Barrel cleaning…Hornady podcast

[Flyjunky]

This is part 1 of a 2 part series I thought some might find interesting. I know we have some people who are anti-clean and it’s nice to hear some thoughts from Hornady testing.

The last ~6 minutes is good.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

At the end they talked about a “large sample size” being 100-200 rounds and not basing the “lack of needing to clean” on smaller sample sizes.

Sorry to say, but 100-200 rounds for my .17HMR, .223, .260, and 6.5CM would get shot in most dedicated practice shooting outings. With shots on varmints in between and a lot of times on the way to shooting spots. I make it a point to shoot once a week minimum now that I’m in Arizona full time. When I was in Northern California, managing my ranch and other properties for ranchers and the DNR, I would easily shoot 100-200 rounds 6 days a week.

I’m in the camp of trying to make an effort to take apart my rifle every 1,000-1,500 rounds. Sometimes I only clean the action, bolt, and junk that gets in between the stock and barrel. Sometimes I’ll clean the barrel which is minimal cleaning compared to what I’ve seen other guys do.

I notice after a barrel cleaning that, if anything, the “groups” open up a touch until 50ish rounds are through it. Not enough to notice for killing varmints or large game animals, more so for shooting ragged hole groups at 100 yards.

This is specific to Sako and Tikka barrels, which, in my opinion are some of the best barrels in the world. They just honestly don’t mind running “dirty”. I finally shot out a fluted Sako .260 barrel after 5,500ish rounds. It was only cleaned once at 2,000 rounds. Would it have lasted longer with more regular cleaning? Maybe so.

I’ve noticed other barrels needing to be cleaned more often with groups opening up with very low round counts. Personal use on Bartlein, Christensen, proof, Remington, Weatherby, Volquartsen, and browning with multiple sample counts of each). Many of these guns started showing a noticeable lack of accuracy around the 400-600 round count. I’m honestly not interested in shooting guns that fail to shoot within a reasonable cone at 100 yards with such a low round count through the system.

I guess the long story short in my experience is… Some rifles and barrels need to be cleaned more often than others to maintain accuracy and proper function. Those would be rifles I am not interested in shooting no matter how accurate they may have been upon initial function. I shoot too much to have to worry about cleaning a damn gun every 400 rounds.

 

[Formidilosus]

This is part 1 of a 2 part series I thought some might find interesting. I know we have some people who are anti-clean and it’s nice to hear some thoughts from Hornady testing.

The last ~6 minutes is good.

At 30 min in it’s the worst podcast they have done. So far they are doing what they pointed out that everyone else has done with group size- speaking to emotion. Ex.- “look at how much powder pours on a table”.

At 19min they discussed the crux of the issue for a lot of people- don’t get cute with putting your bullets to the lands, and pressures go down, and you don’t see wild pressure spikes. Don’t work up a load to max “pressure signs” in a clean barrel and then expect that pressure won’t go up as it is shot.


At 39 min and they are talking about a whopping 2,500 rounds through an AR damaging the rifle or causing catastrophic failures breaking bolt lugs, etc…. Complete and udder bullshit.


51 minutes: “the steadiest state of a barrel between shots is clean, or near clean”. Objectively that is false. The larger change in a barrels condition happens between absolutely spotless 1st round to the 2nd round- that is the most difference in bore condition that a bullet will experience between shots. Second most difference will be between shot #2 and shot #3. Etc, etc. there is far less variability between shot # 789 and shot #790 for instance, than between shots 1 and 2.

For measuring pressure standards for factory ammo, yes clean barrels make sense. It does not translate to a user shooting.

 

[Flyjunky]

At 30 min in it’s the worst podcast they have done. So far they are doing what they pointed out that everyone else has done with group size- speaking to emotion. Ex.- “look at how much powder pours on a table”.

At 19min they discussed the crux of the issue for a lot of people- don’t get cute with putting your bullets to the lands, and pressures go down, and you don’t see wild pressure spikes. Don’t work up a load to max “pressure signs” in a clean barrel and then expect that pressure won’t go up as it is shot.

That’s why I mentioned that last 6 minutes, the earlier part I half paid attention to.

 

[Formidilosus]

That’s why I mentioned that last 6 minutes, the earlier part I half paid attention to.

Got you. Still listening.

 

[TaperPin]

My take on it is when there is less room between the throat and bullet, there is less room for carbon to build up before it causes a problem. The old loose goose chamber on a 270 won’t have fouling issues nearly as quickly as a 6.5 prc, or Creedmoor, because the chamber is cut differently. Factory 6.5 prc or creed are allowed to have .0005” to .0025” throat clearance - a custom gun will be more near the smaller dimension. Christensen gets a bad rap, primarily because they have minimum clearances, traditionally only found in custom guns.

There’s nothing that says you have to clean or have to have tight chambers that require more cleaning - loose chambers can shoot just fine. It comes down to finding what fits your shooting style.

I just bought another takeoff Christensen Mesa barrel with a noticeably dirty muzzle and low round count that was taken off and replaced. I’d bet lunch it carboned up and accuracy went out the window. Eventually I’ll have one in every caliber they make! Lol

It’s easy for even experienced competitive shooters to get caught off guard. Just last week an old guy was chuckling at himself for having a new barrel made for his competition rifle. He had been cleaning about how he always did and ASSUMED the loss in accuracy was the barrel wear. He either took a borescope out of storage, or bought a new one, but he was shocked to see the old barrel just needed a good cleaning, and it shot great again.

I saw the barrel in the photo up for sale a while back and no background was given, but it was a long range competition caliber, barrel contour common to long range competitions, and high $$$ barrel blank. This was either a guy who didn’t like to clean and I got a great deal, or more likely it’s mostly used up and on it’s last legs, but for my purposes it will work just fine. It also might be the guy changed calibers to whatever that new 7mm is on the 6.5 prc case that the 1000 yard guys are all excited about.

 

[TaperPin]

At 30 min in it’s the worst podcast they have done. So far they are doing what they pointed out that everyone else has done with group size- speaking to emotion. Ex.- “look at how much powder pours on a table”.

At 19min they discussed the crux of the issue for a lot of people- don’t get cute with putting your bullets to the lands, and pressures go down, and you don’t see wild pressure spikes. Don’t work up a load to max “pressure signs” in a clean barrel and then expect that pressure won’t go up as it is shot.


At 39 min and they are talking about a whopping 2,500 rounds through an AR damaging the rifle or causing catastrophic failures breaking bolt lugs, etc…. Complete and udder bullshit.


51 minutes: “the steadiest state of a barrel between shots is clean, or near clean”. Objectively that is false. The larger change in a barrels condition happens between absolutely spotless 1st round to the 2nd round- that is the most difference in bore condition that a bullet will experience between shots. Second most difference will be between shot #2 and shot #3. Etc, etc. there is far less variability between shot # 789 and shot #790 for instance, than between shots 1 and 2.

For measuring pressure standards for factory ammo, yes clean barrels make sense. It does not translate to a user shooting.

I agree - this was painful to listen to.

 

[JGRaider]

That's as much of a joke as the melting bullet tip fiasco.

 

[Formidilosus]

That’s why I mentioned that last 6 minutes, the earlier part I half paid attention to.

What was said in the last 6 minutes that you are speaking to?

 

[Formidilosus]

That's as much of a joke as the melting bullet tip fiasco.

How was that a fiasco?

 

[Formidilosus]

That was a not good podcast. As I wrote earlier they did exactly in this one what they said not to do in group sizes.

 

[JGRaider]

How was that a fiasco?

They were the greatest match bullet known to mankind for a couple of years according to Hornady. Then all of the sudden they discovered the tips were somehow magically melting in flight, only to re-introduce the "new improved" version for 25% more money. On game performance remained unchanged. What a crockofschitttt. Pro jab/vax Stever Hornady is a farce as well.

 

[black dawg]

Everything else I have heard from jayden has always been delivered in a way that he had proven these things before stating them as fact, and he would make it clear if that were not the case.

This just seemed more theoretical based than factual. Pretty dissapointing podcast.

 

[Formidilosus]

They were the greatest match bullet known to mankind for a couple of years according to Hornady. Then all of the sudden they discovered the tips were somehow magically melting in flight, only to re-introduce the "new improved" version for 25% more money. On game performance remained unchanged. What a crockofschitttt. Pro jab/vax Stever Hornady is a farce as well.

?

The tips were in fact deforming in flight which was found when they started using Doppler radar, and it was negatively effecting BC. How is is finding out the truth of something- that your product could be better, then telling everyone- including other manufactures, and then improving your product a “fiasco”?

Doppler radars are common enough that too deformation Resulting in reduced BC can be seen with quite a bullets from multiple makers.

 

[JGRaider]

I don't believe that crap for one minute, no matter what they say. They shouldn't have marketed how great they were if they weren't properly tested in the first place, which evidently they weren't.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I don't believe that crap for one minute, no matter what they say. They shouldn't have marketed how great they were if they weren't properly tested in the first place, which evidently they weren't.

As an OEM, you can do verification and validation until you're bleeding from the ears... Customers will ALWAYS find issues over time that need to be corrected. A good OEM will re-test and make changes with transparency and then product updates. A bad OEM will ignore the problem and then release a new product with potentially the same issues (usually slightly mitigated without mention).

 

[ARK_Ginger]

I don't believe that crap for one minute, no matter what they say. They shouldn't have marketed how great they were if they weren't properly tested in the first place, which evidently they weren't.

What?

You could apply that logic to any product. If it were true we'd be in the stone age still. Technology moves on and in this specific case better ways of measuring bullet flight showed where performance gains could be made.

I mean come on, even sierra started uniform tipping their SMKs likely from doppler results showing inconsistent BCs.

 

[JGRaider]

As an OEM, you can do verification and validation until you're bleeding from the ears... Customers will ALWAYS find issues over time that need to be corrected. A good OEM will re-test and make changes with transparency and then product updates. A bad OEM will ignore the problem and then release a new product with potentially the same issues (usually slightly mitigated without mention).

Ok, but a bullet tip is kind of a big deal when it comes to bullet construction, so in my mind this should have been tested and proven before marketing them as the greatest match bullets on the planet. I'm sure doppler radar testing was available and well known prior to releasing the original Amax bullets.

 

[Formidilosus]

Ok, but a bullet tip is kind of a big deal when it comes to bullet construction, so in my mind this should have been tested and proven before marketing them as the greatest match bullets on the planet. I'm sure doppler radar testing was available and well known prior to releasing the original Amax bullets.

Man you love posting rants that have no basis in reality.

Doppler use for measuring bullet flight for commercial entities was a relatively new thing at the time. It is a verifiable fact- I, along with a bunch of other people, have stood beside the radars and seen the results. Some, or most plastic tip bullets will deform in flight causing reductions in BC that shouldn’t be there. Why are you not mad at Nosler for lying about their BC’s, and not discovering the issue?

 

[JGRaider]

I personally don't give a ratsazz what anyone's published BC's are. I first go to Bryan Litz to see what he has to say about a specific BC, then go shoot to verify. Better yet, there's a lapua scenar that renders a plastic tip as moot for extended ranges.