High Performance Rifle Barrel Cleaning - Video

[Steve Jennings]

Thank you Bryan. Especially about the "money" comment.
Due to my ignorance on this and many other issues with F Class shooting I have an observation: I cleaned by your method, and it pretty much worked. The bore was clean looking at it with the bore scope. Then I applied a load of Bore Tech Copper remover. It soaked for three hours (the barrel was worn out for sure) and the patch came out bright blue. Am I correct to deduce that polishing with Bore Bright does not remove copper or is it not important to be concerned about this copper left in the barrel?

 

[dgeesaman]

Thank you Bryan. Especially about the "money" comment.
Due to my ignorance on this and many other issues with F Class shooting I have an observation: I cleaned by your method, and it pretty much worked. The bore was clean looking at it with the bore scope. Then I applied a load of Bore Tech Copper remover. It soaked for three hours (the barrel was worn out for sure) and the patch came out bright blue. Am I correct to deduce that polishing with Bore Bright does not remove copper or is it not important to be concerned about this copper left in the barrel?

On a worn barrel I expect you'll always have copper down in the fire cracks if you're only cleaning with polishing. Soaking with solvent might bring it out but if you've polished all of the working surfaces, does it matter?

 

[47WillysGuy]

On a worn barrel I expect you'll always have copper down in the fire cracks if you're only cleaning with polishing. Soaking with solvent might bring it out but if you've polished all of the working surfaces, does it matter?

When I read Brian’s initial paragraph, I read the word “cleaning” four or five times and assumed his method would “clean” remove most of the copper and carbon fouling from a barrel.

Probably a better word to use in that first paragraph should have been “polish”.

I think it’s a good process to get a few more miles out of a barrel and I will use it. I learn something every time I experiment. Merry Christmas You All!

 

[seymour fish]

Litz uses very narrow parameters in his claims. For example, this video about abrasive cleaning is specifically only about "high performance" cartridges. It does not apply to most rifles.

Also not using a bore guide "in MRADs" is a very narrow parameter. Nowhere did he say in all rifles. MRADs make up a tiny fraction of all rifles, even rifles used by members of this forum.

Plainly speaking, both of Litz's comments don't apply to hardly anybody at all, just a very few specific rifles and cartridges that most people don't own. So I'm not even sure why he posted that video in the first place. Zero videos posted on his channel in 13 years, and then bam he drops the high performance barrel cleaning video that only applies to a very select few shooters. Interesting.

Consider some of his other claims, with very narrow parameters. Like on barrel tuners. His tests did not show tuners improved precision. But when you look at what his test was, you scratch your head and wonder why his tests totally ignored the manufacturer's instructions and why he made up his own instructions. Since his tests were the "wrong" way to use a tuner, his test showed tuners don't work. A very narrow test that was not meaningful for most tuner users.

this Video is the first one of his in a long time that I have enjoyed, since it follows methods I’ve used successfully since the Hawkeye came out, on a wide variety of bbls of varying “performance” intensity. No sense bringing up the lackluster stuff he’s brought out, as he may have turned the corner ? Magnificent grasp of the obvious comes to mind now.

 

[seymour fish]

Sir, we did this. It's published in: Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting - Volume 3.

Here's an excerpt from page 79:

"The manufacturer suggests the following test to determine the best tuner setting for precision:

Fire a single 3-shot group at 2 hash-mark increments for a little more than a revolution. Look for a range of small groups where the POI is consistent."

We proceeded to follow these instructions for 16 tuner settings, every 2 hash marks. This gave us about 1 and 1/3 revolutions of the tuner. For simplicity, we named these settings 1 thru 16, note that setting 12 is one full revolution from the start."

The book then goes on to show our results of shooting groups at every 2 hashmarks thru that range. We swept it 3 times, and each time the 'best groups' were at very different tuner settings. Also the worse groups were at different settings too.

It's very frustrating to have done all this work, publish it, then see it misrepresented. The way you describe our work on tuners implies you either didn't read it, or gave a selective account to make it appear that our test was bad.

I invite you and any other readers who are curious about the testing we did on tuners, to read about it directly from the source, and not rely on second hand accounts.

-Bryan

Bryan, I don’t recall the specifics of your tuner test. A typical list of variables would include 1) conditions 2) flags 3) mirage 4) state of bore fouling 5) baseline accuracy of the system 6) consistent point of aim vs holding off 7) barrel heat 8) appropriate tuner weight for barrel stiffness 9) same shooter vs more than one 10) shooter fatigue 11) method of shooting: full-on benchrest setup vs bipod/ rear bag, etc. Consider that a system with poor accuracy will bury any Slight tuner improvement in the noise, while already shooting in the low Ones would be hard to improve by any means. Consider that in centerfire it is used to Stay in tune across variable conditions, with a load already perfected. Thus I think you put your test to the wrong question. Did the failure of decent groups to repeat coincide with environmental changes, and if so, how many increments away from the initial best setting did the second sweep decent group occur ? There are a considerable number of national and international competitors using tuners as described, and winning. It defies logic that they would do so without some perceived benefit. Perhaps one of them would be willing to give a demonstration. Seymour

 

[jackieschmidt]

Bryan, I don’t recall the specifics of your tuner test. A typical list of variables would include 1) conditions 2) flags 3) mirage 4) state of bore fouling 5) baseline accuracy of the system 6) consistent point of aim vs holding off 7) barrel heat 8) appropriate tuner weight for barrel stiffness 9) same shooter vs more than one 10) shooter fatigue 11) method of shooting: full-on benchrest setup vs bipod/ rear bag, etc. Consider that a system with poor accuracy will bury any Slight tuner improvement in the noise, while already shooting in the low Ones would be hard to improve by any means. Consider that in centerfire it is used to Stay in tune across variable conditions, with a load already perfected. Thus I think you put your test to the wrong question. Did the failure of decent groups to repeat coincide with environmental changes, and if so, how many increments away from the initial best setting did the second sweep decent group occur ? There are a considerable number of national and international competitors using tuners as described, and winning. It defies logic that they would do so without some perceived benefit. Perhaps one of them would be willing to give a demonstration. Seymour

I have been using my own design Tuner in Short Range Group and Score for decades.

In fact, if you look back through the NBRSA Archives, you will see that I was one of the Shooters who played a big roll in getting Tuners declared legal in NBRSA Competition. You can take my word in this was no easy task.

I do not use a tuner the way most manufacturers say. The main reason is in the final scope of things, the actual load, (which includes powder charge, neck tension, and seating depth), is much more important in achieving a competitive tune than a tuner.

My Main use of my tuners is in Score, where I can control the amount of horizontal or vertical sensitivity in a Match. If I catch myself in a tune that for what ever reason is extremely wind sensitive despite my best efforts, I can barely turn the tuner and (hopefully) induce about a bullet hole of vertical, which I can sometimes live with in Varmint for Score. NOT in Group.

I really don’t care how others use a tuner, or even if they choose to use one or not. I know from my own experience how a tuner is capable of affecting the barrels performance as well as it’s limitations In use.

 

[seymour fish]

I have been using my own design Tuner in Short Range Group and Score for decades.

In fact, if you look back through the NBRSA Archives, you will see that I was one of the Shooters who played a big roll in getting Tuners declared legal in NBRSA Competition. You can take my word in this was no easy task.

I do not use a tuner the way most manufacturers say. The main reason is in the final scope of things, the actual load, (which includes powder charge, neck tension, and seating depth), is much more important in achieving a competitive tune than a tuner.

My Main use of my tuners is in Score, where I can control the amount of horizontal or vertical sensitivity in a Match. If I catch myself in a tune that for what ever reason is extremely wind sensitive despite my best efforts, I can barely turn the tuner and (hopefully) induce about a bullet hole of vertical, which I can sometimes live with in Varmint for Score. NOT in Group.

I really don’t care how others use a tuner, or even if they choose to use one or not. I know from my own experience how a tuner is capable of affecting the barrels performance as well as it’s limitations In use.

Jackie, that is a fact in 22 lr benchrest, too.

 

[Badhabit]

I must have really missed something. What i got from Brian's video was the fact that firecracking over time will increase pressure and velocity. This needs to be controlled with abrasives. Different cartridges and powders increase these effects on barrels at different rates and his JB approach he has found to bring this back into check. I don't think for one minute it was meant to be a one size fits all for general barrel cleaning.

 

[jelenko]

I must have really missed something. What i got from Brian's video was the fact that firecracking over time will increase pressure and velocity. This needs to be controlled with abrasives. Different cartridges and powders increase these effects on barrels at different rates and his JB approach he has found to bring this back into check. I don't think for one minute it was meant to be a one size fits all for general barrel cleaning.

Exactly.

 

[Infrequent Shooter]

I have been using my own design Tuner in Short Range Group and Score for decades.

In fact, if you look back through the NBRSA Archives, you will see that I was one of the Shooters who played a big roll in getting Tuners declared legal in NBRSA Competition. You can take my word in this was no easy task.

I do not use a tuner the way most manufacturers say. The main reason is in the final scope of things, the actual load, (which includes powder charge, neck tension, and seating depth), is much more important in achieving a competitive tune than a tuner.

My Main use of my tuners is in Score, where I can control the amount of horizontal or vertical sensitivity in a Match. If I catch myself in a tune that for what ever reason is extremely wind sensitive despite my best efforts, I can barely turn the tuner and (hopefully) induce about a bullet hole of vertical, which I can sometimes live with in Varmint for Score. NOT in Group.

I really don’t care how others use a tuner, or even if they choose to use one or not. I know from my own experience how a tuner is capable of affecting the barrels performance as well as it’s limitations In use.

Jackie, Do you have any second thoughts on getting tuners admitted for use?

 

[DiRTY DOG]

Sir, we did this. It's published in: Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting - Volume 3.

Here's an excerpt from page 79:

"The manufacturer suggests the following test to determine the best tuner setting for precision:

Fire a single 3-shot group at 2 hash-mark increments for a little more than a revolution. Look for a range of small groups where the POI is consistent."

We proceeded to follow these instructions for 16 tuner settings, every 2 hash marks. This gave us about 1 and 1/3 revolutions of the tuner. For simplicity, we named these settings 1 thru 16, note that setting 12 is one full revolution from the start."

The book then goes on to show our results of shooting groups at every 2 hashmarks thru that range. We swept it 3 times, and each time the 'best groups' were at very different tuner settings. Also the worse groups were at different settings too.

It's very frustrating to have done all this work, publish it, then see it misrepresented. The way you describe our work on tuners implies you either didn't read it, or gave a selective account to make it appear that our test was bad.

I invite you and any other readers who are curious about the testing we did on tuners, to read about it directly from the source, and not rely on second hand accounts.

-Bryan

Fair enough. The podcasts you did made it sound otherwise, that you intentionally tested outside the parameters of common/suggested use. I haven't seen or heard you dispute that until now, despite other people's question/comments here and on other forums.

For example, you did not contest Erik Cortina in The Science of Accuracy Podcast #82 Barrel Tuning with Erik Cortina 54:00-57:00.

54:00 Litz- "The reality is we tested very specific guns in very specific ways,and our findings are what they are"...
54:55 Litz- ..."The way that we tested, which was the way the instructions said to test, those were the results"...
54:40 Litz- "The tests that we did, and the results that we got, unless they're, unless someone finds direct fault with those tests, then those outcomes are what they are"...
56:00 Cortina- "So one thing that you guys did, that I certainly did not say to do, was to, uh, was to test like every revolution, right. And you know, I don't see a problem with doing that, other than, uh, it's just something that I've never done or even tested, so I have no idea if that has any validity or not, right? So I certainly never said to do that".

 

[gmr4]

Hey Bryan thanks for thinking of us and doing the video and posting. I am currently struggling to arrive at a cleaning routine for F Open 7pRCW. Abrasives in general cause a lot of debate. Anyway hope you come back with more great info

 

[STORM2]

Perfect timing. First cleaning on used Weatherby 375 was in the cleaning vise when I found this.
Thanks Bryan.

 

[47WillysGuy]

Perfect timing. First cleaning on used Weatherby 375 was in the cleaning vise when I found this.
Thanks Bryan.

FYI: It’s not for a cleaning of a bore, more of a polish. Bryan uses the word “cleaning “ in his first post about 4 times. I also thought it was a new method of cleaning.

After I rodded my bore (.308 Win with 40 shots) with 60 strokes of JB Bore paste, I ran a couple patches and Bore Tech and the patches turned a pretty blue.

I think it’ll work great on a high count barrel to smooth the alligator skin at the barrel lands. I will probably use the process every 600 rounds or so.

The process will get the carbon out, not so much the copper, but it surely will polish .

I recommend reading through all the comments.

 

[Codyway]

View attachment 1613854
On 12-9, I did a target practice session at our local range putting 39 rounds of Lapua cases loaded with Varget 43.55 gr; and Berger 200.20x projectiles. The gun is a Remington 700 action chambered to a .308 Winchester and has almost 2000 rounds through it. Chronographed loads by Garmin at 2642.2 average FPS (Is this a High performance cartridge?)

I usually spend about a week cleaning the barrel after a shoot: shoot Saturday F-Class competition, start cleaning Saturday evening and finish 6-7 days later. I use Pro-Shot patches and Bore Tech Eliminator for all my barrel cleaning. I wanted to find a process that would reduce the time the gun is being cleaned.

Saturday - Using JB Bore paste, I stroked that barrel with 2 sets of 30 strokes (one stroke is to the muzzle and back to the chamber 30 times). I cleaned the residue out (patches 3,4,5,6) then put the Bore Tech and let it set (patches 7-8).

Sunday - 4 patches, 2 in the morning and 2 in the evening. (Patches 9-12)
Monday - 4 patches, 2 in the morning and 2 in the evening. (Patches 13-16)
Tuesday - 4 patches, 2 in the morning and 2 in the evening. (Patches 17-19)
Wednesday -2 patches, 1 in the morning and 1 in the afternoon. (Patches 20-21)
Patch 21 is satisfactory for a cleaned barrel. There's some copper still in the barrel.

I was hoping that the 60 strokes of JB Bore Paste would do a better job of copper removal. I don't think JB reduces the time it takes to clean the barrel to my standards. May revisit this process later with a bore scope to check out the roughness of the barrel!

What is a "High Performance" cartridge? Is it defined by bullet diameter, amount of powder, chamber pressure, or feet per second?

So, on a 2 or more day match, how do you prepare for the next day?

Shooting pretty much the same ftr load except with n150, here's what I do.
I like to start a match with what I call a 95% clean. 3-4 patches of clr over 30 min, flush with ipa. 3x tight patches loaded with iosso 25 strokes each, flush with ipa between and after. Bore scope to make sure any carbon ring is mostly gone and nothing bad stands out. This usually gets me where I want to be in less than an hour.
To prepare for 2nd day, assuming it's shooting well, I'll hit it with clr, then one go with iosso, flush with ipa and call it good. 45 min tops.
Observations
Remeasured the throat at 1900 rounds and it was 0.021" longer. Did a seating test, and wound up 0.003 longer than the original load.
My 95% clean will typically impact 1st shot around 2 moa low at 1000y, and be pretty true at shot 4. I have gotten carried away with cleaning and shot 1 would miss low and shot 2 might be 3-4 moa low.
Barrel is at 2300 rds now and still shoots fine, with fine for me being around 0.5-0.6 moa vertical in good conditions, which is as good as I can do.
There has been a few times in the life of the barrel that I may see "too much" copper. I would soak it with something like Montana's and or additional patches of iosso.
I do feel like the iosso "maintains" a consistent level of smoothness in the fire cracking and keeps it consistent, which is what Brian is shooting for as well.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Jackie, Do you have any second thoughts on getting tuners admitted for use?

Not at all.

I see more and more tuners in use than ever before in Benchrest.

 

[47WillysGuy]

So, on a 2 or more day match, how do you prepare for the next day

I take a gun to a match cleaned to bare metal and fire 68-70 rounds the first day. 3 relays.

After the match, I run about 10 patches with Bore Tech through the barrel, enough to get most of the carbon.

The second day there’s only two relays which requires about 50 rounds. So I’m good with a very minimal cleaning.

 

[vegas]

I've never used JB Paste before but would like to give this a try on my 6 creedmoor barrel. I see a few JB products. Is this the correct one:

Brownells J-B Non-Embedding Bore Cleaning Compound Gun Barrel Cleaner Solvent Oil-Paste

Many thanks!

 

[Bc'z]

I've never used JB Paste before but would like to give this a try on my 6 creedmoor barrel. I see a few JB products. Is this the correct one:

Brownells J-B Non-Embedding Bore Cleaning Compound Gun Barrel Cleaner Solvent Oil-Paste

Many thanks!

Get the blue lable, red is more aggressive

 

[jackieschmidt]

I know JB has been around forever. Glenn Newick refers to it in his book, which was published in the late 1980’s.

Has the formula changed any since it’s conception?