-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Gunsmithing Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
- Thread starter Jeff in TX
- Start date
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Where have you been. Its been a sticky for a while now.
Where have you been. Its been a sticky for a while now.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
I really don't understand why this is even debated. GALE McMILLAN himself explained where the whole MYTH came from. It was told to him from the originator of the process himself and it was plainly stated that it was...
And I quote from Gale McMillan: " It all got started when a barrel maker that I know started putting break-in instructions in the box with each barrel he shipped a few years ago. I asked him how he figured it would help and his reply was if they shoot 100 rounds breaking in this barrel that's total life is 3000 rounds and I make 1000 barrels a year just figure how many more barrels I will get to make. He had a point; it definately will shorten the barrel life"
If you want to read the rest to be sure I'm not taking this "out of context" just google: Gale McMillan Barrel Break in.
I really don't understand why this is even debated. GALE McMILLAN himself explained where the whole MYTH came from. It was told to him from the originator of the process himself and it was plainly stated that it was...
And I quote from Gale McMillan: " It all got started when a barrel maker that I know started putting break-in instructions in the box with each barrel he shipped a few years ago. I asked him how he figured it would help and his reply was if they shoot 100 rounds breaking in this barrel that's total life is 3000 rounds and I make 1000 barrels a year just figure how many more barrels I will get to make. He had a point; it definately will shorten the barrel life"
If you want to read the rest to be sure I'm not taking this "out of context" just google: Gale McMillan Barrel Break in.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
When I get a new barrel, I'll run a bore cast with dead soft lead. I"ll feed it back and forth thru the bore, while it's captured on a jag. If I feel any tight spots before the muzzle, I"ll lap those tight spots out. If the only tight spot is at the muzzle, I'll consider the barrel good to go.
Ever tried hand lapping?
I hold absolutely NO credence with barrel break-in proceedures.
One last thing: Ain't no way that bullet will "stop" in a barrel with the pressure generated, if it's made somewhat right and the charge weight's right, the bullet's the right diameter and the primer does its job. No way.
Pay no attention to the hype. Shoot the darn thing!
When I get a new barrel, I'll run a bore cast with dead soft lead. I"ll feed it back and forth thru the bore, while it's captured on a jag. If I feel any tight spots before the muzzle, I"ll lap those tight spots out. If the only tight spot is at the muzzle, I'll consider the barrel good to go.
Ever tried hand lapping?
I hold absolutely NO credence with barrel break-in proceedures.
One last thing: Ain't no way that bullet will "stop" in a barrel with the pressure generated, if it's made somewhat right and the charge weight's right, the bullet's the right diameter and the primer does its job. No way.
Pay no attention to the hype. Shoot the darn thing!
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Whether barrel break in has beneficial results or not it helps me get familar with my new rifles. I don't believe it does harm if u are using quality products to clean with. It gives me an excuse to pump some rounds down the tube
Whether barrel break in has beneficial results or not it helps me get familar with my new rifles. I don't believe it does harm if u are using quality products to clean with. It gives me an excuse to pump some rounds down the tube
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Sorry I’ve been off the grid the past couple of weeks dealing with a death in the family.
As hard and difficult as it sounds the test data I reviewed in fact shows the bullet stopping sometimes once but as many as two times. Much of the bullets first movement depends on seating death and neck pressure. Remember this whole process from the time the primer ignites until the bullet leaves the barrel is taking nano-seconds (billionths of a second).
As for a squib making it an inch or so into the barrel this also makes since. When the primer ignites with no powder in the case the bullet receives the full force (pressure) of the primer ignition. This can move the bullet further into the barrel depending on the size of the cartridge, neck tention and seating depth as well as the primer type. However, when shooting a properly loaded round the bullet is not subjected to the full pressure from the primer ignition alone as it is blocked by the powder.
I stated up front for everyone to provide solid test data to support your conclusion if you disagreed and not ideas and opinions. This helps keep this post to the facts and avoids being dragged down into the weeds with hearsey and opinions. My research and conclusions are based facts from the test data I reviewed. Some of the internal ballistic data was over my head but Stan and Mike did a great job of bringing it down to my level and putting it in terms I could understand. The difference between being electrical engineer and not a ballistic and/or mechanical engineer I guess!
Sorry I’ve been off the grid the past couple of weeks dealing with a death in the family.
As hard and difficult as it sounds the test data I reviewed in fact shows the bullet stopping sometimes once but as many as two times. Much of the bullets first movement depends on seating death and neck pressure. Remember this whole process from the time the primer ignites until the bullet leaves the barrel is taking nano-seconds (billionths of a second).
As for a squib making it an inch or so into the barrel this also makes since. When the primer ignites with no powder in the case the bullet receives the full force (pressure) of the primer ignition. This can move the bullet further into the barrel depending on the size of the cartridge, neck tention and seating depth as well as the primer type. However, when shooting a properly loaded round the bullet is not subjected to the full pressure from the primer ignition alone as it is blocked by the powder.
I stated up front for everyone to provide solid test data to support your conclusion if you disagreed and not ideas and opinions. This helps keep this post to the facts and avoids being dragged down into the weeds with hearsey and opinions. My research and conclusions are based facts from the test data I reviewed. Some of the internal ballistic data was over my head but Stan and Mike did a great job of bringing it down to my level and putting it in terms I could understand. The difference between being electrical engineer and not a ballistic and/or mechanical engineer I guess!
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Interesting thread indeed.
My cleaning routine and barrel breakin has changed greatly since purchasing a Hawkeye Borescope.
I was over cleaning dramatically, as too will be 90% of people.
As for barrel breakin, I will still do it. There has to be something going on in those first 3 odd shots where it fouls badly. I have shot one barrel with no run in, and what I found was when I got home to clean it it took a great deal of time compared to others where I just cleaned after the first three shots.
I tihnk do what ever you think is right, bugger all damage is going to be done here either way, it the amount of cleaning over teh life of teh barrel which is the problem, including the equipment used to clean.
I am also a believer of cleaning the carbon, then the copper out of the barrel. After hitting the barrel with a carbon cleaner, the Hawkeye shows nice bright copper. I have also found a good indication that copper has been remvoed from the barrel is if you cant see it at the muzzle, its clean. In a well lit area, having the jagtip around 1" from the end of the barrel reflects enought light to see any traces of copper present.
I use Lucas guides and dewey rods also.
CHeers
Interesting thread indeed.
My cleaning routine and barrel breakin has changed greatly since purchasing a Hawkeye Borescope.
I was over cleaning dramatically, as too will be 90% of people.
As for barrel breakin, I will still do it. There has to be something going on in those first 3 odd shots where it fouls badly. I have shot one barrel with no run in, and what I found was when I got home to clean it it took a great deal of time compared to others where I just cleaned after the first three shots.
I tihnk do what ever you think is right, bugger all damage is going to be done here either way, it the amount of cleaning over teh life of teh barrel which is the problem, including the equipment used to clean.
I am also a believer of cleaning the carbon, then the copper out of the barrel. After hitting the barrel with a carbon cleaner, the Hawkeye shows nice bright copper. I have also found a good indication that copper has been remvoed from the barrel is if you cant see it at the muzzle, its clean. In a well lit area, having the jagtip around 1" from the end of the barrel reflects enought light to see any traces of copper present.
I use Lucas guides and dewey rods also.
CHeers
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Jeff,
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that barrel break-in procedures are a waste of time. The reason I disagree is not because I have any data or facts to refute what you have written, but rather you presented NO DATA whatsoever to support your position. What you did do is babble about ballistics, your credentials, other people's credentials, and borescopes, and all you presented is hearsay and opinion. NO, I repeat, NO data to support your position. Surpising coming from an Engineer. You kept using the word "fact" but you have shown NO DATA to support your claim that barrel break in procedures are a waste of time other than hearsay, opinions, and name dropping...NO DATA!
Dalton
Jeff,
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that barrel break-in procedures are a waste of time. The reason I disagree is not because I have any data or facts to refute what you have written, but rather you presented NO DATA whatsoever to support your position. What you did do is babble about ballistics, your credentials, other people's credentials, and borescopes, and all you presented is hearsay and opinion. NO, I repeat, NO data to support your position. Surpising coming from an Engineer. You kept using the word "fact" but you have shown NO DATA to support your claim that barrel break in procedures are a waste of time other than hearsay, opinions, and name dropping...NO DATA!
Dalton
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Deltazulu,
Tough critic and welcome to the hide! We need folks like you to keep us honest. This forum does not lend itself for posting tons of technical data, nor do most members here want to wade through it.
As I stated in the beginning of my post, I summarized my findings that were all based on actual test data and facts from some of the best minds in the business. If you thought I was babbling everyone is welcome to their opinions. As with the internal ballistic information I posted, this is not common knowledge with most shooters. I used it so people understood the big picture of what’s really taking place when you pull the trigger and what’s taking place inside their chamber and barrel.
Just as the importance of blindly going about trying to fix or correct something without knowing what you’re trying to correct. Without a bore scope to view the interior surface of the barrel the shooter will never know.
I think most folks have found this thread to be very informative and objective but we can never please everyone.
Thanks for your view point and have a blessed Sunday.
Deltazulu,
Tough critic and welcome to the hide! We need folks like you to keep us honest. This forum does not lend itself for posting tons of technical data, nor do most members here want to wade through it.
As I stated in the beginning of my post, I summarized my findings that were all based on actual test data and facts from some of the best minds in the business. If you thought I was babbling everyone is welcome to their opinions. As with the internal ballistic information I posted, this is not common knowledge with most shooters. I used it so people understood the big picture of what’s really taking place when you pull the trigger and what’s taking place inside their chamber and barrel.
Just as the importance of blindly going about trying to fix or correct something without knowing what you’re trying to correct. Without a bore scope to view the interior surface of the barrel the shooter will never know.
I think most folks have found this thread to be very informative and objective but we can never please everyone.
Thanks for your view point and have a blessed Sunday.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deltazulu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeff,
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that barrel break-in procedures are a waste of time. The reason I disagree is not because I have any data or facts to refute what you have written, but rather you presented NO DATA whatsoever to support your position. What you did do is babble about ballistics, your credentials, other people's credentials, and borescopes, and all you presented is hearsay and opinion. NO, I repeat, NO data to support your position. Surpising coming from an Engineer. You kept using the word "fact" but you have shown NO DATA to support your claim that barrel break in procedures are a waste of time other than hearsay, opinions, and name dropping...NO DATA!
Dalton </div></div>
Ya know... If you're gonna take the time to read a post, at least take the time to read ALL of the responses. This is just typical of the lack of attention paid to the FACTS. The simple FACT is that a Barrel Maker came up with the whole idea of Barrel Break-in in the interest of selling more BARRELS... PERIOD... EXCLAMATION POINT!!! It is well documented by Gale McMillan of McMillan Brothers.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deltazulu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeff,
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that barrel break-in procedures are a waste of time. The reason I disagree is not because I have any data or facts to refute what you have written, but rather you presented NO DATA whatsoever to support your position. What you did do is babble about ballistics, your credentials, other people's credentials, and borescopes, and all you presented is hearsay and opinion. NO, I repeat, NO data to support your position. Surpising coming from an Engineer. You kept using the word "fact" but you have shown NO DATA to support your claim that barrel break in procedures are a waste of time other than hearsay, opinions, and name dropping...NO DATA!
Dalton </div></div>
Ya know... If you're gonna take the time to read a post, at least take the time to read ALL of the responses. This is just typical of the lack of attention paid to the FACTS. The simple FACT is that a Barrel Maker came up with the whole idea of Barrel Break-in in the interest of selling more BARRELS... PERIOD... EXCLAMATION POINT!!! It is well documented by Gale McMillan of McMillan Brothers.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oneshot onekill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deltazulu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeff,
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that barrel break-in procedures are a waste of time. The reason I disagree is not because I have any data or facts to refute what you have written, but rather you presented NO DATA whatsoever to support your position. What you did do is babble about ballistics, your credentials, other people's credentials, and borescopes, and all you presented is hearsay and opinion. NO, I repeat, NO data to support your position. Surpising coming from an Engineer. You kept using the word "fact" but you have shown NO DATA to support your claim that barrel break in procedures are a waste of time other than hearsay, opinions, and name dropping...NO DATA!
Dalton </div></div>
Ya know... If you're gonna take the time to read a post, at least take the time to read ALL of the responses. This is just typical of the lack of attention paid to the FACTS. The simple FACT is that a Barrel Maker came up with the whole idea of Barrel Break-in in the interest of selling more BARRELS... PERIOD... EXCLAMATION POINT!!! It is well documented by Gale McMillan of McMillan Brothers. </div></div>
I actually did read the entire post and I cannot dispute, as FACT, that Gale McMillan said a barrel maker made up a break-in procedure to sell more barrels. What I can say is that does not constitute PROOF that barrel break-in is a waste of time or does not occur as more rounds go down range. If you think well documented is a couple of posts on a forum, or an e-mail response to someone then so be it. I think this is Gale's opinion...PERIOD...and I'll wager he has no DATA to support his position either. If you have the data, or Gale has it, please produce it because it will be the first I've seen.
Jeff,
Sorry I was so tough on you. I respect that you have an opinion regarding the issue, but you produced no proof that your opinion is correct, other than the opinion of others, and indicated their opinion is proof and I disagree.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oneshot onekill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deltazulu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeff,
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that barrel break-in procedures are a waste of time. The reason I disagree is not because I have any data or facts to refute what you have written, but rather you presented NO DATA whatsoever to support your position. What you did do is babble about ballistics, your credentials, other people's credentials, and borescopes, and all you presented is hearsay and opinion. NO, I repeat, NO data to support your position. Surpising coming from an Engineer. You kept using the word "fact" but you have shown NO DATA to support your claim that barrel break in procedures are a waste of time other than hearsay, opinions, and name dropping...NO DATA!
Dalton </div></div>
Ya know... If you're gonna take the time to read a post, at least take the time to read ALL of the responses. This is just typical of the lack of attention paid to the FACTS. The simple FACT is that a Barrel Maker came up with the whole idea of Barrel Break-in in the interest of selling more BARRELS... PERIOD... EXCLAMATION POINT!!! It is well documented by Gale McMillan of McMillan Brothers. </div></div>
I actually did read the entire post and I cannot dispute, as FACT, that Gale McMillan said a barrel maker made up a break-in procedure to sell more barrels. What I can say is that does not constitute PROOF that barrel break-in is a waste of time or does not occur as more rounds go down range. If you think well documented is a couple of posts on a forum, or an e-mail response to someone then so be it. I think this is Gale's opinion...PERIOD...and I'll wager he has no DATA to support his position either. If you have the data, or Gale has it, please produce it because it will be the first I've seen.
Jeff,
Sorry I was so tough on you. I respect that you have an opinion regarding the issue, but you produced no proof that your opinion is correct, other than the opinion of others, and indicated their opinion is proof and I disagree.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedur
I have done something which can be considering a bit of proof, testing two similar rifles with one being broken in and the other not. Both were purchased within a short period of time of each other and fired in an identical manner. Fed a diet of factory ammo under similar conditions.
Two identical SAKO TRG-22 rifles in 308. I broke in one barrel and did not with the other and could not tell one from the other in terms of accuracy or cleaning, or anything else. Not very scientific but at the time I was not looking to be, other than interested in seeing what the results were. No down range gains, both shot equally well to the point of not knowing which was which after a year or so of shooting both.
Fast forward and I have completely stopped breaking in my barrels, and still I see no degradation of accuracy or difference in what is required to clean the rifles up. The barrels do not get shot out any faster, nor does accuracy degrade quicker or is there any noticeable fouling taking place.
I tend to clean my barrels much less then most but still manage well over 10,000 rounds staying below an MOA at 100 yards. I recently rebarreled my GAP Harbinger with a Broughton .30 cal barrel after it had what I conservatively estimated 12k rounds down the rifle. It was just about hovering at .75" at 100 yards. According to GAP it was worn about 1/4" in the throat.
At Rifles Only the SHR #50 had in excess of 15,000 rounds through it before changing the barrel with no break in and very little cleaning. It too was shooting about .75" when the action would cock the bolt. GAP reported about 4" of rifling missing from in front of the throat.
My Werewolf with a Bartlein Barrel has about 6k rounds currently through it, no break in, and no issue with accuracy or fouling, it shoots a solid 1/2 MOA.
The Gladius, about 3k rounds through it hits like a hammer, very little cleaning and no break in.
None of my gas guns have had their barrels broken in either, that is 3, a POF, a GAP with a Rock Creek and a Bartlein. No issues, very accurate and no fouling.
I also spoke with Tac Ops on the subject, and he does not believe in breaking in a barrel, Mike R does not recommend any form of break in, and does his test firing without doing so. So there is another voice in the mix that after years of experience does not feel there is any merit to the process. He did mention, as others have as well, that it's a bit of a pain in the ass because most customers expect some form of guidance and he simply recommends they shoot more and clean less, much to their chagrin.
So while data may not be available with hard and fast evidence, I have quite a bit of rounds downrange with a variety of similarly chambered 308s from a variety of makers and my results as well as opinions appear to be all the same. Clean less, shoot more and don't sweat the dogma published in the name of Barrel Break In.
I have done something which can be considering a bit of proof, testing two similar rifles with one being broken in and the other not. Both were purchased within a short period of time of each other and fired in an identical manner. Fed a diet of factory ammo under similar conditions.
Two identical SAKO TRG-22 rifles in 308. I broke in one barrel and did not with the other and could not tell one from the other in terms of accuracy or cleaning, or anything else. Not very scientific but at the time I was not looking to be, other than interested in seeing what the results were. No down range gains, both shot equally well to the point of not knowing which was which after a year or so of shooting both.
Fast forward and I have completely stopped breaking in my barrels, and still I see no degradation of accuracy or difference in what is required to clean the rifles up. The barrels do not get shot out any faster, nor does accuracy degrade quicker or is there any noticeable fouling taking place.
I tend to clean my barrels much less then most but still manage well over 10,000 rounds staying below an MOA at 100 yards. I recently rebarreled my GAP Harbinger with a Broughton .30 cal barrel after it had what I conservatively estimated 12k rounds down the rifle. It was just about hovering at .75" at 100 yards. According to GAP it was worn about 1/4" in the throat.
At Rifles Only the SHR #50 had in excess of 15,000 rounds through it before changing the barrel with no break in and very little cleaning. It too was shooting about .75" when the action would cock the bolt. GAP reported about 4" of rifling missing from in front of the throat.
My Werewolf with a Bartlein Barrel has about 6k rounds currently through it, no break in, and no issue with accuracy or fouling, it shoots a solid 1/2 MOA.
The Gladius, about 3k rounds through it hits like a hammer, very little cleaning and no break in.
None of my gas guns have had their barrels broken in either, that is 3, a POF, a GAP with a Rock Creek and a Bartlein. No issues, very accurate and no fouling.
I also spoke with Tac Ops on the subject, and he does not believe in breaking in a barrel, Mike R does not recommend any form of break in, and does his test firing without doing so. So there is another voice in the mix that after years of experience does not feel there is any merit to the process. He did mention, as others have as well, that it's a bit of a pain in the ass because most customers expect some form of guidance and he simply recommends they shoot more and clean less, much to their chagrin.
So while data may not be available with hard and fast evidence, I have quite a bit of rounds downrange with a variety of similarly chambered 308s from a variety of makers and my results as well as opinions appear to be all the same. Clean less, shoot more and don't sweat the dogma published in the name of Barrel Break In.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
I guess I've been "breaking in" properly all along, although it had a little more to do with laziness than a particular method.
I guess I've been "breaking in" properly all along, although it had a little more to do with laziness than a particular method.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deltazulu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oneshot onekill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deltazulu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeff,
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that barrel break-in procedures are a waste of time. The reason I disagree is not because I have any data or facts to refute what you have written, but rather you presented NO DATA whatsoever to support your position. What you did do is babble about ballistics, your credentials, other people's credentials, and borescopes, and all you presented is hearsay and opinion. NO, I repeat, NO data to support your position. Surpising coming from an Engineer. You kept using the word "fact" but you have shown NO DATA to support your claim that barrel break in procedures are a waste of time other than hearsay, opinions, and name dropping...NO DATA!
Dalton </div></div>
Ya know... If you're gonna take the time to read a post, at least take the time to read ALL of the responses. This is just typical of the lack of attention paid to the FACTS. The simple FACT is that a Barrel Maker came up with the whole idea of Barrel Break-in in the interest of selling more BARRELS... PERIOD... EXCLAMATION POINT!!! It is well documented by Gale McMillan of McMillan Brothers. </div></div>
I actually did read the entire post and I cannot dispute, as FACT, that Gale McMillan said a barrel maker made up a break-in procedure to sell more barrels. What I can say is that does not constitute PROOF that barrel break-in is a waste of time or does not occur as more rounds go down range. If you think well documented is a couple of posts on a forum, or an e-mail response to someone then so be it. I think this is Gale's opinion...PERIOD...and I'll wager he has no DATA to support his position either. If you have the data, or Gale has it, please produce it because it will be the first I've seen.
Jeff,
Sorry I was so tough on you. I respect that you have an opinion regarding the issue, but you produced no proof that your opinion is correct, other than the opinion of others, and indicated their opinion is proof and I disagree.
</div></div>
No worries man... I take everything with a grain of salt when it comes to this debate. However, Gale McMillan's statements about this are not an "opinion". They are the facts regarding where the whole process came from. So, in essence, there really aren't any physical Facts to support or deny the benefits. THE WHOLE THING WAS MADE-UP... IT'S A MARKETING TOOL. DON'T SWEAT IT. If it makes you feel better then have at it.
John
My thanks to LowLight for weighing-in on this... Again! Your experience is undeniable.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deltazulu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oneshot onekill</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deltazulu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeff,
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that barrel break-in procedures are a waste of time. The reason I disagree is not because I have any data or facts to refute what you have written, but rather you presented NO DATA whatsoever to support your position. What you did do is babble about ballistics, your credentials, other people's credentials, and borescopes, and all you presented is hearsay and opinion. NO, I repeat, NO data to support your position. Surpising coming from an Engineer. You kept using the word "fact" but you have shown NO DATA to support your claim that barrel break in procedures are a waste of time other than hearsay, opinions, and name dropping...NO DATA!
Dalton </div></div>
Ya know... If you're gonna take the time to read a post, at least take the time to read ALL of the responses. This is just typical of the lack of attention paid to the FACTS. The simple FACT is that a Barrel Maker came up with the whole idea of Barrel Break-in in the interest of selling more BARRELS... PERIOD... EXCLAMATION POINT!!! It is well documented by Gale McMillan of McMillan Brothers. </div></div>
I actually did read the entire post and I cannot dispute, as FACT, that Gale McMillan said a barrel maker made up a break-in procedure to sell more barrels. What I can say is that does not constitute PROOF that barrel break-in is a waste of time or does not occur as more rounds go down range. If you think well documented is a couple of posts on a forum, or an e-mail response to someone then so be it. I think this is Gale's opinion...PERIOD...and I'll wager he has no DATA to support his position either. If you have the data, or Gale has it, please produce it because it will be the first I've seen.
Jeff,
Sorry I was so tough on you. I respect that you have an opinion regarding the issue, but you produced no proof that your opinion is correct, other than the opinion of others, and indicated their opinion is proof and I disagree.
</div></div>
No worries man... I take everything with a grain of salt when it comes to this debate. However, Gale McMillan's statements about this are not an "opinion". They are the facts regarding where the whole process came from. So, in essence, there really aren't any physical Facts to support or deny the benefits. THE WHOLE THING WAS MADE-UP... IT'S A MARKETING TOOL. DON'T SWEAT IT. If it makes you feel better then have at it.
John
My thanks to LowLight for weighing-in on this... Again! Your experience is undeniable.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
A real quick stupid question. Should you at least do an initial cleaning of the rifle when received back from the smith or bought new? Or has it been test fired and ready to go?
A real quick stupid question. Should you at least do an initial cleaning of the rifle when received back from the smith or bought new? Or has it been test fired and ready to go?
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
I pull a bore snake through once before shooting it, incase they left some grease in the tube. But I do so dry as I don't use chemicals on my snakes.
I pull a bore snake through once before shooting it, incase they left some grease in the tube. But I do so dry as I don't use chemicals on my snakes.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedur
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrb572</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A real quick stupid question. Should you at least do an initial cleaning of the rifle when received back from the smith or bought new? Or has it been test fired and ready to go? </div></div>
Yes... I'd say it's always a good idea to at least inspect the bore and run a dry bore-snake whenever you receive ANY firearm that's been out of your sight or is new if you plan to shoot it. It's like checking to be sure a firearm is not loaded before you hand it to someone or receive it from someone. My $0.02... FWIW
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrb572</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A real quick stupid question. Should you at least do an initial cleaning of the rifle when received back from the smith or bought new? Or has it been test fired and ready to go? </div></div>
Yes... I'd say it's always a good idea to at least inspect the bore and run a dry bore-snake whenever you receive ANY firearm that's been out of your sight or is new if you plan to shoot it. It's like checking to be sure a firearm is not loaded before you hand it to someone or receive it from someone. My $0.02... FWIW
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedur
My Tikka (same material as Sako) also shot extremly well from the first round on. Why in the world would i go and shoot "sandpaper" or do voodoo dance around it is beyond me...
I would agree that a rough barrel would benefit from polishing but i ask you how do you know your barrel is rough, is it uniformly rough are the groves botched over the entire length of the barrel, who makes "botched" barrels, why in the world did you go and buy crap with all the quality brands out there. Did you buy rifle for 600$ and borescope for 900$ so that you can see inside barrel to lap it, why not just buy proven quality rifle for 1500$ and be done with it? I can't comment on Rugers or Remmys and its quality spectrum but if they really make a percentage of rought barrels (i doubt it) that require lapping i would seriously urge the "market" (i.e. shooters) send those companies a message that that is unacceptable.
PS: Even if there would be hard data, next argument would be sample size is too small and then something else. Do whatever pleases you if you are convinced that barrel break-in is a must well break
all you want you may even preach about it and it may even work for you (will you know for sure that it works or is it just a placebo...?)
My Tikka (same material as Sako) also shot extremly well from the first round on. Why in the world would i go and shoot "sandpaper" or do voodoo dance around it is beyond me...
I would agree that a rough barrel would benefit from polishing but i ask you how do you know your barrel is rough, is it uniformly rough are the groves botched over the entire length of the barrel, who makes "botched" barrels, why in the world did you go and buy crap with all the quality brands out there. Did you buy rifle for 600$ and borescope for 900$ so that you can see inside barrel to lap it, why not just buy proven quality rifle for 1500$ and be done with it? I can't comment on Rugers or Remmys and its quality spectrum but if they really make a percentage of rought barrels (i doubt it) that require lapping i would seriously urge the "market" (i.e. shooters) send those companies a message that that is unacceptable.
PS: Even if there would be hard data, next argument would be sample size is too small and then something else. Do whatever pleases you if you are convinced that barrel break-in is a must well break
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedur
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here: The issue is imperfections in the bore/throat. If your barrel has them, these should get better with shooting it. If it does not have them, then it should shoot to its potential from the first shot.
Imperfect barrel: most of these are going to be factory barrels. I think we can all agree that the real work done to improve these imperfections happens from shooting bullets down the bore. The imperfections are being "worn away". Agreed? The debate centers around cleaning. To me, if you are trying to "wear away" something, you want more friction until it is even. This would mean, at least to me, that you want bare metal on metal contact to maximize this process, right? If this is your goal then, you would want to clean between your shots to allow this process to happen more quickly. Once these imperfections have been worn down, then the less cleaning that needs to be done, the better.
Perfect barrel (match barrel): there shouldn't be imperfections here that need to be "worn down". As such it shouldn't need any "break-in" period.
I did not "break in" my Remington 22-250. It seems to foul terribly, and I seem to never be able to get ALL the copper out of it. However, it shoots well. I try to not mess with cleaning it too much. My 308 Bartlein barrel, I broke in per my gunsmith's recommendations of shoot 1 shot, clean, shoot 3 groups of 3, clean between each group, shoot and clean between 3 groups of 5 shots, then after 10 shots, then after 80-100 shots. It cleans up like a dream. I scrub with a copper brush, then 3 wet patches and 3 dry patches and it is CLEAN. It also shoots very well.
I'm not sure it really makes that much difference in the end, as accuracy seems to be good for both. But I suspect that my factory 22-250 would not foul quite as badly if I had broken it it. I don't think there would be any difference with my 308 though if I had not broken it in.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here: The issue is imperfections in the bore/throat. If your barrel has them, these should get better with shooting it. If it does not have them, then it should shoot to its potential from the first shot.
Imperfect barrel: most of these are going to be factory barrels. I think we can all agree that the real work done to improve these imperfections happens from shooting bullets down the bore. The imperfections are being "worn away". Agreed? The debate centers around cleaning. To me, if you are trying to "wear away" something, you want more friction until it is even. This would mean, at least to me, that you want bare metal on metal contact to maximize this process, right? If this is your goal then, you would want to clean between your shots to allow this process to happen more quickly. Once these imperfections have been worn down, then the less cleaning that needs to be done, the better.
Perfect barrel (match barrel): there shouldn't be imperfections here that need to be "worn down". As such it shouldn't need any "break-in" period.
I did not "break in" my Remington 22-250. It seems to foul terribly, and I seem to never be able to get ALL the copper out of it. However, it shoots well. I try to not mess with cleaning it too much. My 308 Bartlein barrel, I broke in per my gunsmith's recommendations of shoot 1 shot, clean, shoot 3 groups of 3, clean between each group, shoot and clean between 3 groups of 5 shots, then after 10 shots, then after 80-100 shots. It cleans up like a dream. I scrub with a copper brush, then 3 wet patches and 3 dry patches and it is CLEAN. It also shoots very well.
I'm not sure it really makes that much difference in the end, as accuracy seems to be good for both. But I suspect that my factory 22-250 would not foul quite as badly if I had broken it it. I don't think there would be any difference with my 308 though if I had not broken it in.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedur
I'd definitely say Gale McMillan was speaking about "Custom" barrels when he made his statements. So, in FACT, breaking in a "custom" barrel is an unnecessary waste of time.
Now... Let's look at "factory" barrels. Not generally Hand-lapped. Possibly with machining marks that run perpendicular to the direction of the travel of the bullet. Possibly with lips or gouges where they shouldn't be. Do you really think running copper or lead over steel is going to reduce those imperfections faster than it wears out the rest of the barrel??? My point is this: If the barrel has serious enough defects to hamper accuracy, shooting it more and then cleaning it with brass or plastic or copper-dissolving solvents certainly isn't going to help. Perhaps a gunsmith can fix it. Perhaps not. If not... throw that barrel away and get a "custom" barrel.
If you're in the persuit of perfection, you don't shop in the "Bargain-Bin".
Ever hear the term: "You can't polish a turd"???
I'd definitely say Gale McMillan was speaking about "Custom" barrels when he made his statements. So, in FACT, breaking in a "custom" barrel is an unnecessary waste of time.
Now... Let's look at "factory" barrels. Not generally Hand-lapped. Possibly with machining marks that run perpendicular to the direction of the travel of the bullet. Possibly with lips or gouges where they shouldn't be. Do you really think running copper or lead over steel is going to reduce those imperfections faster than it wears out the rest of the barrel??? My point is this: If the barrel has serious enough defects to hamper accuracy, shooting it more and then cleaning it with brass or plastic or copper-dissolving solvents certainly isn't going to help. Perhaps a gunsmith can fix it. Perhaps not. If not... throw that barrel away and get a "custom" barrel.
If you're in the persuit of perfection, you don't shop in the "Bargain-Bin".
Ever hear the term: "You can't polish a turd"???
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedur
I think the "apples and oranges" analogy holds a lot of water here.
The differences we would expect to see before and after firelapping/break-in relate to fouling and accuracy duration between cleanings. They are essentially the same differences we would expect to see between a precision aftermarket barrel, and a mass produced factory barrel.
The precision barrel's bore is lapped/honed, but in most instances the factory barrel isn't. IMHO, the value of break-in is that it is one of several means by which one may achieve the desired degree of honing. Each way produces different results. Hand lapping should be easier on the throat, enough so that firelapping may impact throat life undesirably. Much of the difference resides in the sequence of operations, namely honing, crowning, and chambering.
Personally, I claim no omniscience on the subject.
I tried breaking-in the first of my pair of L-W barrels, and gave up after seven rounds, when I could no longer detect any evidence of copper fouling on my patches. My process for custom barrels involved simply firing and cleaning after each shot for an arbitrary number of shots, following up with firing small groups and cleaning after each group. Obviously, the process, in this instance, was terminated very early on.
I also performed break-in on factory Remington, Winchester, Savage, and Ruger barrels. In every instance, fouling was clearly present, and just as clearly, it improved significantly as the break-in process progressed. My break-in process for factory barrels (at the time) included coating factory ammo bullets with JB cleaning compound, which I believe provided a far less aggressive form of abrasive action than conventional firelapping practices.
I never saw evidence of harm on the target. None of these barrels have yet to 'wear out' as I only use my Centerfire Rifles for comp and load work. All other practice, etc., is reserved for Rimfires; precisely because I treasure my bore life as a perishable resource that I may never be able to afford to replace again.
Take what emphasis you please from this, I infer no advice either for or against the practice.
Greg
I think the "apples and oranges" analogy holds a lot of water here.
The differences we would expect to see before and after firelapping/break-in relate to fouling and accuracy duration between cleanings. They are essentially the same differences we would expect to see between a precision aftermarket barrel, and a mass produced factory barrel.
The precision barrel's bore is lapped/honed, but in most instances the factory barrel isn't. IMHO, the value of break-in is that it is one of several means by which one may achieve the desired degree of honing. Each way produces different results. Hand lapping should be easier on the throat, enough so that firelapping may impact throat life undesirably. Much of the difference resides in the sequence of operations, namely honing, crowning, and chambering.
Personally, I claim no omniscience on the subject.
I tried breaking-in the first of my pair of L-W barrels, and gave up after seven rounds, when I could no longer detect any evidence of copper fouling on my patches. My process for custom barrels involved simply firing and cleaning after each shot for an arbitrary number of shots, following up with firing small groups and cleaning after each group. Obviously, the process, in this instance, was terminated very early on.
I also performed break-in on factory Remington, Winchester, Savage, and Ruger barrels. In every instance, fouling was clearly present, and just as clearly, it improved significantly as the break-in process progressed. My break-in process for factory barrels (at the time) included coating factory ammo bullets with JB cleaning compound, which I believe provided a far less aggressive form of abrasive action than conventional firelapping practices.
I never saw evidence of harm on the target. None of these barrels have yet to 'wear out' as I only use my Centerfire Rifles for comp and load work. All other practice, etc., is reserved for Rimfires; precisely because I treasure my bore life as a perishable resource that I may never be able to afford to replace again.
Take what emphasis you please from this, I infer no advice either for or against the practice.
Greg
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedur
I didnt read all of this thread as there is simply too much.
But this is what i did to my Remington 700P and she shoots great.
After much investigation into this subject, i too discovered all of the thoughts and opinions floating around on the net.
Eventually once i stumbled across expert opinions saying that barrel break in is a myth and that it just increased business for smiths... Made sense to me.
Then i thought about it. What harm could just shooting my rifle do, if i DONT stick to this extreme barrel break in process? None really, unless its so dirty that my gun explodes. But that would take a while to happen.
So this is what i have done so far, any everything seems to be working great.
1) clean brand new factory barrel to remove oil, dust, shavings, rust, etc
2) Apply sentry solutions smooth kote moly/alcohol solution to the inside of the barrel, via a patch that is soaked and then run up and down the barrel multiple times. All of this happens with a Lucas bored guide.
3) Let the smooth kote dry for 2 hours.
4) Apply Sentry Solutions BP-2000 moly powder to inside of the barrel
5) shoot, shoot, shoot and shoot some more.
If the rifle was fouling up badly, i might be forced to take other measures, but it shoots fine. Perhaps barrels that foul just required more shooting.
Any thoughts on Final Finish?
I didnt read all of this thread as there is simply too much.
But this is what i did to my Remington 700P and she shoots great.
After much investigation into this subject, i too discovered all of the thoughts and opinions floating around on the net.
Eventually once i stumbled across expert opinions saying that barrel break in is a myth and that it just increased business for smiths... Made sense to me.
Then i thought about it. What harm could just shooting my rifle do, if i DONT stick to this extreme barrel break in process? None really, unless its so dirty that my gun explodes. But that would take a while to happen.
So this is what i have done so far, any everything seems to be working great.
1) clean brand new factory barrel to remove oil, dust, shavings, rust, etc
2) Apply sentry solutions smooth kote moly/alcohol solution to the inside of the barrel, via a patch that is soaked and then run up and down the barrel multiple times. All of this happens with a Lucas bored guide.
3) Let the smooth kote dry for 2 hours.
4) Apply Sentry Solutions BP-2000 moly powder to inside of the barrel
5) shoot, shoot, shoot and shoot some more.
If the rifle was fouling up badly, i might be forced to take other measures, but it shoots fine. Perhaps barrels that foul just required more shooting.
Any thoughts on Final Finish?
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedur
Very interesting views about breakin in or not here.
I do not believe in any break in process.
I have to admit, I did not read all posts in this thread.
Two weeks ago two friends and I were test shooting some handloads in a ballistic lab at the university where I studied technical engineering.
The primary test was to exactly measure the real muzzle velocity (V0) from our .308 rifles. It is part of the preparation for our 1000 m shooting project.
Shooting at ranges over 300 m is extremely limited and really expensive in Germany. So we are preparing this project very carefully.
Note: We shot 2 AIAE and 1 Tikka T3 super varmint. One AIAE was bought used, the other rifles were bought new. No breaking in processes, just shooting the sticks. The V0 variance and the real live precision is excellent with all three rifles.
Maybe this is interesting for some of you:
Moly coating:
One load was Lapua lock base 170 grs with 42 grs Vihtavuori N140 powder in Lapua brass. The coresponding load was identical, but the projectile was moly coated.
The V0 was identical, the V0 variation was identical at +- 5m/s!
Some shooters insist that moly coated bullets are less deformed by the barrel, ie there are no "flags" pulled back by the lands. At the pics taken in the lab there was the same amount of deformation shown!
So, moly just fouls the barrel and is more costly.
No more moly will be used by us!
The least V0 variation was achieved with fireformed and Redding neck sized Lapua brass with exactly trickled powder and precision seated projectiles (match seater die). The variance was 3 m/s at a tested base of 25 rounds.
So, at least this load of reloading work pays off at long ranges.
The variance with full size calibration, thrown, not trickled powder load and standard seating (RCBS standard die set) brought a V0 variance of 10 m/s at a tested base of 39 rounds. There was one flier wich opened the variance to 16 m/s.
This will be enough for me and my rifle at long range.
Very interesting views about breakin in or not here.
I do not believe in any break in process.
I have to admit, I did not read all posts in this thread.
Two weeks ago two friends and I were test shooting some handloads in a ballistic lab at the university where I studied technical engineering.
The primary test was to exactly measure the real muzzle velocity (V0) from our .308 rifles. It is part of the preparation for our 1000 m shooting project.
Shooting at ranges over 300 m is extremely limited and really expensive in Germany. So we are preparing this project very carefully.
Note: We shot 2 AIAE and 1 Tikka T3 super varmint. One AIAE was bought used, the other rifles were bought new. No breaking in processes, just shooting the sticks. The V0 variance and the real live precision is excellent with all three rifles.
Maybe this is interesting for some of you:
Moly coating:
One load was Lapua lock base 170 grs with 42 grs Vihtavuori N140 powder in Lapua brass. The coresponding load was identical, but the projectile was moly coated.
The V0 was identical, the V0 variation was identical at +- 5m/s!
Some shooters insist that moly coated bullets are less deformed by the barrel, ie there are no "flags" pulled back by the lands. At the pics taken in the lab there was the same amount of deformation shown!
So, moly just fouls the barrel and is more costly.
No more moly will be used by us!
The least V0 variation was achieved with fireformed and Redding neck sized Lapua brass with exactly trickled powder and precision seated projectiles (match seater die). The variance was 3 m/s at a tested base of 25 rounds.
So, at least this load of reloading work pays off at long ranges.
The variance with full size calibration, thrown, not trickled powder load and standard seating (RCBS standard die set) brought a V0 variance of 10 m/s at a tested base of 39 rounds. There was one flier wich opened the variance to 16 m/s.
This will be enough for me and my rifle at long range.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedur
Schleifalot, what are your thoughts on moly coating the bore as opposed to moly coated bullets?
Clearly there must be a difference between the two
From my understanding, moly coating the bore fills in any low spots in the rifling and also acts as a dry lubricant... This apparently makes cleaning much easier. I dont know the difference because i moly coat all of my barrels so I dont know the difference between coated and non coated.
Would you consider running more tests on say, a batch of handloaded or match ammo from the same batch, and test the VO for a coated and non coated barrel?
Schleifalot, what are your thoughts on moly coating the bore as opposed to moly coated bullets?
Clearly there must be a difference between the two
From my understanding, moly coating the bore fills in any low spots in the rifling and also acts as a dry lubricant... This apparently makes cleaning much easier. I dont know the difference because i moly coat all of my barrels so I dont know the difference between coated and non coated.
Would you consider running more tests on say, a batch of handloaded or match ammo from the same batch, and test the VO for a coated and non coated barrel?
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedur
That test was a single oportunity for us. I contacted my former prof and he was very positive about it. But unfortunately it was a single event. Usually this kind of testimg would have costed hundreds of euros, maybe well over one thousand.
We had only to provide our loads and the complete test data as "payment".
Molybdeniumsulfide:
A coated barrel should in my opinion be easier to clean as you stated.
To test differences in muzzle velocity you have to use the same barrel first uncoated and then coated, because even two (nearly) identical rifles will produce different V0 or will react differently to coating. Most decent V0 measure equipment should suffice. If you cannot discern any difference in V0 and cleaning, why bother with coating?
Should be an intersing test setup.
Some considerations on moly and other dry lubes:
MoS2 is a lubricant, MoO2 can be used in cutting ceramics.
At what temperature is MoS2 burned to MoO2?? I do not know.
Boron nitride is a new rage as bullet coating. Cubic boron nitride is used in ceramic grinding equipment to grind and sharpen drills and milling tools made of HSS steel.
The chance of moly and boron to turn into "grinding compound" is probably marginal. BUT I dont want to take this chance, I will not use some of this stuff.
That test was a single oportunity for us. I contacted my former prof and he was very positive about it. But unfortunately it was a single event. Usually this kind of testimg would have costed hundreds of euros, maybe well over one thousand.
We had only to provide our loads and the complete test data as "payment".
Molybdeniumsulfide:
A coated barrel should in my opinion be easier to clean as you stated.
To test differences in muzzle velocity you have to use the same barrel first uncoated and then coated, because even two (nearly) identical rifles will produce different V0 or will react differently to coating. Most decent V0 measure equipment should suffice. If you cannot discern any difference in V0 and cleaning, why bother with coating?
Should be an intersing test setup.
Some considerations on moly and other dry lubes:
MoS2 is a lubricant, MoO2 can be used in cutting ceramics.
At what temperature is MoS2 burned to MoO2?? I do not know.
Boron nitride is a new rage as bullet coating. Cubic boron nitride is used in ceramic grinding equipment to grind and sharpen drills and milling tools made of HSS steel.
The chance of moly and boron to turn into "grinding compound" is probably marginal. BUT I dont want to take this chance, I will not use some of this stuff.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
very interesting....
I checked Sentry Solutions's availability and it appears that bp2000 and smoothcote is on the governments restricted mailing list..meaning it it incurs a shipping fee not unlike a "hazmat" charge ($30-$50)...? Where would be the best place to obtain smoothcote and bp2000. I thought I would raise the flag and see who salutes it without doing a bunch of googling...
oops...take that back....checked further so the above appears to be misinformation. it's available from mail order / internet locations...maybe the fee applied to large quantities of the moly??
very interesting....
I checked Sentry Solutions's availability and it appears that bp2000 and smoothcote is on the governments restricted mailing list..meaning it it incurs a shipping fee not unlike a "hazmat" charge ($30-$50)...? Where would be the best place to obtain smoothcote and bp2000. I thought I would raise the flag and see who salutes it without doing a bunch of googling...
oops...take that back....checked further so the above appears to be misinformation. it's available from mail order / internet locations...maybe the fee applied to large quantities of the moly??
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schleifalot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The chance of moly and boron to turn into "grinding compound" is probably marginal. BUT I dont want to take this chance, I will not use some of this stuff. </div></div>
That's like saying you want to stock up on graphite in the off chance that it will turn into diamond. They're both made of pure carbon, right?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schleifalot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The chance of moly and boron to turn into "grinding compound" is probably marginal. BUT I dont want to take this chance, I will not use some of this stuff. </div></div>
That's like saying you want to stock up on graphite in the off chance that it will turn into diamond. They're both made of pure carbon, right?
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
The comparison between graphite/diamond and boronnitride is a little shallow.
You can make diamond in your backyard. Use a acetylene torch with lack of oxygen on a steel plate of some alloy. There will form microscopic particles of diamond. That was demonstrated by a Professor of material science back when I was a student. The exact parameter were not stated, but the results under a microscope.
Back to topic
It is a fact that boronnitride is used in grinding wheels for tool steel. Even if the particles are extremely small, like polishing compound, it is still a grinding compound.
The deciding factor is not the size, but the shape of the particle. How can be guaranteered that there are perfect sperical particles in the compound?
I do not BELIEVE in the advantages in V0 and precision of MoS2 or boronnitride.
So why should I take the risk of using a polishing compound.
If a shooter has more peace of mind using this stuff, he will have good results.
Confidence in your equipment and your skills is a greater deciding factor as little gimmicks.
The comparison between graphite/diamond and boronnitride is a little shallow.
You can make diamond in your backyard. Use a acetylene torch with lack of oxygen on a steel plate of some alloy. There will form microscopic particles of diamond. That was demonstrated by a Professor of material science back when I was a student. The exact parameter were not stated, but the results under a microscope.
Back to topic
It is a fact that boronnitride is used in grinding wheels for tool steel. Even if the particles are extremely small, like polishing compound, it is still a grinding compound.
The deciding factor is not the size, but the shape of the particle. How can be guaranteered that there are perfect sperical particles in the compound?
I do not BELIEVE in the advantages in V0 and precision of MoS2 or boronnitride.
So why should I take the risk of using a polishing compound.
If a shooter has more peace of mind using this stuff, he will have good results.
Confidence in your equipment and your skills is a greater deciding factor as little gimmicks.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
OK all - I'll grant the argument two things:
1- Yes, now thinking about it, a bullet can move, then stop after primer strike, but before propellant ignition. I'm sure of it, but it's a function of your throat and bullet seating depth. This stop-start thing has nothing to do with a brandy-new barrel.
2- A "system" normally requires some "break in", just like a new motor or anything else mechanical. It's normal for a new semi-auto to shoot crappy for the first several rounds, but then tighten up and go to working (witness my Ruger LCP). First seven rounds were crap. Then, after I put some rounds thru it, tightened right up and shot well. Same would go for virtually any other mechanical device. It's really a question of how to break in and when to finish.
I say shoot the darn thing. Chances are the first several rounds ain't going to be indicative of the rifle's performance. Just pour some rounds down range. Ain't going to hurt anything. Now, break out the copper and carbon cleaner and make that barrel like a shiny new wistle.
Foul the barrel, and get to work.
OK all - I'll grant the argument two things:
1- Yes, now thinking about it, a bullet can move, then stop after primer strike, but before propellant ignition. I'm sure of it, but it's a function of your throat and bullet seating depth. This stop-start thing has nothing to do with a brandy-new barrel.
2- A "system" normally requires some "break in", just like a new motor or anything else mechanical. It's normal for a new semi-auto to shoot crappy for the first several rounds, but then tighten up and go to working (witness my Ruger LCP). First seven rounds were crap. Then, after I put some rounds thru it, tightened right up and shot well. Same would go for virtually any other mechanical device. It's really a question of how to break in and when to finish.
I say shoot the darn thing. Chances are the first several rounds ain't going to be indicative of the rifle's performance. Just pour some rounds down range. Ain't going to hurt anything. Now, break out the copper and carbon cleaner and make that barrel like a shiny new wistle.
Foul the barrel, and get to work.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
A year or so ago, I was shooting at the local range and having some complaints with a highend barrel. Did not matter how I stroked the trigger or loaded the ammo, I still got doo-doo on the target.
An older shooter(former across-the-course man)pulled up and asked how many rounds I had down the tube. I told him about 100. He said give it another fifty and all would be well.
He was right.
A year or so ago, I was shooting at the local range and having some complaints with a highend barrel. Did not matter how I stroked the trigger or loaded the ammo, I still got doo-doo on the target.
An older shooter(former across-the-course man)pulled up and asked how many rounds I had down the tube. I told him about 100. He said give it another fifty and all would be well.
He was right.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I also spoke with Tac Ops on the subject, and he does not believe in breaking in a barrel, Mike R does not recommend any form of break in, and does his test firing without doing so. So there is another voice in the mix that after years of experience does not feel there is any merit to the process. He did mention, as others have as well, that it's a bit of a pain in the ass because most customers expect some form of guidance and he simply recommends they shoot more and clean less, much to their chagrin.
So while data may not be available with hard and fast evidence, I have quite a bit of rounds downrange with a variety of similarly chambered 308s from a variety of makers and my results as well as opinions appear to be all the same. Clean less, shoot more and don't sweat the dogma published in the name of Barrel Break In.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">Frank</span> is correct we had this conversation most recently. I tell all my L.E. customers and none as well there is no need to break in a barrel period. I have been in the Industry appx. 20 years and have built more platforms then I can remember. I did some testing back in the day and realized it was a time killer. But on the other hand if you are out at the range and shooting with a buddy and care to pull patches and shoot the shit while doing so knock yourself out
<span style="font-weight: bold">Mike
Tac Ops</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I also spoke with Tac Ops on the subject, and he does not believe in breaking in a barrel, Mike R does not recommend any form of break in, and does his test firing without doing so. So there is another voice in the mix that after years of experience does not feel there is any merit to the process. He did mention, as others have as well, that it's a bit of a pain in the ass because most customers expect some form of guidance and he simply recommends they shoot more and clean less, much to their chagrin.
So while data may not be available with hard and fast evidence, I have quite a bit of rounds downrange with a variety of similarly chambered 308s from a variety of makers and my results as well as opinions appear to be all the same. Clean less, shoot more and don't sweat the dogma published in the name of Barrel Break In.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">Frank</span> is correct we had this conversation most recently. I tell all my L.E. customers and none as well there is no need to break in a barrel period. I have been in the Industry appx. 20 years and have built more platforms then I can remember. I did some testing back in the day and realized it was a time killer. But on the other hand if you are out at the range and shooting with a buddy and care to pull patches and shoot the shit while doing so knock yourself out
<span style="font-weight: bold">Mike
Tac Ops</span>
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Some of the older shooters at my local range are starting to talk about me as being the "poor guy that thinks you don't have to break in a barrel or clean it after every range session". The last day I was out there before today I had pretty much had enough. I took a nickel out to the 200yd stands and put a staple at the bottom and top of it to hold it to the board. When I got back to the bench I proceeded to tell the three guys there how it was true and I hadn't cleaned my rifle in over 300 rounds. Then I told them to watch the nickel I stuck up at 200yds. One of them finally found it with his spotting scope. I fired once and it disappeared. I didn't say anything as I put my gear in the truck. They all stood there and watched without a word. As I got in the truck to leave I said: "I may NEVER clean this one!"
Today I was at the range and two of the three guys were there too. They wasted no time walking over to me and told me how the other guy that was there the first time spent about 15 minutes looking for the nickel I had shot. When he found it there was a clean hole very close to dead-center. They told me he was pretty pissed, said it was totally luck and he was considering turning me in for destroying the nickel. I laughed my ass off. So did they. They still don't agree with me but I think they may have a little more respect. They were very curious about my rifle and my reloads and we had some good conversation. Better than I had ever had with these guys before.
Some of the older shooters at my local range are starting to talk about me as being the "poor guy that thinks you don't have to break in a barrel or clean it after every range session". The last day I was out there before today I had pretty much had enough. I took a nickel out to the 200yd stands and put a staple at the bottom and top of it to hold it to the board. When I got back to the bench I proceeded to tell the three guys there how it was true and I hadn't cleaned my rifle in over 300 rounds. Then I told them to watch the nickel I stuck up at 200yds. One of them finally found it with his spotting scope. I fired once and it disappeared. I didn't say anything as I put my gear in the truck. They all stood there and watched without a word. As I got in the truck to leave I said: "I may NEVER clean this one!"
Today I was at the range and two of the three guys were there too. They wasted no time walking over to me and told me how the other guy that was there the first time spent about 15 minutes looking for the nickel I had shot. When he found it there was a clean hole very close to dead-center. They told me he was pretty pissed, said it was totally luck and he was considering turning me in for destroying the nickel. I laughed my ass off. So did they. They still don't agree with me but I think they may have a little more respect. They were very curious about my rifle and my reloads and we had some good conversation. Better than I had ever had with these guys before.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
This is a bit disappointing. I had hoped for data. I have generated more data on my own than were in the OP. It (my miniscule amount of data) proves that barrels break in, whether that process includes cleaning a lot, a little, or not at all, and whether that process includes shooting, lapping, burnishing with moly on a stick (rather than moly on a bullet), burnishing with smokeless powder, burnishing with gilding metal, or what.
Unfortunately, my miniscule amount of data is just that: miniscule. Still more than what's in the OP, though.
Oh, well. Better luck to us next time.
This is a bit disappointing. I had hoped for data. I have generated more data on my own than were in the OP. It (my miniscule amount of data) proves that barrels break in, whether that process includes cleaning a lot, a little, or not at all, and whether that process includes shooting, lapping, burnishing with moly on a stick (rather than moly on a bullet), burnishing with smokeless powder, burnishing with gilding metal, or what.
Unfortunately, my miniscule amount of data is just that: miniscule. Still more than what's in the OP, though.
Oh, well. Better luck to us next time.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Soooo, How bout you share? I mean, first post and your telling the OP that he didn't do enough testing to be making assumptions. If you really have something to add, please do...
Soooo, How bout you share? I mean, first post and your telling the OP that he didn't do enough testing to be making assumptions. If you really have something to add, please do...
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
A careful re-read of my post will reveal that I made no assertions about the O.P.'s testing, nor about assumptions, nor anything. No data nor testing method(s) were presented by the O.P. that I saw.
I'll present data from 1 single rifle here, which is infinitely more than the zero quantity presented here-to-fore.
Browning A-bolt II, chambered in .30-06 Springfield, bought new by me. Firing 30 factory rounds down the tube on each of several occasions resulted in a need to let my Foul-Out II work for 8-12 hours to remove all copper (following factory instructions re: solution inspection and change-out). Copper was the only visible color on the lands and much of the grooves from the muzzle down at least 2 inches into the bbl. The time required to remove all the copper shortened slightly within the time range of the first few hundred rounds through the rifle.
I then fired 30 soft lead fire-lapping bullets (Beartooth Bullets' product and methods, which include a bit of hand lapping after the fire lapping). Following this procedure, 30 rounds down the tube resulted in the need to let the Foul-Out II run for ~4 hours to remove all copper. The lands remained awash in visible copper near the muzzle, but not over their entire breadth as before.
Unquestionably, the bore was rough or <span style="font-style: italic">something</span> as delivered from the factory. Gun shot very well, it just coppered up something fierce. The lapping significantly reduced the issue, but there was a <span style="font-style: italic">small</span> amount of improvement during the first few hundred rounds before I lapped the bbl.
These observations and measurements (time required on the Foul-Out II) indicate that there was <span style="font-style: italic">some</span> sort of break-in occurring in the barrel. Someone previously pointed out that aftermarket 'match' barrels are lapped by their makers before being shipped to or installed for customers. Normally they hand lap rather than fire lapping (as I understand, anyway), but the lapping process occurs nevertheless.
I have made and still make no comment on the conclusions presented by the O.P.
I still wish that data (_any_ data) would have been presented, because as I've said my own data is comparatively miniscule. I do have more than the single example rifle, but this is the most dramatic of the data I have.
A careful re-read of my post will reveal that I made no assertions about the O.P.'s testing, nor about assumptions, nor anything. No data nor testing method(s) were presented by the O.P. that I saw.
I'll present data from 1 single rifle here, which is infinitely more than the zero quantity presented here-to-fore.
Browning A-bolt II, chambered in .30-06 Springfield, bought new by me. Firing 30 factory rounds down the tube on each of several occasions resulted in a need to let my Foul-Out II work for 8-12 hours to remove all copper (following factory instructions re: solution inspection and change-out). Copper was the only visible color on the lands and much of the grooves from the muzzle down at least 2 inches into the bbl. The time required to remove all the copper shortened slightly within the time range of the first few hundred rounds through the rifle.
I then fired 30 soft lead fire-lapping bullets (Beartooth Bullets' product and methods, which include a bit of hand lapping after the fire lapping). Following this procedure, 30 rounds down the tube resulted in the need to let the Foul-Out II run for ~4 hours to remove all copper. The lands remained awash in visible copper near the muzzle, but not over their entire breadth as before.
Unquestionably, the bore was rough or <span style="font-style: italic">something</span> as delivered from the factory. Gun shot very well, it just coppered up something fierce. The lapping significantly reduced the issue, but there was a <span style="font-style: italic">small</span> amount of improvement during the first few hundred rounds before I lapped the bbl.
These observations and measurements (time required on the Foul-Out II) indicate that there was <span style="font-style: italic">some</span> sort of break-in occurring in the barrel. Someone previously pointed out that aftermarket 'match' barrels are lapped by their makers before being shipped to or installed for customers. Normally they hand lap rather than fire lapping (as I understand, anyway), but the lapping process occurs nevertheless.
I have made and still make no comment on the conclusions presented by the O.P.
I still wish that data (_any_ data) would have been presented, because as I've said my own data is comparatively miniscule. I do have more than the single example rifle, but this is the most dramatic of the data I have.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MZ5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A careful re-read of my post will reveal that I made no assertions about the O.P.'s testing, nor about assumptions, nor anything. No data nor testing method(s) were presented by the O.P. that I saw.
I'll present data from 1 single rifle here, which is infinitely more than the zero quantity presented here-to-fore.
Browning A-bolt II, chambered in .30-06 Springfield, bought new by me. Firing 30 factory rounds down the tube on each of several occasions resulted in a need to let my Foul-Out II work for 8-12 hours to remove all copper (following factory instructions re: solution inspection and change-out). Copper was the only visible color on the lands and much of the grooves from the muzzle down at least 2 inches into the bbl. The time required to remove all the copper shortened slightly within the time range of the first few hundred rounds through the rifle.
I then fired 30 soft lead fire-lapping bullets (Beartooth Bullets' product and methods, which include a bit of hand lapping after the fire lapping). Following this procedure, 30 rounds down the tube resulted in the need to let the Foul-Out II run for ~4 hours to remove all copper. The lands remained awash in visible copper near the muzzle, but not over their entire breadth as before.
Unquestionably, the bore was rough or <span style="font-style: italic">something</span> as delivered from the factory. Gun shot very well, it just coppered up something fierce. The lapping significantly reduced the issue, but there was a <span style="font-style: italic">small</span> amount of improvement during the first few hundred rounds before I lapped the bbl.
These observations and measurements (time required on the Foul-Out II) indicate that there was <span style="font-style: italic">some</span> sort of break-in occurring in the barrel. Someone previously pointed out that aftermarket 'match' barrels are lapped by their makers before being shipped to or installed for customers. Normally they hand lap rather than fire lapping (as I understand, anyway), but the lapping process occurs nevertheless.
I have made and still make no comment on the conclusions presented by the O.P.
I still wish that data (_any_ data) would have been presented, because as I've said my own data is comparatively miniscule. I do have more than the single example rifle, but this is the most dramatic of the data I have. </div></div>
Well... I can tell you the Barrel Manufacturers LOVE you!
No one is disputing that as a barrel wears out it can become smoother. And I'd say you are removing hundreds of rounds of life from your barrel prematurely. For the casual shooter or hunter the life of a barrel is rarely considered. As long as it's straight, smooth and the throat's not burned out of it the rifle is Good to Go. But for those who are Very serious competitors at great distances, or shoot for a living, the life of a barrel is shortened with every shot. The Myth of improving a barrel's performance by "Breaking it in" is ridiculous!... and PROVEN to be so! In the purest sense the best shot out of a custom-made, hand-lapped barrel is the FIRST shot.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MZ5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A careful re-read of my post will reveal that I made no assertions about the O.P.'s testing, nor about assumptions, nor anything. No data nor testing method(s) were presented by the O.P. that I saw.
I'll present data from 1 single rifle here, which is infinitely more than the zero quantity presented here-to-fore.
Browning A-bolt II, chambered in .30-06 Springfield, bought new by me. Firing 30 factory rounds down the tube on each of several occasions resulted in a need to let my Foul-Out II work for 8-12 hours to remove all copper (following factory instructions re: solution inspection and change-out). Copper was the only visible color on the lands and much of the grooves from the muzzle down at least 2 inches into the bbl. The time required to remove all the copper shortened slightly within the time range of the first few hundred rounds through the rifle.
I then fired 30 soft lead fire-lapping bullets (Beartooth Bullets' product and methods, which include a bit of hand lapping after the fire lapping). Following this procedure, 30 rounds down the tube resulted in the need to let the Foul-Out II run for ~4 hours to remove all copper. The lands remained awash in visible copper near the muzzle, but not over their entire breadth as before.
Unquestionably, the bore was rough or <span style="font-style: italic">something</span> as delivered from the factory. Gun shot very well, it just coppered up something fierce. The lapping significantly reduced the issue, but there was a <span style="font-style: italic">small</span> amount of improvement during the first few hundred rounds before I lapped the bbl.
These observations and measurements (time required on the Foul-Out II) indicate that there was <span style="font-style: italic">some</span> sort of break-in occurring in the barrel. Someone previously pointed out that aftermarket 'match' barrels are lapped by their makers before being shipped to or installed for customers. Normally they hand lap rather than fire lapping (as I understand, anyway), but the lapping process occurs nevertheless.
I have made and still make no comment on the conclusions presented by the O.P.
I still wish that data (_any_ data) would have been presented, because as I've said my own data is comparatively miniscule. I do have more than the single example rifle, but this is the most dramatic of the data I have. </div></div>
Well... I can tell you the Barrel Manufacturers LOVE you!
No one is disputing that as a barrel wears out it can become smoother. And I'd say you are removing hundreds of rounds of life from your barrel prematurely. For the casual shooter or hunter the life of a barrel is rarely considered. As long as it's straight, smooth and the throat's not burned out of it the rifle is Good to Go. But for those who are Very serious competitors at great distances, or shoot for a living, the life of a barrel is shortened with every shot. The Myth of improving a barrel's performance by "Breaking it in" is ridiculous!... and PROVEN to be so! In the purest sense the best shot out of a custom-made, hand-lapped barrel is the FIRST shot.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MZ5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A careful re-read of my post will reveal that I made no assertions about the O.P.'s testing, nor about assumptions, nor anything. No data nor testing method(s) were presented by the O.P. that I saw.
I'll present data from 1 single rifle here, which is infinitely more than the zero quantity presented here-to-fore.
Browning A-bolt II, chambered in .30-06 Springfield, bought new by me. Firing 30 factory rounds down the tube on each of several occasions resulted in a need to let my Foul-Out II work for 8-12 hours to remove all copper (following factory instructions re: solution inspection and change-out). Copper was the only visible color on the lands and much of the grooves from the muzzle down at least 2 inches into the bbl. The time required to remove all the copper shortened slightly within the time range of the first few hundred rounds through the rifle.
I then fired 30 soft lead fire-lapping bullets (Beartooth Bullets' product and methods, which include a bit of hand lapping after the fire lapping). Following this procedure, 30 rounds down the tube resulted in the need to let the Foul-Out II run for ~4 hours to remove all copper. The lands remained awash in visible copper near the muzzle, but not over their entire breadth as before.
Unquestionably, the bore was rough or <span style="font-style: italic">something</span> as delivered from the factory. Gun shot very well, it just coppered up something fierce. The lapping significantly reduced the issue, but there was a <span style="font-style: italic">small</span> amount of improvement during the first few hundred rounds before I lapped the bbl.
These observations and measurements (time required on the Foul-Out II) indicate that there was <span style="font-style: italic">some</span> sort of break-in occurring in the barrel. Someone previously pointed out that aftermarket 'match' barrels are lapped by their makers before being shipped to or installed for customers. Normally they hand lap rather than fire lapping (as I understand, anyway), but the lapping process occurs nevertheless.
I have made and still make no comment on the conclusions presented by the O.P.
I still wish that data (_any_ data) would have been presented, because as I've said my own data is comparatively miniscule. I do have more than the single example rifle, but this is the most dramatic of the data I have. </div></div>
But would it have done the same had you never cleaned the original copper out? You see, once you take one path or another, you will never know how that particular barrel would have perfomed differently. There are those that have taken the time to find the right answeres using lab type testing and they still don't have a difinitive answer. What they do know is that a barrel that is used for shooting will still shoot as well as a barrel that is used for making the cleaner feel good about the job he did cleaning it. Your relitively new here, this has been discussed at great length in the past and the same aguments were made. I don't see it getting answered for some. So, do as you please.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MZ5</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A careful re-read of my post will reveal that I made no assertions about the O.P.'s testing, nor about assumptions, nor anything. No data nor testing method(s) were presented by the O.P. that I saw.
I'll present data from 1 single rifle here, which is infinitely more than the zero quantity presented here-to-fore.
Browning A-bolt II, chambered in .30-06 Springfield, bought new by me. Firing 30 factory rounds down the tube on each of several occasions resulted in a need to let my Foul-Out II work for 8-12 hours to remove all copper (following factory instructions re: solution inspection and change-out). Copper was the only visible color on the lands and much of the grooves from the muzzle down at least 2 inches into the bbl. The time required to remove all the copper shortened slightly within the time range of the first few hundred rounds through the rifle.
I then fired 30 soft lead fire-lapping bullets (Beartooth Bullets' product and methods, which include a bit of hand lapping after the fire lapping). Following this procedure, 30 rounds down the tube resulted in the need to let the Foul-Out II run for ~4 hours to remove all copper. The lands remained awash in visible copper near the muzzle, but not over their entire breadth as before.
Unquestionably, the bore was rough or <span style="font-style: italic">something</span> as delivered from the factory. Gun shot very well, it just coppered up something fierce. The lapping significantly reduced the issue, but there was a <span style="font-style: italic">small</span> amount of improvement during the first few hundred rounds before I lapped the bbl.
These observations and measurements (time required on the Foul-Out II) indicate that there was <span style="font-style: italic">some</span> sort of break-in occurring in the barrel. Someone previously pointed out that aftermarket 'match' barrels are lapped by their makers before being shipped to or installed for customers. Normally they hand lap rather than fire lapping (as I understand, anyway), but the lapping process occurs nevertheless.
I have made and still make no comment on the conclusions presented by the O.P.
I still wish that data (_any_ data) would have been presented, because as I've said my own data is comparatively miniscule. I do have more than the single example rifle, but this is the most dramatic of the data I have. </div></div>
But would it have done the same had you never cleaned the original copper out? You see, once you take one path or another, you will never know how that particular barrel would have perfomed differently. There are those that have taken the time to find the right answeres using lab type testing and they still don't have a difinitive answer. What they do know is that a barrel that is used for shooting will still shoot as well as a barrel that is used for making the cleaner feel good about the job he did cleaning it. Your relitively new here, this has been discussed at great length in the past and the same aguments were made. I don't see it getting answered for some. So, do as you please.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Flyboy, your remark about lab testing is what I thought was purported to have been done by the O.P. It wasn't. That's what I was expressing my disappointment about, and I remain disappointed (as do we all) of actual data by the O.P.
I recognize that I'm new to this forum, and that you guys don't 'know' me and I don't 'know' you. That's immaterial to the issue, though. Research was claimed to have been performed, but none was presented. At best, one might have considered this a 'literature review,' except that there wasn't even any literature cited, let alone anotated or made available for review.
As far as what I do, I clean most of my barrels extremely little. A few need (or have needed) me to clean more often, at least until they broke in. Alternatively, they needed me to take some action (like fire lapping, since I don't hand lap) to break them in more rapidly to the point of stable usefulness. I presented the information above because it represents actual data on the topic.
That barrels essentially all 'break in' is crystal clear to all shooters. That most <span style="font-style: italic">factory</span> barrels break in at the hands of the owner, whereas most <span style="font-style: italic">aftermarket</span> barrels have had the 'break-in' performed by the barrel maker (usually with a lead lap) is also clear to all shooters of each type of barrel.
The question is: Is there any actual research on the topic, _with_ data that the public can review? Would that data tell us that there's some benefit to lapping most factory barrels, or would it tell us there is not? Would it tell us that there's benefit to 'breaking in' a lapped aftermarket barrel? My opinion is that it would almost certainly not tell us that, but the data's not here to review.
All this to one side, I'd personally be extremely curious to review actual data on the topic, even if that review was done privately, rather than by posting it on the web.
Flyboy, your remark about lab testing is what I thought was purported to have been done by the O.P. It wasn't. That's what I was expressing my disappointment about, and I remain disappointed (as do we all) of actual data by the O.P.
I recognize that I'm new to this forum, and that you guys don't 'know' me and I don't 'know' you. That's immaterial to the issue, though. Research was claimed to have been performed, but none was presented. At best, one might have considered this a 'literature review,' except that there wasn't even any literature cited, let alone anotated or made available for review.
As far as what I do, I clean most of my barrels extremely little. A few need (or have needed) me to clean more often, at least until they broke in. Alternatively, they needed me to take some action (like fire lapping, since I don't hand lap) to break them in more rapidly to the point of stable usefulness. I presented the information above because it represents actual data on the topic.
That barrels essentially all 'break in' is crystal clear to all shooters. That most <span style="font-style: italic">factory</span> barrels break in at the hands of the owner, whereas most <span style="font-style: italic">aftermarket</span> barrels have had the 'break-in' performed by the barrel maker (usually with a lead lap) is also clear to all shooters of each type of barrel.
The question is: Is there any actual research on the topic, _with_ data that the public can review? Would that data tell us that there's some benefit to lapping most factory barrels, or would it tell us there is not? Would it tell us that there's benefit to 'breaking in' a lapped aftermarket barrel? My opinion is that it would almost certainly not tell us that, but the data's not here to review.
All this to one side, I'd personally be extremely curious to review actual data on the topic, even if that review was done privately, rather than by posting it on the web.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
I don't know whether there's raw data that's accessible. I think that reprocessing any that might be available may be an exercise in redundancy. For my purposes, and I am God's favorite skeptic, the information and conclusions offered in this thread are about as good as it gets, and certainly good enough for me.
So please forgive me if I commend your diligence, but allow you to follow your path on your own. I agree with your expressed conclusions. They reflect mine quite closely. For my part, I have diligently fire polished factory barrels, and abandoned basic 'shoot, then clean' break-in on premium barrels because cleaning failed to show any significant fouling after but a handful of rounds.
Cleaning is a process that I employ as a bore protection and maintenance measure. I agree that accuracy is not the primary issue. For me, it's the potential for bore damage due to pitting over longer term inactivity. Fouling, humidity, and oxygen are the culprits, and I think they need to kept in check.
Greg
I don't know whether there's raw data that's accessible. I think that reprocessing any that might be available may be an exercise in redundancy. For my purposes, and I am God's favorite skeptic, the information and conclusions offered in this thread are about as good as it gets, and certainly good enough for me.
So please forgive me if I commend your diligence, but allow you to follow your path on your own. I agree with your expressed conclusions. They reflect mine quite closely. For my part, I have diligently fire polished factory barrels, and abandoned basic 'shoot, then clean' break-in on premium barrels because cleaning failed to show any significant fouling after but a handful of rounds.
Cleaning is a process that I employ as a bore protection and maintenance measure. I agree that accuracy is not the primary issue. For me, it's the potential for bore damage due to pitting over longer term inactivity. Fouling, humidity, and oxygen are the culprits, and I think they need to kept in check.
Greg
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Seems like this topic is passionately debated, and very dependent on personal preference.
I don't know if break-in procedures help, but just make sure that parts are clean and oiled after I'm done shooting. I'm not an expert, but tend to agree that barrels can be damaged with "over-cleaning" and flexing of cleaning rods.
It never made sense to me to push all the grime down the barrel and into the bolt area with a cleaning rod. I like using an Otis cleaning cable or bore snake to "pull" the fouling out.
I don't use any fancy solvents or lubricants, just Hoppe's no. 9 solvent on a patch, pulled through the barrel until it is not blue. If the patch gets too dirty, I use a new one. I make sure to wipe away all the solvent. Then, wipe everything metal down with Tetra gun lubricant and pull an oil soaked patch through the barrel a few times. At the end, I inspect the barrel with bore reflector, and make sure I don't see residual.
The brands of solvents, lubricants etc...to me are only of personal preference. Maybe different for semi-auto or fully auto guns if fired for hundreds and hundreds of rounds without cleaning or reapplying lubricant because of temperature and drying, etc...but not in my opinion for bolt guns or range use where you can re-oil your gun and even clean it if needed.
I can't afford to fire that many rounds through my rifle, where the oil completely dries out, or the parts overheat, where I would need the really expensive lubricants...nor will my sore shoulder be able to take it firing that many 308 win or larger caliber rounds.
To me, range time and practice are important then "break-in" rituals, special solvents, high-tech lubricants, etc. Most good bolt-action rifles have sub-MOA accuracy, or even sub-1/2MOA...at least for me, I've never been limited by above-mentioned, but rather by my own ability or lack of practice.
Seems like this topic is passionately debated, and very dependent on personal preference.
I don't know if break-in procedures help, but just make sure that parts are clean and oiled after I'm done shooting. I'm not an expert, but tend to agree that barrels can be damaged with "over-cleaning" and flexing of cleaning rods.
It never made sense to me to push all the grime down the barrel and into the bolt area with a cleaning rod. I like using an Otis cleaning cable or bore snake to "pull" the fouling out.
I don't use any fancy solvents or lubricants, just Hoppe's no. 9 solvent on a patch, pulled through the barrel until it is not blue. If the patch gets too dirty, I use a new one. I make sure to wipe away all the solvent. Then, wipe everything metal down with Tetra gun lubricant and pull an oil soaked patch through the barrel a few times. At the end, I inspect the barrel with bore reflector, and make sure I don't see residual.
The brands of solvents, lubricants etc...to me are only of personal preference. Maybe different for semi-auto or fully auto guns if fired for hundreds and hundreds of rounds without cleaning or reapplying lubricant because of temperature and drying, etc...but not in my opinion for bolt guns or range use where you can re-oil your gun and even clean it if needed.
I can't afford to fire that many rounds through my rifle, where the oil completely dries out, or the parts overheat, where I would need the really expensive lubricants...nor will my sore shoulder be able to take it firing that many 308 win or larger caliber rounds.
To me, range time and practice are important then "break-in" rituals, special solvents, high-tech lubricants, etc. Most good bolt-action rifles have sub-MOA accuracy, or even sub-1/2MOA...at least for me, I've never been limited by above-mentioned, but rather by my own ability or lack of practice.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Thanks Jeff. I appreciate the consolidated positions of some great guys. I was left wondering if their position is the same in factory and custom barrels.
Thanks Jeff. I appreciate the consolidated positions of some great guys. I was left wondering if their position is the same in factory and custom barrels.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vkc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It never made sense to me to push all the grime down the barrel and into the bolt area with a cleaning rod. I like using an Otis cleaning cable or bore snake to "pull" the fouling out.</div></div>
That's why you pull your bolt out and push the rods from the breech end!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vkc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It never made sense to me to push all the grime down the barrel and into the bolt area with a cleaning rod. I like using an Otis cleaning cable or bore snake to "pull" the fouling out.</div></div>
That's why you pull your bolt out and push the rods from the breech end!
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vkc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_LvPjreNjg </div></div>
He's a member here, and I agree with that barrel brake in process.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vkc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_LvPjreNjg </div></div>
He's a member here, and I agree with that barrel brake in process.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Hiya all!
New member from Norway, first post and all...
Not really a marksman at all, neither professionally (I'm military, 18 years going so far) nor on my spare time, but I try to strive for precision whenever I shoot.
I'm in the process of getting my hands on my first "full-sized" rifle as a civilian (Ruger Mini-14...yeah, I guess I'll get some merciless ribbing for THAT...), for hunting purposes, and I intend to treat it as well as I can. That is how I ended up here, by the way, learning how to treat a rifle well, right from the start. Having said that, I have every intention of getting a larger caliber tactical rifle for long range work within the next 2 years.
Anyways, my points:
So far I've been shooting a lot in the service, different calibers and rifles, but mostly assault/battle rifles. Short list:
- AG-3 (Norwegian version of the HK G3 rifle, with and without scope, 7.62mm)
- NM149 (Norwegian Mauser-based sniper rifle, 7.62mm)
- Diemaco C8 SFW (Now Colt Canada, licensed M4, 5.56mm)
- Diemaco C8 CQB (...same...)
- HK-416 (New Norwegian HK issue rifle, 5.56mm)
- HK-417 (Same as above, although in 7.62mm, and usually for marksmen)
With the exception of my first years in the army, when we were handed out pretty well used AG-3's, I've always used a specific break-in for all my rifles, whenever they have been brand new. The procedure that has been taught was this:
- Thoroughly clean out the rifle using BreakFree CLP, to get rid of all the factory gunk inside, then dry swab the barrel before firing
- For the first 10 rounds, fire one round, then swab the barrel once with a dry cleaning patch, in the direction of bullet travel
- Then fire 10 round series, swabbing the barrel once with a dry cleaning patch between series in the direction of bullet travel, rinse and repeat until a total of 100 rounds have been fired
- After this, commence normal firing routines and zeroing, and clean as appropriate
Reason given for this procedure, by our gunsmiths, was that it removed most, if not all, of any burrs and grades in the barrel, and the dry-swabing was just to remove any metal particles from the barrel before the next shot.
I've haven't been able to see any difference between using these procedures and not using them, while acknowledging that these are not the most precise rifles out there. Then again, I might just be a crap shot...probably a reason I carry 11 x 30-round mags for my HK-416...
But what do You guys think about this? Unless I'm told otherwise, this would be the procedures I would use for any new gun I acquire...
Regards!
Hiya all!
New member from Norway, first post and all...
Not really a marksman at all, neither professionally (I'm military, 18 years going so far) nor on my spare time, but I try to strive for precision whenever I shoot.
I'm in the process of getting my hands on my first "full-sized" rifle as a civilian (Ruger Mini-14...yeah, I guess I'll get some merciless ribbing for THAT...), for hunting purposes, and I intend to treat it as well as I can. That is how I ended up here, by the way, learning how to treat a rifle well, right from the start. Having said that, I have every intention of getting a larger caliber tactical rifle for long range work within the next 2 years.
Anyways, my points:
So far I've been shooting a lot in the service, different calibers and rifles, but mostly assault/battle rifles. Short list:
- AG-3 (Norwegian version of the HK G3 rifle, with and without scope, 7.62mm)
- NM149 (Norwegian Mauser-based sniper rifle, 7.62mm)
- Diemaco C8 SFW (Now Colt Canada, licensed M4, 5.56mm)
- Diemaco C8 CQB (...same...)
- HK-416 (New Norwegian HK issue rifle, 5.56mm)
- HK-417 (Same as above, although in 7.62mm, and usually for marksmen)
With the exception of my first years in the army, when we were handed out pretty well used AG-3's, I've always used a specific break-in for all my rifles, whenever they have been brand new. The procedure that has been taught was this:
- Thoroughly clean out the rifle using BreakFree CLP, to get rid of all the factory gunk inside, then dry swab the barrel before firing
- For the first 10 rounds, fire one round, then swab the barrel once with a dry cleaning patch, in the direction of bullet travel
- Then fire 10 round series, swabbing the barrel once with a dry cleaning patch between series in the direction of bullet travel, rinse and repeat until a total of 100 rounds have been fired
- After this, commence normal firing routines and zeroing, and clean as appropriate
Reason given for this procedure, by our gunsmiths, was that it removed most, if not all, of any burrs and grades in the barrel, and the dry-swabing was just to remove any metal particles from the barrel before the next shot.
I've haven't been able to see any difference between using these procedures and not using them, while acknowledging that these are not the most precise rifles out there. Then again, I might just be a crap shot...probably a reason I carry 11 x 30-round mags for my HK-416...
But what do You guys think about this? Unless I'm told otherwise, this would be the procedures I would use for any new gun I acquire...
Regards!
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
Just my humble $0.02,
a lot of the barrel 'break in' process has to do with conditioning the junction at the throat/bore leade angle, as that is the initial contact of the bullet to the barrel. Even with the best tooling, it is difficult to cut that area at the same surface finish say as the body..It's a slight taper, but significant enough even the best of us reamer stoner jedi's do not usually attempt to smooth the tool out in that area. So you get a bit of a ridged rise to the land after cutting the chamber..
That's not the only way a chamber is made, as many hammer forged barrels' chambers are forged into the barrel along with the rifling. Throat is also a specific area they have problems with keeping smooth, their problem sometimes being concentricity but also a ringed surface finish and occasionally folds in the forging at that junction. Anyway, my point is, that's where you're going to initially shred the jacket and hold it, in those tiny crevices. Generally the high spots pick up copper, hold on the edges, let loose, pick up more, and do smooth down once the taper has eroded to the minor diameter of the surface flaw.
The bare metal to metal clean and shoot can be advantageous in that it speeds up that erosion process. More friction, more heat, moves faster.
But that isn't the only culprit to copper fouling. Another can be related to the surface finish of the bore ahead of chamber..With good barrels, whether hammer forge button or cut rifled, where you run into problems is the direction of the surface finish. If it has been buttoned or cut, your initial bore before rifling has probably been produced by a straight or helical flute bore reamer. A dull or improperly fed/sped tool will leave tiny little almost immeasureable tool marks perpendicular to the axis of the bore. If these marks are there, they must be eliminated prior to the rifling process, they are difficult and time consuming to remove after. More so with button barrels, as if there are tool marks left in the bore after reaming, those marks will be present in the bottom of the rifled grooves as well.
Hammer forge has a different issue. Normally HF barrels are honed to an extreme finish prior to forging. But the nature of the hammer forging process produces tiny little probably almost immeasurable rings perpendicular to the bore. I see them in every hammer forge barrel I pick up. If the forging mandrel hasn't been properly maintained there's bigger issues. But just the nature of the process itself proves less favorable to barrel fouling. Chroming helps, as it can hide the imperfections along the way.
Any surface imperfection or mark that 'flows' with the helix of the rifling will probably not be an issue causing problems with fouling. Any mark perpendicular to the bore axis will likely pick up metal. and the closer it is to the chamber the worse it will probably be.
Later.
Just my humble $0.02,
a lot of the barrel 'break in' process has to do with conditioning the junction at the throat/bore leade angle, as that is the initial contact of the bullet to the barrel. Even with the best tooling, it is difficult to cut that area at the same surface finish say as the body..It's a slight taper, but significant enough even the best of us reamer stoner jedi's do not usually attempt to smooth the tool out in that area. So you get a bit of a ridged rise to the land after cutting the chamber..
That's not the only way a chamber is made, as many hammer forged barrels' chambers are forged into the barrel along with the rifling. Throat is also a specific area they have problems with keeping smooth, their problem sometimes being concentricity but also a ringed surface finish and occasionally folds in the forging at that junction. Anyway, my point is, that's where you're going to initially shred the jacket and hold it, in those tiny crevices. Generally the high spots pick up copper, hold on the edges, let loose, pick up more, and do smooth down once the taper has eroded to the minor diameter of the surface flaw.
The bare metal to metal clean and shoot can be advantageous in that it speeds up that erosion process. More friction, more heat, moves faster.
But that isn't the only culprit to copper fouling. Another can be related to the surface finish of the bore ahead of chamber..With good barrels, whether hammer forge button or cut rifled, where you run into problems is the direction of the surface finish. If it has been buttoned or cut, your initial bore before rifling has probably been produced by a straight or helical flute bore reamer. A dull or improperly fed/sped tool will leave tiny little almost immeasureable tool marks perpendicular to the axis of the bore. If these marks are there, they must be eliminated prior to the rifling process, they are difficult and time consuming to remove after. More so with button barrels, as if there are tool marks left in the bore after reaming, those marks will be present in the bottom of the rifled grooves as well.
Hammer forge has a different issue. Normally HF barrels are honed to an extreme finish prior to forging. But the nature of the hammer forging process produces tiny little probably almost immeasurable rings perpendicular to the bore. I see them in every hammer forge barrel I pick up. If the forging mandrel hasn't been properly maintained there's bigger issues. But just the nature of the process itself proves less favorable to barrel fouling. Chroming helps, as it can hide the imperfections along the way.
Any surface imperfection or mark that 'flows' with the helix of the rifling will probably not be an issue causing problems with fouling. Any mark perpendicular to the bore axis will likely pick up metal. and the closer it is to the chamber the worse it will probably be.
Later.
Re: Objective research on Barrel Break-in procedures
WoW alot of info here i just read the whole thing as I am new to precision rifles and long range shooting i didnt know anything about barrel break in until I got my DPMS LR 308 and it had a barrel break in guide i did follow it but only used win. oil and cotton swabs wet and dry didnt use a brush till i got home I cleaned it very carefule as to make sure te rod didnt rub on the bore but i do think you on this post and all the responses on here i learned alot abotu alot lol i will not use molly caoted bullets anymore only had one box anyway shot 15 fro 2 different guns so daoubt any damage to be done.
WoW alot of info here i just read the whole thing as I am new to precision rifles and long range shooting i didnt know anything about barrel break in until I got my DPMS LR 308 and it had a barrel break in guide i did follow it but only used win. oil and cotton swabs wet and dry didnt use a brush till i got home I cleaned it very carefule as to make sure te rod didnt rub on the bore but i do think you on this post and all the responses on here i learned alot abotu alot lol i will not use molly caoted bullets anymore only had one box anyway shot 15 fro 2 different guns so daoubt any damage to be done.
Similar threads
