science or myth behind barrel break in ???

Status
Not open for further replies.
JD... I think I've noticed copper fouling most, on the 17 Remington ( of the rounds I shoot ) however since the rifle was my FIL's, I don't know how it was broken in...
 
great post DRAG

although that is only one mans opinion :rolleyes:

I'd personally be happy to beak in a couple barrels on new custom guns this spring, if I could wrap my head around some sort of scientific advantage to do so...
 
Dragline 45 see post #7 made by me. I addressed what Gale was talking about. How does cleaning between every shot, during sight in, and group testing, sell more barrels? Gale's perception is that these people are just wasting ammo and cleaning in order to break their rifles in. If you're shooting anyway, to test the rifles groups, reliability, sight in. How does it sell more barrels if the shooter was going to be shooting those rounds anyway? The only difference would be cleaning between a few rounds, or not. I just don't see how that would sell more barrels. Gale's logic is flawed IMO.
 
Dragline 45 see post #7 made by me. I addressed what Gale was talking about. How does cleaning between every shot, during sight in, and group testing, sell more barrels? Gale's perception is that these people are just wasting ammo and cleaning in order to break their rifles in. If you're shooting anyway, to test the rifles groups, reliability, sight in.
Click to expand...

Because with competition shooters swapping out barrels every 3000 rounds or so, or when the accuracy starts to degrade, the faster you can get them to put rounds down their barrel, or wear them out for that matter, the faster the maker sells more barrels.

Gale is a legend in the industry, I wouldn't even think to question his knowledge and expertise. If you think you know better than him, than do whatever you please.

great post DRAG

although that is only one mans opinion
Click to expand...

While that's true, his opinion holds alot of weight.
 
Last edited:
There is really no way to test this.

2 like barrels from same MFG will never be the same. You can't do the break in procedure on one and not on the other to see the differences as there are already differences in the unfired barrels. There is no way to manufacture 2 barrels EXACTLY the same. Can't be done.

This, to me, will always be a one person does it, the other doesnt, and both claim great accuracy. One believes it's due to their "break in" procedure, the other will claim his shoots fine without a formal "break in".

I've never done a formal procedure. Clean them when I get them home, take them and shoot them till I decide I'm done, (could be 20 rounds, could be 100+) take them home, clean, oil, and put away till next range trip. All my rifles shoot better than I can.
 
So... BRIAN... is that the qualities of a quality barrel, or of proper break in...

point being, if you had a roughly rifled barrel, & did the "one shot, clean" type break in, do you think it would shoot better than a quality ( smoothly ) rifled that had no "traditional" break in ???
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't know either answer except that I doubt any of my guns would qualify as a "quality barrel". They're all very much average. My .204 is a Ruger M77 MkII. The most expensive gun I've experienced is a Browning X-bolt.

The barrel I put on my Savage last year is a McGowen. I didn't do the break-in on it because it's hand-lapped. My OCD keeps telling me to do it anyway.

On the 17, they are quite notorious for fouling badly. I think it's the bore/surface ratio. I don't know that they actually "foul" badly so much as the fouling has a bigger (worse) effect.
 
Drag I get that. My point is, that these shooters are going to be shooting their rifles anyway. They need a few shots to get initial zero, then I assume they'd want to test groups. I don't see how they're really shooting more, or putting more wear on the bore if they choose to clean in-between those shots, instead of not doing it. It's not like these people are shooting 100 rounds into dirt, simply in order to clean and brake-in their rifles. If they were doing that, I'd agree with you. But if they're putting rounds down their barrel anyway, it's not adding any more wear, than if they did they same shooting and skipped cleaning. What I'm saying is there is no requirement or need to put 'extra' rounds down the barrel and decreasing life by doing break-in. Most people will put a few boxes of ammo through their gun to make sure it functions and shoots accurately, what's the harm in cleaning in between those rounds, instead of ignoring it? That isn't adding any more wear or any more rounds fired than if the shooter had chose not to do a 'break-in' which is why I think Gale's point on fabricating this 'break-in' to sell more barrels, is moot.
 
Last edited:
I was taught that break in was needed to reduce the retained copper and that copper retains copper. By cleaning it all out over and over again the amount of copper is reduced/per shot. I found that to be true.
 
BRIAN... I understand, & that's why I added...

"do you think it would shoot better than a quality ( smoothly ) rifled that had no "traditional" break in ???"

I think the barrels most manufacturers put on their guns are "good" or smoothly rifled... the trouble is, that once in a while rough barrel, & couple that if that barrel was just shot, without "proper" break in, then it surely must have been the fault of not breaking it in, when in reality it was more likely a lemon...

quite honestly, if I ever had a barrel that fouled excessively, or was bad enough in some way, that it was recommended that I fire lap it... I'd look at it as defective, & I'd replace the barrel, even if it had less than 100 round through it... my thinking is that even if the manufacturer recommends a break in, any rifle barrel that is good enough to go on one of my guns ( even if they are all used recreation ally ) must be serviceable without any special break in... I don't know why someone who shoots for competition would except a rough bore
 
I can't disagree.

I just don't see any harm. I'm shooting the gun anyway. Often just to get the brass formed to the chamber, depending on the gun. Sometimes initial sight in.

Either way, it's going to get shot anyway. The time it takes me to do the extra cleaning is only an hour or so.

I honestly don't even care if it helps. It doesn't hurt and it makes me feel better. Confidence is important.
 
I didn't bother breaking in any of my AR's because the RSO at our range said the AR bore's have already been polished at the factory.

I did the barrel break-in process on my Savage Model 12 target rifle in 223.

Before the shot break-in...I used a procedure I learned from a gun magazine article, though I skipped the boiling water down the barrel --- it opens up the pores in the metal --- and dry patch out. Use JB Borebright on a cotton flannel patch, though you don't want to polish the chamber with JB --- so you'll have to rod polish the bore from the muzzle. Measure and put locator tape on the rod so the patch will not touch the chamber. Run the JB patch down the bore from the muzzle end --- back an forth 10 times --- clean out, and repeat the procedure 2 more times.
 
I find it interesting that some of the match winning, record setting competitors don't break in their new barrels. 'Tis also interesting that others of the same ilk break in their barrels with all sorts of procedures. All the barrels come from the same places made to the same specs.

This has to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Readers should be able to figure out what.
 
IMHO (FWIW) the only way to prove or disprove this theory would be to take two identical rifles in the same caliber, have the same shooter fire one w/o breaking in the barrel, the other with, compare results.
The first time I fired one my NIB SIG SHRs in .270 Winchester, I tightened the screws ala the gun magazines, settled it on the rest, got a good shooting position, etc, at 100 yards groups running 1.25"-1.5" with R-P ammo, first time I fired my Remington M-700 BDL Varmint Model in .308 with GI ammo, the same. And I an WAY out of practice in centerfire rifle shooting.
I also wonder if people are attributing accuracy problems solely to the barrel and see break-in as a Quick and Easy solution.
 
First let me say I'm in the 'no break-in' camp.

It would be interesting to see a test, but the very same reason it can't be tested (manufacturing variances), is exactly why I believe that some barrels shoot well and some just don't. Ackley observed that a 'good shooting' barrel remained so on different actions/chamberings. And of course I trust Gale's opinion.

All that aside, even if I believed in breaking in a barrel for the reasons mentioned in this thread; it's certainly not necessary on anything that has been hand lapped (isn't that about all of em now days? lilja, shilen, PAC-nor, kreiger,etc)
 
I was in the 'no break-in' camp for a long time but decided to try it on a new rifle a couple years ago and I'm definitely in the 'break-in' camp now. I don't think it makes a difference in accuracy and I didn't read anyone saying it did, but I may have missed that in this thread. I did notice that the bore seemed a lot cleaner after shooting and I thought it was a lot easier to clean when I did do that. I usually don't clean a bore until I see accuracy degrading and it seems like I go a lot longer between cleaning on the rifles I broke in compared to the ones I haven't.
 
I do the one shot clean break in with all my rifles for the first 30 rounds ,Then every 3 shot for the next 70. Does it matter?. All my rifles are sub MOA shooters. They clean very easy and fast. This is a more touchy subject than Glocks I think. I do you don't, we all get along. As stated by others- It does not take that long to do. I go so far as to treat my barrels after 200 rounds also. Most will call that BS, But fact is I have 16000 rounds down my 223 and it still shoots 9MM cases at 100 yards with ease.
 
Up to recent times, it was recommended by the manufacturer that a new car engine be "broken in" by not exceeding 50 mph for the first 1000-2000 miles. After that, the break-in oil was drained, along with whatever crud and bits of steel might have been in the engine from the factory, and replaced with the recommended oil, and the car could be driven normally.

The same thing was considered true for rifle barrels, for the same reason. Some gun/barrel makers advertised that they lapped their barrels, with an abrasive, to remove any burs, sharp edges, etc., prior to selling them. (S&W lapped all its barrels.) Today, manufacturers of cars and barrels use, or should use, new techniques that make "break in" unnecessary. But old stories die hard and some folks use a technique called "fire lapping" in which abrasive coated bullets are fired through a barrel to do the same thing as breaking in did.

Does breaking in do any harm? I don't think so. Does it do any good? I don't know. If you have just bought a new gun, or had a new barrel put on, and are concerned, the best bet would be to contact the maker and see what they recommend. Unless you overdo things, the amount of barrel wear resulting from break-in is so insignificant that the barrel maker is not going to get rich by telling you a lie about break in.

(AFAIK, S&W doesn't lap their barrels any more.)

Jim
 
Dragline45 said:
This should really be stickied since it settles this ridiculous myth..

This is a first hand account from Gale McMillan, who has forgotten more about rifles than most of us know.
Click to expand...

Whole heartedly agree. Though i would add to the sticky you can do which ever method you prefer. Because despite my and your beliefs there are some that just have to do a break in for satisfaction. If it satisfies them let them be content to do so IMO. We all have our personal preference to do some things, either way neither method is going to ruin a barrel.
 
Barrel break in, for the most part, is a bunch of hog wash. I have used abrasive impregnated bullets to break in some cheap barrels that were copper fouling like crazy, but break in voo doo for a quality barrel is a bunch of non sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top