Gauging Interest - New Barrel Cleaning Method

[Presis Skytter]

I’m exploring a new barrel cleaning concept and wanted to gauge whether there’s real interest before investing significant time and resources.

For background, I work in the automotive industry developing and validating cleanliness test methods for critical engine components. That world relies on measured contamination levels and repeatable validation, not visual judgment. I’d like to apply that same philosophy to barrel cleaning.

Rather than judging “clean” by patch color or a borescope image, the intent is to base performance on quantified fouling removal and repeatability, using a controlled and standardized process.

Conceptually, my goal is similar to what AMP Annealing did for brass annealing — taking something that was traditionally subjective and inconsistent, and turning it into a repeatable, validated process. Not claiming the same impact, but that’s the level of transformation I’d be aiming for.

The goals would be to create a system that:

• Reduces user-to-user and session-to-session variability
• Is validated against measurable cleanliness targets
• Produces a consistent post-clean condition
• Simplifies the cleaning workflow (set it up, let it run, return to a known state)

I fully recognize this may not outperform existing methods — but I also don’t believe the problem has been approached from a process validation and data-driven standpoint before.

Before going further, I’d like to understand whether this is something competitive shooters would find valuable and if it’s something they would purchase.

If there’s enough interest, I may look for a small group of shooters willing to provide heavily fouled barrels for early testing.

This is not a product announcement or sales pitch — just an interest check and discussion.

 

[Just Say Moe]

Sounds good - but - how do you quantify varied number of rounds fired and composition of powders fired with different fouling characteristics? Bullets - Monometal vs jacketed vs lead? Hardness of lead?

Too many variables IMO. You do a certain process and when done, declare it "clean?"

 

[K22]

In my way of thinking, which is often not mainstream, I would add as an ultimate criterion, which is the approach I have always taken regarding reloading and / or cleaning, results on target. Let me further define that: consistency of clean barrel shots, first shots from a fouled barrel, and aggregate shots; all within the desire point of impact.

If you can develop a definitive method (repeatable) that accomplishes this, then you get my vote for the "Shooter of the Year" award. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there is more than one way to accomplish the same results. I base the latter supposition on the fact of all the different methods posted on this Forum which claim to be "the method".

 

[Presis Skytter]

In my way of thinking, which is often not mainstream, I would add as an ultimate criterion, which is the approach I have always taken regarding reloading and / or cleaning, results on target. Let me further define that: consistency of clean barrel shots, first shots from a fouled barrel, and aggregate shots; all within the desire point of impact.

If you can develop a definitive method (repeatable) that accomplishes this, then you get my vote for the "Shooter of the Year" award. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there is more than one way to accomplish the same results. I base the latter supposition on the fact of all the different methods posted on this Forum which claim to be "the method".

Results on target are what matters most. That’s one of the biggest challenges is on target affect (and honestly a debate I’d like to avoid here). What I know I can do is quantify the residual material content in a barrel before, during, and after cleaning.

 

[Presis Skytter]

Sounds good - but - how do you quantify varied number of rounds fired and composition of powders fired with different fouling characteristics? Bullets - Monometal vs jacketed vs lead? Hardness of lead?

Too many variables IMO. You do a certain process and when done, declare it "clean?"

Defiantly some variable challenges but my test approach would be very different and I think with testing different bullets I could still understand levels of remaining carbon/copper regardless of bullet type/powder used.

 

[Bill Norris]

Sounds as if it would be worth the effort to go deeper in the study. Answers only come from questions and testing.

 

[Adam in WI]

There's always a segment of every group; whether it's shooters or golfers or you name it, that want to buy or have the best. It doesn't matter if best is real or imaginary.

 

[Steve Donlon]

I don't over clean my barrels. If there are some deep scratches with a little carbon in them I don't worry about them as long as the rest of the barrel is carbon free in the lands and grooves and still shoots the way I expect. Then after a few hundred rounds i will due a more vigorous cleaning and use what ever it takes to get as much out as I can.

 

[Forum Boss]

I was able to reduce brushing by over 70% and extend barrel life by two simple things.

1. At the range, while barrel was still warm after a match, I ran 5-6 wet patches through the bore.

2. I next applied Wipe-Out Foam into the barrel, applying from chamber to muzzle. I let it sit about 15-20 minutes, then applied it a second time (filling the barrel). Then I plugged the chamber and muzzle, put the rifle in an AirGlide case and drove home. After 3-5 hours I patched out the barrel, sometimes after just a few brush strokes.

The process described above prevented hard carbon from setting up in the barrel. Some of my club buddies started doing this (instead of 20-30 back/forth aggressive wire brush strokes). They said their barrels retained accuracy noticeably longer (presumably because of less wear, particularly to the muzzle).

For me the huge advantage was less labor and also fewer "fouling" rounds were required after cleaning.
NOTE: To each his own. I understand that very successful shooters have had success with aggressive brushing. But you may be surprised at how much less brushing you can do if you foam the bore soon after shooting.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Sounds good - but - how do you quantify varied number of rounds fired and composition of powders fired with different fouling characteristics? Bullets - Monometal vs jacketed vs lead? Hardness of lead?

Too many variables IMO. You do a certain process and when done, declare it "clean?"

^^^^^^^^

 

[Ccrider]

Xx

Then I plugged the chamber and muzzle, put

what do you use to plug the chamber?

Forum Boss: I had a guide rod with multiple chamber Orings that made a good seal. But keep in mind that in the AirGlide the Chamber was above the muzzle. I did use a tapered orange ear plus in the 6mm muzzle.

 

[Big_Daddy]

Xx

what do you use to plug the chamber?

Not sure what Forum Boss uses however, I have used foam ear plugs.
They worked very well.

 

[divingin]

Not sure what Forum Boss uses however, I have used foam ear plugs.
They worked very well.

Solvents don't dissolve them?

 

[dellet]

Not sure what your process will be, but almost sounds like an optical comparator being able to measure the actual build up left behind. If so that opens the door to actually measuring wear in the bore, and creates its own problem.

Bore wear not being measured or calculated, would allow carbon to build up and give a false reading. Example same bore size made of different materials.

Glad mom didn’t have whatever up you’re using, I’d have never got out of the house. White glove for dust was bad enough.

 

[Big_Daddy]

Solvents don't dissolve them?

Never had a problem with that.
But I am sure that not all foam plugs are created equal.

I have also used rubber "beaker/test tube" plugs that you can get from a chemistry supply store.
They come in many diameters.

 

[BoydAllen]

I was able to reduce brushing by over 70% and extend barrel life by two simple things.

1. At the range, while barrel was still warm after a match, I ran 5-6 wet patches through the bore.

2. Going from chamber to muzzle I next applied Wipe-Out Foam. I let it sit about 15-20 minutes, then applied it a second time (filling the barrel). Then I plugged the chamber and muzzle, put the rifle in an AirGlide case and drove home. After 3-5 hours I patched out the barrel, sometimes after just a few brush strokes.

The process described above prevented hard carbon from setting up in the barrel. Some of my club buddies started doing this (instead of 20-30 back/forth aggressive wire brush strokes). They said their barrels retained accuracy noticeably longer (presumably because of less wear, particularly to the muzzle).

For me the huge advantage was less labor and also fewer "fouling" rounds were required after cleaning.
NOTE: To each his own. I understand that very successful shooters have had success with aggressive brushing. But you may be surprised at how much less brushing you can do if you foam the bore soon after shooting.

I think that the issue is whether the rules of the sport allow time for your method. If there is time, what works works. Good for you. In short range benchrest, shooters in smaller matches typically have a minimum of 30 minutes between matches to deal with cleaning and reloading. That is the determining factor for cleaning method. Other types of competition may allow time if they have looser accuracy requirements so that less frequent cleaning is not a problem, on paper. A friend has found that wetting a barrel with Kroil after the last shot of the day has an effect similar to what you have described. He is primarily a short range score shooter. I think that you are spot on about hardening of fouling. One can observe this on the outsides of fired case necks, comparing effort required to remove powder fouling immediately after firing to what is required a few days later.

 

[Janeau]

What we need in my book is a very effective carbon dissolver. One or two pass and completely done with carbon. Right now..it’s all multiple pass - brushing - compound - it’s a core.
Copper removal products are quite effective but can still be improved.

 

[Steve Donlon]

I think that the issue is whether the rules of the sport allow time for your method. If there is time, what works works. Good for you. In short range benchrest, shooters in smaller matches typically have a minimum of 30 minutes between matches to deal with cleaning and reloading. That is the determining factor for cleaning method. Other types of competition may allow time if they have looser accuracy requirements so that less frequent cleaning is not a problem, on paper. A friend has found that wetting a barrel with Kroil after the last shot of the day has an effect similar to what you have described. He is primarily a short range score shooter. I think that you are spot on about hardening of fouling. One can observe this on the outsides of fired case necks, comparing effort required to remove powder fouling immediately after firing to what is required a few days later.

I think it's a lot easier to get the carbon out when you get on it within a few hours instead of days later. It only takes me 15 minutes to get home after shooting and it seems to come out without a bronze brush on some barrels but others need more effort. Seems the barrel can make a difference to how much effort it takes and the powder you use.

 

[pavementends]

There are at least 2 different issues here. Are we talking a consistent "clean" barrel or results on target? Some barrels shoot well from clean and others require some number of fouling shots before they deliver good groups or even a consistent point of impact on the target. With some of the new rifling techniques
(EDM) don't remember exactly what it is called but it is reputed to deliver much more consistent bores. Some competitors start every match with a "clean" barrel to have controllable results. The idea of a repeatable standard for clean is interesting as any variable one can control should help. Now if we could do something about that wind thing!

 

[jonbearman]

If it was something affordable and totally repeatable,I am in.