clandestine
AR-15 Savant
Same thing IMO when it comes to the subject.
New rifle break in
- Thread starter DeadeyeJack
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Same thing IMO when it comes to the subject.
dist1646
Ultimate Member
OP, In my experience, accuracy is not degraded. Cleaning effort may be easier if the break in procedure is followed but, every barrel is different. Match grade barrels should be far more smooth and uniform than standard production barrels due to the lapping procedure used by precision barrel makers.
Agreed. Clean after you use or less not more.
DeadeyeJack
Supporter of Freedom
I will not be following the manufacturer's procedure.
When I asked Dan Cooper this question he told me one shot and clean for at least 20 rounds.
This is what Krieger says,
BREAK-IN & CLEANING:
With any premium barrel that has been finish lapped -- such as your Krieger Barrel --, the lay or direction of the finish is in the direction of the bullet travel, so fouling is minimal compared to a barrel with internal tooling marks. This is true of any properly finish-lapped barrel regardless of how it is rifled. If it is not finish-lapped, there will be reamer marks left in the bore that are directly across the direction of the bullet travel. This occurs even in a button-rifled barrel as the button cannot completely iron out these reamer marks.
Because the lay of the finish is in the direction of the bullet travel, very little is done to the bore during break-in, but the throat is another story. When your barrel is chambered, by necessity there are reamer marks left in the throat that are across the lands, i.e. across the direction of the bullet travel. In a new barrel they are very distinct; much like the teeth on a very fine file. When the bullet is forced into the throat, copper dust is removed from the jacket material and released into the gas which at this temperature and pressure is actually a plasma. The copper dust is vaporized in this plasma and is carried down the barrel. As the gas expands and cools, the copper comes out of suspension and is deposited in the bore. This makes it appear as if the source of the fouling is the bore when it is actually for the most part the new throat. If this copper is allowed to stay in the bore, and subsequent bullets and deposits are fired over it, copper which adheres well to itself, will build up quickly and may be difficult to remove later. So when we break in a barrel, our goal is to get the throat “polished” without allowing copper to build up in the bore. This is the reasoning for the "fire-one-shot-and-clean" procedure.
Every barrel will vary slightly in how many rounds they take to break in For example a chrome moly barrel may take longer to break in than stainless steel because it is more abrasion resistant even though it is a similar hardness. Also chrome moly has a little more of an affinity for copper than stainless steel so it will usually show a little more "color" if you are using a chemical cleaner. Rim Fire barrels can take an extremely long time to break in, sometimes requiring several hundred rounds or more. But cleaning can be lengthened to every 25-50 rounds. The break-in procedure and the cleaning procedure are really the same except for the frequency. Remember the goal is to get or keep the barrel clean while breaking in the throat with bullets being fired over it.
Finally, the best way to tell if the barrel is broken in is to observe the patches; i.e. when the fouling is reduced. This is better than some set number of cycles of "shoot and clean" as many owners report practically no fouling after the first few shots, and more break-in would be pointless. Conversely, if more is required, a set number would not address that either. Besides, cleaning is not a completely benign procedure so it should be done carefully and no more than necessary.
This is what Krieger says,
BREAK-IN & CLEANING:
With any premium barrel that has been finish lapped -- such as your Krieger Barrel --, the lay or direction of the finish is in the direction of the bullet travel, so fouling is minimal compared to a barrel with internal tooling marks. This is true of any properly finish-lapped barrel regardless of how it is rifled. If it is not finish-lapped, there will be reamer marks left in the bore that are directly across the direction of the bullet travel. This occurs even in a button-rifled barrel as the button cannot completely iron out these reamer marks.
Because the lay of the finish is in the direction of the bullet travel, very little is done to the bore during break-in, but the throat is another story. When your barrel is chambered, by necessity there are reamer marks left in the throat that are across the lands, i.e. across the direction of the bullet travel. In a new barrel they are very distinct; much like the teeth on a very fine file. When the bullet is forced into the throat, copper dust is removed from the jacket material and released into the gas which at this temperature and pressure is actually a plasma. The copper dust is vaporized in this plasma and is carried down the barrel. As the gas expands and cools, the copper comes out of suspension and is deposited in the bore. This makes it appear as if the source of the fouling is the bore when it is actually for the most part the new throat. If this copper is allowed to stay in the bore, and subsequent bullets and deposits are fired over it, copper which adheres well to itself, will build up quickly and may be difficult to remove later. So when we break in a barrel, our goal is to get the throat “polished” without allowing copper to build up in the bore. This is the reasoning for the "fire-one-shot-and-clean" procedure.
Every barrel will vary slightly in how many rounds they take to break in For example a chrome moly barrel may take longer to break in than stainless steel because it is more abrasion resistant even though it is a similar hardness. Also chrome moly has a little more of an affinity for copper than stainless steel so it will usually show a little more "color" if you are using a chemical cleaner. Rim Fire barrels can take an extremely long time to break in, sometimes requiring several hundred rounds or more. But cleaning can be lengthened to every 25-50 rounds. The break-in procedure and the cleaning procedure are really the same except for the frequency. Remember the goal is to get or keep the barrel clean while breaking in the throat with bullets being fired over it.
Finally, the best way to tell if the barrel is broken in is to observe the patches; i.e. when the fouling is reduced. This is better than some set number of cycles of "shoot and clean" as many owners report practically no fouling after the first few shots, and more break-in would be pointless. Conversely, if more is required, a set number would not address that either. Besides, cleaning is not a completely benign procedure so it should be done carefully and no more than necessary.
E.Shell
Ultimate Member
LMAO...
I used to do the full break in, but have stopped doing it at all and have not noticed any difference.
Is there any other way?
Other than preservation requirements, your rifle will typically tell you when it needs cleaning. It will either begin to exhibit higher pressures with normally safe loads or bullets suffer damage and accuracy declines.
More discussion below on what it is supposed to accomplish, but much of the lore does indeed border on magical, especially the promise of greater barrel life (as you blow wasted rounds down the tube).
This is the theory. The practicality is that these scary-ass burrs will be gone by the time you take it out a few times anyway.
Another not so small factor is the existence of improved cleaning compounds that make this horrific fouling a bit more manageable than it was in days of olde when all this break in crap began. One application of Wipe-Out is probably equivalent to 3 hours spent brushing something like Hoppes #9. In all honesty, I almost don't care how bad it fouls if it continues to shoot properly.
This is also my opinion.
This is where we would part ways. I have yet to see a good rifle shoot better as it gets worn. If a rifle doesn't shoot well immediately, there is usually something wrong and I don't usually see it get any better.
The single exception to this I have seen personally is that some factory barrels are so rough inside, they need to accumulate some copper fouling to smooth them out. I have seen some Remington barrels so bad with rotary tool marks, they looked like they were internally threaded.
Just as to show I am not picking on Remington, I have had to re-cut the unfinished throats in two Savage .308 chambers in the last 6 weeks.
This^^
Ugh.
True, but every barrel maker likes to sell barrels.
There is enough voodoo associated with crap like this that while any doubt exists that it actually has merit, they'd be afraid to tell you not to do it.
Between the peening and the burrs, I could toss and turn all night.
Looking at copper fouling in a bore does not give one the impression of gobs of copper being ironed into a bore by another gob of copper. It is difficult to peen material with a softer material, especially since the malleable slug will deform before the steel barrel surface.
Anyway, this/these assertions that break in provides some benefit MAY have been true 50-70 years ago, which is where much of our present day myth and legend come from, but these days, I see it as a detrimental waste of time and money.
At one time, custom barrels had a limit to the quality of finish that could be imparted to the bore. The best of these were hand lapped. The hand lapped barrels typically acted like they were already broken in (reached a point of diminished fouling), while lesser barrels were quite rough inside and actually did seem to show improvement from breaking in. Things change with technology and increasing knowledge. Things that were true at one time may sometimes bear revision (The Earth IS flat).
All this begs a couple questions:
If a barrel has been carefully bored and rifled by skilled craftsmen using precision machinery, ruthlessly QC'ed, then hand or chemically lapped to a high degree of smoothness, how do we imagine improving upon this fine finish? By sending a high pressure, high temperature wash of abrasive powder granules down the tube behind a force-fit metal bullet, then following that process by a chemical bath and wire brush? Lather, rinse, repeat?
Good luck making your barrel better...
Make no mistake about it, EVERY bullet down the bore is detrimental wear, whether it inadvertently tears some burrs loose or not. Your barrel has a lifespan, and every shot moves it closer to the end. Wasting ammo, time and energy to increase this wear just doesn't make sense to me.
These days, things are a LOT different than they were when break in was seen as necessary. I typically see two kinds of barrels; the average factory barrels that look like hell, and the good quality custom barrels that are slick as a whistle right out of the wrapper. I personally believe that neither one of these types benefit from break in rituals. The custom barrel is already as smooth as it will ever be, and there is just no hope for the average factory pipe.
While I don't believe there is overt dishonesty here, it sure doesn't hurt to play it safe, LOL.
Yup, but what do they know? I mean, they've only been doing this custom match barrel thing for how long?
<grin> Hate to say it's a waste, but hate to not say anything...
Best answer EVER.
Damn, hope they don't find out about MY new Krieger...it's a .300 WinMag with 50 rounds through it and I was thinking I'd clean it next week whether it needs it or not.
Your Remington bore is probably internally threaded by the factory and broaches material from the bullets as they go. This would quit if you stopped trying to keep it clean, but how would we know?
The powder fouling is a product of burn rate, charge weight and bore ratio. You might be running too slow a powder for the bullet weight.
How could you tell if it didn't?
I too used to follow The Ritual, but once, in a fit of madness, threw caution to the winds, skipped it and couldn't tell the difference. I have about 10 custom barrels from 5-6 makers that all shoot great and copper foul very little. Of these 10, I might have one or two left from those days when break in was mandatory and I really cannot tell the difference with the borescope, by fouling rate or by precision.
I will say this: If we cannot shoot (prove) the difference, none exists.
I'd agree that they will sometimes seem to foul less as they are used, but never to the point of making any of these convoluted break-in procedures attractive or even logical.
Yes, they generally are, and I am always a little surprised to see how nice a new tube looks when I get it. I have a Hawkeye bore scope and love it. The things I have learned about cleaning, fouling, machine work and even break-in procedures have made the purchase price a bargain.
Uh oh, I smell trouble...
Sure back when cleaning rods were sectional and made of steel and cheap steel core brushes were being used.
But with today's all brass brushes and non metallic cleaning rods I don't agree with you at all.
clandestine
AR-15 Savant
Ed has spoken.
He is one of the fellers that I listen to. I smile when I have the same conclusion that he does.
He is one of the fellers that I listen to. I smile when I have the same conclusion that he does.
I don't agree with both you and ed, But as always I am just a DA welder so what do I know.
But I ain't gonna argue about it..
But I ain't gonna argue about it..
clandestine
AR-15 Savant
I dont think you are a dumb @ss. My experience has shown me barrel seasoning and break in is pointless.
E.Shell
Ultimate Member
What's a brush?
Yes, there were days when cleaning implements created more problems than they solved, but today, there is really no reason to ever damage a bore. Modern cleaning rods, bore guides, good solvents, educated shooters...
I would take this line of reasoning (certain fears are outdated) one step further and suggest that with modern solvents, the possibility of getting a little extra fouling for the first few cleanings is a non-issue. I haven't brushed a bore for since I started using Wipe Out and really don't worry about how to get copper fouling out any more. In fact, every fouling issue I've ever had has been with hard carbon and the calcium carbonate used as a deterrent. I'm not even sure copper fouling actually has to come out, but I do it anyway, as to preserve The Ritual.
There is nothing DA about you...give it up, you know as much about this stuff as any of us.
At any rate, there is surely nothing to argue over. I recognize that you feel it necessary, as many knowledgeable folks do, to follow this procedure. Nothing wrong with friendly debate and even disagreement. This helps us all explore new ideas and question doctrine. Many things in this trade are variables and there is certainly more than one way to skin a cat (open, cased or through the mouth). Because one way works doesn't necessarily invalidate another and it becomes a matter of priorities.
FWIW, my reply above is not in response to yours, I was still typing while you were posting the Krieger info and found it when I got back.
The information I take away from the Krieger narrative, BTW, is that their barrels actually do not need break in, that their issue is with the burrs left by the throating reamer. Simply put, they are concerned that not cleaning up after the gunsmith will leave the buyer with the mistaken idea that the whole barrel is fouling excessively, which many here also seem to believe. I can see their point and believe what they say, but would also suggest that this is a 'cover your six' generalization and that a good man with a sharp reamer will not cause the issues they are concerned about...and so what if they do? Good solvent will readily remove it during routine cleaning.
I borescope just about every barrel that crosses my bench and I see all kinds of evil, including chambers cut so far off axis that the rifling starts at different places as you pan around the bore. I can only imagine how rough some of these things can be, but would not compare that work ethic to work done by people who are accuracy minded and cater to precision shooters. WAR Rifles sent my .300 WinMag out this spring with what looked like a very clean, square and polished throat. Laura's .243 just came back from Walker Custom Rifles in the same condition. I just run a couple alcohol patches through, shoot them all day, then clean them when I get home if they need it.
Personally, I have become very sensitive to wasting my time and energy on things that do not provide tangible results and benefits. I must admit that I have engaged in activities and methods in the past for the sheer satisfaction of knowing I have done everything possible, but, as they always say, "I'm better now". Activities like neck turning for factory rifles, like neck sizing for anything but a benchrest gun, like weighing cases, like moly coating, like truing primer pockets and reaming flash holes and..... Pffft... I strongly begrudge much of this as horribly wasted time.
I don't routinely do many of these things any more because I have tested with and without, and if I cannot prove it does anything, it just doesn't. Bore break in is simply one more activity I cannot prove does anything at all for me.
I've been running custom guns barreled with Lilja, Schneider, Hart, Krieger, Shilen, Broughton, Bartlein, Douglas, even ER Shaw, since the mid 70's and I was so particular with the first half dozen or so I was almost afraid to shoot the damn things. If the maker told me to close one eye and spin one one foot before shooting each time, I'd have probably done it.
These days, I burn up at least one barrel a year, with honest wear and a round count commensurate with usage and some even go a little further than I thought they might. Break in was one of the routine things I had always heard, and believed, was necessary. Now, as Chad states above, I see break in or seasoning a bore as superstiition, or, at best, a formerly valid carryover from days gone by that is no longer necessary.
- Aug 17, 2011
- 26,177
Ed, if you have a few minutes. I'd love to pick your brain some on some things with my .260Rem.
E.Shell
Ultimate Member
PM inbound, or I can meet you at your thread.
