With people debating the merit of barrel break-in, that data is going to be elusive .
I wonder if we have a forum member with a borescope who could take pictures before and after firing a couple hundred rounds through a new stainless barrel, WITHOUT removing any of the fouling.
Seriously though, how much could smoothing out that rough spot improve accuracy? A tenth or two of an inch at 100 yards? I suppose that would matter at 500 or 600 yards, but not at the distances I'm commonly shooting.
============================================
I'm not an accuracy guru but I understand that something spinning at 300,000 rpm needs to be balanced and shaped correctly.
If there is a rough spot going into the bore and it is filled in with copper, it is still dimensionally wrong. As the bullet passes over the "spot" it will either get scraped, which changes the balance or it will be deformed which will affect how it flies.
All of this is probably negligible to a 1" group but it is bound to have some affect on accuracy.
.
===================================
I just said 1" groups because that is all I really care about. I'm happy with a 1" group but I've never broke-in a barrel and I've shot plenty of <1" groups. If I wanted smaller groups, I'd go back to reloading, light triggers, floated match barrels, scope level, and so on. Plus I'd probably break-in my barrel.
I think "barrel break-in" is just one of the many variables in trying to get ultra accurate. I'm not in to ultra accuracy but I don't discount the "techniques" they use.
But maybe it's just me...
.
Last edited by ucrt; 01-31-11 at 11:39.
What I'm curious of, speaking of attention, is why you wouldn't take pictures of the Noveske barrel, before and after. You show the Kreiger barrel before and after pictures, but then you only show the Noveske's "post" photos, and then compare it to the state of the Kreiger barrel as if they should look the same. I don't think I need to list out the numerous rules of logic, as well as the scientific method, that your implication breaks.
You need to not only show a photo of the Noveske barrel before and after with the 150 round non-break-in period, but you also need to show the same barrel type with a 20-round, one-shot one-clean break in. Without those, your report is seemingly biased and useless to anyone who values logic, to say the least.
I don't think his report is terribly biased at all. He showed one before and after comparison, and only had the after on another example. As I said earlier, I don't think anyone is really disputing that this "smoothing" of the rough areas occurs. We are only trying to determine if it has any measurable impact on accuracy.
Does breaking a barrel in yield a net result of shrinking a 0.5" group to 0.4"? Or is it even less, such as say 0.45"? Most of the guys here either aren't able to make .5" groups or wouldn't care about a 0.1" or even 0.2" difference so barrel break in matters very little to them.
From what I gather from reading Molon's many informative posts, is that he is very committed to maximizing accuracy and is also generally very meticulous in how he puts together a report so I don't doubt his information or worry that he is biased.
Then WHY post it? It's completely useless without a "before" comparison and even more useless without a comparison of what a "broke-in" Noveske barrel should look like.
With the lack of said photos, all the photo is good for is comparing against a properly broke-in barrel "should" look like. It's flawed on every level. Global warming, anyone?
Bookmarks