Cleaning Woes - Been down this road before

[Dphariss]

For some reason I do not understand RB rifles tend to have more loose iron oxide in the bore than a cartridge rifle shooting the same powder.
If the barrel is properly breeched and is not pitted it takes very little time for water (hot or not) to remove the fouling.

BUT as the bore is dried I tend to get some black on the drying patches.
Looks like fouling. But using a wet patch it disappears again.
Then while drying it comes back.
If these damp patches are set aside and allowed to dry the black converts to red iron oxide when it dries.
So I don't feel that the black is fouling in this case. Fouling turns grey when it drys in my climate.
So I finally decided that trying get all the black out. Once its clean with water and wet patches I dry it and oil it.
I think the oil will then remove more loose oxide and cause brown on patches run down the bore day(s) later.
Why my BPCRs don't do this I have no idea. I need to pay more attention cleaning the McLemore barrel. Its 4150 as well and may show different cleaning characteristics.

Dan

[alsask]

I have noticed the same thing with my muzzleloaders.  I run a patch down the bore a couple of days after having cleaned them and get a bit of black on the rag, not much but enough to notice, even though before storing the gun the patches come out absolutely clean.

[Daryl]

Dan's mention of different barrel steels is quite valid, I think in so far as some 'types' of barrel steels are more prone to flash rusting than others & therefore are more prone to oxidation that others. 

As Taylor noted, using a TIGHT patch for cleaning and getting to the bottom of the grooves & hard into the corners of rilfing is vitally important to the clenaing regime.  The jags we use are sized to take new flannel material doubled and VERY tight in the bore. The double thickness easily cleans to the bottom of deep grooves and into the corners of square rifling as well.

Maybe this is why we get no after rust - the method, materials and the way we use the water displacing oil.

[Chris Treichel]

I find that if first thing before shooting I swab the barrel a few times with a tallow or bore butter greased patch, then the same after every few shots makes cleaning pretty easy.  For final cleaning I soak a patch with windex (amonia is a solvent for nitrates) then run a shotgun bristle scrubber up and down a few times, after that its all just running a few clean patches and then a greased patch.  A few days later and if I am not shooting for a while say once a month a greased patch does the trick to keep things nice and shiny. 

On the other hand I have tried using a swiping stick and hemp tow fuzz ball...which works ok... but every other time I end up having to use the worm because the string breaks...

[Chris Treichel]

Another thing I have observed, figured out, been told etc many folks shoot with too much powder. It doesn't all burn and causes more fouling than necessary...  Last time on the range we were messing arround with a rifle with .45 x 42 inch barrel and were still hitting center with only 20 grains and it sounding like an air rifle. 

[Roger Fisher]

Another thing I have observed, figured out, been told etc many folks shoot with too much powder. It doesn't all burn and causes more fouling than necessary...  Last time on the range we were messing arround with a rifle with .45 x 42 inch barrel and were still hitting center with only 20 grains and it sounding like an air rifle. 

"Messing around"!!  Yes you were!

[Stormrider51]

Another thing I have observed, figured out, been told etc many folks shoot with too much powder. It doesn't all burn and causes more fouling than necessary...  Last time on the range we were messing arround with a rifle with .45 x 42 inch barrel and were still hitting center with only 20 grains and it sounding like an air rifle. 

Chris...I'm sure you know this but there's a difference between target and hunting loads.  I agree that some do use more powder than necessary but I think you will find that when you benchrest the rifle there will be a load that will give best accuracy.  This load will probably not be either the lowest or highest.  The lighter the load the slower the ball so what works at 25 yards will be so slow as to hit the ground before it hits the target at 75 or 100.  I think you will also find that lowering the powder charge will not necessarily decrease the fouling.  Any powder that doesn't burn is just ejected from the muzzle to form a flash or falls to the ground unburned grains.  The best way to decrease fouling is to use a nice tight patch/ball combo that will raise pressures and cause more complete combustion of the powder.

Welcome to the forum!
Storm

[Chris Treichel]

Point taken. I like this discussion.
The 20 grains in a .45 was just to show that it would all still work... 

Length, diameter and tight seal of the barrel impacts how much of the powder can possibly impart energy to propel the ball.
I suppose if we can find someone with all the fancy gagets to test muzzle velocity, impact lb/square inch etc we could get to a perfect maximum efficiency load and compare fouling left in the barrel. (Anyone want to call mythbusters?)

The part about good seal between ball and barrel is also very true. 
Suppose also that every time you seat the ball we are pushing fouling down on top of the powder and blowing it out the muzzle.

So far my personal load in my rifle is always 60 grains for my .54/42 inch Getz barrel.

[Dphariss]

Point taken. I like this discussion.
The 20 grains in a .45 was just to show that it would all still work... 

I have shot grouse with 20 gr +- in a 50 cal rifle. Just pokes a 1/2" hole in them with no meat damage.

Dan

[Daryl]

You're right, Chris - it is amazing how small a load will shoot well at 25 yards - as long as a 1" group is considered good at that range. The trouble comes, as Stormrider51 notes, at 50yards and beyond.  Tio shoot well out there, say 5 shots into a 1" or tighter group, even my little .32 needs 35gr. of powder as 20gr. no longer shoots well, my .40 demands I use 65gr.3F and 75gr. 3F in the .45 rifle.

Yes - they burn the powder, witnessed by producing over 2,200fps velocity along with no buildup of fouling in the bore - no wiping needed at any time for a day's shooting.  Many of us here have been shooting and testing rifles for many years and also own chronographs.  An interest in getting the very best out of our rifles pretty much demands it - especially for those who, like me, shoot modern wildcat rounds that have no loading data.  I natrually use my chrongraph when developing loads for my muzzleloaders as well.  I got my first one in 1977, so am well versed in their use in developing loads.

Too, a smoothbore will shoot a 1" group at 25 yards from a rest (or offhand with a good shot making them) - with only one sight and no rifling. Due to this, I never test at 25 yards as the results mean very little.  50 yards and beyond is where the rifle really starts to perform.

[Dphariss]

One thing that has not been discussed is how tight the jag and cleaning patch are in the bore.  I clean my barrels off the rifle in a pail of cold water, and the double flanelette patch is so tight that it takes almost all my limited strength to get it up to the muzzle.

When cleaning with the breech in the bucket my deeper grooved rifles do not seal well. They pass air around the patch when pulling the patch up and water when pushing down. I would thinks that this leakage would help with the washing (?)
However, my 16 bore rifle with similar "fit" seals almost perfectly. 8 narrow lands and only .008" deep. Pulling the patch to the muzzle with the breech in a bucket pulls water right the the muzzle.
It has a slightly larger vent probably about .070" than most. Maybe I should double check the vent again. it has a pretty thin "web"
I had not paid attention to this "seal" in the 16 bore until the last time I shot it.
The Nock breech antechamber cleans perfectly in this manner, sure from the jet of water coming through the vent and I only remove the "cleanout" screw now and then to assure its still free.

Dan

[Dphariss]

The 20 gr load in the 50 cal rifle was only good for grouse at "fool hen" ranges.
It was quiet and would hit grouse at 30-40 ft, all that was needed.
While I could have killed them with the normal load of 90 gr with head shots it would have been loud around the elk camp.

Dan

[Chris Treichel]

Daryl pointed out in a pm that using ammonia is not necessary so I did a bunch of research...

Read some chem data sheets and results from corrosion tests involving carbon steel and ammonia some which even showed that carbon steel corrosion is lessened in an ammnia rich environment...

So while Ammonia does not effect carbon steel it does effectively corrode brass, copper etc... and since I have lots of brass on my rifle I will no longer clean with windex even though the amount of ammonia is rather low...

here are some of the stuff I was reading through.... oooh so exciting
http://www.rmtech.net/Anhydrous%20Ammonia.htm
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-corrosion-resistance-d_491.html
http://age-web.age.uiuc.edu/bee/research/corrosion/nh3-1.htm

From wiki... Burning Black powder produces about 56% solid products: potassium carbonate, potassium sulfate, potassium sulfide, sulfur, potassium nitrate, potassium thiocyanate, carbon, ammonium carbonate and 43% gaseous products: carbon dioxide, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, methane and 1% water.

[hanshi]

Point taken. I like this discussion.
The 20 grains in a .45 was just to show that it would all still work... 

I have shot grouse with 20 gr +- in a 50 cal rifle. Just pokes a 1/2" hole in them with no meat damage.

Dan

[/font][/color]



I did the same thing to a fox squirrel once with a .58 prb.  Just a small slit in the neck.  Big calibers can be made to work on small game.

[Dphariss]

Daryl pointed out in a pm that using ammonia is not necessary so I did a bunch of research...

Read some chem data sheets and results from corrosion tests involving carbon steel and ammonia some which even showed that carbon steel corrosion is lessened in an ammnia rich environment...

So while Ammonia does not effect carbon steel it does effectively corrode brass, copper etc... and since I have lots of brass on my rifle I will no longer clean with windex even though the amount of ammonia is rather low...

here are some of the stuff I was reading through.... oooh so exciting
http://www.rmtech.net/Anhydrous%20Ammonia.htm
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-corrosion-resistance-d_491.html
http://age-web.age.uiuc.edu/bee/research/corrosion/nh3-1.htm

From wiki... Burning Black powder produces about 56% solid products: potassium carbonate, potassium sulfate, potassium sulfide, sulfur, potassium nitrate, potassium thiocyanate, carbon, ammonium carbonate and 43% gaseous products: carbon dioxide, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, methane and 1% water.

I used windex with vinegar for years on BPCRs and MLs I used the stuff cut 1:3 windex:water to remove any traces of bullet lube/lube wads. Then they changed to an eco-friendly formula. Putting this stuff in a barrel with BP fouling in produced some really ugly brown $#@*.
So I abandoned all soap and have got to plain water.
Soaps ARE corrosive BTW and using them to clean rifles, MLs at least require a clear water flush IMO.
On rare occasion I used to find after rust in my BPCRs, very minor but a little brown on a patch run through after storage. I know wonder if this related to the Windex....
So while the ammonia might not cause a problem there might be other things in Windex that might be mildly corrosive. I know vinegar is corrosive.

Dan

[Daryl]

I'm not adverse to light charges for certain duties as I've used light charges in my .69 for snowshoe rabbits, 30gr. of instance. My buddy used 40gr. in his .75 cal. rifle.  The big balls are less effected accuracy wise by reduced charges and the ranges were not exeeding about 30yards.  He had to aim a bit high, while I merely used the 150yard leaf.   

[Stormrider51]

I'm not adverse to light charges for certain duties as I've used light charges in my .69 for snowshoe rabbits, 30gr. of instance. My buddy used 40gr. in his .75 cal. rifle.  The big balls are less effected accuracy wise by reduced charges and the ranges were not exeeding about 30yards.  He had to aim a bit high, while I merely used the 150yard leaf.   

Agreed.  I often tailor the powder charge to the task at hand.  Popping a squirrel out of a tree or a bunny hiding under a bush at close range doesn't take much velocity.  As a matter of fact, using a full "hunting" charge would be a waste of powder.  You could even kill either animal at 100 yards using 20 grains of powder in a .50 IF you could calculate the hold-over required for that distance.  It would be more like the trajectory of a mortar though!   
Storm