The Springfield SAINT Review (Ongoing)

[Echo5Charlie]

Hey everyone, I thought I'd include my notes from the recent purchase of my SAINT rifle. Please excuse the formatting, it was copy and paste from my notes app and I am a horrible writer anyway. This will be ongoing if you all like it. Let me know what you think! (I have pics but getting them to post inline is a PITA)



Going into this I wanted to do a “basic” M4 Carbine (LE6920 analog) in 2021 as the CR6920 is NOT the same as a ~2012-2018 vintage LE6920 - and even in those 6 years there were deviances from the standard. Without delving into the abyss, it was apparent that the basic M4 carbine in a TDP offering was not really offered anymore. The BCM M4 Mod1 was the closest offering I found, but it was not widely offered by resellers - an obvious indicator that the popularity of a basic M4 had come to pass. Upon further reflection I realized that it was moot anyway, not only in current offerings but in my own personal armory - I had a 2012 vintage LE6920, a LE6933, a SPM16, and a CAR-15 that I assembled from quality parts. They all ran and ran well. Bummer.





After some more reflection I realized that I wanted to try something new and slightly outside of my usual bubble of comfort - I wanted to buy a rifle that was marketed by a large company to the masses but was not perceived as on par with top tier manufacturers by the SMEs.


Which one though? I already knew I was not going to go super cheap - it is my money after all! So I needed to settle for a $800-$1,000 rifle. Now, I know some of you are already screaming internally that there are several offerings from top tier manufacturers in that range. You are 100% right, and I already own those. That is NOT the point of what I was doing. I needed to find that Instasnapbook advertisement rifle.


Enter the Springfield Armory SAINT. (Saint is capitalized, why I do not know) Yep, it checked all the boxes. Mass marketed. Large company. Specs that sounded like top tier but didn’t actually mean anything other than marketing. Lifetime warranty. The right price point.


OK. Which one?


Springfield offers (at the time of they writing) no less than 3 versions of the SAINT: SAINT, SAINT Edge, and SAINT Victor. Each of these has sub-models to chose from. The base Saint was likely what a non-gun gun guy/gal in the 25-40 yo range would pick so I settled on the Saint with Picatinny gas block. Part number ST916556BM. This rifle is not what I would personally buy but I could see the appeal of the rifle - it did look nice and had basic features that would make an easy sale based on Internet research or the pitch at the brick-and-mortar Gunshop. Cool.


Now I had to set some reasonable tests as well as expectations for the rifle. It is real easy to shoot it to the point of failure but that can be done with any rifle. Going with a husband/wife combo I figured that *maybe* 500 rounds a year would be shot. Maybe, just maybe, a carbine class would be attended. What ammo would I shoot? What accuracy (precision) requirements would I deem acceptable? Many questions….


Here are the specs from Springfield-armory.com (as of this writing):


The sleek, uncluttered architecture of the Springfield Armory® SAINT® 5.56 makes it the ideal tool for home defense, competition or recreational range time. Top-end Bravo Company M-Lok® compatible handguards include an internal heat shield and plenty of space for accessories. A shot-peened and magnetic particle inspected Carpenter 158 steel bolt offers maximum reliability. Nickel boron-coated fire controls give the SAINT a silky smooth personality, and upgrades like flip-up iron sights come standard.


The pinned Picatinny gas block is intentionally trim and sleek for maximum performance and minimal bulk.

Flip-up sights come standard, ensuring the rifle is ready to rock as soon as you hit the range.

M-Lok® compatible furniture from Bravo Company combines light weight with unsurpassed ruggedness and versatility.
CALIBER
5.56x45mm NATO (.223 REM)
COLOR
Black
BARREL
16" CMV, Melonite®, 1:8
SIGHTS
Low Profile Adjustable Flip-Up
UPPER RECEIVER
Forged 7075 T6 Aluminum, Type III Hardcoat Anodized, Forward Assist, M4 Feed Ramps
LOWER RECEIVER
Forged 7075 T6 Aluminum, Type III Hardcoat Anodized, Accu-Tite™ Tension System
BOLT CARRIER GROUP
M16 w/ Carpenter 158 Steel Bolt, HPT/MPI, Melonite®
GAS SYSTEM
Direct Impingement Mid-Length, Picatinny Pinned Gas Block
HANDGUARD
BCMGUNFIGHTER™ PMCR, M-Lok®
STOCK
BCMGUNFIGHTER™ Mod 0
TRIGGER
Nickel Boron Coated GI
MUZZLE DEVICE
A2 Flash Hider
RECEIVER EXTENSION
Mil-Spec
RECEIVER END PLATE
Mil-Spec
BUFFER ASSEMBLY
Carbine "H" Heavy Tungsten Buffer
CHARGING HANDLE
GI Style
SAFETY SWITCH
Single Side
TRIGGER GUARD
BCMGUNFIGHTER™
GRIP
BCMGUNFIGHTER™ Mod 3
MAGAZINES
(1) 30-Round Magpul PMAG Gen M3
WEIGHT
6 lbs 11 oz
LENGTH
32.25" - 35.5"
MSRP
$995
https://www.springfield-armory.com/...es/saint-556-m-lok-ar-15-rifle-pic-gas-block/
Street Price (2021) - $895 or less

Initial Impressions


Fit & Finish


Good to go. No glaring assembly issues (and none were subsequently found), no finish blems. Would put on par with Colt/DD/BCM, etc


Sights


Ugh…these remind me of UTG quality. The finish alone is cringe-inducing. The rear sight windage know requires VERY little torque to manipulate - you can throw off your windage by simply deploying the sight if you use the knob as a grasping point. The locking pin is cheap and a solid hit would damage it despite it being steel with a steel locking plate in the base of the sight. The detent for deploy/stow is plastic. I got a kick out of the rear sight index marks, there are too many for the limited movement of the aperture. If this rifle pans out these are going away and likely being replaced by Magpul MBUS Pros or Troys.

Stock set


BCM. Enough said. I do like the grip angle very much. The stock is solid and I appreciate the large paddle for adjustment. Using a QD swivel is one position only - horizontal to the bore. Mounting a flashlight will be interesting as there isn’t a whole lot of MLok slots and they are set at the 45 degree point.

BCG


Looks good, but it is phosphated and not Melonite as advertised. Perhaps a COVID supply issue?

Overall disappointments

Lack of front sling mount, lack of rear receiver mount, GI style charging handle, sights.

 

[Echo5Charlie]

Things added:


Magpul MLok QD mount


Holosun 510C


Magpul MS4 sling





Test parameters:


Reliability


the rifle should be reliable with quality factory ammunition. Steel cased ammo is a common buy, especially in 2021, however I personally do not require a rifle to run steel cased ammo to get a stamp of approval - but I do prefer it. Steel cased ammo is usually at the lower edge of the pressure spectrum and accuracy is abysmal. While it is a plus as steel makes great short-range fodder it by no means sets the quality of a AR-based rifle. Caveat - I *know* that there are plenty of high-end and low-end rifles that will run steel (I own both). At a minimum, using brass cased ammunition, I do not expect a failure of the rifle in the first non-cumulative 1,000 rounds.


Accuracy


Using M193/XM193 ammunition the largest acceptable grouping at 100 yards using a magnified optic and stable rest, the rifle should have an extreme spread of 2.6-3.6” at a MINIMUM firing a shot group of no less than 5 rounds. The ES is from 1964 testing of M193 and the M16, 10 shot groups from a machine rest.

Function test (after cleaning & lube from new)

FAIL

Ammo used - TulAmmo 55 FMJ .223
1st three rounds - failure to feed (eject and close on empty chamber) trigger did reset
4th round functioned properly
5th fired and ejected but failed to feed 6th round from magazine - bolt closed on empty chamber
6-20 functioned properly but the last round did not lock the bolt to the rear

10 rounds Perfecta (Fiocchi) brass case 55 FMJ .223
Perfect function

1st Range Report


This thing does not like steel. Black box TulAmmo would stick in the chamber, thankfully not rip rims though - I needed to mortar the casing out. Frequent issue with steel is fail to lock on empty mag and fail to feed (but ejected empty and reset hammer). My opinion (with no technical proof) is that this is slightly under gassed. Now, all the steel was labeled as .223 Remington….I think I have some steel 5.56 stuff somewhere. I had some Hornady training steel and it also has FTLOE, but no short stroking. A BCM charging handle will be installed if steel cased ammo with be run in the future. This was the only outlier failure which indicates short stroking:

Brass ran fine and as expected. Shot some Norinco .223 at 100 using the Burris off the magazine and hit a 2.36 MOA grouping, if I remove the called flyer it comes down to 1.39 MOA. Not bad with 30+ year old Chinese ammo of unknown bullet weight. With a better rest I think that will group even better.


Total round count right now is 210.


Holosun and BUIS sighted with 50Y zero, no serious 100 yard accuracy test done yet. This is an imperfect 100 yard grouping using Norinco .223 (Burris RT-6 in QD PEPR mount used for grouping) with a hot barrel and a hasty rest, it is promising!

2nd Range Outing


I wanted to do some accuracy/precision testing but I found out the hard way that not all return-to-zero mounts are equal. Scrapped that. I did swap out the OEM BUIS with a set of Magpul MBUS Pros and focused on zeroing those. I just couldn’t get over the crap that Springfield put on the rifle. Also change out was the charging handle for an older BCM/Vltor extended model.


I continued to have issues with steel cased ammo - no surprise. However, I did have two failures with brass cased ammo. The first was a failure to feed due to short stroking.

The second was a tad bit more concerning - a failure o fire. I was shooting PPU 75gr .223 Match ammo. The rifle cycled as normal but the trigger went click. Attempts to open the bolt were met with rather stiff resistance and the “mortar technique” was required. The ejected PPU round showed no signs of issue (I should have gotten pics) other than a light primer strike. The bore was checked and found to be obstruction clear and the BCG moved freely. The magazine was inserted and the last remaining round stripped, chambered, and fired as expected. The round that had been stuck was loaded in the mag and then chambered - upon inspection the bolt did not require any more than normal pressure to extract and eject the round. It was then loaded yet again and fired without issue. This rifle may have a problem.


I will clean the rifle at this point, so chalk another failure point up to the SAINT. It should have about 430 rounds through it with no maintenance at all, but there is still ample lubrication present. This is the first AR I have owned that actually (using quality brass ammo) failed.


After cleaning *any* failure with brass cased ammo will result in a return to SAI for service. I understand that the issue is intermittent, but it is obvious there is a gas-flow issue causing the short stroking.





Cleaning Observations

Nothing remarkable *except* that there is what may be excessive gas leaking at the gas block. Being that it is not uncommon for some leaking to occur when new, I cannot rule this as any sort of issue until I take it to the range again.

ETA - no more for now until the next range report. I plan on attempting about 60 rounds of steel and 60 rounds of brass. If it fails in any manner with brass from this point forward, back it goes to Springfield.

 

[the obsrver]

I have a saint edge and have only ran 150 rounds through it (brass). Not one failure and as you said the fit and finish was excellent. I was working on a spitfire 5x and getting it sighted in, which later after reading the directions and someone on here pointing out that the reason I could not hit anything at 200 yards was operator error. At 100 yards my wife and I were getting pretty good with it. It still might need a little fine tuning, but for barrel break in, it was accurate as can be.
Good luck with yours and figuring out what it likes to eat the best. I personally do not shoot poor quality ammo. To me it is like not changing the oil filter when you change the oil, or running the lowest quality oil you can in your car.

 

[KillerFord1977]

Saint Victor 5.56 16” barrel for years now. Never an issue that was not directly related to operator error.

 

[TSiWRX]

After some more reflection I realized that I wanted to try something new and slightly outside of my usual bubble of comfort - I wanted to buy a rifle that was marketed by a large company to the masses but was not perceived as on par with top tier manufacturers by the SMEs.

That was exactly what I wanted with my Aero AC-15 (https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/lets-see-your-ar-setups.258/page-5#post-4884), which I'd purchased at the time, pretty much last-minute, for an armorer's class.

Stock set

Mounting a flashlight will be interesting as there isn’t a whole lot of MLok slots and they are set at the 45 degree point.

Arisaka Defense offers an inline M-Lok Scout-patterned mount that can work at that location.

BCG


Looks good, but it is phosphated and not Melonite as advertised. Perhaps a COVID supply issue?

Interesting.....

Can you be absolutely positive that a third party didn't do a switcharoo?

Possible production error?

That's a pretty big oopsie to blame on a "COVID supply chain issue!" As an end-customer, I definitely would not have appreciated the bait-and-switch on what many would consider to be the heart or soul of the DI AR15.

Holosun and BUIS sighted with 50Y zero, no serious 100 yard accuracy test done yet. This is an imperfect 100 yard grouping using Norinco .223 (Burris RT-6 in QD PEPR mount used for grouping) with a hot barrel and a hasty rest, it is promising!

2nd Range Outing


I wanted to do some accuracy/precision testing but I found out the hard way that not all return-to-zero mounts are equal. Scrapped that.

Again, most interesting.....

I've never used the PEPR, but I've read on the likes of M4C.net and ARFCOM that it's typically 1" at the 100, on the re-mount. Wondering if there's something else at-play? How much off was it?

I seem to remember someone either on one of those two Forums or possibly Sniper's Hide suggesting that they saw a difference in repeatability based on the exact sequence by which they put the mount on the receiver (i.e. which lever was closed first, etc.), but I don't remember their quantified claims (if any).

After cleaning *any* failure with brass cased ammo will result in a return to SAI for service. I understand that the issue is intermittent, but it is obvious there is a gas-flow issue causing the short stroking.

I know you later mentioned that there seems to be a slight leak at the gas block (and I agree with you that it's premature to worry about it at this point), but given the possibly of an issue with the gas system and the fact that the bolt carrier doesn't seem to be spec, I was wondering if you had the chance to examine:

• Gas block alignment (and possible movement)?
• Gas tube - including inside the upper...no chance you have a Mark Brown Custom gas-tube gauge?
• Gas key - staking, hardware (possibly that it's just spinning loose even though it appears staked), alignment, seal, etc.?

With the light primer strike, have you been able to double-check the factory assembler's work with the FCG? No chance they screwed up the hammer spring orientation, right?

And finally, given the repeated chamber issues, any chance you are able to check chamber dimensions? Or just give it a go with M-guns' neck/throat reamer?

 

[Echo5Charlie]

That was exactly what I wanted with my Aero AC-15 (https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/lets-see-your-ar-setups.258/page-5#post-4884), which I'd purchased at the time, pretty much last-minute, for an armorer's class.

Nice looking rifle and nice write up!

Arisaka Defense offers an inline M-Lok Scout-patterned mount that can work at that location.

I'll have to check them out. I've put a light on the back burner for now since I already have a Daniel Defense DDM4V5LW set up as the HD carbine and I may be burning a few more rounds through the SAINT than I thought. I can say, even with the super low-profile MBUS Pro, the mounting point of the Pic rail on the gas block may be a point of compromise.

Interesting.....

Can you be absolutely positive that a third party didn't do a switcharoo?

Possible production error?

That's a pretty big oopsie to blame on a "COVID supply chain issue!" As an end-customer, I definitely would not have appreciated the bait-and-switch on what many would consider to be the heart or soul of the DI AR15.

Yep, my shop received this rifle from Springfield in May IIRC and I did not paper it out until 7/22. I do agree that a customer should rightfully be upset that a published spec was not adhered to. Then again a AR newbie may not have the ability to differentiate between a phosphated BCG and a Melonited one.

Again, most interesting.....

I've never used the PEPR, but I've read on the likes of M4C.net and ARFCOM that it's typically 1" at the 100, on the re-mount. Wondering if there's something else at-play? How much off was it?

I seem to remember someone either on one of those two Forums or possibly Sniper's Hide suggesting that they saw a difference in repeatability based on the exact sequence by which they put the mount on the receiver (i.e. which lever was closed first, etc.), but I don't remember their quantified claims (if any).

When I remounted the Burris I fired a 10 shot group of PPU 69gr BTHP Match at 100 yards. Not one round hit the 8.5x11 target sheet. It was over 90 degrees and very humid that day so I just didn't want to deal with it. It is something I will address down the line.

I know you later mentioned that there seems to be a slight leak at the gas block (and I agree with you that it's premature to worry about it at this point), but given the possibly of an issue with the gas system and the fact that the bolt carrier doesn't seem to be spec, I was wondering if you had the chance to examine:

• Gas block alignment (and possible movement)?
• Gas tube - including inside the upper...no chance you have a Mark Brown Custom gas-tube gauge?
• Gas key - staking, hardware (possibly that it's just spinning loose even though it appears staked), alignment, seal, etc.?

Gas block is GTG and movement free. I do appreciate that Springfield pins them rather than using a set screw solution, just personal preference.

I do not have a gauge for the gas tube.

BCG has all the outward appearances of being Milspec, the key screws are staked but I did not try a reverse torque check on them Yet. When I cleaned the rifle there was no evidence of gas leakage at the key. BCG moves freely in the upper with no binding.

With the light primer strike, have you been able to double-check the factory assembler's work with the FCG? No chance they screwed up the hammer spring orientation, right?

And finally, given the repeated chamber issues, any chance you are able to check chamber dimensions? Or just give it a go with M-guns' neck/throat reamer?

The FCG is good to go. Given it was one round I am chalking it up to bad luck as nothing (and I mean nothing) indicated that the round was at fault or the rifle.

I currently do not have the ability to check chamber dimensions. FWIW I did inspect all brass casings and none exhibit any obvious issues in regards to chamber roughness (no scratching, pock marks, etc.). I am really thinking that there may be a gas flow issue stemming at the gas block - I'll need to see if I can rig up a pressure test of sorts.

Thank you for your response - it is quite refreshing!

 

[Echo5Charlie]

20210811 Update

Ran a 30 round mag of 22 Federal XM193 and 8 .223 Remington Perfecta (its all I had handy at a moments notice) in a snail trap. I wanted to observe the ejection pattern of the rifle to possibly help diagnose under-gassing. The first 8 rounds were Perfecta .223 and they ejected to 3 o’clock. The remaining 22 5.56 rounds ranged from 1 o’clock to 5 o’clock. The recovered casings showed nothing remarkable. The only thing accomplished was firing 30 rounds and not having a stoppage or malfunction.

 

[Echo5Charlie]

Pics. No particular order.

 

[TSiWRX]

Nice looking rifle and nice write up!

Thanks! Just plinking with that one. It turned out to be remarkably well-assembled at the factory, and the parts were - at least by cursory inspection (we didn't gauge, it wasn't a true "armorer's class" of that level, rather, it was geared towards hobbyists, like me) - done well.

I'll have to check them out. I've put a light on the back burner for now since I already have a Daniel Defense DDM4V5LW set up as the HD carbine and I may be burning a few more rounds through the SAINT than I thought. I can say, even with the super low-profile MBUS Pro, the mounting point of the Pic rail on the gas block may be a point of compromise.

Understood.

Yep, my shop received this rifle from Springfield in May IIRC and I did not paper it out until 7/22. I do agree that a customer should rightfully be upset that a published spec was not adhered to. Then again a AR newbie may not have the ability to differentiate between a phosphated BCG and a Melonited one.

Agreed. It's a weird mistake for SA to have made, and unfortunately one that's big enough to the point of getting me thinking: "well, if they made a mistake that big, there, then what ELSE could they have made a mistake on?" It's like what the late Will Larson used to say about staking.....

I'm glad you were able to trace the provenance of the rifle. That takes a good chunk out of the "possible" realm.

When I remounted the Burris I fired a 10 shot group of PPU 69gr BTHP Match at 100 yards. Not one round hit the 8.5x11 target sheet. It was over 90 degrees and very humid that day so I just didn't want to deal with it. It is something I will address down the line.

Gas block is GTG and movement free. I do appreciate that Springfield pins them rather than using a set screw solution, just personal preference.

I do not have a gauge for the gas tube.

BCG has all the outward appearances of being Milspec, the key screws are staked but I did not try a reverse torque check on them Yet. When I cleaned the rifle there was no evidence of gas leakage at the key. BCG moves freely in the upper with no binding.

Smooth feel in the upper as attested-to by an experienced end-user is good enough for me.

I'm slowly, very slowly, starting to accrue gauges so as to take more and more of the uncertainty out, but for a hobbyist who maybe builds one every few years and otherwise is only looking to expedite troubleshooting, it's an expensive proposition.

The FCG is good to go. Given it was one round I am chalking it up to bad luck as nothing (and I mean nothing) indicated that the round was at fault or the rifle.

I currently do not have the ability to check chamber dimensions. FWIW I did inspect all brass casings and none exhibit any obvious issues in regards to chamber roughness (no scratching, pock marks, etc.). I am really thinking that there may be a gas flow issue stemming at the gas block - I'll need to see if I can rig up a pressure test of sorts.

Thank you for your response - it is quite refreshing!

And thank you for your write-up.

I'm glad someone took the time to preface a review with some background that not only detailed the "why's" of the purchase, but also the perspective from which the review is being conducted.

 

[xdman]

The bolt carrier looks the same color melonite black as the Barrel.

 

[Echo5Charlie]

Agreed. It's a weird mistake for SA to have made, and unfortunately one that's big enough to the point of getting me thinking: "well, if they made a mistake that big, there, then what ELSE could they have made a mistake on?" It's like what the late Will Larson used to say about staking.....

Yes, Iraqgunz was quite on the money!

 

[Echo5Charlie]

The bolt carrier looks the same color melonite black as the Barrel.

Yes, it does appear black enough to be Melonite. However, and please understand this is NOT a knock on you, even with the proof that it is not Melonite in the picture you didn't catch it.

The chrome present is the indicator that this bolt carrier is not Melonite but phosphated. Red arrow pointed to chrome for reference.

Now, the chrome being present is good as a bolt carrier (that is phosphated) that lacks it just plain stinks. So even the fact that Springfield made a component change that does not meet published specs it is at least a suitable change.

 

[xdman]

Yes, it does appear black enough to be Melonite. However, and please understand this is NOT a knock on you, even with the proof that it is not Melonite in the picture you didn't catch it.

The chrome present is the indicator that this bolt carrier is not Melonite but phosphated. Red arrow pointed to chrome for reference.

Now, the chrome being present is good as a bolt carrier (that is phosphated) that lacks it just plain stinks. So even the fact that Springfield made a component change that does not meet published specs it is at least a suitable change.

You can chrome over Melonite. Nitriding is a metal treatment that penetrates the metal like an M&M candy shell In the metal. Nitriding/Tennifer/Melonite etc make the parts black, but the shade of black will very. Easy example is Glock over the years the shades of black changed some almost looking like a dark parkerizing. Now chroming is a plating process, meaning the the part has coating on top of the metal. So you can take a Glock or M&P or XDM that has been nitrided and chrome plate the slide. I own at least 15 Saints and have had hundreds in my hands they all have the chrome on the bolt. And my first two Saints were from before the official release when I was flown to Las Vegas for a writers junket to play with them. Those even have chrome. You can even Melonite over stainless steel or chrome since it is a metal treatment That hardens the metal sort of like a heat treatment only chemical.

 

[xdman]

Here are two bolts melonited and have chrome. And then I took a Colt that is parkerized to compare look at the slightly lighter Colt bolt. Im pointing to the SA carrier. Then look at the chrome on the colt the difference in color of the blackish grey Colt bolt to chrome is not as pronounced as the SA blacker bolt that looks more

 

[Echo5Charlie]

You can chrome over Melonite. Nitriding is a metal treatment that penetrates the metal like an M&M candy shell In the metal. Nitriding/Tennifer/Melonite etc make the parts black, but the shade of black will very. Easy example is Glock over the years the shades of black changed some almost looking like a dark parkerizing. Now chroming is a plating process, meaning the the part has coating on top of the metal. So you can take a Glock or M&P or XDM that has been nitrided and chrome plate the slide. I own at least 15 Saints and have had hundreds in my hands they all have the chrome on the bolt. And my first two Saints were from before the official release when I was flown to Las Vegas for a writers junket to play with them. Those even have chrome. You can even Melonite over stainless steel or chrome since it is a metal treatment That hardens the metal sort of like a heat treatment only chemical.

I've been doing this for over 13 years professionally. Unless you can provide proof that Springfield contracts for Melonited bolt carriers with chrome you are wrong

Here are two bolts melonited and have chrome. And then I took a Colt that is parkerized to compare look at the slightly lighter Colt bolt. Im pointing to the SA carrier. Then look at the chrome on the colt the difference in color of the blackish grey Colt bolt to chrome is not as pronounced as the SA blacker bolt that looks more

View attachment 19779

View attachment 19780
View attachment 19781

I'm guessing you don't have an actual nitrided BCG to compare to? I do and can show you the differences.

 

[Echo5Charlie]

Just a quick grab from the gun room - one SAI, one BCM, and one Toolcraft nitride.

The nitride is easy to spot (very top), but which of the others is the Springfield? Top or bottom?

 

[TSiWRX]

Is it just me, or does the front of the carrier, the one that's in-question, the one belonging to @Echo5Charlie as seen in posts 8 and 12.... does it seem that the delineation between the chrome and melonite that is seen with @xdman 's in post #14 is not present?

 

[xdman]

Is it just me, or does the front of the carrier, the one that's in-question, the one belonging to @Echo5Charlie as seen in posts 8 and 12.... does it seem that the delineation between the chrome and melonite that is seen with @xdman 's in post #14 is not present?

The Chrome can be wildly different between batches, some have no outside Chrome, you have to pull the bolt from the carrier to see the chrome on the inside. Then between companies even colt it looks like the Colt chrome was airbrushed on. Out of all 15 of my Saints only three carriers do not have Chrome on them. That’s my 308 and a saint edge pistol, Edge PDW, the first two were very early in the production runs. The carriers are also all three the “upgraded” angled carriers not the milspec round ones. The Saint pistol was so early that it has “saint‘ laser engraved instead of the armory logo. And the Edge PDW and 308 are highly polished instead blasted type milspec surface, which also makes the color different.

So if everyone in the forum pulled their bolts that are the round ones, I bet we would find a bunch of chrome inside the carriers and some that don’t.

 

[TSiWRX]

^ Interesting.....

Have they started to be more consistent, now that there's been some time with these on the production line?

 

[Echo5Charlie]

Is it just me, or does the front of the carrier, the one that's in-question, the one belonging to @Echo5Charlie as seen in posts 8 and 12.... does it seem that the delineation between the chrome and melonite that is seen with @xdman 's in post #14 is not present?

It is NOT Melonite (or any variation of nitriding), if it has chrome it is phosphated.

The process to chrome the interior of the bolt carrier if and gas key, if nitrided, requires the surface that is to be chrome plated to be copper plated first, then nitrided, then said copper plating removed, and then chrome plated. Another method would be mechanical which would work for the bolt carrier itself, but not the gas key at all. Simply put, it makes no sense as said BCG would cost more to produce with no improved results.

Not directed at you @TSiWRX, but I challenge anyone to post a link to a manufacturer that makes a bolt carrier this way.

Another alternative would be for @xdman to simply request a technical explanation directly from Springfield since he has an "in" apparently.