I have a new bolt action rifle that I bought that I have intended from the beginning to cerekote. I just wanted to verify that it was accurate enough before investing in the process. It appears to meet my needs, so I went by my local place and talked about the process etc.

They talked about disassembly, going into an oven, grease outgassing from the barrel junction, making sure the face of the bolt, or maybe it was the lugs, are not left coated etc. And I began to wonder if this was a good idea.

Could this process ruin what I already have? Of course, they assure me it won't, but....

I see various manufacturers are cerekoting their stuff....is this done before or after assembly?

Has anyone heard of the process having an adverse effect?

In case you wonder why I am paranoid...had a 270 that was so accurate, I don't usually tell people how accurate it was because I they won't believe me, but my friends all knew this rifle. It was great. But the stock was not on quite straight and every year, it's wood would warp just a little and the POI would keep moving. Finally, I decided to have that barrel channel opened up a bit to 'solve that problem'. Hill Country did it for me and low and behold. It started shooting horribly (relatively speaking).

When I talked to them, they said it was probably pressure bedding diagonally and it shot well that way. They suggested bringing it back and they would figure it out etc. Never did, moved it on down the road. But left me a little paranoid over messing with a good thing.

So I thought I should check before ruining another great shooter

Thanks!

Haven't noticed a difference on the ones I've had done.

We have been Cerekoteing for several years now and have never had a complaint.

To the OP, reminds me of what my Buddy Vic roy used to say - "the enemy of good, is better!"

Well, I have to adjust that a bit....I think the enemy of good is ME trying to improve it

I have told myself a couple of times that "I shoulda left well enough alone"...

I haven't noticed any accuracy difference in my half-dozen Cerakoted rifles, whether it was done at the factory or afterward.

Super, I shall proceed then. The rifle is stainless, but I wanted an even better level of corrosion protection, as well as a different color.

Thanks!

I haven't seen a change in accuracy but I have see bolts not operate as smoothly.

Which do you prefer? Cerakote or DYI Dyna-Tek Gun Shield?

If it isn't coated inside the barrel, it should cause no problems.
I think Hill Country are pretty good guys. I would have given them an opportunity to check it out rather than have it shoot $HITTY.

RevMike,

I Gun-Shield traditionally blued rifles, but for really hard-use rifles I prefer Cerakote. A good example is my old FN Mauser .338 Winchester Magnum, which I built for extreme-weather use when traveling, especially to northern North America. Aside from the action, which has the sliding floorplate that never springs open, I installed a 98 Mauser military trigger converted to single-pull, and a Bansner High-Tech synthetic stock. It not only got Cerakoted but the bore is DBC'd for rust protection.

Should mention that when it came back, the bolt was a little hard to work, as Texasphotog mentioned. And the trigger pull was much harder than the 3 pounds it left with. Both were due to Cerakote on the working surface, but it only took a few minutes with a stone to scrape the Cerakote on those surfaces down a little, and get the bolt running slickly and the trigger pulling the way it should.

Just curious about your reasons for wanting this on a stainless rifle? I can understand wanting to change the color, but is the improvement in corrosion resistance really going to make any practical difference? I have a stainless rifle that is my main hunting rifle and I've been hunting it hard here in BC for over 15 years. Lots of backpack hunts where its in the element's for days and days, and I dont do anything except clean the bore a few times a year and lubricate moving parts on the bolt and trigger when needed. I don't see any corrosion anywhere.

John,

What s DBC'd and where do I get that?

Honestly, I can't say for sure one way or the other. I have heard both sides from multiple sources, that say yes, it is a significant and worthwhile step up, and others that say it's unnecessary.

I have seen tests and clearly, Cerakote is far more resistant, but is it necessary? I don't know, but one thing I do know is that not all stainless alloys are the same and some are apparently much more rust resistant than others. So for $150, it's cheap insurance if I am not risking anything. My idea (fantasy) is that this rifle will go with me everywhere and anywhere and be good to go. Honestly, considering my track record of actually getting anything done, I would probably have better ROI spending the money on donuts, but hey, we keep trying, right?

In addition, I generally don't like stainless hunting guns. Probably an old wive's tale, but I prefer a dark color. And then there are aesthetics, while I really like how it looks now, I think I'll like it better in a darker color. I go back and forth, but I have seen a rifle very similar to mine in tactical grey, and I really liked it. So all together, it's probably a good way for me to go.

catorres,

Dyna-Tek Bore Coat. It's primarily for reducing bore fouling (and it works well) but the very thin layer of clear ceramic also protects from rust as well. It's in my .338's bore for both reasons, since the rifle has a chrome-moly barrel.

You can order a kit from Brownells for $44.49 and install it yourself. One kit will treat a number of barrels.

I would not do this myself, I am notorious for messing stuff up. But I supposed I could have it done. Would you bother on a stainless barrel?

Not unless it fouled considerably.

I had a poor, abused Ruger Super Blackhawk - blued - Cerakoted in what they call their "stainless" "color". Choose this instead of having it rebelled, because I wanted the corrosion protection, and it made the gun a lot more attractive. Different deal that doing a rifle, and I haven't noticed any difference in function or accuracy, but it sure looks good!

Has it occurred to you that CREATING problems, where none really exist might be contributory to that unenviable skill ?

Calling down companies'(e.g. Hill Country) product quality, and the effects thereof on your rifle seems chickenchit in the extreme.

"I may have used two different lots of powder" ?

...and than you're immediately blaming Oehler's product....?

I'd say you need some sorta' help that's not going to be readily found here, Mate.

GTC.

They are really nice people. Not their fault, they did what I asked them to do. I asked them to open the channel and told them why and they did it. But I moved out of the country for a while after that and a few other things, so it was better sold and moved on. It still shot really well, just not as wonderfully as it had.

I had one of those when I was a kid. I convinced my parents that it was much more useful than a class ring when I was in 10th grade. That was a great gun, fun to shoot!

I have a .270 700 ADL I bought 15 years ago. It has a cheesy factory synthetic stock and a 22" barrel. I prefer a 24" barrel in .270 and a wood stock. I've almost pulled the trigger a couple of times to restock and rebarrel it but didn't. The rifle is scary accurate and I'm afraid it won't be if I mess with it.

cdb,

I have the same deal going with my Tikka CTR. I planned to switch the stock out for an M40 from B and C. But it shoots so well, I just can't get myself to risk it. I took a precision rifle course and the instructor checked it out and he told me not to mess with it. So I am leaving well enough alone too!

This.

Think of it as a new coat of paint on the truck, won't affect how the engine performs typically.

Rost,

Thanks for the reply! I became concerned when they started talking about sticking it in an oven and the grease between the barrel and the receiver, especially, leaking out over days or even weeks.

That started me to wonder if it was a good idea.

But like you, everyone, to a man, have agreed that they have seen no adverse effect.

Usually, SOMEBODY has a story or experience where they it was different for them, but in this case, it's been unanimous, so I think it must be good to go!

Just have to pick a color....

Thanks!

You'll be fine.

Me, I don't much care for the stuff because it scratches.. I'm still looking for the right finish and that might end up being salt bath nitride and the gun coat over that, but thats just me...

I've got 2 that are cerracoated, both scratched prettty quick, but I use my guns and never baby them.

The only firearm that didn't shoot as well after cerokoting was one I saw with some of the coating baked inside the barrel. Guy was bringing it back to get it re-done and the cerokoting removed.

Just a few spatters inside and he said he was scattering shots all over the paper.

butchlambert hit it on the head with his comment about it not being inside.

The one's I've had done shoot as well as they did before I had it done.

Jeff,

One of the companies I've used to Cerakote says the hardness/durability of the coating depends on the percentage of silica (ceramic). They used a very hard coating on my .338, and while I haven't abused that rifle since it was coated as much as my NULA 30-06 (which was coated in titanium nitride before I received it almost 20 years ago) the .338's finish has stood up as well, meaning it's intact. (Well, the NULA's coating is intact on all the steel stuff, but the trigger guard is aluminum and there are a few tiny marks there, because the aluminum itself got dinged.)

My pair of Kilimanjaro rifles was also Cerakoted, and apparently they used one of the harder versions, as they're essentially unmarked except for a tiny bit of wear around the edges of the muzzle and steel triggers guards. I've used the 7x57 as much as the NULA .30-06 since it was put together a decade ago. However, one of my other walnut-stocked Cerakoted rifles apparently got a very soft coating because it has several scratches even though I haven't hunted it nearly as much as the 7x57.

I've only used my 26 Nosler one hunting season, but its Cerakoting is totally unscratched, so apparently it's a pretty hard version.

Interesting info.

I"ll remember that for research if I ever do it again.

John,

I thought Cerakote all came from one company, is the difference by color? Did that company specify where or how one would get a higher silica coating?

No, the difference is by color. Apparently there are different hardnesses of Cerakote for different uses.

It was originally developed as a heat-dissipation coating for stuff that gets really hot, like engine manifolds, since silica transmits heat quickly. Which makes Cerakote an effective coating for the barrels on prairie-dog rifles.

The guy I talked to is no longer with that particular company, so the best thing to do would be to contact the Cerakote company.

I've had cerakote, Teflon, and kg-gunkote. All of them wear at contact points and high spots. I would not waste money coating stainless. Rub it down with some Froglube if you're worried about it.

Okay, thanks. I was on the phone with them today talking colors, and they are sending me some swatches and I'm to circle back with them when they arrive. So I'll ask then as we move forward.

Thanks for all your help and advice!

I do want a higher level of corrosion resistance, though in reality, while I hope to need it, year after year passes and I don't. But I still hope.

That being said, another reason is aesthetics. I really wanted a different look for various reasons, so Cerekote seems a good way to go as I get both in the end, whether I need it or not.