LOBO
Well-Known Member
Thanks, keep us updated. Good luck on your moose hunt too.
Chris
Chris
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Bore Cleaner Test
- Thread starter RogerK
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Copper Test 2 Post
I did the tests requested on Montana Extreme 50 BMG, Wipe Out, and Bore Tech Eliminator.
I also ran a test to see if Warthog would cut lead. It doesn't cut lead and we don't make that claim. It simply won't clean lead out a barrel. I'm going to look into that after the hunting season, mostly out of curiosity.
I ordered Montana Extreme 50 BMG, Wipe Out, and Bore Tech Eliminator from Mid South Shooters Supply. I ran the tests the same way I tested in initial solvents, with one exception. I used bullets from the same lot, however I did not have enough 140 grain Barnes X bullets, so I used bullets that weighed 139.7 grains on my RCBS digital. I opened the bottles of Montana Extreme 50 BMG and Bore Tech Eliminator and dropped the bullets into the solvent and left them in for 24 hours. I put the Wipe-Out down a clear plastic tube in something that resembles putting it down a rifle bore.
Frankly, after hearing what I hear about these cleaners, I approached testing these 3 cleaners with apprehension. It was a misplaced apprehension. The tests speak for themselves.
The Results:
Montana Extreme 50 BMG
139.7 Grains Before the test.
139.7 Grains After the test.
000.0 Grains lost.
Wipe-Out
139.7 Grains Before the test.
139.6 Grains After the test.
000.1 Grain Lost.
Biggest problem with Wipe-Out: The foam melts way into a thin liquid and gravity forces that thin liquid to pool at the lowest point. The foam seems like a good idea but I have a feeling that users are only getting half a cleaning because of the pooling noted, and at the rate it cuts copper, not a very good cleaning.
Bore Tech Eliminator
139.7 Grains Before the test.
139.7 Grains After the test.
000.0 Grains lost.
You can go here to have a look at the details of the test. The new test results are near the bottom of the page. Scroll down the page to the new test.
http://warthog1134.com/bullet_test_1.htm
Anyone can do these tests. Get some of the products in these tests, drop the bullet of your choice in a bottle of the stuff, or in the case of Wipe-Out, try to keep the stuff on the bullet, and then compare the weight of the bullet before and after. Am I wrong to believe that a copper cutter ought to cut copper, if the label says it cuts copper? Most of the products I tested don't cut copper, and those that do, cut it poorly and very slowly.
I did the tests requested on Montana Extreme 50 BMG, Wipe Out, and Bore Tech Eliminator.
I also ran a test to see if Warthog would cut lead. It doesn't cut lead and we don't make that claim. It simply won't clean lead out a barrel. I'm going to look into that after the hunting season, mostly out of curiosity.
I ordered Montana Extreme 50 BMG, Wipe Out, and Bore Tech Eliminator from Mid South Shooters Supply. I ran the tests the same way I tested in initial solvents, with one exception. I used bullets from the same lot, however I did not have enough 140 grain Barnes X bullets, so I used bullets that weighed 139.7 grains on my RCBS digital. I opened the bottles of Montana Extreme 50 BMG and Bore Tech Eliminator and dropped the bullets into the solvent and left them in for 24 hours. I put the Wipe-Out down a clear plastic tube in something that resembles putting it down a rifle bore.
Frankly, after hearing what I hear about these cleaners, I approached testing these 3 cleaners with apprehension. It was a misplaced apprehension. The tests speak for themselves.
The Results:
Montana Extreme 50 BMG
139.7 Grains Before the test.
139.7 Grains After the test.
000.0 Grains lost.
Wipe-Out
139.7 Grains Before the test.
139.6 Grains After the test.
000.1 Grain Lost.
Biggest problem with Wipe-Out: The foam melts way into a thin liquid and gravity forces that thin liquid to pool at the lowest point. The foam seems like a good idea but I have a feeling that users are only getting half a cleaning because of the pooling noted, and at the rate it cuts copper, not a very good cleaning.
Bore Tech Eliminator
139.7 Grains Before the test.
139.7 Grains After the test.
000.0 Grains lost.
You can go here to have a look at the details of the test. The new test results are near the bottom of the page. Scroll down the page to the new test.
http://warthog1134.com/bullet_test_1.htm
Anyone can do these tests. Get some of the products in these tests, drop the bullet of your choice in a bottle of the stuff, or in the case of Wipe-Out, try to keep the stuff on the bullet, and then compare the weight of the bullet before and after. Am I wrong to believe that a copper cutter ought to cut copper, if the label says it cuts copper? Most of the products I tested don't cut copper, and those that do, cut it poorly and very slowly.
[ QUOTE ]
The test is 100% invalid and not very useful. I worked with the most famous ammoniacal chemist on the planet and an laboratory chemist to come up with a valid test. Ammonia facts: <ul type="square"> [*]Ammonia quickly evaporates and looses strength [*]Ammonia strength is measured by density (called Baume) [*]Ammonia requires Oxygen to dissolve Cu - immersion tests are invalid and not what happens when you clean your barrel [*]Janitorial grade Ammonia is a waste of money - Baume-ing out about 7-8. 26 Baume industrial Ammonia is only $15/gal and the way to go [*]Ammonia has never been proven safe for gun barrels. [/list]
My tests lead me to believe that ammonium hydroxide solutions are very ineffective against carbon fouling. Butches Bore shine, or GM Top Engine Cleaner part # 1050002 work.
I've talked to several materials engineers who are emphatic that ammonia will attack the iron in gun barrel alloys. The ammoniacal chemists will not conjecture but ask me to do the test we came up with (to determine if Ammonia is safe).
I've got the two ammoniacal experiments on my 2-do list but they haven't made the top 50.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is an example of how facts can be used to distort.
Ammonia will attack the iron in a gun barrel. So will water that's in the air as humidity. Yet I don't see, nor have ever seen, any shooter wrapping their shooting irons in water proof material to keep the moisture and hence, rust off the iron. Rust is a combination of water conndensed to the metal and time for the chemical process to work. That's why every ammonia based cleaner has a limit on the label as to the time it's allowed in the barrel. You take away the time needed for the process to work.
Ammonia does need oxygen to dissolve copper. The key is supplying the oxidizer and that's a trade secret.
The test is 100% invalid and not very useful. I worked with the most famous ammoniacal chemist on the planet and an laboratory chemist to come up with a valid test. Ammonia facts: <ul type="square"> [*]Ammonia quickly evaporates and looses strength [*]Ammonia strength is measured by density (called Baume) [*]Ammonia requires Oxygen to dissolve Cu - immersion tests are invalid and not what happens when you clean your barrel [*]Janitorial grade Ammonia is a waste of money - Baume-ing out about 7-8. 26 Baume industrial Ammonia is only $15/gal and the way to go [*]Ammonia has never been proven safe for gun barrels. [/list]
My tests lead me to believe that ammonium hydroxide solutions are very ineffective against carbon fouling. Butches Bore shine, or GM Top Engine Cleaner part # 1050002 work.
I've talked to several materials engineers who are emphatic that ammonia will attack the iron in gun barrel alloys. The ammoniacal chemists will not conjecture but ask me to do the test we came up with (to determine if Ammonia is safe).
I've got the two ammoniacal experiments on my 2-do list but they haven't made the top 50.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is an example of how facts can be used to distort.
Ammonia will attack the iron in a gun barrel. So will water that's in the air as humidity. Yet I don't see, nor have ever seen, any shooter wrapping their shooting irons in water proof material to keep the moisture and hence, rust off the iron. Rust is a combination of water conndensed to the metal and time for the chemical process to work. That's why every ammonia based cleaner has a limit on the label as to the time it's allowed in the barrel. You take away the time needed for the process to work.
Ammonia does need oxygen to dissolve copper. The key is supplying the oxidizer and that's a trade secret.
Guys,
I bought some and ran my own experiment. In short, this stuff is worth some followup testing and use by others. I would suggest some others buy some and let's try it out for awhile and then compare notes.
Here is a link with photos.
http://precisionlongrangehunter.com/eve/...3881#9771083881
I bought some and ran my own experiment. In short, this stuff is worth some followup testing and use by others. I would suggest some others buy some and let's try it out for awhile and then compare notes.
Here is a link with photos.
http://precisionlongrangehunter.com/eve/...3881#9771083881
G
Guest
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
Ammonia does need oxygen to dissolve copper. The key is supplying the oxidizer and that's a trade secret.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you've got my attention. Now I can see how your product is vastly superior to other ammoniacal agents in <font color="red"> sealed tests.</font> The other agents need oxygen for the ammonia + cu reaction to take place. Without 0xygen, no reaction. Your product - by containing an oxidizer can rapidly dissolve the copper.
But cleaning (coating) a gun barrel in nothing like your sealed test. Once a gun barrel is coated, the ammonia is in an oxygen rich environment. Now the biggest problem is evaporation. I'm guessing your product would have no advantage over the better ammoniacal cleaners (or 26 degree baume aqueous ammonia) and would suffer from the same evaporation problem.
I can see one possible advantage. If you had an exceptionally copper fouled barrel - you could fill the barrel with Warthog 1134 -then seal the barrel and leave it over night.
In that case I can believe you have an advantage.
Your web site reports for Montana Extreme 50 BMG - <font color="red"> 0,000.0 Grains lost.</font>
Does anyone who's used Montana Extreme 50 BMG really believe it doesn't remove copper? It just demonstrates how your test cannot be applied to cleaning guns and how there is zero correlation between the efficacy of a gun barrel copper solvent and your rigged tests.
Ammonia does need oxygen to dissolve copper. The key is supplying the oxidizer and that's a trade secret.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you've got my attention. Now I can see how your product is vastly superior to other ammoniacal agents in <font color="red"> sealed tests.</font> The other agents need oxygen for the ammonia + cu reaction to take place. Without 0xygen, no reaction. Your product - by containing an oxidizer can rapidly dissolve the copper.
But cleaning (coating) a gun barrel in nothing like your sealed test. Once a gun barrel is coated, the ammonia is in an oxygen rich environment. Now the biggest problem is evaporation. I'm guessing your product would have no advantage over the better ammoniacal cleaners (or 26 degree baume aqueous ammonia) and would suffer from the same evaporation problem.
I can see one possible advantage. If you had an exceptionally copper fouled barrel - you could fill the barrel with Warthog 1134 -then seal the barrel and leave it over night.
In that case I can believe you have an advantage.
Your web site reports for Montana Extreme 50 BMG - <font color="red"> 0,000.0 Grains lost.</font>
Does anyone who's used Montana Extreme 50 BMG really believe it doesn't remove copper? It just demonstrates how your test cannot be applied to cleaning guns and how there is zero correlation between the efficacy of a gun barrel copper solvent and your rigged tests.
G
Guest
Guest
Montana Extreme 50 BMG
[ QUOTE ]
This is an example of how facts can be used to distort.
[/ QUOTE ] Cliches have no magical power, despite their popularity. Dropping a cliche does not dismiss or reject a statement you disagree with.
[ QUOTE ]
Ammonia will attack the iron in a gun barrel.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get that information? I've been working with an eminent ammoniacal chemist (ammoniacal etching of copper is a billion dollar industry) and a very competent laboratory chemist. The literature is silent on this question - thus my proposed experiment to definitively answer the question.
Note phase one of the experiment would only answer the not so useful question, "does (high baume) ammonia attack gun barrel alloys". A much better question is "does ammonia in the strength used to clean guns, and the duration of exposure, cause any measurable deleterious deterioration to the gun barrel. I suspect the answer to that 2nd, much more difficult question is "no". Getting a definitive answer to the first may yield the latter moot.
[ QUOTE ]
So will water that's in the air as humidity. Yet I don't see, nor have ever seen, any shooter wrapping their shooting irons in water proof material to keep the moisture and hence, rust off the iron.
[/ QUOTE ]
Many hunters apply a thin oil coating to their barrels after cleaning (which forms a moisture barrier). Most of my guns are stainless steel which is not reactive to humidity (esp when the gun is cleaned, the barrel oiled). Wrapping steel in a vapor or even moisture barrier expedites oxidation and would be the worst thing you could do you your gun (as far as promoting oxidation). But you do make a valid point - even if minimal/inconsequential damage is done, and a significant improvement is made - you have a very positive transaction.
[ QUOTE ]
Rust is a combination of water [sic]conndensed to the metal and time for the chemical process to work.
[/ QUOTE ]
Iron oxide is formed by the combination of water and iron - water from condensation, sweat or any other source. I don't think any modern firearm is made from pure iron. Gun alloys have differing oxidation reduction potentials. My stainless steel Lilja pipes are far more oxidation resistant than my old blued factory 30-06.
[ QUOTE ]
That's why every ammonia based cleaner has a limit on the label as to the time it's allowed in the barrel. You take away the time needed for the process to work.
[/ QUOTE ]
Labeling in no way establishes the truth. (Just read most of the labels at the store). It's very easy to demonstrate how rapidly ammonia evaporates. My guess is the <font color="purple">Time labeling </font> wives tail is just myth handed down. It's trivial to take a baume meter and measure the strength of ammonia. Now dump the ammonia into an inert (uncovered) container. The ammonia will rapidly evaporate (the rate dependant on the container topology, humidity, temperature and wind. (I do much of my cleaning outdoors or indoors with quad high speed fans)
My main points remain unchallenged. The tests are 100% bogus because
<ul type="square"> [*] Ammonia quickly evaporates and looses strength [*]Sealed immersion tests are invalid and not what happens when you clean your barrel. [/list]
I do get your main point, that even if ammonia is not 100% non-reactive to gun barrels, it does far more good than harm. That is likely true, especially when used in moderation and only when necessary (as Daniel Lilja recommends).
My guess is that wipe-out (with the accelerator) works better than I thought possible because the bubbles trap oxygen and seal the barrel (slowing down ammonia evaporation). I have no empirical evidence to support my wipe-out conjecture.
It's impossible to baume test wipe-out so I can't measure it's strength. The other cleaners are too expensive to baume out too.
Here's a free tip for your web pages. When using FP to make a new page, set the pseudo meta-data HTML <title> tag to something appropriate (besides "New Page 1")
[ QUOTE ]
This is an example of how facts can be used to distort.
[/ QUOTE ] Cliches have no magical power, despite their popularity. Dropping a cliche does not dismiss or reject a statement you disagree with.
[ QUOTE ]
Ammonia will attack the iron in a gun barrel.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get that information? I've been working with an eminent ammoniacal chemist (ammoniacal etching of copper is a billion dollar industry) and a very competent laboratory chemist. The literature is silent on this question - thus my proposed experiment to definitively answer the question.
Note phase one of the experiment would only answer the not so useful question, "does (high baume) ammonia attack gun barrel alloys". A much better question is "does ammonia in the strength used to clean guns, and the duration of exposure, cause any measurable deleterious deterioration to the gun barrel. I suspect the answer to that 2nd, much more difficult question is "no". Getting a definitive answer to the first may yield the latter moot.
[ QUOTE ]
So will water that's in the air as humidity. Yet I don't see, nor have ever seen, any shooter wrapping their shooting irons in water proof material to keep the moisture and hence, rust off the iron.
[/ QUOTE ]
Many hunters apply a thin oil coating to their barrels after cleaning (which forms a moisture barrier). Most of my guns are stainless steel which is not reactive to humidity (esp when the gun is cleaned, the barrel oiled). Wrapping steel in a vapor or even moisture barrier expedites oxidation and would be the worst thing you could do you your gun (as far as promoting oxidation). But you do make a valid point - even if minimal/inconsequential damage is done, and a significant improvement is made - you have a very positive transaction.
[ QUOTE ]
Rust is a combination of water [sic]conndensed to the metal and time for the chemical process to work.
[/ QUOTE ]
Iron oxide is formed by the combination of water and iron - water from condensation, sweat or any other source. I don't think any modern firearm is made from pure iron. Gun alloys have differing oxidation reduction potentials. My stainless steel Lilja pipes are far more oxidation resistant than my old blued factory 30-06.
[ QUOTE ]
That's why every ammonia based cleaner has a limit on the label as to the time it's allowed in the barrel. You take away the time needed for the process to work.
[/ QUOTE ]
Labeling in no way establishes the truth. (Just read most of the labels at the store). It's very easy to demonstrate how rapidly ammonia evaporates. My guess is the <font color="purple">Time labeling </font> wives tail is just myth handed down. It's trivial to take a baume meter and measure the strength of ammonia. Now dump the ammonia into an inert (uncovered) container. The ammonia will rapidly evaporate (the rate dependant on the container topology, humidity, temperature and wind. (I do much of my cleaning outdoors or indoors with quad high speed fans)
My main points remain unchallenged. The tests are 100% bogus because
<ul type="square"> [*] Ammonia quickly evaporates and looses strength [*]Sealed immersion tests are invalid and not what happens when you clean your barrel. [/list]
I do get your main point, that even if ammonia is not 100% non-reactive to gun barrels, it does far more good than harm. That is likely true, especially when used in moderation and only when necessary (as Daniel Lilja recommends).
My guess is that wipe-out (with the accelerator) works better than I thought possible because the bubbles trap oxygen and seal the barrel (slowing down ammonia evaporation). I have no empirical evidence to support my wipe-out conjecture.
It's impossible to baume test wipe-out so I can't measure it's strength. The other cleaners are too expensive to baume out too.
Here's a free tip for your web pages. When using FP to make a new page, set the pseudo meta-data HTML <title> tag to something appropriate (besides "New Page 1")
Big Bore,
First, please disclose if you have any financial or personal interest in any cleaning product if you don't mind. That's not an attack, just basic protocol for discussion of scientific information with commercial interests. I ask because you have 50BMG on your tag line. Don't know if that is your deer rifle or you run MX. If I read it correctly, your point was that he did an immersion test which puts the bullet in the absence of O2 and for 24 hours at that. I agree that does not best replicate the cleaning process, so I tried to think up something more similar. I just poured it over the bullet and left the surface exposed for 12 minutes. There definitely were differences with all of the products between the top/exposed surface and the bottom which was in the liquid except for the 50BMG and Sweet's which really did not change much. Also, what is your take on the Barnes results from my test? It really chewed the bullet up on the top/exposed surface without turning the patch very blue. I don't have any stake in the debate, just trying to figure out what works. I really don't care how a product works as long as it does. My conclusions and opinions, and they are just that, are the 50BMG and Sweet's are not as effective as the Barnes, Coppermelt and Warthog products. I'm no chemist, that's just what my eyes tell me from looking at the bullets right in front of me.
First, please disclose if you have any financial or personal interest in any cleaning product if you don't mind. That's not an attack, just basic protocol for discussion of scientific information with commercial interests. I ask because you have 50BMG on your tag line. Don't know if that is your deer rifle or you run MX. If I read it correctly, your point was that he did an immersion test which puts the bullet in the absence of O2 and for 24 hours at that. I agree that does not best replicate the cleaning process, so I tried to think up something more similar. I just poured it over the bullet and left the surface exposed for 12 minutes. There definitely were differences with all of the products between the top/exposed surface and the bottom which was in the liquid except for the 50BMG and Sweet's which really did not change much. Also, what is your take on the Barnes results from my test? It really chewed the bullet up on the top/exposed surface without turning the patch very blue. I don't have any stake in the debate, just trying to figure out what works. I really don't care how a product works as long as it does. My conclusions and opinions, and they are just that, are the 50BMG and Sweet's are not as effective as the Barnes, Coppermelt and Warthog products. I'm no chemist, that's just what my eyes tell me from looking at the bullets right in front of me.
keithcandler
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 650
50 BMG as a copper remover.....
I use several products on factory 22/250, 243, and 7 mag barrels. The 22/250 in particular is a copper pig. The 50 BMG get the copper out right now. I do believe that the 50 BMG is twice as effective as Sweets. My 7 STW shooting the 140 Noslers coppers at 3650 fps. The 50 BMG will get 95% of all the copper out in one 7-10 minute soaking.
I am going to order some of the wart hog copper remover, but I really don't know how the test of how much a bullet is "eaten" up relates to how well a solvent will work in a rifle barrel.
I use several products on factory 22/250, 243, and 7 mag barrels. The 22/250 in particular is a copper pig. The 50 BMG get the copper out right now. I do believe that the 50 BMG is twice as effective as Sweets. My 7 STW shooting the 140 Noslers coppers at 3650 fps. The 50 BMG will get 95% of all the copper out in one 7-10 minute soaking.
I am going to order some of the wart hog copper remover, but I really don't know how the test of how much a bullet is "eaten" up relates to how well a solvent will work in a rifle barrel.
Re: 50 BMG as a copper remover.....
1st of all, bigbore... I sure do love it when you start laying it out /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Jeff, the 50bmg in his tagline is a cartridge... and the website that is in the link in his tagline will take you directly to his website that deals specifically with it.
When I get back from my Pdog hunt in a few days im planning on ordering some of this stuff to try. If I like it more than 50bmg, my favorite at the moment, ill buy another bottle for personal use, and offer the other as a pass around. If I don't, ill offer that bottle up. Anybody that wants to try it let me know, and you get to try some... under the condition that if you like it, you buy your own bottle, and continue to pass the origional. Oh, and you pay shipping to the next guy, who pays to the next guy, and so on. Anybody interested?
Roge K, any objections? this ought to be a great way to get some publicity for your stuff!
If not, gentlemen, the line starts here:
1st of all, bigbore... I sure do love it when you start laying it out /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Jeff, the 50bmg in his tagline is a cartridge... and the website that is in the link in his tagline will take you directly to his website that deals specifically with it.
When I get back from my Pdog hunt in a few days im planning on ordering some of this stuff to try. If I like it more than 50bmg, my favorite at the moment, ill buy another bottle for personal use, and offer the other as a pass around. If I don't, ill offer that bottle up. Anybody that wants to try it let me know, and you get to try some... under the condition that if you like it, you buy your own bottle, and continue to pass the origional. Oh, and you pay shipping to the next guy, who pays to the next guy, and so on. Anybody interested?
Roge K, any objections? this ought to be a great way to get some publicity for your stuff!
If not, gentlemen, the line starts here:
Re: 50 BMG as a copper remover.....
Great idea Abinok. If you don't mind, I think I will borrow your idea with credit to you and start it on the other board also.
Given the tenor of the thread, maybe he is just holding Roge's feet to the fire, but a disclosure is usually of value for consideration when commercial interests are at stake and comparative testing results are presented.
Let's compare notes from real use. I just loaded up some rounds and am heading to the range shortly.
BTW, what does Abinok mean/represent? I've been curious. Again, great idea. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Great idea Abinok. If you don't mind, I think I will borrow your idea with credit to you and start it on the other board also.
Given the tenor of the thread, maybe he is just holding Roge's feet to the fire, but a disclosure is usually of value for consideration when commercial interests are at stake and comparative testing results are presented.
Let's compare notes from real use. I just loaded up some rounds and am heading to the range shortly.
BTW, what does Abinok mean/represent? I've been curious. Again, great idea. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Warthog update
Well, here is an update. Shot two 30 round sessions, one in the morning and one in the afternoon of 7WSM today and 100 of 357 Sig yesterday (I left my rifle ammo at home yesterday arrgh.) which is relevant to this analysis. First off, my 7WSM was built by Chris Matthews and has a 24" Broughton. It does not foul much at all with anything except for Accubonds (which I why I dissolved them to see what would work on them) so it is hard to make many conclusions. However, based on my test, I fired 30 rounds and then cleaned first with Barnes, dry patched, and then followed with the Warthog. The Barnes really seemed to do the job, and nothing came out with the Warthog. Next I fired 30 more rounds and used the Warthog first, dry patched, and followed with the Barnes. The Warthog really seemed to do the job and nothing came out with the Barnes. However, I will say, the Warthog seemed to work somewhat faster. I left the 50BMG at home since I've given up on it and am returning my unopened bottles. Both the Barnes and Warthog seemed to pull out much more blue and do it faster. I push wet patches through which clears the carbon crud out and once I have a clean wet patch, let it soak for about 10 minutes. Then I repeat the wet patches until they come out clean. My only conclusion from the rifle was that both seemed to work. The Warthog worked a bit faster and I felt no need to push a brush through. The Warthog left a fine white powder around the muzzle brake. After both sessions, I pushed 2 patches of Montana Extreme Bore Conditioner Oil through and then a dry patch. Then I re-oiled with the MX Bore Conditioner Oil which is what I use to store it.
Now for the pistol, which was more informative. I rapidly fired 50 rounds of 357 Sig with W-W 125 gr. Rangers which are copper coated. The barrel was blistering hot and too hot to touch without a rag. Success was achieved and it had some serious fouling. I pushed Warthog through while it was still extremely hot. The Warthog did not seem to work at the high temperature and it cleaned a bit but not very much. I let the barrel cool to the ambient air temp. I pushed a wet patch with Warthog through and it instantly cleaned the copper. I had to look at it several times because I really was surprised, but it really worked. I dry patched and then pushed a patch through with the Barnes to see what would happen and nothing else came out. I did the same but tried the Barnes first and it seemed to work well with the barrel hot, but not so thoroughly or as fast as the Warthog. I actually used the Warthog to finish off the job which it again instantly did once the barrel was cooled. The Barnes probably would do fine if given a bit more time to soak, but I was ready to finish up and head on. I had tried to clean it before with the 50BMG on a previous outing and it just did not do the job.
It really is going to take someone with a borescope to objectively analyze what is happening in our bores, but that is I why I tried the pistol since I could see in it well and it seemed to work well on that. Anyway, that's it for what it's worth. I think it is worth some more testing.
Well, here is an update. Shot two 30 round sessions, one in the morning and one in the afternoon of 7WSM today and 100 of 357 Sig yesterday (I left my rifle ammo at home yesterday arrgh.) which is relevant to this analysis. First off, my 7WSM was built by Chris Matthews and has a 24" Broughton. It does not foul much at all with anything except for Accubonds (which I why I dissolved them to see what would work on them) so it is hard to make many conclusions. However, based on my test, I fired 30 rounds and then cleaned first with Barnes, dry patched, and then followed with the Warthog. The Barnes really seemed to do the job, and nothing came out with the Warthog. Next I fired 30 more rounds and used the Warthog first, dry patched, and followed with the Barnes. The Warthog really seemed to do the job and nothing came out with the Barnes. However, I will say, the Warthog seemed to work somewhat faster. I left the 50BMG at home since I've given up on it and am returning my unopened bottles. Both the Barnes and Warthog seemed to pull out much more blue and do it faster. I push wet patches through which clears the carbon crud out and once I have a clean wet patch, let it soak for about 10 minutes. Then I repeat the wet patches until they come out clean. My only conclusion from the rifle was that both seemed to work. The Warthog worked a bit faster and I felt no need to push a brush through. The Warthog left a fine white powder around the muzzle brake. After both sessions, I pushed 2 patches of Montana Extreme Bore Conditioner Oil through and then a dry patch. Then I re-oiled with the MX Bore Conditioner Oil which is what I use to store it.
Now for the pistol, which was more informative. I rapidly fired 50 rounds of 357 Sig with W-W 125 gr. Rangers which are copper coated. The barrel was blistering hot and too hot to touch without a rag. Success was achieved and it had some serious fouling. I pushed Warthog through while it was still extremely hot. The Warthog did not seem to work at the high temperature and it cleaned a bit but not very much. I let the barrel cool to the ambient air temp. I pushed a wet patch with Warthog through and it instantly cleaned the copper. I had to look at it several times because I really was surprised, but it really worked. I dry patched and then pushed a patch through with the Barnes to see what would happen and nothing else came out. I did the same but tried the Barnes first and it seemed to work well with the barrel hot, but not so thoroughly or as fast as the Warthog. I actually used the Warthog to finish off the job which it again instantly did once the barrel was cooled. The Barnes probably would do fine if given a bit more time to soak, but I was ready to finish up and head on. I had tried to clean it before with the 50BMG on a previous outing and it just did not do the job.
It really is going to take someone with a borescope to objectively analyze what is happening in our bores, but that is I why I tried the pistol since I could see in it well and it seemed to work well on that. Anyway, that's it for what it's worth. I think it is worth some more testing.
G
Guest
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
Big Bore,
First, please disclose if you have any financial or personal interest in any cleaning product if you don't mind. That's not an attack, just basic protocol for discussion of scientific information with commercial interests.
[/ QUOTE ]
Very reasonable question.
Being an active 50 BMG shooter ( I own four 50 BMGs). (which seem to have the biggest problem with copper fouling) - a professional mathematician and amateur chemist - I've been testing/analyzing copper removal for a couple years. I have no fiscal association with any of the products. You are absolutely correct in protocol requiring full disclosure (apparently Roge K violated that rule). As a logician, I'm forced to point out making assumptions, conclusions based on financial connection is logically invalid (in fact the logic flaw is so common, it has a name - the motivation flaw. At no time did I discount Roge K's conclusions based on his obvious fiscal connection - I went the logicians route and exposed the flaws in his testing with basic ammoniacal chemistry principals.
One fundamental flaw with some of the test designs that I total missed (the admin sewwhat89 at PLRH pointed it out in his post HERE <font color="purple"> pristine copper bullets are far different than copper/powder residue forced into the lands/grooves/metal cracks/pockets - under high temp/pressure. </font>
The best cleaner I've found (I have not tested that many) is 26 degree baume aqueous ammonia. The 2nd best cleaner I've found is 22 degree baume I get for free (used Ammonia).
I have a paint shop with forced/filtered air, high quality respirators, nitrile gloves, goggles and other safety equipment. I don't recommend my approach for most folks.
I use my bore-scope before, during, after cleaning. I use a plastic jag when pushing ammonia (most serious gun guys would be embarrassed to own a plastic jag, but they work great with ammonia).
I will be ordering Warthog 1134 based on the information from Roge K . I appears to be the only product you can seal inside your barrel, leave it 24 hours and return to a copper free barrel. The could be very useful when I badly foul several of my 50 BMGs.
One concern I have about Warthog 1134 - aqueous solutions containing oxidizers are generally unstable and have a fairly short shelf life. Should Warthog 1134 be stored in the freezer? What is the shelf life?
Big Bore,
First, please disclose if you have any financial or personal interest in any cleaning product if you don't mind. That's not an attack, just basic protocol for discussion of scientific information with commercial interests.
[/ QUOTE ]
Very reasonable question.
Being an active 50 BMG shooter ( I own four 50 BMGs). (which seem to have the biggest problem with copper fouling) - a professional mathematician and amateur chemist - I've been testing/analyzing copper removal for a couple years. I have no fiscal association with any of the products. You are absolutely correct in protocol requiring full disclosure (apparently Roge K violated that rule). As a logician, I'm forced to point out making assumptions, conclusions based on financial connection is logically invalid (in fact the logic flaw is so common, it has a name - the motivation flaw. At no time did I discount Roge K's conclusions based on his obvious fiscal connection - I went the logicians route and exposed the flaws in his testing with basic ammoniacal chemistry principals.
One fundamental flaw with some of the test designs that I total missed (the admin sewwhat89 at PLRH pointed it out in his post HERE <font color="purple"> pristine copper bullets are far different than copper/powder residue forced into the lands/grooves/metal cracks/pockets - under high temp/pressure. </font>
The best cleaner I've found (I have not tested that many) is 26 degree baume aqueous ammonia. The 2nd best cleaner I've found is 22 degree baume I get for free (used Ammonia).
I have a paint shop with forced/filtered air, high quality respirators, nitrile gloves, goggles and other safety equipment. I don't recommend my approach for most folks.
I use my bore-scope before, during, after cleaning. I use a plastic jag when pushing ammonia (most serious gun guys would be embarrassed to own a plastic jag, but they work great with ammonia).
I will be ordering Warthog 1134 based on the information from Roge K . I appears to be the only product you can seal inside your barrel, leave it 24 hours and return to a copper free barrel. The could be very useful when I badly foul several of my 50 BMGs.
One concern I have about Warthog 1134 - aqueous solutions containing oxidizers are generally unstable and have a fairly short shelf life. Should Warthog 1134 be stored in the freezer? What is the shelf life?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: 50 BMG as a copper remover.....
[ QUOTE ]
The 50 BMG get the copper out right now. I do believe that the 50 BMG is twice as effective as Sweets.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good post. Good info
That's what I've read from many high power experts. 50 BMG is very popular with the high power crowd.
Warthog contains an oxidizer. Oxidizers don't care what they oxidize (Fe + h2o + 02 = rust). I decided not to use my guns as guinea pigs as I don't want my barrels oxidized. (at least not by a cleaner).
[ QUOTE ]
The 50 BMG get the copper out right now. I do believe that the 50 BMG is twice as effective as Sweets.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good post. Good info
That's what I've read from many high power experts. 50 BMG is very popular with the high power crowd.
Warthog contains an oxidizer. Oxidizers don't care what they oxidize (Fe + h2o + 02 = rust). I decided not to use my guns as guinea pigs as I don't want my barrels oxidized. (at least not by a cleaner).
