Quote from: Brithunter;79256Hmm have you considered one of the surface metal treatments to reduce or eliminate the bore leading?
 

Not yet. Are there any that you suggest or have experience with?
 
I have heard good things about microlon gun juice, but cannot locate any that I won't have to pay $10 shipping to get.

For what it's worth, I know custom .22 RF barrel makers (Volquartsen) that void the warantee on their barrels if you clean the bore AT ALL... EVER...
 
I probably went 30 years without cleaning the bore of my Ruger 10/22. Finally, after shooting some really dirty sub-sonic rounds, I HAD to clean the action. I don't remember if I cleaned the bore then or not.
 
Paul

I did experiment with a stuff called Fastex but that was on full bore rifles it had issues and I was not happy with it long term. The other day I was reading about a moly??? treatmen. found the thread on Rimfire central I seem to recall but cannot no find it so perhaps it was another forum I visited after following a link about something else.

Next time at the range I will speak to a few that I know use small bore target rifles and see if they get any fouling near the muzzle and how often if at all do they clean their barrels. Friends have Walther and Anschutz target rifles so it should have some bearing on the problem.

Then of course there is lapping which has shown itself to improve barrels that foul, however that would be an extreme last resort.

TYPEREMSSREMSSREMSSREMSSCCIGTE?E Ten-XE Ten-XE-Ten-XLM-LLM-LLM-LE EPSLSSHPLSSHPLSSHPVELOCITY908106799890810541028105211001052105410781054103610211037102110221031103510229721055105310601053106810821068107710041039100410011038107210011057106110541059105410681095106810611037945103710181054105710181057104110701070107010861070106610221016102210051033103510051062107310581058105810581061102610601026100710191036100710571074107410781022105810221021108910411021102910791079108210391022103910001054107310001043110010951038103810381029104710491029107210601086100810311008100610341019100610511059 1045104910451067 10371031 10391038 9451054 10161033 10601019 10581089 10221054 10381047 10311034 1049998 1035 1072 1057 1035 1036 1041 1073 1049 1019 STDEV34.3771620.4026122.9310632.8013228.1945617.5157111.2016223.3880315.139727.1274127.27438413.2455415.0233213.579432.8675824.53413AVG1001.71046.61041.51029.9331045.41051.61062.85710731065.91063.61085.251073.2221060.21026.21029.51027.85RANGE1217075181100452741481617414141115115GROUP2.281.842.092.072.672.491.662.382.021.381.51.442.121.451.921.685

I am embarrassed that I didn't do the analysis that I promised back 5 years ago, but I'm hoping better late than never.

At the bottom of each column is the "average", the "standard deviation" (SD), the "coefficient of deviation" (CV) which is the average divided by the standard deviation, and the "max spread". The SD is derived in part by dividing by sample size, so it is noteworthy that the smaller the sample size, the larger the TENDENCY of the SD will be when the variation is identical.

As you can see, the Remington and CCI ammo has the highest SD and CV as well as max spread, but the Lapua SS HP is close on SD and has a larger max spread.

Surprising how similar the MVs are to me, especially the Eley Tenex and "EPS". The Lapua Midas' have the highest velocity and lowest SD and CVbut hte Lapua Midas and Eley Tenex have identical max spreads.

A 180 f/s difference in MV would certainly lead to vertical spread. The SDs aren't too different though, and that is the most meaningful statistic. Max spread is all but useless as a predictor of future value.

Paul

If we throw out the highest and lowest values from each column, the stats change considerably. Lowest likely being from a 'cold' barrel and the highest from a 'hot' barrel. We do NOT know this TRUE however.

Paul