Here's the thing - if the coating is so complicated to apply that it takes a PhD in materials science and a reading of the Necronomicon from a dreary cemetery crypt underneath a full moon in order to go on correctly, it's not a very good product. Especially when by comparison there are other finishes that work fine without all that jazz.
Billy,
I remember the big problems with what I recall was your first Cerakoting job.
Am also very aware of the technical hoops recommended by the Cerakote folks for installing it, having read the "manual" more than once--which is why I never even wanted to apply it myself.
But it's a little weird that so many of our Cerakoted rifles haven't had any problem--though all of them were black-coated, which as Art mentioned tends to work better. The exception is the Weatherby Vanguard I got last year, which has a tan coating--which Weatherby calls Dark Earth. Haven't used it enough yet to come to any firm conclusions yet.
While this discussion has been going on I remembered a 6th rifle, a Remington 788 .222 with an well-abused barrel I had rebarreled by E.R. Shaw to .223 nearly 20 years ago, with what was then considered a "fast twist" barrel (1-9). The barrel got Cerakoted, partly because they wanted to know if the coating would keep it cooler during prairie dog shooting. (The origin of Cerakote was as an internal-combustion engine "paint," partly because ceramics--glass--are an efficient heat-transfer coating, helping engines to run cooler.) It did seem to keep the barrel from heating up as fast, and cool down quicker--but there wasn't any other rifle on hand with an uncoated barrel of the same contour, chambered in .223 to compare it to.
Another factor in my experience is that I didn't choose whoever applied it. Instead the rifle/barrel companies did.
John
