Centre fire break in

[wildrover77]

So you are implying those not fooled by pseudo science of running in a barrel are abusing there rifles?

[Dekers]

So you are implying those not fooled by pseudo science of running in a barrel are abusing there rifles?

 

 

:lol:

 

Could be a few pages left in this yet!

[Scully]

I think what this thread has proven to me, maybe to others as well, is to think twice as to who you buy things off. If people want to just run with the flow and shoot and go fine. Sort of tells me more money than sense. For the cost of £30 more to brake a barrel in against the cost of a rebarrel or new rifle then its madness. Just running a thread around and around to try and make one feel better about their way of doing things is also madness.

But as said. Research users post before you buy of them is about all I have gotten out of this thread. And about time it was closed

All the more money than sense comment means is that youre implying that those who dont run in their barrels are neglecting them, whereas no one as yet appears to be able to prove that.

Can anyone prove that running in your barrel as described prolongs its life, or in fact the contrary?

I agree it possibly cant do any harm, but Id also agree it possibly doesnt have any benefit either. I also get the impression some dont like it when others dont do as they themselves do.

Each to their own.

[Albert 888]

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/How+To+Break+In+a+Rifle+Barrel.html

 

Have a quick look at this if the link works.

[Dougy]

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/How+To+Break+In+a+Rifle+Barrel.html

Have a quick look at this if the link works.

The thing is Albert, you now have to prove that the article was not a cut and paste out of a Marvel comic.

 

Lol

[Albert 888]

Well Dougy I'm not out to prove wrong,it's legitimate and off the net. Hope it may make others understand why people shoot a barrel in. Im happy doing what I do and I presume you are too. We can only do the best with what we have. At the end of the day it's each too thier own. Happy shooting.

[Newbie to this]

And Wetherspoons don't support the poppy appeal 'it's legitimate and off the the net' :lol:

Edited October 27, 2017 by Newbie to this

[Scully]

 

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/How+To+Break+In+a+Rifle+Barrel.html

 

Have a quick look at this if the link works.[/quote

And as if further proof were needed.

If youve bought a rifle that has either been left unfinished by the manufacturer or ROUGH as the author states, then perhaps you need to do it.

Still no proof that it prolongs the barrel life nor the opposite; and dont miss the disclaimer at the end.

Each to their own. 👍

[wildrover77]

I have just read the link.

 

Perplexed, how does firing a bullet down a barrel forge an an imperfection into the barrel, unless you clean it with a copper solvent in between? The copper solvent and jag miraculously removed the steel burr, while not cleaning and continuing to fire copper bullets forges the imperfection into the barrel.

[Dougy]

I have another question.

 

Do you run your toothbrush under the tap before putting toothpaste on or do you do it after.

 

 

We all have different opinions as to the way we clean rifles, shoot in, or not to shoot in. Do what ever you think you need to.

[WelshMike]

I have another question.

 

Do you run your toothbrush under the tap before putting toothpaste on or do you do it after.

 

 

We all have different opinions as to the way we clean rifles, shoot in, or not to shoot in. Do what ever you think you need to.

I dont run my under the tap at all...water at home is not safe to drink yet

[wildrover77]

We dont have taps in Yorkshire yet, we have a stream.

[WelshMike]

We dont have taps in Yorkshire yet, we have a stream.

[walshie]

I've never shot in any of my rifles but they all kill what they are supposed to. Would it kill them more if I had shot them in?

Edited November 1, 2017 by walshie

[grrclark]

This thread has been an interesting read, although it does cause me to consider that pseudo science has a natural home in the shooting fraternity.

 

Those high volume gun manufacturers who have made such substantial investment of 6 or 7 figures in manufacturing capabilities, who have metallurgists, manufacturing engineers, highly skilled machinists and quality process engineers on staff; who output guns in the tens of thousands, who have fired more shots through their test and inspection processes than any individual could ever reasonably expect to in a lifetime, yet they are incapable of finishing their product to a standard that can apparently only be achieved by the end user.

 

That same end user of technical skill unknown, who is running in their barrel in conditions unknown, using ammunition of unknown makeup and relying on cleaning solvent of type and make unknown, some patches of material type unknown and maybe a bronze brush that is worn to an unknown degree.

 

This magical running in process will subsequently achieve a level of accuracy for the shooter beyond that which could be reasonably expected by just using the rifle without the ritualistic process of 'woo'. Of course how this post woo increase in accuracy is measured in shooters of unknown skill using the gun in unknown environments and with no possibility of any sort of differential analysis is also entirely unknown. But the woo must work because the internet and apocryphal tales say so.

 

The same sort of logic seems to hold true when it comes to shotgun chokes; if the accepted wisdom of the shooting fraternity is to be believed after market manufactured cylinders of metal are of superior quality and design to cylinders of metal made by the original gun manufacturer. The same gun manufacturer who can make the other 99.5% of the gun with consummate skill and professionalism, but the special science of choke manufacture, choke woo, is apparently beyond their capability.

[Jaymo]

I was in the Sako factory at the start of the month, went in the test range and guess what I didnt see appearing in any single one of the 110,000 rifles the test and prove capable each year

??? Pixies

[Jaymo]

 

The same sort of logic seems to hold true when it comes to shotgun chokes; if the accepted wisdom of the shooting fraternity is to be believed after market manufactured cylinders of metal are of superior quality and design to cylinders of metal made by the original gun manufacturer. The same gun manufacturer who can make the other 99.5% of the gun with consummate skill and professionalism, but the special science of choke manufacture, choke woo, is apparently beyond their capability.

I do hope your not inferring that those Briley Chokes WONT make me an Olympic Champion.....

 

Good post btw

[grrclark]

I do hope your not inferring that those Briley Chokes WONT make me an Olympic Champion.....

 

Good post btw

 

Regrettably that is indeed my inference, that choke woo does not an Olympic champion make

[Jaymo]

Im sad now that I will not be taking Gold home

[Scully]

This thread has been an interesting read, although it does cause me to consider that pseudo science has a natural home in the shooting fraternity.

 

Those high volume gun manufacturers who have made such substantial investment of 6 or 7 figures in manufacturing capabilities, who have metallurgists, manufacturing engineers, highly skilled machinists and quality process engineers on staff; who output guns in the tens of thousands, who have fired more shots through their test and inspection processes than any individual could ever reasonably expect to in a lifetime, yet they are incapable of finishing their product to a standard that can apparently only be achieved by the end user.

 

That same end user of technical skill unknown, who is running in their barrel in conditions unknown, using ammunition of unknown makeup and relying on cleaning solvent of type and make unknown, some patches of material type unknown and maybe a bronze brush that is worn to an unknown degree.

 

This magical running in process will subsequently achieve a level of accuracy for the shooter beyond that which could be reasonably expected by just using the rifle without the ritualistic process of 'woo'. Of course how this post woo increase in accuracy is measured in shooters of unknown skill using the gun in unknown environments and with no possibility of any sort of differential analysis is also entirely unknown. But the woo must work because the internet and apocryphal tales say so.

 

The same sort of logic seems to hold true when it comes to shotgun chokes; if the accepted wisdom of the shooting fraternity is to be believed after market manufactured cylinders of metal are of superior quality and design to cylinders of metal made by the original gun manufacturer. The same gun manufacturer who can make the other 99.5% of the gun with consummate skill and professionalism, but the special science of choke manufacture, choke woo, is apparently beyond their capability.

🙂

[wildrover77]

 

This thread has been an interesting read, although it does cause me to consider that pseudo science has a natural home in the shooting fraternity.

 

Those high volume gun manufacturers who have made such substantial investment of 6 or 7 figures in manufacturing capabilities, who have metallurgists, manufacturing engineers, highly skilled machinists and quality process engineers on staff; who output guns in the tens of thousands, who have fired more shots through their test and inspection processes than any individual could ever reasonably expect to in a lifetime, yet they are incapable of finishing their product to a standard that can apparently only be achieved by the end user.

 

That same end user of technical skill unknown, who is running in their barrel in conditions unknown, using ammunition of unknown makeup and relying on cleaning solvent of type and make unknown, some patches of material type unknown and maybe a bronze brush that is worn to an unknown degree.

 

This magical running in process will subsequently achieve a level of accuracy for the shooter beyond that which could be reasonably expected by just using the rifle without the ritualistic process of 'woo'. Of course how this post woo increase in accuracy is measured in shooters of unknown skill using the gun in unknown environments and with no possibility of any sort of differential analysis is also entirely unknown. But the woo must work because the internet and apocryphal tales say so.

 

The same sort of logic seems to hold true when it comes to shotgun chokes; if the accepted wisdom of the shooting fraternity is to be believed after market manufactured cylinders of metal are of superior quality and design to cylinders of metal made by the original gun manufacturer. The same gun manufacturer who can make the other 99.5% of the gun with consummate skill and professionalism, but the special science of choke

 

pparently beyond their capability.

Never mind woo

 

This thread has got me thinking there is a market for fairy dust dispensers with special rifle bracket attachments. The recoil from ever shot would dispense just the right a amount of fairy dust to speed the bullet on the way to the target.

Edited November 1, 2017 by wildrover77

[Albert 888]

Shoot off at pw rifle meet,cleaned v's uncleaned c/f rifles. That's what's needed.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Albert 888

[Guest]

There is no consensus on this topic because all barrels are slightly different, and the skill of experienced rifle shooters is to read what their barrel is telling them.

 The imperfections in the barrel will be mainly be at the throat as opposed to the rifling because all the machining marks will be purpendicular to bullet travel. We are cleaning the **** out from 

Throat while the bullets smooth out these imperfections.

 

and it’s ‘FU’, not ‘WOO’