Savage 110 Clean Bore Shots

[110_Tactical]

Just so I don't derail the other thread further I'll post my more evidence to my assertions here.

I was told that "Savage factory barrels" are not going to shoot precise with a clean bore. Ridiculous!

Of course, the distance to the goal posts keep changing, so I'm going to end the "testing" here... Unless Foxx is going to pay for my services.

I took the Savage 110 Tactical 25-06 out today, after a 12 hour marathon cleaning session; evidently the old owner had never cleaned it. There was a lot of copper fouling! I setup a target at 100 yards in preparation to fire 3 shots, each shot from a totally clean bore. I used old garage sale Winchester 90gr Positive, Expanding Point ammo.

To cut to the chase...


I made a video to display the shooting setup and such.



"Consistency" is the key to "precision." During normal shooting, a bore shoots "precisely" when it reaches a level of fouling that is "consistent" from shot to shot.
A clean bore can also be "precise;" when the level of fouling, (or lack thereof,) is "consistent."

[110_Tactical]

An additional note; the shots hit 1.5" higher and .75" right of the fouled bore shots... although, I will never let the rifle return to the former level of fouling, so the new fouled bore POI has yet to be determined.

[foxx]

110, I agree consistency is important, but I will also bet that same barrel will shoot better than it does right now if it is allowed to develop some copper fouling. If it doesn't, then that is fine, also. I did NOT say they cannot shoot well without fouling. I said a fouled factory bore will, most often, perform better than a clean bore.

For the sake of clarity, I am saying this tends to be more often true with Savage factory barrels than it is with aftermarket barrels. That does not mean a badly pitted bore can be improved with copper fouling. It just seems to work well when using barrels that are not cut, reamed and polished well to begin with.

[110_Tactical]

110, I agree consistency is important, but I will also bet that same barrel will shoot better than it does right now if it is allowed to develop some copper fouling. If it doesn't, then that is fine, also. I did NOT say they cannot shoot well without fouling. I said a fouled factory bore will, most often, perform better than a clean bore.

For the sake of clarity, I am saying this tends to be more often true with Savage factory barrels than it is with aftermarket barrels. That does not mean a badly pitted bore can be improved with copper fouling. It just seems to work well when using barrels that are not cut, reamed and polished well to begin with.

When you say things like;

"110, I am sorry but you dont know what you are talking about."
"I am bored with this argument. I am right. And you do not know what I am talking about."

...then don't back it up with any evidence at all, you loose all credibility with me.

...and that you change your argument every comment isn't cute anymore.

Your comments really aren't worth replying to, you change arguments when your assumptions prove incorrect, and it seems you simply parrot things you've read on the internet without any understanding whatsoever; that is why you keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
I'll also note; you never addressed my premise after I destroyed your premise offered as a rebuttal. You simply amend your flawed logic, presented as if it were fact; no evidence whatsoever.
"I said a fouled factory bore will, most often, perform better than a clean bore."
Fallacy: Appeal to Belief


My group is sub-.5moa; which is within tolerances of loads you accept as precise. "I generally expect 1/2 MOA or better from my Savage factory barrels"
Case closed.

[foxx]

In my humble estimation, you appear to me to be acting like a jerk.

I say the Savage factory barrels shoot better with fouling. I don't change my argument. I have never changed my argument. You appear to be reading into what I say with some kind of malicious intent. You make illogical statements about my arguments. I do not care to fully elaborate on how you do so, but you do jump to the wrong conclusions about what I say and then claim to disprove my original statements by simply disproving your interpretations of what I say.

Re read what I posted.

I intended to say your clean-polished, aftermarket barrels were not representative of Savage factory barrels that have tooling marks and are not precisely cut and reamed. Your illustration of them served no purpose in responding to my post. I also intended to say that a badly pitted bore that shot well and cannot be filled with copper fouling does not disprove that slightly scratched or scarred, imperfect barrels such as Savage factory barrels can and most often are improved with fouling.

You jump to conclusions about what I say and put words in my mouth that are not true or my intent. I have not attempted to prove all of my statements true here and now. I applaud your effort to answer my challenge to see for yourself whether you can get the same accuracy from a Savage factory barrel that is clean of fouling that you can get from it after allowing it to foul, particularly with copper. Of course, one problem with your effort to do so is the fact we have no idea if you completely stripped the barrel of copper fouling before attempting to find a "clean-bore" load that is as good or better than the best "fouled bore" load.

Why you seem to hell-bent on making me out to be a fool is beyond me.

I will say this, however, your attitude turned me off immediately when you proclaimed that most people who reload lack your knowledge, experience or expertise, or something to that effect.

[emtrescue6]

You proved nothing without following your clean bore experiment up with a fouled bore set as well...for all you know, the fouled set would have been more accurate.

[emtrescue6]

In my humble estimation, you appear to me to be acting like a jerk.

I say the Savage factory barrels shoot better with fouling. I don't change my argument. I have never changed my argument. You appear to be reading into what I say with some kind of malicious intent. You make illogical statements about my arguments. I do not care to fully elaborate on how you do so, but you do jump to the wrong conclusions about what I say and then claim to disprove my original statements by simply disproving your interpretations of what I say.

Re read what I posted.

I intended to say your clean-polished, aftermarket barrels were not representative of Savage factory barrels that have tooling marks and are not precisely cut and reamed. Your illustration of them served no purpose in responding to my post. I also intended to say that a badly pitted bore that shot well and cannot be filled with copper fouling does not disprove that slightly scratched or scarred, imperfect barrels such as Savage factory barrels can and most often are improved with fouling.

You jump to conclusions about what I say and put words in my mouth that are not true or my intent. I have not attempted to prove all of my statements true here and now. I applaud your effort to answer my challenge to see for yourself whether you can get the same accuracy from a Savage factory barrel that is clean of fouling that you can get from it after allowing it to foul, particularly with copper. Of course, one problem with your effort to do so is the fact we have no idea if you completely stripped the barrel of copper fouling before attempting to find a "clean-bore" load that is as good or better than the best "fouled bore" load.

Why you seem to hell-bent on making me out to be a fool is beyond me.

I will say this, however, your attitude turned me off immediately when you proclaimed that most people who reload lack your knowledge, experience or expertise, or something to that effect.

I wonder if he gets cramps from patting himself on the back so much? Seriously, it's the know it all's like this guy that chase people away from forums like this....

[110_Tactical]

You proved nothing without following your clean bore experiment up with a fouled bore set as well...for all you know, the fouled set would have been more accurate.

I have shot a fouled bore group, 7/8" at 100 yards.
Of course that isn't the issue, just another of his amended arguments to save face.

[110_Tactical]

I wonder if he gets cramps from patting himself on the back so much? Seriously, it's the know it all's like this guy that chase people away from forums like this....

You mean like people that offer actual evidence are frowned upon here? Or is it just with you?

I'll also note that he started in with the attitude, I simply offer compelling evidence.

Somehow I think I will not "chase [you two] away" from this post. People that "dog-pile" without contributing to the topic I suspect do the chasing; and intend to do so.

[foxx]

I have shot a fouled bore group, 7/8" at 100 yards.
Of course that isn't the issue, just another of his amended arguments to save face.

110, I have NEVER amended my argument. Perhaps you need to clear your head of your pre-conceived notions of what I have said and take another look at my posts. I do NOT change my argument or amend them. YOU simply attack what YOU think I say.

Holy COW!!!

This is ridiculous.

[emtrescue6]

I have shot a fouled bore group, 7/8" at 100 yards.
Of course that isn't the issue, just another of his amended arguments to save face.

Oooooook....whatever helps you sleep at night...

[emtrescue6]

110, I have NEVER amended my argument. Perhaps you need to clear your head of your pre-conceived notions of what I have said and take another look at my posts. I do NOT change my argument or amend them. YOU simply attack what YOU think I say.

Holy COW!!!

This is ridiculous.

+1 Pretty crazy And his little demo here proved absolutely nothing...

[110_Tactical]

In my humble estimation, you appear to me to be acting like a jerk.

You continually insult me, but I'm the "jerk."

You make illogical statements about my arguments. I do not care to fully elaborate on how you do so, but you do jump to the wrong conclusions about what I say and then claim to disprove my original statements by simply disproving your interpretations of what I say.

That I use your own quotes, is there to display the fallacy of that argument. You, yourself in the next paragraph display this to be correct; "I intended to say...I also intended to say..."

I also intended to say that a badly pitted bore that shot well and cannot be filled with copper fouling does not disprove that slightly scratched or scarred, imperfect barrels such as Savage factory barrels can and most often are improved with fouling.

You don't understand that simply proclaiming that a condition exists, is not proof of it.
Evidence to the contrary should be viewed as having more weight than proclomations.

You jump to conclusions about what I say and put words in my mouth that are not true or my intent.

Again, I am quoting your actual statements, ever single time. I can only respond to what you write, not to what you "intended to."

Of course, one problem with your effort to do so is the fact we have no idea if you completely stripped the barrel of copper fouling before attempting to find a "clean-bore" load that is as good or better than the best "fouled bore" load.

Now I am a liar. Maybe you don't "intend to say" that; but that what that statement insinuates.

Why you seem to hell-bent on making me out to be a fool is beyond me.

I have entered a debate backing my argument with evidence, you have not; "I have not attempted to prove all of my statements true here and now." I don't think the "my bad" is on me.

I will say this, however, your attitude turned me off immediately when you proclaimed that most people who reload lack your knowledge, experience or expertise, or something to that effect.

That was directed at you for load developing in such a manner to be totally inconsistent.

I find that most people don't understand load development.

"When I first started handloading I cleaned my barrel every couple shots and I had difficulty getting any load to shoot well consistently. If you are right, I should have been able to find a "clean bore" load and a "fouled bore" load."
Not to mention the illogical nature of the conclusion. That statement displays a total misunderstanding of the "consistency" angle you claim to be a proponent of.

[110_Tactical]

*ignores off topic comments and repetitive conjecture*

[seanhagerty]

[foxx]

LOL!!

Perhaps we just got off on the wrong foot.

I will say this one more time:

I have never changed my argument or made amendments to it. I have attempted to re-word what I have said or attempted to say so that you might better understand my point. Also, the points you so desperately try to disprove are points I have not made. They are points you interpret from what I say.

My point and argument is SIMPLE. Very SIMPLE. Savage factory barrels are more accurate with fouling. Copper fouling, in particular, contributes to their accuracy.

I will add ONE caveat: This is generally true. All barrels are different, there are ALWAYS exceptions to the general "rules" or characteristics of rifle barrels and other aspects of the shooting sports. Each rifle is its own "person" and can have its own "likes and dislikes."

[foxx]

See, 110, you think I said you were a liar.

I did NOT say or insinuate that. You and I do not know for sure that you removed all the copper from the bore of your rifle. If it was a NEW barrel, and you never allowed it to get fouled with copper when you started this "test", I would have more confidence in your results.

But seriously, you really are reading too much into what I say and make too much out of what you THINK I am saying. Let it go.

Question: Am I the first person to make this observation about how you seem respond to what others say to you? I ask that with all the best of intentions, I assure you.

[Luke45]

I'll agree with fox here, from a newly deep cleaned barrel my first group in most my rifles is usually 3/4 to 1 moa (in a different location) , the next group is 1/2 moa, then they pretty much all touch after 10 shots have fouled the barrel(100 yards) a couple months ago i shot a 5 shot 2.85" group at 600 yards with my 243 that hadnt been cleaned in over 250 rounds... my best 600 yard group to date

but i think you may be able to duplicate if you cleaned your barrel every single shot, and always kept it consistant.

Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but for most cases a fouled factory barrel will shoot better than a clean one (usually)

[Luke45]

3 shot groups can be a good way to see who's lucky cant always prove a point with a (possibly) lucky 3 shot group!

[foxx]

but i think you may be able to duplicate if you cleaned your barrel every single shot, and always kept it consistant.

and I believe that though this may be true, copper fouling will improve on it. There is no way I will ever be able to prove that point, because I will never be willing to subject myself to the effort and expense necessary to test it. Even if my test proved that the original CLEAN condition of a Savage factory barrel was just as accurate as it could be if allowed to foul with copper, it would be a condition I would never want to limit myself to operate under. Moreover, any attempt to test that theory with non-Savage, match-grade barrels is a test that is flawed from the inception.

[Luke45]

and I believe that though this may be true, copper fouling will improve on it. There is no way I will ever be able to prove that point, because I will never be willing to subject myself to the effort and expense necessary to test it. Even if my test proved that the original CLEAN condition of a Savage factory barrel was just as accurate as it could be if allowed to foul with copper, it would be a condition I would never want to limit myself to operate under. Moreover, any attempt to test that theory with non-Savage, match-grade barrels is a test that is flawed from the inception.

i cant imagine cleaning my barrels after every shot, man that would be a drag!!! (even if it was more accurate, which in the majority of cases woundnt be true) id rather shoot, and shoot, and shoot, untill the accuracy falls off.

I think 110 has a very accurate rifle. nice 1/2" group, but i bet if he shot 5, 5 shots groups from a clean barrel, and 5, 5 shots groups from his dirty barrel the dirty groups have a better chance of being tighter- Assuming he doenst flinch on purpose

[foxx]

I think 110 has a very accurate rifle. nice 1/2" group, but i bet if he shot 5, 5 shots groups from a clean barrel, and 5, 5 shots groups from his dirty barrel the dirty groups have a better chance of being tighter- Assuming he doenst flinch on purpose

Whp's picking fights now? LOL

[emtrescue6]

An additional note; the shots hit 1.5" higher and .75" right of the fouled bore shots... although, I will never let the rifle return to the former level of fouling, so the new fouled bore POI has yet to be determined.

I somehow missed this little gem....which pretty much proves what Foxx and I were saying. The "clean" shots were 1.5" high and .75" to the right of where the fouled shots and POA were?....accuracy is generally described as being the shots that have the POI (point of impact) closest to the Point of Aim....in this test, is that not the fouled shots? They may not be the tightest/smallest groups, but they are the most accurate...ya know, the shots that will actually kill an animal in the woods....

[Luke45]

Whp's picking fights now? LOL

LOL not tryin to pick a fight! Promise!