Originally Posted by The_Kid
To those that can only argue that angle, it "appears" that way. What you suggest I imply, is of course ridiculous.
The forces of the bullet being smashed down a perfectly clean bore are tremendous, EXCLAMATION POINT! (Top that!)
Better tell Shilen
that they have it all wrong.
Again with the rebuttal to the ridiculous argument you've invented.
FIRST LET ME SAY THAT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE ANY BREAK-IN PROCEDURE THEY PREFER OR NONE AT ALL. This has almost theological properties, those who “believe” and those who don’t. may be difficult
Nothing done during the CLEANING process will change the roughness. Lapping the barrel (which is NOT recommended after installation by some barrel makers) can remove imperfections but at the cost of barrel life. Using a copper jacketed bullet removes only very minor imperfections in the surface. The main reason copper is left in the barrel is because it is softer than the steel of the barrel and removed by contact. If it is softer how do you expect it to remove much steel? If it is strong enough to remove metal in the first 25-50 rounds the barrel life would be crap. If it is only removes the "burrs" then the cleaning is overkill.
OK let’s go with the “fact” that firing the rifle will smooth the throat (the important part of the supposed break-in) and perhaps the bore, I can agree that there may be some material removed from the rifle. We good there?
Now let’s get to the cleaning part. Why is it important to clean after each shot? Since you brought up Shilen, their site doesn’t say a word about that, but I will get to them later. So it seems very urgent that the copper be removed from the barrel immediately and this is what I question. You have not answered my question of why it is so urgent, you only talk about “those who only argue that angle” but still can’t answer the question why except to point to Shilen. You claim it is science but other than claims of success there is no objective proof. When someone says "I have always done it" how the results be verifiable? Ok on to Shilen .
You conveniently skipped a very significant line in the first paragraph on the Shilen site …
“Shilen, Inc. introduced a break-in procedure mostly because customers seemed to think that we should have one. By and large, we don’t think breaking-in a new barrel is a big deal”.
If they are your answer to everything, what do you have to say to that?
Check out the Kreiger Barrel site, they have a long wonderful article about the whys of break-in.
The main point, and I quote the site…
“So when we break in a barrel, our goal is to get the throat “polished” without allowing copper to build up in the bore.”
Again I ask why is it important and the best they have is
“If this copper is allowed to stay in the bore, and subsequent bullets and deposits are fired over it, copper which adheres well to itself, will build up quickly and may be difficult to remove later.”
OK, “may be difficult” so other than it being hard to remove later there is NOTHING being done by the removal of the copper deposits (period, exclamation point) except allow better contact for a soft metal to attempt to wear down a harder metal. I have seen suggestions that the powder residue is beneficial and will burnish the throat but I am puzzled how one should remove copper but leave the power residue.
As per the Kreiger site, nothing is changed in the barrel bore during break-in and that is where the copper is deposited.
I have discussed this with shooters, metalurgists and gunsmiths and the only agreement is that in general this ritual is done more frequently on expensive custom barrels that would have never seen an issue in the first place.
Sent from my iPhone using FirearmsTalk