Kroil and shooter's choice still works amazingly well and it's inexpensive.
No need for me to change out something that is good.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
we need a crying orkan meme
- Thread starter Ndbowhunter
- Start date
Kroil and shooter's choice still works amazingly well and it's inexpensive.
No need for me to change out something that is good.
Shit !
We cleaning rifles now? I thought we stopped that when we quit neck sizing.
I’m so far behind, I heard we are using torque wrenches on scope rings to base anchoring now too.
I just tighten until the head strips, or I’ll cross thread the screws.
^^^This is a joke. Please don’t do these things. If you do, your mom’s a THOT.
If you have a predictive hypothesis that isn't right under all circumstances, you either have to give it up, or you have to quantify under which circumstances the theory holds. So yeah, if you have a general theory that only works sometimes, then the theory is disproven. But chin up, my dude. Falsifying theories is the definition of science.
Way back when, I'd tie an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time... the benchrest crowd I knew well, some 35-45 shooters (though I didn't partake in such activities myself), all gradually adopted Kroil for barrel cleaning. Then in time they all gradually gave it up. The reason they gave me was, they felt it took too many rounds to shoot out. Don't know what they switched to.
I've used gallons of the stuff, sometimes even in barrels, but never as a regular cleaner.
I've used gallons of the stuff, sometimes even in barrels, but never as a regular cleaner.
Started using hex boron nitride several years ago, I don’t de-copper much anymore, I do once a year or so, maybe 6-800 rounds or if I switch bullets.
I run a bore snake in the bore twice to remove carbon and and add more slurry then put it away. Back to my earlier post about wasting time. Cleaning rifle barrels was a required waste of time before I started hex coating.
I run a bore snake in the bore twice to remove carbon and and add more slurry then put it away. Back to my earlier post about wasting time. Cleaning rifle barrels was a required waste of time before I started hex coating.
Last edited:
Some of us use torque wrenches. Some I dunno...
I use my calibrated elbow most of the time.
I do have a fat wrench and a buddy bought a nice fix it sticks set for me.
It's still in Bradenton right now. I'll eventually see it.
I’ve done this a lot and had people tell me I’m ruining barrels. If rubbing some paste on the metal a with a rod and a patch ruins a barrel you probably didn’t have that good of a barrel.
I don’t even shoot cheap uppers without sending a tubbs final finish regimen first.
Some are pretty rough and benefit from it. I’ve seen them tighten right up, so much so, if I do another factory bolt gun it’ll be getting it too.
I bought a gallon of KROIL a while back for like $80. Made me scared to use it, since it was valued up there with virgin gypsy tears
I mix up a gallon of Ed's Red at a time and use mainly that for my cleaning, supplemented with Butch's Bore Shine every several patches.
The BR guys I used to chat with back in Maryland 20 years ago said they got the residue of the KROIL/Butch's out with a patch soaked with lighter fluid. It works. So does carb and choke cleaner, brake parts cleaner, starting fluid, and......the Ed's Red devotees say you should just leave it in there.
Warranty department guys everywhere having angina pectoris seeing this photo
I still think cross threading holds them tighter.
hahaha....old time gunsmith told me Kroil and Shooter's Choice quite some time ago....50/50 mix. His view is that the Kroil penetrates into the smallest openings and takes the solvent with it.
Dunno...have some mixed up on the shelf and have used it, but I'm kind of a Bore Tech fan boi these days.
Cheers
That ain't much for a cheater bar.
I think the longest I've ever used was about 12'.
Used it for breaking wing attach bolts loose.
3 dry patches after the last wet one. I do clean the chamber too. Shooter's Choice/Kroil 2-1 mixture.
He's active on Accurateshooter.com
It would be worth asking.
Also, tag in Jackie Schmidt to get his opinion.
While you're there read a thread or three about firing pin travel and spring rates.
(There's more than one)
These discussions also happened on Benchrest Central about 20-25 years ago.
The experimenting on BR Central has nearly stopped since Wilbur passed a few years ago. I think the site might be slowly dying too, and that's a damn shame.
Actually, we can know
"Touch the bottom and stop.
Bart"
And since we're talking BR, and this thread exists to stir the pot, here's Alex Wheeler's take-
"This topic should not blow up like it does every time it comes up. My thoughts are if you have not done any testing first hand then just reserve opinion until you do. The amount of crush does have an effect on group size. Seating by feel actually puts them pretty close to where they want to be which is why we have had luck with it. There are different games, short range and long range and some of the stuff you get away with in short range you cant in long range and vise versa, so comparing the two is pointless. A lot of the guys that are winning and setting records (or coming close) in long range fuss over the primer in a lot of aspects. I have never seen any of them post about it, so do your own testing. In fact a lot of the guys at the top in long range dont post much at all about their testing which they are always doing."
Yeah, but if you even remotely mentioned benchrest practices on here back in 2010-ish area, you were told to take your Fudd ass elsewhere. Pepperidge farm remembers that shit.
Now here we are, reinventing wheels.
Discussion is always enjoyable though, and it gets the creative minds flowing.
Ain't that the truth...
Old clothing also comes back in style every generation or two.
Kids come home from school with new jokes that were old when we thought they were new.
If we're not careful, we'll start moly coating bullets and cryo-freezing our barrels again.
I think I'll start dropping powder and neck sizing again.
It sure shot well and I know it wasn't because of my age and fantastic vision.
Oh I’m up to speed on pin fall and spring rate being vital.
Ofcourse, the elephant in the room with all the testing guys are doing & all the supposed improvements gained is the glaringly obvious situation that group sizes really don't seem to reflect the sum of all the improvements so well.
If we consider Bryan Zolnikov on his vids testing primers & primer depth, seating depth, headspace bump & on & on, he always seems to be shooting very similar sized groups in general from one vid to the next. There's no overwhelming drop in group size from test to test that I can see. That's not to suggest that the things we deem improvements are not but, it begs the question of how these improvements manifest as opposed to our expectations.
If we consider Bryan Zolnikov on his vids testing primers & primer depth, seating depth, headspace bump & on & on, he always seems to be shooting very similar sized groups in general from one vid to the next. There's no overwhelming drop in group size from test to test that I can see. That's not to suggest that the things we deem improvements are not but, it begs the question of how these improvements manifest as opposed to our expectations.
Last edited:
For our purposes (most on this site, generally speaking)…..it won’t matter at all.
If you’re shooting a discipline where .25 aggregates win, then a .23 agg is all of a sudden a huge deal.
Which is why I continually bring up equipment used. You can’t take advantage of these improvements unless using some pretty specialized stuff.
Here’s a great video on what it actually takes to consistently shoot the group sizes most claim their rifle is capable of.
13 minutes just talking about rifle setup before taking a shot. It’s that important.
13 minutes just talking about rifle setup before taking a shot. It’s that important.
Hopefully soon you won’t be allowed to post here.
Good video, he seems like a good dude.
Ya. Pretty cool. It’s rare you get that kind of advice for free/open source like that.
English much?
The fixed IOR scopes are a completely different animal than the tactical units.
I guess if you have to look up to someone bart is good entertainment . I myself can make my own decisions without reality tv.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you missed the point that @Feniks Technologies was making.
Reality TV? WTF are you babbling on about?
Anyway, it appears you didn't understand what it actually takes to shoot very small groups, over and over, and how important proper and repeatable setup is.
Your superiority complex is your shining trait, you’re definitely separated from the pack.
Not a good look though.
Depending on your varied life experiences, everybody on the internet has 6% bodyfat, a 13 inch cock, is a managing director at their bank, drives the ball 300 yards and shoots quarter inch groups all day.
35 shots per powder charge. Powder charge steps every 0.3gr. Powder weighed to .02gr, same lot bullets, same lot virgin cases, same lot primers. Indoor 200yd range/tunnel with a rail gun and remote firing system.
Give me a day or two to put this through Excel.
ETA: 5 shot groups vary +/- 0.3 MOA give or take for MPOI location. My 35 shot tests vary like +/- 0.04 MOA for MPOI variation. All of the metrics looked at "by the shot" as shot count in a group increases show similar trends. Lots of noise until ~15-20 shots, and narrowed down to the same (or nearly the same) end result by 35-50.
Last edited:
Well, my cock is average sized (only 9 inches) and a bit crooked. For the record.6%?
Fatass!!!
Disclaimer: I'm 20lbs over where I should be, so take that for what it's worth.
Not in the smallest amount. Is Ledzep the worlds foremost authority on reloading? Is he the worlds most knowledgeable reloader and shooter? Has he gathered more data and ran more tests than I someone like, I don't know, say Dan Newberry? Is he another guy with hypotheses? Seems to me like some of you forgot we are talking about reloading here.i guess hes confused who hes talking to..
Last edited:
Anyhow, I think one of Orkans seaters is a logical progression if you're on the ragged edge of BR size groups.
I think much of the load development we do has more of an effect on reducing the number or frequency of relative fliers & maybe not directly responsible for smaller groups perse due to less average bullet deflection from POA. Besides, seating primers to exactly the same depth simply rounds out the rest of the entire load package.
It kinda just makes sense to make every process we can as consistent as possible, even if the data may not be as conclusive as we would prefer.
I've just measured 30 of my 243 loads & they vary from 0.006 & 0.001. Most measure at 0.001 to 0.002 because the REM 9 1/2 primers seem deeper than the CCI 200's I have used & don't want to seat deeper unless I push them very hard. Now it may be that I would not be able to see the difference without many dozens of samples but, until I can seat the primers with the proper gear, it's a factor that I am not able to keep consistent.
I think much of the load development we do has more of an effect on reducing the number or frequency of relative fliers & maybe not directly responsible for smaller groups perse due to less average bullet deflection from POA. Besides, seating primers to exactly the same depth simply rounds out the rest of the entire load package.
It kinda just makes sense to make every process we can as consistent as possible, even if the data may not be as conclusive as we would prefer.
I've just measured 30 of my 243 loads & they vary from 0.006 & 0.001. Most measure at 0.001 to 0.002 because the REM 9 1/2 primers seem deeper than the CCI 200's I have used & don't want to seat deeper unless I push them very hard. Now it may be that I would not be able to see the difference without many dozens of samples but, until I can seat the primers with the proper gear, it's a factor that I am not able to keep consistent.
Seems to me like the heavier the barrel and smaller the powder charge, the smaller one would expect the POI shift to be. What cartridge, and barrel profile?
What do you mean by ETA? {estimated Time of Arrival} Are those your results, or just you posting your spiel again?
Edit to add.
6.5 Creedmoor, 1.25" straight contour. I'll save my time. You keep up the faith. I'm not arguing with religion.
6.5 Creedmoor, 1.25" straight contour. I'll save my time. You keep up the faith. I'm not arguing with religion.
I am not arguing anything or trying to be insulting. I asked some questions to get clarification on what you meant. Re-reading I see its not your test.
You are the one saying its sorcery. All I have asked about is your data relative to that claim. POI shift relative to shot count is only applicable if its greater than the POI shift relative to charge weight. What is the POI shift relative to charge weight? Is the POI shift relative to barrel thickness and charge weight? Does an 18" barrel whip like a 30" barrel? Would a pencil profile show the same POI shift relative to charge weight as a straight contour?
People keep showing up at the same spot, saying they followed the trail. Some say they can't see the trail. Some say there is no trail. Some say there is no spot. To me it doesn't make much difference aside from a curious interest. I do think if someone is calling out a well respected method as bullshit, they should show their work, but one test can almost never be more than another data point. And i don't expect you go blazing through thousands of rounds trying to disprove something. There are so many variables we almost never come to definitive answers, besides the old wisdom. "Can you shoot the difference."
Similar threads
