-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
The Evolution of Barrel Cleaning
- Thread starter orkan
- Start date
I think the important thing is that you don't over clean your rifle. That can be agreed upon. Everything is like a Ford vs. Chevy debate. They both get the job done, but everyone has a preference.
There are a few independent tests of KG12 and both demonstrated the amount of copper it removed from a jacketed bullet overnight was substantial. Competing copper solvents tested alongside KG12 removed little (IIRC not even 1/10th what KG12 removed) to none.
That said it's been hundreds and hundreds of rounds since I cleaned any of my match barrels. The most I've done is run a patch wet with oil then a dry patch, probably unnecessary with 416R barrels, but I was playing it safe. Until I see a drop in accuracy, I'll leave 'em alone.
This is very good to know. I have never seen an independent test. I went with KG because AI recommended it. I have not been disappointed with any of their products. Add the VFG felt pellets and it makes cleaning much less of a chore. This being said, I clean my match barrels ONLY with the carbon remover followed by dry patch followed by patch with oil. I am debating the copper remover
Possibly, I'm no materials expert or acid expert. And it looks like they're in small enough quantities that they don't have to list them in all msds. Just the full blown msds. For example the MSDS you can find at Brownells doesn't really list anything.
I tried to find a PH level of it but I could not, CLR appears to be around a 2.
Heres a link to the MSDS I found post 9 on page one: http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=459787
I tried to find a PH level of it but I could not, CLR appears to be around a 2.
Heres a link to the MSDS I found post 9 on page one: http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=459787
Last edited:
One critical aspect that threads like this continually miss is the relativity of words like "accuracy" and "precision." I haven't brought it up, specifically to see if this thread follows the same trend as many in the past. Not to prove a point but to illustrate a horrific lack of context present in these types of discussions. Fact of the matter is that some shooters are happy with 1moa, some shooters are happy with 1/2moa, while still other shooters are not happy unless its 1/4moa.
Why is this aspect always missing from these conversations? Is it not possible that a shooter whom is happy with 1/2 to 1moa could require significantly different cleaning methods than a shooter striving for better?
One thing I noticed when trying to break the 1/2moa plateau was that my barrel cleaning methods needed significant refinement. Breaking the 1/4moa plateau required exponentially more refinement. As did many aspects of my process in other areas of the discipline. Going through all that showed me beyond a shred of a doubt that the disparity among shooters and their chosen methods is largely based on the disparity between shooters regarding what level of accuracy and precision is acceptable. In black and white terms of right and wrong, it seems quite obvious that shooters not asking the epitome of precision/accuracy of their rifle systems will have no need to solve a problem they don't have. Though considering the sheer number of 1/4moa online shooters, I'm surprised there isn't more discussion of the things that I have had to do and endure to achieve it. Still can't with some rifles. However those conversations about those things don't seem to happen unless I'm in the presence of someone else whom can consistently prove they are a 1/4moa shooter.
Yet I have not met or spoke with one single high level benchrest or F-class or even precision tactical shooter that is shooting what would be considered impressive scores by today's standards that does not have a pretty accurate round log and regular cleaning intervals. The issue for me is not whether shooters are doing it my way, another way, the right way, the wrong way, or the dumb way. The issue is how completely convinced of their way when there is no real data, proof, or evidence to support their way being any better or worse than someone else's way. Providing that proof would require a massive investment, substantial equipment, completely impartial mindsets, and extremely talented people. All things that this industry can find individually but tends to keep apart rather than bring together.
Meanwhile I'm quite content to continue my 25 year experiment. I'll make polite suggestions when I can and completely ignore people proclaiming they have discovered cleaning nirvana without providing a shred of proof. There always seem to be people with a negative opinion or detraction whom have not used the thing in question. They are so smart, they don't need to even use or do the thing to know ALL about it. Maybe if all these smart people would provide some real indisputable evidence of their opinions I wouldn't have to spend so much time, money, and effort actually doing things in order to learn. Though so far, the only way I can seem to know anything is by buying all of the items I want to know about, spending months and thousands of rounds testing them. While that might not make me as smart as other people that seem to know all about stuff without ever touching those things... it does keep me occupied. Brings a lot of satisfaction too.
I think there is a LOT of room for scientific testing as it pertains to barrel cleaning. I think there is NO ROOM AT ALL left for senseless detraction and debasement with no scientific evidence at all. No room at all for people proclaiming their intelligence and someone else's stupidity. Yet unsurprisingly, the topics which are the LEAST quantifiable get the most attention and conversation. Just like the rifle scope glass quality threads. When people can't be proven wrong or right, people can just spew whatever crap happens into their mind and make themselves sound all kinds of intelligent. I'm not very concerned about sounding intelligent as it pertains to barrel cleaning. I'm concerned with having the process become easier, faster, and more defined so that I may shoot more precisely, accurately, and frequently. If I help someone else do that, I'm happy. I think we could ALL benefit from having an extremely open mind on this topic until a completely neutral scientific white paper is released completely addressing it. Do it not, and this topic will continue to divide shooters and get people wound up.
Why is this aspect always missing from these conversations? Is it not possible that a shooter whom is happy with 1/2 to 1moa could require significantly different cleaning methods than a shooter striving for better?
One thing I noticed when trying to break the 1/2moa plateau was that my barrel cleaning methods needed significant refinement. Breaking the 1/4moa plateau required exponentially more refinement. As did many aspects of my process in other areas of the discipline. Going through all that showed me beyond a shred of a doubt that the disparity among shooters and their chosen methods is largely based on the disparity between shooters regarding what level of accuracy and precision is acceptable. In black and white terms of right and wrong, it seems quite obvious that shooters not asking the epitome of precision/accuracy of their rifle systems will have no need to solve a problem they don't have. Though considering the sheer number of 1/4moa online shooters, I'm surprised there isn't more discussion of the things that I have had to do and endure to achieve it. Still can't with some rifles. However those conversations about those things don't seem to happen unless I'm in the presence of someone else whom can consistently prove they are a 1/4moa shooter.
Yet I have not met or spoke with one single high level benchrest or F-class or even precision tactical shooter that is shooting what would be considered impressive scores by today's standards that does not have a pretty accurate round log and regular cleaning intervals. The issue for me is not whether shooters are doing it my way, another way, the right way, the wrong way, or the dumb way. The issue is how completely convinced of their way when there is no real data, proof, or evidence to support their way being any better or worse than someone else's way. Providing that proof would require a massive investment, substantial equipment, completely impartial mindsets, and extremely talented people. All things that this industry can find individually but tends to keep apart rather than bring together.
Meanwhile I'm quite content to continue my 25 year experiment. I'll make polite suggestions when I can and completely ignore people proclaiming they have discovered cleaning nirvana without providing a shred of proof. There always seem to be people with a negative opinion or detraction whom have not used the thing in question. They are so smart, they don't need to even use or do the thing to know ALL about it. Maybe if all these smart people would provide some real indisputable evidence of their opinions I wouldn't have to spend so much time, money, and effort actually doing things in order to learn. Though so far, the only way I can seem to know anything is by buying all of the items I want to know about, spending months and thousands of rounds testing them. While that might not make me as smart as other people that seem to know all about stuff without ever touching those things... it does keep me occupied. Brings a lot of satisfaction too.
I think there is a LOT of room for scientific testing as it pertains to barrel cleaning. I think there is NO ROOM AT ALL left for senseless detraction and debasement with no scientific evidence at all. No room at all for people proclaiming their intelligence and someone else's stupidity. Yet unsurprisingly, the topics which are the LEAST quantifiable get the most attention and conversation. Just like the rifle scope glass quality threads. When people can't be proven wrong or right, people can just spew whatever crap happens into their mind and make themselves sound all kinds of intelligent. I'm not very concerned about sounding intelligent as it pertains to barrel cleaning. I'm concerned with having the process become easier, faster, and more defined so that I may shoot more precisely, accurately, and frequently. If I help someone else do that, I'm happy. I think we could ALL benefit from having an extremely open mind on this topic until a completely neutral scientific white paper is released completely addressing it. Do it not, and this topic will continue to divide shooters and get people wound up.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
I don't see a problem with your CLR method if used routinely. I live in hard water country. Hot water heaters are tested here by manufacturers to determine the warranty period. Thus, CLR is a common household product. It does not etch or put a patina surface on bathroom or kitchen faucets. But, it is the calcium build up stuck to the fixtures that will weaken the fixture surface. When CLR loosens the calcium it will remove it along with the surface the calcium weakened. It not unusual here to see spigots that have lost there finish over time due to calcium build up and subsequent removal with cleaners like CLR. So, in that light I would be weary using it on an extremely fouled bore. The hard carbon build up may have already done damage to the surface of the bore and it might be best to only clean it enough but not completely remove it. Especially, a heavily fouled chrome lined bore.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ive tried many different cleaning procedures as well as countless different products over the years. I'm a big fan of the KG products and currently use the, with that said I'm always open to suggestions and change. I'm intrigued by this CLR idea and the VFG pellets (never heard of them til now) and think it's definitely worth a try if I can ever find the pellets in stock. As for the various opinions on cleaning procedures when to clean, how to clean, what is the best etc... I'm of the mind set there are many wrong ways and many right ways, do what works for you, use good judgment, and have an open mind to change. If you don't like my way of doing things that's fine don't do it my way but don't bash me. As the OP stated he is not proclaiming his way to be the best or correct way, just the way that works for him, being open to suggestion and change is what brought him to his current way of cleaning. Trying others in the shooting community aware of what works and doesn't is always a positive regardless of the topic.
http://primalrights.com/library/articles/evolution-barrel-cleaning
There are so many different methods, tools, and opinions on rifle barrel cleaning that it would be virtually impossible to even mention them all. Barrel cleaning is quite possibly one of the most argued topics in the precision rifle world. The only thing more impressive than the number of discussions that take place regarding this topic on a daily basis is the list of available cleaning solvents which all claim to be the best product in the world. While conversations regarding barrel cleaning are often divisive and heated, there is one thing that everyone can agree on: Everyone will need to clean their barrel at some point.
READ MORE
Sir,
Can you tells us were we are able to pick up these items. I would like to get the VFG plugs and guide. I just haven't been able to find them for my .308.
Thanks
There's an entire equipment list with links in the article. I believe I found the VFG pellets on brownells and a few other places.
orkan, thank you for the CLR tip. My previous efforts to clean my brake were dismal at best. The stuff works good.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
I want to correct my opinion of regular Boretech Eliminator. My worst copper magnet is a R700 25-06 with a Bartlien barrel. I was cleaning it again with boretech after 100 rounds and thinking about your use of it and wondering why it isn't working for me. So, I followed the instruction as usual but this time while it was good and wet I wrapped a .27-.35 Hoppe's patch around the nylon brush applied some BTE ran it through. I pushed the copper right out. Took a couple of passes and done. This is good news for me because I do prefer BTE because it is less caustic then other copper removers. I'm going to add this step right after where it states to let it sit for a few minutes. It also eliminates on the instructions where it states about twenty passes, which I always thought was very excessive. I also prefer the big bottle it comes in. Lasts a very long time. I'm still on the first bottle with a long ways to go and I can't remember when I bought it it was so long ago.
What were you doing with BTE before trying this?
My process is basically just passing a 5 wet patches on a spear-tip down the bore. Then let it sit for 5 minutes. Then I dry patch it out until no more blue on the patches and/or the patches come out clean and dry. Takes about 5-8 patches. Total process takes about 10 minutes. I've bore-scoped my barrel and it seems to look clean.
years ago i was put on to BMG copper killer at a BR comp (yes were nuts and clean to often like everybody says). through all my sweets, tetra, hopps etc in the trash.
wonderful stuff if you like to take barrels down to steel again. one product removes all carbon and copper. using parker hale/dewey style jags wrapped with military type patches, rough on one side brushed/smooth on the other.
they cover so much ground and more importantly hold huge amounts of solvent when pushed through.
sped up my process 10 fold.
then follow up with a patch or 2 of IPA alc, and you as clean as can be, while not leaving solvents or water in the barrel.
i just keep accurate notes of where the first few shots are POI/POA in case i dont have any time for a few fouling shots.
wonderful stuff if you like to take barrels down to steel again. one product removes all carbon and copper. using parker hale/dewey style jags wrapped with military type patches, rough on one side brushed/smooth on the other.
they cover so much ground and more importantly hold huge amounts of solvent when pushed through.
sped up my process 10 fold.
then follow up with a patch or 2 of IPA alc, and you as clean as can be, while not leaving solvents or water in the barrel.
i just keep accurate notes of where the first few shots are POI/POA in case i dont have any time for a few fouling shots.
The VFG pellets are pretty cool.
Used Wipe Out Patch Out for the first time yesterday, along w/ the Accelerator. Man, that first patch after soaking came out reeking of ammonia. No ammonia in the stuff, but...??? Apparently, the Accelerator really amps up the amine smell or something. Surprised me at first...
Used Wipe Out Patch Out for the first time yesterday, along w/ the Accelerator. Man, that first patch after soaking came out reeking of ammonia. No ammonia in the stuff, but...??? Apparently, the Accelerator really amps up the amine smell or something. Surprised me at first...
Huge thank you to the OP! I have battled with carbon rings using all sorts of products/techniques including bore paste. Gave the CLR/VFG pellet combo a try and worked wonders.
I'd like to chime in with my experience and questions. I found the CLR to be very effective in cleaning off the carbon in the chambers and front of the cylinder of my Smith and Wesson 586 revolver, but guess what, it also took portions of the blueing off. Fortunately I wasn't too bothered by the cosmetics. Now CLR also worked very well in the chamber of my Kidd 10-22. I'm worried about it affecting the Aluminum receiver. Any negative experience on Aluminum?
My understanding is that you might not want to use CLR on a blued gun - aside from stripping the blue, it can leach the carbon out of the carbon steel alloy the gun is made of. Stainless is a different alloy and isn't vulnerable to the chemistry, and so is safe as long as you don't leave the CLR sitting around in the barrel/chamber for long periods of time (or, so the explanation in this thread goes). I've only tried it on stainless, and it did see to do a good job, there.
No kidding!
I tried it on a extremely crudded up brake and it worked quite well!
Tried CLR for the first time. Had been cleaning regularly with Hoppes #9 every couple hundred rounds then with WipeOut to get the copper out every 500 rounds or so. Still developed a carbon ring in the throat, at 1800 rounds was getting marks on the bullets when chambering and erratic velocity. Used a wet patch with CLR in the throat for 10 minutes or so, then spun a nylon brush by hand to scrub it out, repeated a couple times. Problem solved, no more erratic velocity, no more marks on the bullets. Discovered that my lands had moved a whole lot more than I thought they had (apparently I was measuring carbon lands lol) but that's a different issue.
I'll keep this in the tool kit as something to use when needed. I don't think I'll do it regularly, but when needed it seems to have done a great job.
I'll keep this in the tool kit as something to use when needed. I don't think I'll do it regularly, but when needed it seems to have done a great job.
With barrel cleaning, the only conclusion I have arrived to over the years is that the same approach does not necessarily work for all barrels. Another conclusion I can reasonably make is that for most of us here, any sort of a proper scientific study is not feasible: we do not clean enough barrels to make any sort of a statistically significant claim to a "universal" method that works for everything. However, we can, obviously, figure out what works for our specific barrels and anecdotal evidence is still evidence.
I have some modern precision barrels, some modern inexpensive barrels and some, milsurp barrels (since I sorta collect some old rifles) and a couple of old-ish precison barrels (I have a couple of M28-76s) and the same exact cleaning regimen does not necessarily work with all of them.
That sorta stands to reason since some are fancy handlapped barrels and some look like they were made with a rasp and a sledge hammer in the middle of a field in Russia in 1905, and a bunch are in between.
Overall, since I much prefer shooting to cleaning and since I am not chasing 1/4 MOA groups (I am not capable of that level of precision consistently even on a good day), for me, less is more. Or at least that is where I start.
Generally, I subscribe to a theory that getting some carbon out is not a bad idea. With copper, unless the barrel shows propensity to copper foul badly, I do not worry about it too much.
I have used and continue to use a large variety of products and the choice between them often comes down to how badly they stink, in case I have to do something in the hoes where my wife might be present within a six month period subsequent to gun cleaning. She has a freakishly good sense of smell.
Generally, when smell is not an issue, I have had exceedingly good luck with KG products and use them quite a bit on my precision barrels. When I need to remove copper, KG12 is the best I have seen to date.
Since for plinking with milsupr rifles I often use old surplus ammo and since I generally do not trust any ammo made outside of the US to use non-corrosive primers, I always make it a point to start the cleaning process with something that takes out the corrosive salts that were used in primers in old ammo. There has been a lot of discussion on what works best for that, but fundamentally, any water based solvent is appropriate. To that extent, my cleaning regimen usually starts with a couple of patches soaked in Slip 2000 cleaner/degreaser. It is water based, so it takes care of the corrosive salts and it is pretty effective against carbon fouling. Since it is water based, I do not leave it in the barrel for too long.
Generally, since Slip 2000 is one of the few products that passes my wife's smell test, so a pretty common cleaning regimen for me is to use a 2-3 patches with Slip 2000 degreaser, then 2-3 dry patches to get stuff out, then a couple of patches with Slip 2000 EWL followed by a dry patch. With most of my rifles, something along these lines with either Slip2000 or KG products (degreaser/carbon remover followed by oil with a couple of dry patches in between) is sufficient for hundreds of rounds without any decrease in accuracy. I use the same concept when I clean the chamber. Typically, for this I take a larger diameter plastic brush and wrap a patch around it.
Some are fairly sensitive to developing a carbon ring at the base of the throat, but since I started paying a little more attention to carbon removing, often when the barrel is still warm, it has really not been much of an issue.
If I see some notable deterioration in accuracy, I'll go in and do a more thorough cleaning which will vary a bit from rifle to rifle. For barrels that are generally very accurate, I use KG stuff, except more of it and I add KG12 to the mix if copper needs to be removed.
For most everything else, I use a carbon remover to get some of the carbon out and then I fill the barrel with a foaming cleaner and leave it there for a couple of hours. That usually does the trick. I patch all the crud out, run a brush a couple of dry patches through the bore a few times and finish with a few oiled patches.
Lastly, for reasons I do not entirely understand some of the old milsurp barrels respond really well to JB Bore Paste. Some of these old barrels are capable of surprisingly decent accuracy, but they get overly fouled very quickly and loose that accuracy. With those, getting some carbon out and then using JB seems to help them shoot well for a bit longer.
To conclude: my regular cleaning regimen takes about 2-3 minutes when I am done shooting and often keeps me going for months without having to do any major cleaning, and that is just the way I prefer it.
ILya
I have some modern precision barrels, some modern inexpensive barrels and some, milsurp barrels (since I sorta collect some old rifles) and a couple of old-ish precison barrels (I have a couple of M28-76s) and the same exact cleaning regimen does not necessarily work with all of them.
That sorta stands to reason since some are fancy handlapped barrels and some look like they were made with a rasp and a sledge hammer in the middle of a field in Russia in 1905, and a bunch are in between.
Overall, since I much prefer shooting to cleaning and since I am not chasing 1/4 MOA groups (I am not capable of that level of precision consistently even on a good day), for me, less is more. Or at least that is where I start.
Generally, I subscribe to a theory that getting some carbon out is not a bad idea. With copper, unless the barrel shows propensity to copper foul badly, I do not worry about it too much.
I have used and continue to use a large variety of products and the choice between them often comes down to how badly they stink, in case I have to do something in the hoes where my wife might be present within a six month period subsequent to gun cleaning. She has a freakishly good sense of smell.
Generally, when smell is not an issue, I have had exceedingly good luck with KG products and use them quite a bit on my precision barrels. When I need to remove copper, KG12 is the best I have seen to date.
Since for plinking with milsupr rifles I often use old surplus ammo and since I generally do not trust any ammo made outside of the US to use non-corrosive primers, I always make it a point to start the cleaning process with something that takes out the corrosive salts that were used in primers in old ammo. There has been a lot of discussion on what works best for that, but fundamentally, any water based solvent is appropriate. To that extent, my cleaning regimen usually starts with a couple of patches soaked in Slip 2000 cleaner/degreaser. It is water based, so it takes care of the corrosive salts and it is pretty effective against carbon fouling. Since it is water based, I do not leave it in the barrel for too long.
Generally, since Slip 2000 is one of the few products that passes my wife's smell test, so a pretty common cleaning regimen for me is to use a 2-3 patches with Slip 2000 degreaser, then 2-3 dry patches to get stuff out, then a couple of patches with Slip 2000 EWL followed by a dry patch. With most of my rifles, something along these lines with either Slip2000 or KG products (degreaser/carbon remover followed by oil with a couple of dry patches in between) is sufficient for hundreds of rounds without any decrease in accuracy. I use the same concept when I clean the chamber. Typically, for this I take a larger diameter plastic brush and wrap a patch around it.
Some are fairly sensitive to developing a carbon ring at the base of the throat, but since I started paying a little more attention to carbon removing, often when the barrel is still warm, it has really not been much of an issue.
If I see some notable deterioration in accuracy, I'll go in and do a more thorough cleaning which will vary a bit from rifle to rifle. For barrels that are generally very accurate, I use KG stuff, except more of it and I add KG12 to the mix if copper needs to be removed.
For most everything else, I use a carbon remover to get some of the carbon out and then I fill the barrel with a foaming cleaner and leave it there for a couple of hours. That usually does the trick. I patch all the crud out, run a brush a couple of dry patches through the bore a few times and finish with a few oiled patches.
Lastly, for reasons I do not entirely understand some of the old milsurp barrels respond really well to JB Bore Paste. Some of these old barrels are capable of surprisingly decent accuracy, but they get overly fouled very quickly and loose that accuracy. With those, getting some carbon out and then using JB seems to help them shoot well for a bit longer.
To conclude: my regular cleaning regimen takes about 2-3 minutes when I am done shooting and often keeps me going for months without having to do any major cleaning, and that is just the way I prefer it.
ILya
Has anyone tried Boretech's C4 carbon remover?
http://www.boretech.com/products/c4-carbon-remover
There's nothing too shocking about the contents shown in the MSDS:
Monoethanolamine (3-5%) This is a weak base and I would not be shocked if it removed a little copper fouling, even though Bore Tech's literature says this is specifically for carbon fouling. It's used in high pressure steam systems to control corrosion, so maybe that's part of the intent.
Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate (5-10%) This is a common food additive but is also used in detergents to keep salts from plating out onto surfaces.
Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (5-10%) Often used as a solvent in soaps and oils because it has a mild surfactant activity.
4-Isopropenenyl-1- methyl cyclohexane (1-5%) I'm a bit stumped by this one. It's used in surfactant formulations and I'm guessing it's included to make C4 smell nice - it smells like oranges. If not, maybe they wanted it as a non-polar solvent component. It's not soluble in water whereas the other components are.
The MSDS says you shouldn't breathe it and to use impermeable gloves. Then again, it will be washing out lead, mercury, etc.
http://www.boretech.com/products/c4-carbon-remover
There's nothing too shocking about the contents shown in the MSDS:
Monoethanolamine (3-5%) This is a weak base and I would not be shocked if it removed a little copper fouling, even though Bore Tech's literature says this is specifically for carbon fouling. It's used in high pressure steam systems to control corrosion, so maybe that's part of the intent.
Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate (5-10%) This is a common food additive but is also used in detergents to keep salts from plating out onto surfaces.
Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (5-10%) Often used as a solvent in soaps and oils because it has a mild surfactant activity.
4-Isopropenenyl-1- methyl cyclohexane (1-5%) I'm a bit stumped by this one. It's used in surfactant formulations and I'm guessing it's included to make C4 smell nice - it smells like oranges. If not, maybe they wanted it as a non-polar solvent component. It's not soluble in water whereas the other components are.
The MSDS says you shouldn't breathe it and to use impermeable gloves. Then again, it will be washing out lead, mercury, etc.
I just have to say that's an awesome typo.
Yes, that is definitely a memorable one. If someday you hear on the news that my dismembered body was found somewhere in So Cal, you can safely surmise that my wife stumbled onto this forum. It is odd how her generally excellent sense of humor does not extend to certain things.
ILya
Ok, I have a S&W model 625 ss, would anyone stick it in sonic cleaner with clr or a variant? The whole revolver, minus grips, I'm lazy.
I found another good use for CLR... AK 47 gas piston tips. A soaking for a minute or two and a little brushing gets the carbon off. Wow! I also tried it on the AK barrel and as advertised, no more carbon. Now anybody use CLR with stainless steel suppressor baffles?
I notice that it wants to eat at the coating on my Dewey rod, so I make a point to wipe the rod clean with a rag as I go along.
Not if the nylon is impregnated with hard carbon etc.
Not if you use a bore guide to avoid dragging it sharply across the lands.
Not if you use avoid using the rod like a black powder ram rod.
Plug it, fill it up, let it sit awhile, shake it and brush if needed and rinse the clr out... Im not sure theres a different method possible...
One thing to note when cleaning your suppressor is do not carry the rifle muzzle up afterwards. I remember a few years back at steel safari a group of people cleaned suppressors as I guess it was the ultimate OCD prep for match, I have no idea. End result is a lot of people had carbon coming down into their chambers and could not chamber a round as a result. Make sure all debris are clear and I'd assume shoot it some too.
Someone probably already mentioned this in the thread, but CLR will eat carbon and stainless steel. Sometimes much faster than you might think. CLR and other acid type cleaners will void a lot of manufacturers warranties too, so be careful!
Get academic about it if you like. In the real world pro-shot and ivy stainless rods work amazingly well. I played the dewey coated rod game as well as the tipton carbon fiber game... and I'd rather get whipped with both than to use either one in a rifle barrel ever again.
There's nothing academic about it. That's how it is in real life.
I'm sure rod makers understand this, but not everyone on this forum knows these things as evidenced by the many questions about metals and wear.
You had your negative experiences with Dewey and Tipton rods just like I and many others have had positive ones.
