Bullet Lube, FS 235

5.8K Views
Last Post 02 June 2015

Standard Member

JeffinNZ posted this 22 May 2015

I have to respectfully disagree with some of the theories of Mr Lewis in his article in the FS 235. In the third paragraph Mr Lewis tells us “If a lead bullet comes in direct contact with the bore of the barrel then some damage to the bullet will occur. Lead molecules can be abraded from the bullet and the heat generated by friction can cause a slight melting of the bullet where it is in contact with the bore and this will result in bullet metal being smeared down the bore." Plenty of us shoot bullets with bore riding noses eg: 314299 and create superb accuracy. The bore riding nose carries no lube and is in direct contact with the barrel metal albeit an residue from previous shots. I very seldom clean my rifles and never experience any leading from such bullets. Experiments where I have applied a film of bullet to the bullet nose have been detrimental to accuracy. I am not so sure that the nose of a bore riding bullet is capable of generating enough heat from friction to melt lead. Further, if a bare lead bullet will foul in a barrel how is it that air rifle pellets do not do so? Many modern air rifles are matching rimfire velocity with bare, unlubed projectiles. Mr Lewis in paragraph four states “Anytime you find bullet metal being tranferred to the bore it is because the bullet lube has failed in some way." I am more of the opinion that leading is a factor of gas cutting due to too smaller diameter projectile and in this situation any lube is going to have its work cut out trying to defeat the ultra hot high pressure gas. Glen Fryxell has written extensively about cast bullet shooting and believes bullet lube is not a lube per se but acts as a liquid piston ring around the bullet. As the pressure builds the lube liquefies and acts as a gas seal. Seal is the operative word here. When a bullets properly seals the bore leading will not be a problem. In terms of lube conditioning the bore I believe there is some merit in this statement. Mr Lewis doesn't get into the black powder discussion however I have never accepted that BP bullets with deep grooves to carry lube to “keep fouling soft” actually ever do this. Firstly, how does the lube escape the grooves when in significant amounts to mix with fouling and secondly, given the surface area of the inside of rifle barrel and the 50% charge of residue, there can't be enough lube to come close to keeping fouling soft. Mr Lewis refers, in paragraph twelve, to barrel conditioning and I believe he has a point here. In the case of BP shooting I believe the factor in managing fouling is creating a microscopic film of lube the barrel steel that prevents fouling adhering so tenaciously. The same would apply, on a lesser scale, to smokeless powder. Again, I have to respectfully disagree with some of Mr Lewis's point but my compliments on a constructive article.

Cheers from New Zealand

Attached Files

31 Comments

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 22 May 2015

Jeff, I don't have FS #235 yet so haven't read Lewis' article but you are dead right on all points. That is not just my opinion but something that has been established by valid tests by Ken Mollohan and others many years ago. Of course the observations you cite about bare bore-riding noses, air gun pellets and other things should give CB shooters a clue but apparently not everybody gets it.

Mollohan destroyed the idea that bullet “lubricant” lubricates bullets in the sense of providing a thin slippery film between two metals as oil does in an engine. He came at the question from several directions with a series of well thought out experiments and all of them showed that so called bullet “lube” don't act as lubricants. He published his results in TFS and elsewhere.

Although there probably had been even earlier work, Ken's writings were also the first I read of the more likely function of bullet “lube” in preventing leading by acting as sort of a liquid piston ring -- the mechanism you quote as being written about by Fixwell The question that always comes to my mind isn't “do bullet lubes lubricate” -- they don't.The more interesting question is why do CB shooters cling to such beliefs long after they have been disproven and published and why are most CB shooters too lazy to run some simple tests and see for themselves that some of the conventional wisdom they believe about CB shooting is utter poppycock.

I hope you will expand on your post (it doesn't need much) and submit it to Glenn for publication in the next Fouling Shot. His deadline is coming up. Someone needs to or new CB shooters will be led astray.

John

Attached Files

CBA Member

mtngun posted this 23 May 2015

John Alexander wrote: something that has been established by valid tests by Ken Mollohan ... He published his results in TFS and elsewhere. “ Hmmm .... I don't recall reading Mollohan's TFS article but then I don't have the complete collection of TFS.

My reaction to Mr. Lewis's article was pretty much the same as JeffinNZ. But ..... I try to keep an open mind, since none of us are able to crawl inside a barrel and see what is going on. The bottom line is that if I can find a “lube” that shoots better, I'll use it.

I tend to belief the “sealant” theory because I generally get better results with hard, tacky lubes than with soft slippery lubes. I.e., Felix lube is more slippery than most yet it performed below average in my tests.

One of my 357 revolvers will shoot unlubed cast bullets at max velocity with decent accuracy and only minor, stable fouling -- though it does shoot better with a good lube. A few others have reported similar results with unlubed cast bullets. The key seems to be getting a good seal.

Even if the “sealant” theory is correct, lubrication may play a role as well. Otherwise we'd be lubing our bullets with Permatex #2 :D (I tried it, it gave higher velocities than anything else and no leading, but did produce some “burnt Permatex” fouling).

Attached Files

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 24 May 2015

Others have noted that slippery bullet lubes, which should lubricate better, are no better and sometimes worse than the less slippery bullet lubes -- but many keep right on thinking of them as lubricants. You may be right that lubrication as well as sealing may play a role but it will be hard to show since bare bullets can be made to shoot well under the right conditions. We probably try to build on Molly's work and improve our understanding. That might even point the way to finding a better “bullet lube".

I like your test trying Permatex #2 as well as your bare bullet experience. You said it didn't lead but didn't mention accuracy. We should try more far out stuff and see what happens. Recipes are boring.

The use of the various tumble lubes that coat the whole bullet may have encouraged shooters to go back to thinking of bulllet lube as actually lubricating bullets. Maybe we should use another term for the various gunks we usually find useful to put on bullets. I nominate “magic elixir." John

Attached Files

CBA Member

mtngun posted this 24 May 2015

John Alexander wrote: I like your test trying Permatex #2 as well as your bare bullet experience. You said it didn't lead but didn't mention accuracy. Here's http://mountainmolds.com/rr5_20_04.htm>the permatex test. I was using a snub-nose 357 so accuracy expectations were not high. The permatex group was similar to the other groups that I shot that day. The report does not mention how many groups were shot and I don't remember, so any small differences may not have been statistically significant. But there was a significant difference in velocity between the hard lubes and the soft slippery lubes.

I vaguely remember trying permatex #2 in a hi velocity rifle load but I can't find the report. From memory, velocity was above average but there was some “burnt permatex” fouling and accuracy was not what I wanted.

Attached Files

CBA Member

mtngun posted this 24 May 2015

Here's a test with http://mountainmolds.com/rr6_24_04.htm>lubeless bullets in a full-house 357 mag. Accuracy was on par with other lubes and I did shoot 3 groups so it was not a fluke.

Attached Files

CBA Member

Maven posted this 24 May 2015

Well fitted bore riders are indeed accurate, but I haven't seen a decrease in accuracy as a result of adding a bit of lube to their noses, not gobs of it, but merely a thin film of Lar's Xlox or Lee Liquid Alox applied with my fingers. What I have seen is a decrease in bore leading in some rifles as a result. E.g., earlier today I fired my Type 56 SKS at 50 yd. using NOE 316-160-SPGC (pictured along with Lee's 8mm 175-SPGC CB, both sized to .3155") over 9.3 grains of Unique. Last week, the NOE CB was lubed with alox applied to the driving bands by hand, but not the noses. The lot of NOE-316's I fired today was lubed conventionally in a RCBS LAM II using a lapped out (to .3155") RCBS H & I die. As a consequence of lapping, a bit of lube will extrude and deposit itself on the CB noses. The conventionally lubed CB's, i.e., those with a film of lube on their noses, didn't lead the bbl. whereas those with clean noses did. The target is below: 14 shots @ 50 yd. using an 'as issued” SKS. You be the judge re accuracy and nose lube. Btw, the red dot is 1” in diameter while each leg of the diamond is 3".

Attached Files

DSCN0179 (2).jpg

CBA Member

Maven posted this 24 May 2015

Apparently the pic of the NOE and the resized 8mm Lee CB's didn't upload to my initial post. (The NOE bullet is on top.) Let's see if this works:

Attached Files

DSCN0173.JPG

CBA Member

Lee Wiggins posted this 24 May 2015

On the topic of trying strange things as bullet lube. I tumble lubed some Lyman 311284 bullets cast in lino. the “lube” was asphalt (tar) thinned down with laquer thinner.It was a good thick coating , bullets were black. I have never had any trouble with leading or accuracy in my Hart 1.25” diam barrel. This tar coating did make an excellent gas seal, but I get a good seal anyway with a perfect bullet/throat fit. I fired about 10 rounds and actually had a few bullets hit the target . the barrel was the worst leaded mess I ever saw . Ed's Red fixed that in no time. This rifle, when everything is just right shoots sub 1/2 in groups. Conclusion , I don't know but for accuracy tar does not work.

Attached Files

CBA Member

mtngun posted this 25 May 2015

The perfect lube/coating perhaps should:

function as an o-ring to create a good gas seal.

lubricate. create a physical barrier between the lead and the hot gases

maintain a consistent bore condition from shot to shot.

Questions: :coffee

If a lube needs to function as a sealant, then how does powder coating (and other dry coatings) prevent leading?

If powder coating (and paper patching) prevents leading by creating a physical barrier between the lead and the hot gases, then perhaps dry-to-the-touch tumblelube also functions by creating a physical barrier?

Observations: :sbox:

hard tacky lubes shoot faster than soft slippery lubes, and my take is that they are faster because they seal better, not because they reduce friction. I've also verified this by pressure measurement -- lubes that shoot faster have higher pressure. If they were reducing friction then we would expect them to have lower pressure.

while the ultimate test of a lube is accuracy, I find that standard deviation of velocity is also a good indicator. A low standard deviation indicates a consistent seal and a consistent bore condition.

lube performance is more critical in high velocity loads than in low or moderate velocity loads. It's also more critical in magnum revolvers than in rifles.

in low velocity rifle loads, one lube may shoot more accurately than another for no obvious reason, even if that lube is not the “best” lube in high velocity loads.

the better the gun and the better the bullet fit, the less important the lube. But a good lube functions as a “bandaid” for not-so-perfect guns.

Attached Files

Standard Member

onondaga posted this 25 May 2015

http://castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=80>JeffinNZ

Your comments and theory on lead against a bore are interesting. A key factor may support even stronger theory. Lead is defined many ways, usually to point out key benefits for the job at hand. Read enough about lead and you will find lead described as a “lubricious ” metal. That is a unique and valuable characteristic for bullet metal that is often completely bypassed and ignored by bullet lube salesmen and the like.

A good fit and load pressure to match the lead bullet strength does work with the zero lube on airgun pellets. Airguns present no border, cartridge firearms can be loaded to take the same advantage of the lubricity of lead bullets that airguns do with pellets. How, the bullet is shaped, how you size and load them is the deciding factor for success. You can load at a level where bullet lube is not needed at all due to the description of the bullet metal as 'Lubricious". You will generally end up at or below sonic velocity when you get a combo that works with an UN-lubed lead bullet from a center-fire.

Gary

Attached Files

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 25 May 2015

Gary, Very good point that lead is naturally “lubricious."

mthgun, Wow. You have packed a lot of important observations and interesting questions into one post. A lot of it matches what others who experiment have found. Your “observations” are apparently based on testing and some of it would probably be news to a lot of CB shooters.Your post contains the “meat” of an informative and provocative article for the Fouling Shot and I hope you will take the time to write and send it to Glenn. John

Attached Files

CBA Member

mtngun posted this 25 May 2015

John, I hope that someday I'll have time to submit articles for the TFS. It's something I would enjoy doing.

At the moment I am waiting for an experiment to come along that provides some answers about what works. It seems like most of my experiments result in more questions than answers. :D

Attached Files

CBA Member

Maven posted this 25 May 2015

Maybe it's time to republish Ken's articles?

Attached Files

CBA Member

mtngun posted this 25 May 2015

Maven wrote: He published his results in TFS and elsewhere. Maybe it's time to republish Ken's articles?I for one would be interested in those articles.

I would gladly pay for the back issues if there were made available. I've got the CD for #95 - #190 but don't recall seeing them in that collection?

Attached Files

CBA Member

gpidaho posted this 25 May 2015

I got to the party late and sadly Molly had already left. Ken was a remarkable and insightful man in the cast bullet world. I really enjoy reading the information he left for us. GP

Attached Files

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 25 May 2015

Maven wrote:Maybe it's time to republish Ken's articles? Good idea. As I remember they were quite a while back. i will start looking but I hope someone else knows when they were published. The last time I saw something by Molly reciting his results on the leading/lube tests was actually on cast boolits and of course I don't know in what thread those were either. I do remember Goodsteel responding to them. Maybe he would know.

I really miss Molly's contributions. John

Attached Files

CBA President

John Alexander posted this 25 May 2015

mtngun wrote: John, I hope that someday I'll have time to submit articles for the TFS. It's something I would enjoy doing.

You practically have it written in your post #10 above.

At the moment I am waiting for an experiment to come along that provides some answers about what works.

That will be great we can call it the “unified field theory of cast bullets” -- but don't expect it too soon. It seems like most of my experiments result in more questions than answers.

Welcome to the club. John

Attached Files

CBA Member

Maven posted this 25 May 2015

John, Here's a link to some of Ken's writings: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?116741-If-you-think-so-try-this>http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?116741-If-you-think-so-try-this Also, after having read Jim Lewis' article on bullet lube in TFS #235, I was quite impressed with it. His point about a thin film of lubricant making a significant difference on bearing life, or rather failure, is well taken as I've seen the results of dry bearing failure three times (even got a nice pc. of Babbitt to enrich my alloy too!).* While Jim's argument is certainly true of machinery, is the relationship between a lubed cast bullet and gun barrel the same, or at least comparable? *The Catskill Mountain Railroad's B - B truck (rod driven) diesel locomotive experienced wheel bearing failure due to lack of a lube film or any lube several times when I volunteered there. Repairs were expensive and took weeks, putting us out of service during the height of the season. The other failure was also due to journal oil not getting to the friction bearing on the trailing truck (on the fireman's side) of New York, Susquehanna & Western's steam locomotive #142 (2-8-2 wheel arrangement) in the midst of an 80+ mile fan trip (Fall Foliage, apple picking: Little Ferry, N.J. -> Warwick, N.Y.). Not fun to be side tracked (literally) in Sparta, N.J. then wait for hours to replace the bearing (had to be picked up in Binghampton, N.Y., then fitted). It was a long, cold night, but we fixed the problem and ran the next day without problems. Btw, the cause of the failure was the collapse of a ~12” x 14” lube “pillow” (looks like a big mop) that fits into the journal box and wicks oil up onto the bearing.

Attached Files

CBA Member

mtngun posted this 26 May 2015

Thanks much for the link, Maven. . I do question this: If you think that bullets can't strip the rifling, try this: Load a series of shots from very light to the highest velocity that the rifle will still shoot well. Shoot them into something that will allow you to recover the base of the bullet. Large bundles of loose cloth or paper will work well. Even fine sand will do. It will shatter the bullet nose, but the base is usually recoverable. Find the bullet after each shot and mark it. Lay them out side by side by side and look at the width of the engraving groove. You will find that (above a certain point) it gets wider and wider as the velocity increases. . Actually I have recovered a few bullets in my day, including those fired at 2500+fps, and never saw any evidence of “stripping, ” other than minor skidding on the front band of revolver bullets. Dr. Mann debunked the stripping claim as did the NRA Cast Bullet book.

Cream of Wheat will firewall and keep the hot gas off the bullet. You'll find your bore remains bright, clean and completely lead-free. . But does the Cream of Wheat work by keeping the hot gas off the bullet, or does it work by acting as a scraper, similar to a gas check?

He talks a lot about leading. Well, if you are experiencing leading that is certainly a problem, but on the other hand lots of CB loads don't lead and yet still are not accurate. Colonel Harrison noted that it was easy to find a lube that shoots clean, the hard part was finding a lube that shoots clean and is accurate, too.

I've had the most problems with leading in revolvers, usually due to funky dimensions. Not so much in rifles.

Today I was shooting CB's in a rifle at 2700 fps. They left the bore clean and shiny. But they shot patterns, not groups. :( . Use the Alox/beeswax lube, not something blue or red or polkadot. . My favorite lube is red, and it outshoots Alox/beeswax. :P

Later Molly amends his statement on “stripping” to suggest that what he actually observed was gas cutting: . Etching continued to grow progressively worse on the base band as it progressed further up the bullet. And as the etching progressed, so did the enlargement, . Agree that gas cutting is bad news.