Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73

Thread: Noveske Barrel Break-In (Stainless Steel)

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,473
    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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,473
    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

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,473
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon View Post
    You haven’t 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.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,217
    Feedback Score
    45 (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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South La.
    Posts
    1,893
    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.

    .

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,473
    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?"

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South La.
    Posts
    1,893
    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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Squirrel!
    Posts
    2,175
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,217
    Feedback Score
    45 (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.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Squirrel!
    Posts
    2,175
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •