Finally getting around to shooting my NIB M70 Super Grade. Ran some Bore Eliminator through it tonight and was shocked at how blue the patches came out. I'm assuming copper vs. powder. Made me wonder if a) I'd bought a used gun or b) Winchester test fires. Regarding the former (used), everything looked shipshape when it arrived, e.g., sticker on barrel, etc.

If they do fire before it leaves the factory, how many rounds and what impact does this have on the normal barrel break-in process many of us use? It certainly looks like multiple shots; dark blue requiring multiple wet patches.

We're you using a bronze brush/jag? I would think that might show some copper on the patch. Just a thought.

No. Plastic slotted tip with steel rod.

I would call Winchester. I would like to think they do and if so they may as well do it on a target.

Others can hash out the BBP effect. I wouldn't worry about it.

I wouldn't worry about it either. They probably did you a favor as some of these baco's I've (and a friends 300 WSM EW) had have shot better after a couple hundred pills down the bore.

IIRC, all commercial rifles must be fired with proof rounds. I clean every rifle I get to bare steel, new or not, and have never had one not show traces of copper.

Should have a proof mark on top of the barrel about an inch in front of the action.

In the 70's I had the opportunity to make extra money proof testing/regulating for a manufacturer - not Winchester. The rifle was loaded and placed in a mechanical apparatus which was contained within a box. When the lid closed the rifle was fired/checked/fired again. If all was well it received a proof stamp and was placed on a rolling rack to be shot at paper to check regulation. That would make a minimum of three per - at least at that time and place.

I would imagine every rifle manufactured is proof tested. A long time ago I bought a Sako 75 SS 7STW on closeout . I had it sitting in the safe for a year and decided to sell it and I never fired it . Guy that bought it accused me of shooting it after I claimed it was unfired . I told him to call Beretta/Sako and bitch at them for proofing their rifles and not cleaning it afterwards

No such thing as an unfired rifle or any gun as far as that goes.

I would suspect all the big factory group test fires with a proof load at least.

With some of the smaller custom makers, most have certainly not been proofed and some may not have been fired with our factory equivalent loadings.

IIRC it was Headache who told me that all rifles have to be test fired with proof ammo, and that a lack of proof ammo is why manufacturers sometimes are slow in producing rifles that have been advertised.

the exception is rifles purchased as components and assembled by your local smith. an action from Brownell's and a barrel from Pac-nor (examples) put together by your 'smith will not be proofed.

I always clean a new rifle before I shoot it and it is always dirty.

That has been my experience, as well.

AFAIK, in the US there is no law or regulation to that effect. It is, however, industry practice in an attempt to make themselves lawsuit-proof.

Pete

Yep, I should have typed "factory rifles". At least that's the process he described when we were discussing Kimber rifles...

Yep.

Factory rifles are test fired and usually not cleaned afterward; key word being usually. Some may clean them afterward, but most do not.

Heck most Marlin 22's have blueing salts leeching out them and have since the 1960's.

Colt puts a minimum of one magazine through their AR-15's and puts as many mags through them as the inspector deems neceesary.

The box Captain mentions is called an iron maiden I believe.