So...Breaking in New Barrel Is a Scam? - Page 2

radom · November 25, 2009, 04:05 AM

I never had ever heard of barrel break-in before I signed up for TFL. My father and uncle never mentioned it, and they started shooting centerfire in the 1920s. My uncle was a gunsmith, as well. I got into centerfire in 1950.

I don't doubt that there is a sort of break-in period of burnishing during the first rounds fired. 20? 50? 100? I don't know. All I know is that I've always been able to tweak around with any new rifle I've ever owned and shoot sub-MOA groups pretty much from the git-go.

But it never has occurred to me to clean between every round or every few rounds with a new rifle. That's a Johnny-come-lately idea, SFAIK.

Art, thats very much the same thought I have plus I hate to think what that putting valve grinding compound on slugs does to the lead or where the things do wear out. I think is just a fast way to smooth a bore out in 12 rounds vs 120 is all.

Ryder · November 25, 2009, 04:10 AM

Interesting video here labeled "Barrel Inspection Video".
http://www.gradientlens.com/precisionshooting.asp

I imagine a person with one of these gizmos and a couple of brand new production rifles could answer the question with some amount of authority (that's not going to be me

).

BlueTrain · November 25, 2009, 08:53 AM

Based on my own experiences, I'd have to say that only the second half of the barrel matters. I had a No. 4 Lee Enfield that was badly corroded for the first foot or less beyond the chamber, yet it shot just fine, not that it was some super-duper target rifle that would produce groups you could cover with a bottle cap (or an English penny). It was already 35 years old when I got it. At any rate, it was well broken in.

I read about the crown of a barrel but I've never quite understood what that meant in relation to accuracy.

jsr76 · November 25, 2009, 10:11 AM

I disagree with FALphil, I believe button rifles are better, and many would agree. Also the Tubb's Final Finish and Bore Maintenance really work in my experience. More speed and less fouling. Why not, it's a smoother barrel. Many customs are button rifled to start with. I gained a 1/4 inch in a 1/2 inch gun with this system. My precision rifle runs well under 1/2". Tubb's applied. Went under 1/2" as factory. Button rifled Savage 112 by the way. Been begging online for a used one but none for sale,,,,,,, go figure!!!

Uncle Buck · November 25, 2009, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Here is an idea
make this topic a sticky!!!!
Tired of seeing it at least once a week...

Then don't read it. The title pretty much says what the topic is.

I wonder how much of the breaking in is actually getting to know your firearm better? The more you shoot a new weapon, the more you get the feel for it, the better you should shoot.

Very few rifles or pistols that I have shot right out of the box are 100% accurate the first few shots. Once I get to know the sights and aiming points, things start to come together.

jsr76 · November 25, 2009, 10:49 AM

Just for the performance record. I shot my Rifle for 5 years, and then the Tubb's Final Finish was done, cutting my groups in half.

Come and take it. · November 25, 2009, 12:10 PM

If you have to worry about breaking a barrel in cause the manufacturers tooling work is shoddy and they don't have enough concern for their products to lap the bore, than the manufacturer is not a good one.

Why is it that I can buy a Savage rifle and if it is bedded good it will outshoot any out of the box gun for whatever class the rifle is made for? Their bores are smooth. Whether this is the result of lapping or a better cutting process I don't know but whatever they are doing works. I have never had to clean copper out of any savage bore of a rifle I owned.

Remington lost my respect years ago when I bought several of their varmint synthetics and experienced early copper fouling with every single one. three in all.I examined the bore on the last which was a 308 and noticed the lateral cutting marks inside the bore.

When you have to worry about copper solvents etc etc to clean your bore frequently you risk the chance of damaging the bore from either too many cleaning mistakes (inevitable) or leaving the solvent in the barrel too long.

Todd1700 · November 25, 2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

But it never has occurred to me to clean between every round or every few rounds with a new rifle. That's a Johnny-come-lately idea, SFAIK.

Agreed. I think it's voodoo BS that some people have convinced themselves actually makes a difference. It doesn't. Never done it to any rifle I ever owned and have never had a problem getting them to shoot very accurately.

tirod · November 25, 2009, 11:54 PM

Under certain conditions, I think it probably is a scam, and under other conditions, maybe not.

The barrels I think "breaking in" would be a waste of time are
- hard chromed bores and nitrided bores
- premium lapped aftermarket barrels
- most hammer forged barrels

The barrels that could probably benefit from some sort of polishing/burnishing procedure would be
- most mass market button rifled barrels
- cheap single or multi point cut barrels
- any barrel that fouls with jacketing material quickly

"Breaking in" means many things to many people. I lap my cheap barrels and then shoot them like I would if they had 1000 rounds through them. Lapping, for me, is the functional equivalent of breaking in.

THIS ^

Rifling that removes metal by cutting can have the finish improved by removing burrs that collect copper and lead. Chrome lined and hammerforged barrels have no burrs and are finished.

Firelapping a barrel that has burrs simply removes them. Firelapping a barrel that inherently has none is a waste of time, money, and barrel life.

Not firelapping cut barrels means the barrel eventually will shoot out the burrs, but might collect a heavy layer of deposits that decrease accuracy. Not firelapping chrome/hammer forged barrels means you get best accuracy from shot one.

Applying a process to something across the board is wrong in itself - what has to be understood is whether or not it even applies.

November 25, 2009, 08:53 AM	#28
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Based on my own experiences, I'd have to say that only the second half of the barrel matters. I had a No. 4 Lee Enfield that was badly corroded for the first foot or less beyond the chamber, yet it shot just fine, not that it was some super-duper target rifle that would produce groups you could cover with a bottle cap (or an English penny). It was already 35 years old when I got it. At any rate, it was well broken in. I read about the crown of a barrel but I've never quite understood what that meant in relation to accuracy. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

November 25, 2009, 04:05 AM	#26
radom Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2000 Posts: 1,357	I never had ever heard of barrel break-in before I signed up for TFL. My father and uncle never mentioned it, and they started shooting centerfire in the 1920s. My uncle was a gunsmith, as well. I got into centerfire in 1950. I don't doubt that there is a sort of break-in period of burnishing during the first rounds fired. 20? 50? 100? I don't know. All I know is that I've always been able to tweak around with any new rifle I've ever owned and shoot sub-MOA groups pretty much from the git-go. But it never has occurred to me to clean between every round or every few rounds with a new rifle. That's a Johnny-come-lately idea, SFAIK. Art, thats very much the same thought I have plus I hate to think what that putting valve grinding compound on slugs does to the lead or where the things do wear out. I think is just a fast way to smooth a bore out in 12 rounds vs 120 is all.

November 25, 2009, 04:10 AM	#27
Ryder Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 222	Interesting video here labeled "Barrel Inspection Video". http://www.gradientlens.com/precisionshooting.asp I imagine a person with one of these gizmos and a couple of brand new production rifles could answer the question with some amount of authority (that's not going to be me ).

November 25, 2009, 10:11 AM	#29
jsr76 Junior member Join Date: April 7, 2007 Location: New York State, up north Posts: 274	I disagree with FALphil, I believe button rifles are better, and many would agree. Also the Tubb's Final Finish and Bore Maintenance really work in my experience. More speed and less fouling. Why not, it's a smoother barrel. Many customs are button rifled to start with. I gained a 1/4 inch in a 1/2 inch gun with this system. My precision rifle runs well under 1/2". Tubb's applied. Went under 1/2" as factory. Button rifled Savage 112 by the way. Been begging online for a used one but none for sale,,,,,,, go figure!!!

November 25, 2009, 10:49 AM	#31
jsr76 Junior member Join Date: April 7, 2007 Location: New York State, up north Posts: 274	Just for the performance record. I shot my Rifle for 5 years, and then the Tubb's Final Finish was done, cutting my groups in half.

November 25, 2009, 12:10 PM	#32
Come and take it. Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 999	If you have to worry about breaking a barrel in cause the manufacturers tooling work is shoddy and they don't have enough concern for their products to lap the bore, than the manufacturer is not a good one. Why is it that I can buy a Savage rifle and if it is bedded good it will outshoot any out of the box gun for whatever class the rifle is made for? Their bores are smooth. Whether this is the result of lapping or a better cutting process I don't know but whatever they are doing works. I have never had to clean copper out of any savage bore of a rifle I owned. Remington lost my respect years ago when I bought several of their varmint synthetics and experienced early copper fouling with every single one. three in all.I examined the bore on the last which was a 308 and noticed the lateral cutting marks inside the bore. When you have to worry about copper solvents etc etc to clean your bore frequently you risk the chance of damaging the bore from either too many cleaning mistakes (inevitable) or leaving the solvent in the barrel too long.

November 25, 2009, 11:54 PM	#34
tirod Junior member Join Date: January 21, 2009 Posts: 1,672	Under certain conditions, I think it probably is a scam, and under other conditions, maybe not. The barrels I think "breaking in" would be a waste of time are - hard chromed bores and nitrided bores - premium lapped aftermarket barrels - most hammer forged barrels The barrels that could probably benefit from some sort of polishing/burnishing procedure would be - most mass market button rifled barrels - cheap single or multi point cut barrels - any barrel that fouls with jacketing material quickly "Breaking in" means many things to many people. I lap my cheap barrels and then shoot them like I would if they had 1000 rounds through them. Lapping, for me, is the functional equivalent of breaking in. THIS ^ Rifling that removes metal by cutting can have the finish improved by removing burrs that collect copper and lead. Chrome lined and hammerforged barrels have no burrs and are finished. Firelapping a barrel that has burrs simply removes them. Firelapping a barrel that inherently has none is a waste of time, money, and barrel life. Not firelapping cut barrels means the barrel eventually will shoot out the burrs, but might collect a heavy layer of deposits that decrease accuracy. Not firelapping chrome/hammer forged barrels means you get best accuracy from shot one. Applying a process to something across the board is wrong in itself - what has to be understood is whether or not it even applies.