Is this normal?
- Thread starter CST
- Start date
Accuracy has been about 1inch+ at 100 with 140american gunner, 3/4 with 140eldmatch. Nothing to write home about. I don't know how much it's me or the barrel so I'm about to try working up some loads and try again tomorrow ... I expected better but too early to tell
It's amazing how horrible a barrel can look and still shoot lights out. If it shoots, who cares what it looks like.
It’s amazing how well rifles shot before cheap Chinese borescopes were in everyone’s hands….
Only weird thing about that throat is why the entire leade doesn’t look that way.
Edit: Also looks like you spun something in the throat? Abrasive?
Edit: Also looks like you spun something in the throat? Abrasive?
Nope...just used a standard nylon brush and brass jags with patches per break in instructions.... Even a brass brush or jb bore paste wouldn't cut into steel like that.
They still shoot the same , nothing wrong with knowing what the bore looks like . Amazing how whiney people get over a simple tool they choose not to use .
That barrel looks top-tier compared to some of the factory shit I've seen... And that factory shit would still shoot lights-out.
Also, I wouldn't judge the rifle's accuracy capabilities with factory ammo... JMHO.
Also, I wouldn't judge the rifle's accuracy capabilities with factory ammo... JMHO.
Is a borescope a simple tool, or one that causes a severe level of neuroticism in many of its users?
Amen. Never owned one or plan to.
OP I would shoot it some more and see if you see any accuracy issues. I don't think you will but if you did I am sure @bohem Josh will take care of you.
Yes, those machining marks and the very minor tool chatter in the barrel are normal. You've already managed sub-moa at 100 with factory match, so the accuracy is already there. Go shoot it.
Funny story about my daily work life that kind of relates to borescope threads. I work in a screw machine shop where the QC dept has a microscope to aid in checking parts (we machinists also use it to check tooling conditions, tooling alignments when more than one tool is cutting on the same feature, check our parts, etc). Now that may sound like a good idea but, letting the QC personnel, who has zero machining experience, use the microscope for part inspection has pretty much driven all of us to the edge of sanity. I liken it to handing a machine gun to a monkey. You can teach the monkey how to use the tool, but they will never understand the damage it can cause to everyone else. We spend a hell of a lot of time sorting for "defects" that cannot be seen with the naked eye nor have any affect to the form, fit, or function of the parts we are making.
