M1A Carbon Barrel vs. Stainless Steel
Ok, I was looking at the different types of barrels for the M1A (and different variations of theM1A) at www.springfieldarmory.com there, and noticed the carbon barrels and stainless steel. is there a difference?
Thanks!
Thanks!
0
-
I just got a new M1A, NM with the SS Barrel. Have not shot it yet, And I keep asking the same thing... I am in Minnesota, and this winter it will be fun to see what a COLD first shot will do when it's -25, and then the next shots... I have been looking for info on that. Maybe someone knows of some test, with the SS barrel in the cold? I did look on the Springfield page. It does not tell anything about the SS.
It will hurt you, More than it will hurt me..0 -
Stainless steel is more rust resistant. when buying one go for the stainless 1 in 10" twist which is best for 168 gr. bullets. I have heard diferent opinions on both. I prefered the lower maintence of the stainless. Mine shot clover's when I sold it with over 15,000 thousand rounds thru it the wear gauge over four(devise for measureing throat erosion) Buy the best Junk the rest! 0 -
If you are speaking of the carbon barrel that is sleeved in stainless which is offered in the M25, then the answer is that it will dissipate heat more quickly than a stainless barrel. Carbon STEEL barrels, which are the standard offering, require more exterior maintanance than stainless Steel barrels to prevent corrosion. I for one am not sold yet on the carbon barrels, which have the sleeve of stainless inside. they are very light , but very expensive. Now if you are speaking of the carbon steel barrels, I would prefer stainless steel to them. Some say they last longer when chrome lined, but I will take the accuracy of stainless and the ease of maintanance and simply relpace it if/when it ever wears out. If you don't want it to shine, then coat it in teflon.
A great rifle with a junk scope,....is junk.0 -
Yup, pretty much for corrosion purposes.
If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.
The sound of a 12 gauge pump clears a house fatser than Rosie O eats a Big Mac !0 -
I served 5 years on the USMC Rifle Team, and One Season on the Pistol team, from 1998-2003. Almost every gun issued for that purpose that was comprised of aftermarket parts (Krieger/Shillen/Barstow/etc) were stainless. The most notable exception was their post and station division level M1A guns which all had chromoly Barnett barrels, which shot exceptionally well. They were ALL replaced by M16's in 2001, which had stainless Kriegers. Having said this I offer this head scratcher. Many gun builders who offer both (stainless and carbon) will typically guarantee similar accuracy for each. In the instances where they defer better accuracy to one over the other GUARANTEE-wise, it always favors the carbon barrel. I've seen this from one end of the spectrum to the other as what appears to be more than a trend. A well known custom big bore builder leans the same direction on the vast majority of his guarantees, particularly where the .50BMG and 20mm single shots are concerned. I have heard various accounts of why, ranging from hard spot metalurgy jargon, to coefficients of friction to fouling disparities. Discarding those as wild speculation due to the subjective nature of their origins is often wise. Suppose all of those contributors stem from fact, what if any tangible effect they may have on accuracy is secondary to the golden standard of accuracy credentials... How far apart are the holes on paper, at a given distance, and to what average over a meaningful rd count can this be sustained?? THATS where the guarantees typically emerge. When seasoned observers of REAL results begin to BANK on their own observations, repeated, controlled, apples-to-apples accounts. Same guns, same lathes, same array of ammunition, same ranges, re-barrel and try again,with a prevailing outcome, resulting in an inescapable epiphony which keeps crowning CARBON KING or your money back!!. Having said this. I firmly believe in the grand scheme of things, carbon barrels do hold an edge, however slight. So slight in fact that it doesn't flat out win enough majority votes to keep the masses from flocking to the prefered stainless, for all its brilliance, luster, shine and practicality. 0 -
i have NOwhere near the experiance of cleefurd, but I can say that I like carbon or even molly over stainless. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments