Barrel break in true or not?
- Thread starter Barbourcreek
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
RYelenov
Member
See attached. Not sure how they would know but I followed. If I ever need to argue, I need to know I am in the right.
Attachments
I have rifles that I have "broke in" and rifles that I just shot. Cannot tell an appreciable difference in the 2 methods.
That barrel needs a lot of work.
I break in all my barrels - more shots before cleaning is necessary.
Attachments
I don't do it. Seems like a good scheme for the solvent and patch companies though. I just clean it after every outing. I use a boroscope to make sure it is clean the same every time. Ime it takes anywhere from 75-150 rounds depending on the barrel to begin proper load development. No amount of cleaning or "patching out" is gonna speed this up or make it better.
Damage Inc.
Well-Known Member
The Old Wive's Tales are strong on this thread….
Same here.
Never wasted much time or $ "breaking-in" a new barrel. I just never take the 1st five shots or so seriously until the highest edges & roughest surfaces are quickly knocked/worn down. I DO try to keep the heat down on any barrel, but especially on new barrels.
I clean after every range day then allow for 1 fouling shot, (which seldom is needed), next time before I get started.
I believe, (opinions may vary), that a new scope actually "settles-in" as well, due to it's newfound vibrations from firing. Just my experiences. Your results may vary. Firing then cleaning, firing then cleaning, repeat.....never!
That makes perfect sense to me. Buttoned or cold hammer forged IMO wouldn't have a fraction of the burrs or sharp edges that cut barrels have, (though I DO love the way that they shoot)!
With custom barrels I generally follow the makers recommendation. Figure that they should know…and I've very rarely been refused a barrel replacement if I received a barrel that didn't meet my expectations.. If there is no recommendation, I'll clean(per shot or two) for the first 5-10 rounds until I notice a difference in the ease of fouling removal….I then thoroughly clean after 20-30 round shooting sessions until the velocity stabilizes. I surely wouldn't die on the hill arguing for or against the practice in terms of sustained accuracy, ease of cleaning, or barrel life. It's difficult to evaluate it. I simply work the break in into my load optimization…Particularly cold/warm bore accuracy.
I have rarely, if ever seen a barrel that didn't take 100-200 rounds to stabilize the velocity(higher).
I have rarely, if ever seen a barrel that didn't take 100-200 rounds to stabilize the velocity(higher).
I've owned about 60 barrels in my lifetime…the worst looking was a factory Savage 111….it shot 3/8ths inch groups with my proven handloads on it's first sighting-in outing…this one copper fouls.
Custom Douglas, Krieger, Hart, Lothar, Cooper Arms…never needed a "breaking in".
Shoot it…clean it when it tells you…it's breaking-in its whole shot life.
Custom Douglas, Krieger, Hart, Lothar, Cooper Arms…never needed a "breaking in".
Shoot it…clean it when it tells you…it's breaking-in its whole shot life.
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
The Engineer in me has these observations:
Why is it that the outliers, the factory rifle that always shoots .5's and has never been cleaned in X hundred rounds and similar, are always held up as some sort of normal? As how all rifles should be treated?
They're outliers, they are the guy in class who blows the grading curve for everyone else. They are the statistical anomaly. If every rifle made by that mfg performed like that, well then we might have something worth talking about. Specifically, what are they doing that no one else is, and why not?
I get the argument that cleaning a bore can do more damage than good, but I also know that if there's a layer of copper between the bullet and the bore then not much about that bore is going to change with that bullet passing through. If we're trying to smooth out some rough spots then we don't need copper filling in between those high points.
A key point missed by the internal combustion engine analogy is that in those bores it is the same "bullet" that is going to be passing by again. And again. And again, ad nauseum. It is even, horrors! going to be going through the bore traveling in the opposite direction.
With a rifle each "piston" is one time use, and no two are exactly identical (though we do everything we can to make it so).
The quoted steel wool comment is interesting. I have all but quit using brushes of any bristle type on the bores of anything, patches only.
The shooter in me doesn't have enough experience with new barrels to have a valid opinion. Yet.
Why is it that the outliers, the factory rifle that always shoots .5's and has never been cleaned in X hundred rounds and similar, are always held up as some sort of normal? As how all rifles should be treated?
They're outliers, they are the guy in class who blows the grading curve for everyone else. They are the statistical anomaly. If every rifle made by that mfg performed like that, well then we might have something worth talking about. Specifically, what are they doing that no one else is, and why not?
I get the argument that cleaning a bore can do more damage than good, but I also know that if there's a layer of copper between the bullet and the bore then not much about that bore is going to change with that bullet passing through. If we're trying to smooth out some rough spots then we don't need copper filling in between those high points.
A key point missed by the internal combustion engine analogy is that in those bores it is the same "bullet" that is going to be passing by again. And again. And again, ad nauseum. It is even, horrors! going to be going through the bore traveling in the opposite direction.
With a rifle each "piston" is one time use, and no two are exactly identical (though we do everything we can to make it so).
The quoted steel wool comment is interesting. I have all but quit using brushes of any bristle type on the bores of anything, patches only.
The shooter in me doesn't have enough experience with new barrels to have a valid opinion. Yet.
Yes and no.
If shoot 5 and clean can be called break in then yes.
Cortina says no, it's a waste of time. Shilen says they came up with a break in procedure because people told them they needed one lol.
I have and I have not, with the same results. 5 and done is all I'm willing to do these days.just doesn't seem to make any difference
If shoot 5 and clean can be called break in then yes.
Cortina says no, it's a waste of time. Shilen says they came up with a break in procedure because people told them they needed one lol.
I have and I have not, with the same results. 5 and done is all I'm willing to do these days.just doesn't seem to make any difference
A lot of what people have been complaining about seems to be chambering issues
