I was going to type out a reply to the post made by DeltaSouthHunt. But instead I'll just post an excerpt from an email I sent to another guy on the forum.
Here it is:
From an engineering standpoint: Every time the subject comes up I always ask WHY. The response I always get is "Duh, it'll make it more accurate." BUT WHY?? "....Cause it just does." I choose to think it's ridiculous.
You already know this next part, but I need to preface it. Assume jacketed bullets and standard rifled (not polygonal) barrels. Whenever you make a shot, the lands and grooves of the rifling are fouled with copper, powder, and carbon deposits. The "break-in" procedure will (ideally) clear the fouling and allow the next bullet's bearing surface to contact the rifling and "polish" it. The repeated use of this method will only further polish it. The idea is to allow the bearing surface of the bullet to contact rifling directly, and not the copper/carbon fouling. This is all well and good EXCEPT:
Why should you do the: "shoot 1, clean, shoot 5, clean, shoot 10, clean" or whatever ridiculous combination? After the first shot, the bore would be fouled. If the original idea was to polish the bore, then you would shoot one and clean EVERY TIME. And even then, when do you decide the bore has been officially broken in? To have to polish/break-in a barrel, is a flaw in manufacturing/machining.
Give me twenty identical rifles straight from the factory. Give 10 the break in treatment (the experimental group), and 10 just shoot like a "normal" person (the control group). After 100 rounds through each gun, I'd be willing to bet that the average group size of each group, shot from a machine rest, would be damn close.
Let me define the word polish: Polishing is the removal of the surface of a material to expose a smooth surface underneath.
By doing the "break-in" procedure, all you are doing is removing bore of the barrel. OF COURSE you're going to have less fouling!! The bore is no longer the same diameter!
If anyone has a response (one with some factual evidence behind it) to the contrary, please let me know.
Here it is:
From an engineering standpoint: Every time the subject comes up I always ask WHY. The response I always get is "Duh, it'll make it more accurate." BUT WHY?? "....Cause it just does." I choose to think it's ridiculous.
You already know this next part, but I need to preface it. Assume jacketed bullets and standard rifled (not polygonal) barrels. Whenever you make a shot, the lands and grooves of the rifling are fouled with copper, powder, and carbon deposits. The "break-in" procedure will (ideally) clear the fouling and allow the next bullet's bearing surface to contact the rifling and "polish" it. The repeated use of this method will only further polish it. The idea is to allow the bearing surface of the bullet to contact rifling directly, and not the copper/carbon fouling. This is all well and good EXCEPT:
Why should you do the: "shoot 1, clean, shoot 5, clean, shoot 10, clean" or whatever ridiculous combination? After the first shot, the bore would be fouled. If the original idea was to polish the bore, then you would shoot one and clean EVERY TIME. And even then, when do you decide the bore has been officially broken in? To have to polish/break-in a barrel, is a flaw in manufacturing/machining.
Give me twenty identical rifles straight from the factory. Give 10 the break in treatment (the experimental group), and 10 just shoot like a "normal" person (the control group). After 100 rounds through each gun, I'd be willing to bet that the average group size of each group, shot from a machine rest, would be damn close.
Let me define the word polish: Polishing is the removal of the surface of a material to expose a smooth surface underneath.
By doing the "break-in" procedure, all you are doing is removing bore of the barrel. OF COURSE you're going to have less fouling!! The bore is no longer the same diameter!
If anyone has a response (one with some factual evidence behind it) to the contrary, please let me know.
