Break-in video

[1859sharps]

I haven't seen much of any worthwhile comments itt so far. Ones related to hunting rifles are not relevant to this thread. The discussion on jags was worthwhile and I admit it gave me pause when I saw it in the video, but since I use plastic jags anyway, it's not relevant to me.

All I've seen from you is snarky retorts about how the video author doesn't seem to meet your approval, but you haven't said what about this specific video you disagree with. I really don't care what you think about his other videos if it isn't relevant to the video in the op.

The video link I posted is very relevant as it has thoughts on break in by a very knowledgeable and experienced rifle shooter, including what we would call extreme long range. personally I would take his thoughts and experience over any other source so far posted in this thread. BUT of course each of you has to review the arguments/data (mostly there is a lack in support) and make your own decision.

The gun in the video is custom built for precision/PRS with a Bartlein barrel. It's NOT a hunting rifle.

Based on my research, having a custom high quality barrel should negate the need to even think you need to break in a barrel. Todd has some interesting inside info and thoughts on this. I encourage listening to them. I posted the times for where in the video he starts talking about it.

at the end of the day, your rifle, your money. but because there is basically no evidence to support it, be sure to consider the ethics of telling someone to follow an alleged procedure that could damage or shorten the life of their barrel they spent their money on, not yours.

[mmlook]

I haven't seen much of any worthwhile comments itt so far. Ones related to hunting rifles are not relevant to this thread. The discussion on jags was worthwhile and I admit it gave me pause when I saw it in the video, but since I use plastic jags anyway, it's not relevant to me.

All I've seen from you is snarky retorts about how the video author doesn't seem to meet your approval, but you haven't said what about this specific video you disagree with. I really don't care what you think about his other videos if it isn't relevant to the video in the op.

you only asked for comments...

imo, you should be cleaning the least amount as possible

less cleaning = less chances to mess up the bore or crown

and, less rounds you have to waste fouling the barrel to get the velocity and accuracy stable again.

[LynnJr]

The link posted by Longrange1 has alot to do with Benchrest shooting but was explained poorly.
I don't think he had 0.015 variation as was pointed out by Erik.
I think he got the decimal point in the wrong place by one digit which is quite common.
As to bumping the shoulder 0.002 from new brass I agree with eagle eye but so does Erik. The brass won't be tight in the chamber after one firing so bumping 0.002 means nothing as you don't have an accurate starting point to go off of.
I disagree with Erik completely that the plunger will hold the cone together during ignition. I agree it will not give the best concentricity with 0.002 bump over a fitted bump.
Where we part ways is that you will notice all this with a Precision Rifle.

SigStroker
The purpose of barrel break-in is to lay down the perpendicular scratches made during the reaming process. It does nothing for the chamber or for the unaffected length of the barrel just the area right in front of the case mouth known as the throat or leade.
It doesn't improve accuracy it gets you to peak accuracy quicker. This can all be seen with a borescope for those who have one.
His video was horribly worded but contained many reloading techniques that are quite common.

His sand comments were horribly stated but a single kernel of powder can lock up a tight fitting bolt. At the same time you can imprint a kernel of powder into the case body with leverage and fire the round.

When the various disciplines get to arguing over what works best I tend to ask which shoots the smaller groups and why.
A ten pound cat just stepped on my head or I wouldn't be posting at 2AM.

[longrange1]

I haven't seen much of any worthwhile comments itt so far. Ones related to hunting rifles are not relevant to this thread. The discussion on jags was worthwhile and I admit it gave me pause when I saw it in the video, but since I use plastic jags anyway, it's not relevant to me.

All I've seen from you is snarky retorts about how the video author doesn't seem to meet your approval, but you haven't said what about this specific video you disagree with. I really don't care what you think about his other videos if it isn't relevant to the video in the op.

typical...and why i do not post in most of your threads...YOU post a video and the one word you post with it is "comments?"....i(and others)post comments then i ask you a question and you want to be a punk to everyone thats posted...like i said typical of you.

now as far as the video you posted goes...ive watched a few of his videos and after watching the few i did this kid has nothing to offer me that would make me watch anymore of his videos....as i said on another forum where one of his videos was posted with pretty much the same question...

i think the kid means well and has potential but he lacks experience and needs to stop talking like his way is the end all be all of shooting...you ask 10 ppl about barrel break in...or anything for that matter...and your going to get 10 different answers.

now me personally...i go against the grain of what a lot of ppl think about barrel break in and cleaning....i dont give a **** if your barrel is hand lapped to a mirror finish...when the chamber is cut it cuts AGAINST the lapping and creates tooling marks in the throat i dont care how sharp your reamer is or how slow the chamber is cut the tooling marks are still there.

ive shot out over 30 barrels and will tell you this ive done no break in all the way to the full 50 break in...IMHO the 50 is way over kill and a waste of barrel life but in my experience a little break in makes the barrel easier to clean...accuracy seems to be more consistent and they seem to last a bit longer...i have NO scientific proof of this just something ive noticed...i keep strict records on my rifle and note when odd things happen....not 1 round goes threw my barrels that is not logged.

as far as cleaning....IMHO and what ive seen and noted a clean-ish barrel shoots better...i clean every 150-200 rounds...i also had a carbon ring once and do not want to deal with that crap ever again....it basically ruined a low round count barrel.

as i said EVERYONE has a different opinion on ALL OF THIS....do what works for you and stop worrying about what everyone else does because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is what you think and what works for you.

[DueceMcGurk]

"A ten pound cat just stepped on my head or I wouldn't be posting at 2AM."

That explains everything. Posting after a late night "cat concussion".

[1859sharps]

...you ask 10 ppl about barrel break in...or anything for that matter...and your going to get 10 different answers.

did you know that I am able to keep Tigers out of Santa Cruz county by doing a jig every night for 30 seconds while facing the giant dipper? do you know how I know it works? Been in Santa Cruz county for 39 years and I have never seen a Tiger.

That is the level of scientific support barrel break in has, and that is why if you ask 10 people you get 10 different answers.

The data does not yet support the conclusions. heck there isn't even data to support the argument that there is a problem that even is fixable by barrel break in. there are tons of factors that go into results on paper that have to be taken into account, that are not being.

and before anyone says you can see it with a bore scope, yes I know you can see something with a bore scope. but is that something actually the reason you are not achieving the groups you want? is that something actually and truly a problem?

I personally don't have to supply data or anything because my stance is simply the data/arguments are not yet supporting the conclusion. I am happy to admit barrel breakin is beneficial, but there needs to be data to support this, and there simply isn't. The most critical missing piece of data is control for not having broke in a barrel. The next most critical missing piece is consistent data collection.

as it stands, right now, barrel break in is received wisdom, based on superstitious learning.

[longrange1]

did you know that I am able to keep Tigers out of Santa Cruz county by doing a jig every night for 30 seconds while facing the giant dipper? do you know how I know it works? Been in Santa Cruz county for 39 years and I have never seen a Tiger.

That is the level of scientific support barrel break in has, and that is why if you ask 10 people you get 10 different answers.

The data does not yet support the conclusions. heck there isn't even data to support the argument that there is a problem that even is fixable by barrel break in. there are tons of factors that go into results on paper that have to be taken into account, that are not being.

and before anyone says you can see it with a bore scope, yes I know you can see something with a bore scope. but is that something actually the reason you are not achieving the groups you want? is that something actually and truly a problem?

I personally don't have to supply data or anything because my stance is simply the data/arguments are not yet supporting the conclusion. I am happy to admit barrel breakin is beneficial, but there needs to be data to support this, and there simply isn't. The most critical missing piece of data is control for not having broke in a barrel. The next most critical missing piece is consistent data collection.

as it stands, right now, barrel break in is received wisdom, based on superstitious learning.

[1859sharps]

I agree 100% about there’s no scientific data and I even stated that I just know what I’ve personally seen and what works for me...and I also agree with you that there are to many variables to come to a scientific conclusion.

oh I picked up on that. sorry, should have removed your name from the quote so it was more clear I was addressing the comment about ask 10 people get 10 different answers and not you specifically.

I strongly encourage people to listen to what Todd says in the link I posted back at the beginning. this guy "geeks out" on this stuff, has a shooting pedigree that few people in the entire world have. his comments corroborate years later some of Gale McMillan's over on the thefireling.com regarding break in.

One of Todd's most interesting and thought provoking comments was him relating the answer he got from a barrel manufacture.

I know it is off topic, but he is also experimenting with twist rates, making them faster. the results of this strongly suggest claiming the demise of 308 is quite premature and that 308 is capable of longer ranges than people think given traditional twist rates. very thought provoking stuff.

point being...he is worth listening to and giving some thought to what he shares.

[diver160651]

Break-in video

FWIW the link I posted saying scary had less to do with bumping or not bumping, but the presentation, poor implementation, gear combo all while presenting he knows it all; a common them in several of his videos.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LynnJr]

Longrange1
It's hard to watch a poorly worded video with a guy who shoots 3/4 moa groups with a custom barrel and a known accurate round. With a 6 BR it's difficult to make one shoot that poorly.

1895Sharps
Just because someone has a long history of shooting doesn't mean they know much about how things work.
My father reloaded ammo for 50+ years and set a world record(my ammo) and I wouldn't use his ammo to shoot an elephant locked into a small barn.
As to barrel break-in it's the same thing as cleaning your barrel.
Nobody forces you to do anything.
As to the science aspect I am not a scientist but if I take out my borescope and look down a brand new barrel I see perpendicular scratches.
That isn't very scientific it's just what I see with one eye.
One eye because that's how a Hawkeye borescope works.
If I shoot the barrel 200 rounds and look at the same area 99-44/100% of those perpendicular scratches are now gone.
Again no science involved just a one eyed observation.
If I break in my barrel usually around 7-8 shots because I am very impatient by nature I see 99-44/100% of those same perpendicular scratches are now gone.
Again no scientific proof but the rifle that set that record had just over 140 rounds on it.

DueceMcGirk
Cat let me sleep in this Sunday morning and the response is still the same.
The guy in the video lacks experience and the minute you claim your way is the only way the battle is on.
On a short-range Benchrest gun in 6BR the brass is 1.5 inches long and has a long neck. It is easier the ream a straighter chamber on a 1.5 inch cartridge than on a 4 inch 50 BMG.
In a nutshell the videos posted are only good for the discipline these guys shoot.
If you look at the videos posted by Erik Corrina a Team Lapua F-Class shooter he talks about full length sizing is the only way to go. In his video he asks Benchrest Hall of Fame shooter Thomas "Speedy" Gonzales about it and Speedy says that's why we invented the Type S die made now by Redding.
If you watch his tuner video read the comments section about how marvelous this new invention and technology is a d praise the Lord that Erik invented it.
After puking I went back to a rimfire forum where the world's most accurate 22 gunsmith Bill Calfee gas been using them for 30 years as has Browning.

The more people keep an open mind the sooner we will all be shooting tiny groups. Give it another 10 years and wizzbang shooter triple xxx will say he won all his matches because he broke in his barrel and this brand new invention called barrel break-in will cause the sun to rise and set.

Nobody pointed out the big gouges in the lands on that barrel in the video was the real surprise.

[1859sharps]

1895Sharps
Just because someone has a long history of shooting doesn't mean they know much about how things work.

True. but in this case based on who Todd is, what he does, I am fairly sure he knows more about how this stuff works than possibly all of us. To me, he is a true expert. which is someone who is aware they don't know it all yet and actively tries to learn what it is they don't yet know.

As to the science aspect I am not a scientist...

respectfully, this is very clear. you keep pointing to evidence of scratches and concluding there is a problem because there is a scratch. that is a bit circular in reasoning in absence of any tests to confirm scratches are a problem.

That the rifle set a record is not proof of anything except maybe your skills as a shooter.

why are none of these things proof? because you have not performed any controls. nor shown evidence of results had you not done a barrel break in.

For us to truly know the answer to the break in question

1. we would need several rifles configured as close to identical as possible
2. divide the rifles in two groups. One group is just shot, one group gets a break in procedure
3. the break in procedure would need to be carefully done to ensure it is done as identical as possible to each of the break in group
4. need near identical ammunition
5. need to eliminate human factor when pulling the trigger
6. need to factor in/out any other factor that would affect groupings.

then based on statistical average we compare the two groups and now would have something. I figure you would need 20 rifles to start, 10 in each group.

Them of course we would need document everything so the results and process is reviewed for errors in logic/conclusions/procedures

the final piece of course is replication. can someone else follow our documentation and replicate the results.

that is a glimpse of what it would take to look at this truly scientific.

in the meantime we can question the logic/reasoning for the pro break in arguments and see if they hold up to what we do know. does the evidence support the conclusion.

For example, you point to scratches as a problem. But why? what leads to this conclusion. does what we do KNOW about the process of a cartridge being chambered, primer ignited, powder burning and moving the bullet, bullet leaving the brass case, traveling the distance to rifling, entering the rifling, traveling down the rifled part of barrel, and exiting all support the conclusion scratches are a problem.

Next, if there is support for such a conclusion, what do we gain from a formal break in vs just shooting if both achieve the same thing, smoothing out the scratches/burs? what evidence supports one over the other? The cleaning step of break in seems "risky" in terms of chance of damage vs rounds expended. does the barrel even need to be clean to smooth out the scratches? what does the smoothing of scratches actually give us?

lots and lots of questions, but no real solid answers.

I used to do barrel break in back in the day, because that is what the "experts" said was the thing to do. more I learn, the less I am convinced. But I am 100% open to actual evidence to change my mind again.

[DueceMcGurk]

Lynn,
Thanks for your comments.
This has been an informative thread. Timing is perfect. I have a new bolt rifle coming on Tuesday.
Stay safe and get your sleep. Take a "cat"nap today.

[LynnJr]

1895Sharps
Much of what you have asked was answered 20+ years ago on the Benchrest forums.
The perpendicular scratches collect the gilding metal from the bullet then carbon fouling from the powder.
The only thing a break-in has ever done was to smooth out the perpendicular scratches.
A Benchrest barrel properly broken in shoots lights out immediately after the break-in.
Edit
Edit
Edit

That tip from me is worth all the issues I have ever caused on this forum so copy it down before it gets deleted.
If your rifles shoot half inch groups I would clean the barrel every 350-400 rounds if at all.

Edit