A Slightly Lazy Man's Barrel Break In Procedure.

[1859sharps]

I have yet to hear how you can prove that a given barrel is shooting better because of having or not having "broke" it in.

how do you prove the path not taken in this case?

[Merc1138]

I have yet to hear how you can prove that a given barrel is shooting better because of having or not having "broke" it in.

how do you prove the path not taken in this case?

Extensive testing using a large sample of barrels(at least 100, preferably a lot more) with a variety of break-in procedures with the non break-in procedure barrels as the control group, then analyze the results for any trends.

The problem is that it's a very expensive and very time consuming proposition when you consider how many variables you're going to have to try and control.

[pronstar]

"If there are two ways to do a maintenance procedure, and there is a decades-long argument about which one works better without any definitive conclusion, they are both fine and you should use the one that is easier."

I love this statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1859sharps]

Extensive testing using a large sample of barrels(at least 100, preferably a lot more) with a variety of break-in procedures with the non break-in procedure barrels as the control group, then analyze the results for any trends.

The problem is that it's a very expensive and very time consuming proposition when you consider how many variables you're going to have to try and control.

yes and no.

Even if I had 100 barrels that were carefully crafted from a single manufacture, is it possible to have the barrels identical enough that you could say test 50 with a particular break in method and just shoot 50, compare results and have anything more than a correlative set of data for these 100 barrels. would this data realistically translate to other batches? what about different manufacturing methods etc.

Also, say you take barrel A, use a break in procedure. how do you know the results wouldn't be the same had not you not broke in that barrel? how do you know if you actually decreased or increased accuracy for a given barrel.

When you have a one way process that you can't back out, and try the "other option" on the same barrel, we are left with superstition, speculation, and occasional but reasonable correlative data, but nothing definitive.

since it is generally felt each barrel is it's own "individual", I am not sure we can ever have a definitive answer to this question. we have anecdotal evidence for the most part. and if someone had the time and money, they might be able to do what you describe and develop some correlative data worth considering given a specific set of manufacturing tolerances, procedures etc.

I am so not sure given most real life uses and ranges people should even bother or loose sleep over this.

[Merc1138]

yes and no.

Even if I had 100 barrels that were carefully crafted from a single manufacture, is it possible to have the barrels identical enough that you could say test 50 with a particular break in method and just shoot 50, compare results and have anything more than a correlative set of data for these 100 barrels. would this data realistically translate to other batches? what about different manufacturing methods etc.

Also, say you take barrel A, use a break in procedure. how do you know the results wouldn't be the same had not you not broke in that barrel? how do you know if you actually decreased or increased accuracy for a given barrel.

When you have a one way process that you can't back out, and try the "other option" on the same barrel, we are left with superstition, speculation, and occasional but reasonable correlative data, but nothing definitive.

since it is generally felt each barrel is it's own "individual", I am not sure we can ever have a definitive answer to this question. we have anecdotal evidence for the most part. and if someone had the time and money, they might be able to do what you describe and develop some correlative data given a specific set of manufacturing tolerances, procedures etc.

I am so not sure given most real life uses and ranges people should even bother or loose sleep over this.

That's why I said you'd need a large sample of barrels, some to break in, some to not, and then analyze the results from the testing to see if any trends appear. I seriously doubt that even 100 barrels would be enough to begin showing anything one way or the other, as you'd need enough barrels to make any difference in manufacturing(a Monday barrel vs. a Friday evening barrel) insignificant.

It's not like you could actually perform this test and have it mean anything just pulling random rifles off of the shelf. You'd seriously need to order a few hundred barrels from one manufacturer as identical as possible, some to be broken in and some to not be broken in. At that point you'd run into the problem of needing to load all of the ammo for these as consistently as possible(considering it would take a few hundred barrels, we're talking thousands of rounds). While there are machine rests that could be used to eliminate the human factor(this would still be massively time consuming), you'd still need to do something about the actions over time(you're not going to do this with one action, but you'd also need to account for wear on the receivers, bolts, and so on) and maintaining consistency of the installation of barrels to those actions.

You most certainly wouldn't be running the break-in and no break-in tests on the same barrel, as that would eliminate the no break-in testing which is effectively the control group. 500 rounds through a barrel from the factory, and then another 500 with break-in in the same barrel would tell us nothing, as you don't "break in" a barrel after already putting 500 rounds through it.

This is ignoring that you'd have to run all of this in the most controlled of environments possible(there are some indoor range setups that would allow this... but you'd need access and time) where you'd have the time and resources to do all of that.

The entire point would be to determine "can break-in make a difference?", not "does it matter if I break in my off the shelf SPS?".

You're right that practically speaking, it's irrelevant... to most people. There are some who would be interested in it for the sake of ultimate accuracy, but putting together and running such a test for those people is quite a tall order. The funniest part about this, is since the test would require being very specific about the break in method used... you'll still have people claiming that some other break in method would have produced a different result. Even if you were to conduct the test with 10 break in methods, someone is going to come up with an 11th and claim the test is meaningless since their method wasn't used unless the results were massively lopsided towards the non broken in barrels(then you're still going to have people complaining about the cartridge used, the reamers used, the projectiles, it'll never end).

Since it's so unrealistic, you should either

Break in your barrel because some people do and they say it works(no one seems to be able to identify any problems due to a break-in procedure, as long as you're not jacking up the bore).

or

Follow the sentiments posted by dskit and Shakey.

[Khromo]

If you like books, and want to read a meticulous barrel break-in procedure, check out The Ultimate in Rifle Accuracy by Glenn Newick. Should be cheap on Amazon, or free at the library (maybe)...

I just got the book. The post office delivered it to two different addresses before they got it to me.

Thanks a lot for the tip. That is a great book! I haven't hit the part on barrel break in yet, but I am really enjoying it!

[mif_slim]

My break-in barrel was 10rd sight in, 1 round on deer.

[GraveTPO]

Break in is a myth.

Exactly.