Barrel Cleaning…data

[prm]

Just saw this video by Hornady. Definitely interesting from a cleaning and barrel life perspective. Especially since it is supported by so much data. Really enjoy them sharing some insight they gain with their volume of data.
The barrel life data really makes me appreciate the cartridges I happen to use.

Hornady Barrel Cleaning

 

[General RE LEE]

Great podcast

I clean my rifles regularly. Something I enjoy doing anyways.

 

[Marbles]

Thanks for bringing this one up. I may change my approach.

 

[Flyjunky]

Good data that tracks with some of my rifles. My 6.5-284 is always cleaned before I get to 150 rounds. After that I have definitely seen pressure spikes because I run it right up there close to max.

 

[Carl Ross]

I'll have to check it out, interested to see what they find. I'm doing a well controlled test in my lastest competition barrel to see for myself.

 

[Marbles]

Ok, after listening to all 3 cleaning podcast my position on cleaning has changed. They changed my mind and present a reasonable approach.

 

[prm]

I still need to watch the first two.

 

[grappling_hook]

I listened to the third one. For those who listened to the first two, did they address what the low, medium, and high figures for cleaning represent, with specific data?

In listening through the whole thing, they never explained it. They generally mention that rounds down the barrel may eventually result in a change in velocity, dispersion, or pressure, but never list which one is represented in the numbers for each cartridge. On top of that, they don't specify how much of a change is represented by the low, medium, and high figures. For example, does the medium number represent a mean change of 15% change in dispersion? Or 5%? So, say it's 15%; did they then demonstrate that cleaning returned the barrel to the original baseline?

What I'm saying is that Episode 3 didn't seem to show what impact there might be from not cleaning a barrel, other than the example given of a guy's AR10 that had a case head separation due to carbon buildup.

 

[id_jon]

I listened to the third one. For those who listened to the first two, did they address what the low, medium, and high figures for cleaning represent, with specific data?

In listening through the whole thing, they never explained it. They generally mention that rounds down the barrel may eventually result in a change in velocity, dispersion, or pressure, but never list which one is represented in the numbers for each cartridge. On top of that, they don't specify how much of a change is represented by the low, medium, and high figures. For example, does the medium number represent a mean change of 15% change in dispersion? Or 5%? So, say it's 15%; did they then demonstrate that cleaning returned the barrel to the original baseline?

What I'm saying is that Episode 3 didn't seem to show what impact there might be from not cleaning a barrel, other than the example given of a guy's AR10 that had a case head separation due to carbon buildup.

I listened to episodes 1 and 2 in the last couple days, I was mostly working and driving, so I might have missed something, but it mostly boiled down to "you HAVE to clean, because if you don't something bad might happen someday"

 

[Marbles]

They do provide the numbers in 1 (I think, might be 2).

They point out that not everything will fall in those estimates. They advocate using reference ammunition and a chrono to see if anything has changed.

My take away was a complete lack of cleaning can lead to safety problems (my main concern), and may lead to function problems. Can and will are not the same. If accuracy was the only issue, then I would say shoot it till accuracy is substandard.

Given that safety is my concern, the statement that they have, on multiple occasions, seen people complain that a lot of ammo was too hot, but ammo was in spec (when shot in a test barrel), and cleaning the rifle fixed the issue is enough data for me. Particularly given the simplicity of the cleaning they advocate.

If I'm going to limit my scope selection for enhanced reliability, and shoot ass ugly Tikkas for improved reliability, I can run a brush and a few patches down the bore for improved reliability every few hundred rounds.

 

[Formidilosus]

They do provide the numbers in 1 (I think, might be 2).

They point out that not everything will fall in those estimates. They advocate using reference ammunition and a chrono to see if anything has changed.

My take away was a complete lack of cleaning can lead to safety problems (my main concern), and may lead to function problems. Can and will are not the same. If accuracy was the only issue, then I would say shoot it till accuracy is substandard.

Given that safety is my concern, the statement that they have, on multiple occasions, seen people complain that a lot of ammo was too hot, but ammo was in spec (when shot in a test barrel), and cleaning the rifle fixed the issue is enough data for me. Particularly given the simplicity of the cleaning they advocate.

I have not listened to these episodes, only the first one where they appealed to emotion about cleaning. But I want to make sure I understand- they relayed stories- not data during their testing, that not cleaning caused pressure issues with their factory ammo?

If I'm going to limit my scope selection for enhanced reliability, and shoot ass ugly Tikkas for improved reliability, I can run a brush and a few patches down the bore for improved reliability every few hundred rounds.

Define “improved reliability” please, and how do you know that running a brush and a few matches down the bore makes a rifle more reliable?

 

[grappling_hook]

I wish they were more clear with the empirical data they observed. I'd like them to attempt to state observations such as the following and see if their data supports it:

"We completed controlled testing of over 800 barrels chambered in 223 Remington, checking baseline dispersion of 30-round groups, and shot them until an observed mean diameter of dispersion increased to 5% over each barrel's baseline. Our results of mean baseline increases showed that barrels in 50th percentile of dispersion increase reached the 5% threshold at 401 rounds, and upon cleaning, returned to the baseline of 0% increase. On the low end, barrels in the 20th percentile reached a mean increase in dispersion of 5% at 321 rounds, and barrels in the 80th percentile reached a mean increase in dispersion of 5% at 535 rounds."

This is what I'm looking for them to be able to substantiate. Hornady, if you are reading and have this data, please share it. If you don't, then please disclose how you came up with the figures for what happened to 223 Remington barrels at 321, 401, and 535 rounds as low, medium, and high round counts.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Would someone be able to summarize their findings please?

Which rifles had issues when “not cleaned”?
What barrel length and twist rate?
What chambering?
What were the symptoms of the “issues”?
Did the same “issues” not present themselves on an identical rifle that was regularly cleaned?
If so, what was the cleaning interval?
If the only “issue” was “accuracy degradation” at what round count was this observed when not cleaned?

Appreciate not having to listen if possible if someone can summarize.

 

[Marbles]

I have not listened to these episodes, only the first one where they appealed to emotion about cleaning. But I want to make sure I understand- they relayed stories- not data during their testing, that not cleaning caused pressure issues with their factory ammo?

Define "data" and define "stories."

They discusse seeing pressure go up in test barrels using reference ammunition without cleaning and cleaning bring them back into spec.

They discusse "stories" were in a test barrel the "hot" ammo is within spec and the over pressure issues resolve with cleaning the rifle in question.

Define “improved reliability” please,

Paragraph 4 of the quoted post defines it in terms of what I am after.

and how do you know that running a brush and a few matches down the bore makes a rifle more reliable?

Listen to the podcasts.

 

[Carl Ross]

Would someone be able to summarize their findings please?

Which rifles had issues when “not cleaned”?
What barrel length and twist rate?
What chambering?
What were the symptoms of the “issues”?
Did the same “issues” not present themselves on an identical rifle that was regularly cleaned?
If so, what was the cleaning interval?
If the only “issue” was “accuracy degradation” at what round count was this observed when not cleaned?

Appreciate not having to listen if possible if someone can summarize.

***I listened/watched only the 3rd episode.

IIRC, there was one specific anecdote regarding a rifle exhibiting pressure issues from not being cleaned at all, and it was assumed/suggested there were more situations like that.

The rest of it was essentially the results of an algorithm based on powder capacity vs bore & chamber volume, along with pressure, that gave barrel life and cleaning interval expectations for different chamberings. I assume the algorithm was informed by what they've seen from shooting bullet and pressure test barrels out, but it wasn't a report on that raw data.

 

[Erict]

I listened to the third one and while I learned a thing or two I think they could have said what they had to say in under 10 minutes. Not the most dynamic duo in the podcast world.

 

[Formidilosus]

Define "data" and define "stories."

Sure. Data is- “in this test we used 5 each of 223, 6ARC, 6.5cm, 308win, 6.5 PRC, 7PRC, 300 PRC and shot them using “x” lot number of our factory ammo. Then we shot them for 20, 30, 50, and 100 round groups letting them cool every 20 rounds fired. “X” barrel went over 65,000 PSI chamber pressure at “X” round count. “Y” barrel went over 65,000psi at “X” round count”.

That’s what they did in the “Your groups are too small” series, but is not how they started the barrel cleaning podcasts, and does not seem to be how they did this one.

That’s why I was asking.

They discusse seeing pressure go up in test barrels using reference ammunition without cleaning and cleaning bring them back into spec.
They discusse "stories" were in a test barrel the "hot" ammo is within spec and the over pressure issues resolve with cleaning the rifle in question.

The issue that they didn’t need to discuss “stories” in their accuracy series- they used legitimate data. However, as I have posted before- the moment they started talking about barrel cleaning, they started talking emotions and beliefs- not raw data.

Paragraph 4 of the quoted post defines it in terms of what I am after.

Hornady ammo often has been extremely variable lot to lot- I, and others have posted about this multiple times. Between two lots of 140gr ELD-M 6.5cm ammo in brand new rifles- MV went from 2,600fps, to over 2,800fps and blowing primers- in the same guns, back to back. Zero issues with original lot number, 200fps increase win MV Witt new lot, back to original MV’s and zero issues with original lot.

In 7PRC- 30+ members shot, or watched us shoot Hornady 7PRC 180gr ELD-M, 175gr ELD-X, and 160gr CX being shot in the Bronwing X- Bolt 2 this year. The very first rounds from that gun were the 160hr CX- they were absolutely way over pressure. Massive ejector swipes, flattened primers, and hard extraction, along with 4+ inches. The ELD-M and X had zero issues right after. 9 months and 700 rounds without cleaning later- that original 160gr CX ammo still is way over pressure, the original and multiple other lots of 180gr ELD-M and 175gr ELD-X, and a new lot # of 160gr CX shows no issues at all.

Hornady sent 308 ammo to be used and tested to Ryan. In 2x brand new rifles, and 3x used rifles it shows high pressures- a couple of them very high. Only one rifle shoots the ammo under 2.5 MOA for ten rounds. A different lot # of the exact same ammo shoots sun 1.5 MOA in every one of those rifle and zero pressure issues.

Hornady is well known for issues between lots of 6.5cm, 6.5 PRC, and 7 PRC- and from people that clean regularly.

Listen to the podcasts.

I will. Apologies for trying to discuss your thoughts on it.

 

[grappling_hook]

There was no systematically collected empirical data or results of statistical data tests presented; only anecdotes and a claim that the algorithm they used for the table was based on observation.

In other words, their claims cannot be verified or validated with the information provided in Episode 3 and so we as viewers cannot draw conclusions about best cleaning practices beyond “trust us because we have seen hundreds of barrels shot out.”

 

[Formidilosus]

There was no systematically collected empirical data or results of statistical data presented; only anecdotes and a claim that the algorithm they used for the table was based on observation.

In other words, their claims cannot be verified or validated with the information provided in Episode 3 and so we as viewers cannot draw conclusions about best cleaning practices beyond “trust us because we have seen hundreds of barrels shot out.”

That is disappointing, but unsurprising given their previous discussions and statements about barrel cleaning.

 

[Ucsdryder]

There was no systematically collected empirical data or results of statistical data tests presented; only anecdotes and a claim that the algorithm they used for the table was based on observation.

In other words, their claims cannot be verified or validated with the information provided in Episode 3 and so we as viewers cannot draw conclusions about best cleaning practices beyond “trust us because we have seen hundreds of barrels shot out.”

I don’t think that’s true. They definitely needed to do a better job explaining their testing and how they came to their numbers, but they said over and over the data was based off axtual data and not bro science, from burning many barrels of specific calibers, not from 1 or 2.

They said they’ve gotten ammo returned for pressure issues and had the opportunity to look at the barrels and after cleaning barrels the pressure went away. They also talked about barrels that’s were shot out that they brought back to life by cleaning. They talked about lot about dirty barrels increasing pressure due to carbon buildup.

It sounds like they’re shooting and tracking “huge” amounts of ammo and charting results. I just wish they would have said exactly how they got to their barrel life numbers and cleaning interval numbers because it came across a little as “trust us”.