What Do You Think of This Barrel Break-in Process?

[rebs]

Thank you sir!

If ya'll don't know who this guy is yet, you will. He may well be the best barrel maker we have ever seen or had the pleasure of working with. Yeah, no small statement at all but his record speaks for itself.

Now, hurry up and get rolling again making some great barrels. Lol!

I don't know, who is this guy

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I don't know, who is this guy

Owner of ABC barrels, American Barrel Company.

 

[whatsupdoc]

Owner of ABC barrels, American Barrel Company.

Never heard of them, they have a website?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Never heard of them, they have a website?

No website at this time. He likely will put one up in time but he is still shut down from an untimely change of locations around covid, that drug out a relatively simple move(Haha) into a long and drawn out nightmare. I'm certain he'll let us know when he's ready to start taking orders again. Hopefully soon but a lot of loyal buyers have left barrels on order with him for these years and he plans to fill those orders before taking new work. That should tell you something about what people think of his barrels, to leave them on order for this long with him. There are several really top flight barrel makers out there but his have honestly been the best I've used in my 20 plus years around this accuracy game. I'm excited to get my hands on them again.

 

[BoydAllen]

I see those poor souls at the range sometimes, with solvents, patches, and rods going through the ritual burning up expensive ammo. Reminds me of the Chyenne Ghost Dancers, no offense intended to our Native Americans.

What is really sad is when I see them at the range a few months later with their rifle after the event, "the barrel break in". A lot of them have their scope mounted too high resulting in poor cheek weld, head floating around like a bobble head while trying to shoot precisely. Then there is the poor bench technique, rifle not returned to same point on front rest, blocks of wood for a front rest, sling under the rifle forearm, shooting too fast, etc. But critters beware, the hunter has "properly broken in" his barrel, , for 2 moa groups.

First of all, while there may be some factory ammo once a year deer hunters who follow this site, the stated purpose of this site is to discuss accurate rifles. That being said, as far as I know none of the accuracy competitions that are discussed on this site (except rimfire) involve the use of factory ammo. Moving on, if and when you get to a benchrest match, you will see a lot of very high mounted scopes on rifles that were built specifically for competition. You may also note that despite the small exit pupils inherent in magnifications starting at 36X and going up, that no one is having the slightest problem finding the image. Krieger has instructions for barrel break in on their site. In those, it is pointed out that the issue is dealing with reamer marks that commonly occur on the leade angle of the throat. A lot of people have opinions only a few seem to own bore scopes, which means that the rest are only guessing about the condition of their rifles' bores. Personally, I would not be without one. When researching issues relating to best practices for the highest levels of accuracy, I pretty much stick to what people who do well in matches have to say, even though they do not always agree.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Basically, we have the best barrel makers recommending a break in, and some others that are fine people...but not top bbl makers, stating essentially that the top bbl makers are wrong or only recommend break in to increase sales.

Imagine being a bbl maker and knowing that your bbl will get the blame for coppering due to a rough throat that would benefit from a break in procedure. Would you recommend a break in, then. I certainly would. As has been stated by some very qualified posters on the subject...the bbl itself is rarely where copper fouling originates. It was explained pretty well, imo.

Virtually no one started out with their first gun by going to the range and properly breaking the bbl in on their new hunting rifle but the more experienced shooters who are serious about accuracy, most will do it.

I mention this analogy from time to time because it's real and maybe some can relate to it a bit.

When Smith and Wesson first introduced their big honkin 500 S&W revolvers, they had an issue with flame cutting of the bottom side of the top strap of the receiver, directly above the cylinder gap. The fix was simple...their engineers said..polish the inside of the frame in that area and hence, the flame could flow smoothly over the frame without doing any damage. Problem solved! Has nothing to do with copper fouling but the heat sink. I think and hope some will understand why that's important and why it was an effective, yet simple solution.

Make the chamber area and transitions there smooth and bbl life may well improve but also, will reduce copper fouling. Even a very good chamber will likely benefit from a short break in. The better the chamber, the shorter the break in, too. Some guns/chambers almost never copper, even from the first shot. Give your gunsmith a tip or a pat on the back..while others, foul much more noticeably and break in takes a bit longer. The reamer, cutting oil, speed and feeds, all play into this as well as the steel itself to a degree, even with the same reamer. We're splitting a pretty fine hair but one that only really matters in weather it takes 3 or 30 rounds to break the throat in. Not a huge deal either way but yes, I'd prefer the one that never fouled noticeably. Debatably, I've gone to using coated bullets for break in. I actually prefer this to naked and it seems to simply speed the break in period, as it reduces copper fouling. Both ways will work though. Same for long vs short bearing surfaces. Counter to what most do, I actually prefer less bearing surface during this period. Reason being, as I put in my previous post here, I believe it to be the flame temp that's doing 99% of the work rather than bullet friction. Hey, it works for me!

 

[K22]

First of all, while there may be some factory ammo once a year deer hunters who follow this site, the stated purpose of this site is to discuss accurate rifles. That being said, as far as I know none of the accuracy competitions that are discussed on this site (except rimfire) involve the use of factory ammo. Moving on, if and when you get to a benchrest match, you will see a lot of very high mounted scopes on rifles that were built specifically for competition. You may also note that despite the small exit pupils inherent in magnifications starting at 36X and going up, that no one is having the slightest problem finding the image. Krieger has instructions for barrel break in on their site. In those, it is pointed out that the issue is dealing with reamer marks that commonly occur on the leade angle of the throat. A lot of people have opinions only a few seem to own bore scopes, which means that the rest are only guessing about the condition of their rifles' bores. Personally, I would not be without one. When researching issues relating to best practices for the highest levels of accuracy, I pretty much stick to what people who do well in matches have to say, even though they do not always agree.

I am not a gunsmith, benchrest shooter, F Class competitor nor a once-a-year deer hunter. I shoot over thousands rounds of centerfire a year in measured / scored slow fire attempting to improve my field marksmanship skills off cross sticks. My game is varmint / predator hunting which requires some level of precision to ethically and humanely take those critters at extended distances especially off sticks.

If I was in the competitive precision rifle game, I certainly would try to emulate the top shooters although there seems to be a difference of opinions even among them. For example, Eric Cortina who I believe is a championship shooter no longer "breaks in barrels."

I guess I am an outliner since the "purpose of this site is to discuss accurate rifles" whereas I am more interested in practical marksmanship skills, training, and learning. I freely admit I know very little about accurate rifles. I rely on my master gunsmith, an expert, to "accurized, repair, re-barrel, etc. my precision varmint rifles. He gives me the tools; my job is perfecting the use of them in the field.

Through experience, I've have learned a few things over the years if one bases those learned experiences on results on target. However, the very last thing I want to do is send new shooters off in the wrong direction. So, I will have to avoid commenting on "barrel break in" and bore cleaning because I don't follow what is being promoted today. I could be wrong about these things although it hasn't shown up yet on target, but my standards are fairly modest.

I respect your opinions on the shooting sports. You helped me improve my beam balance performance. If you say barrel break in is necessary and using a bore scope is necessary to verify the adequacy of cleaning a rifle bore, then who am I to dispute it.

 

[BoydAllen]

I am not a gunsmith, benchrest shooter, F Class competitor nor a once-a-year deer hunter. I shoot over thousands rounds of centerfire a year in measured / scored slow fire attempting to improve my field marksmanship skills off cross sticks. My game is varmint / predator hunting which requires some level of precision to ethically and humanely take those critters at extended distances especially off sticks.

If I was in the competitive precision rifle game, I certainly would try to emulate the top shooters although there seems to be a difference of opinions even among them. For example, Eric Cortina who I believe is a championship shooter no longer "breaks in barrels."

I guess I am an outliner since the "purpose of this site is to discuss accurate rifles" whereas I am more interested in practical marksmanship skills, training, and learning. I freely admit I know very little about accurate rifles. I rely on my master gunsmith, an expert, to "accurized, repair, re-barrel, etc. my precision varmint rifles. He gives me the tools; my job is perfecting the use of them in the field.

Through experience, I've have learned a few things over the years if one bases those learned experiences on results on target. However, the very last thing I want to do is send new shooters off in the wrong direction. So, I will have to avoid commenting on "barrel break in" and bore cleaning because I don't follow what is being promoted today. I could be wrong about these things although it hasn't shown up yet on target, but my standards are fairly modest.

I respect your opinions on the shooting sports. You helped me improve my beam balance performance. If you say barrel break in is necessary and using a bore scope is necessary to verify the adequacy of cleaning a rifle bore, then who am I to dispute it.

Thanks for the clarification. Of late, I have said "If it works, it is correct.", but of course what works needs to be based on the standards that are applied, and that on the type of shooting.

 

[jelenko]

type of shooting

I think this is key.
If I've got it right, barrel break in is recommended for the upmost accuracy - for example in benchrest and maybe F Class.

I compete in 'cross the course'. If/when I shoot 1/2 MOA groups [prone with a sling], everyone's excited. I have no idea whether my lack of barrel break in makes my barrel capable of only .2 MOA vs .1 MOA if I had broken it in.

I think the same thing could be said for PRS.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I think this is key.
If I've got it right, barrel break in is recommended for the upmost accuracy - for example in benchrest and maybe F Class.

I compete in 'cross the course'. If/when I shoot 1/2 MOA groups [prone with a sling], everyone's excited. I have no idea whether my lack of barrel break in makes my barrel capable of only .2 MOA vs .1 MOA if I had broken it in.

I think the same thing could be said for PRS.

I agree with this too. In practical terms that I think most can relate to...we spend good money on premium bbls and gunsmith work, for starters. Now, the way I see break in is this. Say you have a 4 groove bbl and a really good chamber job. You go out and put say 30 rounds down it and go home and clean it perfectly, as new..or not.
Lets say 3 of the lands never collected the very first bit of copper but the 4th did. From first shot on, it just got a little worse and worse but you never saw a difference in how it shot over that time. Hey, it's new and you probably don't know its potential yet anyway, right.
Well, over those 30 rounds, 3 lands broke in nicely and they are gorgeous...no problem at all. But, those first few shots likely give more throat wear that the rest of the rounds you put through the bbl in a "reasonable" life span.

So, we have 3 lands that wore away a bit and broke in. How does the 4th ever catch up? It was shielded from the heat, flame and friction from the first shot on.

Bottom line, if you're happy for your use, rock on. I do think one barrel can give more or less benefit than the next one, from the same break in process and depending on your discipline, it may VERY well never matter one iota, with the best shooter. If you're shooting off of a fencepost...forget about it other than maybe a rare instance. If you shoot at a fairly high BR level, it may well be quantifiable...or not, too. Ya got no base line to compare it to, right?

But, if you get copper fouling, I would say it's unfair to blame the bbl maker at all, none. The reasons have already been covered. I'd say it's a small price to pay to ensure you get your money's worth from you're hard earned money in the bbl as well as the chamber work. And, ya gotta be fair to the smith too. It takes next to nothing to start a little copper fouling and then copper builds upon itself. As well as, what if you furnished the reamer or he did. Kinda out of your and his control but a proper break in should either optimize things in a relatively short time or...tell on the smith, the reamer maker, or less likely, the bbl maker...but he's the most likely to get the blame, wrongfully so most of the time.

We are blessed with several very, very good barrel makers who for the most part, bend over backward to make sure the customer is happy but they should never have to bend over forward, due to someone not following a proper break in of the throat.

Long winded..sorry, but I think this is a very fair and real assessment of why we should do a proper break in. I can assure you that it's not to sell more barrels. That's just ludicrous. I'm sorry, but it is.. and most of that originated from the internet keyboard shooters, so I don't blame everyone for believing it...to a degree. I mean, all it takes is one true expert to be wrong one time publicly or whatever, and it becomes gospel because so-and-so said it.

 

[BoydAllen]

I think this is key.
If I've got it right, barrel break in is recommended for the upmost accuracy - for example in benchrest and maybe F Class.

I compete in 'cross the course'. If/when I shoot 1/2 MOA groups [prone with a sling], everyone's excited. I have no idea whether my lack of barrel break in makes my barrel capable of only .2 MOA vs .1 MOA if I had broken it in.

I think the same thing could be said for PRS.

The smith that chambered my J. Lederer barrel in 6BRA picked up a tip, from Speedy I believe. It involves doing some smoothing of the throat angle reamer marks. As a result, the first time I cleaned it after being shot about 22 rounds by a friend to sight it in and fire form some cases to go back to Harrel's with a die order (not at all my usual procedure at all) there was no blue, none. The loads had been H4895. The cases had been fire formed in a fire forming rifle loaned to me by a friend who does his own work, chambered with the same reamer. It is an old small ring Mauser, with no sights and the military stock and trigger. Point it at the middle of the backstop on a short pistol range and pull the trigger, 100 times. There was plenty of powder fouling after the shots in my rifle, just no blue.

 

[Dolomite]

I believe Frank mentioned break in depends on the reamer cutting the chamber. If it’s clean cut the breakin would be a fast process as all it does is smooth out the throat. So if the throat is rough it will copper more thus taking more shots to break in and vice versa.

Boretech, KRG, and patch out should remove the copper pretty quick.

For me I just shoot the barrel and clean when I’m done shooting. It should stop copper fouling at some point and since I’m fire forming brass I have never noticed any detriment. After 100 rounds or so it does speed up.