Ultrasonic barrel cleaning?

[Julian D]

Yeah I do Keith, I have access to one of these ultra sonic cleaners that we do barrels in. and only last week used it for the second time on this particular barrel. About every 500 rounds it gets cleaned, and it does a wonderful job.

Long story short my background is as a Machinist specialising in CNC machines & programming, I had a problem with using pastes, because there is a possibility of changing the internal dimensions of the barrel, so I wanted a way of cleaning it without removing any metal.

Each to their own, and I can only comment on the method I use.

[SunnyCoast 5r]

Would the ultrasonic cleaners used by companies that do Venetian blinds work?
If so perhaps instead of getting clubs to buy the gear (as suggested in earlier post) you could negotiate to do a batch of barrels as required.

[williada]

I think there is merit in what Julian is doing. Its a problem with anything if it is not done properly. There is probably more damage done with pastes and cleaning rods that shorten barrel life. Ammonia is the problem with stainless if it is left in too long. The equipment might be expensive, but if bought by a club as has been suggested or someone running a service would make it economic. Fitted barrels are expensive too and the economics of getting more life out of a good barrel makes sense to me. You never know with that new barrel if it will be as good as the old one.

I think too many barrels are disposed of too early and have not been cleaned regularly and properly in the first instance so that bore and groove sizes wear evenly. In his book, the Accurate Rifle written decades ago, Warren Page said, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness".

Julian, it would interesting if you kept notes over time to see how things perform. Keith has recommended using Sweets oil on a clean barrel, as many of us older gentlemen do to anoint the bore for the first sighter. That is a very good thing to do.

[DaveMc]

We have the Lyman Large Tank Cleaner and tried various chemicals in it. Previous to this I had designed a tall tube with transducers on a thin plate underneath to direct the waves up the bore. Personally I stopped before testing properly as the alkaline chemicals I was using seemed to be etching the metal slightly (still question marks over this). The boys in Mackay have taken this further and doesn't seem to be affecting their accuracy negatively but really needs some microscopic analysis and maybe weighing metal samples on lab balances before and after a long treatment. It does look promising but am slightly afraid of damaging a good barrel without some good scientific testing first.

[DenisA]

Hi Dave. In that last link I shared, it says that transducers up to 40Khz can cause some cavitation corrosion if left for too long but the higher frequency clean better and are safer. Looking at the specs on the Lyman I think it runs 10 x 40Khz 50W transducers. That's an assumption. I'm wondering if sourcing parts from the first web link I posted in the 175Khz range might avoid the negatives.

What frequency were you using ?

[KHGS]

We have the Lyman Large Tank Cleaner and tried various chemicals in it. Previous to this I had designed a tall tube with transducers on a thin plate underneath to direct the waves up the bore. Personally I stopped before testing properly as the alkaline chemicals I was using seemed to be etching the metal slightly (still question marks over this). The boys in Mackay have taken this further and doesn't seem to be affecting their accuracy negatively but really needs some microscopic analysis and maybe weighing metal samples on lab balances before and after a long treatment. It does look promising but am slightly afraid of damaging a good barrel without some good scientific testing first.

My point exactly!!! Just because a major firearms accessory manufacturer makes & recommends ultrasonic barrel cleaners does not mean that they are "foolproof" quite the contrary actually.
Keith H.

[jasmay]

Dave, why were you using alkalines in the cleaner? Harsh Chemicals should not be needed and some good solutions that off the shelf available would be good for this purpose.

I've used ultrasonics for a lot of various things over the years through work, the most delicate of were water jets that were just a few ten thousands of a mm. It was obviously the only way these could be safely cleaned without enlargeming the nozzle diameter, which was critical to the process.

Whilst home made solutions are cheap, they are generally lacking in critical elements that improve the cleaning action to make tank time minimal and cleaning action efficient.

Another application I am learning a little about is cleaning ceramic and stainless anilox rollers with them, appropiate solution is key to this, the rollers cost up to 7K a pop, we're looking to clean cells that are as little as 7microns wide and 34microns deep, and cannot afford to have any wear on them. Cleaning using ultrasonics is a widely used and accepted practice in this area, and is done daily in some places by process workers with little skill but good work instruction. When done right it is safe, and you have to really stuff up to do it wrong, the most obvious here is excess tank time.

Denis, if approached right I believe it will be a very good way to achieve what you want!! There are dedicated ultrasonic providers in Australia, talk to them.

For now, I'll be sticking to my paste though, for no other reason I don't have time to do the research, if someone nails this, I'd very likely join the ranks.

[DaveMc]

Jason: We tried several of these so called magical chemicals and none of them worked - including specialised firearms (Lyman and others) and some from the aeronautical industry (Carbon Xit and another I can't remember). Slip 2000 (which they recommend is too harsh for the ultrasonic but we tried anyway with no luck) . Not to say there isn't one that will but I haven't put more time into it. The Alkaline decarbonizing solutions work but are too caustic and give off nasty fumes and are not nice to use - they are destructive on alloy parts. If someone finds a modern one that works then I would be happy to use it. The carbon we have in barrels is harder than the carbon in engines to remove though so don't believe all the blurb. The guys in Mackay have it cleaning the carbon out but are the only ones I know of.

Denis - 40khz only.

[RDavies]

Jason: We tried several of these so called magical chemicals and none of them worked - including specialised firearms (Lyman and others) and some from the aeronautical industry (Carbon Xit and another I can't remember). Slip 2000 (which they recommend is too harsh for the ultrasonic but we tried anyway with no luck) . Not to say there isn't one that will but I haven't put more time into it. The Alkaline decarbonizing solutions work but are too caustic and give off nasty fumes and are not nice to use - they are destructive on alloy parts. If someone finds a modern one that works then I would be happy to use it. The carbon we have in barrels is harder than the carbon in engines to remove though so don't believe all the blurb. The guys in Mackay have it cleaning the carbon out but are the only ones I know of.

Denis - 40khz only.

I know nothing about these chemicals and very little about ultrasonic cleaning, but what is the problem with the less effective chemicals? Do they just take longer to remove the hard carbon in rifle barrels? Could mild chemicals or even just water (maybe with some binged and detergent) be used and just keep it in there for longer if we don't mind the wait?
Julian, do you know what is used in the bath which your barrel goes in?

[jasmay]

Dave, I'm not expert in the design of the machines, were these trials done in the one you were trying to make yourself? Tank design and transducer placement would play a critical role in correct operation.

The Lyman unit, although expensive would likely be a good unit, perhaps a group buy would be good, Denis, I'd be keep to chip in.

Keep in mind the units I've used over the years are not your $200-300 brass cleaning units, although relative in size and bigger in more recent times, the are 5 times the cost, the result testing a turbo sonic against the industrial units was quite evident in tank time and results for the same chemicals used. Correct cavitation would be key here.

Correct operation also, degas cycle and warm water are also critical elements for successful cleaning.

We did a brief amount of research at work into building our own large unit, it doesn't take long to realize it's not an easy task to get it right and the idea was scrapped.

EDIT: sorry Dave, I see it was the Lyman you were trying, disappointing to hear your results.

[DenisA]

The Lyman unit, although expensive would likely be a good unit, perhaps a group by would be good, Denis, I'd be keep to chip in.

Hi Jas. From what I've been reading I reckon the Lyman uses the bare minimum in component specs and design and could easily be improved on for what we want. I think it would be cheaper to build a better suited, more powerful unit. You can guarantee that the transducers in the Lyman will be cheap Chinese units, so there's no reason not to go that way with a custom design.

After the Queens I'll start to look at tank/diaphragm options and I'll build on that. I need to do some more reading too. I think its a project worth getting in to.

[jasmay]

Denis, don't throw away the idea of s Lyman Or More expensive industrial init sourced from a provider.

Although the Lyman will be cheaper in components it would do the job of a casual clean quite well I believe, run it at a workshop 5 days a week and you'll see its not up to it.

[jasmay]

Denis, I went back and read Davws comments again, disappointing results with the Lyman, perhaps Dsve would be willing to send it down for us to run a few more experiments if they have given up with it.

[DaveMc]

Sorry Jason but the Lyman is used on a daily basis for other jobs so will not part with it

The first few inches of carbon laid down in the barrel is extremely hard, baked on and impacted under very high pressure. It is difficult to remove. I did a lot of research on it before buying and/or building my own. I knew the guys in Mackay were getting good results from a commercial unit and had a picture in my mind that I would be able to use "safe" aeronautical or automotive chemicals designed for cleaning cylinder heads. The 2 I tried had almost no effect on the hard carbon in front of throat. I also tried a few of the firearm industry cleaners with a good reputation for carbon removal with similar effect. They all work for the last 3/4 of your barrel length but getting the first bit out required strong chemicals. The difference between effective cleaning and leaving an etched appearance is too small in my book and really warrants scientific examination of the surface and metallurgy.

As I said there may be something out there but I gave up after spending a fair bit of time, money and effort on this.

As far as temperature and cycles go, yes they all have their recommendations and most run at around 70-80 degrees C. The Lyman unfortunately heats up during a cycle so you have to run in 20 minute bursts to maintain the temperature without going over the top and degrading the chemical.

Ask yourselves is anyone doing this anywhere??? You are not the first to try and it sounds good in theory - but why is it not already widely adopted???

[AlanF]

Dave,

So do you use occasional abrasives for the throat?

Alan