Break in from SEAL pal

[HiBC]

I fail to understand the need for sarcastic comments.

The forum is for asking questions and sharing knowledge and experience.It is a controversial subject.

It can be discussed without turning it into an emotional whizzing contest.

Here is an excerpt from the Kreiger website:

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------

No need to agree,do what makes you happy.

I'm quite sure if I was shooting a 1927 Springfield barrel break in would not be a concern.

Had I just bought and installed a Kreiger barrel,I would probably follow my barrel maker's recomendation.

 

[zukiphile]

Here is an excerpt from the Kreiger website:

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

Emphasis added.

I don't know a lot about this topic, and this explanation sounds plausible, but it does leave me with a question:

Can't a high end barrel maker polish out these reamer marks before selling the barrel? (Or is that a stupid question?)

 

[kraigwy]

I've chambered a lot of barrels, a heck of a lot of target barrels.

After you chamber a barrel, you clean the crap out of it. I mean scrub it to get all the chips, cutting oil, burrs, or what ever.

Now if you want to call that "barrel break in" then I guess I do.

After I clean up the barreled action I run it through Hot Tank Bluing.

If you've done any bluing you know it totally dissolves any non ferrous metals.

Scrubbing with a wire bore and chamber brush takes care of the burs that may be left in the chambering process.

To me that's a lot different then the shoot-Clean-shoot-clean process.

After I get the gun out of the bluing tanks, get it put back together, I test it first and examine the brass for pressure signs, if all is well, I sight it in and its broke in as far as I'm concerned.

I've found, especially with target barrels it takes a few rounds to foul the bore, then it shoots. I zero a fouled barrel, I'm not of the clean cold bore zero crowd. I believe in fouling shots.

When you first blue a gun, the bluing fills in a lot of the pores in the barrel metal. After a few rounds the bluing is gone, and I believe, the fouling takes the place of the bluing, making a smooth bore.

I may be wrong, but I've made some dern accurate shooters this way.

 

[koolminx]

I wasn't trying to be snarky, I was simply pointing out that with the exception of a very very very few super duper duper elite marks-persons, breaking in a barrel is kind of useless after your first 5 or 10 shots.

If the barrel is going to be crappy, it will show up when you are sighting it in. And not down the road after a couple hundred rounds over a year or three period. Especially if cleaned and inspected after each shooting which I fully expect all of us here on the forum to do after each shooting.

 

[btmj]

I followed Kraig's advice on my new rifles. My Howa-action 243 grouped badly for the first 5 rounds, then it improved dramatically. By round number 20, the rifle was sighted in. After cleaning the barrel, I did not notice any change or improvement over the next 40 rounds.

Same with my AR, except that it seemed accurate on the first round. I simply sighted it in with the iron sights, and shot 100 rounds that day. I cleaned it, and now with more than 1000 rounds, I never noticed any improvement or degradation.

 

[TheBear]

barrel break in is a useless waste of time. why dont you just get that??

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Does this mean that a barrel never wears out?

LOL, you #1 funny man. That would depend on what you mean by "wears out." What is means is that the barrel will continue to change with every single shot made. That a barrel is being "broken in" would be to suggest that there is a specific time which it can be determined, apparently by shooting, that the maximum accuracy has been attained and that you then stop the procedure, if you go by the purported breaking-in instructions prescribed by various peoples, none of which are the same. Everyone seems to have their magic combination of shots, cleaning, cleaning procedures, and chemicals to be used for a proper "break-in."

However, the barrel will continue to change with ever shot fired. You can say that the barrel continues to break-in with every shot or you can say that it continues to "wear-out" with every shot. The point is, there isn't a magical number of shots and cleanings that make some miracle happen inside of a barrel. The notion that a fixed number is what is required without actually going in and assessing the actualy condition of the barrel, chamber, etc. is preposterous.

I have talked to a lot of people over the years including 2 barrel makers, military and police snipers, competition shooters, weekend shooters, etc., and not a single one of them can shoot a gun and tell you if a barrel break-in procedure has been performed on a gun, performed "correctly," etc. When was the last time somebody let you fire a rifle and you had to return it to them because it had not had the prescribed break-in performed on it?

I mean absolutely nothing snarky by the queries. I have done my inquiries and not found anyone who can tell a difference. I have never been able to locate any studies that showed the value of barrel break-in procedures and which procedures, if there is any meaningful difference, work the best. If this is indeed so critical, so important that it must be done as some people will claim, then why isn't there any empirical information to back up the claims? I have noticed that thusfar in this thread, like all the rest, no such information has been shown to exist.

 

[Bart B.]

In response to the sniper's comment "Your barrel continues to break-in with every shot you make." I asked if that means that a barrel never wears out. To some, it may well mean that. Afterall, if its owner is the guy who put that claim in print, if he shoots it 54,321 times and likes the way it performs, it must be still being broken in by that standard.

Most folks consider a barrel worn out when it's accuracy no longer is acceptable by its owner. That varies quite a bit across all the shooting disciplines. For example, a 5.56mm NATO barrel in a US Army Marksmanship Unit match grade service rifle may be considered inaccurate when it's 600 yard test groups open up from 1/2 MOA to 3/4 MOA. Yet the same cartridge in M16 service rifles used in combat has a specified 15,000 round typical service life altho at a much lesser degree of accuracy that's about 2 to 3 MOA at that range. On the other hand. folks shooting the 6.5x284 in benchrest and high power competition get between 500 and 800 rounds of accurate barrel life, but a hunter may claim several thousand. Lots of folks think a .22 rimfire barrel will never wear out, but Olympic team members start looking for a new barrel at about 30,000 rounds.

 

[Metal god]

Bart

Agreed to the last , and thank you for answering each of my questions . Where can one get one of these old burned out barrels that only has 500 rounds through it .I'm sure you don't just melt them down for scrap . With my shooting skills . Im sure I could get another 1000+ rounds out of them and be very happy .

 

[Jimro]

Metal God,

Ask around your local benchrest crowd. Of course the twist rates may not be to your liking. Not a lot of hunters use a 30 caliber barrel with a 1:16 twist.

Jimro

 

[Skadoosh]

When was the last time somebody let you fire a rifle and you had to return it to them because it had not had the prescribed break-in performed on it?

I think many are missing the point of why many barrel makers recommend barrel break-in.

The way I see it, barrel break-in doesn't IMPROVE a articular barrel's accuracy (..., although I personally believe that it might actually very slightly improve a barrel's initial accuracy for a short period of time). In my opinion, proper barrel break-in merely ensures that the barrel's accuracy, as well as barrel life, is preserved for as long as possible.

 

[kraigwy]

Middleton Tompkins states in Nancy Tompkins' book, "Prone and Long-Range Rifle Shooting" that:

"The actual life of a barrel is approximately 3 seconds. This is the total amount of time that a bullet is in your barrel before it wears or starts to wear out."

Now I'm sure they are talking about the target quality of a barrel, but still, the amount of time (shooting) a bullet spends in a barrel does wear the barrel.

I just fail to see how shooting a barrel to break it in increases barrel life.

Barnett was mentioned a time or two in this discussion. Gene Barnett makes the Barnett barrels most commonly used in Match M1As, M14s, and M1s.

I met Gene Barnett when we were both in the NG. I was OIC/Coach of the Alaska Rifle Team, Gene worked full time for the NG MTU, his main position was armor for the Small Bore Team (International). During the Wilson Matches he worked as an armor for the Pistol Matches.

He is the one who converted my M1A into a super match. While working for the guard he had his business of making Match Barrels he sold to the Army, National Guard, and civilians (Brownell was one of his best customers).

We got to be pretty good friends and spent a great deal of time discussing barrels. In all the years I've known him I've never once heard him mention "breaking in his M1A/M14 barrels" but I'd venture to say his M1A/M14 barrels won more matches then all the other barrels combined (when M1A/M14s were used in Service Rifle Matches).

Actually, it wasn't until the Internet came about that I started hearing about barrel break In's.

But we all have our opinions, some seem odd to other shooters, I know I certainly have my ways of doing things that raise the eyebrows of others so it boils down to. WHAT EVER FLOATS YOUR BOAT.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I think many are missing the point of why many barrel makers recommend barrel break-in.

No, I didn't miss anything including the fact that not all manufacturers stipulate break-in. Maybe you missed my point that nobody seems to be able to tell the difference in barrels purportedly broken in or not and nobody has any data to show breaking in a barrel by whatever voodoo-like special combo formula actually does make any significant change in accuracy or life.

The way I see it, barrel break-in doesn't IMPROVE a articular barrel's accuracy (..., although I personally believe that it might actually very slightly improve a barrel's initial accuracy for a short period of time). In my opinion, proper barrel break-in merely ensures that the barrel's accuracy, as well as barrel life, is preserved for as long as possible.

LOL, barrel break-in is so critical that people aren't even sure what it does one way or the other. Some thing it makes it more accurate. Some think it makes it last longer. The insight is by OPINION and not by any sort of real data. That right there says a lot about the general population's understanding of barrel break-in.

Heck, even your opinion has seemed to change over the course of the thread...

As much as some senior members poo-poo barrel break in, I believe properly breaking in a new barrel is a valid and necessary procedure to prevent shortening a barrel's life and ensuring it's maximum potential accuracy.

Voodoo cause and effect.

 

[Skadoosh]

And since no one, you included, can offer proof to either argument, the mystery remains. This does not mean the process is without valid benefit.

...isnt the internet an amazing thing?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Can't a high end barrel maker polish out these reamer marks before selling the barrel? (Or is that a stupid question?)

My Lilja match barrel had a bore like a mirror when I got it, so it definitely can be done. On the other hand, for what I paid for the barrel, you could buy an entire M&P Sport, so it may not be cost competitive to do it.

And FWIW, I don't shoot near well enough to appreciate the difference between this and a much cheaper match barrel, though it is nice to be 100% sure that the rifle is not the problem.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

And since no one, you included, can offer proof to either argument, the mystery remains. This does not mean the process is without valid benefit.

...isnt the internet an amazing thing?

And that is what makes it voo-doo when people start claiming how important the process is and what it does when they don't even know what, if anything it does or if it has any affect. That people would claim that changes need to be made to a barrel, to break it in via the use of a magical number of prescribed steps, cleaners, solvents, and/or lubes, without ever first determining what changes need to be made to the barrel, if any, puts the whole process into the realm of being a faith-based belief system like voodoo.

 

[Metal god]

What about chrome lined barrels . I here they settle in after a couple hundred rounds or so and shoot better . Would this be the break in period for these barrels or is this BS as well .

 

[Jimro]

Who ever told you chrome lined barrels settle in?

Accuracy may change over the life of the barrel, but when a barrel is designed to last 15,000 to 20,000 rounds how much real difference does the "first couple hundred" really make?

Jimro

 

[johnbt]

"I've always questioned Ruger's expertise on rifle barrels. Especially when, in 1991,... "

It was about then that Ruger got tired of buying barrels and invested heavily in hammer forge machines from Europe. The last time I looked it up it only took 6 employees to make their barrels. Let me check that.

Okay, here, all the way at the bottom, in 2010 it was 8 employees.

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2010/05/rifling-manufacturing-hammer-forged.html

 

[Metal god]

I don't have an exact person or time . I seem to remember reading it some where and talking about it at the range as well as posting a thread about it on TFL . Like all the other opinions out there I have know scientific data . just wanted to here other opinions on the chrome lined barrels .

It's my understanding when they apply the chrome to the bore it"s very hard to get a even coat through out the barrel . This is why they are a little less accurate then none chromed lined barrels .

I was just wondering if putting a few hundred rounds through it would ( lack of a better term ) smooth it out ever so slightly ?

Just a thought not a fact .