Is a bore guide necessary?

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
The issue with non use of bore guide is two fold alan

Damage cause to the throat and “area at end of chamber” cause by misaligned entry of jag / brush and rod - causes damage when the rod catches this critical area

One can see this as damage or chipping through a bore scope

Similar issues are seen at the crown with damaged edges but the cause of this is less likely to be cause by injudicious entry of a cleaning rod



Secondly I specifically said damage is caused when a bronze (or similar) brush changes direction within the confines of the barrel

The change in direction leaves microscopic imprint on the lands and grooves causing over time pitting

On a clean barrel scratches / pitting are easily seen with a borescope

Use of a guide prevents the damage to the throat area aided by the rod

Use of nylon or similar brushes prevents damage to the bore when changing direction within it when solvent is “scrubbed” especially if those bronze bristles have particles of carbon attached to them , which will assist in damaging the internal finish of the bore

Use or don’t use a bore guide your choice , your barrel

They’re expendable items anyway
I think my main problem with this idea of chipping damage of the throat lands by the jag or rod end is that they do not come into direct contact on the way in. Or I should say I have never managed to make them contact on the way in.

The cloth patch itself is the insulator / centraliser which is the only part that is in contact, whether a guide is used or not. The bristles of the brush also are the only bit in contact...the tip and spine are centralised by the bristles.

The only time my aluminium jag is in contact with the lands is when it is trailing out on withdrawal when the patch has come off, and that occurs even when I am using a bore guide.

The particles of carbon that are picked up and scraped against the bore by either the patch or the nylon/bronze brush bristles are only from the last shot. The previous bullet picked up and scored the majority of the residue down the barrel under 50,000psi more pressure than the patch or bristles do.

It is this huge order of difference in pressure of rubbing abrasive down the bore that I find difficult to ignore.

The burnishing of the lands by the side of the rod is also minimal in comparison... I use both steel and Agate burnishers for finishing and setting stones and know just how hard you need to press even with a soft metal like silver to make any impression.

I know that soft materials can and do pick up and carry abrasives, but I also know that even with saturated abrasives or things like emery cloth, the more pressure behind them the more effective they are. The relatively soft metal of the bullet does this under huge pressure with every shot fired.

I am intrigued by your description of the point loading of the bronze bristles on reversing the direction in the bore. I will need to think about that a bit more...concentrating pressure like fullers when forging or dimples from stilleto heels come to mind!

I use a nylon brush and an aluminium jag in order not to get false copper dissolve readings from the patches, rather than for any bore damage limitation reasons.

To be clear for the OP I invariably use a bore guide when using a cleaning rod with patches, brush and chemicals...I find them convenient for a number of reasons...but the prevention of excessive wear is not one of them.

Alan
 
Last edited:

caorach

Well-Known Member
maybe basc could organise some kind of course?
"Using made up science to justify the purchase of completely pointless gadgets while hiding the expenditure from your wife level 1" You'd not be short of takers.

It isn't just in shooting, I think the so called "hi-fi" world is much worse - for some time we had an advert up on the wall for us to admire for a birch volume knob that was coated with a special damping varnish and was only £960. I've a mate who attends Richer Sounds on a regular basis and every time he comes out of there his new best mate Dave has filled his head with yet another load of complete balderdash so he can sell him some stupid add-on to his hi-fi. The made up physics in the hi-fi world outstrips even the writings of the best "gun writers" by orders of magnitude in part, I suspect, because the basic physics behind rifles and ballistics is quite limited and well understood whereas audio and electronics opens up so many more options for talking complete rubbish. It is also the case that no one is going to spend a fortune and then admit that the result is the same, or mostly worse, than where they started from.
 

cjm1066

Well-Known Member
Perhaps brass is left in the bore, but then I wipe our the crud with a patch, that must remove it????
 

mealiejimmy

Well-Known Member
"Using made up science to justify the purchase of completely pointless gadgets while hiding the expenditure from your wife level 1" You'd not be short of takers.

It isn't just in shooting, I think the so called "hi-fi" world is much worse - for some time we had an advert up on the wall for us to admire for a birch volume knob that was coated with a special damping varnish and was only £960. I've a mate who attends Richer Sounds on a regular basis and every time he comes out of there his new best mate Dave has filled his head with yet another load of complete balderdash so he can sell him some stupid add-on to his hi-fi. The made up physics in the hi-fi world outstrips even the writings of the best "gun writers" by orders of magnitude in part, I suspect, because the basic physics behind rifles and ballistics is quite limited and well understood whereas audio and electronics opens up so many more options for talking complete rubbish. It is also the case that no one is going to spend a fortune and then admit that the result is the same, or mostly worse, than where they started from.
The big problem in the hi-fi world is that sound quality is extremely subjective. A set of speakers that sound brilliant to one person don't sound so good to another. This is made worse by people who claim to have "golden ears" which can detect every sound nuance and are therefor able to say definitively what piece of hifi kit is better than another - it's always the more expensive bit, and they are usually being paid by the manufacturer of said bit of kit.
Several years ago James Randi challenged the manufacturers of these ridiculously over priced interconnecting cables to a blind test against cheaper cables, but they refused - knowing that their product would be shown to be no better than the cheaper cables.
At least with shooting there is an objective performance test - the rifle range.
If your rifle shoots straight and continues to shoot straight, you a) have a good rifle and b) your cleaning regime is fine.

Cheers

Bruce
 

bluesako

Well-Known Member
totally bemused with this thread now, use one if you want, dont use one if dont want,simple, jeez we are going on about ****ing hi fi now, im finished its looney toons. bs.
 

caorach

Well-Known Member
The big problem in the hi-fi world is that sound quality is extremely subjective. A set of speakers that sound brilliant to one person don't sound so good to another. This is made worse by people who claim to have "golden ears" which can detect every sound nuance and are therefor able to say definitively what piece of hifi kit is better than another - it's always the more expensive bit, and they are usually being paid by the manufacturer of said bit of kit.
I think everything you are saying is correct - in the end someone in a shed can't actually design and build better electronics that one of the big manufacturers with a billion quid of research money behind their work and design software. However what the bloke in a shed can certainly do is build something that sounds different and to do that what he is almost always providing is distortion that you convince yourself, probably because you'd just paid £20k for it, that you "prefer." There are certainly interesting parallels in shooting. I know people with "golden ears" who can only determine if something is better or not after asking what it costs, just as you say. I had one of the first iPods and the headphone output on it was flat as you'd ever want but some "experts" I encountered were mocking my assertion that it was a really good source (when playing uncompressed wav files) and telling me what it should sound like to "improve" the sound while being completely unaware that it was me who'd recorded the music I was replaying, I kind of had a good idea what it should have sounded like :) In the end people don't want a flat response and all the recent portable devices I've listened to have been a step backwards towards providing "likeable" distortion, no bad thing in many ways as for sitting on the bus or plane I like it that way myself but certainly not true "hi fi."

Many years back when digital audio started to become common there was a big push back against it from the traditional hi-fi companies and, especially, the man in a shed type operations. There was a local hi-fi shop that we used to go to for entertainment and ask about CD players and, of course, they'd react with horror as digital chops the audio up into tiny bits and sounds awful. Their standard practise was to play a CD and then to play BBC Radio 3 and to lecture at length about how wonderful the analogue audio from Radio 3 sounded compared to the digital CD audio that had been all chopped up. What they didn't know was that Radio 3 was, at that time and up until recently, distributed to the transmitter using NICAM circuits which were 14 bit companded digital. This was a quick education in all I needed to know about hi-fi experts :)

In terms of shooting then the basics are covered here:

 

Milligan

Well-Known Member
5 pages later....
I didn't like using a bore guide so i got a Blaser.
:stir:

I still don't try and change direction with a brush in the bore though
 

cjm1066

Well-Known Member
No someone found a virtue in a Blaser, I now have a bit guide on the Xmas list to save me from that affliction
 

Blobby159

Well-Known Member
Use RL17 or RS60 and you'll burn out the damage.
Just don't know how to take that statement '1894'... Was it designed as a "throw away"? I am guessing your comment is a somewhat cynical joke.... maybe??? On the face of it it sounds down right DANGEROUS even CATASTROPHIC to bore life, and I am certain it isn't meant that literally... is it???

ATB ....... and shoot safely




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

mealiejimmy

Well-Known Member
Hot loads using RS60 are catastrophic to bore life.
I had a Tikka T3 in 22-250 that I ran for about 3 years as a foxing rifle using a hot load of RS60
When the rifle started to become inaccurate, I had it borescoped by Calum Ferguson.
The throat and the start of the rifling had extensive heat cracking and the bore was just a mess of pits and gouges.
BTW this rifle was cleaned regularly using a bore guide.. which simply reinforces my point that burning powder does far more damage to a chamber/barrel than a bore guide .

Cheers

Bruce
 

1894

Well-Known Member
Yup my 243was barely worn after 1000plus 'normal' loads but was wrecked after 200 book max RL17 loads
 

kenbro

Well-Known Member
Sorry I have only just got round to reading this thread and I have to admit that I have no idear about the bore guide thing. But one thing I'm sure of is some of the replies are cobblers . Yours included water jet cutting of hard materials is done using water with an abbra
Water still cuts rocks in rivers without an abbra [Sic]
Ken.
 

jb1

Well-Known Member
Water still cuts rocks in rivers without an abbra [Sic]
Ken.
Well your kind of right, but it takes hundreds of years to cut through some of the stone in river's. And you have the impact of smaller stones and sand particulates being carried by the flowing water impacting the larger rocks.

I think its all down to the individual whether or not they want to use a bore guide,the extra life it gives the barrel is negligible in comparison. I suppose its like all "shooting" related stuff, like shooting jackets, and shooting boots, and shooting sticks yet we all still manage to shoot without the "shooting" label,,,,,,, or most of us do.
 

BryanDC

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure that river rocks are worn by the action of sand and other small rocks carried in the flow.

I have to agree with NDT man. Some of the answers in this thread are utter cobblers. The amount of wear a surface is subjected to is dependent upon its hardness and surface finish. Rubbing a piece of glass with a cotton cloth will result in the wearing out of many cotton cloths before the glass is even marked. Rubbing the surface of a wooden chair with a cotton cloth will more quickly result in wear (polishing) of the wooden surface, as it is both softer and more course. The fibres in the wood are much closer in hardness to the fibres in the cloth than the glass surface was. The removal of material relies on the shearing forces against the surface and this is in turn at least partly to do with the surface finish. The microscopic surface is made up of peaks and valleys and it is the shearing of those that causes wear. Yes a cotton fibre can wear a metal surface, but only after many, many passes and the fibre will wear out long before the cloth. the speed of the passing fibre could also make a difference if it increases the temp and friction. If the string contains glass or carbon fibres then these would also increase the wear rate.

So, how can a bronze brush damage the steel bore of a rifle with a few low speed passes once in a while. If the bore is that delicate then it would not be useable for more than a couple of shots before it needed replacing. I understand the use of a bore guide for centering the brush to make it easier to get it into the barrel and also to reduce the amount of chemicals that could get into the trigger or feed system but protection of the bore or chamber just doesn't make any sense. If that were the case then nobody would be buying bronze brushes anymore.
 

Top