- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Official AR-15 thread
Posted on 10/7/14 at 6:54 pm to Clames
Posted on 10/7/14 at 6:54 pm to Clames
In the first report you posted didn't it point out that case hardened 8620 carriers were better than other options, and that chrome plating build up in the corners of the bolts led to failures, so magphos was better?
Both of those seem to be advantageous. I'd like to see the reasoning behind Carpenter 158 v regular ol' 9310...or phos parts vs nitrided (wouldn't have the same buildup issues as other coatings).
Both of those seem to be advantageous. I'd like to see the reasoning behind Carpenter 158 v regular ol' 9310...or phos parts vs nitrided (wouldn't have the same buildup issues as other coatings).
1
Posted on 10/7/14 at 8:40 pm to Propagandalf
Carburized carriers didn't have wear problems in the bolt chamber that through-hardened carriers did. That was before Colt hard-chrome plated that part of the carrier though. Wear resistance and durability were cited as reasons for the switch to Parco-lubrite from electrolized plating. Part of that durability comes from the required shot-peening of the parts prior to coating. I haven't found much on the decision to use C158 for the bolt vs other materials though there was a request to drop the RC hardness of the bolt from 60-61 down to 57-58 which resulted in a 30% increase in the average number of rounds before failure.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News