A personal confession of immense skepticism about rifle cleaner marketing.

I recently purchased a custom built 375 H&H. It was used, and the former owner truthfully attested that he hadn't cleaned it in at least the last 300 rounds.

I'm lucky enough to own a bore scope. It enabled me to document a bit of a case study in cleaners, since over the years, I seem to have collected nearly all of them. In that time, I've formed my own personal prejudices as to which are most "aggressive". I tend to use them in order of least to most in my struggles to keep bores clean. I thought I'd share with the board my cleaning notes on this H&H as I attempted to find its former accurate self...

1st cleaning attempt: 75/25% mix of Shooter's Choice and Kroil. Six sequential clean patches soaked with the mixture and short stroked down the barrel. Borescope inspection: Surface loose granular gray fouling completely eliminated. What remained were long thick stripes of copper alongside/intermixed with similarly long thick streaks of black from throat to muzzle.

2nd cleaning attempt: WipeOut over night. Six clean patches run through the following morning. The first patch straight through to remove the residual fluid. The subsequent five in short stroke mode to mop up. Borescope inspection: Copper fouling eliminated in areas where it was already visibly thin (middle of bore). In areas of thick copper fouling at throat and muzzle, fouling was only marginally narrowed at edges. Not much at that. Carbon fouling seemed untouched.

3rd cleaning attempt: Outer's Foul Out III. 24 hours of reverse electrolysis. Borescope inspection: After draining the bore, and thoroughly swabbing it out, brushing it with a copper bore brush, and swabbing it again to clean out the debris with Barnes CR-10, the bare copper fouling was 100% eliminated. However, the carbon fouling seemed relatively undamaged. And, the brushing I did after draining the fluid only seemed to reveal more copper under the carbon. The carbon fouling remained persistently unaffected by the Outer's Foul Out.

4th cleaning attempt: JB's on a bore sized copper brush wrapped with a bore size designated cotton patch for 50 strokes chamber to muzzle. Borescope inspection: Definitely ate at the edges of the carbon fouling streaks. In some places, eliminated it completely. However, this bore had long, deep streaks of the carbon at the outset. And, many remained in near their original condition, with somewhat of a shinier "finish" in the bore scope light after the treatment. This was a bit of a shock to me, as I was under the impression that nothing could withstand that many strokes of JB on a patch wrapped around a bore sized copper brush. Apparently not entirely true.

Last cleaning attempt: JB's thickly pasted onto an oversized copper bore brush with no cotton patch. 200 strokes back and forth with same and stroke direction reversed in bore. Borescope inspection: This got it all out. The bore, after I'd swabbed out all of the used black JB gunk, looked like it had just come from the machinist. This last step also gave me a minor back ache. Physically reversing the brush direction in the bore repeatedly wasn't effortless. However, it also didn't appear to generate any bore damage as the common wives tale on the practice often warns.

Final notes: I'm encouraged that it appears even the worst carbon/copper/carbon fouling can be beaten with this final combo. But, I'm also left immensely skeptical that marketing around the myriad "leave it in overnight and it will be clean" miracle cleansing cures is anything more than hype. Fortunately for the marketers, few people in the purchasing audience own a bore scope.

Tomorrow, I'll go to the range and find out if all that restorative effort made any difference for accuracy. Let's hope for the best....

Thanks stunt!!!!!!

Please let us know how it shoots!

Stuntpilot2 wrote:

quote:

3rd cleaning attempt: Outer's Foul Out III. 24 hours of reverse electrolysis. Borescope inspection: After draining the bore, and thoroughly swabbing it out, brushing it with a copper bore brush, and swabbing it again to clean out the debris with Barnes CR-10, the bare copper fouling was 100% eliminated. However, the carbon fouling seemed relatively undamaged. And, the brushing I did after draining the fluid only seemed to reveal more copper under the carbon. The carbon fouling remained persistently unaffected by the Outer's Foul Out.

The directions that came with my Foul Out 11 say to brush out the carbon fouling after a few hours of getting the copper out. I have found this to be correct and it will eliminate all copper on the second use.

My normal clean consists of some solvent on a patch, a brass brush, a patch, some Rem Clean abrasive on a patch thats on a nylon brush and to patch it out. The Foul Out kit is my back up and its valuable at times.

quote:

as the common wives tale on the practice often warns.

Stunt,
Thank you for your meticulous story. I have been told that when you clean a barrel as you did (and I use a Foul Out Machine also, plus Forrest Foam and Shooter's Choice) the barrel needs some x rounds to get its 'normal' accuracy. Wives tale?
Nice day,
Jan.

Jan,
I'm far from being an expert, but I think that one may depend more on the rifle. I've got an Ed Brown Marine Sniper .308 that shoots to the same spot and with .5MOA accuracy with the first rounds out of the barrel after being cleaned to bare metal.

That said, I've got a 700TTR as well as a SR25 in .308 that both shoot about an inch off their normal "dirty" point of impact for the first two or three shots.

Worst of the bunch on post "bare metal cleaning" performance is my 460 Weatherby Magnum. While dirty, it shoots sub MOA with factory 450g Barnes X ammo (I mount it on a lead sled when trying to get consistent data on different ammo types as it's a bit of a hard kicker). I've cleaned it down to bare metal twice. Both times, it shot worse than 3MOA for about a dozen shots until it was fully fouled again. I actually refuse to clean that one any longer. Hoping the new 375 H&H doesn't behave the same way.

You refer to the gun being a custom, do you know what make barrel it is? Also, as I have been told, reversing a metal brush in the bore has always been one of the quickest ways to rein a bbl.

Good o'le scrubbing still prevails.

Some of my shooting friends are bench rest shooters. Nuffsaid!
They swear by a concoction made up of one of the black powder solvents and Kroil, they call it 'snot'. According to them 'snot' attacks the carbon. I've not made up any, but will do so once the weather warms up.
Jim

Bob,
The barrel on the 375 H&H is a Douglas Premium air-gauged Stainless. The interior finish is pretty good. Not quite as pristine as the Kreiger, Lija and Hart barrels on some of my other customs, but much better than the factory barrel on my 460. The latter looks like someone drove a half track up each of the lands, throat to muzzle.

As for reversing copper brushes in the bore ruining a stainless barrel, I've been told that for decades. I don't quite understand the physics of the claim. The difference in Brinell hardness between copper and stainless are just to big. Some have argued the grit of fouling or abrasive in a paste can make up the potential for abuse difference between the much softer copper and the harder steel. But observation through a magnified borescope over the last dozen years or so hasn't borne that out. Yet. Granted, I'm not looking through an electron microscope and comparing the sharpness of lands edges, but to the naked eye there doesn't appear to be an impact beyond making carbon fouling go away quickly.

In the end, my definition of a "ruined barrel" is one that doesn't shoot well any longer. Seems some come that way right from the factory.

I'm sure my views on this subject are contrarian, and that when Jim Hart reads this post up in Lafayette New York, he'll probably call me down here in Austin to straighten me out. But, that's been my individual observation to date. And, that's probably how wives tales get started in the first place.

Just got back from the range. To Jan's earlier point, I fear I may have spent a whole evening's worth of elbow grease proving what the previous owner already knew.....

The "cleaned to bare metal" 375 H&H shot ~2.5MOA for its first 12 shots before the group size came back down to 1-1.5MOA for the last three groups.

It will be interesting to see how long it shoots at 1-1.5MOA before accuracy falls off. Until then, it can accumulate all the carbon and copper it wants.

Sometimes it's not as simple as fouling vrs clean. Sometimes its old fouling vrs new or a warm fouled barrel vrs a cold .............

Hi Stunt I have had to learn the same lesson with a model70 30-06 it just a little bit happyer being a bit fouled.

quote:

Originally posted by stuntpilot2:
Just got back from the range. To Jan's earlier point, I fear I may have spent a whole evening's worth of elbow grease proving what the previous owner already knew.....

The "cleaned to bare metal" 375 H&H shot ~2.5MOA for its first 12 shots before the group size came back down to 1-1.5MOA for the last three groups.

It will be interesting to see how long it shoots at 1-1.5MOA before accuracy falls off. Until then, it can accumulate all the carbon and copper it wants.

Stuntpilot 2,

I read your adventure with great interest. We are both in search of the same thing, but are going at the problem from different angles. First: Have you tried the VFG felt pellets sold by Brownells? They are fairly inexpensive, but need a special holder to use them. Their design maximizes the contact area between the pellet and the bore. It works great with solvents and various types of bore creams.

Second: Since it is well known that a overbore cartridge causes more powder burning and guilding metal deposit than a less powerful cartridge, I must ask if you have ever looked into the idea of foreward ignition? Basically, a hollow tube is screwed into the primer pocket hole from the inside of the case. The tube ends about a 1/4 inch short of the top of the powder. When the primer is ignited, the flash goes through the tube and lights the powder from the front to the back (opposite of the usual way)

The majority of the heat is kept in the cartridge case which can be felt upon ejection. Since the powder burns in the case and not goind down the barrel, the barrel stays cooler. Less barrel wear and much less carbon and copper fouling.

I have used forward ignition in .225 winchester, 22-250 winchester and 308 in a semiauto HK91. The difference in heat transfer is almost unbelievable . Accuracy is off slightly because more if not all of the powder is being burned in the case. If you have any questions, feel free to write to me.

Good Luck, good shooting

Fluted
I remember reading about the 'forward' ignition 25 or 30 years ago and thought it was a dead issue. As in being more trouble then any benefit gained.
Who is making the tubes and the kit for threading the flash hole, etc.
Where can I get reading material on this?
Thanks
Jim

There is a fairly in-depth article on the issue in the back of Cartridges of the World (10th edition?) with instructions and illustrations. I tried it with a custom 7mm RM I had at the time. The improvments were noticable but not worth the effort, IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by arkypete:
Some of my shooting friends are bench rest shooters. Nuffsaid!
They swear by a concoction made up of one of the black powder solvents and Kroil, they call it 'snot'. According to them 'snot' attacks the carbon. I've not made up any, but will do so once the weather warms up.
Jim

Thanks Jim!!!
Was cleaning a co-worker/hunting buddy's Encore and found a "sticky" spot about 2/3's the way down the barrel. Could gently push a patch to that point and it would hang up.
Did the old copper solvent and Kroil. No change??? Did the WipeOut overnight and it just laughed at me. Okay we're gonna get the big guns out now, JB and give a good 20 strokes change patches and give 'er another 20.
AIN'T HAPPENING!!!
Memory kicks in with the "SNOT" mix that I just read somewhere. Wet patch and then on the brush. Wet patch that came out looking pretty nasty. (hhmmm might have something here!!)
Dry patched it out and then hit it again with another wad of snot and left it sit. Next morning wet patch and it looked like a bird crapped on the paper towel under the barrel! The patch looked like it was some cosmoline that may have been left in the barrel and then got burnished in.
Got after a couple more times with "snot" and the again with copper solvent/kroil mix. No copper in the barrel but was still getting some of the "whatever" was in there. Did a WD40 soak (works good at tearing up cosmoline) and cleaned it out with a patch and got nothing. Snotted it again with just a wet patch and got a little bit so I did another snot on a brush scrubbing and let it sit. Got just a slight hint on the patch. Scubbed it one last time with the snot then chased it with copper/kroil and all came ot clean.
I could feel no resistance from chamber to muzzle at all.
It was putting three rounds close and two flyers before the clean. Will let you know what it does next!

quote:

Smedley

That's great.
Another suggestion is, the next gun show the guy with the table full of surplus stuff, and a couple cans of the US bore cleaner. The stuff that looks like something you'd squeese out of two week old road and smells worse.
I swamp out my barrel at the range with that.
Jim

Well, the groups started going downhill after 25 shots with out cleaning. By number 40, the groups were well over 2.5 MOA and widening. So much for the "not cleaning it" approach. And, not surprising. Some of my other rifles like Barnes X bullets, some don't. But, they all get copper fouled faster with Barnes X's than with any other bullet type.


I now have a new question I'm trying to answer: After badly fouling a bore, what is the minimum number of strokes you can use with a bore brush and JB's before you're back to bare metal? I'm planning on shooting the next 40 rounds with factory ammo loaded with Nosler Partitions from this clean to bare metal bore. Will then JB bristle scrub in 5 stroke increments and let you know how many it took to return to bare metal as viewed through the bore scope...

All rifles are different...For what it's worth....

SP2,

Thanks for posting your hard work. It's interesting. I've long suspected certain guns of having personalities as you describe.

Kyler

Might be completely off-topic -- I usually shoot pistols. I started using eezox to coat my barrels, primarily to prevent corrosion -- and it makes them much easier to clean... Which may mean nothing, to ya'll since pistol accuracy is hardly the same as rifle accuracy, nor is the level of fouling, etc.

Two shooting/cleaning cycles later.....The latest:

Both shooting cycles saw 40 rounds each down the (cleaned to bare metal) bore in quick succession.

I've skipped any initial patching of the barrel. Instead, I just pushed an over sized copper brush into the dirty bore with a dab of JBs on it. Then began running it all the way until it exited the bore, and back until it exited the chamber. One new learning: JBs goes into a liquid state after just a few strokes and spatters from the bristles each time it exits the bore. If you're going to clean like this, it's better if you cover the muzzle with an empty plastic Gatorade bottle or the equivalent. Otherwise your bench will look like someone sprayed it with formula black WD-40.

For the first cleaning, I used 100 brush strokes. It was surprisingly fast. Probably no more than 2 minutes. Followed that with five patches in a row impaled on a jag, straight thru, then one final clean patch in short stroke mode. That seemed to remove nearly all of the JB & powder sludge mix. Borescope inspection: Once again clean down to bare metal from throat to bore.

The second time it was 40 shots and the same procedure, but with only 50 brush strokes. Borescope inspection: Same outcome. Clean down to bare metal from throat to bore, even in the recesses of the grooves (where I was looking especially hard for "leftovers").

Unless I end up with more spare time, I'm going to keep cutting the JB strokes in half until a subsequent bore scope inspection reveals the cleaning didn't produce 100% bare metal. My suspicion for this barrel is the brush stroke count for that outcome is around a dozen. Patching the resulting JB sludge out of the barrel looks like it's going to become the "long" part of this cleaning method.

This has been a fun experiment. For me anyway, it's removed a little of the voodoo around what's the fastest cleaning method to bare metal that won't damage a barrel. I'll post one last time when I figure out what the minimum number ended up being.

Thanks sp!

SP2,

This is an innocent question and I don't mean any disrespect... But how do you know you're not doing damage to the barrel? It seems like I've always heard that a brush and JB was so harsh it was sort of a last ditch effort to resurrect a barrel. Never having used a bore scope I don't know, but do you really feel you can see the lands and groves well enough to tell if there is premature wear?

I know a lot of bench rest shooters don't seem to have anything better to do but clean barrels but they say more barrels are cleaned to death than shot out. Personally I'd much rather shoot out a barrel rather than clean one to death.

Again I appreciate your work and don't have any evidence or opinion to contradict your statements (nor do I want to), I'm just curious what you're basing the statements on.

Thanks,
Kyler

quote:

Originally posted by Kyler Hamann:
SP2,

This is an innocent question and I don't mean any disrespect... But how do you know you're not doing damage to the barrel? It seems like I've always heard that a brush and JB was so harsh it was sort of a last ditch effort to resurrect a barrel. Never having used a bore scope I don't know, but do you really feel you can see the lands and groves well enough to tell if there is premature wear?

I know a lot of bench rest shooters don't seem to have anything better to do but clean barrels but they say more barrels are cleaned to death than shot out. Personally I'd much rather shoot out a barrel rather than clean one to death.

Again I appreciate your work and don't have any evidence or opinion to contradict your statements (nor do I want to), I'm just curious what you're basing the statements on.

Thanks,
Kyler

No disrespect taken whatsoever. It's a good question.

My response will revisit the notion of dispelling wives tales with actual observation.....I guess the easiest answer is that my borescope magnifies up to 20x. And, at 20x, I've not seen damage from that kind of cleaning at my hands after years of using JBs. On the other hand, the damage that just 500 rounds does to the throat of my rifles is blindingly obvious at 1x magnification.

Absent a borescope, physics supports the assertion that erosion from this cleaning process is comparatively with out material negative impact from at least two vectors: First, the grit in JBs is softer than the stainless steel in the barrel. Second, the internal surfaces of the barrel are subjected to 60,000-65,000 psi of pressure, 3,000+ degrees of heat, and what would seem to be a much more abrasive storm of burning propellant every time we pull the trigger.

Most of my benchrest friends warnings about ruining barrels by over cleaning is rooted in history. One that often saw people cleaning barrels with non coated rods and with out bore guides. And sometimes from the muzzle (gasp). Under those circumstances, what was often steel on steel contact frequently occurred as the rod flexed. And yes, that's certainly an accelerated path to premature barrel wear. If I haven't stated it in previous posts, all of my cleaning is done with coated Dewey rods, and a bore guide, from the chamber end.

So, in closing, does 20x magnification in a borescope give me 100% certainty that I'm not accelerating the "dulling" of otherwise sharp land edges? No. But I am confident I'm seeing more than what jewelers do when they certify diamonds. They use a 10x magnifying glass (a loupe). Having watched several dozen custom barrels age from the inside across a couple thousand shots each has lead me to believe that this kind of cleaning is FAR less destructive than what otherwise happens in the process of repeatedly accelerating a bullet from zero to over 3000 fps.

Great answer.

That makes good sense.

Thanks,
Kyler

I think this may be the final update:.....

After 40 more rounds in quick succession at the range, the second 20 of which were Barnes TSXs, I returned to the cleaning bench. Using the same method as before, but with only 25 stokes.

Borescope inspection: To my surprise, it didn't work. While the throat and the first six inches forward of it were cleaned to bare metal, the remaining 20 or so were progressively more fouled. The fouling peaked about three inches back from the muzzle, then abated a bit from there to the muzzle.

I grabbed the 45 caliber copper brush I'd been using with the JBs (and no patch) and returned for 25 more strokes. Then performed the standard five single tight patchings with no solvent straight through, with a final sixth patch in short stroke mode throat to muzzle.

Second borescope inspection: The entire bore was now once again cleaned to bare metal.

On the whole, I think between the scrubbing and the patching, this procedure is only a little less time intensive than the chemical patching I used to do exclusively. The upside (if it is that) is that I know for certain that I have an identical baseline of a cleaned to bare metal barrel from which to test grouping of various ammo types.

Hope this long thread manages to help someone out there in the internet ether.....

Stuntpilot, out.

stuntpilot2,
thank you very much for sharing your experiences, which I find extremely illustrative.
I have always thought of buying a borescope but eventually never taken the decission...
Except for the Outers Foul Out I more or less follow your cleaning sequence: a kroil/hoppes mix, forrest foam overnight, and elbow greased JB.
My problem is that not having a bore scope I am not sure if what I consider clinically clean really is.
On the other hand, if my cleaning brings the rifle down to .8-1.0 moas from the 1.2-1.5 I get from my hunting rifles after 60-80 shots (average figures) I am satisfied with my cleaning routine, and do not care much for the looks on the barrel inside.
I have a question, if you do not mind answering, and that is if the bronze brush is not "eaten" by the JB while worked hard agains the steel of the barrel and its particles somehow transfered or embedded into the steel.
Thans in advance and best regards.
Montero

Stuntpilot
Thank you for all your effort. I will certainly put it to use.
Jim

That was quite a lot of effort and also effort to explain all the details. Funny, sometimes I wonder if we would be happier not knowing so much and what I mean by that is for over 20 I cleaned by finest rifle with a 3 piece steel rod and no bore guide and used Hoppes 9 and only a few strokes and then dry patches. After joining the forum and reading a lot of post I started to worry about my rifle. She still shoots in the .2s after all that horrible abuse. I did upgrade last year to a bore guide and a one piece coated rod but she will not shoot any better. But not any worse yet.
Smile , load some rounds and have fun this weekend.

Very interesting and informative. I always try to get a barrell as clean as possible, just because. Some shoot better after a fouling shot. Some shoot better after 5 foulers. The funny thing is that one of my best shooters, a 68 yr. old Savage has a bore that looks like a gravel road at 0x magnification. I bet that it would look like a moonscape with a Borescope!

Stuntpilot, that was a nice test and you confirmed what I already knew. I have been using JB for 20 years and it works.

SP -

I did not seem to notice you having tried any of the more aggressive ammonia-type cleaners. Would a regimen of using a good carbon remover followed by an aggressive ammonia cleaner work to get rid of the brass fouling (copper) work?

Not trying to disagree. Appreciated your report, and would like to hear your answer to the "ammonia" question......

I tend to be long on curiosity, and short on ego when it comes to these things. Please, NEVER feel like you have to worry about offending me. Just ask away....

That said, I've done some limited, but similarly formatted testing with

1. Montana Extreme 50 BMG
2. Barnes CR-10
and
3. Sweets

Copper gets eaten up pretty quickly by all three, given enough contact time and elbow grease behind the Dewey.

As to the carbon, none seemed markedly better at getting out layered hard plate fouling (the problem my rifles tend to have worst). It always seemed to need me getting out a non-embedding abrasive (JB's, IOSSO, or other) to finish off the problem.

If you've got a suggestion for a carbon buster, I'm all ears. Should the opportunity arise, I'm happy to report to the board on how it works in the same iterative fashion I did here.

quote:

Originally posted by stuntpilot2:
I tend to be long on curiosity, and short on ego when it comes to these things. Please, NEVER feel like you have to worry about offending me. Just ask away....

That said, I've done some limited, but similarly formatted testing with

1. Montana Extreme 50 BMG
2. Barnes CR-10
and
3. Sweets

Copper gets eaten up pretty quickly by all three, given enough contact time and elbow grease behind the Dewey.

As to the carbon, none seemed markedly better at getting out layered hard plate fouling (the problem my rifles tend to have worst). It always seemed to need me getting out a non-embedding abrasive (JB's, IOSSO, or other) to finish off the problem.

If you've got a suggestion for a carbon buster, I'm all ears. Should the opportunity arise, I'm happy to report to the board on how it works in the same iterative fashion I did here.

I don't have a bore-scope, so have no way of knowing for sure which product might be the best carbon buster. What I have relied on for getting rid of carbon for the 10 years or so of my benchrest shooting was "Brake Cleaner" as used for cleaning automobile brake assemblies.

I don't know what it does in the barrel, but it sure gets caked carbon off of brakes, and off of rifle bolt faces, M1-A gasport/piston assemblies, and other similar places too. Of course, that stuff hasn't been ironed on in layers with brass like might happen in a barrel.

That's one reason I asked the question. I was hoping maybe I could talk you into using some of the commercially marketed carbon removers, then looking at the results with your bore-scope. Would be very interesting to read your findings.

A couple of comments....brake cleaners come in two or more types...one is "non-residue, quick drying", while the other does not apparently dry as quickly and DOES leave a residue. I suspect the non-residue, quick-drying type may not work as long in doing its thing, so may not do as complete a job.

On the other hand, as it does not leave a residue, it may also have less effect in terms of having to be "shot out" of the barrel before the barrel returns to normal point of impact.
Or, contrarily, I guess the residue-leaving products could even act as a sort of pre-shooting fouling, to reduce the number of fouling shots required....I really have no idea which, if either, applies.



Added edit: After using the brake cleaner, I have used an aggressive ammonia copper remover, usually Sweets. I understand Montana Extreme and some of the others are even more aggressive, but Sweets "seemed" to get the job done pretty well, if the carbon was removed first.

After cleaning, I used a "neutral solvent" on one patch, followed by a dry patch, just to sort of bring everything to a halt in there.

Stuntpilot2 Try using a vfg felt with two drops of Marvel Mystery Oil to lubricate the bore after cleaning and before shooting . Then see how long the accuracy will hold up. Another Benchrest idea -modified with the use of MMO- from Jim Borden.
The objective is a consistant barrel condition. You seem to go from clean to fouled with this barrel and the barrel interior is always changing.
This reminds me of a M 70 .338 that was scratched on the lands at the muzzle when Magnaporting in Canada in 1995. Using Fed 210 Noslers the first 5 were 3/4 @ 100 yds. The next five were in 2" - Rounds 10-15 were in 5" and the last 5 just barely stayed on the target paper. Then proper cleaning with JB etc started the same thing all over again.
I wonder if the interior finish on your .375 was slightly pitted or damaged by the not cleaning and this is the result . Try some other bullets.
Glenn

quote:

Originally posted by stuntpilot2:
Well, the groups started going downhill after 25 shots with out cleaning. By number 40, the groups were well over 2.5 MOA and widening. So much for the "not cleaning it" approach. And, not surprising. Some of my other rifles like Barnes X bullets, some don't. But, they all get copper fouled faster with Barnes X's than with any other bullet type.


I now have a new question I'm trying to answer: After badly fouling a bore, what is the minimum number of strokes you can use with a bore brush and JB's before you're back to bare metal? I'm planning on shooting the next 40 rounds with factory ammo loaded with Nosler Partitions from this clean to bare metal bore. Will then JB bristle scrub in 5 stroke increments and let you know how many it took to return to bare metal as viewed through the bore scope...

All rifles are different...For what it's worth....

I realize you have a bore scope and I understand you are a proponent of cleaning the bore to bare metal. I also understand that you are not concerned w/ taking the edge off the rifling w/ the repeated applications of the JB.

Myself, I follow the logic and writings of Dan Lilja on this matter. I've been through quite a few advanced schools, have shot 10s of thousands of rounds in training and in organized competitions. I'll throw some thoughts out at you:

Your Douglas bore had a slight roughness in the finish measured in microns. Removing this micron finish so that it is smooth as glass is a bad thing and not good. Continuing to strip it down to bare metal is a bad thing and not good.

This micron finish gives something for the hard carbon fouling to stick to. If you do not allow the copper fouling to build, but allow the barrel bore to burnish with the hard cabon fouling, you'll find that the copper will have less tendancy to stick and build.

If you do nothing, the copper will continue to stick to itself and the bore underneath will never burnish. If you make a habit of stipping it down to the bare metal each time, you will be starting from scratch and will get stuck in a cycle of chasing your tail. If you strip that thing to bare metal each time and remove the micron finish so the bore is super slick. Well, you are F**KD. The hard carbon deposits will no longer stick and burnish but the copper will. At this point you will have created a copper fouling nightmare.

I suggest you read some of the papers by Dan on the subject. I'm not one who believes you can turn a crappy barrel into a great barrel. But, I believe each barrel has a certain potential for accuracy and this is best reached if the barrel is allowed to burnish w/out excessive copper build up or without excessive application of abbrasives.

GVA

This is a good article:

http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/barrel_making/barrel_fouling.htm

good luck,
GVA

GVA,
Good posts both. I certainly don't have the wheel base of experience that Dan does.
I do wonder how much "finish" modification a non-embedding cleaner like JBs does. Someone on this site did an experiment where they used a lathe to apply a patch coated in JBs under pressure to the outside of a spinning metal rod. First they measured its diameter around the intended area of contact. Then, they rotated it at medium RPM for 24 hours. After, they measured the diameter of the "rubbed" area. Then compared it to it's initial diameter in the same spot with a micrometer. There was no measurable change. That's not to say some "finish" change didn't take place that would have manifested itself were a more sensitive instrument to be used for the before and after diameter measurements. All that said, if I had to chose between Lija's advice and that one experiment, I'm going with the former. And, twice on Sunday.
As for cleaning to bare metal, I'd probably prefer not to. Bare metal was just a consistent baseline I could use repeatedly to determine which cleaners removed different fouling at which speeds.

Thanks again for the reading. It definitely gave me something to think about.

Stuntpilot

Where does one find the recipe for "snot"?

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Where does one find the recipe for "snot"?

Just follow your nose, Wink.

-Steve