Armory Sponsor
Posted: 5/25/2012 5:40:40 PM EDT
|
A buddy of mine just picked up a new .308 700 VLS and asked me what the break-in process is an such a gun. I wasnt quite sure so i figured i ask on here. How do you break-in a new 700 so that it will be as accurate and long lasting as possible?
Thanks. |
I'm going to swim against the tide here (as usual)................ 
I've always (or tried to) follow the "shoot one shot, swab with wet patch, follow with dry patch" routine for 10-15rds on a new rifle. I don't do this on rimfires but did it for all of my centerfire rifles. I've been rewarded with nice accuracy on all of them with this procedure. I contend this helps due to the rough spots found in virtually all new rifle bbls. This prevents (IMO) a fresh bullet from pressing some piece of shaving tight against the bore should one be knocked loose from the previous rd fired. Now I know many don't/won't follow this precedure & that's certainly their choice. But given the amount we spend on a new gun & scope combo, what's the harm with a little extra for those first few rds? It doesn't cost anyone anything other than a few extra minutes. I contend it's the equal to allowing a car engine to idle for 1-2 minutes on a cold winter morning versus only allowing 30 seconds before driving it. My .o2 |
|
I'm a firm believer in the benefits of lapping and/or fire-lapping to remove toolmarks in production barrels, but that isn't really a break-in procedure per se.
Such barrels foul to accuracy degradation much less quickly and clean up much easier, in my (limited) experience. |
| I have done the shoot once and clean, etc. etc. To be honest I did not notice a difference. I have owned customs with several different barrels to include, Mike Rock 5R, and Krieger. I currently have an Accuracy International AE MKII and I just shoot it. I would suggest if you do want to do something like this then shoot five or ten and then run a rod down the barrell. But really if you take it out and shoot it then come home and clean it then you will be good to go. |
|
Quoted:
Clean the barrel from the chamber end and take it out and shoot it. When you're done clean it the same way and put it away. Yep. The drawn out process for breaking in a barrel is not only a waste of time, but probably causes the barrel to wear out quicker due to over cleaning. |
|
A lot of Remingtons have rough bores. If you look at them through a borescope, you would be pretty horrified. I'd make sure and clean it after every shot for the first 20 rounds or so.
Breaking in a barrel is uncecessary with a custom barrel, but it is a good idea with most factory barrels. Especially Remingtons. |
|
Quoted:
I'm going to swim against the tide here (as usual)................
I've always (or tried to) follow the "shoot one shot, swab with wet patch, follow with dry patch" routine for 10-15rds on a new rifle. I don't do this on rimfires but did it for all of my centerfire rifles. I've been rewarded with nice accuracy on all of them with this procedure. I contend this helps due to the rough spots found in virtually all new rifle bbls. This prevents (IMO) a fresh bullet from pressing some piece of shaving tight against the bore should one be knocked loose from the previous rd fired. Now I know many don't/won't follow this precedure & that's certainly their choice. But given the amount we spend on a new gun & scope combo, what's the harm with a little extra for those first few rds? It doesn't cost anyone anything other than a few extra minutes. I contend it's the equal to allowing a car engine to idle for 1-2 minutes on a cold winter morning versus only allowing 30 seconds before driving it. My .o2 Have you ever bought a rifle, started shooting it for accuracy immediately without a break-in process, and found that the results were poor? You ask what it costs. I answer: it costs however much time, ammo, and cleaning supplies you expend on "breaking in" a barrel that isn't going to see any improvement from your expenditure. 15 rounds of a magnum caliber will run $20-30 at a minimum, and waste at least an extra hour or two of range time - which for many people is probably worth another $10-15 by itself. If someone told me to light a $50 bill on fire as an offering to the wind spirits every time I bought a new rifle, I'd laugh in their face. How is this any different, except substitute pseudo-scientific theories of accuracy for pagan ritual? |
|
Quoted:
As you're discovering you can ask three people and get four different answers. I've done it the past. I doubt I'll ever do it again. Clean it good, and go shoot. I will say this though, I do clean the barrel on a new rifle a little more than if it has a few rounds down the pipe. I do think there are slight machine marks in the barrel that will cause copper to build up, and as long as you clean that it will help the tool marks smooth out than if they are coated in copper deposits. I have no proof of this, but in my experience anyway it takes longer to get patches to come out clean and not blue/greenish on a new barrel. The more you shoot it, the quicker it is to clean. Maybe the break in process speeds it up at the expense of time, I would rather shoot it and spend a little more time cleaning afterwards the first few times. YMMV. |
|
Quoted:
Have you ever bought a rifle, started shooting it for accuracy immediately without a break-in process, and found that the results were poor? No, because I break-in ALL of my rifles with the exception of the <$400 rimfire ones. You ask what it costs. I answer: it costs however much time, ammo, and cleaning supplies you expend on "breaking in" a barrel that isn't going to see any improvement from your expenditure. 15 rounds of a magnum caliber will run $20-30 at a minimum, and waste at least an extra hour or two of range time - which for many people is probably worth another $10-15 by itself.
Time? I'm in no hurry at the range with a new rifle. In fact, I enjoy the time spent with a new gun. YMMV. Ammo? Hard to shoot a rifle w/o it. Not sure why you lump ammo in here unless you're grasping for objections. 
Cleaning supplies? How many pennies does a few cotten patches cost? I use 10-12 patches, so figure .o5 each (on the high end) = less than $1. Most shooters with an expensive rifle should be able to afford that, IMO. Again, YMMV. If someone told me to light a $50 bill on fire as an offering to the wind spirits every time I bought a new rifle, I'd laugh in their face. How is this any different, except substitute pseudo-scientific theories of accuracy for pagan ritual?
Once again, not sure where in the world you get the $50 figure................... 
What's even more puzzling is how angry you've gotten over someone else's opinion on such a mundane thing.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you ever bought a rifle, started shooting it for accuracy immediately without a break-in process, and found that the results were poor? No, because I break-in ALL of my rifles with the exception of the <$400 rimfire ones. But you've never tested the theory. Inevitably I wind up seeing someone at the range with a brand-new rifle that they skip the "break-in" process with, and they're shocked that it shoots normally. You ask what it costs. I answer: it costs however much time, ammo, and cleaning supplies you expend on "breaking in" a barrel that isn't going to see any improvement from your expenditure. 15 rounds of a magnum caliber will run $20-30 at a minimum, and waste at least an extra hour or two of range time - which for many people is probably worth another $10-15 by itself.
Time? I'm in no hurry at the range with a new rifle. In fact, I enjoy the time spent with a new gun. YMMV. Ammo? Hard to shoot a rifle w/o it. Not sure why you lump ammo in here unless you're grasping for objections.
Cleaning supplies? How many pennies does a few cotten patches cost? I use 10-12 patches, so figure .o5 each (on the high end) = less than $1. Most shooters with an expensive rifle should be able to afford that, IMO. Again, YMMV. If someone told me to light a $50 bill on fire as an offering to the wind spirits every time I bought a new rifle, I'd laugh in their face. How is this any different, except substitute pseudo-scientific theories of accuracy for pagan ritual?
Once again, not sure where in the world you get the $50 figure...................
What's even more puzzling is how angry you've gotten over someone else's opinion on such a mundane thing.
I'm not angry. I'm just trying to get people to question the pseudo-science of barrel break-in. If you can't show proof that a certain procedure or product improves accuracy, then it's just an unfounded opinion...and a waste of resources. Some people take an extra five minutes on cleaning their rifle while shooting it for the first time. Others spend hours trying to scrub the shit out of the barrel, while throwing ammo away downrange, just because they're convinced that to do otherwise will doom their barrel to a miserable, inaccurate, short lifespan of disappointment. It's a waste, and there's no reason to perpetuate the myth. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you ever bought a rifle, started shooting it for accuracy immediately without a break-in process, and found that the results were poor? No, because I break-in ALL of my rifles with the exception of the <$400 rimfire ones. But you've never tested the theory. Inevitably I wind up seeing someone at the range with a brand-new rifle that they skip the "break-in" process with, and they're shocked that it shoots normally. And therein lies the problem: The folks that follow this procedure have no control sample against which the results can be compared. The rifle is certain to shoot the same with or without the "break-in" procedure, but they keep doing it anyway, because they do not know any better and have no baseline against which they can compare those results. I think most shooters usually have other things to do in the day. Range time is precious. An hour- or however long it takes- spent "breaking-in" could be better served just shooting and not worrying about some dumb process to which many still cling. If they can provide solid evidence that barrel break-in actually works, I'd be happy to reevaluate my observation. |
|
Quoted:
But you've never tested the theory. Inevitably I wind up seeing someone at the range with a brand-new rifle that they skip the "break-in" process with, and they're shocked that it shoots normally. One person's "normal" is another person's "great" & yet another person's "disappointing". Different shooters have different levels of expectations. I'm not angry.
You certainly write like it...................
I'm just trying to get people to question the pseudo-science of barrel break-in. If you can't show proof that a certain procedure or product improves accuracy, then it's just an unfounded opinion...and a waste of resources.
Some of us don't need proof that a sharp stick in the eye is a bad idea or that never, ever cleaning a gun is a bad idea. Some of us simply have different ideas based on personal experience, personal reading of those whom we respect, etc. in order to form our own opinions. I urge you to get used to that. Some people take an extra five minutes on cleaning their rifle while shooting it for the first time. Others spend hours trying to scrub the shit out of the barrel, while throwing ammo away downrange, just because they're convinced that to do otherwise will doom their barrel to a miserable, inaccurate, short lifespan of disappointment. It's a waste, and there's no reason to perpetuate the myth.
I don't believe I saw a single post about "scrubbing the shit out of the rifle" anywhere in this thread. 
Running a few wet patches down the bore does NOT make "scrubbing the shit" out of a bore, IMO. YMMV. As others mention, many rifle bores are coming out of the factory with a less-than-smooth finish these days & a wet/dry patch combo will certainly remove metal particles generated by shooting thru it. As mentioned previously, many shooters do different methods to arrive at their own happy end. Dare I suggest you learn to live with it?  
|
|
I believe most are missing the point of the break-in process. It typically isn’t done to improve/enhance/whatever accuracy at all. The point of the exercise is to polish the throat so the bore doesn’t foul quite so much between shots. This results in the ability to shoot more rounds accurately between cleanings. THIS is the sole reason to complete any break-in procedure.
Does it actually work and is worth the effort? The answer is “it depends”. Kreiger recommends a break-in process and I follow that advice with their barrels. The point when the barrel is broken in is obvious as shown by the amount of copper that comes out of the bore when cleaning after that particular shot (none). It’s like night and day difference. It is also worth noting that accuracy before, during, and after the break-in process did not change. Factory barrels are a completely different animal because they differ so much in quality. I have a Savage 10FP in .223 that failed all attempts to break-in. That bore is as rough as a gravel road and fouls terribly. However, it shoots very well. I’m living with it. I have two Remington 700 varmints in .308 – one benefitted greatly from a break-in and the other ignored the procedure. My two homebuilt ARs in .204 and my Remington 700 VLSS in .204 all benefitted from breaking in. They all have stainless barrels. I have found that stainless and custom barrels (sometimes one in the same) benefit from some sort of break-in. Chrome-moly barrels will sometimes see a benefit but most don’t. As you’d probably guess by now, I break in stainless and forget chrome-moly. |
| My Savage 93R17 tightened up the groups after about 150 rounds through it (the first 5 shots were shot using a Caldwell Lead Sled and made a 1 1/4" group at 50 yards, shots 146-150 were done the same way and made a 3/4" group). Now, is it really the barrel breaking in? Or is it the trigger breaking in? no way to really tell, all I know is it shoots tighter groups now than it did OOTB. YMMV though. |
|
Quoted:
In what other manufacturing process do we look at a hardened piece of steel and say to ourselves, that's really rough, let me whip out my cotton hanky and polish it to perfection? Yeah, it makes no sense. "Hardened piece of steel"? Go grab a hacksaw and cut most any factory barrel. You'll be surprised how fast you cut through it. Remington barrels cut like butter. The last Kreiger that I broke in I shot the recommended "shoot one, clean, repeat". I was getting quite a bit of copper out of it through shots 1-15. Shot #16 left absolutely no copper in the bore. Today that barrel will go 30 rounds and I won't find much (if any) copper deposits (I haven't tried to see how many rounds it takes for accuracy to drop off yet). So, is that barrel "broken in"? I believe the answer is obvious. In some cases it does make sense. On others, not so much. It’s up to the individual shooter to determine how they wish to proceed. |
|
Quoted:
In what other manufacturing process do we look at a hardened piece of steel and say to ourselves, that's really rough, let me whip out my cotton hanky and polish it to perfection? Yeah, it makes no sense. Actually, what makes no sense is those whom cannot understand what exactly breaking in a bbl does & why shooters do it. "Polishing a piece of steel with a hanky"? Seriously?
|
|
Quoted:
In what other manufacturing process do we look at a hardened piece of steel and say to ourselves, that's really rough, let me whip out my cotton hanky and polish it to perfection? Yeah, it makes no sense. As I understand it, you are removing the copper deposits that are covering the machine and tool marks in the barrel, so that the bullets traveling thousands of feet per second down the tube can actually do the polishing. Tubbs I think actually makes special bullets you load yourself to very low velocities that are coated in different polishing compounds. |
|
More important that "breaking it in", ie wearing it in, is seasoning the bore with copper. That happens all on it's own however.
.308 Winchester should have a minimum accuracy expentancy of 5k rounds give or take. Drop down to a 6mm or 6.5 short action and you are talking about 1500-2500, 100 rounds for break in, regardless of your point of view on the subject can burn 5-10% of barrel life. |
|
Quoted:
More important that "breaking it in", ie wearing it in, is seasoning the bore with copper. That happens all on it's own however. .308 Winchester should have a minimum accuracy expentancy of 5k rounds give or take. Drop down to a 6mm or 6.5 short action and you are talking about 1500-2500, 100 rounds for break in, regardless of your point of view on the subject can burn 5-10% of barrel life. Not true. The point of "breaking in" a bore is to utilize the burnishing properties of the bullet to remove tooling marks left in the throat by the reamer. These marks cannot be removed/burnished/smoothed if copper is in place which is why it is removed following each shot. At most it should take 20 rounds to get to this point. If you're shooting 100 rounds to break in a barrel then it isn't worth doing anyway. I think your round count for accurate barrel life is low as well. I'd fully expect the .308 to go in excess of 8k rounds and the 6 and 6.5mms to go 3k or better (except for the 6.5 x 284). Of course, that all depends on your shooting style. Heat that barrel up and keep shooting your barrel life will suffer. Read this from Krieger. I first thought it was BS as well but it has proven to be true. Proper cleaning equipment is a necessary part of the equation as well. If all that you have is a segmented aluminum rod with no bore guide then you're better off skipping the break-in procedure. However, if you have a bore guide and a coated one-piece rod then you're good to go. |
Armory Sponsor