Ok, so i was surfing and saw a pretty reasoably priced Remmy, but they mentioned "Chatter marks in bore." SO I cnotacted them and go this explanation:

The chatter marks are machining marks running throughout the bore.
We've contacted Remington about another rifle with similar marks, and
they've assured us that it doesn't affect the functioning of the
rifle, and that it was a result of their machining process. Most bores
don't show these marks though, so we disclose it in the auction
description.
WTF? I got a pic or two, I will try to post it - anyone ever hear of this and will it affect accuracy?

I am having trouble with photobucket - they limit access to it here at work - ther are very definite marks in the bore - if someone can help, I will email the pics to them so they can post

I have heard of chatter marks in a chamber, but not in a bore.

When the M700 Ti rifles came out I was keen to get one in 30-06. Problem was every one I looked at had these "chatter marks" in the bore just as described here. It seemed to be unique to the Ti rifles in 30-06 caliber as I have not seen it in other Remmy rifles. It was enough to scare me off from buying one of the expensive little bastards.

gun is a mountain rifle, and the pic is of the muzzle and it is very much there

Don't need to buy that at all. Not good thing.

If the marks are only at the muzzle, then chop and re-crown?

OP says it runs thought the bore.

Then I'd pass.

OP, chamber or bore marks, I wouldn't touch it.

Gunner

My .260 Remington and my friends 30/06 both have chatter marks all the way through the bore. Both are Mountain Rifles also. My gun is a .75" shooter with stuff it likes his is 1" - 1.5" with factory stuff.


They are a real bitch to clean and copper up really quickly.

I have no idea what they are referring to, but I can tell you that sometimes hammer forged barrels will have 'chatter marks' in the lands and/or grooves which are the result of how the hammers and mandrel are set up/oriented relative to one another.

Check the papers I linked to here:
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthread..._button_vs_good_hammer_forge#Post6325697

The chatter marks in chambers that I spoke were in custom rifles. I figured that chatter marks on factory rifles would
get caught before leaving the factory. Then again I have heard of a Savage M110 that was NIB not drilled and tapped and no
iron sights.

Everybody needs to figure out how to put those chatter marks in their barrels since nothing shoots as good as a Remington.

Isn't that the patented Remington ratchet rifling I'm always hearing about ?

This! I bought an early 30-06 Titanium. Before taking it to the range I ran a patch down the bore and found chatter the length of the bore - both the lands and grooves. I had the dealer send it back. After waitng months I finally got it back... but it wasn't my original rifle (different serial #) and the bore wasn't much better. I raised royal you-know-what and they finally sent one which they said was assembled by the custom shop with a LOW serial number. Every 06' Ti I looked at for awhile exhibited this same chatter to varying degrees but that first one was truly horrific.

I even bought a take-off barrel and specifically asked the seller if it had any chatter. He said no, but it did. I have also seen the condition in at least one 7mm-08 Ti. My .270 Ti was OK but had an imperfection in the chamber and now wears a Hart bbl. - Captain -

Seems like Remington has their fair share of tooling mark problems.

I've seen chatter marks on a lot of the recent Marlin barrels coming out of Kentucky on their bolt rifles. If I hadn't also seen it on some earlier Marlin guide guns, I might allow it as being a Remington innovation. Maybe it reduces friction? It hasn't seemed to adversely affect accuracy and most of those barrels clean up normally. It does look sloppy though.

I'm sure the chatter marks are NOT supposed to be there. I bet Remington wishes they weren't as well. The one which I initially had was so bad it looked like a coarse file - appalling. I don't see how/why it left the factory. - Captain -

They put them there on purpose.


.

Whatever they call it, I hope they keep it up.

THIS IS IT

Those look like waves from an out of adjustment hammer forging machine.

Take that X 3-4 and you have my original Ti. That photo looks slightly worse than the second one Remington sent me.

Never got this Remlin XS7 .308 barrel to shoot anything worth a damn with a wide variety of bullets, powders, seating depth, free float vs. speed bump, bedding, pillars, blah, blah, blah.

Then I discovered this is what the bore looked like. Several trips to Remlin to make it right and to their credit, eventually, they just threw their hands up and offered to buy back the rifle.

Would like to read the papers you linked but the links no worky for me.

I had a 40X barrel that had similar looking marks in the barrel. It shot 1/4 inch groups rather boringly though.

In general appearance, or depth too? Those look like they would catch a fingernail.

ooooof - that seriously steers me away from Big Green

That looks rougher than mine did but I remember seeing those little grooves perpendicular to the rifling.

40x barrels are button rifled. If the bore reamer leaves circumferential marks they can still be visible after the rifling button passes, but they shouldn't be nail catchers like those in the picture.

It appears that Purdue either moved them, or is having trouble with their doc server. Anyway, the hammer forging machine that leaves such 'chatter marks' as the O.P. posted is poorly set up/adjusted. That doesn't automatically mean the barrel won't shoot, but it definitely means the operator or company wasn't paying very close attention to what they were doing that day.

Looks like threading for a "special" inside-the-bore muzzle device.

I always thought those kinds of marks were pretty typical of hammered or buttoned barrels that had not been lapped.

Lapping the chatter marks out of my original Ti would have turned it into an 8mm-06.

Not if the blank was reamed with a good finish before rifling. I have several hammer forged Remington barrels that are quite smooth.

I've seen several rifles with pretty rough bores from the factory. Most shot just fine. My cousin has a colt light rifle that has actual pieces missing from the rifling about half way down the bore. Still shoots 3 shots under an inch easily.

More than likely, the rifle will be fine.

I think most custom tubes are lapped after reaming and the rifling method probably has little or nothing to do with the interior finish.

A good hammer forged tube is notable for it's smoothness.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep, that's what I saw in every 30-06 Ti I fondled in every shop in Michigan.





Yeeesh! That's some seriously ugly chit right there!

Looks like my Mountain Rifle, still shoots good though.

Looks like its from a reamer.

If it shoots good ignore the marks.You could always lead lap or fire lap the bore to help the appearance and maybe function

I sent a .270Ti back to Remmy for a chamber that basically left a fired case looking like it had two shoulders, wierdest thing I have ever seen, they sent me back a different rifle, real pronto, I have had no problems with it since.

Now that right there is a good example of chatter marks on the internet.

saw several savage barrels like that but last coupled i bought have been very smooth

Small edit.

I had a Remington 700 varmint special in 6 mm that had chatter marks and this rifle was my first one that would shoot 3 shot .250 groups after a lot of fiddling around with loads. The catch was you had to clean it every 15 or 20 rounds with sweets 7.62 solvent or it would copper foul quite badly. Won a lot of turkey shoots with that rifle and shot a truck load of coyotes. That barrel is long shot out and gone now and I have to admit I do not miss the excessive cleaning it took.

They might shoot, but try owning a 17 Rem. with a bore like that. 5 shots and you're done.

The marks in the Remington barrels are not really "chatter" per se but are an artifact of the hammerforging process. The indication is that the machine is set up incorrectly. Stainless does not hammerforge particularily well and Remington stainless barrels have often shown the same flaw. These ripples in the bore may or may not preclude decent hunting accuracy. Up until the move to SC, I had never seen this flaw in a Winchester hammered barrel but have seen such recently in a couple of barrels.
The other barrel looks more like a very poorly reamed and buttoned barrel.
I have seen some Remington "rippled" barrels which were quite accurate but, as has been mentioned, fouling was often a problem. GD

Who says Remington barrels are hammer forged? I thought they were button rifled, like the 1903-A3. Didn't Remington invent button rifling as a manufacturing expedient for the 1903-A3? I never saw anything authoritative in print to back-up the notion that Remington uses hammer forging. Someone please clue me in on such authoritative documentation. Thanks.

Production rifles use hammer forged barrels. 40X Custom Shop barrels are button rifled. I believe it says so on their CS website too.

Found it! You are correct. Standard rifles use hammer forged barrels and 40X rifles are button rifled (and hand lapped and air gauged). Thanks for the tip.

Hi,

Has anyone seen chatter marks like this in the new generation Winchesters?



I had a look in the other rifles I have on hand and could see some chatter marks in most of their bores too, but nothing as bad as the Winchester's. Ruger Hawkeye - very clear chatter marks. Green Mountain 10/22 barrel - visible chatter marks. Ruger Hawkeye #2 - no significant marks.

I know it will cause fouling, but I'm not too concerned about that. I'm just trying to find out if this is the norm and what type of accuracy you were able to get with the rifle if you have the same problem. I'm planning to go and look at a few new ones to compare with as well.

Also, I found the article referred to in one of the posts. The link is: Notes on Hammer Forged Barrels - James Higley & Vern Briggs

riaan87,

First of all, welcome to the 'fire.

The marks shown in your picture are evident on both lands and grooves. That tells me they were probably there before the rifling operation. Also, if you look closely, they are evenly spaced radial lines with a pitch, like a thread. That sounds to me like they were made during the drilling or reaming operations as the tool was fed into the bore.

I would have a really hard time taking home a rifle with a bore that looks like this. Everybody wants accurate rifles, including me, and choosing one with obvious defects in the bore just goes against my grain. It may shoot just fine, and I hope yours does, but I cannot bring myself to buy rifles with obvious defects.

A general note on this thread: I've found Dyna Bore Coat to be very effective in barrels with visible marks, whether from reaming or hammer-forging.

I'm not all that fond of such barrels myself, but do end up doing test write-ups of rifles with very visible reamer marks and consequent copper-fouling problems. Anymore I just install DBC, which allows me to get through the testing without having to clean the bore several times.

I've had several remington barrels with marks like that and most of them have shot well, some have fouled worse than others. I always assumed it was from reaming the bore before rifling. Many top barrel makers will lap a bore after reaming and then cut or button the rifling.

Bb

I'd like to know the real per unit cost of improving the manufacturing and/or QC process so that kind of barrel wouldn't make it out of the factory.

Several of my model Rem 700 rifles that I shoot a lot are quite accurate and copper foul very little. These include VTR, XCR CT, XCR LRT and 5R MilSpec models. This indicates the standard manufacturing process, when done right, can make a good barrel. So how about a tune up?

Those pics look like a Savage barrel!

That being said, most people shoot half a box of shells a year, so it is not like those marks are going to foul very quickly.

I would bet the only cost involved is for the people manufacturing the rifles to give a chit, just a little.

That is sadder than the marks on the barrel

I bet 90% of gun owners take gun out of closet once a year, sight in at range, and go hunting. Then put back in closet 'till next year. I suspect most on this site are the same way.

I doubt that. People that are serious enough to get on a site and discuss these things are more serious than the type of hunters you talk about.

As far as manufacturers quality control is concerened barrels like that are acceptable. They would have to shut down a production run and adjust the forge so it would quit doing that, not going to happen. Quite honestly it generally dosen't affect how they shoot. Have had a couple rifles of the same brand and caliber, one barrel looks like the picture, the other looks like a handlapped match barrel. The ugly one shot better than the pretty one. I think the most important thing with barrels is not how smooth the bore surface is but rather how consistent the bore dimensions/diameter are from chamber to muzzle.

Sometimes I may shoot the same barrel a hundred times in an afternoon. If I have to clean the thing every twenty rounds and there's enough copper for it to be a chore, then I'd put that under the heading of affecting how it shoots for my purpose, good groups notwithstanding.

Had a chrome-moly Rem. .338 barrel that looked like the one pictured, but an oversized, lubed lead bore slug revealed a very nice, tapered bore with no snags, large spots or uneasy pressure. It fouled little.

When I could control it, its best group was with 215 Sierras at 2,985 fps avg. and poked a .585 7 shot group. I don't think I could muster the eighth, but the "visibly" riddled gun was certainly up to it.

Maybe everyone ought to lay off Douglas about not lapping them then?

My barrel looked like it had teeth, but didn't.

I also shot cast out of this gun up to 2,400 fps. with 225's.

Only 2 Dougie tubes I've used were CM 17's. One sucked, one is awesome. Haven't cleaned the one yet (no need according to the targets) after 300 rounds.

Gotta admit I'd take a 700 tube that fouled over one with the chamber cut off-center with a mirror tube...

I had a Model Seven in 7-08 that was accurate for about 3 to 4 rounds. By then it was so copper fouled that it would throw patterns. I think the bullets,(Nosler BTs), were down to naked lead by the time they left the barrel.

Sad part was Remington would do nothing. Said it met there specs. Didn't meet mine so it went away.

You never know how a barrel will shoot or foul buy its appearance. Bought a new Browning x-bolt Hunter .223(don't know why, just never had one and wanted to play with one of the fugliest rifles out there IMO!) last weekend. It has a barrel that looks awful. I don't do barrel break in. Shot the thing 50 rounds, had a look with the borescope, no copper fouling anywhere in the barrel, so not going to clean it, got another 100 rounds loaded for this this coming weekend. I made up a simple load that works in most of .223 I have, 24 gr. of H-322, some once fired Black Hills brass full length resized, federal match primers, no other brass prep and stuffed the bullets in so the base was even with the bottom of the neck and went to the range. The thing shot around 1.5" for 4 - 5 shot groups with 50gr. speer 'TNT' (rarely do speer bullets shoot well for me), the next group was with 52 Opel match, shot 5 under 1/2", so kept going with another 5 into the same group, it didn't get any larger. Rounds 30-40 were Opel 50 gr. match, they went right at 3/4" for 10 shots, rounds 40-50 were 52 gr. Barts Ultras, which for 10 shots went just under 1". I shoot over 5000 rounds of centerfire a year just at paper from many rifles. Some of them have custom hand lapped barrels from lilja, kreiger, hart, gaillard, some of them competitive benchrest rifles. Sometimes the nicest looking bores can be foulers. You never know how a barrel is going to foul until you shoot the quirky things, some do, some don't and all degrees in between.

I agree you have to shoot them to know for sure, but which would you like to start with going in? Do you really mean you have found no correlation between wood rasp appearance and fouling?

You shoot more than I have lately, I'm popping around three thousand a year.

I don't remember where but I read an article about rifle bore condition vs. accuracy, etc. and the author (who may have been our JB) had borescope pics showing marks similar to those shown at the muzzle on an earlier post. I believe the marks were attributed to reaming marks that were ironed flat by the "button" during the rifling process.

I haven't read all the posts so apologies to all if someone else covered this earlier

Can't argue with that. When I first looked with a borescope, noticed the throat also is a bit off center, I expected the worst, The first 20 rounds with the speer bullets had me saying yup it's a piece of crap. The next groups with the benchrest bullets surprised the heck out of me. Thats happened enough with various guns over the years that nothing surprises me too much anymore. Just goes to show ya never know, sometimes those three legged dogs can dance.

Had a Classic 6.5x55 - chatter marks 2-3" from the muzzle. It was across all lands only. Gun never shot to expectations/potential. Too bad, had a nice looking figured stock.

Rem's specs only concern w/SALES n Profit.

QC hit n miss IME.

The cause might very well be chatter marks, but to me, they look too uniform to be chatter marks.

One way to find out might be to reverse engineer one. Take a smooth, lapped barrel and try different things until uou discovered which machining operation would leave marks like that.

This is how I fix such marks.
Shoot one shot,clean, repeat until the marks are smooth as a baby's arse.
Thank me later.

When you buy [bleep] you get [bleep]. Remington's only makes good donors in my opinion and I've thought that since the 70's.



That's a fools dream.