Barrel cleaning question...

[uhlster]

Tried to search briefly for this answer, but couldn't find it.

Basically I bought recently a 1914 all matching DWM in very good condition, and it does have "barrel frosting"

I am aware of what this is... but should I clean my Luger's barrel with a brass bristle plunger? or just use gun cleaning solution + a cotton/fabric plunger instead?

My fear is I would tear away at the barrel lining with another metal (brass plunger) and don't have much insight on how to properly clean a gun barrel, let alone a 100 year old one, thanks for the replies in advance!

[sheepherder]

I use a 38 cal brass bore brush on my 9mm's with no problems...

[nukem556]

No worries, a brass bristle brush wont harm the bore...scrub away.

[policeluger]

Try any one of the foam based bore cleaners made for copper/brass bullets, NOT lead bullets, ease,fast and no over scrubing needed.....

[guns3545]

Just a couple of things:

1. You don't have to worry about going through a liner. Original Luger barrels are not lined.

2. Frosting, as opposed to outright corrosion/pitting, is a reaction to the neutralizing ammonia solution used to counteract the corrosive primers used in military ammunition even today in some areas. FYI, ,most if not all modern ammunition used by Western Forces employ non-corrosive primers.

If the ammonia solution is not rinsed away, typically by soapy water, "frosting" occurs.

So, clean away, use whatever cleaning material, and brush/swab/patch you are comfortable with. What is done, has been done, you really can't improve it or harm it using modern cleaning materials and techniques.

John

[FNorm]

Do it from the breech, not the muzzle.

FN

[policeluger]

556, are you sure a brass brush scrube away???? aloy om M1's will differ with you and a bunch of bore/muzzle protector after market protector items are made for just this thought process..............?

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by FNorm

Do it from the breech, not the muzzle.

FN

What is the rationale behind that, Fred???

[Olle]

Originally Posted by postino

What is the rationale behind that, Fred???

Just an old trick to save the muzzle. It's easy to rub the rod against the rifling and the crown when cleaning from that direction, and it's said that the rifling at the muzzle end can be ruined by frequent cleaning from that direction. I don't think it's all that bad as long as you're using a brass or coated rod, but better safe than sorry.

[ithacaartist]

Originally Posted by FNorm

Do it from the breech, not the muzzle.

FN

I first heard something like this in the 70's, and asked about the reasoning/science behind it. I was told that the brush should always travel in the same direction thru the barrel that the rounds did...and this would necessitate pushing the brush through from the breech, unscrewing the brush from the rod after it popped out of the muzzle, withdrawing the rod, re-attaching the brush, and taking the next stroke. I was hard-pressed to believe that anybody would believe that something like this was necessary, and concluded that it was an old wives' tale, at best.
Metalurgically speaking, it's a game of rock/paper/scissors as to what will mar what. It's based on "hardness". Steel most usually trumps brass and aluminum. Granted, I have not tried to gouge a piece of totally annealed steel with an exotic brass or aluminum of extreme hardness, but take it from me there will be no harm from using a rod made of anything, as long as it is not harder than the steel. Note that I did not say, "no foul". This is because it is likely that the softer metal in contact with the bore while scrubbing will leave some of its molecules behind instead. I do this on purpose, to apply an interesting tone to forged steel metalwork: Heat the steel to dull red and brush vigorously with a brass brush. The heat makes the transfer easier and faster, and soon you have an object that looks as if it has been brass plated.
Theoretically, one would see microscopic brass residue on the steel around the opening chosen for inserting the brush, whether breech or muzzle. If you insert the brush, pop it out the other end--and have to pull it back inside that end, then I guess you'd "foul" both ends with brass...

[FNorm]

Post,

Rick answered the question in detail. A good example is a well used M1 Garand. To clean from the breech you have to do a total disassemble. The issued cleaning rod is some sort of steel. The crown and grooves are usually dinged up over the years. Any abnormality in that area acts like a speed bump to the bullet.

BTW a good rod guide for an M1 is a empty 12GA shotgun shell with the spent primer removed.

FN

[ithacaartist]

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.

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.

[ithacaartist]

Well, Rick, there's the rub--literally! And you've inadvertently backed up my statement about the benefits of openness in testing: You've pointed out a confounding factor in my experiment! I knew, but did not mention, that abrasive or corrosive slurry created by loosening up all manner of crud deposited in the bore by shooting, well, until it needs cleaning, is created merely by the action of cleaning with a brush. And I have no problem with a concern about wear caused by the combination of this slurry and a cleaning rod which could grind it into the bore's surface.

And this situation perhaps does not need an experiment because it is more straightforward to understand.

OK, this is falling into place now. It also validates that wacky method dictated to me back in the day because said method would introduce only a clean rod into the bore, regardless of bore guidance. By eliminating totally the risk of rod/bore contact, the use of a guide allows scrubbing back & forth with absolutely no danger. One step further would be to eliminate any physical contact by any cleaning apparatus/brush in the wash or scrubbing phase of the process. Easy: How about a bore size, radial squirting mini pressure washer, which could really blast a bore clean using an appropriate cleaning/dissolving/neutralizing solution?

And now I understand why the hardcore aficionados would do this, because they shoot a lot. And clean a lot. And lots of unguided cleaning would yield discernible damage, indeed. And a much better-reasoned cause of the situations Rick and all have observed.

So, the material from which the rod would be constructed would be moot, in that brass, aluminum, steel, wood, plastic rods could all rub abrasive goo against the insides if they were not guided to prevent it. And the guide lines would be to use a bore guide, and a plastic or brass brush for scrubbing with an appropriate solvent. Hmm...sort of right back where we started. But I feel a lot better having it figured out here, just why it is so. Gentlemen, thank you for your patience and contributions.
David Parker

[saab-bob]

What is the opinion of the Bore Snake for cleaning barrels?
I have great results with them.
They come in different sizes. Very easy to use. When they get worn out,just buy another.They work well with all kinds of solvents. Since they have no rod,there is nothing to scape the side of the bore, muzzle crown or chamber.
I admit they are best for bores that are in pretty good shape.
If I get a gun that is very dirty or leaded up,the old elbow grease with a brass brush and bore guide is best.
After the initial cleaning ,I just use the snake for routine cleaning.Since I use FMJ ammo,no leading issues.
My .02
Bob

[sheepherder]

Getting back on topic (something I rarely do), I often buy a brass bristled brush one size larger than the nominal caliber...For instance, if I have a 357 magnum revolver, I'll buy a 40 cal bore brush...I just like the extra tension the larger size applies to the bore...

[JRS]

I use Blue Wonder bore cleaner, bronze brush and a carbon fiber cleaning rod with excellent results and no wear and tear on the barrel. All items available at Midway USA.

[Edward Tinker]

years ago in the army in unit armorers school, they said that more wear occurs from over cleaning then from firing

And I agree, a clean gun is nice, but many folks really over do it in my opinion.


Ed

[mrerick]

The steel rods of the past used from the muzzle end did ruin a lot of the bores of military rifles. While the barrels are made of steel, the steel isn't that hard. I can just visualize a GI scrubbing away rifling and all...

Since the line through the barrel remains blocked at the breech of a M1 Garand by the heel of the receiver, even when disassembled, it's almost like the "Bore Snake" products were made for this rifle... You simply can't use a solid rod from the back of a Garand receiver. At least, not without some bend to it...

Another thing to be careful of is to not reverse a bristle brush (brass, stainless or other) while it's in the barrel or chamber. It needs to have enough clearance to be pushed all the way through, and then pulled back all the way through if you do that.

I like to start with the brush on a dry bore before using solvents. This way you don't build up a mud/goo version of the fouling before trying to use patches to clear it all out.

Marc