Rifle Barrel Break-In: Myth or Fact? by Greg Mills from The Gun Gods

 

For more than 200 years, the United States Navy has held to the maxim that every vessel, no matter how humble or complex, requires a certain amount of shakedown time before she can be relied on to perform her duty on the high seas.

While this is often dismissed as the fanciful romantic notion of those far too invested in the image of their ship as a comrade in arms, there is a fair amount of truth to the idea that a machine as complex as a modern naval warship requires more than a few second looks by trained engineers and vessel design specialists after she has put to sea for a time.

Some believe this concept should extend to nearly all mechanical devices, and while it can be said, for example, that a firearm is, pound for pound, at least as complex as any other weapon of war, there’s no consensus on whether firearms require the same kind of “break-in” time other types of machinery might.

The rifle barrel is a marvel of modern engineering. It is as precise as it is simple, and the expertise required to produce an effective and well built rifle barrel is hard-won, rare and requires considerable dedication. You can learn more about gunsmithing training here.

The primary controversy around the idea of “barrel break-in” centers on the assertion that a gun owner is able to do for a rifle barrel what its manufacturer could not. It creates the notion that any barrel leaving a gunsmith or weapons factory is not quite finished and requires either field use or a maintenance regimen in order to bring it up to the level of what other gun owners might consider a proven weapon.

One of the problems inherent in this controversy is the endemic confusion between simple cleaning of a rifle barrel and maintaining a rifle barrel. Manufacturers seem to recommend cleaning as part of the normal maintenance routine for various kinds of weapons. That stands to reason. A dirty weapon is, among other things, quite dangerous to its owner and everyone else nearby. The confusion stems from the idea that if breaking in a barrel is of no value, that cleaning it isn’t either, and that doesn’t seem to be an accepted view.

At the same time, many experienced gun owners insist that firing the first 100 rounds or so through a new barrel has some beneficial effect, even if firing those rounds is not followed by cleaning. While there are a few who believe this is simply a means by which manufacturers entice gun owners to “wear out their barrels faster” the objective difference between 100 rounds fired one way or the other is likely negligible.

There is also the very high possibility that some weapons may benefit from a break-in routine and others do not. Every machine is different and demonstrates different characteristics. As precision instruments, modern firearms are technically complex mechanisms that require considerable attention to safety. If it is possible the proper maintenance of such a mechanism requires the barrel or any other part of its structure be “broken in” through the use of a standardized procedure, then it may be the better option in the long run to sacrifice the benefit of the doubt for a greater purpose.

Whether or not a break-in procedure benefits the weapon itself, in the long run it may benefit the weapon’s owner, even if it only provides them reassurance their weapon has been cared for to the best of that owner’s ability.

Washington Arms Collectors would like to thank Mr. Mills for his article and look forward to more in the future. If you are interested in reading more information go to: http://www.gungods.net