Do All Rifles Need Break In

jtf2

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Earth
I know that bolt actions need break in but do military rifles need it like my bushmaster xm15 or my CZ 858 .and if so is the break in any different??
 
If a standard rifle needs a proper break-in...why wouldn't military designed rifles that are used more than shooting paper?
It's like saying...if your little Toyota from the dealer needs to be driven in properly for the first 10,000km....do race cars needs to be broken in to have everything seated properly aswell?


think about your question...


edit: just noticed that your threads here are pretty 'random', wonder how long this one will last lol
 
I just grabbed my VZ and AR out of the box and shot the crap out of it.

Same as my brand new issued rifle, signed it out went to the range, put 300rds though it before we even had a chance to detail clean it.
 
No rifle needs a break in. The whole break-in thing is based on anecdotes. opinions and subjectivity. There is no proper scientific evidence that "break-in" makes any difference whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
jtf2

It depends on the rifle, many firearms out of the box aren't as reliable as that same firearm a few hundred shots later. The act of firing allows parts to wear against one another seating them as it were and increasing reliability.

New barrels also have a break in procedure. Wether that helps or not is beyond me but I understand by properly following the break in you can extend the life of the barrel and accuracy. By how much is a mystery as I have not shot enough from a single firearm to wear enough barrels to judge.
 
I have noticed that some barrels do foul considerably more when new,so I do clean them more often until the fouling fades,but I don't follow a regimented break in procedure.
 
No rifle needs a break in. The whole break-in thing is based on anecdotes. opinions and subjectivity. There is no proper scientific evidence that "break-in" makes any difference whatsoever.

I couldn't agree more. I the old day of mass manufactured barrels that where very rough you where laying down a layer of copper in the imperfections and then polishing it (the layer of copper) then laying down another and polishing and another and polishing making it smoother bore and probably shooting better. With solvents like Hoppes you never got rid of all the copper. Then Sweets came along all hell broke loose. Breaking in a barrel in my opinion is a waste of time and bullets and wears out your barrel sooner. Copper can not cut steel.
 
Last edited:
On inspection my barrel looked a little rough, sent a number of patches through with a mild lapping compound, cleaned thoroughly, figure thats all it needed. Shot 5 or so rounds, cleaned, shot 10, cleaned... done.
 
I'm no metallurgist, so don't take this as gospel, but I always found it suspicious that such a soft metal like copper (from a bullet's jacket) could polish/lap a very hard one like chrome-molybdenum steel (from the barrel).

I'd say the bullets are being polished/lapped more than anything.
 
Seems this question comes up from time to time and I think the best answer is to follow the recommendations of your barrel maker. I wouldn't bother breaking in a factory barrel, but the few rounds it takes to break in a custom barrel I believe is worthwhile.

The break in has nothing to do with the bore itself, which from the good barrel makers is glass smooth. However, when the chamber is cut the reamer leaves microscopic ridges across the grain of the steel. Once these ridges have been built up with bullet jacket material, they are coated and protected. The heat from subsequent firings hardens them so they can never be removed. Every time a round is fired from then on, bullet jacket material is stripped off and suspended in the propellant gases and is subsequently deposited along the bore, which we recognize as fouling. Once those ridges are heat treated, that barrel will always foul, and nothing will resolve that problem. When the round fires, it is not the passage of the bullet that removes these ridges, it is the heat and pressure of the propellant gasses, as the bullet is already gone.

My Krieger cleans up so quickly that I am convinced the procedure is worthwhile.
 
After 30 years of shootin I've never heard any such talk of breaking in a barrel. Barrels do have life spans, all right. Using quality ammo and looking after a barrel is key. AR's especially m4s, (shorties) well who cares about the barrel just keep hammering off shots till the cows come home.
 
Although I'm impressed with the soundness of the concept you've laid out here, some points don't resonate with me:
- How does the heat harden the ridges?
- How is the bullet jacket material (i.e. copper) that is built up not "replaced" by each subsequent shot? That is to say, wouldn't the subsequent shots strip the previous copper and replace it with new fouling on the ridge?
- What you seem to say is that one way or another, this wouldn't accurize the rifle, just make it less prone to fouling?

Thanks

Seems this question comes up from time to time and I think the best answer is to follow the recommendations of your barrel maker. I wouldn't bother breaking in a factory barrel, but the few rounds it takes to break in a custom barrel I believe is worthwhile.

The break in has nothing to do with the bore itself, which from the good barrel makers is glass smooth. However, when the chamber is cut the reamer leaves microscopic ridges across the grain of the steel. Once these ridges have been built up with bullet jacket material, they are coated and protected. The heat from subsequent firings hardens them so they can never be removed. Every time a round is fired from then on, bullet jacket material is stripped off and suspended in the propellant gases and is subsequently deposited along the bore, which we recognize as fouling. Once those ridges are heat treated, that barrel will always foul, and nothing will resolve that problem. When the round fires, it is not the passage of the bullet that removes these ridges, it is the heat and pressure of the propellant gasses, as the bullet is already gone.

My Krieger cleans up so quickly that I am convinced the procedure is worthwhile.
 
Yes, the break in only serves to reduce fouling, but if you are a competitive shooter, particularly a bench rest guy, the less fouling your rifle sees over the course of the match, potentially the better your score will be. Another way to look at it is that a properly treated barrel will fire more rounds before fouling builds up enough to reduce accuracy. The Folks at Sinclair are of the opinion that a barrel that is not broken in will never realize it's full accuracy potential, but this relates to fouling. Besides, most people are happy to have a barrel that cleans up quickly.

Once covered in copper the ridges are protected from the effects of the subsequent shots, except that they are hardened from heat, pressure, and the passage of bullets. Think about a piece of steel that has been cut with a hack saw. The little hair like particles of steel that are left along the cut edge would be akin to the ridges left from the reamer. If you took a cutting torch, or even a strong propane torch to the cut edge, those hairs would turn red and fall away. That is the purpose for shoot one clean one procedure. It keeps the ridges exposed and vulnerable to the flame and pressure produced by the propellant gasses. While jacket material is stripped of each bullet, much is suspended in the propellant gasses, and it would take several rounds before the ridges are completely covered. As the procedure continues the ridges are reduced so you can begin to clean after 3 shots, then after 5. By the time you fire 5 shots before cleaning the ridges are no longer a problem.

I don't claim to be a metallurgist, and mostly I'm just repeating what I've read, but the theory is that a break in procedure is less effective on a used barrel. I deduced that the only reason that the procedure would be less effective on a used barrel would be because the ridges would be work hardened by the combination of the passage of the bullets and the heat of combustion and therefore more difficult to remove.
 
Last edited:
I my self have cut this step out 80% of it anyway. I have found no difference in accuracy. I do a very good clean job when i get the barrel new, by patching I also switched all my bronze brushes to nylon but mostly just patch clean now.

Durring break in I do fire one shot than patch clean with 3 patched and 2 dry ones, than fire 5 shots and do the same, after this i just shoot it until it fouls.

After that day I clean it, but min effort, I use 7.62 and patch a few heavy soaked ones and leave her sit for 15-20 min than dry patch and oil it up if i do not plan on shooting that week.

Back at the range i whipe it out and dump 2 in the bank and we are good to go!

After this I only clean it when accuracy falls off.

I used to be one of those guys that cleaned every 20 rounds!!!
 
Last edited:
I have found that almost universally speaking, people that have great opinions of the benefits of barrel break-in don't own bore scopes.... Having said that, I have a great affection for those that break-in barrels.
 
Once covered in copper the ridges are protected from the effects of the subsequent shots, except that they are hardened from heat, pressure, and the passage of bullets.

Boomer, this is the only part I'm having trouble with regarding the explanation you are quoting. Although I'm an engineer, I'm not a metallurgial one, but know some basics in the latter regard. That having been said, the only articles on hardening steel using heat I found involved heating the steel at temperatures between 500 and 1000ºC for several hours if not days. A good example of such articles comes from this site. I doubt that the ridge (which I tend to believe might actually exist on some rifles) would have such high temperatures maintained for so long over the course of a typical shooting session (which, if you're me, involves breaks to eat, change targets, chat with range buddy, etc. thus allowing the barrel to cool).

Just a thought.
 
Back
Top Bottom