. And what I see is that I get a fair amount of copper build-up on the first third of the barrel behind the receiver. It looks like the build-up is primarily forming in surface cavities. Even after cleaning with anti-copper solvents twice, I still see "fields of copper" all over the place. Never had this on carbon steel barrels this badly after a comparable amount of shots through them.

Do SS barrels erode faster than carbon steel barrels?

Most people say the SS bbl errodes less. I think the problem may be that SS bbls. are more diff to machine smoothly & they can have surface roughness that is causing copper stripping. Lapping may help a new SS bbl.

416 SS, the most commonly used SS for rifle barrels, is very easily machined. 4140, the CM counterpart, is more difficult to machine.

Don't forget you are seeing this effect on factory barrels - at least if I understand your comments about "Sako SS" barrels correctly.

Sako makes very accurate guns, but (pretty much all) the hammer forged barrels I had to do with fouled pretty badly - at least when compared to custom barrels. In fact, the propensity to foul more is often the only drawback to a hammer forged barrel, which sometimes shoot so well you wonder why bother with the extra expense for a cut or a buttoned custom barrel.

In general, I have found SS barrels to have LESS of an affinity for copper than CM barrels. Even in top notch custom barrels (e.g. Krieger), my CM barrels foul more than SS barrels from the same manufacturer.

I don't inspect my barrels often enough with a borescope to verify your assertion that SS barrels might erode faster than CM barrels. It is a contentious issue, and most manufacturers (e.g. Kriger) claim there is no difference in barrel life between a CM and an SS barrel. Others (e.g. over on 6mmBR.com), claim a CM barrel might last longer. I had a friend who maintained that when a SS barrel erodes, it does so more abruptly with bits and pieces breaking off the barrel inner wall - in contrast to a CM barrel where erosion is more gradual. True or not, I don't know.

- mike

Winchester at one time switched to SS for their 264 mag and 220 Swift bbls due to their believe the stainless eroded at a slower rate. They plated and then blued the barrels to keep the "blued and wood" appearance gun lovers expected at that time.
If they did, or didn`t erode slower, or eroded differently then CM I can`t say. But Winchester obviously thought stainless was a better material for high pressure, over bore cartridges.
Some other barrel makers only use stainless for their product. Hart is one, and must feel stainless has some properties that set it apart for CM or I`m sure they would offer both.
Again I don`t know if erosion is a reason for the choice or not. It might be simply due to machining ease.

stainless was originally brought into light as a material to minimize the corrosive effects of the primers then. it went from there into the relm of the high volume target shooter in the belief that throat erosion would lessen. It seems as most high grade barrels today are from stainless, however in my experience i've never had a stainless gun shoot as well as a plain old steel version, especially when the action is stainless as well.