OzFclass

I should add that until Matt P brings my rifle back to me during my Queens visit next week, I can't effectively test my cleaning rods for "free spin", especially on the reverse stroke.
I got sick of changing jags/brushes, so had spoilt myself and currently have 3 x Dewey coated rods, as well as the first two ProShot. Plus I have one 22 cal BoreTech rod that is a beautifully built tool. I use it with a mop on, to thoroughly oil the bore
I will check all of my cleaning rods straight after the Queens and report back.
Tony

Thanks for the heads up, will be interesting to hear what comes back from manufacturer

One thing I would like to ensure is we don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Lets be very clear about what we proved and what we didn't. I feel very strongly that you shouldn't blame the individual items ie bronze brushes, cleaning rods or paste etc. in this scenario. Each of these items if used correctly and sensibly can be an important part of a cleaning regime.

What we did prove: Using a bronze brush, with abrasive bore polish on a non-turning cleaning rod produced basically identical marks to those seen in Tony's barrel.

This does NOT mean his rod wasn't turning for the whole process, nor does it mean that this issue is restricted to bronze brushes (quite possibly can happen with nylon too - and we have had some feedback to suggest this may have happened) but we have yet to show or demonstrate that and suspect it less prevalent.

I strongly suspect Tony's rod was turning correctly at the start but even then a few fibres would find their way up and over the rifling and as the tracks start to form (and rifling and brushes wear quickly with the abrasive polish) it becomes easier and easier for the fibres to follow. eventually the brush can do nothing else but follow the gouges and go straight ahead (even with the best cleaning rods). I feel this is what did the final damage and caused the straight scratchings seen in bottom of the grooves. Once the brush is travelling straight down bore then the damage could be accelerated. Of course all this is conjecture and we haven't proven this at all.

I personally will still be using bronze brushes (a few strokes asap after shooting) and occasionally abrasive pastes (only every 3-500 rounds but only on a jag and sparingly - maybe on a well fit nylon brushg depending on further investigations). In fact I am quite impressed by the product at the centre of this investigation for its uniformity and fine particle size. I feel a cleaning regime similar to what Keith and Alan have suggested has been tried and proven to give good accurate barrel life and the best compromise between removing carbon and overcleaning.

I WILL BE WATCHING CLEANING ROD SPINNING VERY CAREFULLY FROM NOW ON THOUGH.

We also need to get our hands on some IOSSO and test as well as nylon brushes - anyone want to ship us up a small sample??

Thanks Dave.

As a side note to those who do polish, what works best for me with polish is a tightly wrapped patch or stips of cheese cloth wrapped around a soft nylon brush and about 10-20 strokes.

What I see with this approach is both a more uniform polish/clean to the bore and removal of the more stubborn fouling.

Although I have tried it, polishing with a brush is something I can't fathom, I don't see how you are going to get a unifrom job.

Dave

Will send you a pm.

I have just finished some testing with a nylon brush.

Eventually, after more testing, a more detailed report but for now :-

6.5 conventional rifling. Barrel maybe 500 shots at the most. It was retired for other reasons and sections cut for other use.

Nylon brush. Actually branded 0.0270.

First, 400 strokes with the compound in question. Rod turning - in fact very hard to stop the rod from turning. Borescope showed a very slightly different look but nothing bad.

Another 1000 strokes (reapply compound every 100 strokes) with the nylon brush restrained from turning. Again, this took some serious holding to restrain the turning.

Sectioned the barrel.

Highly polished result. Obviously a slight amount of metal had been removed but I would need to make some precision plugs to measure the change of size. Black came out of the bore which would probably be minute metal particles.

Tiny tiny marks were visible across the lands in the direction of the bore axis and the edges of the lands were possibly more distinct and cut a tad deeper. Although there was a very very faint hint of some gouges, it was obvious that no tracking had occurred similar to the serious Bronze Brush damage we have been seeing.

Maybe other pastes are different but I would be happy to use this stuff, on a nylon brush, in a sensible manner.

Other tests need to be done. Iosso, for example. And we need to do some measurements on the actual turning force (torque) generated from brushes in conventional and 5R rifling. Any assumptions need to be replaced with actual measurements.

Peter Smith.

This is the sort of stuff im very interested in Peter. Great to see. Possibly the hardness of the bronze brush is what is really doing the damage with abrasives and a non turning rod. Maybe the 5R rifling isnt helping with that particular cleaning style. Lots of testing but at least a couple of guys are willing to do it.

DaveMc wrote:One thing I would like to ensure is we don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Lets be very clear about what we proved and what we didn't. I feel very strongly that you shouldn't blame the individual items ie bronze brushes, cleaning rods or paste etc. in this scenario. Each of these items if used correctly and sensibly can be an important part of a cleaning regime.

What we did prove: Using a bronze brush, with abrasive bore polish on a non-turning cleaning rod produced basically identical marks to those seen in Tony's barrel.

This does NOT mean his rod wasn't turning for the whole process, nor does it mean that this issue is restricted to bronze brushes (quite possibly can happen with nylon too - and we have had some feedback to suggest this may have happened) but we have yet to show or demonstrate that and suspect it less prevalent.

I strongly suspect Tony's rod was turning correctly at the start but even then a few fibres would find their way up and over the rifling and as the tracks start to form (and rifling and brushes wear quickly with the abrasive polish) it becomes easier and easier for the fibres to follow. eventually the brush can do nothing else but follow the gouges and go straight ahead (even with the best cleaning rods). I feel this is what did the final damage and caused the straight scratchings seen in bottom of the grooves. Once the brush is travelling straight down bore then the damage could be accelerated. Of course all this is conjecture and we haven't proven this at all.

I personally will still be using bronze brushes (a few strokes asap after shooting) and occasionally abrasive pastes (only every 3-500 rounds but only on a jag and sparingly - maybe on a well fit nylon brushg depending on further investigations). In fact I am quite impressed by the product at the centre of this investigation for its uniformity and fine particle size. I feel a cleaning regime similar to what Keith and Alan have suggested has been tried and proven to give good accurate barrel life and the best compromise between removing carbon and overcleaning.

I WILL BE WATCHING CLEANING ROD SPINNING VERY CAREFULLY FROM NOW ON THOUGH.

We also need to get our hands on some IOSSO and test as well as nylon brushes - anyone want to ship us up a small sample??

Thank you Dave for the clarification on your findings. What you say above is exactly what I have intimated in previous posts on related threads & which may have "gone over some heads". So a "chill" pill is in order, do not blame any of the products used in cleaning, but be very mindful of the manner cleaning is undertaken & be mindful of the condition of the tools used.
Keith H.

I talked to a particular gunsmith over here about once a week. He installs/does finish work on our barrels as well as other makers but by far and large it's mostly us. He does around 1500-2000 barrels/rifles a year. He is also a very good 1k bench shooter and has been doing this stuff for around 20-30 years now. He does work for the military as well.

I showed him the pictures and we talked on the phone. It wasn't a 5R rifled barrel, it had conventional rifling and it wasn't our barrel but several years ago he had a customer bring a rifle back to him that just flat out quite shooting (believe it was a .30cal. barrel) it wouldn't hold any kind of a group at all. He said the customer used Iosso bore paste and a bronze brush and the damage to the barrel looked almost exactly the same as the pictures of Tony's barrel.

He said Iosso paste in his opinion is one of the worst and in conjunction with a bronze brush is bad. No way around it. He also said using the paste cleaners like Iosso you are basically lapping the barrel every single time. Same thing we tells customers as well.

Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels

Thanks for that post Frank, very informative!!

It confirms a long standing belief of mine that cleaning with a polish type compound is a bad idea, note I said "cleaning" not polishing.

I only use these compounds when I feel the barrel needs a polish to treat the surface, or, as a last resort to assist in removing stubborn copper.

I still feel the best way to look after a barrel is what Neville told me when I bought my first Maddco. Get a good quality cleaning agent into the bore on a patch as soon as you can after shooting, and leave it do it's bit for a while, a while to me is the drive from range to home, so 20-25 minutes.

The only variation on his advice is I use a soft nylon brush to put my cleaning agents in, I feel with a patch you are pushing the majority out the muzzle. I run about 3-6 strokes and let it sit.

My polishes run between 300-500 rounds.

One of my comp barrels has over 5000 rounds on it, and still shoots nice and tight, I managed a 60.8 at 300 just last week.

Great thread this has been.

Jason,

I think its important to recognize the differences in cleaning requirements for different calibres. I've had some experience with 308s, some with 6mms, and most with 6.5 and 7mm. My general impression is that 308s are the easiest to keep clean, although I never used a tight twist and heavy bullets as you would be for F/TR. Next easiest were the 6mms, especially the 6BR, followed by 7mm, then 6.5mm (6.5-284 in my case) has been the most demanding. Its interesting that expected barrel life goes pretty much in the same order. Hmmm - does this indicate that barrel life, if measured by the number of cleans, is about the same for all calibres??.

Alan

AlanF wrote:Jason,

I think its important to recognize the differences in cleaning requirements for different calibres. I've had some experience with 308s, some with 6mms, and most with 6.5 and 7mm. My general impression is that 308s are the easiest to keep clean, although I never used a tight twist and heavy bullets as you would be for F/TR. Next easiest were the 6mms, especially the 6BR, followed by 7mm, then 6.5mm (6.5-284 in my case) has been the most demanding. Its interesting that expected barrel life goes pretty much in the same order. Hmmm - does this indicate that barrel life, if measured by the number of cleans, is about the same for all calibres??.

Alan

Alan, what did you find to be the most critical compound for each, what was more prevalent Copper or Carbon?

One thing of note is I have been using VV powders for sometime now, with the occasional switch back to ADI, the amount of carbon fouling, or at least black sludge whe cleaning with the ADI powders is substantial compared to VV, next to none with the Vihta Vouri, confirmed with borescope on many occasions.

I tend to think carbon is the worse of the two, what are others thoughts?

My observations after running various forms of calibres, 6BR,6*46, 6.5*47, 6.5*284, 284Shehane, 7mm RSAUM and 308 (and others outside the F class realm) are similar to Alans.

The conclusion I have come to are the hotter calibres (overbored) lay down heavier carbon deposits and glaze on harder than the more efficient cartridges. Not surprising when you think of the waste heat energy (more powder burned for relatively less gain in velocity and projectile energy) and temp of throat area. Carbon to me seems to be the bigger culprit.

Amount of cleaning required is proportional to the amount of carbon laid down which is proportional to wear (both cleaning and actual during firing)is proportional to the amount of waste heat energy for a given bore diameter (or overbore factor in other way of looking at it)

reports are VV powders do carbon less - I have limited experince first hand as have only used one tub personally.

Dave, it would be interesting to see a few others switch to VV or Reloader and see what results they get.

Do you feel the earlier after the shoot the clean starts the less work you have?

33 inches of fine 7mm Bartlein 5R has made it to Australia, and then thanks to a lot of effort from Mr 7mm.com.au (Craig McGowan) it was handed to me last weekend at Belmont.




I want to offer my sincere thanks to Frank Green and Bartlein Barrels for providing the replacement barrel, to Pete Smith and Dave McNamara up north, for their perseverance, wisdom and technical efforts, to McGoo for actually getting it here, and to all of the forum members who contributed ideas and insights.
I am pretty certain that the information posted here by Frank Green has greatly increased the general "barrel knowledge" of all who have followed his inputs, and i would like to thank him for being to willing to share his wisdom and experiences. Hopefully its the start of a "beautiful friendship".

Craig's full commercial shipments should start at the end of November, and shooters all over Australia will then have access to Bartlein barrels, so they might also get to see what all the fuss is about

Just remember not to follow any Bore Polish label that says to use a bronze brush !!

Tony