new barrel

[DaddyPig]

Get new barrel, go shooting, have fun, put gun away... Simple..

[gbal]

I've always used a gun oil rather than a bore cleaner. but if you don't dry it out it tends to put the first round or two off.

meths then dry patches stops this happening.

oil is a way of proofing a wildcat that the proof house doesn't have loads for. oil the round then fire it puts the pressure well above normal. that is what sends the first round off zero more oil higher pressure.

 

While I agree that oil in the barrel should be removed,the suggestion that it is some kind of "proof" method

for wildcat rounds sounds like a recipe for some serious scratches to me!!

Gbal

[Brillo]

There are some experienced and expert shooters who will tell you that a barrel break-in procedure is vital and there will be an equal number who will tell you the opposite. I believe in the former and there is nothing lost but time and a few rounds of ammo in doing it.

If, as a result of not breaking in your new barrel, the gun didn't shoot how it was expected you would kick yourself for not running the barrel in.

[gbal]

There are some experienced and expert shooters who will tell you that a barrel break-in procedure is vital and there will be an equal number who will tell you the opposite. I believe in the former and there is nothing lost but time and a few rounds of ammo in doing it.

If, as a result of not breaking in your new barrel, the gun didn't shoot how it was expected you would kick yourself for not running the barrel in.

 

Quite so. Only the imprudent wouldn't.

 

Gbal

[That bald headed Geordie]

Quite so. Only the imprudent wouldn't. Gbal

Was that imprudent George! Or did you mean impudent?

[sonic]

I'm only telling you what I was told after a rifle self destructed on me. By a gunsmith who told me that oil could increase the pressure dramatically so much that the proof house when testing calibres they didn't have proof rounds for would oil the bullet.

as it wasn't the first or even tenth shot fired oil in the barrel was ruled out as the cause. But I never take the chance.

[gbal]

Was that imprudent George! Or did you mean impudent?

 

An impudent student might argue for shooter's choice

But a prudent student would argue for Shooter's Choice.

 

Gbal

 

 

[kent]

ok, i think i understand, never had a problem yet, first shot is a tad low, about 1/2 to 1/4 at 100yards then all shots bang on, so whats best to use in the chamber

All my CF rifles get left with a bit of thin rust preservative oil in the bore and the chamber after use. Its critical to remove this all via patching and dry patches prior to first firing. Oil does not compress and certainly in the chamber you run a risk of ruining the chamber if there is an excess build up in there. Shooting the next day then the gun might be left clean and dry of oil or even dirty if I am off before first light I don't want to be messing around patching out!

If my guns are to be stored a while or in adverse conditions I use a thicker oil a bit more liberally (without any risk of in migrating to the stock or bedding)

Sonic is about there with the whole chemical attack thing from the Hoppes, it aint a good copper remover IMO or a CF cleaning agent generally but it must still hold some nasty effects if left in a bore too long. To me there aint no purpose to, so why risk it? If the bore is cleaned correctly light oiling will protect it better than anything else

[simon6ppc]

also guys just a question, do you find that a rifle barrel shoots best from a cold clean first shot of the day,or a warm barrel that has just been cleaned, or me my self i find mine always shoot the best when ive fired first 3 shots of the day then the next say 10 to 15 after that so long as nothing over heats,cheers simon

[gbal]

also guys just a question, do you find that a rifle barrel shoots best from a cold clean first shot of the day,or a warm barrel that has just been cleaned, or me my self i find mine always shoot the best when ive fired first 3 shots of the day then the next say 10 to 15 after that so long as nothing over heats,cheers simon

 

It's not unusual for the first shot from a cold barrel to have a minor POI difference.If it's consistent,not a big problem- just allow for it,if a fouling shot isn't practical.

Bench Resters etc virtually always fire a fouling shot,as even the smallest avoidable error matters to them.

Incidentally they clean between each 5 shot to count string too (there will typically be a few sighters in there too ,so call it 10 shots and clean).They would not do so unless experience suggests it helps,but it does not follow that varminters need such a routine.

 

Gbal

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Akeld]

Interesting take on copper removal

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbMuknl677A

[Tony.H]

All my CF rifles get left with a bit of thin rust preservative oil in the bore and the chamber after use. Its critical to remove this all via patching and dry patches prior to first firing. Oil does not compress and certainly in the chamber you run a risk of ruining the chamber if there is an excess build up in there. Shooting the next day then the gun might be left clean and dry of oil or even dirty if I am off before first light I don't want to be messing around patching out!

If my guns are to be stored a while or in adverse conditions I use a thicker oil a bit more liberally (without any risk of in migrating to the stock or bedding)

Sonic is about there with the whole chemical attack thing from the Hoppes, it aint a good copper remover IMO or a CF cleaning agent generally but it must still hold some nasty effects if left in a bore too long. To me there aint no purpose to, so why risk it? If the bore is cleaned correctly light oiling will protect it better than anything else

i dont use hoppes, its parker hale 009, and its suggests leaving a thin film in the barrel, as a rush prevention if the rifles not going to be used for a while. but just as a measure i will now just dry patch it before i store it, after a clean of course...

thanks for all help

 

tony

[P3T3R]

my question to all of you who believe in barrel break-in is, what are you trying to achieve? Your using a softer metal to try and wear the burrs down? Well surely a hand lapped/finished barrel should be perfect and you wont wear the burrs away. Just clean and dry the barrel before using it and then enjoy. Or at least that is my take.

 

If a barrel is looked after properly it won't be that the rifling is worn, it is the throat.

 

I had a friend who had put 3000 round down his barrel and was going to get a new barrel as his accuracy had gone south, after remeasuring his chamber and adjusting seating depth his accuracy came back!

 

just my 2p and everyone has their own way of doing things, more than one way to skin a cat.

[kent]

my question to all of you who believe in barrel break-in is, what are you trying to achieve? Your using a softer metal to try and wear the burrs down? Well surely a hand lapped/finished barrel should be perfect and you wont wear the burrs away. Just clean and dry the barrel before using it and then enjoy. Or at least that is my take.

 

If a barrel is looked after properly it won't be that the rifling is worn, it is the throat.

 

I had a friend who had put 3000 round down his barrel and was going to get a new barrel as his accuracy had gone south, after remeasuring his chamber and adjusting seating depth his accuracy came back!

 

just my 2p and everyone has their own way of doing things, more than one way to skin a cat.

 

First round down creates at least some metallic fouling, if this was not the case in a lapped barrel then you might never have to use a copper remover in that bore! Subsequent bullets run over that copper and compress it and run more over it, making it harder to remove completely and effectively increasing the size of the obstruction and forming a second cap over it- the more you put down that new but fouled bore the worse it becomes!

No matter how much lapping has been done you will not eradicate this, however one shot break in does help remove copper that might get into any "choke points", tiny as they might be at first we do not want to make them worse.

Copper or any form of contaminates left in a bore are not totally fused to it and as a result corrosion (no matter how slight) can and do creep under it.

Scientifically its impossible to prove break in, to do so would require two barrels with exactly the same surface finish and no matter how much lapping has been done that is totally impossible. They would also need to come from the same bar stock and be formed simultaneously.

As has been said, shoot one clean one cannot do any harm- if it improves things or not is impossible to proove

[gbal]

First round down creates at least some metallic fouling, if this was not the case in a lapped barrel then you might never have to use a copper remover in that bore! Subsequent bullets run over that copper and compress it and run more over it, making it harder to remove completely and effectively increasing the size of the obstruction and forming a second cap over it- the more you put down that new but fouled bore the worse it becomes!

No matter how much lapping has been done you will not eradicate this, however one shot break in does help remove copper that might get into any "choke points", tiny as they might be at first we do not want to make them worse.

Copper or any form of contaminates left in a bore are not totally fused to it and as a result corrosion (no matter how slight) can and do creep under it.

Scientifically its impossible to prove break in, to do so would require two barrels with exactly the same surface finish and no matter how much lapping has been done that is totally impossible. They would also need to come from the same bar stock and beformed simultaneously.

 

As has been said, shoot one clean one cannot do any harm- if it improves things or not is impossible to proove [/quote

 

 

I think it's sensible to break in and clean.The vast majority of real accuracy shooters do so.

 

However,let me suggest that the scientific method is not quite so limited:while we would want our samples in the two treatment conditions to be as similar as possible,before treatment,that is sometimes very difficult,so the samples are either matched as pairs,and one goes in each condition,or large samples,as alike as possible,are used and randomly assigned to one of the conditionsthe rationale of course beingthat with a large enough sample any differences will be "averaged" out between the two samples,leaving any main effect- break in or not- to show,if it is indeed there.This is a quite general procedure,and we could do with a lot more large sample testing,but it would be expensive,especially if one set of barrels were not useable at the end,and it is unlikely to be done.

But ' scientifically',it is not at all impossible,and isn't even very complicated here.

Sometimes there are natural experiment already done for you,and you can get the data-but alas in this case,the vast majority of accuracy shooters do breakin and clean,so there won't be much of a sample in the other condition!

Jim Carmichael once got some data on accuracy of 22swift versus 22/250 by comparing the factory test fire results of a long run of Ruger rifles in these two calibers.....though of course that wouldn't generalise per se to all other makes.....but it does show what can be done...if you really want to know...

 

Gbal

[Crosshair]

Interesting thread. When I bought my pro varmint recently, they never had a .22 cleaning kit in stock, so I out nearly 20 bullets through it before I could clean it.

It came with a factory- fired five shot group card though so I'd be interested to know what Steyr do when shooting these groups? If it was that important, they must surely do the 'right' thing???

[minkstone]

I don't shoot in barrels. Never have. Shouldn't need to.

If I had a custom barrel maker tell me that I needed to 'run in' one of his expensive, precision, hand lapped barrels I'd send it back to him with a nasty note asking why. ~Andrew

 

Same here, my Kreiger barreled 6br NEVER went through a running in period. It's had about 1,000 rds down the tube, and still shoots slightly enlarged one hole groups, and cleans up easily and quickly.

 

I have owned literaly dozens of CF rifles over the years from .22hornet to .243 and almost every calibre in between and have NEVER run a barrel in on any of them. Accuracy has NEVER been an issue with any of them, nor has heavily coppered hard to clean barrels.

 

Regards.

[kent]

 

First round down creates at least some metallic fouling, if this was not the case in a lapped barrel then you might never have to use a copper remover in that bore! Subsequent bullets run over that copper and compress it and run more over it, making it harder to remove completely and effectively increasing the size of the obstruction and forming a second cap over it- the more you put down that new but fouled bore the worse it becomes!

No matter how much lapping has been done you will not eradicate this, however one shot break in does help remove copper that might get into any "choke points", tiny as they might be at first we do not want to make them worse.

Copper or any form of contaminates left in a bore are not totally fused to it and as a result corrosion (no matter how slight) can and do creep under it.

Scientifically its impossible to prove break in, to do so would require two barrels with exactly the same surface finish and no matter how much lapping has been done that is totally impossible. They would also need to come from the same bar stock and beformed simultaneously.

 

As has been said, shoot one clean one cannot do any harm- if it improves things or not is impossible to proove [/quote

 

 

I think it's sensible to break in and clean.The vast majority of real accuracy shooters do so.

 

However,let me suggest that the scientific method is not quite so limited:while we would want our samples in the two treatment conditions to be as similar as possible,before treatment,that is sometimes very difficult,so the samples are either matched as pairs,and one goes in each condition,or large samples,as alike as possible,are used and randomly assigned to one of the conditionsthe rationale of course beingthat with a large enough sample any differences will be "averaged" out between the two samples,leaving any main effect- break in or not- to show,if it is indeed there.This is a quite general procedure,and we could do with a lot more large sample testing,but it would be expensive,especially if one set of barrels were not useable at the end,and it is unlikely to be done.

But ' scientifically',it is not at all impossible,and isn't even very complicated here.

Sometimes there are natural experiment already done for you,and you can get the data-but alas in this case,the vast majority of accuracy shooters do breakin and clean,so there won't be much of a sample in the other condition!

Jim Carmichael once got some data on accuracy of 22swift versus 22/250 by comparing the factory test fire results of a long run of Ruger rifles in these two calibers.....though of course that wouldn't generalise per se to all other makes.....but it does show what can be done...if you really want to know...

 

Gbal

I get the first sentence, the rest just confuses my remaining brain cells into submision

[gbal]

First round down creates at least some metallic fouling, if this was not the case in a lapped barrel then you might never have to use a copper remover in that bore! Subsequent bullets run over that copper and compress it and run more over it, making it harder to remove completely and effectively increasing the size of the obstruction and forming a second cap over it- the more you put down that new but fouled bore the worse it becomes! No matter how much lapping has been done you will not eradicate this, however one shot break in does help remove copper that might get into any "choke points", tiny as they might be at first we do not want to make them worse. Copper or any form of contaminates left in a bore are not totally fused to it and as a result corrosion (no matter how slight) can and do creep under it. Scientifically its impossible to prove break in, to do so would require two barrels with exactly the same surface finish and no matter how much lapping has been done that is totally impossible. They would also need to come from the same bar stock and beformed simultaneously. As has been said, shoot one clean one cannot do any harm- if it improves things or not is impossible to proove [/quoteI think it's sensible to break in and clean.The vast majority of real accuracy shooters do so.However,let me suggest that the scientific method is not quite so limited:while we would want our samples in the two treatment conditions to be as similar as possible,before treatment,that is sometimes very difficult,so the samples are either matched as pairs,and one goes in each condition,or large samples,as alike as possible,are used and randomly assigned to one of the conditionsthe rationale of course beingthat with a large enough sample any differences will be "averaged" out between the two samples,leaving any main effect- break in or not- to show,if it is indeed there.This is a quite general procedure,and we could do with a lot more large sample testing,but it would be expensive,especially if one set of barrels were not useable at the end,and it is unlikely to be done.But ' scientifically',it is not at all impossible,and isn't even very complicated here.Sometimes there are natural experiment already done for you,and you can get the data-but alas in this case,the vast majority of accuracy shooters do breakin and clean,so there won't be much of a sample in the other condition!Jim Carmichael once got some data on accuracy of 22swift versus 22/250 by comparing the factory test fire results of a long run of Ruger rifles in these two calibers.....though of course that wouldn't generalise per se to all other makes.....but it does show what can be done...if you really want to know...Gbal

I get the first sentence, the rest just confuses my remaining brain cells into submision

[/quo

 

Sorry,Kent

If you simplify too much someone tends to come in with a minor but diverting comment.

I hoped the Carmichael experiment would be fairly clear example of the detail in an applied shooting context.

All the rugers were from the same production batch,so very likely to be very similar in everything except the last " treatment" they got-ie chambering in either 220Swift,or 22/250.there was also quite a lot of them,so minor differences would be more or less balanced out in the two groups/treatments/chamberings.

So comparing the factory test groups would be a good,not perfect ,

way to answer the question- is the 220 Swift more or less acccurate than the 22/250. (At least for ruger rifles,in this production

batch).

 

Break in& clean versus not could be similarly answered,with a big enough sample in each category,though of course,only after say 1000 rounds fired,so that would mean rifles in use,and we would not be sure there was not some other factor involved,though it seems unlikely if the users were broadly similar ( eg all target,or all varminters- we do not want the cleaners to be target shooters and the non cleaners to be varminters,as eg barrel heat will differ between these usages,and is a known factor in barrel wear,so we would not know which was responsible for any differences.

Essentially its "vary one thing at a time" and see if there is any difference,something we are all quite familiar with as reloaders?

 

You are on reasonably firm ground just accepting the scientific method,as it 's essentially the basis for all technology etc in our society.And a very good way to answer many questions about the material world.Essentially,it's a tidied up improvement on common sense

Atb

Gbal

 

[The Gun Pimp]

my question to all of you who believe in barrel break-in is, what are you trying to achieve? Your using a softer metal to try and wear the burrs down? Well surely a hand lapped/finished barrel should be perfect and you wont wear the burrs away. Just clean and dry the barrel before using it and then enjoy. Or at least that is my take.

 

As I have said many times - you are not running-in the rifling which, as P3T3R suggests - is hand lapped on a match-grade barrel. What you are running-in is the throat - or the 'ramp' that the reamer forms as it cuts into the first bit of rifling. This 'ramp' looks like the edge of a file - it takes about 40 to 80 rounds to smooth it out completely (unless you do it using another method before you shoot).

 

I have a good photo of this but don't know how to post it - I could send it to someone.

[bradders]

Whether you go through a rigorous and meticulous cleaning regime, read what every barrel maker says and try their recipe, pray to the gods, throw chicken entrails up against the wall or do a mystical dance.....the barrel will break in pretty soon.

If it doesn't then it's quite simply a bad barrel

[Ronin]

As I have said many times - you are not running-in the rifling which, as P3T3R suggests - is hand lapped on a match-grade barrel. What you are running-in is the throat - or the 'ramp' that the reamer forms as it cuts into the first bit of rifling. This 'ramp' looks like the edge of a file - it takes about 40 to 80 rounds to smooth it out completely (unless you do it using another method before you shoot).

 

I have a good photo of this but don't know how to post it - I could send it to someone.

 

 

Send it to my e-mail address Vince.

[Finman]

As I have said many times - you are not running-in the rifling which, as P3T3R suggests - is hand lapped on a match-grade barrel. What you are running-in is the throat - or the 'ramp' that the reamer forms as it cuts into the first bit of rifling. This 'ramp' looks like the edge of a file - it takes about 40 to 80 rounds to smooth it out completely (unless you do it using another method before you shoot).

 

I have a good photo of this but don't know how to post it - I could send it to someone.

 

Vince,

 

whilst I accept that this is the case, why do we need to shoot-one-clean-one, for so many rounds to smooth it out? In my experience (very limited and with much fewer barrels than most, I admit!), I go out, plinking, varminting, stalking, shoot a few rounds (15? 20? max! if stalking even less, 1 or 2), come back, clean the rifle thoroughly and then repeat the same the next time we go out.

 

How much different is that to the recommended break in process? I have followed the break in process with factory barrels, and with match barrels as well in the past. I can't say that I can see a difference to the rifles for which I have not done so. If anything, what this has taught me is that if a barrel is a dog, no matter how you break it in, it will still foul like a dog and shoot like one too...On the other hand, a high quality barrel will perform very well, notwithstanding a relative amount of 'abuse'.

 

I accept that it may be a different ballgame should someone go out, with a brand new barrel and shoot a 150-round competition, or has a requirement that his groups are in the 0.01's and lower. But, I suspect that, for most of us who shoot recreationally and don't take part in many competitions, the breaking in of a barrel sometimes is a habit rather than a requirement. It would be interesting to hear from fellow shooters who shoot cartridges that give a 700 round barrel life, whether they 'waste' some of their barrel life with 100 rounds breaking the barrel in....

 

best wishes,

 

Finman

[silentsoulsleave308holes]

??do you guys think for one minute that the proof house do that for the 3 rounds they fire down your lovely new barrel???????????????

 

when you sit down for some hours and hours on research as to the history in why then you come to the conclusion that over the pond where things are different you can take advantage of the facts, here the proof house have already ruined the foundations of why you should so just shoot and enjoy

[silentsoulsleave308holes]

thinking on some more, a little copper fouling never hurt anyone, copper plasma fouling is the one to watch out for on a new bbl