The motivation here was to test Modern Spartan Systems line of gun cleaning kit against established known quantities with proven performance. Their promise of no foul smell, lack of toxicity and some of the other claims they made caused me to get curious enough to do a Pepsi challenge for their whole cleaning system. This includes Accuracy Oil; which claims to increase velocity & cut group size & extend barrel life. It also includes their Carbon Destroyer and Copper/Lead Destroyer and their Carbon Destroyer.

I've already started long term testing of their Accuracy Oil's claims at longer barrel life and improvements in velocity, group size and consistency. Those experiments are continuing and I've built an impressive data set so far with more coming in every week. In the meantime, the fundamental ability of the fouling removal products to perform like they say it will had not yet been established by any kind of usefully conducted experiment I could find. So, I'm doing it. I've already put the Carbon Destroyer up to the Pepsi challenge and it flat works. It's pleasant enough to use and worked like a charm on everything from revolvers to pistols to high power modern rifles to black powder cartridge rifles. The way it worked on our set of Trapdoor Springfields was terrific. What about the big one though...COPPER!?! Let's git'er done.

I've got enough barrels around with sufficient fouling, including some I'm entirely willing to destroy, to give a good test of effectiveness and side-effects. In the spirit of experimentation I set up the first round of testing with 3 barrels:

• Stock Glock 21 barrel. 1000's of rounds since being cleaned.
• Savage 10 .308 24" heavy barrel, >500 rounds since cleaning.
• Black Hole Weapons 26" .223 barrel > 200 rounds since cleaning.

Cliff's Notes: In short, MSS's Copper/Lead Destroyer is very effective. Zero question about that.

More detailed findings and experimental procedure:
C/L-D not as strong as Sweet's by a mile nor is it as strong as Wipe-Out as a copper remover but it's a lot more pleasant to use than Sweet's and less messy than Wipe-Out. This is about removing copper and copper fouling is hard to remove well without damaging the barrel steel. You either get mechanical action which is by definition damaging to the bore or you get chemical action which may be damaging to the bore. Bore damage can be dependent on the length of time of exposure to chemical agents and some of them are really nasty for everyone involved.

To start I took a G21 barrel that had been belled just in front of the chamber by a squib. It had previously had Carbon Destroyer run through it and then was soaked overnight (26 hours) in Copper/Lead Destroyer, hosed out and stored. I ran some Wipe-Out into it and gave it 15 minutes to soak and pushed a patch through. Zero color change on the patch. Then I ran some Sweet's in it and let that soak for 5 minutes and pushed a patch through. Zero color change on the patch.

Ok, that's the null result I was expecting. The barrel was clearly clean of copper to begin with but you don't know the state of fouling before the 26 hour soak. Could have been a lot, could have been a little, could have been none for all you know, right?

Now to find the more interesting results. I took a factory Savage .308 Win barrel that I'd abused and not cleaned in literally years. It had at least a couple hundred rounds put through it before it got yanked and set aside. I started by running patch of Sweet's through the barrel without running a brush through it, hoping that the carbon that stayed behind would protect some of the copper from the Sweet's to serve as an indicator later. It came out with gooey gobs of blue on the patch with no soak at all, just applied and patched out. I immediately took the barrel outside and hosed it out for a solid couple minutes to keep the Sweet's from finishing the job. I plugged the breech with a .45acp case and filled the bore with Copper/Lead Destroyer and gave it 2 hours to soak. After the soak I ran a patch through it a couple times (remember, no color change on the patches, C/L-D doesn't do that) and then went and hosed it out. Now I needed to see if there was any copper still in there so I took the Wipe-Out and ran that in the barrel and gave it a 20 minute soak. After pushing a patch through what I found were traces of blue streaking on the patch and plenty of black and brown. Not much blue but enough to tell me that the carbon was in fact protecting the copper. There wasn't enough copper coming out to make a good finish up to the experiment on that barrel so I reset the experiment by virtue of moving on to the .223 barrel.

The .223 barrel started with at least 200 rounds since the last even partial cleaning so it got a thorough carbon removal with Carbon Destroyer. When patches wrapped around a bore brush came out without any black or brown on them, I called that done. I put a fired case in the breech, closed the bolt and then filled the bore with Copper/Lead Destroyer and let it soak for 2 hours. Then I pushed a pair of patches through which came out not much different than they went in. Now to see if the C/L-D worked I ran a patch of sweet's down the bore, gave it a solid 3 minutes to soak and pushed another patch though looking for color change and got NONE AT ALL. That was a null result I did not honestly expect. I expected to find some copper remaining, I mean Sweet's is as aggressive as it gets. But no.

What's that all mean? Leave the Copper/Lead Destroyer to soak a while and it works as thoroughly as Sweet's or Wipe-Out. I really like using C/L-D way more than Sweet's. I can't even stand opening the bottle on that cat piss smelling Sweet's. I actually really like Wipe-Out too and will continue to use it at the range because it's super easy to deal with there. At home though, I think I've found my new cleaning product suite. All the chemicals I need are now finally not unpleasant.

Modern Spartan Systems - Copper/Lead Destroyer: No bad smell. A detergent-y smell similar to cold bluing solution is what it reminds me of most. The directions say you can leave in barrel safely for many hours, even overnight. I left it in a G21 barrel for 26 hours with no adverse affect noted. MUST use a carbon solvent prior to applying for it to be properly effective. Modern Spartan's carbon remover works great. Getting C/L-D to stay wet in the barrel was another story. It dried quickly in my low humidity area. I eventually stuffed a fired case in the breech, stood the barrel up and filled the bore on rifles. On pistols it was easier to soak a narrow strip of paper towel in it and thread that down the bore and let it sit that way overnight. Directions say 3-5 minutes of soak. I got best results on heavy fouling after 2 hours. No color change on the patch so it's a little hard to "know" when you're done.

Wipe-Out: It's got a smell but nothing like Sweet's. Can leave in barrel overnight, no ammonia. It's a foam that expands so some will end up in your action and it'll probably drip out of the muzzle so, a little messy to use. Patch's change color to blue if copper is present. Works on carbon and copper. Usually 15 minutes is more than sufficient as a soak time.

Sweet's 7.62: Super strong ammonia smell. Do not leave in barrel longer than necessary, clean residue off skin and gun thoroughly immediately after use. Known to be hard on steel. Must use carbon remover prior for full effectiveness.

I have video and all that jazz but it's not very interesting TV. It's just me slowly, methodically and painfully boringly working out the surprisingly obvious. On the upside, MSS's stuff works like a dream so far.

Thanks for the info OP.

Would it be a good test to take a chunk of raw copper, say a bit of water pipe, weigh it on your reloading scale. Do the same with a chunk of bare steel, probably a piece of stainless too. Throw in a piece of cartridge brass as well for fun.

Let them all soak in the chemical of choice for a day, week, so on. Extended exposures so as to make the changes measurable. Weigh again.

Does anyone have access to a machine to test rockwell hardness? See if the pieces (especially the steel) soften up any.

Actually, I really like that idea. I think I'll want to use powdered metal samples for the solvent action test for technical reasons but that's a super good plan and all I need is a file to make piles of metal powder. I have quite a number of monometal bullets and some pure dead soft copper sheet that could be turned to the purpose. I have a few pieces of cut off's of 416R and 4340CM barrel steel too.

What do you think? Drop 1 gram of each each powder each into 2 containers with 40 grams of solution, give it 15 minutes and 2 hours as intervals, de-ionized water flood and decanting to rinse and then evap dry the resulting mix of wet metal bits, then weigh the remaining powdered metal. That'll give brilliant results for brass, copper, stainless and chrome-moly steels.

A second test that I should run at the same time would be to place 1 drop of each solution on a plate, let it stand for 5, 15, 120 and 1440 minutes and look for changes in surface appearance (corrosion/pitting, color change). That test requires more long term control over environmental conditions so it's actually a little harder to pull off after the 2hr test.

Hardness is extremely unlikely to be affected beyond an ultra thin surface layer without either a big temperature change or the action of amalgamating agents like mercury being involved. Any change in hardness would have dramatic effects on the gun so such a product would never survive a day on the market.

Small containers with lids?  @ Amazon

That's fine for containment as long as the chemicals don't react with the plastic but doesn't address the bigger issue at hand which is temperature control. Temperature has a big effect on the speed of many chemical reactions. In the depths of winter it's easy enough but the rest of the year it's more challenging.

Freezer temp is easy.  Refrig temp is easy.  Room temp is easy.  ~212 deg F is easy (rig a double boiler).  Something between room temp (mid-low 70s) and boiling might be a challenge.   Since I would only be using these chemicals indoors, I would (initially) test at only room temperature realizing that temp may effect results in the field. Also note that for most chemical rate equations that include a temperature, IIRC the temperature is in degrees Kelvin (not C or F). Water freezes at 0 degrees C, 32 degrees F, 273 degrees Kelvin (K=C+273)...

If the plastic won't hold up, you could always use small glass jars...  

oops!

I don't particularly like the 15 minute idea. I don't think that consumer grade solvents will be potent enough to make a measurable difference (with a reloading scale, which is the most precise instrument I'd expect any of us to have).

However, I wouldn't complain if you did.

Using filings/powder would certainly shorten the test, as the surface area would be exponentially increased over that of a solid chunk.

I would put them in petri dishes or small pyrex cups. Plastic may work, but no telling if the various solvents attack your old peanut butter jars...

While of course temperature will affect the reaction, I don't see it making much difference in the typical household temp range. ETA: in all reality, you're not going to be cleaning your gun to that extent if it's -20 or 120.

I will pull down a wolf gold .223 later. File some brass off the case, and some jacket off the bullet. I don't have any barrel steel, but I can take some filings off an old drill bit or such. The only real copper solvent I have is KG12. I'll weigh out a good amount of filings (whatever looks good and makes an even weight), and weigh out the KG12 (whatever seems like enough to submerg). I think I have a couple small pyrex containers to put each sample in.

I will say 2 hours, but in reality I'm going to forget about it and probably be 6+ hours. Again though, the longer the test the more dramatic.

Will dump the exposed filings into a coffee filter and rinse, clean the dish and put wet filings back into dish. Into oven for a bit to dry, and then weigh.

All done on a hornady electronic scale with 10 gram calibration weight.

Sounds good. Looks like we'll get some very interesting data on chemical potency. I won't be at all surprised to see some of them completely solvate the samples. That ought to open some eyeballs.

I picked a handful of proper test tubes with stoppers last night. I think they'll do the best job and I needed them anyway.

Excellent on the TTs but watch the stoppers.  They might not behave well in combination with some of the liquids you will be using...  Simply trying to keep the liquids off the stoppers should suffice i.e. don't invert or shake the stoppered tubes.

Best of luck.  Can't wait to hear the results!  

To begin the test I have a pulled down wolf gold .223 cartridge. (The bullet IS tarred by the way.) I chose WG because of it's availability, so should anyone want to go head to head, they can just as easily use the same test media. The same with HSS bits. KG12 is the only copper solvent I have, so that's what I'm using. When I bought it, arfcom told me it's about the strongest you can buy OTC.

Using a double cut bastard file, I filed on the bullet jacket to get 2.8gr of jacket filings.

I trimmed the brass down with my rcbs trimpro to get 2.1gr of shavings. Into the cup they go.

Finally, to stand in for barrel steel, I have an old HSS drill bit, which again is filed for a weight of 2gr.
Attached File


I put the solvent in to the point where it covered the samples and broke surface tension onto the side of the cup. Basically one drop-layer.
Attached File

Time on deck at test start is 10:00 EST. Room is 62*F, 48% RH, and 29.07inHg, as per my kestrel.
Attached File

The steel sample was voided as I spilled a lot of filings trying to rinse them of the solvent. The brass shavings were best for this as the relatively large bits easily sank and were able to be rinsed such as one pans for gold.

As of posting the brass and copper samples are drying in the oven.

I may repeat the test with machining chips instead of filings.

After a 2hr exposure, rinse with tap water, and dried in the oven at 350*f...

The brass shavings weighed in a 1.6gr (start at 2.1gr). That's a loss of approximately 24%.

Bullet jacket filings finished with a weight of 1.35 (bouncing between 1.3 and 1.4) (start at 2.8gr). Resulting in a loss of approximately 48%.

I suspect the zinc in the brass, coupled with the lower surface area, is why the brass did not exhibit the same loss.

Given the nature of ultra fine powders, I think the most valid material used in this test were the brass shavings, since they were the most easily controlled and required no effort to contain. Naturally brass isn't what's fouling your bore, but cartridge brass is 70% copper...

ETA: the voiding of the steel sample is disheartening, and I apologize, I'll have to collect some machining chips, or if you guys think it's fair, a razor blade has excellent surface area to weight, which I think would be a great sample.

I'm very curious as to the results of other solvents. The results of these tests sound tack worthy for the cleaning subforums to get rid of the constant threads on copper solvents and fouling removal. While I appreciate the effort OP put into cleaning his rifles, I don't care for the methodology relying on physical removal, the entire purpose is using a solvent. We all have our methods of rifle cleaning, which are entirely subjective, even in the most scientific of methods.

It would be a great service if someone had a scrap barrel, especially of our beloved 4150cmv, to see what a true prolonged exposure can do to rifling, as it is often claimed of some solvents to be so harmful.

As it happens, I have some barrel ends of 416r from some of my barrels and whatever chrome/moly that shilen uses on hand. Those will be tested too.

I used a pretty fine file to get my first set of samples which resulted in fine metal bits getting stuck in the filter media after a 15 minute test. So, I scrapped that and went to good old barnes bullets for the moment. I've got 3x identical TTSX's set up in 12mm test tubes covered 1 inch over the top of the bullet with each of Copper/Lead Destroyer, Sweet's 7.62 and Wipe-Out. The wipe-out I waited until the foam collapsed into a liquid before dropping the bullet in. They're getting a 24 hour soak right now which will still give us a relative aggressiveness rate. I'll weigh them tonight and drop them back in for another 24 hours and keep doing that for a few days. I'll be dropping the barrel steel samples into solutions tonight.

I expected the Sweet's to turn blue immediately but interestingly it didn't. This morning after the first 12hrs of soak there was a light blue hue to it. No color change on the others was noted.

Nice. Wish you would've done a 2hr test, so we can go head to head.

Next time I'm home I'll sacrifice a full bullet, piece of 5.56 brass, and a chunk of drill bit, while I don't have any barnes, I think we can all do a .224 55gr fmj. Commom enough for everyone else to chime in with.

I was hoping the filings would produce more pronounced results, as you also found out it's too much of a PITA for the impatient backyardreloading bench chemist.

However since we all have some 55gr fmjs, 5.56 brass, and broken drill bits, that can be plenty fair.

I'd happily test anyone else's solvent they want to send, but it would be ridiculous to be mailing eachother solvents . Currently I have enough of the kg12 to last me a few years, so I have no interest in buying any other brand unless you guys blow it out of the water.

I asked about the Rockwell hardness specifically because of the possible effects to the barrel steel. I don't really see any of the off-the-shelf stuff dissolving enough steel for a reloading scale to pick it up, and the only way I can think it hurting your barrel is if it significantly reduces or raises the surface hardness. Soft barrels wearing out quickly, and super hard barrels getting micro-cracks, excessive flame cutting of the throat (and gas port if applicable). The cracks could maybe fill with bullet material and degrade accuracy? Maybe weaken them critically if cleaning too frequently over a very long service life on a super high pressure cartridge?

24 hour and 48 hour mono-metal bullet soak test results are in. I tried to set this experiment up so any regular Joe can order some test tubes and replicate it themselves.

These tests used 7mm Barnes TTSX 140gr bullets. Each weighed 139.9gr at the initiation of the test. I poured 2 tablespoons of each solvent into a 12mm glass test tube. The bullets used were cleaned with a solution of trisodium phosphate & water, dumped onto blue shop towels and then rinsed with 91% iso-propyl alcohol, rubbed dry on blue shop towels and finally rinsed with de-ionized water and again dried with blue shop towels. They were then transferred immediately into the solvent containing test tubes. This was done to minimize any oxide layer formation on the bullets or solvent contamination prior to testing starting.

24hr copper dissolution:
Wipe-Out: .2gr per 2xvtblsp in 24hhrs
Sweet's: .2gr per 2x tblsp in 24hrs
MSS C/L D: .1gr per 2x tblsp in 24hrs

48hr copper dissolution:
Wipe-Out: .2gr per 2x tblsp in 48hhrs
Sweet's: .2gr per 2x tblsp in 48hrs
MSS C/L D: .1gr per 2x tblsp in 48hrs

During the first 24 hours all 3 were aggressive at removing copper with Modern Spartan Systems being about half as aggressive. After 24hours there was no further measurable copper dissolving action.

Modern Spartan Systems C/L D left a bullet that looked identical to how it went in. There was no notable surface color change and the polish that was on the MSS bullet seems to have stayed. If anything, the MSS bullet seems a tiny bit darker than an untreated bullet but not enough to show up photographically. It's really subtle. The Modern Spartan Systems offering removed half the mass of copper per unit (volume+time) than the other 2 solvents so it's clearly less aggressive. Depending on what you want, that may or may not be desirable depending on the specific need.

Sweet's and Wipe-Out left a notably changed bullet surface. The bullets were dramatically lighter colored and now sport visible scratches and wear, especially at high spots like the shank grooves. Any pre-existing surface imperfections were massively accentuated and visible widened and deepened. Both of these projectiles look like they've been dropped in a vat of acid. No, there's no pitting and there WOULD NOT BE because they're fully submerged which gives very even surface contact. True pitting would arise from uneven contact with the solvent.

All 3 solutions now show at minimum a slight blue tint when held at the right angle to white fluorescent light. Sweet's color changed significantly from a slightly yellowed clear viscous liquid to a distinctly blue viscous liquid. Wipe-Out stayed yellowish/brown/clear and remained cloudy throughout the experiment. Modern Spartan Systems Copper/Lead Destroyer stayed as clear and colorless as water except when held just right to the right kind of light and then you could just make out a very light blue tint.

Smell on the Sweet's stayed strong. Smell on Wipe-Out stayed mild. Smell on C/L D never intensified and was never unpleasant.

I've got 416R barrel ends soaking now. They're halfway submerged and getting 4 days of soak. I've got 4340CM barrel ends waiting to get cycled through.

We'll go for 4 days total on the soak test. Now that I've got the experimental routine nailed I can do 50% submergence tests with more monometal bullets so we can compare and contrast visually.

Thoughts so far:
Well, MSS's offering works. So does Wipe-Out and Sweet's. Sweet's is a gel. WipeOut is a foam. C/L D is a thin easy flowing liquid. Copper/Lead Destroyer is clearly not as aggressive as some others which means we've got another tool in the box and not just a clone of an existing tool. Next I'm want to take some dead soft pure lead and test that. C/L D promises to clean lead. I've never had good luck with any product that claims to clean lead so I'm very hopeful of getting more than a null result.

With those results, I either lost a lot of material rinsing, or KG12 kicks ass.

When I get home next weekend I'll give it a shot with full bullets.

Sorry for delay. Life took over my schedule for a while.

So, I left things alone for 2 days more while checking in on things and noting data twice daily. What happened was pretty cool. All 3 fluids turned some shade of blue-ish and proceeded to get pretty dark. MSS's Copper/Lead Destroyer too!  Sweet's was a deep and intense shade of blue. Could barely see the bullet through it it was so darkly colored. Wipe-Out was about half as darkly shaded but a different flavor of blue entirely. Modern Spartan's C/L-D was a very very pale shade, nothing as intense as the others.

The surfaces of the bullets had mostly changed dramatically too. The one from the Modern Spartan's test tube had darkened, almost like it was an old bullet but there was no rounding of sharp edges on the grooves in the TTSX bullet, no evidence of erosion or corrosion visibly evident at all. The bullet from the Wipe-Out tube looked like it had been run down 200 grit sandpaper from nose to base for a single pass all around. Very fine scratches forming and the corners of the TTSX's grooves had rounded severely but evenly. The bullet from the Sweet's tube was just like the one from the Wipe-Out but in addition it was deeply pitted all over. It looked like someone had jabbed it with a straight pin hundreds of times all over the surface.

There was a weight change in the bullets bullet concordant with the surface erosion. Another .2gr for the Sweet's. Another .1gr for the Wipe-Out and insufficient change for any difference in reading for the Modern Spartan's bullet.

I've gotten in a new set of brass and I have/had to neck turn them (still working on that). That produces brass turnings which I don't have any trouble at all getting .2gr of in chunky enough form that they don't get caught in the filter.

I soaked 3 416R stainless barrel ends (.800 diameter x .5") halfway submerged in each fluid for 5 days. There was no visible change to any of the surfaces or the bore and no change in weight at all. I am now testing carbon steel barrel sections from a marlin m60 that we broke down for parts after it got run over by a truck. Barrel was bent so choppy choppy. Also testing some .080" diameter 4340 carbon steel dowel sections.

My conclusions are, Sweet's is ridiculously aggressive and stinky and it seems to me that if you need something that aggressive, you've got other problems with why it's picking up that much fouling anyway. Wipe-Out is also pretty aggressive but it, opposite to Sweet's, says "safe for all steels" on the label. Sweet's says to keep it under 15 minutes of barrel contact. MSS's stuff professes to be safe on steels and I haven't had results to contradict that. Yet. I'm really liking the MSS offering and I'm pretty sure I'll keep some on-hand from now on but I'll also keep some Wipe-Out because I just like it so darned much. Never using Sweet's again if I can.

We've officially kicked off the test of MSS's "Accuracy Oil". We're testing identical barrels with identical loads used in the same matches and cleaned at the same times. One has had the barrel treated and will continue to be treated with Accuracy Oil. The other hasn't been treated and will not be. We've got throat length data and will track throat erosion and barrel life to see what real effect we get. I would like to have had a larger sample size of say 5-10 rifles but we play the hand we've got and I could only afford 2 barrels. They're set up as 6XC's running 115gr HBN coated DTAC's at 2980 with 39.5gr of H4350 ahead of Federal 210's. Both are currently grouping in the .3's. One shows SD's of 12, the other shows SD's of 6 with the same ammo after 20 rounds. Looks

Awesome!

I apologize for dropping the ball this weekend. Completely forgot about this thread so I did nothing to test.

The brass test hasn't been showing any measurable weight differences so far but the discoloration differences in the metal are dramatic. MSS's Carbon/Lead Destroyer turned the brass black, some discoloration was swift but after a couple days it really kicked it up into high gear. Almost no shiny is visible on the brass turnings in the MSS tube. Sweet's and Wipe-Out have had no discernible effect on surface color. The WipeOut chemical itself has turned a bit dark getting a grey color. The Sweet's has taken on a light blue-green tint. The C/L-D fluid isn't quite as water-like colorless as it was out of the bottle but I can't quite say other than to note it's looking like it's somewhere toward the blue end of the spectrum.

Where are you at with weight loss?

Final results for the first bullet test are above. I'm starting a confirmation run of that test with Hornady GMX 180gr .30cal bullets in a few days. I had to order more C/L-D. The last few tests and then doing a full cleaning on the 2nd 6XC barrel before re-treating it with Accuracy Oil burned up the last of my supply. I still have GOBS of Sweet's and WipeOut on hand.

Some pics.

WipeOut (L)

Sweet's 7.62 (c)

Copper/Lead Destroyer(R)

After 5 Days


Bullets (Same order as above) after 5 day soak.

Today I finally remembered to retry the test with KG12.

I have a .224 55gr fmj (armscor), weighing 55.1gr on both my RCBS beam balance, and hornady electronic scale (low end model).

The brass is 12.9gr trimmed from .308 FGMM, again weighed twice.

To cover the bullet with an excess of KG12, I used 210gr of the solvent (put cup+bullet on scale and zero'd, added solvent until covered).

The same with the brass shavings, except requiring only 100gr.

One drop of KG12 is equal to .8-1.2gr

As I typed this (using the post as my logbook), intending to take pictures after, I noticed (within just a few minutes) the bullet tarnishing quite a bit. Attached File
Attached File
Attached File


I intend to remove the bullet with tweezers at the 2hr mark, rinse, dry and weigh it, then put it back in for another 22hrs (approximate). The brass will be checked at 48hrs, as I believe too much will be lost attempting to filter it multiple times.

I got sidetracked and ended up going 2.5hrs.

The bullet weighed in at 54.7gr, a loss of .4gr in 2.5hrs.

The bullet and brass show obvious discoloration, and the bullet shows very bad spots, they do not seem to be raised/lowered a significant amount.

A fresh bullet from the same box is the upper/right one.

Attached File
Attached File
Attached File

Brass test is done with 2 runs of 5 days completed. There was no weight difference that was detectable. Sweet's obviously pulled some mass out because it turned blue but it wasn't enough to measure. Sweet's and Wipe-Out don't seem to discolor the brass but the Sweet's solvent itself did turn a light blue color. Neither of the other 2 solvents seemed to have discolored other than adopting a bit of a dirty water shade. The MSS Copper/Lead Destroyer turned the brass black quickly.

Life got in the way and the test ran to approximately 53.5hrs.

Both cups turned into a somewhat jellied mass of yellow goop. Being water based, it was likely just the water evaporating.
Attached File


The brass took a similar discoloration, but of course I broke the damn filter. I suspect it would have shown good loss judging by the discoloration.

The bullet's final weight is 54.1gr, and it has a texture similar to 500 grit. So one full grain in just over 2 days.
Attached File


Attached File


Obviously the chemical potency wore off rather quickly, having dissolved .4gr in 2 hours, yet only .6gr in the other 51 hours. ETA: I measured the bullet diameter at .2215/.222, other bullets from the box average .224 as they should. I'm going to save it for now, I wonder if it will keyhole if I shoot it.

Now we just need other members with different solvents to try this. The world needs answers! Put a stop to the endless argument over copper solvents...

I've had some phosphor bronze brushes soaking for a few days. The first couple days nothing really special but last night I noticed they'd all gone and had serious color changes in the liquids. Updates coming.

What are your thoughts on the kg12?

It's eating vastly superior amount of copper than the others tested. I feel like there's something to it. Has to be a catch?

Naturally I have no stake in their business, but I'm wondering why no one else seems to use it. Maybe since a bottle of copper solvent lasts years for most shooters? No advertising (paid or word of mouth)? What else can we test between them? I'd like to see you try a short term, 2 hour test, to be more realistic of what's happening when actually cleaning a rifle. Excluding the rare cases, no one is soaking bores for days at a time. I wonder if your samples will have a greater effect in the short term, while their potency is lost in the long term.

Next time I'm home I'll try to get some steel soaking. I'd like to maybe take a drill bit and have 3 areas on it. One of the factory black oxide, another in the white, and the third pre-acid-etched. Not sure what that portion will accomplish, but my thought is that the already etched portion may discolor or rust differently.

KG12 appears to be as strong if not stronger than Sweet's. Personally I think it's a matter of what your situation is as to which one is best. For me, my bores start out nearly mirror finished so they're not going to build up a lot of copper anyway so I'd be just as well served with a less potent chemical and when I have heavy buildup I can just let it soak. With bores that are not so smooth and free of tool marks/chatter/etc... I think would benefit from the stronger formulas so the amount of time taken to get copper free is reduced to something tolerable. That's with the caveat that one should expect a much longer set of fouling shots being needed to reach copper equilibrium on less smooth bores. For most people I think they over-frequently clean their rifles and that tendency might be helped by going to a less powerful chemical and maybe not removing quite so much so they're more maintaining a general fouling level than yo-yo'ing around one. I have no evidence that such a practice would be helpful or not, it's conjecture at this point. I personally don't clean my rifle bores almost at all. My last match barrel, a .243AI that ran 115's at 3200fps, had 2 full cleanings and maybe 4 patches with various carbon fouling removers in its 1500 round life. I just had the bore slugged (the barrel comes from Black HOle Weapons, now Columbia River Arms) and it came out with the same minimum and maximum dimensions as it was when brand new so I'm going to rechamber it to 6xc and a friend is going to shoot it in our matches and we'll see how long the thing lasts before it's actually done.

Hmm. I think a lot of us just want to do something with it.

Maybe I'm guilty too. I'll send a couple patches of solvent down the bore and let them soak for a few minutes every few hundred rounds. Nothing that wasn't re-fouled after the first shot or 2.

Usually a couple passes of a boresnake do it for me. I'll never understand the hate. It brushes a bit, it swabs the bore, and leaves some CLP to protect it. Can't get any easier for a field cleaning.

To me it seems the minimal exposure time and minute amounts of solvent that are applied in the traditional wet patch style cleaning can't do a damn thing. Can't apply to a copper alloy brush either, and nylon is still far softer than copper, so I don't particularly see chemical methods working terribly well on heavy fouling. At least in the sense that you're not spending hours cleaning a rifle barrel. That's ridiculous for 99.9% of shooters. I get the feeling if you really want copper gone, a treatment of JB or the like coupled with a solvent is the best way.

Maybe what also needs to be analyzed is to what point, i.e. how much deposit, actually has to exist before the loss of accuracy or increase in pressure. Can it even be measured at home? Maybe really good borescope pictures for a qualitative analysis?

Do the solvents weaken the copper structure, or do they simply eat it away? A significantly weakened fouling would actually be more removable by brush.

Mechanical action is both horrible at removing copper from rifle bores (I've personally demonstrated this with a bronze brush on a drill on a wasted barrel) and it's HORRIBLE to do to a rifle barrel. Brushes should only be used sparingly. Anymore, I wrap a brush with a patch for carbon removal and I don't use a brush at all for copper removal. Solvents do the copper/lead removal best and gently compared to a brush. If you're going to use a brush on a rifle you like, use a nylon brush. Think about what happens when you drag a metal brush across some other piece of metal. Do you really want that damage inside your bore? It'll only make copper fouling pick up quicker.

Bore snakes are fine for field expedient equipment but they can leave a lot of schmutz in the chamber and you don't know when it's actually clean. I carry a long Dewey rod in my drag bag. It doesn't weigh much more and I can knock out stuck cases with it when that occasionally happens to me or someone else on my squad during a match. At least one of me or my coach also carries a bore snake though. Hating on bore snakes is like hating on joint-locks just because you're looking for needle-nose pliers at the time. I think some people just get off on bagging on stuff other people use.

Solvents solvate (dissolve for Americans without chemistry education), hence the name. Most copper solvents remove the copper from the steel via ion exchange meaning that atoms or molecules of one thing are replaced by atoms or molecules of another. You need enough of a reagent of sufficient concentration to complete the job for it to work as intended. In our case we end up with (if I'm reading the formula correctly) tetraaminecopper (which is indicated by the super deep prussian blue color) and hydrogen peroxide.

Some interesting ideas in this thread...

As someone WITH a BS in chemistry, I find the statement of "copper equilibrium" that seems to be thrown around lightly very interesting and I take it at face value.  I don't think I need to do anything to something that is in equilibrium unless I don't like the equilibrium or its location or effects...  I did some sort of break in on both of my .308 rifles for the first 50 rounds...  since then, I have not used any classic gun cleaning solvent or a brush on a rod on either of my rifles.  My Bergara B14 HMR has about 1,100 rounds down the tube and it is shooting pretty well...  as best as I can tell, under good conditions with my handloads, I can get 0.5 to 0.7 MOA out of it.  My cleaning routine is a bit unconventional and has attracted flames on more than 1 occasion...  I remove the bolt and clean and lube the lugs and put aside for reassembly later...  Next I place the barrel nose down on a thick wad of paper towels and flood the bore/chamber with WD40 and let is soak for about 3 minutes.  Then lift the rifle off the paper towel and let any WD40 drain from the muzzle and then put the rifle on a counter with the muzzle lower than the chamber and let it drip off a bit into a garbage can...  Next I run a dry bore snake from chamber to muzzle twice.  Then I use a cotton mop on a pistol rod to clean and dry out the chamber.  Next, wipe out the lug recess and then re-insert the bolt...  cleaning done.  I clean using this technique after every shooting session.  A "session" can be anywhere from an hour to several days sometimes...

I think this should work just find for a bolt gun that is slow fired and whose barrel is thick-ish and never gets too hot to touch.

Also, years ago, I read an interesting "paper" about barrel cleaning (LINK)...  I love the authors last paragraph... Best,

- Reo -

P.S.:  I occasionally wash the boresnake with Dawn and warm water if it is holding too much dirt &/or WD40...  I usually do this about once or twice a year as needed (and rinse very thoroughly).  Then it air dries for several days until I put away waiting for its next use...

I only have grievance with your choice of wd40, but whatever, it's your gun. You're a big boy and if it was actually problematic you'd probably have figured that out by now.

Would copper fouling be best described as more like plating, or mechanically applied like streaks from swaging?

Thinking of it more, I'm now seeing how a brush would be rather useless, unless it was made of steel. For carbon, I always figured a pull or 2 of brush is enough, just break up anything in there. Patches do the actual removal.

I still call BS on ammonia hurting steel. I do industrial refrigeration work, and most all we use is carbon steel pipe. Everything from 1/2" to 12". These systems run almost constantly for 20+ years flowing ~100psi of liquid ammonia, and when we do retrofits the only corrosion is on the outside.

Copper fouling is a type of galling, and maybe plating as well.

Some of it is vaporized during firing and redeposited once the pressure drops.

Yeah, I've heard that before...  I only use it because it is an easy, fast, sprayable source for a decent solvent with a little bit of oil...  when a dry boresnake runs the bore (twice), there is very little residue left and it is mostly solvent which will evaporate...  I've been watching for problems and, so far, found none.  I wish a had a bore scope to look more closely at the bore...  maybe some day.

I have considered changing over to just straight solvent - mineral spirits or something similar...  or maybe mineral spirits / "gun oil" 9:1...

We can thank TiborasaurusRex for that crappy term getting coined meaninglessly. From part 40 of Sniper101. Notice the extreme lack of definition of what constitutes consistent vs. erratic performance.


That said, it's not super far from accurate. It's only used as a reference to that number of shots down a rifle barrel from brand new or after a thorough cleaning where one or more of velocities/POI/group sizes settle down for some dramatically larger number of shots before going to pot again. It also assumes that said pattern happens on any particular barrel. It is visible in the data as vaguely parabolic curve with a large region that's comparatively flat like the example below (inverted and with exaggerated smoothness and not to any particular scale because I'm lazy).

Here's a real life example of the front end of such a curve (new barrel so the back end will be a while yet). This is the first 50 rounds out of this particular barrel (6XC) including break in and several sets of load development rounds. The first 20 are break-in rounds all from the same recipe. We see it took about 6 rounds to foul in. All rounds after that on the chart are load dev. It's at 300 rounds now without a cleaning.



Closer view of the break-in phase with trendline showing the front half what I'm calling copper equilibrium.


Further to that point as an example by anecdote (unfortunately the relevant data sets are long ago lost), I have had rifles which I cleaned very thoroughly after every use before adopting my current practice of not cleaning them almost at all and which (probably because of my overly exuberant cleaning and the fact that these were rifles which I shot to sizzling hot every single time I shot them.) would perform radically differently for 20 or more rounds after a cleaning before settling down for 200 or so rounds whereupon they'd start going directly to pot again. If I hadn't sat down and fired 500 rounds a day of full power rifle ammo through a few specific victim rifles on the weekends during that time I don't think I would have ever noticed that there was such a thing. The point of firing that much in a day and abusing that gun so badly was quite simply to burn up several thousand rounds of shitty reloads that I had obtained and have a little fun burning up a couple cheap rifles.

The WD-40 thing is intriguing actually. If you're keeping data on that I'd be extremely interested to see it. I don't think it would loosen copper at all and it's otherwise not bad for the job in theory.

You know, I still have those steel bits in the solvents. Zero change to them as far as I can see and measure. I can't help but wonder if there's something else behind the caution to not let the ammonia based solvents sit too long... I mean it's on the label for a reason right? Perhaps Reorx can provide some expertise there. I have a sneaking suspicion the directions are to keep evaporation from being a problem.

I think evaporation is part of it.  Also, you can harm a material without dissolving it.  Ammonia containing cleaners make brass "brittle" but don't necessarily dissolve it.  So it might have something to do with fear of harming the "integrity" of the steel making it more susceptible to wear.  Lastly, it might be related to some products which are no longer on the market that contained ammonia (which is obvious) and some other harmful agent (that might not be nearly as obvious) but the ammonia got blamed by laypeople who didn't know any better...  But I'm just speculating...

The only data I am keeping is ammo log data.  For any given "standard" or "pet" load I have, I have created a log of rifle/temp/date/MV/ES/SD.  The MVs are an average of 5 over my magnetospeed.  I try to get data on a regular basis.  I don't have a lot of data yet as I have been fiddling with load development using a variety of bullets - different designs, weights, manufacturers...  Just recently, (I think) I have settled on my "standard" load so I will start collecting data in earnest.

I can surely see how ammonia could make brass brittle. It's liable to pull our or at least replace copper from the alloy. From what I'm seeing in my soak tests, something like that is definitely happening. Alloys that are strong are so (as I gather, my knowledge here comes from classes that were not career oriented) because the atoms line up in specific ways reinforcing and supporting the overall crystalline structure against stresses that the constituent materials themselves could not tolerate in pure form. Pulling some atoms out of an alloy can be like pulling the bottom apple out of the stack at the grocery store. It's super bad for the stability of the rest of the pile though it's not always immediately catastrophic or immediately obvious.

A few years back we actually had a retrofit job blow up because of a boiler failure, not our fault as refrigeration, but nonetheless the building and all grenaded.

Company records state that not one single weld joint failed, and all piping that did fail had good reason (e.g. getting bent clean in half, etc).

I'll say that any affects can't be that bad.

That all said...

In the long term operating facilities, all copper based pieces are heavily corroded. Usually stuff like process water and small fittings. None of those actually fail, but they're only holding city water pressure. Never heard of things like gauges on the ammonia side failing.

What are you guys talking about with the evaporation? Does e.g. sweets leave a caustic/toxic residue if left to dry?

My gripe with wd40 is that it doesn't really lube much and dries to a gum. It also doesn't seem to do anything on the mechanic side like loosening bolts, unlike kroil or PB. Fwiw I have used CLP on rusty bolts, and it does help once you break it free, just like other light oils.

In past experiences, indoor kept steel covered with wd40 is rust-proof as most any other light oil. It was also the ONLY thing I could find commonly available and safe to use that will dissolve/lift plastic fouling from a shotgun barrel.

I don't forsee a catastrophic failure in your future from using wd40. Maybe your wear parts won't go as long, but that's likely negligible.

When I did the tests on the cut barrel segments I found that I had to use air-tight sealed containers because the sweet's evaporated pretty quickly leaving a gunky slimy yellowish goop behind. It's already kind of viscous right out of the bottle which I actually like for the fact that it'll stay where you put it. None of the others had an evaporation issue that was that severe.

The kg12 (it is advertised as water based...) evaporated pretty bad by the 48 hour mark. Turned into a similarly described yellow goop. I'm pretty sure that by then it was done dissolving. However it has a very low viscosity to begin with.

Any ideas on how to measure how much copper is actually deposited in a "heavily fouled" barrel? Then we can know if any of the solvents actually do a damn thing. Seems like you'd really have to let it soak in to do much.

NOTE: It's early and I haven't had coffee yet so I'm relying on you guys to check my math. Also my chosen value for the thickness of fouling is a full on wild ass guess. I could find no information for how thick it might be and I bet that I've picked a value that's probably a hundred times too high.

The amount of copper actually deposited is not calculable but we can estimate a range based on bore diameter and length and thickness of the fouling. Keep in mind the fouling is not going to be even .0001 thick. It'll be in microns, probably decimal value microns. If we take a 24" barrel of .308 bore, ignoring the trivial effective diameter increase due to the rifling and figure 5 microns thickness for the copper as an example (which I think is certainly kinda a big value here) and apply a little math we get (and I'm doing this with very coarse math because I'm lazy):

The formula for area of a cylinder: A= 2**R*H + 2**R^2
Mass density for copper: 146.9639g per cubic inch
Pi:  3.14159265359
Hypothetical thickness of copper fouling (5 microns): .000195"

So let's get the area of the bore:
(2* 3.14159265359*.308*24) + (2* 3.14159265359*(.308*.308))
(46.44530579067456) + (6.28318530718*(0.094864))
46.44530579067456 + 0.596048090980324 = 47.041353881654884 sq in
And now we'll multiply that times the thickness of the fouling
47.041353881654884 * .000195 = 0.009173064006923 cubic inches of copper
And multiply the volume of copper by copper's mass density to get the mass of copper fouling.
146.9639 * 0.009173064006923 = 1.348g (rounded off at the 3rd decimal) which is about 20 grains.

So hypothetically, if the fouling is 5 microns thick (this is as wide as a very fine thread of spider silk and is an incredibly high value) on a 24" .308 bore there MIGHT be 1.3g of copper if it's evenly fouled over the entire interior surface of the bore, which it will not be. I would think we're looking at a tiny fraction of that in all reality. In fact, I'd lay money that the thickness of of copper in my barrels after 400 rounds is somewhere around 1/50th of that or less. So if we take .02 (1/50th) multiplied by 20 we get .4 grains of total fouling. That's a number I'd be willing to lay money isn't super far off. 100 nanometers thick for fouling seems like a good number to me. I don't have the scanning electron microscope to verify that so we'll take it for what it is, a hypothetical discussion and not a calculation or even a real estimate.

Also, lookie what I found. It appears that we closely replicated an earlier experiment and our results are consistent with that experiment. We even expanded on its scope by adding an new product. So, well done to all involved.

http://www.frfrogspad.com/cleaners.htm

The area of the bore would be >>> The bore is just a long skinny rectangle rolled on its short axis into a cylindrical shape...  the area is the circumference x bore length.  The barrel length is from the breech face to the muzzle and includes the case length.  the bore length is barrel length - ~2 (in .308)...

C = 2 x pi x r = pi x D = 3.1416 x 0.308 = 0.9676"

if your barrel length is 24 inches then the area of the bore is -

A = 0.9676 x (24 - 2) = 0.9676 x 22 = 21.29 sq in

1 micron = 0.00003937" / 5 microns = 0.00019685"

Volume = 21.29 x 0.00019658 = 0.00418469 cubic inches = 68.6 cubic millimeters

The density of copper is 8.96 grams per cubic cm = 8.96 gm per 1,000 cubic mm = 0.00896 grams per cubic mm

68.6 cubic mm x 0.00896 g/cubic mm = 0.6144 grams of copper

1 grain is approximately 65 milligrams so 0.6144 grams of copper is approximately 9.5 grains of copper.

So if we take the mass at 9 grains then to completely chemically clean a barrel of copper would take a phenomenal amount of solvent. That also assumes a totally even distribution of fouling down the entire length of the barrel. Galling is worse under higher forces than lower so, if we make a SWAG that maybe 25% of the bore will be at the heaviest level of fouling (it'll be heaviest where velocities are greatest, in theory) with 50 % of the barrel at half of the level of fouling and 25% at 25% of the heaviest fouling we get

(9/4) + (9/8) + (9/16)

2.25 + 1.125 + .5625 = 3.9 grains of copper as a more likely mass of fouling, which would require a good amount of solvent. In fact, this is one of those cases where you'd do well to fill the bore with solvent and let it soak a bit.

My conclusions: KG12, Sweet's, Wipe-Out, and Copper/Lead Destroyer should probably be in all of our inventories and used as necessary. Ultra heavy fouling is quickly removed with KG12 or Sweet's but both like to pit copper aggressively which means uneven removal. Sweet's is very thick and so stays on metal well. Wipe-Out is a little less aggressive and more evenly removes copper across a surface. Moderate to heavy fouling is well dealt with by Wipe-Out and it has zero problems with evaporation and very evenly contacts all bore surfaces. Copper/Lead Destroyer is great for light to moderate fouling. IMO C/L-D is perfect for those people that want to clean their rifle after every outing. It won't remove all of the fouling with a normal application (so no super long soak) but it'll keep copper fouling beat back.

I think if you wanted to keep your rifle in "copper equilibrium", or basically fouled-in but not fouled-out, then regularly using MSS's stuff after every outing but not doing a long soak might be just the ticket.

That's what I'm shooting for with my WD-40 soak followed by 2 passes of a dry boresnake...  We'll see how it works out...  I can always go midieval with Sweets whenever necessary if I end up with too much Cu...  

Interesting input guys. I'll let you guys do the math.

This coming weekend I'll try out some "bore cleaner, rifle". I'll get the NSN off the can when I do the test.

I highly doubt it will do anything, but if I remember correctly the info I found on it says it should. Seems to work much better than CLP for removing carbon fouling.

I think another run of the KG12, but this time, I want to soak the sample bullet, and then let it sit on it's base, to drain, after the time, it gets removed, lightly brushed with a typical bronze brush, rinsed, and weighed. Do one at 15, 30, and 45 minutes.

Mostly I want to prove that the solvent isn't doing anything significant in short exposures, but add the brushing to simulate a more realistic cleaning method. However, with your very liberal guessing, the 3 or so grains that might be deposited, over a massive surface area compared to a bullet, could provide enough contact area to really increase the dissolution potential.

If everyone had SEMs, then we could cut the conjecture.

To continue the conjecture, with some proven points... I enjoy the concept of "Cu equilibrium". We all know how it fills in the microchasms, and likely reduces friction as I'm sure copper slides over itself well. Thus by not using the harshest chemicals you maintain said equilibrium and it's effects.

The only time I've used it on (the one and only) my precision (if you dare call a b14 that?) rifle, I think I pulled 3 patches of KG12 and a nylon brush in between patches, then rinsed with CLP. It made me feel good. Just wanted to maintain the fouling without having a sparkling bore. Seemed to work. Groups haven't opened up yet, nor did anything change next time I shot the rifle.

So here we are well over a year later, and I want to bring up this necro thread.

Backstory, wife got me a nice used rifle almost a year ago now. Since 30-06 is basically useless in Ohio, I've been very slowly trying to develop a load for it. I've had it shoot pretty consistent cloverleafs at 100yds, then out of nowhere it opened up to around 2" groups. Look down the bore and realize it's like a penny on a railroad track.

I cleaned it pretty good with KG12, and while the visual didn't change much, went and shot it. No measurable improvement. So I got back on the rifle the other day, spent nearly 3 hours running patches of KG12, some nylon brush to pass the time, more patches... Yada yada. Barely any visual improvement.

Picked up some proshot copper solvent today at rural king for about $10. I can't prove whether the KG failed because of shelf life, or if it was "almost done", but with relative ease it cleaned up the bore dramatically. Not sure what's in the stuff, but it does turn copper blue, doesn't smell much at all, and leaves an oily residue on your fingers. Unlike the KG12, it actually absorbs right into patches, so it doesn't make a big mess trying to actually use it.

I've since found that with the above mentioned b14, it takes 2-300rds for groups to open up. So far if I just do like 2 patches of copper solvent, every 150rds or so, it stays very stable.

Tomorrow I'll setup a 2 hour test again with KG12 and the proshot.