Noveske Barrel Break-In (Stainless Steel)

[Russ D]

This is one of the oldest arguments on the internet. If you care about every last ounce of accuracy then it can't hurt at worst and may help slightly at best. I do not shoot BR competitions so I normally don't bother. I did buy a custom 22-250 and did a 20 shot break in procedure on that just in case it would help. During those 20 rounds i also zeroed the scope and zapped a few groundhogs. Why this discussion always ends up heated is beyond me. It's never gonna make a huge difference.

[uwe1]

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?

I have no real disagreement with you so tone it down a bit please. Invoking global warming in this case isn't exactly warranted.

The main example in the first post was regarding Krieger barrels. There was a before and after photo and even a group shot with the barrel afterwards. Some gun store fudds , once told me, the problem is you can't really shoot the same barrel for groups and then break it in afterwards and shoot it again as the (probably voodoo) argument could be made that improper break-in influenced the barrel's final accuracy.

The thing is, you zeroed in on the lack of a "before firing" Noveske barrel photo, which would probably, but not definitely, show a rougher surface (we won't know unless Molon posts it and he posted that the surface was rougher prior to shooting), and it would have been more complete as examples go, but no one even cared. Not to speak for anyone else on this thread, but no one even made an argument that the initial bullets would have no effect on the rough patches. Would it make you a believer if you saw that "before" picture?

The argument for or against barrel break-in seems to center around whether or not it will further improve a barrel's accuracy. A single "before firing" picture of a Noveske barrel won't do anything to prove that, just as a picture of a group fired "after" break-in doesn't demonstrate that anything was done by breaking it in. Molon happens to think that it does, and until he can show before and after barrel break-in groups, my mind won't be made up. I have read many of Molon's write-ups and they are always full of great information and I appreciate the time that he took to do it.

For the record, I have never before and don't plan on breaking in a barrel for my purposes. I don't think it will make enough of a difference for me to care, if it makes any difference at all. I think we could be in agreement on that.

[MistWolf]

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.

Can you prove it does NOT help accuracy? Using your own argument, until a scientific test is run, you cannot say it doesn't any more than anyone else can claim it does.

No one is questioning the professional integrity of Robb Jensen in his field. But how much experience does he have in chasing accuracy? Molon has quite a bit.

As I said earlier, after seeing Molon's pictures, it's gotten me to thinking about this subject in a different light. Smoothing the leade removes a variable. It may be that for my intended purposes, a barrel break-in will not net me any noticeable increase in accuracy. But that doesn't mean I'm going to tell a man his experiences are pure voodoo

[Littlelebowski]

Can you prove it does NOT help accuracy? Using your own argument, until a scientific test is run, you cannot say it doesn't any more than anyone else can claim it does.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to tell a man his experiences are pure voodoo

That's not how things work. I say nothing is changed with "breaking in," he says there is. The burden of proof is on him. 2 barrels, one "broken in," according to whatever break in fad is in vogue at the moment and the other is brand new.

You're right, I am not going to tell an 8541 that his experience with 3 issue M40 barrels and NOT breaking them in are pure voodoo. At least that guy is looking at targets instead of photographs.

[ucrt]

.

Most of us are interested in reliability and accuracy to just an MOA or so but I don't consider Molon's Post “useless”. In fact, I learned why the "accuracy guru's" recommend a barrel break-in. Not that I intend to ever do a break-in, I don't have a problem knowing the "theory"...which I give them (the accuracy guru’s) benefit of the doubt that it is probably more than a "wag" on their part as to why a break-in is beneficial.

I hate to see someone that goes above and beyond with pictures and explanations in trying to help people sight-in, understand trajectories, improve accuracy, etc. basically being discounted as some inexperienced "illogical" gun nut and disregarded as some kind of "incompetent".

It is all about perspective.

Now Molon is saying that just one variable factor of ultra accuracy is breaking-in a barrel. But guys that don’t really seem to have a LOT of experience in ultra accuracy are arrogantly replying that their understanding or what they’ve read or what they've been told about not breaking-in a barrel is good enough and Molon doesn’t have facts to prove he is right (other than unbelievable targets), and he “needs” do more testing to “prove” ...blah....blah...blah... all the while he’s getting 10-shot groups that I doubt any contributors to this Thread could duplicate??

Molon doesn't seem to be some twit shooting 3-shot groups out of some DPMS 30" H-Bar Super Duper Varmit Special claiming to be the end-all know-all.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem leaving Molon a 100-yards in the rear watching my 6 as I went forward. I probably would hope he broke his barrel-in and Heck!, I'd probably go find him a chicken to to bleed out if that is what he wanted.

But maybe (and it probably is) just me…

.

[Robb Jensen]

No one is questioning the professional integrity of Robb Jensen in his field. But how much experience does he have in chasing accuracy? Molon has quite a bit.

Pictures only tell 'some' of the story....

I still say lets get this on! What barrel makers want to donate 2 barrels for this test? I'd like to test LaRue, Noveske, WOA, Kreiger, BCM SS410, Lothar-Walther, Superior, Sabre, JP, Centurion, Satern and some others and lets put this shit to the test and put an end to this. Honestly I don't think you'll end up seeing much if any difference. I have experience with almost all those manufacturers and those are some great barrels. There's a Tier to premium barrels and I think Centurion, Noveske, BCM SS410 and Kreiger are at the top. Where some of these barrels differ is how long they'll maintain a great degree of accuracy over the life of the barrel.

Who's up for it?, I'll pull some trigger for this for those that think for some reason I can't shoot or that I don't know what accuracy is (FWIW I grew up the son of a Marine 0369 who went to Scout/Sniper school at Quantico in 1985. Before USPSA/3gun I used to shoot silhouette).

We'll also need a lot of .223 Rem ammo and at least a 100yd range. Quantico has a fixture to fire rifles without a human pulling the trigger to eliminate that problem. I can probably get access to this, it's basically a Ransom Rest for rifles. This fixture has put to shame some of the best claims by a few greatly respected manufacturers in recent times.

From each barrel maker:
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.
Ammo from maker and the same lot # in each barrel when new and when at 2K rounds should be used for the new 'groups' and 2K round '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 barrel for accuracy as that isn't the point of the study but to see at what percentage each barrel lost accuracy and each barrels velocity is deviation wise from when each was new.

Money where your mouth is and all that.....put up or shut up, bring it don't sing it.

[MistWolf]

That's not how things work. I say nothing is changed with "breaking in," he says there is. The burden of proof is on him. 2 barrels, one "broken in," according to whatever break in fad is in vogue at the moment and the other is brand new.

That's good! If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for anyone. Since you're such a paragon of virtue and light, it's the other guy who has to prove his point.

You're right, I am not going to tell an 8541 that his experience with 3 issue M40 barrels and NOT breaking them in are pure voodoo. At least that guy is looking at targets instead of photographs.

Because I'm deliberately being a dick, I'd like to point out I get your little bit of attempted subterfuge. You're trying to make it sound like I think your Marine Corps friend is practicing voodoo. Not at all. He's a successful shooter and knows his job, or he wouldn't be holding the position he does. I'm not butting heads with your Marine Corps friend or his experience, I'm butting heads with you and the fact you ask for proof and present propaganda. I don't care if anyone breaks in their barrel or not

[MistWolf]

...I'll pull some trigger for this for those that think for some reason I can't shoot or that I don't know what accuracy is...

Robb, if I came across sounding like you cannot shoot and don't know what accuracy is, I humbly beg your pardon. Each shooting discipline has it's own priorities and views. Service Rifle shooters have a different opinion of accuracy than guys who teach carbine classes who have a different view of things than benchrest shooters who differ greatly from those who kick open doors and shoot badguys in the face. That's all I meant

[Low Drag]

Well hell I’m sorry I asked the questions. I was just trying to draw upon the knowledge of the folks that I work with that know some very specific information regarding the use of chemicals to remove copper from surfaces.

Asking about a manufacturer’s recommended process is all I was asking for. As a result it turns into a bunch of engineer types having a “slide rule” measuring contest where the #1 rule is to spit in the other guy’s corn flakes. I've found very little useable info in this thread.

How about this. If you want to debate the merits of match/stainless barrel break in take it to another thread please.

Regarding you guys each saying the other guy had to ‘prove’ this point, from my perspective so do you.

Yes I would say all this in person to anyone on the thread in a level tone of voice. Moderators, sorry if I went too far.

[Palmguy]

That's not how things work. I say nothing is changed with "breaking in," he says there is. The burden of proof is on him. 2 barrels, one "broken in," according to whatever break in fad is in vogue at the moment and the other is brand new.

I agree. From a logical point of view, the burden of proof is on those claiming that <fill in the blank> break-in procedure is desireable or beneficial for <fill in the reason>.