Lapua lot testing and barrel wear question

[orkan]

You do mention that you clean your rifle, which part? Just the bolt?

Bolt, action, crown after 20-30k rounds, chamber if I swap ammo types a lot it will get gummy on humid days. Bolt nose and breech face is what gets the most maintenance. I probably do that every 2k rounds or so these days to keep ejection reliable. It can go until about 3k before it starts having some issues.

 

[Tim7139]

I understand what your saying. I guess as the case and bullet are the same diameter technically there is nothing to measure. Coming from CF it was the simplest way to describe where in the chamber we are talking.

Technically from the case mouth to the leade would be the throat.

I appreciate you explaining how it is with the 22lr.

Also I appreciate very much that you answered the question I incorrectly asked. I have learned something. Unfortunately @Tim7139 seems to enjoy pointing out how people are wrong with out actually helping. It is unfortunate that so much knowledge will be lost.

What exactly did you not like about my nice, direct, response?
What, exactly got pointed out other than information you asked for you little fucking hothouse blossom. Information lost???Are you serious ?? Exactly how much basic shit has to be spoon fed to some of you winy infants?

 

[gkgeiger]

Everyone should report this prick and maybe we can get him banned.

 

[Gleedus]

Case mouth to leade is freebore. Leade is still the throat.

Yes some people refer to the distance from the case to leade as the freebore. Further if you order a reamer from JGS the refer to the case to rifling as the Leade and the angle as the throat. I guess even the manufacturers cant agree.

 

[Gleedus]

@orkan are you typical shooting lapua? I have wondered if the "black ring of death" is harder with oh lets say CCI sv then Lapua because of the lub differences.

 

[Gleedus]

What exactly did you not like about my nice, direct, response?
What, exactly got pointed out other than information you asked for you little fucking hothouse blossom. Information lost???Are you serious ?? Exactly how much basic shit has to be spoon fed to some of you winy infants?

#1 all you said is I'm wrong. I actually have no problem with being wrong and learning.

#2 you understood the question even though I asked It wrong. Yet you didnt answer the question.

Actually I dont know that you understood the question but with all the knowledge you have accumulated over the years I expect you did.

#3 the first part of my question was about the carbon ring. Your "nice, direct, response" had nothing to do with a carbon ring which was actually the main part of my question.

#4 when I suggested with my "nice, direct, response" that you were not helpful you had to resort to name calling once again.

#5 you assume a lot as I am no longer a infant. Actually have a full time job already. Hard to believe but true.

You often bring up interesting points an comments to show other sides of discussions but too often you ruin a good conversation by your "nice, direct, response". Dont lose what little credibility you have left by getting tied in a knot when ever someone answers your "nice, direct, response" with a "nice, direct, response" in return.

 

[Tim7139]

#1 all you said is I'm wrong. I actually have no problem with being wrong and learning.

#2 you understood the question even though I asked It wrong. Yet you didnt answer the question.

Actually I dont know that you understood the question but with all the knowledge you have accumulated over the years I expect you did.

#3 the first part of my question was about the carbon ring. Your "nice, direct, response" had nothing to do with a carbon ring which was actually the main part of my question.

#4 when I suggested with my "nice, direct, response" that you were not helpful you had to resort to name calling once again.

#5 you assume a lot as I am no longer a infant. Actually have a full time job already. Hard to believe but true.

You often bring up interesting points an comments to show other sides of discussions but too often you ruin a good conversation by your "nice, direct, response". Dont lose what little credibility you have left by getting tied in a knot when ever someone answers your "nice, direct, response" with a "nice, direct, response" in return.

# 36 nice polite , valid question.
#37 direct response, zero opinion.

Is there something here I'm missing ?

 

[Tim7139]

Everyone should report this prick and maybe we can get him banned.

Living proof.....men actually get menopausal ?

 

[MarinePMI]

Living proof.....men actually get menopausal ?

Hey, save your shit for the Pit. Not in the tech forums.

Take a few days off to cool down. Smdh...

 

[grauhanen]

I hadn't fired my rifle I used today for several weeks. Probably a couple months actually. First round went exactly where I would expect it to go. No first round shift. 11k rounds since cleaned.

It's strange to me that the concept that someone might have figured something out that doesn't have the problems people have grown to accept as "normal," is met with such hostility and nastiness.

Not unexpected, but certainly strange.

The first shot went exactly where expected. As a result, "someone might have figured something out that doesn't have the problems people have grown to accept as 'normal'..."

This is not an epiphany, an intuitive or new understanding of a regular problem with .22 rimfire.

What's been "figured out" is simply that a .22LR bore needs fouling to shoot consistently. It's a well known fact that from a clean bore the first shot, or indeed the first few shots, will not go to POA. It's also well known that a few fouling shots are needed to coat the bore with lube. Only after there's sufficient lube in the bore will rounds go where they are supposed to go.

This is not new knowledge. While it might be surprising to someone relatively new to serious .22LR shooting and the best practices associated with it, it's well understood and familiar to all seasoned (pardon the pun) shooters. These shooters, including every successful international and Olympic shooter and top level BR shooters (whose advice is invariably to clean regularly), understand that to reach the best accuracy potential of their rifles, they must clean regularly. They also know that it's typically necessary to shoot fouling rounds throuch a clean bore before shooting for score. And they know from experience that their rifles deliver better accuracy when they've been cleaned more often than less.

Leaving a bore uncleaned after many thousands of rounds causes an accumulation of the different kinds of lube and the detritus -- primer compound, unburned powder, carbon, and lead -- of the many varieties of ammo used in the rifle. It also results in the build up of carbon deposits in the leade area that are detrimental to accuracy. The carbon ring is a real problem and decreases accuracy. It's something that can happen to every rifle barrel.

In short, top level accuracy can't be maintained with a bore that isn't regularly cleaned. To argue otherwise is naive and is a disservice to other inexperienced shooters who are looking to get the best performance from their rifles.

 

[Jadams]

Orkan, are you saying that if you clean your barrel that accuracy will be reduced? I would love to see you do the following test with one of your accurate rifles that hasn't had the bore touched for many thousands of rounds.

1. Shoot 10 five shot groups at 50 yards with a know good lot of ammo and record the results (post the targets)
2. On the same day thoroughly clean the bore making sure the carbon ring is completely removed.
3. Shoot 20 five shot groups at 50 yards with the same lot of ammo and record and post the result.

It would be interesting to see how many shots it takes for the groups to get back to original uncleaned group size if ever and if the groups are worse or improved due to cleaning. Orkan is the perfect person to do this test as he's the only one I know of that has high precision rifles that haven't had the bore clean in over 10K rounds. This would complete the test cycle. A=dirty bore directly compared to B= clean bore of the same rifle/ ammo lot on the same day/ conditions. Currently Orkan only has/ shows dirty bore results. I have no speculation as to what the results will be but would sure be interested and it would likely guide my cleaning regime in the future.

 

[Tokay444]

Everyone should report this prick and maybe we can get him banned.

Because you wish to remain ignorant?

 

[gkgeiger]

Because you wish to remain ignorant?

Thanks, but I’m doing just fine.

 

[Tokay444]

This is Glynn Loftin.
Glynn Loftin is retired from the competitive scene.
Glynn Loftin used to be a highly competitive IISF shooter that would travel the world and shoot for Team Canada.
Glynn Loftin still shoots a lot for fun.
Glynn Loftin shoots a very competitive level Grünig rifle.
I shoot with Glynn Loftin often.
I’ve personally witnessed Glynn Loftin clean his gun after a couple hundred rounds, and every time he packs up to leave the range.
I wouldn’t even have the heart to ask Glynn Loftin how many thousands of rounds he goes between cleaning for fear of being laughed at by Glynn Loftin.
Glynn Loftin shoots better than you.

 

[Tokay444]

Thanks, but I’m doing just fine.

Are you advocating for or against going 1000s of rounds between cleaning the bore of a 22LR?

 

[gkgeiger]

Are you advocating for or against going 1000s of rounds between cleaning the bore of a 22LR?

I'm not advocating anything. You must have me mixed up with someone else. I haven't made any claims that I know more than anyone else. All I have said is the guy that got banned deserved it. He has made some post and a PM's to me that were not deserved. I'm just an old guy shooting RFBR that cleans his rifle after every outing. Does that help you understand my post?

 

[pete_f]

where is the proof they dont buy pallets?

My kid is one of the individuals on that list, the proof is on my credit card bills.

 

[Tokay444]

My kid is one of the individuals on that list, the proof is on my credit card bills.

So because you can’t afford to buy him pallets means the rest of the world’s Olympic shooters don’t buy pallets?
Does he let his barrel go 1000s of rounds between cleanings? That’s the real question here.

 

[Hozzie]

Orkan, are you saying that if you clean your barrel that accuracy will be reduced? I would love to see you do the following test with one of your accurate rifles that hasn't had the bore touched for many thousands of rounds.

1. Shoot 10 five shot groups at 50 yards with a know good lot of ammo and record the results (post the targets)
2. On the same day thoroughly clean the bore making sure the carbon ring is completely removed.
3. Shoot 20 five shot groups at 50 yards with the same lot of ammo and record and post the result.

It would be interesting to see how many shots it takes for the groups to get back to original uncleaned group size if ever and if the groups are worse or improved due to cleaning. Orkan is the perfect person to do this test as he's the only one I know of that has high precision rifles that haven't had the bore clean in over 10K rounds. This would complete the test cycle. A=dirty bore directly compared to B= clean bore of the same rifle/ ammo lot on the same day/ conditions. Currently Orkan only has/ shows dirty bore results. I have no speculation as to what the results will be but would sure be interested and it would likely guide my cleaning regime in the future.

For the sake of openness, I shoot BR and do clean after every card as most do so you can take my response from that point of view.

While a nice test, this unfortunately will not prove anything. It will simply be one test that shows one result for one rifle. There are also a lot of terms that get thrown out there that I think are important to distinguish the difference. There is accuracy and there is precision. Most here seemed to be focused on the accuracy side of things as it seems shooting groups is used for the most part for comparisons.

On the BR side we are looking for precision. We of course need accuracy, but we also require that our shots are precise. More significantly we need to be precise when moving from bull to bull. There are of course other disciplines that need this as well so it isn't to say BR is the only sport for this, simply that the level of precision we require to be competitive is typically greater than any other game.

Backing up to the test requested above for a second. The problem is that proving anything takes thousands or even tens of thousands of test to make something statistically valid. Some of you may know or have heard of Landy. He has a tunnel and has shot thousands of ARA cards in his tunnel and he will tell you that even with his data, some things are still hard to statistically prove as valid.

In the BR world, there is almost undisputed consensus (I am even comfortable saying 100% undisputed consensus but there is always 1 person that just has to disagree to disagree) that cleaning is required after ever card or two. It is not only necessary, but required if you truly want to be competitive. This has essentially been proven by the hundreds of thousands of targets shot and the results that comes with those. I can understand that for those new to the game or quite frankly those that don't need to same level of precision that you may think or even believe that you can get by without cleaning regularly.

I am not going to argue with someone over it other than to say do what works for you in the type of shooting you like to do. If you ever get a chance to shoot BR, you will soon come to realize that is to your advantage to clean regularly.

I will make one last comment that has been brought up and is true, but with proper technique can be avoided. Many barrels have been ruined by overcleaning IMPROMPERLY. Cleaning in and of itself will not hurt a barrel if it is done with care and some attention. It isn't a race to clean your barrel. Take your time, use proper fitting bore guides and rods, and don't act like you are scrubbing a pan with caked on grime.

Whatever you do, go have fun and realize these forums aren't real life. You will not see these types of things at a match.

 

[Gleedus]

So because you can’t afford to buy him pallets means the rest of the world’s Olympic shooters don’t buy pallets?
Does he let his barrel go 1000s of rounds between cleanings? That’s the real question here.

Tokay let it drop...

Most of us on here are field shooters. Orkan likely has a pretty good Idea on lot sizes.

Nobody will argue that Glynn is good. In a prs type match there are guys who would do better then him. Just because a guy does well at one thing doesnt mean he knows everything. We only know what we know.

For some of us on here we have found more consistency in not cleaning. Nobody has ever hinted or insinuated that not cleaning makes a more precise.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a F class shooter that has been showing up at our PRS matches. He is very obsessed with his reloading practices and development. I suggested that for this discipline he will not be able to shoot the difference. There was a interesting one sided conversation that followed... I learnt a couple things. It could be that Glynn also can not shoot the difference. I dont know that but why wouldnt he clean? Everyone in that field teaches cleaning and why would he chance a poor score on not cleaning! There are two sides to this coin neither is entirely right or wrong.

@Hozzie comment is spot on with the difficulty in "proving" some of these fine details. Lets keep this calm.

Does anyone even remember what the topic of this thread was when it started

 

[Tokay444]

Then the caveat in Orkan’s video should be, “If you’re not looking for the absolute best precision and accuracy out of your .22LR, then you don’t need to clean it.”

 

[pete_f]

I don’t know or care how they do it in your country. I know how they do it in mine.
A few Olympic shooters train out of one of the clubs I shoot out of. Direct from the horse’s mouth.

The information that I posted is an accurate picture of the current state of Olympic rifle here in the USA.
I am well aware of the significant differences in level of support in other countries.
In that this is a USA based forum, I think the majority of readers here are US based and your statement will give them the wrong idea of the challenges our Olympic rifle athletes face.
As I said in my first post, I did not write that to challenge you, simply to present the reality of Olympic rifle here in the US.
I see in a later post that you indicate that you are located in Canada, everyone reading your comment would have been better served if you had indicated that in your post instead of making the misleading blanket statement that you did.
Additionally, I have had the pleasure to know and shoot with Glynn and several other Canadian shooters at matches on both sides of the boarder.

 

[Tokay444]

The information that I posted is an accurate picture of the current state of Olympic rifle here in the USA.
I am well aware of the significant differences in level of support in other countries.
In that this is a USA based forum, I think the majority of readers here are US based and your statement will give them the wrong idea of the challenges our Olympic rifle athletes face.
As I said in my first post, I did not write that to challenge you, simply to present the reality of Olympic rifle here in the US.
I see in a later post that you indicate that you are located in Canada, everyone reading your comment would have been better served if you had indicated that in your post instead of making the misleading blanket statement that you did.
Additionally, I have had the pleasure to know and shoot with Glynn and several other Canadian shooters at matches on both sides of the boarder.

It’s no secret that I’m Canadian.
So are you a cleaner or a non cleaner?

 

[orkan]

@orkan are you typical shooting lapua? I have wondered if the "black ring of death" is harder with oh lets say CCI sv then Lapua because of the lub differences.

My primary ammo is RWS R50. I put probably 2000rnds of various lapua and various eley through this rifle. I never really kept track of how much of each I shot. For the past 7-8k rounds or so its been only RWS R50.

In short, top level accuracy can't be maintained with a bore that isn't regularly cleaned. To argue otherwise is naive and is a disservice to other inexperienced shooters who are looking to get the best performance from their rifles.

Disservice huh? Just because you say it, does not make it so. What I said flew right over your head... and there you are trying to tell me I’m new again. lol But hey... who am I to argue against the “everyone knows” arguments?

“It HeRtZ aCcUruCy.”

Meanwhile I’m over here shooting flies, literally, 9,000 rounds into a dirty barrel, on camera, uncut, unedited, and with people watching while it was recorded. I've shot probably 150 flies with that same rifle at 50yds. Yet you'd have me and others here believe I have an accuracy problem. What a joke. A disgusting joke, that only a twisted individual with a warped mind would think is funny.

Orkan, are you saying that if you clean your barrel that accuracy will be reduced? I would love to see you do the following test with one of your accurate rifles that hasn't had the bore touched for many thousands of rounds.

1. Shoot 10 five shot groups at 50 yards with a know good lot of ammo and record the results (post the targets)
2. On the same day thoroughly clean the bore making sure the carbon ring is completely removed.
3. Shoot 20 five shot groups at 50 yards with the same lot of ammo and record and post the result.

It would be interesting to see how many shots it takes for the groups to get back to original uncleaned group size if ever and if the groups are worse or improved due to cleaning. Orkan is the perfect person to do this test as he's the only one I know of that has high precision rifles that haven't had the bore clean in over 10K rounds. This would complete the test cycle. A=dirty bore directly compared to B= clean bore of the same rifle/ ammo lot on the same day/ conditions. Currently Orkan only has/ shows dirty bore results. I have no speculation as to what the results will be but would sure be interested and it would likely guide my cleaning regime in the future.

@Jadams Thanks for your post. Its nice when someone actually wants to have a conversation instead of just argue their point. Regarding your request, I've done that once with a rifle I had shooting in the .1's, and it took over 1000rnds to come back, and never did come back to what it was before I cleaned it. So while I appreciate your desire for knowledge, and I too think it would be a worthwhile test... I will not TOUCH this rifles bore with a cleaning implement until I have cause to do so. I have 22,000 rounds of this lot number of R50 remaining... and until it's gone, the tuner setting will not be touched, nor will the guard screws or anything else. I have a pre-recall TT diamond trigger in there... and I refuse to break the interface to get it out. However, once the rifle demonstrates that it doesn't want to shoot well anymore... I will happily perform this test and will for certain create an article or something on it. It has already been planned if/when it happens. I don't take getting a rifle shooting like mine lightly... and I won't be repeating the mistakes of the past just to prove a point.

@Jadams The remainder of this post is not meant for you, nor anyone else that has conversed with me respectfully, so please don't take offense.

I have documented the performance of the rifle in question, as well as several other rifles that we have produced, over thousands of rounds. This thread is demonstrative of the worst kind of internet filth. I have documented the ability to place bullets within .1 tenth of an inch at 50yds, in every way conceivable. I have provided pictures, video, live streams, and detailed explanations. Done so over the course of nearly a year. Still, people claim I am wrong. Still no one is asking questions about what we've done with these rifles to make this so. Granted, I wouldn't tell them if they asked... but the concept that they know all things, and that what we are doing can not be so, is despicable, disgusting, disturbing, and utterly predictable.

Cognitive Dissonance at its finest. No matter how much evidence I provide, they disagree anyway. The more evidence I provide, the more strongly they disagree. They use ad hominem attacks, try to attack my reputation, and vilify me. They claim the accolades of other shooters (not their own) as justification for their barrage. Yet if they are right, and I am wrong, how can the evidence I've provided exist? Their next argument will be that the evidence is fabricated. All of it. ...and the live stream viewers were planted by me. The depths that people will go to in order to ensure new information, new products, and new techniques never see the light of day is astounding. They decide what is to be, and what is not to be, in their own mind and then anything that does not immediately fit their view is attacked, ruthlessly.

It is by this mechanism that the worst things to ever happen on this earth, have been allowed to happen.

I'll say it again... literally shooting flies on command... yet people claiming I have an accuracy problem and that what I'm saying can not be happening... while its happening. Are they claiming that instead of shooting flies, I'll be able to shoot gnats... if only I was smart enough to do as they say? ...because I haven't heard that argument yet. Then there's the fact that this rifle is a REPEATER. I'm doing this with a rifle that is feeding rounds from a magazine. I've seen quite a lot of benchrest shooters, with benchrest rifles, not be able to replicate the performances I've demonstrated for nearly a year with this rifle. I have no illusions that they aren't out there, or that there is a small number of them... Yet it remains, mag fed rifle, shooting to this level is pretty nice for a field shooter.

I was told the same thing about cleaning 22lr as those are found saying here. It wasn't until my good friend, a state champion benchrest smallbore shooter suggested I try a different path, that I decided to find out for myself. I will not remain ignorant, and I will not do things just because "this is how it's been done." I will seek truth for myself and the doing of things, and gaining experience is what reveals that truth to me. I have adequately proven to myself across dozens of rifles, across over a decade of time, across several hundred thousand rounds fired... that I don't need to clean my 22lr rifles as much as the internet would have me believe I should.

I am not here to try and convince you to do things my way. I'm here to try to convince you to hold to the truth. You can know no truth but what you've discovered through your own experiences. If I have not provided enough evidence to get you to "try" my methods and gain your own experience, then we have nothing to discuss. I will hold no responsibility for what is in your mind. Attack me as you will, it really makes no difference. I will not take the "advice" of anonymous internet personalities over what I've witnessed through my own labors. I'd venture a guess that no one in this thread has fired as many purposeful precision 22lr rounds down range in the past decade as I have. Your attacks weigh NOTHING against the mass of what I've seen in that time.

I'd venture a guess that most people won't get 10,000 rounds of high end 22lr through their rifle in the next 5-10 years. Some of you might. ... or maybe you'd rather bludgeon me with all the reasons why you can't/won't try it. I've done my work. I've shown it... and @Hozzie is right... it's taken me hundreds of thousands of rounds to make any sense of any of it.

However, lets say I'm wrong for a moment... and cleaning your rifle every 50-100 rounds as has been suggested DOES indeed improve accuracy and precision. OK... how much? Can ANY of you prove it? Do you have a body of work I can reference? A video to watch? A quantifiable metric? ... because NONE of you have said what that metric is, if it even exists. Then... here we are on a forum dedicated to practical field shooting and you're sitting here with a straight face suggesting that someone cleans their rifle halfway through an NRL match, or 3-4 times per match, in field conditions? As if it's going to be a super good thing to shove a cleaning rod down the bore with a bunch of dust on it and wind blowing all over the place? If any of you spent as much time actually shooting as you spend talking about shooting this forum and every other forum would be a respectful place to exchange ideas. We could all learn something... but instead everyone that is actually shooting enough to make some discoveries is relentlessly attacked until they refuse to participate.

It's no wonder that I've watched the benchrest disciplines dwindle to nothing over the past two decades... while PRS/NRL has EXPLODED in popularity with new people coming in all the time. I know a few benchresters that are really nice people, and I can see now whey they complain about you lot all the time. They literally reference going to matches as "work" because being around the majority of you is so punishing. Tell you what benchresters... I'll challenge any one of you to four ARA cards. You sit on the bench with your single shot rifle... I'll go prone. You can use all your normal rests, even one piece if that's what you want. You can even drag out as many of your flag stations as you like and scatter them all over the range. We shoot for score. Most points wins. We'll have 30 seconds to run each card. 25 bulls in 30 seconds, shot for score. Should be a cake walk for all those SUPER accurate rifles you guys have that I apparently don't. I'll bring my crappy non-accurate rifle that was shooting flies in the video I posted earlier.

Yeah, I could let one of my kids shoot against you and they'd still clean your clocks by those rules. You'd probably be lucky to get through the first 5 bulls before the clock was gone. So understand something. I'm happy about what you can achieve in benchrest. I think it's cool and I respect the discipline. Yet you might want to glance around and ask yourself why the number of competitors keeps getting smaller. People don't like to be talked to, the way many of you like to talk to people. So for the last time, I'm not talking about benchrest when I talk. ... and if our rifles and our methods have an accuracy problem, I've yet to hear that from any customer. Everyone's happy with a rifle shooting in the .2's that doesn't demand great effort from them. They can have a rifle shooting in the .2's for thousands and thousands of rounds. My experience has taught me they can do it for TENS of thousands of rounds. Just load magazines, and go cut little bug holes. As often as they want. Their wives, girlfriends, kids... everyone can have fun with 22lr precision and they don't need benchrest black magic, one piece rests, and sometimes not even tuners. They can buy one of our rifles and just shoot as much as they want with what limited time they may have.

It's fun.

This thread isn't.

Thank you for reminding me why I just shouldn't participate. All it does is cause grief. I really need to learn to just not respond when someone berates me or my work. Thank you very much for the education, and the reminder. I'll try to learn to stay away from these kinds of threads. I'm REALLY going to try. Now if you'll excuse me while I go wash the filth of this thread off.

 

[Tokay444]

TLDR.
A fly isn’t a .03125” dot. You missed that a bunch.
And I thought you weren’t coming back to this thread? You’ve been back twice since then.

 

[JG26_Irish]

I agree with pretty much everything said by Hozzie. I have been a life long shooter, hunter and sometimes competitor. I hunted and plinked as a kid and never cleaned by iron sight 22 rifle. I thought it shot pretty good with the Remington HV ammo that I usually had. I did not know better at the time. I competed with rimfire rifle in 3P matches in college. Won a few matches, lost a few. Was generally #1 or #2 on our college team. I don't remember ever cleaning those rifles either. Not sure why, but that was a long time ago. I got back into rimfire precision shooting about 9 years ago and shot a few ARA unlimited matches without real success but I was shooting a factory Winchester, not a custom match rifle. Mostly shot for fun. Over time I realized that a clean bore shot better after a few fouling shots. Some rifles took longer to come back in after cleaning but all shot better clean. Still I usually only cleaned at the end of a match. I was still learning. Still, old dogs can learn new tricks. Began shooting ARA BR again competitively last year. Was still cleaning only at the end of each match. Seemed to be doing OK. Attended a State tournament which was 6 cards instead of 3 or 4. Six cards with foulers and sighters would have been about 200 rds more or less and that seemed like too many to go without cleaning. But, I was not that serous that that stage of the season so, I plowed on. First three cards were good but the 4th showed a drop in score. So, I cleaned the bored after the 4th card. The 5th card was better even with a difficult wind that kicked up. So, I cleaned the bore after the 5th card also. Last card was near perfect score with only one dropped shot. It also won the match. Since that day, I made a habit of doing a light cleaning with 2 wet and 2 dry patches after every card and a thorough detailed cleaning after 3 cards or when it was possible to do so and after the end of every match. That method won two state championships and one national tournament and did pretty well for the full season. It don't make it the only way to go but it works really well for me with a variety of rifles. BR competition requires extreme precision and accuracy which commands minimization of as many variables as one can control. If you skimp on one your competitors will make you pay. If a hard carbon ring is formed in the throat of the bore, it is squeezing the bullet thru that hard ring making it smaller as it spins down the bbl. If it does this enough the bullet is going to not fit as tight as it should and sooner or later the repeatable precision with which the bullet exits the bbl will suffer and that leads to lower scores.

I know there are different guns and different shooting games. BR is different from hunting or NRL22 and PRS type matches where offhand shooting and improvised rests are more common so other variables are more important. I don't clean between stages for those. Only at the end of the match and for hunting where a cold bore shot is all you may get, I just foul the bore before season and usually don't clean until the end of the season. Different game with different priorities. Some rifles may shoot great without cleaning. If that works for you, great. Still I would be wondering how it would shoot with a clean bore? To quote a five time national champion with whom I shoot often, "Any man who will not clean his rifle bore, would not wipe his own A$$."

 

[68hoyt]

My primary ammo is RWS R50. I put probably 2000rnds of various lapua and various eley through this rifle. I never really kept track of how much of each I shot. For the past 7-8k rounds or so its been only RWS R50.



Disservice huh? Just because you say it, does not make it so. What I said flew right over your head... and there you are trying to tell me I’m new again. lol But hey... who am I to argue against the “everyone knows” arguments?

“It HeRtZ aCcUruCy.”

Meanwhile I’m over here shooting flies, literally, 9,000 rounds into a dirty barrel, on camera, uncut, unedited, and with people watching while it was recorded. I've shot probably 150 flies with that same rifle at 50yds. Yet you'd have me and others here believe I have an accuracy problem. What a joke. A disgusting joke, that only a twisted individual with a warped mind would think is funny.



@Jadams Thanks for your post. Its nice when someone actually wants to have a conversation instead of just argue their point. Regarding your request, I've done that once with a rifle I had shooting in the .1's, and it took over 1000rnds to come back, and never did come back to what it was before I cleaned it. So while I appreciate your desire for knowledge, and I too think it would be a worthwhile test... I will not TOUCH this rifles bore with a cleaning implement until I have cause to do so. I have 22,000 rounds of this lot number of R50 remaining... and until it's gone, the tuner setting will not be touched, nor will the guard screws or anything else. I have a pre-recall TT diamond trigger in there... and I refuse to break the interface to get it out. However, once the rifle demonstrates that it doesn't want to shoot well anymore... I will happily perform this test and will for certain create an article or something on it. It has already been planned if/when it happens. I don't take getting a rifle shooting like mine lightly... and I won't be repeating the mistakes of the past just to prove a point.

@Jadams The remainder of this post is not meant for you, nor anyone else that has conversed with me respectfully, so please don't take offense.

I have documented the performance of the rifle in question, as well as several other rifles that we have produced, over thousands of rounds. This thread is demonstrative of the worst kind of internet filth. I have documented the ability to place bullets within .1 tenth of an inch at 50yds, in every way conceivable. I have provided pictures, video, live streams, and detailed explanations. Done so over the course of nearly a year. Still, people claim I am wrong. Still no one is asking questions about what we've done with these rifles to make this so. Granted, I wouldn't tell them if they asked... but the concept that they know all things, and that what we are doing can not be so, is despicable, disgusting, disturbing, and utterly predictable.

Cognitive Dissonance at its finest. No matter how much evidence I provide, they disagree anyway. The more evidence I provide, the more strongly they disagree. They use ad hominem attacks, try to attack my reputation, and vilify me. They claim the accolades of other shooters (not their own) as justification for their barrage. Yet if they are right, and I am wrong, how can the evidence I've provided exist? Their next argument will be that the evidence is fabricated. All of it. ...and the live stream viewers were planted by me. The depths that people will go to in order to ensure new information, new products, and new techniques never see the light of day is astounding. They decide what is to be, and what is not to be, in their own mind and then anything that does not immediately fit their view is attacked, ruthlessly.

It is by this mechanism that the worst things to ever happen on this earth, have been allowed to happen.

I'll say it again... literally shooting flies on command... yet people claiming I have an accuracy problem and that what I'm saying can not be happening... while its happening. Are they claiming that instead of shooting flies, I'll be able to shoot gnats... if only I was smart enough to do as they say? ...because I haven't heard that argument yet. Then there's the fact that this rifle is a REPEATER. I'm doing this with a rifle that is feeding rounds from a magazine. I've seen quite a lot of benchrest shooters, with benchrest rifles, not be able to replicate the performances I've demonstrated for nearly a year with this rifle. I have no illusions that they aren't out there, or that there is a small number of them... Yet it remains, mag fed rifle, shooting to this level is pretty nice for a field shooter.

I was told the same thing about cleaning 22lr as those are found saying here. It wasn't until my good friend, a state champion benchrest smallbore shooter suggested I try a different path, that I decided to find out for myself. I will not remain ignorant, and I will not do things just because "this is how it's been done." I will seek truth for myself and the doing of things, and gaining experience is what reveals that truth to me. I have adequately proven to myself across dozens of rifles, across over a decade of time, across several hundred thousand rounds fired... that I don't need to clean my 22lr rifles as much as the internet would have me believe I should.

I am not here to try and convince you to do things my way. I'm here to try to convince you to hold to the truth. You can know no truth but what you've discovered through your own experiences. If I have not provided enough evidence to get you to "try" my methods and gain your own experience, then we have nothing to discuss. I will hold no responsibility for what is in your mind. Attack me as you will, it really makes no difference. I will not take the "advice" of anonymous internet personalities over what I've witnessed through my own labors. I'd venture a guess that no one in this thread has fired as many purposeful precision 22lr rounds down range in the past decade as I have. Your attacks weigh NOTHING against the mass of what I've seen in that time.

I'd venture a guess that most people won't get 10,000 rounds of high end 22lr through their rifle in the next 5-10 years. Some of you might. ... or maybe you'd rather bludgeon me with all the reasons why you can't/won't try it. I've done my work. I've shown it... and @Hozzie is right... it's taken me hundreds of thousands of rounds to make any sense of any of it.

However, lets say I'm wrong for a moment... and cleaning your rifle every 50-100 rounds as has been suggested DOES indeed improve accuracy and precision. OK... how much? Can ANY of you prove it? Do you have a body of work I can reference? A video to watch? A quantifiable metric? ... because NONE of you have said what that metric is, if it even exists. Then... here we are on a forum dedicated to practical field shooting and you're sitting here with a straight face suggesting that someone cleans their rifle halfway through an NRL match, or 3-4 times per match, in field conditions? As if it's going to be a super good thing to shove a cleaning rod down the bore with a bunch of dust on it and wind blowing all over the place? If any of you spent as much time actually shooting as you spend talking about shooting this forum and every other forum would be a respectful place to exchange ideas. We could all learn something... but instead everyone that is actually shooting enough to make some discoveries is relentlessly attacked until they refuse to participate.

It's no wonder that I've watched the benchrest disciplines dwindle to nothing over the past two decades... while PRS/NRL has EXPLODED in popularity with new people coming in all the time. I know a few benchresters that are really nice people, and I can see now whey they complain about you lot all the time. They literally reference going to matches as "work" because being around the majority of you is so punishing. Tell you what benchresters... I'll challenge any one of you to four ARA cards. You sit on the bench with your single shot rifle... I'll go prone. You can use all your normal rests, even one piece if that's what you want. You can even drag out as many of your flag stations as you like and scatter them all over the range. We shoot for score. Most points wins. We'll have 30 seconds to run each card. 25 bulls in 30 seconds, shot for score. Should be a cake walk for all those SUPER accurate rifles you guys have that I apparently don't. I'll bring my crappy non-accurate rifle that was shooting flies in the video I posted earlier.

Yeah, I could let one of my kids shoot against you and they'd still clean your clocks by those rules. You'd probably be lucky to get through the first 5 bulls before the clock was gone. So understand something. I'm happy about what you can achieve in benchrest. I think it's cool and I respect the discipline. Yet you might want to glance around and ask yourself why the number of competitors keeps getting smaller. People don't like to be talked to, the way many of you like to talk to people. So for the last time, I'm not talking about benchrest when I talk. ... and if our rifles and our methods have an accuracy problem, I've yet to hear that from any customer. Everyone's happy with a rifle shooting in the .2's that doesn't demand great effort from them. They can have a rifle shooting in the .2's for thousands and thousands of rounds. My experience has taught me they can do it for TENS of thousands of rounds. Just load magazines, and go cut little bug holes. As often as they want. Their wives, girlfriends, kids... everyone can have fun with 22lr precision and they don't need benchrest black magic, one piece rests, and sometimes not even tuners. They can buy one of our rifles and just shoot as much as they want with what limited time they may have.

It's fun.

This thread isn't.

Thank you for reminding me why I just shouldn't participate. All it does is cause grief. I really need to learn to just not respond when someone berates me or my work. Thank you very much for the education, and the reminder. I'll try to learn to stay away from these kinds of threads. I'm REALLY going to try. Now if you'll excuse me while I go wash the filth of this thread off.

Eeehhh
Don’t let people get under your skin , or you end up banned , please keep contributing to the different threads , while I may not agree with everything you say or do I appreciate your effort in sharing what “YOU “ have learned sometimes this saves me experimenting and finding out myself ( waisting time proving the proven )
And some people can’t help themselves they have to be difficult , belittle other to feel better about themselves , argue the I’m right your wrong no matter what
All anyone can do is share what you know or have learned sometimes get proven wrong but grow / learn from that

 

[Gleedus]

TLDR.
A fly isn’t a .03125” dot. You missed that a bunch.
And I thought you weren’t coming back to this thread? You’ve been back twice since then.

Lets see your targets then.

I am the type of guy who tests for himself. I like to learn. I have discovered I dont have the time to test everything in life. It is frustrating for a guy like me coming on the Hide and people talk a lot but where is the evidence? Oh so and so said... well where does he get the evidence?

like I said previously I dont agree with everything Orkan says BUT he shows enough evidence that IF my tests line up with his I dont waste a lot more time testing it. Very often my results agree with his.

Justin often posts evidence of his testing he never tells us what to believe. I also disagree with some of his conclusions but he has more data then I do and so I dont argue to much. I will say by and large my results agree with his.

BR guys regularly say that they have to clean to keep the scores up where they need to be. Personally I would really like to see one of the good BR shooters put 2-3000 rounds without cleaning and then see how the scores compare. I think that would be some good proof. I have found that it takes quite a few rounds to settle a barrel back in again. So I'm not surprised the first 50 are great and then 150 200 is not so good. My experience would show you have to get a couple 1000 through. BUT i'm not a BR guy so it would be interesting to me if one of them do it. I KNOW they will beable to shoot better then I can.
The results from a Olympic shooter is questionable in my mind because I would expect their technique and personal skill has more to do with it then the rifles precision. Same as our field matches. But Ive never shot Olympic type before perhaps they are as stable as on a bench.

Everyone has part to play on here to keep the learning process moving.

@orkan I absolutely agree with @68hoyt its hard but stay calm. There are many of us who appreciate your input. Even if we dont agree with everything.

P.s. I got a Rim X now.. maybe one day I can hit the flies too... oh and its a 26" barrel ... BUT I'm in the process of testing and then cutting... because I like to know from personal experience not just because some one said... Maybe I should have tuner too?

 

[Tokay444]

Lets see your targets then.

I am the type of guy who tests for himself. I like to learn. I have discovered I dont have the time to test everything in life. It is frustrating for a guy like me coming on the Hide and people talk a lot but where is the evidence? Oh so and so said... well where does he get the evidence?

like I said previously I dont agree with everything Orkan says BUT he shows enough evidence that IF my tests line up with his I dont waste a lot more time testing it. Very often my results agree with his.

Justin often posts evidence of his testing he never tells us what to believe. I also disagree with some of his conclusions but he has more data then I do and so I dont argue to much. I will say by and large my results agree with his.

BR guys regularly say that they have to clean to keep the scores up where they need to be. Personally I would really like to see one of the good BR shooters put 2-3000 rounds without cleaning and then see how the scores compare. I think that would be some good proof. I have found that it takes quite a few rounds to settle a barrel back in again. So I'm not surprised the first 50 are great and then 150 200 is not so good. My experience would show you have to get a couple 1000 through. BUT i'm not a BR guy so it would be interesting to me if one of them do it. I KNOW they will beable to shoot better then I can.
The results from a Olympic shooter is questionable in my mind because I would expect their technique and personal skill has more to do with it then the rifles precision. Same as our field matches. But Ive never shot Olympic type before perhaps they are as stable as on a bench.

Everyone has part to play on here to keep the learning process moving.

@orkan I absolutely agree with @68hoyt its hard but stay calm. There are many of us who appreciate your input. Even if we dont agree with everything.

P.s. I got a Rim X now.. maybe one day I can hit the flies too... oh and its a 26" barrel ... BUT I'm in the process of testing and then cutting... because I like to know from personal experience not just because some one said... Maybe I should have tuner too?

I’m not the one with a YouTube channel claiming that rifles are just as accurate without cleaning. My targets don’t mean anything. What you can do is look at plenty of regional, state, and national championship and record setting targets from guys who clean their barrels every card, and compare them to the guy with the YouTube channel telling people that his rifles are just as accurate without cleaning the bore and decide for yourself what your own expectations from your gun is. Just don’t try to preach your method. When you start winning and someone asks you, go ahead and share.
Some people are satisfied shooting in the 2s and 3s. Some need to shoot in the 0s and 1s to even be competitive.

 

[Hozzie]

I was told the same thing about cleaning 22lr as those are found saying here. It wasn't until my good friend, a state champion benchrest smallbore shooter suggested I try a different path, that I decided to find out for myself. I will not remain ignorant, and I will not do things just because "this is how it's been done." I will seek truth for myself and the doing of things, and gaining experience is what reveals that truth to me. I have adequately proven to myself across dozens of rifles, across over a decade of time, across several hundred thousand rounds fired... that I don't need to clean my 22lr rifles as much as the internet would have me believe I should.

Can I ask what BR game your friend was State Champion of? I believe you are in SD. Landy won the ARA state last year and Jim won the year before. I know both fairly well. Just being curious as I don't think either of them would suggest this. Not sure what other BR organizations are tracking things at the state level in that area. I don't think there are many IR50/50 shoots out there. Just wondering if I know the person.

 

[LeftyJason]

My primary ammo is RWS R50. I put probably 2000rnds of various lapua and various eley through this rifle. I never really kept track of how much of each I shot. For the past 7-8k rounds or so its been only RWS R50.



Disservice huh? Just because you say it, does not make it so. What I said flew right over your head... and there you are trying to tell me I’m new again. lol But hey... who am I to argue against the “everyone knows” arguments?

“It HeRtZ aCcUruCy.”

Meanwhile I’m over here shooting flies, literally, 9,000 rounds into a dirty barrel, on camera, uncut, unedited, and with people watching while it was recorded. I've shot probably 150 flies with that same rifle at 50yds. Yet you'd have me and others here believe I have an accuracy problem. What a joke. A disgusting joke, that only a twisted individual with a warped mind would think is funny.



@Jadams Thanks for your post. Its nice when someone actually wants to have a conversation instead of just argue their point. Regarding your request, I've done that once with a rifle I had shooting in the .1's, and it took over 1000rnds to come back, and never did come back to what it was before I cleaned it. So while I appreciate your desire for knowledge, and I too think it would be a worthwhile test... I will not TOUCH this rifles bore with a cleaning implement until I have cause to do so. I have 22,000 rounds of this lot number of R50 remaining... and until it's gone, the tuner setting will not be touched, nor will the guard screws or anything else. I have a pre-recall TT diamond trigger in there... and I refuse to break the interface to get it out. However, once the rifle demonstrates that it doesn't want to shoot well anymore... I will happily perform this test and will for certain create an article or something on it. It has already been planned if/when it happens. I don't take getting a rifle shooting like mine lightly... and I won't be repeating the mistakes of the past just to prove a point.

@Jadams The remainder of this post is not meant for you, nor anyone else that has conversed with me respectfully, so please don't take offense.

I have documented the performance of the rifle in question, as well as several other rifles that we have produced, over thousands of rounds. This thread is demonstrative of the worst kind of internet filth. I have documented the ability to place bullets within .1 tenth of an inch at 50yds, in every way conceivable. I have provided pictures, video, live streams, and detailed explanations. Done so over the course of nearly a year. Still, people claim I am wrong. Still no one is asking questions about what we've done with these rifles to make this so. Granted, I wouldn't tell them if they asked... but the concept that they know all things, and that what we are doing can not be so, is despicable, disgusting, disturbing, and utterly predictable.

Cognitive Dissonance at its finest. No matter how much evidence I provide, they disagree anyway. The more evidence I provide, the more strongly they disagree. They use ad hominem attacks, try to attack my reputation, and vilify me. They claim the accolades of other shooters (not their own) as justification for their barrage. Yet if they are right, and I am wrong, how can the evidence I've provided exist? Their next argument will be that the evidence is fabricated. All of it. ...and the live stream viewers were planted by me. The depths that people will go to in order to ensure new information, new products, and new techniques never see the light of day is astounding. They decide what is to be, and what is not to be, in their own mind and then anything that does not immediately fit their view is attacked, ruthlessly.

It is by this mechanism that the worst things to ever happen on this earth, have been allowed to happen.

I'll say it again... literally shooting flies on command... yet people claiming I have an accuracy problem and that what I'm saying can not be happening... while its happening. Are they claiming that instead of shooting flies, I'll be able to shoot gnats... if only I was smart enough to do as they say? ...because I haven't heard that argument yet. Then there's the fact that this rifle is a REPEATER. I'm doing this with a rifle that is feeding rounds from a magazine. I've seen quite a lot of benchrest shooters, with benchrest rifles, not be able to replicate the performances I've demonstrated for nearly a year with this rifle. I have no illusions that they aren't out there, or that there is a small number of them... Yet it remains, mag fed rifle, shooting to this level is pretty nice for a field shooter.

I was told the same thing about cleaning 22lr as those are found saying here. It wasn't until my good friend, a state champion benchrest smallbore shooter suggested I try a different path, that I decided to find out for myself. I will not remain ignorant, and I will not do things just because "this is how it's been done." I will seek truth for myself and the doing of things, and gaining experience is what reveals that truth to me. I have adequately proven to myself across dozens of rifles, across over a decade of time, across several hundred thousand rounds fired... that I don't need to clean my 22lr rifles as much as the internet would have me believe I should.

I am not here to try and convince you to do things my way. I'm here to try to convince you to hold to the truth. You can know no truth but what you've discovered through your own experiences. If I have not provided enough evidence to get you to "try" my methods and gain your own experience, then we have nothing to discuss. I will hold no responsibility for what is in your mind. Attack me as you will, it really makes no difference. I will not take the "advice" of anonymous internet personalities over what I've witnessed through my own labors. I'd venture a guess that no one in this thread has fired as many purposeful precision 22lr rounds down range in the past decade as I have. Your attacks weigh NOTHING against the mass of what I've seen in that time.

I'd venture a guess that most people won't get 10,000 rounds of high end 22lr through their rifle in the next 5-10 years. Some of you might. ... or maybe you'd rather bludgeon me with all the reasons why you can't/won't try it. I've done my work. I've shown it... and @Hozzie is right... it's taken me hundreds of thousands of rounds to make any sense of any of it.

However, lets say I'm wrong for a moment... and cleaning your rifle every 50-100 rounds as has been suggested DOES indeed improve accuracy and precision. OK... how much? Can ANY of you prove it? Do you have a body of work I can reference? A video to watch? A quantifiable metric? ... because NONE of you have said what that metric is, if it even exists. Then... here we are on a forum dedicated to practical field shooting and you're sitting here with a straight face suggesting that someone cleans their rifle halfway through an NRL match, or 3-4 times per match, in field conditions? As if it's going to be a super good thing to shove a cleaning rod down the bore with a bunch of dust on it and wind blowing all over the place? If any of you spent as much time actually shooting as you spend talking about shooting this forum and every other forum would be a respectful place to exchange ideas. We could all learn something... but instead everyone that is actually shooting enough to make some discoveries is relentlessly attacked until they refuse to participate.

It's no wonder that I've watched the benchrest disciplines dwindle to nothing over the past two decades... while PRS/NRL has EXPLODED in popularity with new people coming in all the time. I know a few benchresters that are really nice people, and I can see now whey they complain about you lot all the time. They literally reference going to matches as "work" because being around the majority of you is so punishing. Tell you what benchresters... I'll challenge any one of you to four ARA cards. You sit on the bench with your single shot rifle... I'll go prone. You can use all your normal rests, even one piece if that's what you want. You can even drag out as many of your flag stations as you like and scatter them all over the range. We shoot for score. Most points wins. We'll have 30 seconds to run each card. 25 bulls in 30 seconds, shot for score. Should be a cake walk for all those SUPER accurate rifles you guys have that I apparently don't. I'll bring my crappy non-accurate rifle that was shooting flies in the video I posted earlier.

Yeah, I could let one of my kids shoot against you and they'd still clean your clocks by those rules. You'd probably be lucky to get through the first 5 bulls before the clock was gone. So understand something. I'm happy about what you can achieve in benchrest. I think it's cool and I respect the discipline. Yet you might want to glance around and ask yourself why the number of competitors keeps getting smaller. People don't like to be talked to, the way many of you like to talk to people. So for the last time, I'm not talking about benchrest when I talk. ... and if our rifles and our methods have an accuracy problem, I've yet to hear that from any customer. Everyone's happy with a rifle shooting in the .2's that doesn't demand great effort from them. They can have a rifle shooting in the .2's for thousands and thousands of rounds. My experience has taught me they can do it for TENS of thousands of rounds. Just load magazines, and go cut little bug holes. As often as they want. Their wives, girlfriends, kids... everyone can have fun with 22lr precision and they don't need benchrest black magic, one piece rests, and sometimes not even tuners. They can buy one of our rifles and just shoot as much as they want with what limited time they may have.

It's fun.

This thread isn't.

Thank you for reminding me why I just shouldn't participate. All it does is cause grief. I really need to learn to just not respond when someone berates me or my work. Thank you very much for the education, and the reminder. I'll try to learn to stay away from these kinds of threads. I'm REALLY going to try. Now if you'll excuse me while I go wash the filth of this thread off.

@orkan i am the one that roped you into this thread. I called you in because someone posted a video of yours. The thing that I love about this site is that a lot of the people that post videos, have podcasts, or are high end gunsmiths or manufacturers are here. If you have a question about what someone said you can ask them directly. If you have a question about the tech they will answer as much as they can.

Personally I know that my shooting sucks. My rifles aren't the best and I've not shot nearly as many rounds as others have. I love learning about guns and the way they work. Have been into learning about them since 4th grade.

Im glad I called you in because I have learned more about rimfire. I've also decided I never want to get into any sort of bench rest. Please keep posting because there are those of us that listen and learn in spite of the turd spatulas.

Now I have to decide who is the most annoying as a category between benchresters, lawyers, engineers, or jersey shooters.

 

[grauhanen]

Disservice huh? Just because you say it, does not make it so. What I said flew right over your head... and there you are trying to tell me I’m new again. lol But hey... who am I to argue against the “everyone knows” arguments?

“It HeRtZ aCcUruCy.”

Meanwhile I’m over here shooting flies, literally, 9,000 rounds into a dirty barrel, on camera, uncut, unedited, and with people watching while it was recorded. I've shot probably 150 flies with that same rifle at 50yds. Yet you'd have me and others here believe I have an accuracy problem. What a joke. A disgusting joke, that only a twisted individual with a warped mind would think is funny.

Yes, advice to not clean is a disservice. That's the joke. In light of the winnowed experience of .22LR shooters and rifle makers the world over who clean because it helps achieve the best accurcay, how else can it be seen?

There's one big flaw with the claim that "my rifle is still accurate despite the fact that it's never been cleaned" and targets to support the assertion. The problem is that it's not proof of anything other than the obvious fact good rifles and good ammo can still achieve a level of accuracy that causes some people to be impressed. It's not that the accuracy itself is impressive, but that despite not cleaning it's still better than a lot of mediocre rifles. It's not unlike saying "my Ferrari is still faster than a lot of other cars and I've never changed the oil or adjusted tire pressure".

To overcome the problem, try cleaning your rifle and then compare its accuracy with when it was fouled with thousands of rounds, possibly with a carbon ring to boot. Until that's done, you're only looking at one side of the picture -- how well it shoots now, dirty and fouled by thousands upon thousands of rounds. You have no idea how it shoots when regularly cleaned. Of course such comparisons are not easy to make, as they must be made with the same lots of ammo in very good conditions, with a reasonable sample size of data.

Another difficulty is more intractable. Having made a video advocating no cleaning or as little cleaning as possible, and repeated such advice on threads such as this one, you've painted yourself into a corner. It becomes increasingly difficult to ever back away from such untenable claims without losing face. It becomes doubly difficult when there are pecuniary interests involved as there are here.

For everyone who says it's a good practice to clean a bore regularly there's no danger of having to backtrack and say he's wrong. No one will ever have to change his mind to admit it's better to avoid cleaning a .22LR bore because such a view is crushed by the weight of the vast majority of experience. It would be a great challenge to find serious shooters who would support the contention that no cleaning is without detrimental effect on .22LR accuracy.

BR guys regularly say that they have to clean to keep the scores up where they need to be. Personally I would really like to see one of the good BR shooters put 2-3000 rounds without cleaning and then see how the scores compare. I think that would be some good proof. I have found that it takes quite a few rounds to settle a barrel back in again. So I'm not surprised the first 50 are great and then 150 200 is not so good. My experience would show you have to get a couple 1000 through. BUT i'm not a BR guy so it would be interesting to me if one of them do it. I KNOW they will beable to shoot better then I can.
The results from a Olympic shooter is questionable in my mind because I would expect their technique and personal skill has more to do with it then the rifles precision. Same as our field matches. But Ive never shot Olympic type before perhaps they are as stable as on a bench.

One of the things hard to understand in threads such as this one and others that appear on many forums is when the debate seems to hinge on whether someone is shooting 3P, BR, LR, or whatever type of .22LR discipline. I appreciate that some of these have different accuracy requirements and standards. But why anyone would deliberately leave accuracy potential on the table by repudiating the idea of cleaning regularly? It's completely mystifying. It costs so little in time, effort, and resources. Whether a shooter is looking to score X's with every shot at 50 yards or strike a steel plate at 400 yards, every bit of accuracy improvement should be taken into account. To neglect the contribution of cleaning to accuracy seems like leaving money on the table.

With regard to getting a BR shooter to do a test without cleaning with two or three thousand rounds and comparing results obtained after regular cleaning, it seems unlikely that any BR shooters would take it up. It would be a waste of four to six bricks of good and expensive ammo to prove something that they already know. To use ammo that's not good would defeat the purpose. It's worth remembering that they don't clean as often as they do because of union rules or to conform with other shooters. Why do 3P international and Olympic shooters clean? They don't want to leave anything on the table that will cause them to score less well or help their competitors do better. Why would anyone competing against others or only himself wish to leave anything on the table that helps with accuracy

 

[Gleedus]

Yes, advice to not clean is a disservice. That's the joke. In light of the winnowed experience of .22LR shooters and rifle makers the world over who clean because it helps achieve the best accurcay, how else can it be seen?

There's one big flaw with the claim that "my rifle is still accurate despite the fact that it's never been cleaned" and targets to support the assertion. The problem is that it's not proof of anything other than the obvious fact good rifles and good ammo can still achieve a level of accuracy that causes some people to be impressed. It's not that the accuracy itself is impressive, but that despite not cleaning it's still better than a lot of mediocre rifles. It's not unlike saying "my Ferrari is still faster than a lot of other cars and I've never changed the oil or adjusted tire pressure".

To overcome the problem, try cleaning your rifle and then compare its accuracy with when it was fouled with thousands of rounds, possibly with a carbon ring to boot. Until that's done, you're only looking at one side of the picture -- how well it shoots now, dirty and fouled by thousands upon thousands of rounds. You have no idea how it shoots when regularly cleaned. Of course such comparisons are not easy to make, as they must be made with the same lots of ammo in very good conditions, with a reasonable sample size of data.

Another difficulty is more intractable. Having made a video advocating no cleaning or as little cleaning as possible, and repeated such advice on threads such as this one, you've painted yourself into a corner. It becomes increasingly difficult to ever back away from such untenable claims without losing face. It becomes doubly difficult when there are pecuniary interests involved as there are here.

For everyone who says it's a good practice to clean a bore regularly there's no danger of having to backtrack and say he's wrong. No one will ever have to change his mind to admit it's better to avoid cleaning a .22LR bore because such a view is crushed by the weight of the vast majority of experience. It would be a great challenge to find serious shooters who would support the contention that no cleaning is without detrimental effect on .22LR accuracy.




One of the things hard to understand in threads such as this one and others that appear on many forums is when the debate seems to hinge on whether someone is shooting 3P, BR, LR, or whatever type of .22LR discipline. I appreciate that some of these have different accuracy requirements and standards. But why anyone would deliberately leave accuracy potential on the table by repudiating the idea of cleaning regularly? It's completely mystifying. It costs so little in time, effort, and resources. Whether a shooter is looking to score X's with every shot at 50 yards or strike a steel plate at 400 yards, every bit of accuracy improvement should be taken into account. To neglect the contribution of cleaning to accuracy seems like leaving money on the table.

With regard to getting a BR shooter to do a test without cleaning with two or three thousand rounds and comparing results obtained after regular cleaning, it seems unlikely that any BR shooters would take it up. It would be a waste of four to six bricks of good and expensive ammo to prove something that they already know. To use ammo that's not good would defeat the purpose. It's worth remembering that they don't clean as often as they do because of union rules or to conform with other shooters. Why do 3P international and Olympic shooters clean? They don't want to leave anything on the table that will cause them to score less well or help their competitors do better. Why would anyone competing against others or only himself wish to leave anything on the table that helps with accuracy

The reason I would say that BR is different is for you. (I assume you shoot BR) after you clean your rifle you get your foulers/ sighters then shoot for record. You can now clean and repeat. In a field match we get no foulers / sighters. So cleaning before a stage isnt a option. We both would agree on that I think.
My experiance well limited in the grand scheme is that yes the first 100 rounds may be very precise but I get POI shift and the odd flier AFTER 100ish until well fouled. I would suggest up to a couple thousand rounds. The POI shift may be tracked well enough to know when to account for it during a match but I have never tried to. POI shift is a HUGE deal if you have no prestage sighters to rezero. Each discipline has things that are more important for success then others.
I also have a rifle that is shooting better then it ever has with 15k since the last cleaning. Once its warm out maybe I will have to clean it and try again.
I also have found once a rifle is well fouled I never have to change my zero. Last year never once did I have to change zero once fouled. To me that is important as I can have the confidence that my zero / drop data will be right all day every day.
Lets say if I cleaned regular my 20 shot group size at 200 yds was 4" but dirty its 5". But somewhere 75-120 rounds my POI moves up 0.3 mil (I've seen more) thats over 2" at 200 yds. Now my relative group size clean is 6" because I'm hitting higher then my aim point.

I'm not saying that not cleaning makes a rifle more precise but more consistent. My limited experience would show better precision as well but thats just me. In my mind If I dont clean because Orkan says I dont have to is as bad as a BR guy cleaning because someone said you have to. Maybe if you would run a BR rifle till well fouled it would look different. I dont know and I'm not a BR guy so maybe a BR guy could test that. You say its a waste of good ammo why because its been tested and proven? Or are guys stopping in the 200 round range well still getting random fliers?

In no way I'm trying to argue with what you have said I'm more talking out loud. You bring up some very good points and I will be pondering them. I appreciate the input and other side of the coin your presenting. Cheers mate.

 

[Shootin Stuff]

Cognitive dissonance is a thing and old wives tales die hard.

People like confirmation of their safe space of popular superstition, because you know, there be dragon's over the edge.

Every now and then someone steps out over the edge and there are no dragon's to be found, but try convincing the unwashed masses that the earth isn't flat and you'll be stoned in the street.

If @orkan has the data and all you have is "But someone once told me" then you need to look at his data.
If you can find no flaw in his data then you have NO CHOICE but to put down the crack pipe and accept the data.



You are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-Harlan Ellison.

 

[AManWearingAHat]

Yes, advice to not clean is a disservice. That's the joke. In light of the winnowed experience of .22LR shooters and rifle makers the world over who clean because it helps achieve the best accurcay, how else can it be seen?

To add my 2 cents, Grauhanen and I actually had a short private conversation about .22 cleaning in another thread and he provided the following resources in another post seen below. I recommend it to anyone interested.

How often do you clean your .22?

How often do you guys, especially those who compete in comps, clean your .22 bolt gun bores? And is there any special or different cleaning regimen due to lead bullets that is different from cleaning centerbore rifles with copper jacketed bullets? What products do you guys use?

www.snipershide.com

I am a 3P shooter so take this post from that perspective. I used to follow the "don't clean it too often" school of thought and have since switched and will be at a minimum bore snaking at the range and following up at home with the rimfire blend. A typical practice session for me will be around 100 - 200 rounds. I do not study and practice the mechanics of the sport to potentially leave points on the table. I trust the opinions of Lilja, Anschutz, Blieker, Eley, etc. which are all stated in the post I linked. In the case of an Anschutz, a bore guide is a must. I have always used one and always will. Can't speak to other actions.

My rifles more in the "field shooting" or "plinking" arenas I am more comfortable going longer between cleanings. I do not see any evidence that suggest extended round counts between cleanings does anything to irreparably harm rimfire barrels beyond normal wear and I do not expect the same high standard accuracy out of them nor do I use them for that purpose.

I also have experience with the Olympic pipeline for shooters in the US, many of us are (were) self funded (my dreams of that are long over) and I didn't know any buying pallets of ammunition. Military shooters are probably a different story. The AMU probably gets whatever they want. If you were lucky enough to be on an NCAA shooting team they'd usually supply ammo but not in that kind of volume. I chose academics over shooting so I shot for a small club team at my school, we bought all of our own ammo. I've never used the test centers to lost test my action, but it's because I couldn't afford it. I bought whatever match ammo I could get and called it good. I think I shot Eley Match and Lapua Master M (when that was still made). Definitely not best practice, but you make do.

 

[Tokay444]

Cognitive dissonance is a thing and old wives tales die hard.

People like confirmation of their safe space of popular superstition, because you know, there be dragon's over the edge.

Every now and then someone steps out over the edge and there are no dragon's to be found, but try convincing the unwashed masses that the earth isn't flat and you'll be stoned in the street.

If @orkan has the data and all you have is "But someone once told me" then you need to look at his data.
If you can find no flaw in his data then you have NO CHOICE but to put down the crack pipe and accept the data.



You are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-Harlan Ellison.

I looked at his, “data” , and compared it to the data of the state, national, and international champions and record holders and decided I didn’t want to leave that much accuracy or precision on table and cleaned my barrel.

 

[justin amateur]

Lot testing? That's attempting to find the best made cartridges from whatever is currently in stock, correct?
Inventory changes as it's consumed. Unlikely that any two batches will be exactly the same.
From what I've seen no two boxes of cartridges are exactly the same.
The further the target is from the muzzle, the more those minor differences affect trajectory spread.

Barrel wear? That is probably a measurable change over time.
Dan Lilja claims the best results are from the first 5000 to 10000 shots with one of his barrels.
Pretty sure that's posted in his faq's.
He also pointed out that an Anschutz barrel brought in, was no longer capable of competitive bench accuracy at 200,000 rounds.
How can you verify the point where barrel wear affects results, when the ammunition itself
has so many differences in the cartridges due to component variations and assembly tolerances.
Would those cartridge variations allow any possibility of determining that point where barrel wear affects accuracy?

I have no clue. Just an amateur here.

Cleaning regimen?

No more than 250 shots between cleanings with rimfire.
That's where the carbon ring affects extraction of fired brass on my Lilja and Shilen barrels.
Ammunition differences and atmospheric conditions have more effect on my results,
than the cleanliness of the barrels on my rimfires.

Do rimfire barrels even show wear?
So far the borescope indicates they do.
Visible abrasive caused changes to the rifling and leade of a new barrel.

 

[nockhunter]

How much wear can there be? Shooting a "greased", swaged lead bullet at fairly low velocity, very small powder charges, and not over-bore. That's "competitive bench accuracy" and what did it started at and what is it now after 200K? What is the degradation over that amount of shooting and what was the cleaning regiment? Might still be great for PRS/NRL22.

Just the crap that floats around in my head

Mike

 

[justin amateur]

How much wear?
Well, since seeing the 60 micron sized silica particles found in the burn residue from the primer
and understanding that those crystals are deposited in the bore with every pull of the trigger,
and that those abrasive particles are being dragged the length of the bore by every consecutive bullet,
just like what happens during hand lapping a barrel, which can be overdone,
I'm thinking it's progressive over time, which is why Lilja remarked on it.

But then, we are discussing rimfire where poor bullet quality and mv spread hide problems with the rifle.

Maybe...I think.

What we need here is an actual gunsmith, who actually knows what he's doing with an air guage
to measure a brand new barrel at 100 shot intervals to determine just how much wear occurs over time
instead of guessing at it, which is what most of us appear to be doing.
But that would probably lead to fewer discussions and arguments on internet forums.
That'd be horrible doncha know...all those actual measurements and facts would be hard to ignore.

Although the fans of blaming supersonic transition for poor accuracy with hi-v 22lr
appear to be doing just that, even though the Aberdeen Ballistics lab produced a study saying it ain't so.

 

[Tim7139]

Are you advocating for or against going 1000s of rounds between cleaning the bore of a 22LR?

You can try and try but you are simply never going to educate some people.

 

[Tim7139]

How much wear?
Well, since seeing the 60 micron sized silica particles found in the burn residue from the primer
and understanding that those crystals are deposited in the bore with every pull of the trigger,
and that those abrasive particles are being dragged the length of the bore by every consecutive bullet,
just like what happens during hand lapping a barrel, which can be overdone,
I'm thinking it's progressive over time, which is why Lilja remarked on it.

But then, we are discussing rimfire where poor bullet quality and mv spread hide problems with the rifle.

Maybe...I think.

What we need here is an actual gunsmith, who actually knows what he's doing with an air guage
to measure a brand new barrel at 100 shot intervals to determine just how much wear occurs over time
instead of guessing at it, which is what most of us appear to be doing.
But that would probably lead to fewer discussions and arguments on internet forums.
That'd be horrible doncha know...all those actual measurements and facts would be hard to ignore.

Although the fans of blaming supersonic transition for poor accuracy with hi-v 22lr
appear to be doing just that, even though the Aberdeen Ballistics lab produced a study saying it ain't so.

Airguage.....it.s been done, and done, and done. Gunsmiths don't have nor need airguages, makers of match barrels do. And FWIW airguages don't measure anything.
Read the extensive writings of Frank Tirrelll about HV instability, proved with pictures.

 

[Gleedus]

Airguage.....it.s been done, and done, and done. Gunsmiths don't have nor need airguages, makers of match barrels do. And FWIW airguages don't measure anything.
Read the extensive writings of Frank Tirrelll about HV instability, proved with pictures.

I have tested the HV accuracy vs SV at long range. The HV version with the same bullet as the SV has shown same or greater accuracy at long range. Of course you can have lot accuracy variation skew the results so I did a couple different ammo and lots.

Now I have also seen loss of stability with SV ammo in cold conditions where the sound barrier was lower then velocity due to weather. But in all cases when I switched to the HV version of the same bullet the bullets regained stability. They still didnt shoot very well but no key holes. SV 12-14" group at 50 HV 2-3".

I have slowly come to the opinion that the HV vs SV is mostly rifle dependent and results are affected by standard lot variation.

Side note on air gauge with a proper fitting gauge you can find variations in bore diameter. Some day when your bored run one through a couple of Ruger barrels.

 

[justin amateur]

Tim! Y'er back!

You've been arguing supersonic transition since 2008.
You don't much care for McCoy's report out of Aberdeen I see.
You know, the one that concluded that the 22lr is "insignificantly" affected by the transition.

My problem is, I obtained similar accuracy from both hi-v and subsonic 22lr during testing.
If the transition was such a problem, that shouldn't have happened.
When cartridge quality was good, results were good.
Didn't matter hi-v or SV.

I do enjoy these discussions, end up reading all sorts of interesting publications.

 

[Tokay444]

Tim! Y'er back!

You've been arguing supersonic transition since 2008.
You don't much care for McCoy's report out of Aberdeen I see.
You know, the one that concluded that the 22lr is "insignificantly" affected by the transition.

My problem is, I obtained similar accuracy from both hi-v and subsonic 22lr during testing.
If the transition was such a problem, that shouldn't have happened.
When cartridge quality was good, results were good.
Didn't matter hi-v or SV.

I do enjoy these discussions, end up reading all sorts of interesting publications.

Similar results at what distance? If the HV is still super sonic at it's POI, I wouldn't think you would see much difference, but at a distance where you're transonic, or fully transitioned back to sub sonic, I could well believe that most common 22LR projectiles could be upset.

 

[grauhanen]

It's worth noting that while there are many varieties of top quality match grade standard velocity .22LR ammo, there are no equal high velocity equivalents. The result is that HV ammos invariably have a wider ES than SV match ammo. A good lot of SV will an ES of 30 fps, while a HV can easily be double that, even more.

At 200 yards, each 10 fps difference in velocity of standard velocity ammo causes 1" of vertical dispersion. For HV ammo at 200, each 10 fps difference in velocity causes 0.7" of vertical. As it's impossible to predict the MV of random individual rounds, shooters must be willing to accept that the vertical dispersion alone will likely be greater with HV ammo than with SV. Of course SV ammo will drift less in the wind.

 

[justin amateur]

Nope, doesn't show up like I expected it to, Tokay.
50, 100 and 200 yards.
Surprised the snot out of me.
As long as ammo quality was similar, so were the results.
I'm finding that cartridge quality has more effect than bullet velocity.

How can you expect consistent trajectories from hi-v 22lr,
when most of it looks like crap fresh out of the box.

 

[grauhanen]

The ballistics information is what it is. This is the kind of information you've regularly posted elsewhere and admonished readers to heed. How can a larger ES not manifest itself on the target down range. But perhaps there are times when the math and physics that go into the calculations become irrelevant.

With regard to cartridge quality, it's virtually impossible to identify by eye any differences between top tier match rounds. They all look very much alike. Bulk ammo that is shipped in a larger box and is not individually held in a tray is much more likely to exhibit the visually identifiable hallmarks of poor cartridge quality.

 

[Tim7139]

Tim! Y'er back!

You've been arguing supersonic transition since 2008.
You don't much care for McCoy's report out of Aberdeen I see.
You know, the one that concluded that the 22lr is "insignificantly" affected by the transition.

My problem is, I obtained similar accuracy from both hi-v and subsonic 22lr during testing.
If the transition was such a problem, that shouldn't have happened.
When cartridge quality was good, results were good.
Didn't matter hi-v or SV.

I do enjoy these discussions, end up reading all sorts of interesting publications.

TESTING?????
It is present and impactful at particular distances, most commonly what global BR shoots. You think, maybe, this is why the world's total of high end match ammo is subsonic ? Bless you Justin, sometimes you have data staring you right in the chops.
Aberdeen? What you couldn't find anything from the 20's ?

 

[justin amateur]

I missed ya' Tim.
It's like arguing with family.

What? Ya' don't agree with sparkgraph images?
Dislike testing using custom ordered match quality 22lr?
In an actual ballistics lab?
By folks who actually test ammunition as an occupation?

 

[justin amateur]

G...my comment regarding velocity has to do with sub vs super sonic.

Velocity spread or ES most definitely causes vertical spread.
I can't argue with gravity. Gravity sucks....always.