I occasionally hear about the need for barrel break-in or conditioning. Has there been any articles that have looked at this in an objective fashion? Perhaps by taking 10 guns, condition 5, shoot 5 the old fashioned way then have a couple of benchrest shooters use the guns. They would be blinded to which guns were conditioned. Antecdotal evidence maybe all there is in this regard, but I can't help wondering if it is a wives tale. I have a 257 wby and 300 wby, both shoot 1.25 inches or better with out a whole lot of tweaking at the reloading bench. I would be interested in input regarding this. Thanks.

It is explained pretty well here,the reasons to do it are obvious:

Break In

That is how I do it,now working on a TRG-S.

I also recently hand lapped a Marlin 1895 that had seen a few thousand different rounds and the group size dropped from 2" to 1" with my favorite moose load. Maybe pure luck,I do not know, the barrel shines like a mirror and shoots better anyway,let it be only psychological.

In an article in "Rifle" magazine a few years ago, John Barsness attempted to "debunk" the importance of barrel break-in. While Mr. Barsness is one of my favourite gunwriters, it looks like the jury is still out.

One thing is sure, however: all the top competitive shooters go through at least some break-in procedure with a new barrel, and all the top barrel manufacturers like Krieger, Shilen and Lilja have instructions for breaking in their barrels.

IMHO break-in and conditioning are two different things. Break-in is what the name implies and there are a lot of ways and theories. Conditioning is what I call a fouler shot, or in the case of .22 rf's, the 5-10 shots I'll fire before serious work with the gun if I'm changing ammo brand or the barrel has been cleaned. Conditioning has a big effect.

And another interesting viewpoint regarding barrel break in. http://yarchive.net/gun/barrel/break_in.html

Thanks for the post, dempsey. I have to say I'm still not convinced one way or the other, but I'll lean toward break-in. The whole theory of that thread you linked to was that barrel break-in is some insidious strategy of barrel-makers to get naive shooters to burn their barrels out early so they will buy more barrels. This misses a central point: most people believe that you don't shoot more than twenty rounds for break in. If I recall, Shilen recommends five shots with cleaning between each shot for break-in. If that is going to burn your barrel prematurely, I'd hate to think what zeroing your scope is going to do!

I generally don't subscribe to barrel break-in, at least not anymore. On a factory barrel I'll sort of do a variation of one. I also notice a lot of people refer to Shilen, Krieger etc suggesting a break in procedure. The first paragraph from Shilens break in is as follows "Break-in procedures are as diverse as cleaning techniques. Shilen, Inc. introduced a break-in procedure mostly because customers seemed to think that we should have one. By and large, we don't think breaking-in a new barrel is a big deal" I quess I don't either Maybe I should, I dunno. dempsey

I had e-mailed Remington and they have no standard break-in protocol. I appreciate everyone's responses. It is nice to have a place to turn where the people clearly have more experience than I do. I guess I'll do some abbreviated form of break-in. Thanks for the input.

I have been shooting rifles since 1946. How long is that? I never heard a word about breaking in a barrel until the last 10 years or so. I have just finished reviewing Hatcher's Notebook, THE HUNTING RIFLE by T. Whelen, one of Keith's books on Rifles For Big Game Hunting, and Bob hagel's book on guns and loads for the American Hunter, and Ned Roberts' books on both single-shot and muzzleloading caplock target rifles, along with C.S. Landis' book, The .22 Caliber Varmint Rifle. None of these seems to have a word in it about this subject, unless it is well hidden. I don't remember everything that was in Page's book, The Accurate Rifle, but don't recall this subject in it either. Additionally, I don't remember old O'Connor advocating breaking in a barrel in any of his writing. I'll next see what, if anything, Ackley said about it. In the meantime, I'll continue to regard this subject in the same category as Pennsylvania Dutch hex symbols on the cheekpiece or peeing down the barrel to keep the evil spirits out of the bore!!

I break in my new barrels, but it's not that big of a deal. By the time I've allowed the barrel to cool sufficiently, I can just about have the bore free of all traces of copper. With a new Shilen, it only takes about a half dozen shots, and you're done.

It might be a waste of time with a factory barrel, but I still think it's a good idea to use some form of break in procedure, even if minimal. New factory barrels are not hand lapped like the custom barrels, and it's that factory-new roughness that grabs copper. Some aren't bad, but others are horrible.

The idea is to remove that copper to prevent it from building up at those "snag points" until enough bullets have gone down the bore to "iron out" the really bad spots, or at least knock off the biggest burrs from "factory perfect" tooling. My dad's 7-08 is the roughest barrel I've ever seen for a rifle with several hundred rounds through it. No amount of breaking in will fix that. However, as mentioned above, it may not help a barrel like my dad's, but it can't hurt either.

Maybe, as shooters have become more learned, these things have come to the front. The widespread use of the chronograph is an example. Now, those fantastic velocity claims are soon debunked. I think shooters have become much more aware of the condition of their bores, and manufacturers & rifle builders have had to keep pace. How many years did Hoppe's No.9 reign as the supreme bore cleaner? There were a few others, but they weren't serious contenders. The introduction of the bore scope, and similar instruments, have made shooters aware of the condition of their bores. Doesn't matter if they are new, or 100 yrs old.(shooters AND bores) Now note the plethora of cleaning agents, for just about any condition and fouling you can name. Also, barrel makers had to explain that their barrels weren't perfect. We now know that they aren't, and the makers/marketers have come up with a way to minimize the effects of these imperfections. And don't forget the added effect of increased velocity. To paraphrase a famous saying; "Build a better mouse, and the mousetrap makers will beat a path to your door." This is not meant to be negative in any way, nor meant to denigrate anyone. I just feel this is the natural progression of our sport toward the technical. Me, I'm still awaiting the advent of the self-cleaning ammunition. Then I'll cry for the self-lubricating firearm. ........Bug.

10 years ago I bought my first centerfire, a Browning BLR-81 in .308.
I read an article that new guns should be broken in so I followed the recommended procedure.
First ten shots, barrel cleaned after every shot. Guys at the range thought I was nuts. Five more then clean, five more then clean.

It's shot about .75 inch from that day. I have no idea what it would have done without the break-in.
I haven't bough a new gun from that point, just used, so I doubt breaking in would make much of a difference, but I will do it on my next factory new barrel.

Rob

[ 05-21-2003, 16:55: Message edited by: Recoil Rob ]

Recoil Bob, about 20 years ago, I bought a Browning BLR in .358 Winchester. I didn't break in the barrel as you describe, and this gun never was capable of shooting five shots into a group any smaller than 1" @ 100 yards. Who knows if it would have been a .75 MOA rifle if I had broken it in correctly!!

About "conditioning" now.

I�ve been working on cast loads for my Marlin 1895 for a week now,shot several hundred rounds fast,slow,anything really.Different alloys bla bla bla...

Just because I got a new mold.

Anyway,I hand lapped (conditioned) the bore just a little while ago and now, no matter what I do all I need is some "Ed�s Red" after shooting and a few patches:it does not lead the barrel at all anymore.

400 grainers going 2000 - 2100 fps,accurate as hell.Before lapping it was quite bad, actually I had a hard time to get decent groups at all with cast boolits.

I did not "break in" this rifle. But after lapping I did. I�m pretty happy at the moment,it shoots in one hole at 50 yds.

Within the last decade or so, I've only had the pleasure of working three barrels that were brand-new. The first was on my Remington 700 Stainless Mountain Rifle in .30-06. I followed the basic break-in of cleaning after every shot for the first few shots. Ever since then, that barrel is the most unbelievably smooth tube I've ever used. It cleans up in no time, with barely any traces of copper. The rifle is also phenomenally accurate.

The second was a barrel by E.R. Shaw that I chambered to .300 Winchester Magnum. Now Shaw barrels are supposed to be "rough." However, I found that by breaking it in, it too cleans up quite easily and it gives me 1/2 moa groups, so I can't complain.

The final barrel is a Gaillard "benchrest" grade stainless heavy barrel in 6.5mm that I recently had chambered to 6.5x55. It's hand lapped and made to a very high standard. It too shows the promise of phenomenal accuracy. I do find, however, that it coppers more than the other two barrels described.

Did breaking-in help these barrels for sure? I don't know. However, I do know it didn't hurt them. I'll continue to do it if for no other reason than for the symbolic ritual it provides. Getting a new gun or a new barrel is always an exciting thing -- as is receiving a Christmas present. Breaking-in is a way of enjoying the first outing with a new barrel.

This is always a good subject. You always get both sides. I am always amused by the eldequello side though, "if it was good 40 years ago, it is still good now", why progress or try to? I'll bet the out house is still the way to go, heck, Elmer used one most of his life. The typewriter is still best too. The point is that just because the old guys didn't do it doesn't necessarily mean squat.

To the point, I have had it make a big difference in some barrels and not much in others, but it did always improve something. Whether it is ease of cleaning or accuracy, something was helped, if even a little and you didn't have to wait the "old" 100 rounds to find out.

Just another old opinion.

I have started a modified break in for my newest rifle. It is a 7mmRUM, kicks kind of hard. Anyway, when I finish I guess I'll find out how much it helps. Thanks for all the input.

What I find interesting about this subject is that if the idea behind the shoot one clean approach is to prevent copper buildup, then what do you clean it with? No one mentions this.. Clearly if the idea is to remove copper then the bore should be cleaned with a copper removing agent, should it not? This is where I go HMM.. Which will be worse for my bbl, not doing a break in ritual, or immediatly reaching for the barnes copper removing agent (ammonia) before it ever gets warm..

I clean a new barrel first, then shoot it, using the one shot, clean, one shot clean method for about 10 rounds, then clean after every five rounds for the next 20 or so rounds.

Does it help? I don't know. Maybe. It doesn't hurt, as the cleaning between rounds is minimal.

After that, I clean when accuracy drops off, anywhere from 30 to 60 rounds.

I stopped cleaning 'just because' I've shot 25 rounds awhile ago...

I'e noticed that when I fire Failsafe bullets from a clean bore, the first 2 groups suck, and then accurcy is excellent...maybe it has something to do with the coating....

So when I use those, I foul the barrel with 6 shots before hunting.

I break in all my barrels properly, does it make a difference?? I have not clue and I actually doubt it especially from a Hunters view...but I play it safe and do it like a good little shooter, at least most of the time.

I have done it both ways. Sometimes Im a good boy and do the breakin by the book. Other times, well, lets just say I really dont clean it much at all. To tell the truth I cant tell the difference in them either in accuracy or in less fouling later.

Just maybe there are good barrels and bad barrels, I think that is the real deal...