Break-in method

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Srewball

New member
Hi all,
Pretty new here on TFL. I just posted my introduction a few days ago. I am 42 yo male and live in Wisconsin. I have been shooting and hunting since age 12, so im not "new" to handling rifles. My favorite rifle is my 22-250 bull barrel that I have used for coyote hunting since i graduated high school. I am very proficient with it out to 350 yds. Back when i got that rifle, i didnt know about breaking in a new barrel. I have learned a lot since then and have used various regimines with new rifles, but am looking for a tried/true method for a new 6.5 i just picked up. I tried the search tool on here but havnt had any luck ( half way decent with guns, terrible with computers).
Can someone steer me towards a thread or throw out some ideas of how you all go about it? I am hoping to spend a ton of time shooting off the bench with my dad this year, and in the mean time, get proficient out to maybe 500 a 600
Yds. Any info on rifle tweaks would be fun too. I bought a Browning Eclipse Target 6.5 Creedmoor ( 1:8 ) 28" barrel and yesterday mounted up a Vortex Viper PST 6.5 - 24 FFP scope.
Thanks, Chris
P.s. I do handload, just havnt picked up any dies for that cal yet.
 
I break them in by shooting them. I've never held much stock in convoluted break in schemes that some swear by. YMMV
 
All barrels shoot better after a few rounds have been through them. Some only need 20-30, others may need 200-300. The idea of a strict regiment of shooting X number of rounds, cleaning then shooting Y number of rounds is non-sense. Shoot the rifle, clean when it gets dirty. The rifle can't count, it doesn't care when you clean it. Chances are good that it'll shoot better after a while.
 
What they said! Your barrel will continue to break in with every shot you fire. If you want to 'break it in," then take it to the range and zero it with your favorite ammo and then see how some other brands of ammo shoot through it and see of something else shoots better.
 
I've been reading articles (in various formats from magazines to the internet) over the years and have arrived at one 'general' conclusion: Personally I believe rifle barrel break in is over rated. I would suggest that you would run a patch or 2 through a new factory barrel. Beyond that, I would put a box of 20 factory rounds down the tube and give it a (mild) cleaning. My next cleaning would take place after another 4 or 5 boxes unless you see your groups open up.
 
Thanks guys

Thank you to all who have replied.
This will be my first real "project" rifle and just dont want to look back a few months from now and think " i wish i would have....". Its refreshing to hear other shooters also think there may be no significant value in this "break-in" process. I have never been real sure about it, but thought maybe i was just not doing things right.
Thanks again everyone .
 
mixed

You will get mixed opinions on this, from many good sources, for and against.
Certainly, production rifles can have barrel smoothness that varies rifle to rifle, the issue that "break in" is supposed to address.

I've done a complete shoot and clean routine on 3 new factory rifles, two Savage's and a Ruger, and all are notably accurate for production rifles. Who know's how they would have shot otherwise? But I rest in the thought that I did what I could up front to insure that they would shoot to their potential.

I've got a Rem 700 ADL .270 whose first 3 shots with factory ammo could be covered with a quarter, no break in! But to this day, that rifle is an awful copper fouler, and accuracy degrades if not cleaned every 20-30 rds or so. Now, no amount of shoot and clean, or working with JB bore cleaner, seems to help its fouling nature. I'd trade it, except I have a history with it on some good whitetails and treasure the memories the rifle holds. And if kept clean, it will shoot. Would a shoot and clean break in helped this rifle's fouling problem? I dunno, I wish I would have, but there's no way to find out now.
 
When my first custom build was finished and ready for the range, I called the barrel maker and talked to the fella in charge.
Now I know some are saying no need, shoot it like normal, but I took this guy's advice and I myself have the confidence that it did make a difference, also had the opportunity to sight in scope and test data.....so.............:rolleyes
 
I called the barrel maker and talked to the fella in charge.
Click to expand...
Unless they can provide a logical and scientific explanation or better yet, test data showing that a particular number of rifles demonstrated better accuracy than those that were just shot and cleaned as opposed to, "X" amount of shots then, clean, "X" amount of shots then clean, etc., then it is only someone's unsubstantiated opinion no matter who says it. As far as I know, no one has ever performed any scientific tests on the effectiveness of a particular regimen.
 
It's possible break in will help a mass produced barrel that was made with worn tooling and is rough and fouls quickly, but with a good quality hand lapped barrel, break in is a waste.
 
My opinion on this is a little different then others . I say do a break in . Not because it's proven to work but as dehermit says . Nobody has provided a logical and scientific explanation or better yet, test data showing that NOT doing a break in is better . As long as it won't hurt your barrel why not give it a try .

Now there are some barrel burner calibers out there that doing a 100 round break in will reduce your barrel life by 5 to 10% . You should also consider who made the barrel and your ability to shoot accurately . Lets take Savage for instance . Generally you will get a rifle that will shoot sub moa and often 1/2 moa right out of the box . Even if a break in "could help a 1/2 moa rifle . I'm not sure I can shoot well enough to notice .

I've done everything from shoot factory ammo right from the box with just one bore snake pass ( one should always run at least a patch or two down a new bore ) . to doing a 50rnd break in . What I found was that I found no real difference . But then again these were all different rifles from different manufactures . So how would I know if the big break in helped , or not doing a break in hurt .

This is a pic of my first 3 shots at 100yds with my Savage FCP-K with no break in . These are actually shots 5 , 6 & 7 form the brand new rifle after getting on paper at 50yds

At worst 1/4 moa
guns167.jpg


Same day and rifle 300yds 1/3 moa

guns173.jpg


Here is my NM service rifle . 20" 223 wylde 1-8 5r rifling . I did the 50rd break with this rifle

10 rounds at 100yds .85moa including the high left flyer . I think I could have shot that better so It "may" shoot a 10rd group close to 1/2 moa

mJKNy7.jpg


My point , neither seemed to hurt the rifles and I don't know if the break in helped because I never shot the NM rifle for groups until after the break in . I think that's the bigger issue for this debate . You can never know if one way hurts or helps . They can't be compared do to different firearms and once you've done one method the other can't be tried with the same rifle to compare .
 
Last edited:
My humble thoughts and opinion: There is no proof that it works, and there is no proof that it does not work. For that reason it really comes down to what you believe and want to do. If you have the proper cleaning equipment and technique you're not going to do any harm cleaning your rifle. I don't consider it a waste of ammo, I use the shots to sight in and find drop values for a given load. So if you think it helps, even if it is nothing more than a placebo, it's going to help because you think it does. If you're unsure chances are somewhere down the road you'll regret not doing it, if you choose not to, and look back wishing you had. If you don't believe in it no amount of unsubstantiated talk is going to convince you so don't do it.
 
I have done a break in routine on a few rifle and not on most, leke everyone says I can't tell or say that either way is better. I kind of felt like with a new rifle the break in was more of a bonding if you will with the rifle, shooting, cleaning for a day etc. At the worst you probably have a sighted in rifle, that you have become familiar with. Anymore I am usually buying used rifles and tend more to do a thorough cleaning on them. Which usually results in having to shot 5 to 20 rounds before it settles down and truly shows what it is capable of.
 
More good opinions

Thanks for the added opinions and ideas guys! I just got my cleaning rod today ( didnt have a one-piece rod that was the correct diameter ) and will run some patches through it tomorrow. I have not shot the rifle yet, so the opportunity to perform the " break in regiment " is still available. Like all posts say, there is no way to prove right vs wrong, so why not give it a try. I dont have to go back to work until Christmas day so i have time to mess around with it in the shop.
I will try and post a picture of it as soon as i figure out how to post one on here.
Thanks again, and if anybody has anything to add, i am still checking this thread, so please do.
Chris
 
My opinion on this is a little different then others . I say do a break in . Not because it's proven to work but as dehermit says . Nobody has provided a logical and scientific explanation or better yet, test data showing that NOT doing a break in is better . As long as it won't hurt your barrel why not give it a try .
Click to expand...
Because it's just a waste of time and money.

It does nothing other than that since it's only a few extra cleanings when the gun really isn't dirty.

If you think the bore is rough, do a proper lapping instead of some mystical, magical "break-in"

Here's a "logical and scientific" explanation from one of the best barrel makers in the industry:

http://www.6mmbr.com/GailMcMbreakin.html

As a barrel maker I have looked in thousands of new and used barrels with a bore scope and I will tell you that if every one followed the prescribed [one shot, one clean] break-in method, a very large number would do more harm than good
Click to expand...
 
Dahmermit, the fella in charge did give me a scientific explanation.
Unsubstantiated is you claiming no one ever tested this theory.
What he told me was everything I needed to know about it.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top