Gentlemen:
Hang onto your hats. Those who feel the urge may want to visit the rest room before reading the rest of this marathon response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick W.
Muzzle/throat wear from the brushing rod rod can be quite apparent, one only has to look down a borescope to see this wear.
|
OK this calls for an randomized, controlled study. All the ballyhoo is about whether something softer than steel can be applied in such a manner as to cause "noticeable wear" in the steel, microscopic or otherwise, because I think this is all what we at the shop call "full body porcine hygiene" (total hogwash).
That it
cannot happen is not specifically proven, but you gotta be careful of opinions based on long time, individual experience because the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes",
NOT data. There may also be logical fallacies at work here, as well. One is called "Appeal to Popularity." (See
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html) Another possible operative may be the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy because correlation alone does not prove causation. See (
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...nd-effect.html) If someone has cleaned a barrel the "wrong way" repeatedly, then it might be that they have also shot it repeatedly--and what we're after is to see if there is a difference in cleaning methods. Our conclusion must not be confounded by the more likely wear from shooting, which subjects the bore to high mechanical speeds and pressure and possibly contact with a steel jacketed projectile. But wait!! There is more... There is also a factor of human tendencies called "confirmation bias". We have been programmed by evolution (Thor, maybe you might want to stop reading now) to figure out patterns in the world around us. This operates to the extent that we tend to apply what is called this confirmation bias in areas where we figure we already know something to be absolute. In short, we tend to see the "hits" and totally forget about the "misses". This is instinctive and unconscious and if gone unchecked, this faulty reasoning can lead us to a state where "believing is seeing."
No one so far has offered convincing evidence that brass or aluminum rubbing on steel will wear out the steel.
So here's a protocol for a simple experiment to see if this is true or not:
1)acquire the greatest number of identical barrels feasible, let's say a dozen at least, maybe twenty... They could be new or period, any caliber, any length, any mfgr.--as long as they're the same.
2)Construct a machine to do the work which would run on a stroke counter or timer. The machine would hold each barrel in the same way. A cleaning rod would be made to reciprocate thru the barrel in at least two ways--one guided by a bore guide, the other unguided and loose so the rod clatters against the inside of the barrel while traveling. This reproduces the two possibilities of cleaning rod's route while traveling.
3)Use half the sample number as a control group, plunging the brass brush back and forth in the barrel while protecting the first bit of the barrel's I.D. via use of the rod guide. Run the rest with the rod slopping and clattering and rubbing around the end of the barrel, as in the un-guided rod's action.
4)Run the experiment. Set the machine to stroke all the barrels the same number of times, same speed, same travel limits. Use Hoppe's #9, bear grease or dry, as long as it is the same thing for all. Use a new, identical brush for each individual run; you can figure out why. Each run could pump away overnight, or longer.
5)Now it's time to gather data. The bores of all barrels are examined, measured, and photographed. We'd use a bore scope hooked to a hi-res camera, post
all the results for all to see. Of course, everything is kept the same--illuminating the internal bore with the same light at the same distance and angle--a jig could accomplish this easily. It is possible to determine a surface finish to within a fraction of a micron, but it's possible to take actual measurements of the results.^
6)
Now is the time for data analysis and conditional conclusions. Publication of the data would allow for perhaps more complete conclusions, or perhaps turn up a flaw in this protocol which someone else might notice, and a subsequent, modified experiment could be run.
The proposed "better safe than sorry" approach is fine, but it irks me when people over-apply the cautionary principle for no good reason. The reasons presented so far, both back in the '70s and in this thread simply do not cross my threshold of what I consider "evidence". Too much opinion and human factor involved for such statements to be convincing.