Discussions concerning barrel cleaning usually revolve around cleaning technique debate, cleanliness of patches pushed through the barrel, and bore scoping.

Has anyone ever tested a barrel by actually shooting groups and determining the effect of barrel cleaning ?

That is, take a clean barrel, shoot groups, and keep shooting groups for a couple of hundred rounds without cleaning. Then statistically graph the group sizes to determine the effect of the dirty bore.

Then one might clean the barrel thoroughly and shoot groups again to determine the cleaning benefit.

A less rigorous test might involve comparing groups before and at the end of a prairie dog shoot with no cleaning during the day. At the end of the day, shoot groups before and then after cleaning.

Might choose to do this with something other than your newest Shilen just before the Super Shoot.

Just wonder if anyone had hard data.

Hammer

Trouble is it would probably depend on the particular barrel, especially when starting on cold and clean. If anyone tries it, lets hope they record the first shot, and not fire it off somewhere as if it might start a plague or something.

quote:

Originally posted by Hammer:
...Has anyone ever tested a barrel by actually shooting groups and determining the effect of barrel cleaning ?

That is, take a clean barrel, shoot groups, and keep shooting groups for a couple of hundred rounds without cleaning. Then statistically graph the group sizes to determine the effect of the dirty bore.

Then one might clean the barrel thoroughly and shoot groups again to determine the cleaning benefit...

Hey Hammer, Back when there were a good number of Bullets made from Copper Tubing, before the current Alloys and pre-Moly Coating, it was fairly easy to find Bullets that would begin opening groups by the 7th shot.

I feel sure I have packed away somewhere Targets made with a lot of those old bullets. You could shoot some absolutely excellent 2 or 3-shot groups and then begin to notice the holes spreading out. Once cleaned, which was also a real task if you just kept shooting, accuracy was restored - for a few groups.

The problems I see with the concept is all the Variation:
1. From firearm to firearm in Bore dimensions and surface smoothness(acceptable manufacturing Tolerances).
2. From one Bullet Manufacturer to the next with Dimensions and Alloy Tolerances.

Basically, what has been noted in my rifles really has little bearing on how they would perform in one of your rifles.

Or have I misunderstood your original concept?

Hot Core,

All we need is about thirty rifles (good statistical sample size), a couple of hundred rounds of ammo for each (total 6,000 rounds), and an enclosed shooting range of 200 yards to eliminate wind. While we wouldn't have tested your rifle per se, we would have a reasonable expectation of what to expect in general.

One way to hold down cost is using Savage rifles with easy to change barrels. MidwayUSA currently has Savage replacement barrels in 30/06 on sale for $60.

Hear that Warren Buffet is giving his $40 billion fortune away. Shouldn't we be on his list of deserving. And it's for science to boot.

Hammer

Posted in reply on another forum by John Barsness, writer for Handloader and Rifle magazines.



I pretty much do this all the time. Every one of my rifles has a complete record of the rounds fired, as well as what type of ammo, temperature that day, etc. etc. I don't do the graphing of groups, mostly because in my experience it would take to darn long for them to open up.

The most concentrated testing is done each year during prairie dog season. I just got done testing three rifles, a .22 Hornet, .204 Ruger, and .223 Remington.

The Hornet is a Ruger 1B that I shoot with 40-grain Ballistic Tips of V-Maxes and 13.0 grains of Li'l Gun. Muzzle velocity is about 3100 fps. This year I shot 240 rounds through it without cleaning, and then shot one 5-shot group on paper, which measured .91 inch, at the top edge of this rifle's normal grouping ability.

The .204 had not been cleaned since I bought it last year. I shot 238 rounds through it, then shot a 5-shot target with a handload using the 40-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip and TAC powder. This measured just under an inch, still prairie dog accurate but bigger than normal. It took 5 cycles of Montana Extreme to get the fouling out, and I suspect the rifle will now go back to shooting in its normal range of .5 or so, which is great from a sporter-weight barrel.

The .223 is a heavy-barrel Rem. 700 that now has close to 2500 rounds through it. It has always shot extremely well without much cleaning. In the first test I did with this rifle I shot about 450 rounds without cleaning, and the rifle was still shooting exactly the same size groups as when it started, around .6 with factory ammo. After cleaning the groups opened up for about 10 rounds, then went back to normal.

This spring it got 541 rounds through it, and a 10-shot group went .97, which explains why it was still killing prairie dogs a long ways away. (Any sporting rifle that puts 10 inside an inch is really accurate.)

Have done enough of this over the years that I rarely clean rifles anymore, at least not anymore than they need.

I do have two old hunting rifles that have such worn bores that groups open up after only 20 rounds. I would not put up with thi, except they are old friends. Otherwise I have come to conclusion that we clean our rifles far more than they require for good (or even excellent) accuracy.

Hey Hammer, I seriously doubt " I " will ever win any money for any reason. I did win one basketball pool back 20 or so years ago and got enough money to buy a Marlin 22LR Rimfire Bolt Action.

But, I'm all for you running that Test whether you get any of Mr. Buffet's loot or not. I will be glad to provide, at absolutely no cost, all the "moral support" you need.
---

I used to read a good bit of Barsness and decided that he reports what he sees, or believes he sees. I do not think he intentionally mis-leads anyone.

That said, I disagree with him on a good number of things. I suspect it is simply because our experience has been different.