globemaster3
New member
Merry Christmas everyone!
hooligan, when you say
I tried to find out how many rifles Winchester makes in a year for an example, but my Google Fu skills came up short today. Let's say a manufacturer makes 5,000 barrels a year. To achieve a 95% level of confidence with a 2.5% margin of error, you would have to test 1,176 barrels. You would also have to test a control group that you did not perform the break in procedure on in order to establish a baseline. So, in addition to the barrels, you would have to tightly control the installation process, and if using more than one action to mount them to, blueprint the actions to the same tolerance and install the same trigger tuned to the same weight of pull, etc. Then ammo selection... You'd have to buy the same ammo for each test in order to control any variances in different manufacturers.
And we are just scratching the surface. You can see this would be an exhaustive process!
This article contained none of that... at all! Just 1 guy talking about 3 different barrel break in methods, each with a different level of aggressiveness and some vignettes on how he cleaned different barrels to restore accuracy or smooth erosion. He preceded this with a background on metal finishing from different industries.
Don't get me wrong, it was informative on his processes and those on the break-in camp may glean some new methods to utilize. In the grand scheme, it didn't provide anything new to settle the discussion on whether break in is necessary.
hooligan, when you say
Like dahermit, I am expecting a specific regimen that bears some semblance to official research protocol. After performing a lot of testing as part of my research for my masters degree, there are real protocols to follow to prevent bias and error. In addition, for the results to be applicable to a given population, you have to test a certain sample size which is variable based on the size of the population and the level of confidence you wish to have.
I tried to find out how many rifles Winchester makes in a year for an example, but my Google Fu skills came up short today. Let's say a manufacturer makes 5,000 barrels a year. To achieve a 95% level of confidence with a 2.5% margin of error, you would have to test 1,176 barrels. You would also have to test a control group that you did not perform the break in procedure on in order to establish a baseline. So, in addition to the barrels, you would have to tightly control the installation process, and if using more than one action to mount them to, blueprint the actions to the same tolerance and install the same trigger tuned to the same weight of pull, etc. Then ammo selection... You'd have to buy the same ammo for each test in order to control any variances in different manufacturers.
And we are just scratching the surface. You can see this would be an exhaustive process!
This article contained none of that... at all! Just 1 guy talking about 3 different barrel break in methods, each with a different level of aggressiveness and some vignettes on how he cleaned different barrels to restore accuracy or smooth erosion. He preceded this with a background on metal finishing from different industries.
Don't get me wrong, it was informative on his processes and those on the break-in camp may glean some new methods to utilize. In the grand scheme, it didn't provide anything new to settle the discussion on whether break in is necessary.
