Has anyone here tested the theory?

[cabezaverde]

That a barrel has to be totally cleaned of copper before shooting cast for best accuracy.

[Winger Ed.]

I don't let any fouling build up very much.
Years ago, I bought a M1 Garand that was an extreme case of fouling.
You couldn't hardly see the rifling, and it printed groups you'd expect from a shotgun.

Not for any scientific reasons, I just don't like Copper fouling in my barrels and keep it cleaned out.
(Same for Lead fouling)
If ANY fouling contributed to accuracy, I figure somebody would offer/sell barrels pre-fouled.

The exception being:
If you sit down to fire a group, the first shot out of a clean, lightly oiled barrel will often stray from the group.
This is why people take a 'fouling shot' first, or don't clean their rifle barrel after sighting it in before a hunt.

When I plan to shoot both at a range session, I do shoot the jacketed stuff first.
Other times when I only fired cast in the .308 or .30-06, I really couldn't tell much difference in accuracy.
Either the fouling after 10-20 jacketed didn't matter, or I'm not a good enough shot to tell the difference.

[Bazoo]

I’ve not tested it. I don’t clean my barrels spotless when switching from jacketed to cast though. I don’t see any difference when switching after a fouling shot or two.

The last I tested on paper, my Winchester 94 shot 1 1/4” with jacketed and then 1 5/8” with the 31141 I was testing, without cleaning, at 70 yards.

[20:1]

Honestly, I have guns that use cast almost exclusively, and guns that use jacketed exclusively. I've never crossed them, although I have had success with higher velocities in rifles but have only experience with calibers like 30-06 up to .375 H&H with cast.

On the other side, I'm a bit astonished that so many people will buy FMJ "practice ammo" for handguns when handloaded cast serves the same purpose at lower expense. And I haven't even begun to babble about cast hunting designs and hollowpoints.

[corbinace]

Honestly, I have guns that use cast almost exclusively, and guns that use jacketed exclusively. I've never crossed them, although I have had success with higher velocities in rifles but have only experience with calibers like 30-06 up to .375 H&H with cast.

On the other side, I'm a bit astonished that so many people will buy FMJ "practice ammo" for handguns when handloaded cast serves the same purpose at lower expense. And I haven't even begun to babble about cast hunting designs and hollowpoints.

Welcome aboard!!!

[gc45]

All my centerfire guns have pristine clean barrels; just hate picking one out to go shoot then see it's got a dirty barrel. As for copper fowling or lead fowling, it does hurt accuracy if letting it build up so, why not take the time to clean after shooting? like changing the oil in the truck, got to be done.

[Hannibal]

The reason I personally do not want copper fouling, or any fouling for that matter to remain in a bore is because of corrosion damage.

Corrosion will form under carbon, lead or copper fouling if left in the bore too long. No precise answer as to how long it will take due to varying conditions. Fact is it will always occur eventually.

[Clyde Wadsworth]

Yes, I found it really helps.

[Bazoo]

Yes, I found it really helps.

Howdy and welcome to the forum. Could you tell us about it? Did you do some testing and keep records?

[HWooldridge]

Seems to depend somewhat on caliber. I have an original 44-40 carbine that doesn’t care one way or the other. Can mix jackets with lead and the only change will be the POI - lead hits lower.

My 30-30 Marlin doesn’t like lead on top of jackets but fortunately, the copper fouling is minimal and easy to clean.

[Hick]

I’ve not tested it. I don’t clean my barrels spotless when switching from jacketed to cast though. I don’t see any difference when switching after a fouling shot or two.

The last I tested on paper, my Winchester 94 shot 1 1/4” with jacketed and then 1 5/8” with the 31141 I was testing, without cleaning, at 70 yards.

Very similar to my experience. Not only do I not clean the barrel before switching, I only clean with solvent and patches once a year in the winter (which amounts to one detail cleaning about very 500 rounds). The rest of the time I just run a dry bore snake through the barrel after a range trip. Its probably also a question of what precision you expect. My favorite targets are 3" steel at 100 yards, and most of my rifles are old timers, and they seem to shoot just as accurately late in the fall as they did early in spring.

[Bazoo]

Very similar to my experience. Not only do I not clean the barrel before switching, I only clean with solvent and patches once a year in the winter (which amounts to one detail cleaning about very 500 rounds). The rest of the time I just run a dry bore snake through the barrel after a range trip. Its probably also a question of what precision you expect. My favorite targets are 3" steel at 100 yards, and most of my rifles are old timers, and they seem to shoot just as accurately late in the fall as they did early in spring.
That pretty much describes my cleaning regiment also. I rarely will do anything more than a couple of solvent soaked patches followed by dry patches, then an oily patch and then a dry patch.

[Hannibal]

OMG.

You guys have no idea what's lurking in your barrels.

[Hick]

OMG.

You guys have no idea what's lurking in your barrels.

I know what's in mine-- pretty much nothing. Its all about fit for cast bullets. When I first started I had leading issues until I found what each rifle likes. Now I clean once a year and still find no leading or other issues-- nice shiny crisp lands.

[Hannibal]

Looking at patches after cleaning a barrel only tells you one thing and one thing only.

The solvent you are using is no longer removing anything from the bore.

That does NOT mean it's clean.

That does NOT mean that there's no fouling in the bore.

That only means the solvent you are using isn't removing anything else.

I don't wish to start a big argument. If your rifles shoot to your satisfaction then that's all that matters.

[Mr Peabody]

I use a rifle that shoots cast good whether it's clean of copper or not. I think the quality of the barrel has a lot to do with it. I have stripped it of copper more than a few times and shot cast. It does just as well if I don't clean it to the point of being copper free. I do use PC'd boolits, that might help.

[Bazoo]

OMG.

You guys have no idea what's lurking in your barrels.

LOL. You are absolutely right. Ignorance is bliss. I know that if I got a bore scope I'd never rest.



Looking at patches after cleaning a barrel only tells you one thing and one thing only.

The solvent you are using is no longer removing anything from the bore.

That does NOT mean it's clean.

That does NOT mean that there's no fouling in the bore.

That only means the solvent you are using isn't removing anything else.

I don't wish to start a big argument. If your rifles shoot to your satisfaction then that's all that matters.

No argument here, I completely agree with your statement. I am primarily a short range rifleman, that is... less than 200 yards, and always offhand or field positions. I do want to get a bolt action rifle and wring every bit of accuracy from it I can. I didn't used to have that desire, but I have developed it over the last few months. Uhg, what am I getting into...

[stubshaft]

Since I bought my borescope I clean all of my barrels until spotless. I was amazed at the gunk and carbon fouling in my barrels.

[ebb]

One of the other forums a visit, many there believe that a little copper helps, and spotless doesn't shoot as well as slightly fouled. Real short range BR shooters, all I've ever known want a gun spotless. I wish someone that knew scientific procedures would test some of these things and we could know the truth rather than gun store gossip. I really liked the book Harold Vaughn wrote, but the one I read was barrowed and I had to return it.

[Texas by God]

I clean them every couple of years or so if they need it or not. I shoot cast and jacketed at random through most of them.
My most powerful scopes are 3x9 and I’m not a great shot- so I probably couldn’t tell the difference between cleaned and fouled on target.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hannibal]

Well I do know this much. Since borescopes have become widely available for a cheap price it's obvious older rifles have bore damage due to the common wisdom of bore cleaning everyone followed.

So now there's a much larger tendency to clean bores really clean because it can be viewed.

Only time will tell if it matters on the production rifles of mediocre accuracy to begin with.

Assuming component costs don't rise to the level that only the elite can afford an extravagance such as shooting.