Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
one of us |
Had a big talk with Ernie Stallman at Badger Barrels about this a few months ago. His explanation was that the "chrome-moly" base stock has undergone significant changes over the past few years, and that the "stainless" base stock hasn't been changed since 1977. I'm not going to get into the 4140/4150/410/416 mess cause I'd get it wrong, and somebody would call me an idiot. This is what Ernie was telling me, and I'm repeating it here. I'll check out Perry this year to see how many AMU guys have matte blued barrels on the firing line. With that said, the chrome-moly base stock he is using, work hardens over time, and throat erosion is apparently reduced significantly. He supplied the US AMU with several of his "new" AR-15 barrels, who were replacing their stainless barrels every 3500 rounds, his chrome moly's were sent back for regauging at 3500 without any significant throat erosion, the bore gauged excellent(and were returned to competitive service). No I'm not quoting numbers here, call Ernie if you want to argue. He claimed some of them were still in competitive service over 7500 rounds to his knowledge, and NONE of them had returned yet for being "shot-out". Now....he also claimed that a large percentage of the competition wasn't using these "new" grades of chrome-moly, but still using the old(cheaper) stuff. Make your own decision. | ||
|
one of us |
There is a thread on a norwegian forum where a guy claims that all his testing (according to him a lot) indicates that CrMo barrels will have a much longer life than stainless barrels. I thought that it was the opposite way around. According to Lilja Barrels, Kenny Jarrett, almost all benchrest shooters and many others barrel makers, stainless will last longer when using intense magnum calibers. What do you think ? | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia