M855A1

Making the barrel extension out of something like D2 tool steel like those high end AR15 bolts would make them hold up just fine. Hammer forged barrels are already work hardened due to the manufacturing process so they already will last, if they wanted to have an even harder barrel surface then they could make them out of more expensive materials like the barrel extension.

Guns are made by the lowest bidder from the cheapest material that is sufficient, paying more quickly gets you a vastly superior firearm.

...

D2 tool steel has roughly twice the tensile strength of Carpenter 158 while having higher hardness and superior corrosion resistance. So just slightly better than the 2-3% you pulled out of your ass.

I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, I just want to see reliability stress tests, and average part life time expectancy as compared to normal mil-spec parts, a lot of companies will over hype their own stuff for the purpose of garnering interest.

For example, it's not necessarily so that the steel having twice the tensile strength means that it actually will last twice as long.

Reposting my comment from another thread

So you niggers actually think M855A1 is a good idea? Why?

It's just a waste of money on (((green))) ammunition, the round itself doesn't provide any real world benefit for the soldiers over M855, or even M193 for that matter, it just costs more and wears out the firearm faster, for no fucking benefit, it doesn't penetrate any armor that the M855 wouldn't, and it doesn't cause more wounding than the M855, and most certainly not more than the M193.

It's just gay faggot shit that will cost a fuckton of money for absolutely no improvement in individual soldier combat ability.

The life expectancy of parts such as the bolt in an AR15 is effected by material strength and hardness. Part wear can be thought of as two different processes, one in which load cycling slowly causes the part to fail and the other where the metal is slowly worn away. Material strength effects the first one since the load cycling comes down to how close you get to the materials yield strength each time you load it, if your material is stronger then the yield point is higher and so less wear will occur each time you load cycle it. Material hardness is as the name implies how hard the surface of the material is and by extension its resistance to being scratched, if you have a part such as the feed ramps on a barrel extension being exposed to a hardened steel penetrator then the one made of the harder material will not wear down as easily (if the difference in hardness is enough it won't wear down at all) which is whats relevant to the thread.

In terms of verified reliability, standard AR15 bolts were designed and are built with a safety factor in mind but even after significant use the lugs can still crack and fall off, the infamous AR15 filthy 14 which was run for something like 30,000 rounds with minimal cleaning actually broke two bolt lugs at around 16,500 rounds.

Have they actually confirmed they are using telescoping ammo? unless they have I doubt they are going to go with it.

Can someone explain to me why the hell would you want environment friendly bullets? I doubt someone worried about polluting the soil would also be worried about making more efficient devices to kill people.

...

It's not for people it's for the ranges.
Lots of ranges are so full of lead it affect local water tables, so the ranges have to pay for decontamination or pretty steep fees.

The difference is easily visible from a naked eye inspection. But even if we assume that you're correct, and that the average performance favors M855A1, then its performance increase compared to M855 is so mild as not to justify the myriad negatives of the round.