From what I've heard they are easier to clean and don't give you as many problems because they dont collect nearly as much residue. That being said I have never had any problems with the regular ones. Our CRT team does not use them nor does the local S/O SWAT
I think they are just for looks or a waste of money.
What they said...easier to clean, looks cool, costs more. Unless you're shooting 500rds a weekend and buying the cheapest old boxes of Wolf you can find, spend the money on ammo and beer instead.
The actual reason is M16s and M4s have it so the bolt and carrier can withstand sustained fire for longer periods of time. Now they're made for semi-auto rifles that really don't need it. However, if I were made of money, I'd probably still buy them.
Larry , look back to the 1960's and see the problems with the first run of M16's.
Chrome is your friend.
John
John,
I do recall that a chrome bolt and/or bolt carrier was initially used, not sure why it was discontinued. Was it a monetary or metallurgical reason? The reason why I ask is because I have one in my newest build and want to make sure there isn't something I am missing in the rationale and safety department.
I've also found discussions whereas people are talking about the hardness of chrome vs. the receiver ... and that's pretty much a wash.
Any additional insight is greatly appreciated ...
Larry O
__________________ You don't scare me! Work on it!
