Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Breaking/Sighting in Hunting Rifle
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 1093282" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>goodgrouper's experiences and thoughts are similar to mine - as expressed in this linked Thread. Not that this means he and I are 100% correct. Just saying my observations resulted in similar conclusions over the past 7 years. Of course goodgrouper has gone thru many more barrels than I - thus he has much more 1st hand experience.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?81911-Should-my-custom-rifle-maker-do-one-shot-one-clean-on-new-barrel-test" target="_blank">Should my custom rifle maker do one shot one clean on new barrel test?</a></p><p></p><p>Here's the crux of it. There's a photo provided in the linked Thread. </p><p></p><p><em>One thing that no "non-believer" has ever been able to explain to me is this:</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>If barrel breakin is a waste of time, how come copper-ed patches diminish in number as the process goes along? Why does it take (for example) 9 patches for shots 1 thru 7, then suddenly go to 3 patches on shot 8? Then go to two patches on shot 10?</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Here is a complete sequence set of patches used to break-in a Bartlein 338 barrel recently. Solvent used was Boretech Eliminator and the patches were wrapped around an aluminum/nylon brush to avoid "false reads". The first number in each column is the sequence shot(s) and the second number is the patch number in that sequence.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><u>HERE's where he provided a photo of his cleaning patches.</u></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>As you can see from the pic, the copper came out of the barrel easier after the second sequence and I felt like this barrel was probably broke in at that point (good barrel!). But I continued shooting one shot and cleaning up to sequence 6 where I fired two bullets. Sequence 7 and all thereafter were two shot sequences. Sequence 7 patch #3 was cleaner than second sequence patch #3 despite it being a two shot sequence. So obviously, something happened during this test that was clearly indicating that the copper was either coming out easier, or there was less copper to come out. Or both.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Now, I have run this test with every barrel I've worked with for the last ten years or so and they all have shown a similar progression of decreasing blue patches. However, the factory barrels produce bluer patches for much longer than the custom barrels (again, proof that something is happening) and it can be quantified. I can bet you $100 that I can blindly take a custom barrel and a factory barrel and tell you which is which simply by how "easy" they break-in and I won't lose a penny.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Now, to quantify how much of a difference break-in makes in the grand scheme of accuracy, I don't honestly know. Maybe it only makes the barrel .0000001% more accurate then just taking it and shooting it right off the bat such as Gene does. But, barrels that have been broken in by this method seem to clean a bit easier in the first third of their lives (before serious throat cracking appears) and also seem to "settle down" a bit quicker. Maybe it's just my imagination with that, but my eyes are seeing the above picture with perfect clarity.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>BTW, this has already been said in previous threads on this topic, but most barrel manufacturers still recommend some type of break in. So maybe I'm not the only one who still "believes"?</em></p><p></p><p>There's another post in the thread that explains his logic on the benefits of barrel break-in.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 1093282, member: 4191"] goodgrouper's experiences and thoughts are similar to mine - as expressed in this linked Thread. Not that this means he and I are 100% correct. Just saying my observations resulted in similar conclusions over the past 7 years. Of course goodgrouper has gone thru many more barrels than I - thus he has much more 1st hand experience. [url=http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?81911-Should-my-custom-rifle-maker-do-one-shot-one-clean-on-new-barrel-test]Should my custom rifle maker do one shot one clean on new barrel test?[/url] Here's the crux of it. There's a photo provided in the linked Thread. [I]One thing that no "non-believer" has ever been able to explain to me is this: If barrel breakin is a waste of time, how come copper-ed patches diminish in number as the process goes along? Why does it take (for example) 9 patches for shots 1 thru 7, then suddenly go to 3 patches on shot 8? Then go to two patches on shot 10? Here is a complete sequence set of patches used to break-in a Bartlein 338 barrel recently. Solvent used was Boretech Eliminator and the patches were wrapped around an aluminum/nylon brush to avoid "false reads". The first number in each column is the sequence shot(s) and the second number is the patch number in that sequence. [U]HERE's where he provided a photo of his cleaning patches.[/U] As you can see from the pic, the copper came out of the barrel easier after the second sequence and I felt like this barrel was probably broke in at that point (good barrel!). But I continued shooting one shot and cleaning up to sequence 6 where I fired two bullets. Sequence 7 and all thereafter were two shot sequences. Sequence 7 patch #3 was cleaner than second sequence patch #3 despite it being a two shot sequence. So obviously, something happened during this test that was clearly indicating that the copper was either coming out easier, or there was less copper to come out. Or both. Now, I have run this test with every barrel I've worked with for the last ten years or so and they all have shown a similar progression of decreasing blue patches. However, the factory barrels produce bluer patches for much longer than the custom barrels (again, proof that something is happening) and it can be quantified. I can bet you $100 that I can blindly take a custom barrel and a factory barrel and tell you which is which simply by how "easy" they break-in and I won't lose a penny. Now, to quantify how much of a difference break-in makes in the grand scheme of accuracy, I don't honestly know. Maybe it only makes the barrel .0000001% more accurate then just taking it and shooting it right off the bat such as Gene does. But, barrels that have been broken in by this method seem to clean a bit easier in the first third of their lives (before serious throat cracking appears) and also seem to "settle down" a bit quicker. Maybe it's just my imagination with that, but my eyes are seeing the above picture with perfect clarity. BTW, this has already been said in previous threads on this topic, but most barrel manufacturers still recommend some type of break in. So maybe I'm not the only one who still "believes"?[/I] There's another post in the thread that explains his logic on the benefits of barrel break-in. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Breaking/Sighting in Hunting Rifle
Top