Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73

Thread: Noveske Barrel Break-In (Stainless Steel)

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    737
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Robb Jensen View Post

    Oh but I was.

    What you didn't post was what was the effect did the marks have on accuracy? Velocity? Barrel life? Or is it just much ado about nothing?

    You havenít tested very many new AR-15 barrels for accuracy from a bench-rest have you? Did you even read the information from Krieger Barrels Inc. that I posted above? The reamer marks on the leade need to be removed for the barrel to shoot to its accuracy potential. Did you even read my responses to your famous stock makerís article? Even the famous stock maker admitted that the artifacts left in the throat had to be removed for the barrel to achieve its best accuracy. Itís the same for the reamer marks left on the leade. The barrel wonít shoot to its accuracy potential until those marks have been removed.

    No one has been talking about velocity with regard to barrel break-in, so I donít know why you would even bring that up. As for barrel life, again, did you even read my responses to the famous stock makerís article? Percentages of barrel life were clearly discussed.

    Hereís what a Krieger barreled AR-15 can do after the barrel has gone through a break-in process. Get back to me when you can do this with the first 10 shots from an AR-15 with a new barrel.





    ....
    Member of the General Population

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    7,126
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon View Post
    You havenít tested very many new AR-15 barrels for accuracy from a bench-rest have you? Did you even read the information from Krieger Barrels Inc. that I posted above? The reamer marks on the leade need to be removed for the barrel to shoot to its accuracy potential. Did you even read my responses to your famous stock makerís article? Even the famous stock maker admitted that the artifacts left in the throat had to be removed for the barrel to achieve its best accuracy. Itís the same for the reamer marks left on the leade. The barrel wonít shoot to its accuracy potential until those marks have been removed.

    No one has been talking about velocity with regard to barrel break-in, so I donít know why you would even bring that up. As for barrel life, again, did you even read my responses to the famous stock makerís article? Percentages of barrel life were clearly discussed.

    Hereís what a Krieger barreled AR-15 can do after the barrel has gone through a break-in process. Get back to me when you can do this with the first 10 shots from an AR-15 with a new barrel.





    ....


    i guess the biggest problem is that there's no way to compare. every barrel break-in procedure i've seen requires that the weapon be broken-in prior to firing strings... therefor there are no pre break-in groups to compare to post break-in groups.

    how would that barrel have grouped before it was broken-in?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,675
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Impressive groups to say the least. If Kreiger barrels couldn't shoot that kind of groups new they would probably be loosing money.

    What would be WAY more interesting to me would be to take two brand new stainless Kreiger barrels:

    Barrel 1) take a chamber casting to include the throat and leade before shooting, another casting after the 'break in', and another at 2K rounds and shoot it for groups.
    Barrel 2) take a chamber casting to include the throat and leade when new before shooting, and one more chamber casting after 2K and shoot it for groups.

    It would also be interesting to see what the velocity percentage of deviation was between rounds when the barrels were new vs. when they've had 2K rounds through them.
    Compare the before/after results of each barrel before and after 2K rounds and if the barrel break-in helped or didn't do anything. Don't really compare one barrel to the other for accuracy as that isn't the point of the study but to see at what percentage each barrel lost accuracy and velocity deviation from when each was new.
    I have my predictions but Noveske is saying that they find that the ritual 'break-ins' don't accomplish anything and this thread is about Noveske barrels.

    I'd like to do some testing like that but I don't have that much time on my hands let alone the cash to buy two new barrels and 2K rounds to put through them.

    My wife had a AR30 .338 Lapua which would shoot sub 1/2" groups at 200yds and we never did the voodoo break in. The first day we had it we fired 100 rounds out of it. Study group of 1 yes, but hey it didn't seem to hurt it at all.

    I'm a competitive 3gun match shooter. Most of my time at the range is training and preparing for a match. Or testing firing or zeroing guns. So no I don't wait for a match to shoot a first 10 shot group out of a new barrel and pray that the gun runs at that match. I put 500 rounds through the gun w/o cleaning because I need to know it works, non working guns are a fantastic recipe for losing a match. If I were a groundhog shooter, benchrest shooter, or high power rifle shooter I'd probably be worried about the first 10 shots out of a barrel and worshipping over the barrel sacrificing goats blood practicing Santeria and all that.

    FWIW we're in agreement on Kreiger, they are who manufactured my 16" midlength stainless barrel on my 3gun rifle. It's capable of accuracy that I'll never need for 3gun. I also use chrome lined barrels for 3gun and they work very well. They wouldn't make it lightweight enough so I had it turned down to .650" by someone else and also dimpled by Marvin Pitts, KAC style dimples.

    They say opinions are like assholes....

    Here's the advise from Schuemann barrels:
    http://www.schuemann.com/LinkClick.a...bid=67&mid=445 Schuemann says he only cleans the chamber and the only thing to go down the barrel is bullets but what the hell does he know?

    My old Limited gun had a Schuemann gain twist .40AET barrel. Even after 25K rounds though it, it shot tiny little groups. Nothing scientific but it would easily smoke any 1911, Glock or M&P that I've shot even my old 1911 Bullseye guns that was built by Precision Weapons at Quantico with a Barsto barrel.
    FFL/SOT armorer

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,503
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    ...and Molon's borescope pictures are chicken's blood?
    As far it relates to accuracy on target, yup. Got the former SNCOIC of Marine Corps Mountain Sniper School at Bridgeport here, reading this thread, shaking his head. His M40 at the school was rebarreled 3 times and it was a solid sub MOA performer without break in. He doesn't think break in is needed nor will it help more than shooting the weapon.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,841
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Still and all, Molon's borescope pictures show a clear improvement at the leade and for the investment of 20 rounds, it removes a variable when one is chasing ultimate accuracy. The group Molon showed isn't just tight, it's round.

    This isn't to say I suggest that anyone would incur the wrath of Baron Samedi if the sacred rituals of breaking in the bore were not performed. Folks, such as your Marine Corp friend, are successful shooters without doing so. Before I saw Molon's pictures, I would have told you the barrel is going to smooth itself without a break in. But now, it's something I feel I should investigate further. The pictures show it's more than just chicken blood
    Last edited by MistWolf; 01-30-11 at 17:29.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,112
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Ok, let me see if I got this right...

    The only thing that will smooth it out is firing it. The reason for the fire/clean "break in" is to have the same smoothing effect w/o excessive fouling?

    I would also gather, that Noveske doesn't recommend a break-in because the vast majority of their customers aren't 500 yard+ shooters.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    7,126
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by bp7178 View Post
    Ok, let me see if I got this right...

    The only thing that will smooth it out is firing it. The reason for the fire/clean "break in" is to have the same smoothing effect w/o excessive fouling?

    I would also gather, that Noveske doesn't recommend a break-in because the vast majority of their customers aren't 500 yard+ shooters.
    i don't think noveske caters to the "majority" of their customers- but his originally intended customers don't need a gun that does 1/2" at 500 meters. minute of man at 500, if it gains you some barrel longevity is perfectly "good enough." it's a tradeoff... but one that actually works best for the "majority."

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,285
    Feedback Score
    44 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by bp7178 View Post
    Ok, let me see if I got this right...

    The only thing that will smooth it out is firing it. The reason for the fire/clean "break in" is to have the same smoothing effect w/o excessive fouling?
    The theory is that with a rough leade, copper fouling will occur and deposit itself into the rough file-like texture, preventing the subsequent bullets passing through to further smooth out the rough areas.

    If you shoot once, clean the fouling, and shoot another, then the subsequent bullets are acting on a clean bore/leade without any fouling deposits over it, allowing the rough spots to smooth over.

    Whether or not this has any measurable impact on accuracy is what is being questioned.
    Last edited by uwe1; 01-30-11 at 21:45.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,675
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by uwe1 View Post
    The theory is that with a rough leade, copper fouling will occur and deposit itself into the rough file-like texture, preventing the subsequent bullets passing through to further smooth out the rough areas.

    If you shoot once, clean the fouling, and shoot another, then the subsequent bullets are acting on a clean bore/leade without any fouling deposits over it, allowing the rough spots to smooth over.

    Whether or not this has any measurable impact on accuracy is what is being questioned.
    Yep.

    And then there are also dumbasses that shoot lapping rounds through there bores. Stupid is as stupid does...
    FFL/SOT armorer

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,285
    Feedback Score
    44 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robb Jensen View Post
    Yep.

    And then there are also dumbasses that shoot lapping rounds through there bores. Stupid is as stupid does...
    Just wondering aloud, is it possible that the copper fouling filling in the rough texture, eventually gets as smooth as the rest of the leade kind of like smoothing over rough areas of drywall with putty? If it does, the rough surface would cease to be as rough. The "roughness" would then only be re-exposed if the leade/bore were to be cleaned with a copper solvent.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,503
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by uwe1 View Post
    Just wondering aloud, is it possible that the copper fouling filling in the rough texture, eventually gets as smooth as the rest of the leade kind of like smoothing over rough areas of drywall with putty? If it does, the rough surface would cease to be as rough. The "roughness" would then only be re-exposed if the leade/bore were to be cleaned with a copper solvent.
    That's a hypothesis. Now go find supporting data.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,503
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    Still and all, Molon's borescope pictures show a clear improvement at the leade and for the investment of 20 rounds, it removes a variable when one is chasing ultimate accuracy. The group Molon showed isn't just tight, it's round.

    This isn't to say I suggest that anyone would incur the wrath of Baron Samedi if the sacred rituals of breaking in the bore were not performed. Folks, such as your Marine Corp friend, are successful shooters without doing so. Before I saw Molon's pictures, I would have told you the barrel is going to smooth itself without a break in. But now, it's something I feel I should investigate further. The pictures show it's more than just chicken blood
    It will be more than chicken's blood when someone runs a scientific test using a brand new barrel and a brand new "broken in" barrel. Until then, the pics prove nothing about accuracy.
    Last edited by Littlelebowski; 01-31-11 at 07:41. Reason: IPad autocorrect

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,503
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon View Post
    You havenít tested very many new AR-15 barrels for accuracy from a bench-rest have you?
    For those of us that know Robb Jensen, his professional knowledge and integrity are not in question.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,285
    Feedback Score
    44 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlelebowski View Post
    That's a hypothesis. Now go find supporting data.
    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.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South La.
    Posts
    1,810
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by uwe1 View Post
    Just wondering aloud, is it possible that the copper fouling filling in the rough texture, eventually gets as smooth as the rest of the leade kind of like smoothing over rough areas of drywall with putty? If it does, the rough surface would cease to be as rough. The "roughness" would then only be re-exposed if the leade/bore were to be cleaned with a copper solvent.
    ============================================

    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.

    .

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,503
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ucrt View Post
    ============================================

    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.

    .
    That only makes sense if that bit of rifling was the very last bit that touched the bullet.

    Do you you not think there are sub 1" groups shot from barrels that have not been "broken in?"

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South La.
    Posts
    1,810
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlelebowski View Post
    That only makes sense if that bit of rifling was the very last bit that touched the bullet.

    Do you you not think there are sub 1" groups shot from barrels that have not been "broken in?"
    ===================================

    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.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Squirrel!
    Posts
    1,666
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon View Post
    You were not paying attention.
    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.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,285
    Feedback Score
    44 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyyr View Post
    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.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Squirrel!
    Posts
    1,666
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by uwe1 View Post
    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.
    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?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •