Hi,
I know it probably has been asked before but i cannot find any answer:
Is the main difference, between BFH and Standard, only the increased life of the barrel?
no accuracy increase?
I’m just trying to justify the extra $90 (BCM) but if there isn’t anything else but increased life, i think i’ll get the standard. any help would be appreciated.
By the way, it would mostly be used at the range, probably around 1000 rounds a year, maybe a class a year or something…
From the info you give the standard barrel will serve you well. You’ll get lots of service from it (many thousands of rounds over the years is no problem).
The BFH is an advantage for those who shoot ALOT regularly, regularly logging many thousands of rounds per year in training, competition, etc. Guns that get heavy use, machine guns, etc.
For the average shooter who puts 1k-3k a year through his AR it’s not a big concern. Both my BCM’s are standard barrels and I’m not concerned about it at all. I carry an AR daily but don’t log huge amounts of rounds down range like some of these guys.
If my model was available in BFH, I’d go BFH.
But… Grant (who knows a little about Colts here) has posted that THEY (Colt) find no real difference in accuracy or longevity in CHF barrels over their mil standard barrels.
But, in general, CHF is known as a better technique of manufacture, and serves well in the manufacture of machine gun barrels where thre is much full auto firing.
I went BCM STD recently, because there isn’t a BFH Carbine LW upper. I wanted to use an FSP Carbine rail.
Also keep in mind that the “Dirty 14” which BCM used as a demo of their longevity, which shoots with serviceable accuracy at over 30,000 rds has a STD barrel. Would be nice to see a BFH - same model, same round count, as a comparison, but again, Dirty 14 did fine.
Like I answered on CGN to the exact thread you posted here: It is not needed, but is a nice luxury to have.
Thanks for re-posting my comments. It is nice to see that people actually pay attention to what I write.
If I was NOT buying a Colt, then I would buy a hammer forged barrel (if that company offered it).
C4
from a manufacturing standpoint hammer forging is cheaper per unit and higher quality than button rifling. The reason it still costs more is the hammer forging machine is very expensive ($3-4 million I think). Only a few companies have the machine and most companies source these barrels from them.
I would still TRUST BCM STD barrels as much as I would a Colt. (From what I’ve read - so if you have experience to the contrary, I stand corrected).
BCM is all over the Mil-Spec, and is quite tedious in applying it - as apparent from SME’s and evidenced by the Dirty 14 test, but again, 80+ bucks for CHF may be worth it IF available in your model.
Keep in mind that DD seems to have some middy uppers available on the street now for a good price, with LW CHF barrels.
Cold hammer forging is more of a barrel insurance than anything. You will probably never really notice a difference, but it could hold up better WAY down the round count road.
I’ve got 2 hammer forged, 2 standards, and 2 S.S.'s. The hammer forged is nice but not a deal breaker either way for me. The only reason I own hammer forged is because that’s what the Centurion barrels were. I like their barrels, the profile, and the accuracy. Hammer forging is just an extra, maybe.
I still don’t get it. In either case the gas and bullets are wearing the chrome lining not the barrel steel (or CMV) so how does hammer forging increase barrel life? Is it increasing the hardness of the chrome lining?
To that end, wasn’t “Filthy 14” a standard 16" mid length CMV barrel? It ran 30,000+ rounds and Pat Rogers was still happy with the accuracy.
When you factor in barrel cost to 30k of ammo, barrels look extremely cheap.
Cameron
Same thing I was going to post.
Cam,
This will interest you:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1175829&postcount=7
“FYI: Talking with Pat this weekend, Filthy 14 has over 43,000 rounds on it and still shoots 1.5 inch groups at 50 yards. It will be rebuilt.” From ‘RogerinTPA’
EDIT: And, yes, it’s std mil-spec BCM barrel steel. Pat has stated that he has since chosen to buy BCMs with BFH models to save money on long term parts replacement costs.
wow, lots of good info. thanks guys. Looks like Standard LW will be all i need
I can find zero difference in accuracy in either types, even from same manufacturers. Longevity? Well that depends a lot on the type and / or rate of fire. But I will say that I shoot and teach a lot of select fire and our primary barrels were Colt barrels and I see barrels with tens of thousands even many 50-70K plus barrels still holding good MOA numbers. I have tracked the round count in my T&E Colt 10.3" MK18 barrel over the past 1.5 years. It has utterly been abused with a great deal of select fire and logged right at 30K rounds in that time frame. Only now is it slightly opening up in group size. Probably about .5MOA.
As for a CHF barrel in this platform and longevity. Well, I am working on that one still, but I haven’t reached the above numbers, just quite yet. 
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not really siding with either method.
Being the shooter I am, running anywhere from 5-8k of 5.56 through my guns a year, it will take me a while to reach the mark where I will actually maybe notice a difference between the two. (which I believe will be around 40-50,000, my most fired M4 only has 15,000)
Honestly I don’t really think it makes a difference for the “average” serious M4 shooter, putting only 8-10k a year through their guns. I only own one CHF barrel (DD) and it is the one with 15k through it. It will take me another 5 or 6 years to reach a very high round count.
I am about to purchase a BCM mid length lightweight with a standard barrel. Why? Because I know it will take me years to ever reach 40-50k rounds, and by then, I could have bought 65* new barrels. I don’t really see why you need to spend $80 extra to have a CHF barrel, when in the end what does it matter? Filthy 14 proves standard barrels hold up fine.
That is certainly my rationale, and no one has ever been able to explain to me how the chrome lining of a hammer forged barrel wears slower that the chrome lining in a standard barrel.
Cameron
This is speculation on my part, but could it be that the difference lies in the throat erosion, and probably to a lesser degree, the muzzle erosion after wearing through the chrome lining?
I got the BFH middy cause they are out of the standard barrel and I didn’t want to wait for them…assuming they continue to produce the standard in the future I will likely buy another. As to the quality, I see BCM or Paul Buffoni as someone who really cares about quality whereas Colt and the long history they enjoy also produces a quality piece because they must…well that is a little harsh as the commercial products they have been producing of late seem to be of outstanding quality…I hate credit 
If you are comparing a Colt barrel against a HF barrel (no matter who made it), your results do not suprise me.
C4
Yup. Filthy14 was a standard.
If you have the budget to find out if CHF adds rounds, then not going that route is silly. If that $90 worth of ammo has value to you right now, just get the standard, and shoot it more.
Throat and gas port erosion is what affects barrel function most, and accuracy drop will be the reason to rebarrel an upper anyway, where CHF will have more of an advantage per my research… but all of this happens after a few thousand $ worth of ammunition, and even for 98% of users here, long after you’ve lost interest in that rifle.