Copper removal with bore polish

[Laguna Freak]

I’ve read the multitude of threads on various sites regarding JB and Iosso.
I understand Iosso is reportedly more coarse/aggressive.

My question is, other than the oil carrier, how do these “bore polishes” differ from an automotive, stone, or glass buffing compound?
It is reported that JB is actually a repurposed glass lens buffing compound.

Anyone have some insight?

 

[acloco]

Toothpaste works too!

Dilute whatever you are using.

 

[Idaho-Lefty]

I use JB's ONLY in, the very beginning to Polish, the Throats "Ramp area" and "break", the SHARP Edges of, the Rifling on, my Factory Rifles using, 10-12 One way, "Strokes", of, JB's slathered on, a Patch over, a Bronze Brush,. for "Break in" purposes, Must Clean, Thoroughly,.. THEN, I shoot 5, Clean, shoot 10, Clean again to, help with, Polishing the Bore to, a shiny, "Chrome like" surface. Cleans very easily with, Barnes C-10, after that, and with very little, Carbon Fouling on the polished, ramp area.
I NEVER need, to use, JB's again, after, the First,.. "Break in" !
Have Three Tikka's now and they, ALL "shoot",.. very well, using THIS, method !
Did this Break in, method, to my New, 6 XC RemAge with, a Criterion Barrel and it shoots in, the 3's with, Berger, 80's 95's and 108's !

 

[skeeljc]

Why would you even consider using something other than JB or losso? These products are designed for bore cleaning/polishing and they work very well.

 

[Fuj]

It will be easier on your barrel to remove copper by a chemical
method over a mechanical abrasive method

 

[Brians356]

Or you could use CFE 223 to remove copper fouling. Dick Metcalf, in an article "How CFE Works" in Hodgdon's 2013 edition of their Annual Manual (magazine format), described taking two different rifles with copper fouled bores, running 100 rounds of CFE 223 through them, and reported copper had been completely removed from one rifle (a Stag Arms AR in 223 which had previously been conditioned with CFE, then subsequently fired 100 rounds of non-CFE), and essentially all copper removed from the other (an old copper-fouled Howa in 243 which was notoriously difficult to de-copper.) Borescope photos showed before/after condition. Impractical? Probably, but there it is.
-

 

[K22]

Like everyone else, I've read, heard and been warned about the notorious copper fouling that will destory accuracy and like most everyone else I did my best to remove it. This resulted in a fairly copper free bore but it took several shots to get the rifle to group consistency at the point of impact I needed for varmint hunting. The degree of "settling in" varied somewhat between rifles.

Last year I began researching the net reading as many viewpoints as possible regarding this issue. The reason is I encountered a shooter at the club who only cleaned his precision rifle with Hoppe's No. 9 and / or Mineral Spirits and only after firing about 60 rounds. Of course I thought he was nuts but seeing him shoot great groups made me wonder especially since for years I used Shooter's Choice which does a fair job at best of removing copper and never had issues with first shot flyers or having to "season" the rifle before it shot well enough. However I had to switch because of the odor was bothering the family so I switched to Bore Tech products. Their Cu+2 did a terrific job of removing copper - maybe too good??

Anyway, the shooter referred me to three net videos, gunblue490, tiborauaurusRex and 8541tactical. I read them and didn't believe a word of their claims - just more internet wild tales. The essences of these claims embodied the concept of minimual disturbance cleaning / achieving copper equilibrium by using solvent that tend to just remove the carbon fouling and "some" mimimal amount of copper which happens when using solvents like Hoppe's 9 and Shooter's Choice.

I decided to give it a try on one rifle only cleaning with Bore Tech C4, a carbon remover because I have a lot of it. It does an excellent job of removing carbon and some minimual amount of copper. I was surprised by the results, after fouling the barrel then shooting 60 rounds over a period of time then cleaning with C4 I experienced no first shot flyers and my groups tightened about 1/8" becoming more consistent. I also noticed a gain in velocity of about 50 to 100 f/s. I repeated the process two more times over a period of about 6 months and obtained the very similar results. I plan to continue this process on this rifle until I see a marked decline in precision.

I still don't know if I buy this claim but maybe you may want to see how your rifle continues to shoot with modest cleaning vs. using aggressive substances to remove copper fouling. I'm still testing, going to try it on another rifle.

 

[Danoh]

Good post, a lot of food for thought there.

 

[WayneShaw]

Typically, you need an ammonia product to remove copper fouling. Sweets is a tried and true product. It is thick and tends to hang on to the barrel, so I use a loose patch. Give it 10 minutes then run a white cloth patch, look for blue on the patch. If blue, repeat. When no more blue is on the patch, be sure to swab it clean, and use something like lock-ez on a patch to put a film in the barrel, then shoot again. Stay on top of it with frequent cleaning, the more you shoot, the more it will foul if the barrel is rough.

For heavy copper fouling, the Wipe Out foam does a good overnight cleaning. Load the barrel with it and come back in the morning.

Iosso is more aggressive than JB I think, but won't harm the barrel if used sparingly.

 

[Laguna Freak]

Typically, you need an ammonia product to remove copper fouling. Sweets is a tried and true product. It is thick and tends to hang on to the barrel, so I use a loose patch. Give it 10 minutes then run a white cloth patch, look for blue on the patch. If blue, repeat. When no more blue is on the patch, be sure to swab it clean, and use something like lock-ez on a patch to put a film in the barrel, then shoot again. Stay on top of it with frequent cleaning, the more you shoot, the more it will foul if the barrel is rough.

For heavy copper fouling, the Wipe Out foam does a good overnight cleaning. Load the barrel with it and come back in the morning.

Iosso is more aggressive than JB I think, but won't harm the barrel if used sparingly.

I too use Sweet’s for routine cleaning every 30 rounds or so. As K22 mentioned Hoppe’s, I use Benchrest 9 for overnight soak when copper and carbon get heavy. I usually follow with a thorough poly brushing.

My borescope has always revealed some copper remaining even after soak and follow up with Sweet’s. I don’t anticipate a great benefit from removing all copper.

My original question remains, other than oil carrier, is there any difference between the products mention in my OP? I guess I should have said “effective difference”. I know aluminum oxide is chemically/molecularly different than pumice. But in practical application, what does that matter?

 

[0.1 Aggregate]

Over a decade ago, many contributors to Precision Shooting magazine proposed that chemically removing all the copper fouling left the empty pits and gouges in the bore exposed to the bullet. These were suggested to be great at grabbing chunks off the bullets as they passed, but when these openings were left filled with copper they caused less bullet damage. A mild abrasive which wasn’t hard enough to scratch steel would level the bore surface while leaving some copper behind to keep the pits filled. After reading months of this discussion I started using Remington bore cleaner, which was a mild abrasive suspended in a liquid carrier.

With the two rifles I used for testing - which had very smooth custom bores - I saw no statistically valid difference in accuracy between the Remington abrasive and chemical cleaners when using the same cleaning intervals. Since I cannot find the Remington cleaner now I’ve gone back to chemical cleaners. The main thing I miss is the lack of both the odor and the exposure to nasty carcinogenic chemicals - which were not in the Remington product.




.

 

[Brians356]

I sometimes use Corbin "Benchrest Bore Cleaner" on a tight patch wrapped around a Parker-Hale jag (not around a worn brass brush.)



But now, if a barrel tends to accumulate copper alarmingly, I run a set of Tubb FinalFinish bullets through it. Group sizes, and cleaning time, have both always diminished.
-

 

[Ned Ludd]

I too use Sweet’s for routine cleaning every 30 rounds or so. As K22 mentioned Hoppe’s, I use Benchrest 9 for overnight soak when copper and carbon get heavy. I usually follow with a thorough poly brushing.

My borescope has always revealed some copper remaining even after soak and follow up with Sweet’s. I don’t anticipate a great benefit from removing all copper.

My original question remains, other than oil carrier, is there any difference between the products mention in my OP? I guess I should have said “effective difference”. I know aluminum oxide is chemically/molecularly different than pumice. But in practical application, what does that matter?

As long as the grit size of the buffing compound was the same as the bore-cleaning compound, there is probably little effective difference. It is not uncommon for people using abrasive bore-cleaning compounds such as KG-2 to also include a little Kroil on the patch during use, so even the oil carrier may not represent much of a difference. If there is a significant difference in the price of the automotive buffing compounds, you could easily pick a small container and test it first on an old barrel first, just to convince yourself it was working similarly to the abrasive bore compounds.

With regard to copper removal via chemical means, I agree with Fuj that such an approach will generally be easier and potentially less damaging to the bore than the use of abrasives. Unless the fouling is severe, I would always try a chemical copper remover first. I use Boretech Cu+2 as my copper remover, after first removing the majority of carbon fouling with Boretech C4 Carbon remover. I have been very pleased with the results. Because it is water-based and does not contain ammonia, I typically run several wet patches with the Cu+2 through a barrel during the course of about 2-3 hours, while I am doing other things. This treatment also seems to remove a little more carbon that the initial patches with C4 left behind. A friend once traveled to a match and accidentally stored some Cu+2 in the same box as his loaded ammunition. Somehow, the box was upset during the trip and the copper remover leaked into one of the ammunition boxes. According to him, the copper in some of the bullet jackets was almost completely eaten away in spots by the time he discovered what had happened the next day. If the Cu+2 can eat through a copper jacket, I'd imagine removing even stubborn copper deposits from a bore, which are far less thick than a bullet jacket, shouldn't be an issue.

 

[WayneShaw]

I want to re-emphasize using Wipe Out Foam for an over night clean. It hurts nothing, but it will clean more crap than you know. But at the range, Sweats......etc.....

 

[JEFFPPC]

I want to re-emphasize using Wipe Out Foam for an over night clean. It hurts nothing, but it will clean more crap than you know. But at the range, Sweats......etc.....

You hit on the magic word. Soak.....soak....Soak. I soak overnight with Sweets until no blue. I soak for days with Hoppes and Kroil mix.Does the job.