Too much time to think while sitting on a lawn mower! Maybe this is not the place to ask this but since we collect "Springfields", one of the first things we look at is bore condition. And, is it the original barrel. So I'm wondering why the US waited so long to phase out chlorate primers. The ammo for civilians by the time of WWII had been long since loaded with "Klean-bore" "Rustless", and "Staynless" primers. I remember reading years ago that Winchester offered the use of their patented priming compound for war time use without royalties but the government stayed with the Frankfort Arsenal compound. The thought was the FA primer was more reliable. But non-corrosive priming was reliable enough for the M1icon carbine.

Of course Winchester's motives were not entirely altruistic: If we had lost that war, Winchester would have no further need of patents!

Most of the one-time military rifles we see have been arsenal overhauled, often more than once. And a lot of that is due to rusted, pitted barrels. Hard to clean a barrel under field conditions, let alone, combat conditions.

It seems to me that a lot of resourses were wasted for the lack of a non-rusting primer.

Any thoughts or opinions?
Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.