Sig uses DLC coating?

[Cowboyfromhell]

So I always thought Sig used the nitron coating for their pistols. I sent my old p220 in for spa treatment and also asked to have my slide refinished. I contacted Sig today about my pistol and they said it was expected back any day from ion bond with DLC....huh...

 

[Forte S+W]

Nitron is (or was?) basically SIG's unlicensed knockoff of Ionbond, so maybe now they actually have Ionbond applying their finish for them and continue using the Nitron name for the sake of brand recognition. (That or Nitron is now a licensed variant of Ionbond.)

 

[Cowboyfromhell]

Furthermore, is DLC stronger and more durable than NITRON? I swear I remember reading that hard chrome and DLC were the toughest around...

 

[rock185]

I admit I've never known what "Nitron" really is. I always suspected it was just a name used for whatever blue/black finish SIG happened to be using at any particular time. In any case, DLC is supposed to be very hard, and I suspect a couple of the SIGs I've purchased in the last couple of years had DLC treated barrels, and possibly other components. Whatever it is, it does not show the same wear that my other SIGs, since the '80s, have shown on barrels. I'll attach a photo of my 229CC barrel with about 400 rounds through it. My P210A with about 1200 rounds looks about the same...

Top barrel is the 229CC with about 400 rounds.
Bottom barrel is a standard 1995 P229 with about 100 rounds through it.

 

[Forte S+W]

Furthermore, is DLC stronger and more durable than NITRON? I swear I remember reading that hard chrome and DLC were the toughest around...

Like I said, Nitron is a DLC. Also, AFAIK, Ferritic Nitrocarburizing is stronger.

 

[Metric]

I don't know what the full story is, but it's complicated.

Judging by the early wear pattern on my P210A, the "nitron" on the barrel is different than the "nitron" on the slide/frame (or at least its properties are different -- it could be the underlying steel that causes the difference).

The finish on the underside of the slide that contacts the top of the barrel/chamber area has a noticeable wear pattern. But the top of the barrel/chamber area shows virtually zero wear. I.e. two parts that rub against one another, both presumably with a "nitron" finish, show a very different degree of wear. (same thing is happening near the muzzle of the barrel vs. the inside of the slide where it locks up -- slide finish wearing faster than barrel finish)

 

[wild cat mccane]

Nitron is a surface coating that is super hard on the HRC. Applied super hot. It is harder than melonite/tenifer.

Ferritic Nitrocarburizing is a metal treatment that penetrates the metal and increases the outside HRC and additionally reduces rusting. Tenifer, melonite, glock's older stuff.

Both muck up the metal. On the outside you have a super HRC. On the inside you softened the metal. More so with the Nitron.

The proprietary uses of "melonite" "tenifer" etc are the formulas. The process during the quench reduces the outer HRC to strength the mucked up inside.

Otherwise, super HRC on the side...boom. Brittle steel. Crack.

So it's not that the salt bath is stronger, it penetrates and physically changes the molecular structure of the top of the metal. Nitron is a top coating which is harder, but melonite/tenifer penetrate. You can knock of the super, super hard Nitron, but you can't physically knock of the salt bath metal treatment without actually removing metal (ex) from the slide.

Hard chrome is a plating. I've been extremely pleased with hard chrome. Least finish wear. But again, a salt bath is not a finish.