Barrel Break-in... show me the money

[Obtunded]

Without a doubt, this is one of the most controversial and subjective topics. I want to toss out the question: Where is the scientific proof that barrel break-in accomplishes anything except wasting ammo?

I am not a new shooter and I have faithfully practised break-in for years on tens of barrels. Owing to circumstances at the time, I stopped. I noticed absolutely no difference in accuracy, life or fouling. Since then, I quit the whole break-in process altogether and sided with the "Just shoot it" crowd.

I have read dozens of compelling anecdotes from those that advocate both sides of the argument, but alas, I am cursed with a professional background that compells me to practice what I do in accordance with scientifically proven efficacy... multi center radomized controlled studies yadda yadda.

Therefore, can anyone point me in the direction of a credible scientific study that proves one way or another that the process of "breaking-in" a barrel does anything other than waste barrel life and ammo?

Being in Canada, barrels cost twice what they do in the US, so re-barreling is an expensive proposition. To be straight-up, I am not looking for more anecdotes... I am putting out the challenge to prove to me that barrel break-in has been proven one way or the other...

Cheers!

Ian

 

[chino1969]

Ian,
I've broken in match grade barrels over the years using the conventional one shot clean technique, etc. I personally feel it is a waste of time and here's my reason for saying so. Let me qualify my statement by saying I've read Gale McMillan's article about the fallacies of the 'revered' break in process and decided to conduct my own study. I own a Hawkeye borescope and use it extensively to monitor cleaning technique, throat erosion, break in, etc.

I had several brand match grade barrels I used for my study. The barrels are as follows:
1) Kreiger 1:7.5" chambered in 6mm BR by Clarence Hammonds.
2) Pac-Nor Super Match 1:12" .308 chambered by Pac-Nor.
3) Pac-Nor Super Match 1:12" .22-250 AI by Pac-Nor.

Upon receiving the freshly chambered barrels, I thoroughly cleaned them to remove any oils from chambering. I examined the bores thoroughly paying particular attention to the tiny circumferential marks left by the best reamers in the throat area; these marks are inevitable. Hammonds uses Henricksen reamers and is a renowned gunsmith. If you follow conventional opinion on the break in process, the whole point is to remove or burnish these tiny circumferential marks through the break in process. The question in my mind was alluded to in the McMillan article and follows. If this is the primary reason for break in, then what difference does it make if you shoot one and clean or shoot twenty and clean? The marks will be removed or minimized at some number of rounds, regardless of the break in process. I broke the .308 Pac-Nor in by shooting five single rounds and cleaning after each one. I might add that I always season my bore, after cleaning, by running a wet patch of Lock EEze through the bore. After these five rounds, I then began firing groups of twenty. After cleaning and examining with the borescope, I saw no fouling or carbon. The tiny marks were still there. At any rate, this barrel now has approx. 150 rds. through it, cleans easily with minimal fouling. I broke the 1:7.5" 6mm BR Kreiger in the same way with similarly oberserved results. It now has approx. 200 rds. through it as does the .22-250 AI Pac-Nor.

I've proven to myself it is a waste of time. Others may have differen t opinions and it is basically your decision. You certainly won't harm your barrel by using the one shot, clean method but I personally don't do it anymore. I have another brand new Kreiger 1:8" .22-250 AI chambered by Hammonds that I will just shoot, with no break in process. I feel that confident in my observations. Note that I clean my match grade barrels after every twenty rounds and do not allow them to get hot. Hope this helps.

Note: I also come from a technical/scientific background but have learned to apply real world methodology to my studies. What I performed may not qualify as a scientific study but it's good enough for this seasoned shooter who is wary of every accepted practice just because it has been done for so long. I, like you, have to see some hard evidence before I buy into an accepted practice.

Lou Baccino
Chino69

 

[Obtunded]

Hi Lou,

Thank you for your comments, and in the absence of a more formal scientific study with a larger sample group, your methodology does tend to support what I believe intuitively and have experienced first-hand.

Cheers~!

Ian

 

[moosemoose]

... and how do yall feel about breaking in a factory barrel?

 

[HTSmith]

Where is the scientific proof that barrel break-in accomplishes anything except wasting ammo?


I'm pretty sure it wastes barrel steel also.

 

[Rust]

Factory barrels regardless of manufacturer, have reamer marks the length of the bore, even the hammer forged barrels becasue they still have to drill and ream the bore before hammer forging it over the mandrel.

But barrel break in is basically a leftover from the days of less sophisticated alloys, tooling and lapping,on custom barrels of course). Old timers from the AMU and other military marksmanship units would tell you that a barrel didn't come in till around 800 rounds. The logbooks tend to support that viewpoint.

Sadly most of those old timers are no longer with us.

Break in on the last new barrel consisted of shooting over a chrono to see if my standard load needed to be adjusted.

 

[Obtunded]

"I have found fouling,copper) especially has been greatly reduced if not eliminated by careful breakin procedures. I have always done a breakin on handgun as well as rifle barrels. What fouling there is is more easily cleaned out. I typically fire 2 fouling shots,except my 6PPC) and no more than 3 5 shot groups before cleaning for "peak" accuracy. If breakin was not necessary,bench rest shooters would certainly not bother! If it's good enough for BR shooters,it's good enough for me. Thank you. gpoldblue"

Forgive me if I sound impertinent,not my intent I assure you...) but this is exactly my point! "Greatly reduced" compared to what? Have you ever taken three barrels from the same manufacturer, same batch of steel, same drill, same reamer and same smith, same powder, same bullet batches, same primers, same day, same batch of solvent etc. etc. and compared three broken-in with 3 not broken in?

Benchrest shooters practice some great voodoo science for sure but many of their rituals,hell, many of mine too!) are based on an amalgam of experiences,good and bad) lore and anecdote: "He consistently shoots well, what he does MUST be right!"

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach, particularly if it gives you the piece of mind you need. As I said though, I need convincing on a more scientific level because from a physical, metallurgical and chemical perpective, I don't see it.

Thanks for your comments and i assure you my bark is far worse than my bite!

Ian

 

[chino1969]

I have found fouling,copper) especially has been greatly reduced if not eliminated by careful breakin procedures. I have always done a breakin on handgun as well as rifle barrels. What fouling there is is more easily cleaned out. I typically fire 2 fouling shots,except my 6PPC) and no more than 3 5 shot groups before cleaning for "peak" accuracy. If breakin was not necessary,bench rest shooters would certainly not bother! If it's good enough for BR shooters,it's good enough for me. Thank you. gpoldblue

Not everything benchrest shooters do is gospel. There are several very knowlegeable benchrest shooters who are also excellent machinists with extensive experience in both fields. There are a far larger number of followers, reluctant to experiment and deviate from the pack.

I work in an industry where every concept is challenged on a daily basis. What worked ten years ago does not necessarily work today and one has to be open to new ideas and be willing to evolve into new and better methods. I've been taught to constantly challenge the status quo; experimenting with more efficient and cost effective solutions to replace the old. Many benchrest shooters are also very opinionated and stay with a given methodology because they have consistently won matches due to following their own practice. It is more of a cultural bias than anything and I make no claim to being an expert but I do have keen observational skills. For me to practice a given method, I have to prove it to myself through field testing that it is worth my time and effort.

If break in works for you and gives you added confidence, then do it. If moly works for you and makes you shoot better, then do it. I can only report on what I have tried and observed and do not believe there is any merit to breaking in a match grade barrel.

Lou Baccino
Chino69

 

[Posit]

Is not the question too broad to be answered? Given the variety methods and tooling used, plus an almost infinite number of variables involved in producing a rifle barrel?

For example, in broad scope, would not the category of barrel, e.g., factory or custom, be a major differentiator? A factory barrel, turned to less critical tolerances, mass produced, more likely to be turned with worn tooling, etc, might benefit from a break in process. Alternately, a custom or speciality barrel, more carefully made with tighter tolerances, etc, might not benefit.

 

[fdshuster]

From the Hart barrels web-site: " We do not believe that a break in procedure is required with our barrels, etc. etc." From the Shilen barrel web-site: "Break-in procedures are as diverse as cleaning techniques. 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, etc.etc." Speedy Gonzales has been outspoken on the issue, saying it's a waste of time, money and barrel life". But, if it makes you happy, by all means: do it. I monitor the progress of a new barrel from the first shot fired, with my "Hawkeye" borescope, and do whatever I feel is necessary. So far, have had no disappointments: all the barrels I've used, Krieger, Hart & Shilen, have been top quality.

 

[82boy]

This topic is very controversial, and I have had people flame me for my responses in the past, so I will not give a response, but will offer a way to possibly tell.

In my experience, some barrels are just better than others are, even when comparing barrels by the same maker.

The only way to tell for sure if break in process works or not, is to get 70 barrels from a manufacture, placing them on the same action, and shoot thousands of rounds. You would have 35 barrels that would receive the break in process, and 35 barrels that would not. To add to this, the testing should be done in an indoor facility that is free from wind, light changes, and is temperature controlled. I would go as far as to do load development on each barrel, and tune the ammo to each barrel. Each barrel should be bore scoped after a set number of rounds, say 10, 20, 40, 80, 100, 200, 500, 1000 etc. I would even say the firing should be done by one person, and that person should be a great shooter.,Tony Boyer, Mike Ratigan, someone like that) Every bit of information should be documented.,Bore scope information, group’s size of target, information on load development, etc.)

The problem with this whole process is it would be ultra expensive, time consuming and people would still doubt the results.

I guess something’s are not meant to be known.

 

[chino1969]

Is not the question too broad to be answered? Given the variety methods and tooling used, plus an almost infinite number of variables involved in producing a rifle barrel?

For example, in broad scope, would not the category of barrel, e.g., factory or custom, be a major differentiator? A factory barrel, turned to less critical tolerances, mass produced, more likely to be turned with worn tooling, etc, might benefit from a break in process. Alternately, a custom or speciality barrel, more carefully made with tighter tolerances, etc, might not benefit.

I don't believe it is too broad to be answered. The original poster was looking for verifiable data that would conclusively support the break in process. There has never been a definitive study done that would lend credibility to either method so we have to go with what has been observed. I used to break my match grade barrels in the old fashioned way and have discontinued the practice. I use a borescope to monitor my bores and have not seen any benefit. Others may have a different opinion but I think we all would like to see opinions validated with some real world examples.

I don't claim to be an expert and can only report on what I have personally observed. Many experienced shooters are exploring whether break in is beneficial or a waste of time. This would be an interesting study for one of the barrel manufacturers to conduct or one of the accuracy magazines to conduct. Until that is done, we have to use our own methods.

Lou Baccino
Chino69

 

[jthyttin]

Is not the question too broad to be answered?

I guess somethings are not meant to be known.

I'm with Posit and 82boy here. You have just too many variables. First you'd have to define how one barrel can be better than other barrel,accuracy, amount of fouling, ease of cleaning etc.)

Then you'd have to stick with certain usage and cleaning profile for a barrel,it's different to clean every 5 shots and every 500 shots, cleaning methods differ etc.)

After the test you'd still have majority of people saying that the results won't apply, because they do things differently.

Most of the people I know break custom barrels in for 1-5 shots,until copper fouling practically stops) and that's it. In that case you're not wasting barrel life, just a little bit of your time,actually investing your time for peace of mind in the future

 

[Obtunded]

In radomized multi-center double blind placebo-controlled studies of any pain killer, there will predictably be upwards 30% of the placebo group that report pain relief. Likewise a significant but less predictable number of recipients will report side-effects from a totally inert placebo.

In the absence of quantifiable data, I tend to consider the break-in most beneficial for the shooter and assert it has no verifiable benefit to the barrel.

As to the premise that all barrels are not created equal, I completely and totally agree. The question remains, what exactly are those who practice "breaking-in" trying to achieve? What exactly is the end-point and how do you tell? With that in mind, would not one have to establish a means of evaluating the difference between the ideal "broken-in" state, and the best means to get there from the condition of berrel in-hand?

All very interesting.

 

[82boy]

Dang it, I just thought of somethings that would have skewed my results.

You would have to use top notch components,such as hand made bench rest bullets, prepped lapua brass, etc. The Primers, brass, powder, and bullets would all have to be from the same lot number, and every component would have to be weighed, and each completed round would have to be weighed. Each round would have to be measured for consintrisity., run out) I guess every bullet should have the meplat trimmed as well.
Better results would be obtained from a rail run, inside a controlled environment, with a mechanical trigger.

Still someone would have some excuse as to why the results was wrong.

 

[jthyttin]

In the absence of quantifiable data, I tend to consider the break-in most beneficial for the shooter and assert it has no verifiable benefit to the barrel.

Well put. I might not completely agree, but your point is scientifically sound...

 

[chino1969]

This is a very interesting thread with good contributions from all. We can all learn from each other's experiences and real world examples. Let's hear from more people.

Lou Baccino
Chino69

 

[chino1969]

The question remains, what exactly are those who practice "breaking-in" trying to achieve? What exactly is the end-point and how do you tell? With that in mind, would not one have to establish a means of evaluating the difference between the ideal "broken-in" state, and the best means to get there from the condition of berrel in-hand?

All very interesting.

I couldn't have said that any better; well done!

Lou Baccino
Chino69

 

[jthyttin]

In radomized multi-center double blind placebo-controlled studies of any pain killer, there will predictably be upwards 30% of the placebo group that report pain relief. Likewise a significant but less predictable number of recipients will report side-effects from a totally inert placebo.

Sorry for the off-topic. All of the following is speculation from a layman's perspective:

I'm not familiar with these kind of tests, but to me they seem quite suspectable. One thing, how do you inflict pain? Another thing, how do you compensate for people going numb,getting accustomed to pain)?

Third thing is,and this relates to shooting also), a human being is very sensitive "machine". If you're ever been in love with somebody, been waiting for your first big match, been in a fight, you know that mind has quite much control over body. You could have problems falling asleep, you loose fine motoric skills etc.

Bottom line is, those false positives or negatives belong to the testing procedure. IMHO the testing isn't exact science, it's more like statistics. You cannot completely predict the human reaction,by definition, since otherwise testing would be useless). The results of the tests are more based on the moving average of testing similar products, than on the test results alone.

 

[82boy]

Wow this post has me thinking.
Now I guess that other things that would need monitored as well, during the testing process.
I am willing to bet that barometric pressure, changes in the electromagnetic Field, and seismic activity, as well as other things would need monitored, to have a good test.