</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> The barrel chamber has to withstand the same pressure as the receiver and breech block. Hence the proof mark on each of these 3 components. I'd guess the barrel would be as hard as the receiver IMO. Been wrong before...maybe that's why we don't see the number of hardness dimples on the barrel O.D. like we do the rcvr./breech link....not to mention appearance considerations. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Steel does not need to be hard to resist pressure, rather, it needs to be tough. These two properties are kind of like opposites. eg Rubber is tough but not very hard, glass is hard but not very tough.
Barrels don't need to be hard (more ruber like)as there is no requiremnt for wear resistance except for the occassional soft bullet going up the spout.
Actions on the other hand require resistance to wear and abrasion hence the need for extra hardness (more glass like)in this area.
Hardening steel costs money 1. for the treatment itself 2. for the after treatment testing.
It would seem strange to me that you would harden something i.e. spend money, on something that didn't require it and slowed your manufacturing process down to boot.
I'd bet that Luger barrels are machined from raw non-heat-treated tool steel billets with no post manufacturing heat treatment either and with just a quick polish and rust blue to finish off.
Anyone got one of those hardness testers?
<img border="0" alt="[blabla]" title="" src="graemlins/a_smil17.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[byebye]" title="" src="graemlins/wave.gif" />