Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Remington "Chatter marks" in bore?????????

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.