OK, I'm reopening this because I think a few things need to be addressed very directly, and very forthrightly.
What's NOT going to happen in this thread is a continuation of the intra-personal snark that was evident before.
If anyone does, I will shut you down so quickly that your head will spin.
First point.
Yes, some people do like to clean the carbon fouling off their guns. That is their choice, because it's their gun. If you don't agree, that's fine. That's your choice to exercise on YOUR guns, and just because someone disagrees with you isn't cause for angst and/or ennui.
Second point.
Yes, many of the polishing products on the market are abrasive. They contain very fine diatomaceous earth or abrasives that are very similar in hardness and ability to polish.
Material hardness is measured by the Mohs scale.
On the standard scale a diamond is 10 (VERY hard), and talc is 1 (VERY soft).
Diatomaceous earth, depending on the screen size, the place of origin, etc., falls between 1 and 1.5 on the Mohs scale.
Steel, on the other hand, is harder. A LOT harder. Steel is a catch-all term for materials with many different properties, but most scales show steel falling between 5 and 8.5 on the Mohs scale.
Given that the more that is asked of steel generally the harder it is, I'd say gun steel, of which a LOT is asked, is pushing the higher end of the range, at least a 7.0, if not harder for something like a cylinder.
So, does anyone really think that they're going to remove an appreciable amount of metal from the face of a cylinder simply by scrubbing it with a mild abrasive to remove carbon fouling?
If you're actually worried about that, you must be absolutely terrified to pull the trigger on your revolver. Or, maybe not.
After all, depending on the chambering, a revolver round has a flame temperature well in excess of 1,000 degrees F and working pressures upwards 40,000 PSI, all with the added abrasiveness of the burning smokeless propellant at high pressure and speed as it slams into the forcing cone and the face of the cylinder.
Given that handguns can stand up to literally thousands of rounds of such treatment without showing any appreciable wear, I really wonder how long and how hard someone would have to rub their revolver with a Mohs hardness 1.5 abrasive to have it show up at all.
Third point(s), and the question and answer, or statement and rejoinder, portion of our show...
"The obsession with carbon rings is ruining your guns!"
The claim of these polishes "ruining" guns is interesting.
In fact, it's an extraordinary claim.
And, as we all have heard, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
So, Bill, PROVE that occasionally scrubbing the carbon ring off the face of the cylinder is ruining the gun more and/or faster than actually shooting it.
And damage from over-polishing to the cylinder face & bluing can also be avoided.
DPris, there have been numerous warnings against using these polishes on blued guns. That's a nonstarter.
But, again, we're left with the question of what constitutes "over-polishing," of the kind that leads to damage.
How many swipes of the cloth does it take to irreparably damage a gun? How does that compare to firing, say, 100 rounds a week for a year?
Where is the quantifiable analysis of which process causes more damage? I'd be very interested in reading hard facts on the subject, as opposed to suppositions.
"Steve- There is already noticeable wear to your cylinder. Compare it to a new one and you'll see.
Given that the pictures you reference are not exactly clear (lots of flare off the face of the cylinder), I'd say it's impossible to sustain the claim that the cylinder is worn. There's not enough detail, but to me each of those cylinder mouths appears to be champfered, not worn. I know that's a pretty common gunsmith mod to Ruger revolvers because their cylinder holes tend to be pretty ragged from the factory. Several of my friends who own Ruger revolvers have either done so themselves, or have had the chamber mouths relieved.
What's REALLY impossible to sustain is the supposition that any damage on the face of the cylinder is due solely to polishing with a mild abrasive cleaner.
Steve gives no indication as to how much he has fired that gun, how often he has cleaned the carbon rings from it, how hard he polishes, how long, etc. etc. etc.
Claiming that the cylinder is damaged, with the implication that it's damaged due ONLY to an indeterminate amount of polishing with a mild abrasive is a complete non starter without a lot more information.
To try to make that claim based on a fuzzy picture and no other information is irresponsible.
"The gun cleaning mania shows an underlying disconnect with, and fear of, the elements of fire and brimstone that are the physical and spiritual basis of the non-socially subjugated animus of the firearm."
Best line in the entire dang thread, 5thShock. And it went right over the heads of everyone snarking back and forth.
"You anal retentive types are ruining your guns because you can't leave well enough alone."
At what point does a gun become ruined from polishing? Please quantify.
Also, compare with the number of rounds that have to be fired through it in order for it to reach the state of ruined.
"Green Scotchbrite or "scrubby pads" are particularly abrasive.
I'll agree with this statement. Scotchbrite Green pads are supposedly about 600 grit (
http://www.woodcentral.com/woodwork...08/md/read/id/178012/sbj/scotchbrite-ratings/)
The problem is, no where can I find any indication at all WHAT the abrasive is. 3M says only that it's "abrasive powder," and that can mean anything from talc at 1 on the Mohs scale to diamond dust at 10.
I agree. Keep Scotchbrite pads away from your guns.
"Abrasion in critical areas is not good."
That's an overarching statement that can be easily shown to be absolutely false.
The application of abrasives on the critical trigger sear surfaces can turn a horrible trigger pull into a crisp, precise delight.
The application of abrasives to the inside of a rifle barrel -- aka lapping, or even fire lapping -- can markedly improve accuracy and make it easier to clean.
Obviously not every application of abrasives to "critical areas" is a bad thing.
Then we have to determine what constitutes a "critical area."
Is a cylinder face really a critical area? I think that's a stretch that's really hard to make, given that it doesn't, and shouldn't, touch other parts of the gun and it's hanging out in air about 80% of the time.
OK, enough is enough.
Look, folks. If you don't want to clean your revolvers with these mild abrasives, then don't.
But please do NOT go all chicken little sky is falling and you're RUINING YOUR GUN FOREVER!!!!!! on anyone who does.
Without any proof whatsoever you've somehow arrived at the conclusion that all abrasives are the same and all abrasives are bad, and that even minimal use is going to melt your gun away in your hand.
As I said above, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
So, to those in "Club Ruination!", you need to come up with some hard, empirical numbers on just how much wear these MILD abrasives cause and how much use would be required to cause verifiable damage to a firearm.
Otherwise, stop belaboring the point, stop making unbacked claims, and calm down, and try and remember just how well your gun holds up to regular shooting.
One last thing. As I said above, anyone who engages in snark at or with another member here wins a 5-day vacation.