Advanced Marksmanship Carbon and copper, what can it hurt?

[taseal]

how does the carbon and copper (the fouling in the barrel) hurt the barrel's performance? is it filling in the rifling? is it making the barrel smaller? what's it doing that hurts damage.

I see some copper fouling in my barrel, (60 rounds) but I don't think it's hurting the accuracy or anything (i'm still in load development)

when is too much of copper/carbon 'too much'?

 

[jeepguy242]

Re: Carbon and copper, what can it hurt?

when accuracy drops. i cant tell you exactly what it does, but i have a rem 700 bdl 7mm mag, bone stock, that can hold an inch at 100 yards. not a precision rifle, its a hunting rifle.

when i took it out to the range to just make sure its still zero'd at 100 i noticed that it was getting a little large in its group size, so i cleaned it, and got the group size back down to around an inch wwithout exer touching the scope...

i dont know what causes it, but most benchrest shooters do the same thing. clean when accuracy starts to drop.

my 7 mag had 200-300 rounds downrange since the last cleaning, so i figured it was time anyway,

 

[taseal]

Re: Carbon and copper, what can it hurt?

I always hear the when accuracy drops. I'm the kind of guy that'll prolly blame myself for shooting shitty instead of realizing its time to clean it. Lol

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Carbon and copper, what can it hurt?

<content deleted>

I guess I gave the wrong answer. Sorry.

Greg

 

[taseal]

Re: Carbon and copper, what can it hurt?

I think the factor of cleaning the barrel every 10 rounds to get the most effective round for load dev is crazy. I think those results are so minimal that I will never be able to tell the diff

I mean look at snipers making 1000 meter kills with a .308 in the heat of battle with a barrel that doesn't see 'cooper/carbon' cleaners.

 

[mission_fail]

Re: Carbon and copper, what can it hurt?

I remember hearing that some rifles get their best groups after having several hundred rounds fired without cleaning. I haven't personally looked into this yet.

 

[JimGnitecki]

Re: Carbon and copper, what can it hurt?

When you guy say clean after a few hundred rounds, do you mean no cleaning of COPPER deposits in between, or NO cleaning AT ALL in between?

Can you actually use a rifle at the range to fire 30 to 60 rounds, and then store it without even cleaning our the carbon deposits from the rnage session?

I was taught to clean a firearm (any ifrearm) after each day's usage. Is that unnecessary?

Do uncleaned carbon deposits not promote corrosion od the barrel?

Jim G

 

[HOGWILD]

Biggest issue is mixing 2 different cleaners in the throat/ barrel and you did not remove the first before you mixed the cooper cleaner with the carbon cleaner! Throat erosion to me is a big deal and most barrels that are worth anything do not need to worry about this anyway but the cheaper materials will pit the throat area if not well cleaned from shot #1 as chemicals reacting to one another will start corrosion fast!

 

[damoncali]

When you guy say clean after a few hundred rounds, do you mean no cleaning of COPPER deposits in between, or NO cleaning AT ALL in between?

Can you actually use a rifle at the range to fire 30 to 60 rounds, and then store it without even cleaning our the carbon deposits from the rnage session?

I was taught to clean a firearm (any ifrearm) after each day's usage. Is that unnecessary?

Do uncleaned carbon deposits not promote corrosion od the barrel?

Jim G

You can go quite a while with a bolt gun without cleaning at all. Carbon won't really corrode anything. And when you think about it, the fire in the bore is doing far more damage - literally melting it, than any minor a mount of corrosion.

I clean every time out because I think it makes cleaning easier and I don't want to experience an accuracy fall off during a match. But you certainly don't have to. Benchresters have been known to clean every group. Sometimes they do stuff because it works. Other times they do stuff because they're nutty benchresters. It can be hard to tell the difference.

 

[ksthomas]

Some years back, I ran a test when we were looking at some of the (then) new moly coatings. Kept hearing about how many more rounds could be fired without having fouling problems. That's what brought the test up. As an XC-HP competitor, I often shoot 100+ rounds without cleaning, and have never had issues with accuracy loss. So the question became, "how many shooters are actually shooting that many rounds, and does it truly effect accuracy?" I set up a test, consisting of a series of ten round groups, fired on a backer target that would capture five groups, or a total of 50 rounds on the target beneath. The top target was changed every ten rounds, while the bottom target remained in place. The rifle (barreled action) was fired from a return to battery machine rest, and wasn't moved throughout the test. The fifty round composites were repeated a total of six times, for a total of 300 rounds fired. When the test was completed, I had a total of thirty 10-shot groups, along with a series of six 50-shot composite groups. I don't recall what the average of the 10-round groups was, but it was somewhere between 1/4-1/2 MOA for all. The interesting part was the fifty round composites, as these usually reveal far more than mere ten round groups. Of the 50-shot composite targets, the single smallest 50 shot group came from rounds number 251-300. The last group fired, the one with the most rounds down the bore. I had only loaded (and only had time for) the 300 rounds for this test, but it'd be interesting to see just how much further that series would have continued. I can tell you, whatever the Benchrest shooters do in their cleaning regimen, doesn't seem to apply too much to other forms of competition. I've long since stopped worrying about it so much.

 

[M40_A1]

I'd really like to know how much truth there is to the idea that carbon can attract and retain moisture which can pit a bore. I guess there may not be any hard and fast ruling out on that, as humidity level, temperature and temperature swings, length of time, and barrel material could cause very different results.

For example, I live in a moderate climate, neither arid nor very humid, and the rifle is stored indoors at normal room temperature (about 80 degrees). With a stainless barrel, how long can the rifle sit with carbon in the bore before any measurable corrosion would occur? A week? Month? Six months? A year? Never?

I clean the carbon so as not to take any chances should I not be able to shoot again for a while, but I wonder what the true scoop is on this.

 

[Drifter™]

Does a double-based powder have different effects when left in an uncleaned barrel versus a single-base powder?

 

[sib1948]

I clean when accuracy starts to fad, but do clean and lube my bolt lugs after every three to four range sessions. Usualy shoot 100-150 rounds per session. I usually shoot 3-4X per week in the dry Arizona desert.

 

[HodgdonExtreme]

I think primer compounds have glass dust mixed in, to provide friction for primer sensitivity purposes.

If that's true, it makes sense to me to run a patch or two, wet down with MPro7 (or similar), on a fairly regular basis. Say once every 100 rounds or so?

 

[Scurvydog]

Tag

 

[UNCIVILIZED]

Ditto on what Scurvydog said.

 

[palma]

Cleaning frequency really depends on the caliber. A .308 can go almost forever without cleaning. A more high performance cartridge, e.g., 6.5-.284, needs to be cleaned more frequently. And yes, a dirty throat in some calibers can degrade accuracy. I always thought it was the carbon. Others told me it was copper. Either way, it can hurt accuracy. My 6.5 SAUM will foul out very quickly.

 

[Turd in the Pool]

I'd really like to know how much truth there is to the idea that carbon can attract and retain moisture which can pit a bore. I guess there may not be any hard and fast ruling out on that, as humidity level, temperature and temperature swings, length of time, and barrel material could cause very different results.

For example, I live in a moderate climate, neither arid nor very humid, and the rifle is stored indoors at normal room temperature (about 80 degrees). With a stainless barrel, how long can the rifle sit with carbon in the bore before any measurable corrosion would occur? A week? Month? Six months? A year? Never?

I clean the carbon so as not to take any chances should I not be able to shoot again for a while, but I wonder what the true scoop is on this.

Can't offer much about carbon and moisture but I can tell you that sitting for 6 mo will result in an oxidization growth of the copper and carbon that will build up in front of the bullet and result in a situation like fire lapping in reverse.

 

[Jaeger308]

Keep your rifle functionally clean but the bore fouled. Address the bolt, chamber and throat regularly but let the bore go until precision degrades...With a .308 that could be never. I will run an oil wet patch through the bore once in awhile just to pick up lose brass particles and some carbon just to make me feel better.

 

[ahhshoot]

My anecdotal experience has shown me that people clean their bores way too often. I have never really noticed diminished accuracy from not cleaning. And I'm talking 2, 3, 400 rounds. Sometimes I have cleaned my bore while wondering why I was doing it. And typically accuracy goes to crap for at least a few rounds after cleaning and doesn't really get back to where its' potential was until 100 rounds or so are back down the tube. Now I almost never clean my bore. As Jaeger said, I do remove the bolt and take a toothbrush with some CLP to it, scrubbing all the old brass chips off the bolt face and making sure the lugs and bolt rail within the action are cleaned. I also clean the trigger, etc. The most I do to my bore anymore is run a soft patch with some CLP through it to avoid oxidation if my gun has been exposed to moisture (in Florida stuff rusts really easily).

 

[ankratz]

Anything good or bad about running a dry bore snake through my .308 after each range trip?

I have 260 rounds through the rifle total. haven't cleaned yet.

 

[djskit]

Cleaning barrels is over-rated. Especially the aftermarket/custom barrels used with precision rifles.

I went over 600 rounds in my 6.5 Creedmore before cleaning once, and was still shooting 1/2 MOA ish at 1,000 in a match. I cleaned it because I could no longer bear the suspense of when accuracy would drop off. The cleaning process was no more laborsome than any other cleaning. It now has just over 3,000 rounds on it and the throat is stretching and velocity is dropping off, but I still shoot it at steel matches inside 600 yards. It shot 6 shots in 1/2 MOA at 550 yard at a side match at our 2014 TBRC in May as measured by a high tech computer remote impact plotter thingy.

I clean now every 300 or so "just because". I do clean the chamber and lug area/bolt regularly.

Folks, you have to keep in mind that a lot of the cleaning dogma out there is a carry over from the black powder and corrosive primer days. And the military where regular cleaning was also part of the discipline of day-to-day activities and using rifles in extreme environments.

Leave black powder residue in a barrel and it will attract moisture and corrode. Same with corrosive primers.

The other side of the coin: Very few who has ever posted questions or answers about cleaning barrels every has any tangible evidence as to why they do what they do, or think the should do what they need to do. I still don't know when my accuracy drops off for my barrel.

 

[DeadSilence]

When you guy say clean after a few hundred rounds, do you mean no cleaning of COPPER deposits in between, or NO cleaning AT ALL in between?

Can you actually use a rifle at the range to fire 30 to 60 rounds, and then store it without even cleaning our the carbon deposits from the rnage session?

I was taught to clean a firearm (any ifrearm) after each day's usage. Is that unnecessary?

Do uncleaned carbon deposits not promote corrosion od the barrel?

Jim G

Most modern powders (post 1965) do not damage your bore unless you live in harsh extremely humid areas. As a matter of fact most of them leave nitrogen which is good for your bore.
Cleaning out the copper and carbon is the main cause of what most think of as cold bore shift of POI. It takes approx. 50 to 60 rounds to reach copper equilibrium in your bore meaning that just as much copper gets pushed out along with the bullet as what it leaves behind. Once you reach that equilibrium you should be able to shoot for quite some time without removing the copper. It differs from rifle to rifle but you should be able to achieve good repeatable internal ballistics for months without removing the copper. The carbon is much the same but with a shorter cycle. Shoot until your groups start to spread, then clean with carbon solvent only. You want to leave the internal ballistics alone as much as possible. I have gone now for 9 months with out removing the copper and only cleaning the carbon when my groups spread. I average about 100 rounds a week. I remove the carbon somewhere around every 300 to 400 rounds, whenever my rifle tells me to. This regimen really works well for me. I originally got turned on to it by the "Sniper 101" videos by Tiboarasaurusrex on YouTube. Check it out if you want he explains it quite well.

 

[ahhshoot]

Little update here. I am finding that caliber is a pretty strong determinant in how quickly a rifle will foul to the point where accuracy degrades. 6.5 Creedmoor has over 400 rounds and still .4 MOA nearly every time. Shot a .19 MOA 5-shot group just this week. However, my 338 Lapua deposits so much carbon and copper that it seems to lose accuracy after 100-150 rounds. Blue and black pour out of the muzzle when cleaned and there is about a millimeter of carbon caked on the crown and brake at this point. But you're talking something that is firing bullets with a huge bearing surface (copper) and well more than double the powder charge of the Creedmoor. I would imagine the accelerated effects are not linearly proportional to the increase in charge and bearing surface, but at certain points it could be exponentially increased due to pressure and temperature within the bore. Fwiw

 

[Pinecone]

Remember, the adage to clean after every use came from the military. And also comes from corrosive ammunition.

IMO, more bores have been damaged by cleaning then by not cleaning. But in the military, if you damage the bore, you have the armorer put on a new barrel, AT NO COST TO YOU. Not the same when it is your own rifle.

If youshoot corrosive ammo, you DO need to clean every time you use the rifle, as the priming compound leaves salts in the barrel. And salts WILL absorb moisutre and cause severe corrosion. But you only need to flush the salts, and boiling water does this nicely. Bore solvents are needed where you cannot get boiling water.

 

[Coloradocop]

Does a failure to clean (over time / rounds) cause the pressure in a given rifle to eventually increase to dangerous levels? I could imagine that being possible from the build-up of fouling constricting the bore over time… On the other hand, I suppose some fouling is removed by each subsequent shot as more is added. Does this fouling (be it copper or carbon) eventually reach equilibrium, or do I need to worry about dangerous pressure situations eventually occurring through lack of bore cleaning after each range session?

I grew up as a "sun never sets on a dirty gun" child, learning from those who subscribed to old-school philosophies on gun cleaning. A few years ago I switched to cleaning "as necessary" philosophy, but I've been having some challenges in figuring out exactly what that "as needed" means, aside from just watching accuracy. The longest I've run my .260 Rem is around 250 rounds between cleanings, but I've now run my .308 Win around 330 rounds. Things still seem to be shooting well enough, but I'm wondering if I need to start worrying about cleaning because of other potential issues (pressure building? corrosion over time? time between range intervals?).

Just wondering how far/long the "don't clean the bore" philosophy can be safely stretched.

 

[Romeyo]

Most modern powders (post 1965) do not damage your bore unless you live in harsh extremely humid areas. As a matter of fact most of them leave nitrogen which is good for your bore.
Cleaning out the copper and carbon is the main cause of what most think of as cold bore shift of POI. It takes approx. 50 to 60 rounds to reach copper equilibrium in your bore meaning that just as much copper gets pushed out along with the bullet as what it leaves behind. Once you reach that equilibrium you should be able to shoot for quite some time without removing the copper. It differs from rifle to rifle but you should be able to achieve good repeatable internal ballistics for months without removing the copper. The carbon is much the same but with a shorter cycle. Shoot until your groups start to spread, then clean with carbon solvent only. You want to leave the internal ballistics alone as much as possible. I have gone now for 9 months with out removing the copper and only cleaning the carbon when my groups spread. I average about 100 rounds a week. I remove the carbon somewhere around every 300 to 400 rounds, whenever my rifle tells me to. This regimen really works well for me. I originally got turned on to it by the "Sniper 101" videos by Tiboarasaurusrex on YouTube. Check it out if you want he explains it quite well.

What are examples for "carbon only" solvents? Most of the stuff I know would attack both copper and carbon. The only kind of solvents I could think of doing excacly that are carburator/fuel injection nozzle cleaners. Anyone ever considered using one of those?
At the other hand, is someone lacking a borescope even able to tell apart accuracy drop by carbon or copper fouling?

 

[sib1948]

What are examples for "carbon only" solvents? Most of the stuff I know would attack both copper and carbon. The only kind of solvents I could think of doing excacly that are carburator/fuel injection nozzle cleaners. Anyone ever considered using one of those?
At the other hand, is someone lacking a borescope even able to tell apart accuracy drop by carbon or copper fouling?

BoreTech has a strictly carbon eliminator that works well.

 

[390fe]

I'm one of the crowd that only cleans when accuracy falls off. My .308 has over 1,100 rounds down the tube since it's last cleaning, and it's shooting 1/2 moa groups.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

It is very weapon specific. I have an H&K Tactical 45 that I clean maybe every 500 rounds, and it holds great groups through this. If the chamber gets too dirty then you don't get the same seal. If you aren't getting a consistent seal on the bolt then you aren't going to have consistent shot groups. But again this is very weapon specific as I have some that cleaning isn't a big issue with, and my old weatherby 7mm mag was so picky it was annoying.

 

[ksthomas]

I can't point to any anecdotal evidence to prove this, but I have a theory about the "clean every 20-25 shots or accuracy goes to hell" conventional wisdom. At one time, this was true, and I've seen such cautions by gunwriters for whom I actually had some serious respect. This was mostly around the turn of the last century, and guys like Julian Hatcher, Townsend Whelen and others of their stature. This was also at a time when bullets were primarily jacketed with cupronickel, a very soft material that fouled very badly and built up serious deposits on itself once that base was laid. Fortunately for us, that was changed somewhere around the very early 1920s (or a bit before) to 95/5 gilding metal, which has been the industry standard every since. Gilding metal doesn't foul anywhere NEAR as badly as cupronickel did, and does not tend to build up on itself the way the older material did. Frankly, I think the mass of gunwriters have been simply parroting what was once good advice, but now has little place in current shooting practices, ever since. This is a field in which it can be incredibly difficult to overcome inertia and conventional wisdom, once it becomes firmly entrenched.

 

[RTH1800]

I have purchased some older target Winchester 70's that had been shot a good bit and put away in the 60's. I suppose full of copper. Cleaned said copper and bore was ruined under it all. I mean really bad. Made me want to put it back bad. I do not put up rifles long term without cleaning.

 

[Djstorm100]

What I gather and is safe to say is to clean the throat/chamber but don't touch the rifling. What are you guys using to clean the throat and chamber?

 

[RobertB]

I used to clean a lot back in the day. Not any more. I bought a 6.5 Creedmoor from GAP after I quit the cleaning every time. I didn't break the bbl in like is recommended and I shot that thing till it hit 1K rounds. All factory hornady. At 1K rounds it shot great and I mean great. THe CCB was perfect and the rifle never changed up a bit. I was very impressed. I knew I was going to be gone from the house a while (7 months as of now) so I figured I would give all the rifles a good cleaning. That one had 850 on it before cleaning that time and it was still shooting great. Im anxious to see what kind of bbl life it will have but doesn't matter as there is a fresh bartlien bbl GAP spun up for me waiting to go. My other barltien bbls have had similar lives and they are just the same. And the most accurate rifle I know of is a bartlien 308 built by LA Precision that has NEVER been cleaned and we don't know how many rounds are through it but its a good bit. I think these good bbl makers do such a good job that cleaning isn't that important. Factory bbls might be though. IDK. But I didn't want to experiment with leaving them up dirty for a while and messing up several custom rifles. I cant wait to make it home to see what they can do. I have a GAP 308 with me right now with a few hundred rounds through it and I didn't break it in and its incredibly accurate.

 

[N0mad]

Great thread... This is what makes this forum worth a visit every day.

 

[shoot4fun]

I blame all my misses on a dirty barrel.

 

[mark5pt56]

I clean when accuracy starts to fad, but do clean and lube my bolt lugs after every three to four range sessions. Usualy shoot 100-150 rounds per session. I usually shoot 3-4X per week in the dry Arizona desert.

Wow, that's cool! Minimally 300, max 600 per week, that's about $150-300 per week, one caliber, must be nice--

You must go through barrels pretty fast--

 

[sib1948]

Wow, that's cool! Minimally 300, max 600 per week, that's about $150-300 per week, one caliber, must be nice--

You must go through barrels pretty fast--

Actually, I have 2 DTA SRS A1s in 260, 308 and 338LM and my new AI AXMC 308 with 260 and 308 barrels and have not needed a new barrel yet. When I started reloading 9 months ago, my ammo got much cheaper and more accurate, allowing for much more shooting. Accurate reloading gear and materials runs about $3-4000 to get you started, then after that your reloading starts to pay great dividends!

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I think we all make a lot of assumptions here, myself included.

Our experiences run the broad expanse from one polar opposite to the other. If there is a 'norm', it's a broad one.

I have some Mosin-Nagants that are older than I am, and dirt is a contemporary of mine. The odds of finding one without a frosted bore are mighty thin. Bore corrosion and bore wear from cleaning are the chronic causes of this situation. So, I say obviously, the two are not incompatible when it comes on down to whether to clean of not and how to go about it.

Being near dirt in age, I can remember when a doorbell battery was about the size of a jumbo beer can and composed of zinc and carbon with an acidic electrolyte paste separating the two. The electrolytic process is based on a process called bimetallic corrosion.

Carbon, zinc (as part of the brass and copper gilding metal our ammunition comprises), and other priming/propellant combustion products end up coating the bore. Atmospheric moisture completes the destructive cocktail that leads to pitting. Arguments can be made that modern priming and propellant compositions have eliminated corrosives from our ammunition. It would logically follow that pitting is no longer attributable to ammunition or even physically possible.

I leave it to the forum to decide whether that last statement is factual.