My varmint gun went wild on me!

[cabmandone]

From the beginning:
I bought a Stevens Model 200 22-250 with the basic gray synthetic stock several years ago. I fit it with a cheap Simmons Prairie Master 6x24x50 scope when I bought the gun. My friend and I built several test loads and found it liked 40.5 grains of H380 with 40 grain Vmax bullets. The rifle was always very accurate.... until recently.

About 1 month ago I head shot a groundhog off the hard tonneau of my truck at about 180 yards. From that point on I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with the gun. I thought "what changed?".

A few weeks after shooting the groundhog the gun fell off the back seat of my truck and onto the floor (yeah I know.. I should have it in a case) so I thought the scope got bumped off. I cleaned the bore with some basic solvent, loaded up some round and went out to check the scope. It was all over the place. I was sure it had to be the scope. $300 and a new Vortex Crossfire II 6x24x50 later it still wasn't shooting right. Off to my friend's house! We cleaned the bore with some copper solvent he uses, built some more of the same load, went to the range, still no joy! Time to make up some more test loads.

We made up two different loads with H380 with 37 and 40 grains of powder and bumped up to 50 grain Nosler ballistic tips. We also made some loads with IMR 4320. 32 and 36 grains of powder Off to the range! The H380 shot well with 37 grains but was erratic at 40 grains. The IMR 4320 shot well at 32 grains but opened up at 40 grains. We decided to go with 34 grains of IMR 4320 with the 50 grain Nosler and SUCCESS! I was back to where I wanted to be.

I noticed that my synthetic stock had a lot of flex in it so $200 later and a new Boyd's AT One stock later and all of the flex is gone. I could have tinkered with the old stock but I have owned the rifle long enough that a new stock was in order.

Lesson Learned!
There was nothing wrong with the Simmons scope, the issue was due to copper fouling and what we think was the barrel changing a bit. I now have a Dewey rod, nylon bore brushes, Bore Tech Elimator and Bore Tech Copper Cu+2 copper solvent.

The target below is off a lead sled at 100 yards. I'm waiting for the weather to improve so I can see how the new load does at 200 yards off the sled.

Groundhogs beware, It's back!

[vash]

wow. that thing is stunnnig.

i should have gone with a laminate when i ordered my Boyds.

[cabmandone]

Thanks Vash!
I really wanted a thumb hole stock but It's almost impossible to find a left hand thumb hole, right hand eject stock without going full on custom. The AT One was the only ambidextrous Boyd's offered. I like the adjustable cheek plate and the adjustable butt on the stock, it gives me some adjustment to make it comfortable for me and for my son when he wants to shoot. The funny thing is I now have more in the scope and stock than I had in the entire setup when I originally bought the gun. My friend tried to get me to sell the 250 and go to a 204 but I really like the way the gun shoots so I decided to dress it up a bit.

[vash]

i love the 22-250.

my brother had this awesome shooting ruger77. any box ammo and that thing would shoot stellar groups. that thing was so accurate, it made me stop hunting coyotes. we had to shoot coyotes for a rancher that gave us trespass permission. it was part of the deal. it was not even a challenge any more. i just stopped. never went back.

it is a great caliber.

[vash]

do you remember the copper solvent?

i have a 257 Weatherby magnum that welds copper into the barrel. (i think all fast shooting rifles do that - in CA i am limited to non toxic ammo which exasperates the situation)

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by vash

do you remember the copper solvent?

i have a 257 Weatherby magnum that welds copper into the barrel. (i think all fast shooting rifles do that - in CA i am limited to non toxic ammo which exasperates the situation)

We used Butch's Bore Shine. I bought the Bore Tech Cu+2 because it reviewed better on Brownell's website. The Eliminator also has copper solvent but the Cu+2 is specifically formulated for copper only. The Butch's worked well enough. I just bought the Bore Tech solvents to try something different. I can't speak to how they work since I haven't used them yet.

Several guys on the Savage forums highly recommend KG-12 for heavy copper fouling but the Cu+2 is designed for heavy copper fouling as well and it recommends the use of nylon brushes which I also like since they'll be a bit easier on the bore IMO.

[cabmandone]

I'll let you know how the Cu+2 works when my friend and I run it through his 308.

[911boost]

I built my 22-250 around a Savage action. It’s been years but I will have to dig it out to take some pics, thing is a tack driver.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by BSiple

I built my 22-250 around a Savage action. It’s been years but I will have to dig it out to take some pics, thing is a tack driver.

My only regret in buying this rifle is that I didn't go with a bull barrel. The sport barrel heats up pretty fast. The only difference I have found between the Stevens I have and the Savage is the machining seems a bit tighter on the Savage which would make sense since it's the higher end rifle. I had a guy at a gun shop suggest I trade my Stevens for a Remington when I bought my scope. I asked "Why? This does the same thing the Remington does, it's just not as pretty". He pointed to the play in the bolt to which I replied "once locked down you never even know it's there". He got quiet pretty fast after that.

[cabmandone]

One thing I forgot to mention about the rifle is that when I bought it, I had a gunsmith work with the trigger since Stevens doesn't have the Accutrigger. The trigger is set at about 1.25 pounds.

[Jeff Higgins]

I use Sweet's 7.62 to take care of the copper fouling in my only rifle that has that problem. The stuff is amazing. Be careful with it, though, and follow the instructions to the letter. It will actually etch the barrel if you are careless with it.

Here's the offending rifle. It's a Ruger #1 with a 28" long 1:12" twist Lilja barrel chambered in .220 Swift, with a Leupold Vari-X III 6.5-20X scope. Handloads with the 60 grain Hornady Ballistic tip and either IMR 4350 or Reloder 22 just touch 3,800 fps.

[Flat Six]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I use Sweet's 7.62 to take care of the copper fouling in my only rifle that has that problem. The stuff is amazing. Be careful with it, though, and follow the instructions to the letter. It will actually etch the barrel if you are careless with it.

^^^^ This. Amen on both counts.

[John Rogers]

I was wondering how you mount the scope? Do you just "bolt it on" or do you use something like the Weaver scope mounting kit? I use one even on my black powder rifles mainly on mine it is just the levels as my Unertl scopes have external adjusting rear mount so the mount "points" can not be used.

At our range nearly every semi-auto or bolt action rifle shooter seems to just bolt the rings on, even the one piece ones and figure they are true and both rings line up? They also assume that the cross hairs are plumb and there are no stresses on the barrel section of the scope? They are usually amazed to have found out that there is more to mounting a scope! The long range shooter or semi-professional hunters usually have a gunsmith check and mount everything and seldom miss.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I use Sweet's 7.62 to take care of the copper fouling in my only rifle that has that problem. The stuff is amazing. Be careful with it, though, and follow the instructions to the letter. It will actually etch the barrel if you are careless with it.

Here's the offending rifle. It's a Ruger #1 with a 28" long 1:12" twist Lilja barrel chambered in .220 Swift, with a Leupold Vari-X III 6.5-20X scope. Handloads with the 60 grain Hornady Ballistic tip and either IMR 4350 or Reloder 22 just touch 3,800 fps.

I don't recall but I think the Sweet's is ammonia based. I was trying to stay away from solvents with amonia in them simply because of the possibility of actually harming the barrel. The Cu+2 is a non ammonia base product that seemed pretty easy to use. Put it in with a cotton swab with a jag, let sit for three to five minutes, brush with a nylon brush then dry patch until clean.

Nice looking rifle by the way! I was hoping to push around 3800 FPS but couldn't find a load the gun liked well enough. I think the H380 at 40 grains and the IMR 4320 at 36 grains were the two fastest at about 3750 IIRC and neither would group well enough to satisfy me. I wanted dime groups at 100 in hopes that when shooting off the bipod I could hold quarter groups at 200+.

[Jeff Higgins]

Yup, the Sweet's 7.62 is ammonia based. Pretty nasty stuff, hence the warnings to be careful with it. For me, it's only a once in awhile, last ditch kind of thing when I see accuracy dropping off. I'll usually just clean with Hoppe's #9, assuming I clean it at all. I can get 30-40 rounds through it before it needs a few wet patches and a dry one. I never brush it with anything. It might get the Sweet's about every fourth or fifth cleaning.

Have you thought about trying one of the new Enduron powders? I've considered it, but my rifle is so well sorted now that I really don't want to start over. It might be worth it for the reduced copper fouling, though. I'm torn. The Swift has notoriously short barrel life compared to other .22 caliber centerfires, and I just don't want to use more of it up working up a new load. It already has over 2,000 rounds through it as it is.

So, a completely unsolicited suggestion regarding your .22-250: Try some heavier bullets. The larger .22 cases seem to thrive on them. Not real heavy - I really like the 60 grain weight. Yeah, it's lots of fun to launch those lightweights at extreme velocities, but the heavier ones actually shoot flatter and have less wind drift at longer ranges, even starting out a couple hundred fps slower. Granted, the lighter bullets are like a death ray out to 200-250 yards or so, but once you surpass 300 or 400, the heavier ones start to shine. It all depends on what you want to do, I guess.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Yup, the Sweet's 7.62 is ammonia based. Pretty nasty stuff, hence the warnings to be careful with it. For me, it's only a once in awhile, last ditch kind of thing when I see accuracy dropping off. I'll usually just clean with Hoppe's #9, assuming I clean it at all. I can get 30-40 rounds through it before it needs a few wet patches and a dry one. I never brush it with anything. It might get the Sweet's about every fourth or fifth cleaning.

Have you thought about trying one of the new Enduron powders? I've considered it, but my rifle is so well sorted now that I really don't want to start over. It might be worth it for the reduced copper fouling, though. I'm torn. The Swift has notoriously short barrel life compared to other .22 caliber centerfires, and I just don't want to use more of it up working up a new load. It already has over 2,000 rounds through it as it is.

So, a completely unsolicited suggestion regarding your .22-250: Try some heavier bullets. The larger .22 cases seem to thrive on them. Not real heavy - I really like the 60 grain weight. Yeah, it's lots of fun to launch those lightweights at extreme velocities, but the heavier ones actually shoot flatter and have less wind drift at longer ranges, even starting out a couple hundred fps slower. Granted, the lighter bullets are like a death ray out to 200-250 yards or so, but once you surpass 300 or 400, the heavier ones start to shine. It all depends on what you want to do, I guess.

Not really unsolicited, I was hoping you'd chime in. I was dead set against going to 50 grain from my 40's but my rifle kinda made me do it. I might have to play around and build a few loads this fall once the gun goes into hibernation and I break out the compound and the crossbow for deer season. My good friend that helps me build my loads for the rifle is an avid shooter. I'll have to suggest we give that powder a try. He's always up for something that might be better.

[Jeff Higgins]

Yup, those 40 grain bullets sure are addicting in the .22-250 or .220 Swift. The Swift has a bit more powder capacity, and with my 28" barrel, I can use a slower powder than standard for the given bullet weight. That translates to those little 40 grain bullets topping 4,100 fps out of my rifle. Little critters just disappear into a red mist out to 250-300 yards. Problem is, they really start to get blown around and drop a lot after that. The 60 grain bullets are almost as spectacular at the shorter ranges, but do oh so much better at longer ranges. That, and copper fouling seems to be reduced with the lower velocity, which is a really big deal. Might be worth playing with to see how your rifle likes them.

[FOG]

Vash,

I’ll bet your rifle is a Japanese vice German made rifle. I’ve helped on five different .25 caliber (3, 25-06 and 2, 257 WBY) rifles that copper fouled so bad that they we start spraying rounds during the second box and literally keyhole between the 2nd and 3rd. I suspect they have the same source for their barrels.

Getting all of the fouling out is a real *****. I abhor any ammonia base solvents, it has been documented that they start to etch steel in any use.

Use Outers Foul Out to remove the metallic fouling. This is a reverse electro plating process. Then use JB bore paste and either regular Hoppes or their black powder specific to remove the powder fouling. You’ll probably need 2-3 iterations.

Then Pressure lap using the NECO system vice any of the others, there is a large quality delta. The difference with really rough bores is using more of the 220 grit, these were the roughest rifles bores I have ever worked with and required 20 rounds at 5 rounds between cleanings. I usually use more rounds in the fines stages; at least 10 at 400, and 20 at 800 and 1200 grit stages.

All this takes time but it is concentrated vice spread over periods and a net time saver with the added benefit of far better performance.

Finally, I strongly suggest using moly coated bullets to reduce fouling. It is worth the effort.

S/F, FOG

[Jeff Higgins]

Not to open a can of worms over ammonia based cleaning solvents on a car forum, but this is a lot like the endless oil discussions we do see on car forums. I will agree that the misuse of ammonia based solvents, or the use of the wrong kind of ammonia, will indeed damage a rifle barrel. But to say that they will "start to etch steel in any use" is simply wrong.

This myth gained a pretty strong foothold in military circles after one General Pershing proclaimed it to be, but he was using the wrong stuff under the wrong circumstances a long time ago. Sweet's 7.62 is only about 5% ammonia and poses no danger whatsoever if used per instructions. You would be very hard pressed to find a modern, civilian highpower competitor who doesn't swear by the stuff. And these guys know how to foul barrels...

Then there is firelapping. I have used this method in attempt to smooth out pitted bores on antique rifles. Other than that, I would never consider using it. I always wind up sizing cast bullets .001", or more, larger to work in these barrels. By then I'm no longer looking for match level accuracy, but simply less fouling and hunting level accuracy.

This practice has a real tendency to do most of its work in the throat, enlarging it disproportionately while leaving the rest of the bore untouched. Bottlenecked, high pressure, small bore chamberings tend to do this the worst, as they blow throats out prematurely anyway. There is no control over how much any given section of bore gets lapped, with the throat taking the brunt of it. Absolutely the wrong direction on a high intensity cartridge like the .22-250 or .220 Swift. Been there, done that, have the trashed barrels to show for it.

And, finally (sigh), moly coated bullets. These were all the rage in both benchrest and highpower years ago. Both camps know better these days. These fads come and go. Prior to molly coated bullets, treating the bore with liquid teflon was all the rage. You cannot even find the stuff to do that with anymore. Granted, molly coated bullets are still out there, if you look hard enough. Fine - but you will not see them at any highpower or benchrest matches, where shooters are the most interested in both accuracy and barrel life.

All of that said, the Outer's Foul Out is the real deal. Kind of messy, kind of a PIA, but pure magic on a really disgusting or neglected barrel. I strive to never let them get that far, but I do like it for those gun show finds that have led a rough life. Once I've used it on a rifle to try to save it from past abuse, however, it's never needed on that rifle again. I just cannot, in good conscience, let them get that bad.

So, yeah, there are no "silver bullets" in this game. Myths die hard, fads come and go. There is no way to "fix" a bad barrel other than replacing it. Modern commercial solvents, even with ammonia, will not harm a barrel when used as directed. Cheap home-made concoctions almost always will. Just stay away from the fads, stick to the tried and true, and you will avoid many problems.

[FOG]

Jeff,

It will start to etch a SS barrel with just a few minutes. Do a real scientific test with aerospace quality controls. My eyes were opened at NADEP Cherry Point by a couple of civilian aerospace PHDs. The question is whether or not effects matter to you. In my mind there are better methods without any of the drawbacks.

On pressure lapping ask folks such as Carl Kenyon, Clint Fowler, or Ken Johnson. All three used in one form or the other, even on top quality barrels though usually starting at 800 grit. I know that it reduces fouling, eases cleaning, and nearly always show an increase in accuracy (sometimes small) while I have never seen any negative effects from proper pressure lapping. Sounds like you had issues with your procedure/system. I know from actually checking and measuring with aerospace borescopes and that properly done is does no harm while improperly done with improvised stuff can easily/quickly ruin a barrel if not a firearm.

Moly coating does reduce fouling and reduces barrel heating. We did a test with two AR-15s that were as identical as possible. Load was lightly prepped LC, CCI 41s, 748, and Sierra 69s (one set plain the other moly’d) loaded so the MV average for 20 shots were with in single digit variance. Added three thermocouples to each barrel then shot them side by side at the same time on cadence. The moly was significantly cooler while able to shoot better ten round groups at 500 yards at the end (without cleaning through 90 rounds) with both shooters swapping rifles (i.e. two ten shot groups while removing shooter bias). The rifles were cleaned then shot again for two ten shot groups with the non moly’d barrel taking longer to settle back down. Both shooters were AD Marines, one just off a tour with the Gold team and the other the former Texas A&M rifle team captain.

I never understood Teflon in either a firearm barrel or engine as it breaks down to some really nasty acids in the vicinity of 500 degrees F.

On multiple uses of the Foul Out I may not have stated it clearly. All five stopped working and when cleaned with patches/JB still showed copper fouling. The powder fouling felt kind of soft and would come out easily. Thus requiring multiple uses. Our theory was the fouling was so bad it was layered on thus stopping the de-plating process.

I have a large Hornady ultra sonic cleaner. It will spoil you on initial cleaning.

S/F, FOG