C
chino69
Guest
I know this has been discussed before but I would like to share the story of two barrels. This is not a scientific study with a control barrel and a statistical number of samples to validate the data, just a regular guy breaking in two barrels differently. I have two new Kreiger barrels chambered by Clarence Hammonds of Red Lion, PA. One of the barrels is a 6mm BR .265 nd., the other is a .22-250 AI .250 nd. I have a Hawkeye borescope. Everything I've ever read about barrel break in purpose was to polish out the tiny circumferential marks left by the reamer in the throat area. These marks are unavoidable in the best of reamers and the reamers used were Henricksen reamers.
When I received the barrels, I cleaned them carefully and inspected the freshly reamed barrels in detail. They both had tiny circumferential marks in the throat area, however, with the Henricksen reamers the marks were symmetrical and in the same location on each land. I now know why gunsmiths praise his reamers. At any rate, both barrels were examined many times thoroughly and the location of the marks was noted. The 6mm BR barrel was not broken in the conventional one shot, clean method. I loaded twenty fireforming rounds and shot them, working up loads. At the end of every twenty shot cycle the barrel was cleaned conventionally and JB'ed at 100 rds. The barrel now has 130 rds. through it and the tiny reamer marks are polishing out nicely. The .22-250 AI barrel was broke in the one shot, clean method. After break in, twenty round groups were fired with conventional cleaning. The barrel was JB'ed after 100 rds. and has 130 rds. through it. A thorough examination shows the tiny reamer marks polishing out nicely.
The point I'm trying to make is that these tiny circumferential marks are going to be polished out by the firing process, not the cleaning regimen. As long as your cleaning regimen is efficient and you don't allow copper or carbon to build up, one shot barrel break in is a waste of time. Again the disclaimer:
this was not a scientific statsistically approved comparison using a double blind model traceable to the Bureau of Standards, just a regular guy observation using a borescope. Somebody convince me otherwise.
Chino69
When I received the barrels, I cleaned them carefully and inspected the freshly reamed barrels in detail. They both had tiny circumferential marks in the throat area, however, with the Henricksen reamers the marks were symmetrical and in the same location on each land. I now know why gunsmiths praise his reamers. At any rate, both barrels were examined many times thoroughly and the location of the marks was noted. The 6mm BR barrel was not broken in the conventional one shot, clean method. I loaded twenty fireforming rounds and shot them, working up loads. At the end of every twenty shot cycle the barrel was cleaned conventionally and JB'ed at 100 rds. The barrel now has 130 rds. through it and the tiny reamer marks are polishing out nicely. The .22-250 AI barrel was broke in the one shot, clean method. After break in, twenty round groups were fired with conventional cleaning. The barrel was JB'ed after 100 rds. and has 130 rds. through it. A thorough examination shows the tiny reamer marks polishing out nicely.
The point I'm trying to make is that these tiny circumferential marks are going to be polished out by the firing process, not the cleaning regimen. As long as your cleaning regimen is efficient and you don't allow copper or carbon to build up, one shot barrel break in is a waste of time. Again the disclaimer:
this was not a scientific statsistically approved comparison using a double blind model traceable to the Bureau of Standards, just a regular guy observation using a borescope. Somebody convince me otherwise.
Chino69