Author Topic: Cleaning question  (Read 586 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ronbow

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
  • Gender: Male
Cleaning question
« on: August 21, 2012, 10:55:24 AM »
On all of my firearms (pistols, revolvers, center fire rifles and black powder) when cleaning, I first run patches with powder solvent to get out most  of the carbon then run brass brush followed by patches until patches come clean. However if I run the brass brush again, followed by patches. the patches are dirty. No matter how many times I repeat this cycle the patches are dirty following the brass brush. I even wash the brush with solvent. What gives? It's driving me nuts.

Offline gunnut69

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
Re: Cleaning question
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2012, 06:33:18 AM »
If you are using a jacket metal remover cleaning solution the stain may be the solvent destroying the brass brush.. or the brass jag. In a recent magazine article the author addressed the problem but using an undersized plastic bristle brush with the patch wrapped around it. This lets the bristles keep the patch in contact woth the entire bore surface without a lot of pressure which can bend the rod and damage the bores surface. At the same time theres no brass or copper for the bore cleaning solution to erode. You should also realise that fouling is laid down in layers of jacket metal and powder fouling and these usually have to come out in layers too.. even the electro-chemical cleaning systems require stopping and swabbing with powder solvent occassionaly... Good luck!
gunnut69--
The 2nd amendment to the constitution of the United States of America-
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Offline ronbow

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cleaning question
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2012, 02:05:07 AM »
So Hoppes #9 is the problem with a brass brush ?

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: Cleaning question
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2012, 02:39:37 AM »
What is the problem ?
It seems you are getting your gun cleaner each time . Dry patches often will come out clean when the fouling is tight to the metal that's what chemicals that losen it like Hopps #9 are for . Lap your bbl and it will clean easier and faster if it is important. You would be removing imperfections in the surface of the bore where fouling can build up in easy. Or just realize that a little fouling is not a bad thing , remember many rifles require a few fouling shots to shoot well. With good modern quality ammo you don't need to clean as much as was nessary in the past.
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline gunnut69

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5005
Re: Cleaning question
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2012, 08:30:01 AM »
Hoppes No.9 is not a metal fouling removal chemical.. Try Sweets7.62..
gunnut69--
The 2nd amendment to the constitution of the United States of America-
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Offline JustaShooter

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1025
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cleaning question
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2012, 04:34:32 PM »
Hoppes No.9 is not a metal fouling removal chemical.. 

Although it is not very aggressive, Hoppes No.9 does remove copper fouling - at least the current formulation does, I don't know about the older / original formula.  Just got done cleaning a few rifles using Hoppes No.9, and have a nice pile of greenish blue patches to show for it...

Just a Shooter
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.