Is it necessary to "Break in" a new gun

I have previously followed a break in procedure but now I do not. These days I simply shoot the rifle then take it home and clean it. I see no difference between the two methodologies.
 
hometownhero said:
Yes they want you to "break in" a barrel because it induces more wear on it. In turn makes you buy more barrels. I think I read that exact line on 6mmbr. The barrel makers are in it for making money just like every other business. If they can get a little more they will tell you whatever you want to listen to.

When I got my savage 223 I just shot the hell out of it. To the point sometimes you couldnt touch the barrel even. The first time I cleaned it was after 1500 rounds ish. I was bored one night so cleaned it although it still shot the same as day one. Now about 3000 rounds through it and still shoots like day one. There still isnt ever any copper in it. Never even heard of barrel break in until I came on here. Never heard of anyone ever doing a special process except "get 3 boxes of ammo, go to a gravel pit and blast away."
If break in is so special youd think more people would know about it or have some proof that its more then a fairy tail.
Click to expand...

The way that you shot the hell out of your rifle and that the fact you have never heard of a barrel break in procedure but you apparently believe a barrel break in procedure causes a barrel to be replaced more quickly, makes you rather unique. I knew off one similar incident of going to the gravel pit and blasting away with the result the barrel was permanently damaged in 100 rounds.

I have never heard of anything Lilja or Kreiger or any other quality barrel maker may have suggested to do, that in any way would damage a barrel.
 
To address the title of this thread - " Is it necessary to "Break in" a new gun?"

Nothing is necessary you can do what ever you want, but you may want to carefully read what Lilja and Kreiger have to say about breaking a barrel in. These are two highly respected, very intelligent barrel makers with many years of experience. They produce some of the highest quality barrels that have ever been made. Then compare what they have to say with some of the considerably less experienced comments on this thread.

Make you own mind up on what to do.
 
guntech said:
To address the title of this thread - " Is it necessary to "Break in" a new gun?"

Nothing is necessary you can do what ever you want, but you may want to carefully read what Lilja and Kreiger have to say about breaking a barrel in. These are two highly respected, very intelligent barrel makers with many years of experience. They produce some of the highest quality barrels that have ever been made. Then compare what they have to say with some of the considerably less experienced comments on this thread.

Make you own mind up on what to do.
Click to expand...

But what about the other top bbl makers that say its unneccessary?!
I'm stirring it up haha
 
Use your "break in" rounds to sight your scope in. And if you feel like running a nylon brush in between each round then do it. You really think running a brush a couple times for "break in" is really going to diminish the life of the barrel?
 
guntech said:
The way that you shot the hell out of your rifle and that the fact you have never heard of a barrel break in procedure but you apparently believe a barrel break in procedure causes a barrel to be replaced more quickly, makes you rather unique. I knew off one similar incident of going to the gravel pit and blasting away with the result the barrel was permanently damaged in 100 rounds.

I have never heard of anything Lilja or Kreiger or any other quality barrel maker may have suggested to do, that in any way would damage a barrel.
Click to expand...

How does it make me rather unique? I have had rifles way before I knew of this web site. No one I know does anything but shoot a new gun and clean when it becomes inaccurate. Simple.
The wearing out of a barrel due to excessive cleaning is something I read on the web as well I think it was on 6mmbr or a similar site. Companies want to sell barrels so they want you to wear them out faster.
The more stuff that goes down the barrel the more it wears it out. Doenst matter who says it.

As for a barrel wrecked in 100 rounds he either shot it until it was glowing red or it was a crappy barrel to start with.
 
I guess you didn't understand what Lilja was saying on why it is important to remove the copper while the barrel is breaking in...
Click to expand...

What exactly is there to understand? He claims that by not doing a break in the barrel will copper foul early and excessively. To prevent this I have to spend about 100 minutes cleaning for the first 10-20 minutes of shooting. If I do this at my range I'm doing this outside on a picnic table, likely adding small amounts of grit and sand to the mix. I'll accept that the barrel will foul excessively the first 10-20 shots. I also accept that copper left in the bore will accelerate the accumulation of more copper fouling. To claim I have to clean all the carbon first, then all the copper after each shot for the first 5-10 or more shots so I can leave a layer of carbon on the grooves and lands, and to quote Dan, "This hard deposit will prevent the copper from stripping off the bullets". WTF???? Am I supposed to believe that after all that scrubbing with two different types of solvent there is going to be this magic layer of carbon left in the barrel?

I've gone over everything I can about barrel break in and the only thing that doesn't sound like some kind of OCD ritual is the barrel copper fouls excessively for the first 10-20 rounds fired. Do you seriously believe that removing everything after every shot for the first 5 to 20 shots is going to be any different then doing a very through clean at the end of the first day at the range?

Barrel maker X says you need to do this or your barrel will be clogged with so much copper it will shoot 2 MOA instead of 0.2. The so called explanations provided supporting the ritual are all about do this because I say it works. If these statements were backed up by an explanation of the mechanics behind their process, or perhaps cited a paper on metallurgy etc. I might buy into it. Instead I'm supposed to believe that by following some shot, clean, shot, clean ritual that I'll be laying down a magic layer of carbon that will repel copper?

I'll be breaking in a new rifle barrel soon. I'm going to take it to the range and fire 20 or so shots getting a rough zero and starting to work up a load. Then I'm going to go home and give the tube a thorough cleaning watching a good movie, perhaps I'll listen to that radio doc on cognitive dissonance again...
 
Was there not another major barrel manufacturer who believes barrel break-in is mostly hype, and the only reason they offered a break-in procedure was that they got tired of telling people not to worry about it? lol
 
Last edited:
guntech said:
To address the title of this thread - " Is it necessary to "Break in" a new gun?"

Nothing is necessary you can do what ever you want, but you may want to carefully read what Lilja and Kreiger have to say about breaking a barrel in. These are two highly respected, very intelligent barrel makers with many years of experience. They produce some of the highest quality barrels that have ever been made. Then compare what they have to say with some of the considerably less experienced comments on this thread.

Make you own mind up on what to do.
Click to expand...

Thanks..
 
To state that barrel makers such as Krieger and Bartlein(they do!) suggest break-in as it wears out barrels faster is riduculous and calls in to question their(barrel makers) integrity. Also illogical as they sell all they can produce and now have a 12 month or so lead time. Kriegers technical explanation speaks for itself and beats a few blasting away with Savages or others not familiar with the barrel making priocess. Have the nays read Kriegers comments - I doubt it.

Peter
 
peterdobson said:
To state that barrel makers such as Krieger and Bartlein(they do!) suggest break-in as it wears out barrels faster is riduculous and calls in to question their(barrel makers) integrity. Also illogical as they sell all they can produce and now have a 12 month or so lead time. Kriegers technical explanation speaks for itself and beats a few blasting away with Savages or others not familiar with the barrel making priocess. Have the nays read Kriegers comments - I doubt it.

Peter
Click to expand...

Well said !

The sad Liberal culture of failure which holds that operators of a "for profit" enterprise have no reason to speak other than to lie in the interest of making a dollar is libelous and nothing more. We get it that those with low self esteem cannot abide success, there's no need for them to advertize the fact as they do.
 
YES! Why does no one seem to get this. Show me a smooth barrel that has been broken in properly, or a rough one that hasn't and sure, one might shoot better than the other, but there's no way to attribute it wholly to the fact that one has been broken in.



paperslayer said:
Unless and until someone takes the time to test a huge number of barrels and subject them to identical conditions, randomly assign them to the break-in-not break-in category and have another group repeat the experiment and for good measure use a mixed bag of barrels that were and were not broken-in as a means of evaluating the results, barrel break in has never been objectively or scientifically proven. Unlikely anyone ever will take the time or money to do so. The problem is that no two barrels are the same, no two loads are the same and no two cartridges, bullets, primers, etc. etc. . There are far too many intrinsic variables to ever properly and quantitatively prove barrel break-in does/does-not work. As a result, you must make the decision based on intuitive belief, informed decision and the anecdotes of those with a strong opinion. I don't break-in barrels. As long as you aren't using my gun, I don't give a rat's arse whether you do or don't.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, from what I understand, he's saying that fouling will occur more quickly in a barrel that is not broken in resulting in a faster loss of precision as the barrel gets dirty. I'm inclined to believe that considering the source, but I still wonder how much of a difference it really makes and if that's noticeable.

guntech said:
Go to Lilja's website and read what he has to say about 'breaking a barrel in" and the scientific facts on what happens. It is stated it quite well and he is well respected by all in the business.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom