Noveske Barrel Break-In (Stainless Steel)

[Skyyr]

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.

Actually, if you've had any higher education (which you seem to have had), then you'd realize that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person presenting a new claim or a claim that defies what is held to be common truth. Always. Period. Debates, thesis papers, logic presentations, all of it. It has nothing to do with virtue.

This (Robb) isn't someone arguing because they dislike what's shown, it's pointing out that the information is 1) functionally useless without either a larger sample size or a full comparison of before/after with other barrels, 2) apparently biased (since an incomplete data sample was provided, yet a conclusion was still drawn/implied), and 3) lacks supporting evidence. Further, presenting the Noveske barrel as "proof" of break-in with the Kreiger barrel makes it look even more suspicious, as it's logically flawed.

I neither believe nor discredit break-in. In fact, I'm curious to if it works. However, seeing someone tout one broken-in barrel and half a data sample of another is rather incredulous, as I would expect people to be smarter than that.

[Robb Jensen]

This (Robb) isn't someone arguing because they dislike what's shown, it's pointing out that the information is 1) functionally useless without either a larger sample size or a full comparison of before/after with other barrels, 2) apparently biased (since an incomplete data sample was provided, yet a conclusion was still drawn/implied), and 3) lacks supporting evidence. Further, presenting the Noveske barrel as "proof" of break-in with the Kreiger barrel makes it look even more suspicious, as it's logically flawed.

Exactly as the late Paul Harvey would say, I want 'the rest of the story'. Not 20 rounds after new. Much more useful information is at 1K rounds, 5K rounds, 10K rounds, 20K rounds etc. THEN measure groups!

[Brahmzy]

It doesn't help that this is an extremely difficult thing to test IMO.
All variables have to be pretty much CONSTANT, which is near impossible.
1. Say you take TWO of the exact same Noveske barrels-fresh, brand-new barrels. An ASSumption would need to be made that there are ZERO manufacturing differences between the barrels to begin with. EXACT same crowns, exact same eveything, to the .0000x or whatever. Assuming there's some way to quanitfy that alone, go to step 2.
2. Assembly of the barrel(s) onto the same upper rec. must be the exact same, same torque on barrel nut etc. POI should, by all means be the EXACT same if all is perfect there. Same BCG, same optics, same eveything. No muzzle device, obviously.
3. Ammo. The ammunition required to see such a minute change between these two barrels would have to be some AMAZINGLY handloaded, "perfectly consistent" specimens.
4. Number of tests run. I would think an absolute minimum of 3 10-shot groups would need to be performed per barrel.
5. The shooter. Ideally we would lock said rifle into a clamp of some sort disallowing ANY mistakes upon the shooter's part. 'Cause let's be honest - that is what could really make or break this comparison when we're potentially talking 1/16th -1/8 MOA at 100yds, or less.
6. Weather, temp, wind etc. would have to be the same. Ideally we would use LaRue's underground 100yd 3ft diameter pipe system they have to perform their testing.

That's just off the top of my head. The same tests would need to be performed at the 100rd mark, 250, 500, 1000rd etc.

So until someone can take the time, money and effort required to perform a test such as described, we're all talkin' out our asses.

[Littlelebowski]

The very fact that there's tons of people getting spectacular groups without "break in" (not that there is one scientifically defined "break in process," there are many!) is what's called a clue.

[Iraqgunz]

My Noveske Recon had around 1000 rounds through it. I did not follow the break in procedures. The last time I fired 10 shot groups I was getting around 1.25 MOA with a Leupold Mark 4 MR/T and Prvi Partizan 75gr. match ammo.

[Littlelebowski]

Read this

An excerpt:

• 99.9% of shooters don’t have access to a quality bore scope to view the interior surface of their barrels.
• Without a bore scope to view the interior surface of your barrel what exactly are you trying to fix by a shoot and clean process?
• If there are burrs or machine marks from the machining process in the chamber, throat or barrel where are they located?
• Do the machine marks run parallel or perpendicular to the barrel finish?
• If there are high points and low points inside the barrel again where are they located?
• Does shooting and cleaning between rounds correct/fix all barrel imperfections if they exist? If yes how?
• Without a bore scope again you have no idea what the actual condition of the interior barrel surface
• So far if you don’t have honest solid answers to these first few questions and you’ve been performing a barrel break-in process you’re working off a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess)

Couple more questions while I still have your attention.

• Pushing a cotton patch with solvent or a bronze brush down the barrel will do what to remove a 416 stainless steel or chromemoly metal burr or machine marks?
• Last time I checked, 416 SS or CM is much harder than a cotton patch or bronze brush and is most likely impenetrable by most bore solvents.
• Yes it will remove copper fouling caught by the metal burr, but how will it remove the metal burr?
• How many shots will it take to remove the burr or imperfection and how will you know when the barrel issues have been corrected? Is it always x-amount of shots?

[Cameron]

• Pushing a cotton patch with solvent or a bronze brush down the barrel will do what to remove a 416 stainless steel or chromemoly metal burr or machine marks?
• Last time I checked, 416 SS or CM is much harder than a cotton patch or bronze brush and is most likely impenetrable by most bore solvents.

This is what I have always wondered. I have a few "precision" barrels from FN, Badger, Lothar Walther, Kreiger and I have followed a minimalist "break-in" procedure of about 20 rounds, using a copper solvent. Like others have said while breaking in the barrel, I also zeroed the rifle, so the round count is sort of a moot point as I would have had to zero the rifle and shot it for a couple of groups anyway.

I have always wondered how running a patch or a brass through the bore could remove machining marks or bore irregularities.

Cameron

[Low Drag]

• Pushing a cotton patch with solvent or a bronze brush down the barrel will do what to remove a 416 stainless steel or chromemoly metal burr or machine marks?
• Last time I checked, 416 SS or CM is much harder than a cotton patch or bronze brush and is most likely impenetrable by most bore solvents.
• Yes it will remove copper fouling caught by the metal burr, but how will it remove the metal burr?
• How many shots will it take to remove the burr or imperfection and how will you know when the barrel issues have been corrected? Is it always x-amount of shots?

I resurrected this thread in the hopes of gaining a bit of info so I’ll try again.

My understanding of barrel break in was that once the burrs are removed (when I don’t know) then you should get less copper out of the barrel. I ask because I am getting plenty of copper out after 200 rounds. Granted I did shoot the barrel warm.

Thoughts? Am I drinking Kool-Aid?


Correct me please but isn’t the copper solvent meant to remove copper left in place due to small burrs? Said burrs are removed by the bullet moving down the barrel. My point of curiosity was that copper solvent takes time to work.

[Robb Jensen]

It doesn't help that this is an extremely difficult thing to test IMO.
All variables have to be pretty much CONSTANT, which is near impossible.
1. Say you take TWO of the exact same Noveske barrels-fresh, brand-new barrels. An ASSumption would need to be made that there are ZERO manufacturing differences between the barrels to begin with. EXACT same crowns, exact same eveything, to the .0000x or whatever. Assuming there's some way to quanitfy that alone, go to step 2.
2. Assembly of the barrel(s) onto the same upper rec. must be the exact same, same torque on barrel nut etc. POI should, by all means be the EXACT same if all is perfect there. Same BCG, same optics, same eveything. No muzzle device, obviously.
3. Ammo. The ammunition required to see such a minute change between these two barrels would have to be some AMAZINGLY handloaded, "perfectly consistent" specimens.
4. Number of tests run. I would think an absolute minimum of 3 10-shot groups would need to be performed per barrel.
5. The shooter. Ideally we would lock said rifle into a clamp of some sort disallowing ANY mistakes upon the shooter's part. 'Cause let's be honest - that is what could really make or break this comparison when we're potentially talking 1/16th -1/8 MOA at 100yds, or less.
6. Weather, temp, wind etc. would have to be the same. Ideally we would use LaRue's underground 100yd 3ft diameter pipe system they have to perform their testing.

That's just off the top of my head. The same tests would need to be performed at the 100rd mark, 250, 500, 1000rd etc.

So until someone can take the time, money and effort required to perform a test such as described, we're all talkin' out our asses.

I think you somewhat missed my idea.

1. Two barrels from the same manufacturer. 'Break in' one of them, just shoot the other one. At 20 rounds after the 'Broken-in' one measure a 10 shot group. On the other just measure a 10 shot group after firing 20 rounds.

2. Then shoot 1K rounds through both barrels, later with some of the same ammo same lot # used for the first group fire a 10 shot group from each barrel. Then measure & compare each barrels group to it's own group when it only had 20 rounds through it. Don't compare accuracy to each other barrel that's not the point of this experiment. Compare each barrels % of accuracy difference to see if the 'break-in' accomplished anything.

Then do this same experiment with all know quality barrels.

I predict you won't see any difference.

[ALCOAR]

Just to be clear here....it's sounds as if several folks in this thread are calling out Molon and his thoughts on barrel break in procedure, moreover the tone is rather unfriendly, if not disrespectful in reference to his opinion.

Molon has plenty of fans after the vast amt. of contributions in the accuracy/precision AR realm as well as the ammunition aspect that he has posted on the various forums, so I am not so much defending him as I am defending his PROVEN track record in regards to not only having an opinion on the silly internet but actually backing that up with evidence and facts. As far as I am concerned his facts and evidence are some of the most unbiased and well vetted sources of info to be had anywhere.