AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/15/2009 11:19:47 AM EDT
| Why is it that a bore snake cannot be a replacement for the jag/patch cleaning method? Im not saying anyone is right or wrong, Im just simply curious to the reasoning behind it. When I clean with a patch I usually only get about 30 percent of coverage as the jag slide down through the barrel because the section on the patch that hooks on to the attatchment is always thicker the the rest of the patch following behind. But with a bore snake there is 360 degree coverage and it is tight as could be. Plus the bore snakes have a section of brass fibers that act as a brass brush. Now im not saying that a brass brush should not be used in addition to the bore snake or patch, but just from a pure patch vs bore snake comparison, the only point of either is to mop up the residue/carbon. Granted you clean the bore snake every couple of passes. Especially if the barrel is still semi hot and the carbon has not solidified. I just dont see any advatnage of using a patch over the 360 degree perfect fit coverage of the bore snake. Any insight? |
| Ya, it just seems like people state there opinions though. I guess I was just looking for a reason "why" people prefer a patch, aside from it being traditional. To me it seems like if a bore snake was the method 20 years ago, and now a new manufacturer came out with a jag and patch method, the new patch method would seem quite pointless. Just wondering if people prefer a patch, because they just do. Not looking to critique anybody, just wondering if there is something Im missing in terms of why its better. |
|
Quoted:
Please don't take offense, but if you do a search you'll find the whole bore snake vs. whatever issue has been pretty extensively covered. Yep, been hashed and rehashed to death. My personal opinion and reasons why I prefer the traditional method of bore cleaning is well documented. No reason to beat a dead horse. |
AR Sponsor