Bullet Design - Bore Rider Variations

  • 1.9K Views
  • Last Post 25 March 2022
Wm Cook posted this 20 February 2022

Like most everyone getting into cast accuracy with a long gun I found myself going down the rabbit hole of bullet fit to bore.  Believing that there isn't a great chance that I would be able to create a unique design that would set cast bullet accuracy beyond what it is I looked at what other people had created.  For reference I stuck with Accurate molds because of the CAD drawings and the flexibility for anyone to tweak existing drawings.  Since I'm working with a Production Class .308 I looked at bullets in the 200 to 230gr range. 

Accurate has 84 bullets listed that would fit in that group.  The most popular design is the bore rider which has 55 listings of which 34 are the traditional straight nose design (Sample A), 4 that are of crush design (Sample B), 10 that are hybrid and 7 that I would fit into the "Other" category. 

I'm curious if anyone has any history on these designs, possibly the correct name for them (not my "crush", "hybrid", "other"....) and the individual benefits or virtues.

As far as I can see sample A is a straight up bore rider .  This is a slight variation of the 311299. Two areas that differ from the Lyman are the .180 flat nose as Accurate produces and the slight bevel from the front driving band to the nose.  I think most all of Accurate's designs has this slight bevel where the driving band is given a short ramp into the freebore, lede or the face of the free-bore if you have a tight free-bore.  Tapers are as short as .010 but some like Tom's 31.200L are just a little longer.  This one has a .020 lead into the straight nose design.

Sample B has a similar transfer of design from the driving band into the straight nose but the taper is longer at over .050".  Almost like a ball nose or a spitzer its almost like its designed to crush into the lede as the straight bore rider nose is suported in the lands. 

Sample C is what I call a hybrid between a full out tapered nose and a bore-rider.  On this one there's a long linear taper from the front driving band to the straight bore-riding nose.  In this case the taper runs .135 which looks to me like it would run through the free-bore of most production chambers.

Sample D is confusing to me. The design is very popular because Tom's sold over 40 of them.  For the life of me I can't wrap my head around the purpose of the design from .300 to .550 where it then transfers to the bore-rider straight nose design.  And that little lube groove between .400 and .460 confuses the heck out of me.  Maybe, just maybe this has to do with CP, CG?  Probably I'm looking for something that isn't there or just not smart enough to understand its importance.

I can see the benefits of the modified bore-rider designs as it is filling the free-bore area with lead which will give the bullet more traction in the lands.  This is my attempt to inch into the subject of variations on the bore-rider design and thus bullet design in general.  Thanks, Bill Cook

 

 

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
John Alexander posted this 23 February 2022

I am disappointed that Bill's  post above hasn't started any discussion about which of the features above make the most sense in which types of chambers. I don't feel like I have much to contribute.

When I designed the bullet I use most of the time the drawing I sent called for a taper on the front band. and the mold maker did a good job of following the drawing. However, to fit an earlier rifle's throat better I lapped out the front band to a larger diameter and in the process most of the taper disappeared. For the newer rifle it seems to work but I don't know what I would do if starting from scratch.

I do have one comment on the four designs.  In designing a bullet starting with the shape of a bus may be giving away in BC then needed to get enough bearing length.

I know Accurate can't or won't or doesn't like to make molds for pointed bullets but they do reduce wind drift. On the other hand a lot of top shooters do just fine with those big flat spots on the front of their bullets.

John

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 23 February 2022

I have nothing to add, as I don't find bore riding bullets more accurate that the 1906 Ideal designs. My go to .30 is the 311284 that has always shot better for me, in my 1903 Springfields, than the 311299. CNC lathes are not capable of making pointed bullets. 

Attached Files

Ross Smith posted this 23 February 2022

I have a John Ardito rifle that has a long tapered throat the same dimensions as your example "D". It does not shoot well with any other 30 cal. designs. The taper has to fit the throat for a good seal. Cartridges are loaded with the bullet seated out far enough that they are pushed back into the case mouth when chambered. My two most accurate molds are the Accurate31-155W and30-190J. 

If there is no tapered throat, I don't think this design would work well. I don't now if Don Eagan was the originator of the tapered bands , but he made molds for John's rifles.

Just my opinion.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
Squid Boy posted this 23 February 2022

I designed this one for my Stevens 44. It has about one thousandth interference in the riding area and I believe it aligns well in my chamber and throat. It shoots better than some conventional molds I have and on par with a Hudson clone as well. I scaled up a couple for 45 and 50 caliber but haven't really worked on them yet. It seems to me that a bore rider is the easiest way to get decent accuracy in fixed ammo. Thanks, Squid Boy

 

"Squid Pro Quo"

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
Wm Cook posted this 23 February 2022

I'm guessing that the design is where you start to cross over into the theory of how the bullet fits the bore, the bearing length and the BC out of the final design.  All of the fitting in the world will not help beyond 100 yards if it has the BC of a dead cat.  But since we're just kabitzing about this I'll stick to bore fit.

I believe John's bullet is a straight up D. Mos 85 grain bore rider.  I don't have a drawing of it but I think he worked with NOE to have a reproduction available.  So the numbers I took were from the NOS design.  Their 227-79-SP GC  has a BOAL of .982 with gas check.  Of that there is ,275 that's full bearing length and another .340 that is leaning length for a total of .640 leaning/bearing length or about 63" of its total length.  You can quibble whether leaning as good as bearing but at the end of a match the score/groups you post trumps anything.  

I will add this.  I shot a lot of different noses dimensions on two different bore riders this past three months.  From ladel to bottom pour, from pressure cast to regular cast, Linotype to #2 Lyman, from non beagled to beagled and all combinations I could think of to change nose dimensions.  I've reached a personal conclusion that the bore riders nose to bore fit is pretty darn important.  On a gross miss match between bullet nose and bore I had a .300 nose going down a .3014 bore and there was a 40 - 50 percent improvement in group size when I beagled it up to .3015.  And with a proper nose size you can feel the nose tension as it slides into the lands while still being able to extracted the loaded round.  To me this was so obvious that if one chambered easily without this feel I would now be inclined to put it into the backstop rather than put it on record. I have zero proof of that.  Just as I have no proof of weighing bullets but I do it anyway.   But here's a spoiler alert.  I am as new as a shinny penny and anyone of you knows way more than me.

And you also seem to need to keep a watch on length form gas check to the start of the front driving band.  On the NOE 79 adn with gas check you have .220" to seat in the case.  Assume maybe .020 from the case mouth to the free-bore wall leaves .200 in a .223 case neck that SAAMI spec of .203.  I'm not sure what John's free-bore diameter is but from a distance it seems that the dimensions of the driving bands and a properly fitted nose to bore would shoot very well.  And I guess that's maybe a bit of an understatement when you look at match reports.

I don't know what cartridge Ross is shooting but the driving band portion looks like its designed as a .308 or maybe a 30BR.  The 31-190J as he said looks like a tapered design.  It has a BOAL of 1.065, bearing surface of 40% and then what ever bearing assistance it gets in the .200" free-bore area of the bullet.  Since the free-bore area drops about .010 in .200 maybe assume that .180" will be engraved, not just supported by the lands.  If you called it that Ross would wind up with a bearing surface of 58%.  Again, this is all hypothetical from someone has made about every mistake in the book.  Well not every mistake.  As of yet I haven't fallen off my bench stool.  Yet.

Ross's 31-190J is another solid hybrid design. All all the tweaks and nuances that people have put into custom Accurate designs, there seems that a lot of thought put into blending the ease of the bore rider to bore fit with trying to fill up the free-bore area of the chamber right before the lede.  In this case Ross has a fat .310 to .305 bearing surface out to .510" which gives it a full 50% bearing surface. Then it transitions into a bore rider and adds another .210 of leaning surface for a total bearing/leaning surface of 69%.

Ric's 311284 looks to me like a bore rider but I can't be sure. That too looks like a perfect match on 03 Springfield. His bearing/leaning surface may be pushing 80%

Another consideration is that I may be confusing apples and oranges when having a conversation with folks when one is shooting a vintage rifle with a vintage bore and someone else may be shooting a a new production Savage 12 with the throat opened up for 200 - 230 grain bullets and having a tight free-bore area.  But were just talking here and we're not being scored or anything.  Just a friendly conversation.  Everyone has had their own experiences and the right to their own beliefs  God bless the US. 

All the numbers above were grabbed on the fly so if my math is out of wack I apologize in advance.

 

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 24 February 2022

My bullets always shot better (more accurate) when compressed more round...bore riders or tapered 

 

This bullet shot very well after taper squeezing and aligning the tip of bullet...of course throat was cut to match bump die using the same .310 diameter .75 degree per side thoating reamer. Franks bullet is lightweight, so recoil was not bad. Do you guys remember Frank? I wonder how he's doing?

 

Attached Files

Wm Cook posted this 24 February 2022

Hey OU, what’s that little .040 groove for in front of the last driving band? Or is that a lube groove? If it isn’t a lube groove is that like the Egan design? And it’s funny that the CG/CP is dead on the groove. Just wondering, still learning. Bill.

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

lotech posted this 24 February 2022

I've always enjoyed cast bullet experimenting, but never to the point of incessant ruminating over the smallest (and sometimes insignificant) details. I'm quite content with the self-imposed limitations to my Goober approach to perfection, but keeping the "fun" aspect intact is important to me. This less-than-impeccable strategy may be the reason I've accumulated so many .30 caliber moulds in the last several decades. 

One .30 caliber design I've been working with off and on for the last year or so has been the Eagan MX3-30 ARD. I have no idea what the dimensions, taper, etc. are offhand. I'm sure the design specs are listed in my Eagan catalog should I ever need them. I ordered this mould at least thirty years ago but didn't work with it extensively until recent times. Like all .30 caliber rifle bullets, I run the Eagan wheelweight alloy 200 grain bullet through a SAECO .311" die. The sized bullet is around .3105" or so. 

I use SR4759 powder and load to a velocity of just under 1700 fps in a Ruger 77V and  Remington 700 VS. Both guns were purchased new more than thirty years ago and are unmolested, straight-out-of-the box. I don't know anything about the chambers except that I must use a different OAL in each rifle so that the bullets will very slightly engrave. 100 yard five-shot groups of under an inch aren't difficult and sometimes they're much less, but I can't do that consistently. Such accuracy is less than what serious accuracy enthusiasts require, but it's quite adequate for me. 

The MX 3-30 ARD is a good design worth trying. I would guess with all the custom mould makers we have today, someone has copied this design or makes something very similar. 

Attached Files

barra posted this 13 March 2022

Couldn’t one just use the chamber reamer drawing and put a lube groove or two.  Draw a bit of a nose on the end of the top of the lands and call it good?

Keep the base at the end of the neck. Straight OD - 1/2 thou of the free bore through to the leade and use the top of the lands to rub the nose diameter.

Would that be the ultimate for that particular rifle?

Thinking of a plainbase bullet.

or did I miss something?

Would it work or worth trying?

 Thanks.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 13 March 2022

barra ..

your above noted scheme is usually the first choice in a serious attempt to getting best accuracy in a new project rifle.   

most don't refer to a reamer drawing but just " cut and try " for best fit; checking for rub marks on a chambered bullet.

yes, the nose snug in the rifling, and the larger rear part of the bullet snug in the throat.

areas not quite defined are the " base of the bullet at the front of the neck "  ideally the entire bullet is snug in the throat before firing ... as in * breech seating * ... but then you wouldn't have an actual cartridge ...  the best compromise is to barely seat the bullet the least it will not fall out of the brass neck.

and almost always a well fitted gas check is more accurate ... probably because it stiffens the base and somewhat because it really is a * gas check * ...

***********

beyond a good fit ... which is a good start at 100 yards ...  is the need for less wind dispersion at longer distances ... so as we try longer snug nose bullets, we run into more rifling drag upon chambering ... maybe taper it a little for easier chambering >> a compromise ... 

then, if we use a long pointy nose to cut the air ...  ... we might think that long pointy nose might sag sideways on firing ... and if the rear of the bullet isn't perfectly lined up at firing, that extra mass up front is going to continue to exit randomly out of the muzzle ... head off towards different starlings on a light wire, so to speak ...

***********

but yes, try for as snug a fit as you can ...  at the chamber end.  i think of it as the First ... and Only ... RepeatableRule in cast bullet accuracy.  

usually repeatable, that is ... heh

ken

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
  • barra
Lee Wiggins posted this 13 March 2022

That little forward groove, look at the clone of the 311284 above. No lube in the forward groove. why put a groove at the rear of bore riding nose and front of the forward driving band. Just step up in diameter , right?   No, I am pretty sure it is a "scraper groove", and its purpose is to scrape fouling from the bore and the groove is a place for fouling to go and be carried out with the bullet.

That's my story and i'm sticking to it.     Lee Wiggins

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 13 March 2022

After shooting in over (256) CBA BR matches, I never filled-in the data box on the Tech Data Sheet that asks for the nose diameter. Never paid attention to it or bothered to measure that area of the bullet. But now I will. My latest project requires the bullet nose diameter to be reduced so that portion of the bullet can enter the bore when the round is chambered.

If the nose is left as-is, the OAL of the cartridge is way too short.

Just one more lesson along the road of enjoying this hobby.

Tom

Attached Files

Wm Cook posted this 13 March 2022

Tom, which bullet are you working with?

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 13 March 2022

Mr. Cook,


This is a .22 BR. The bullet is the same one John uses, NOE 227-79-SP. It drops out of the mold (10 bhn alloy) at 0.228” on the driving bands and the nose varies between 0.220” and 0.2228”. A pin gage says the bore is 0.218”. I probably will try a 0.218” nose size bushing. Might consider a 0.219” also. A harder alloy would probably produce an even larger nose diameter.

Tom

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 13 March 2022

As to accuracy;

Agree with Tom and a couple others, the bullnose of a "bore rider" should be a tight slip fit in the bore so the front dive band can be seated against/into the leade.  A couple here have mentioned that accuracy is improved when so.  I also have found accuracy to be improved when the nose actually "rides" the bore.  

Another consideration for any bore rider design is the length of the case neck and the length of the throat to the leade.  Longer necked cartridges such as the 30-06 will often shoot more accurately with a Lovern, Ardito or XCB style bullet having maximum groove diameter bearing surface and minimal nose.  

For hunting however, where weight of the bullet is also important and in the shorter "modern" length necks of many cartridges is where the bore rider comes into play the best.  But again, the nose should still be a tight slip that still allows smooth chambering.  Additional consideration for hunting with a bolt action is how well and reliably the loaded cartridge with said design feeds from the magazine; a full magazine and from both sides if the rifle has a staggered magazine.  

 

I do remember frank (franknor ?) as I've had many a spirited discussion with him on this forum and the cast Boolet forum.  He designed the NOE 311-160-FN which has a much longer nose than the NOE 30 XCB (310-165-FN).  Frank claimed his bullet should perform just as well at HV as the XCB.  Another member sent me his 311-160-FN mould (frank would neither send his mould nor any bullets) so I cast some up with the same care as i do the XCBs.  Frank's 311-160-FN did not prove to perform well at all at HV.  However, before returning the mould to it's owner i cast 500+ bullets for possible other use.  Frank had stated his bullet was very accurate at the ASSRA game when shot at 1400 - 1500 fps.  And so it is.  I have been shooting frank's 311-160-FN in my M70 Classic 30-06.  In fire formed cases with the flash holes drilled frank's bullet loaded over 10 gr of Bullseye runs right at 1450 fps out of the 10" twist 24" barrel.  I've shot several 10 shot groups (100 Yards) that were right at 1 - 1 .5".  With the right hold over hitting a 10" dinger at 300 yards is quite easy.  Also hitting a 4" dinger at that range happens more often than not.  Of course that is with decent wind conditions.  

Thus, a lot of the "design" will, or at least should, depend on the intended use of the bullet.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Tom Acheson posted this 13 March 2022

It would be interesting to be a bullet and watch the relationship between the inside surface of the lands and the perimeter of the bullet as it goes down the barrel. Is the bullet always uniformly contacting the lands or is it "wobbling" with concentrated impact in one area and little or no contact in other areas?

Speculation is interesting but it makes you wonder what really happens? Does our attempt to understand surfaces, dimensions, behavior, etc. accurately play out to meet our perspectives? Does a real small group on the target prove our theories.....or is it just a coincidence?

Tom

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
  • Bud Hyett
Larry Gibson posted this 13 March 2022

Tom

If it's a lubed cast bullet it is riding on a layer of lube.  That's the why of it not leading the bore.  Proven fact that lubed bullets come out at the muzzle .002 - 005 less in diameter than groove diameter.  There should be little or no contact between the bullet and bore.  Thus, the bullet is essentially "wobbling" going down the bore.  It is my supposition that is why the greater the percentage of "bearing surface" to bullet length the better the accuracy will be....less "wobble".  

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Bud Hyett
RicinYakima posted this 14 March 2022

I don't know about the theory of wobble, but after 30 years I admit that the percentage of bullet land in the grooves and/or nose solidly on the lands, shoot more accurately. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
John Alexander posted this 14 March 2022

Larry,

I certainly agree with you last sentence. I think the absence of short bullets in match winner's rifles seals it in general.

You also state " There should be little or no contact between the bullet and bore."

What is your take on the experiments I, John Carlson, and others have posted on this forum and published in TFS about unlined bullet loads up 2,000 fps produced no leading. John and I fired dozens of unlubed vs. lubed groups and found small differences in group size.  John was shooting a variety of metallic sighted Springfields and my sight involved glass. John's were were ten shot groups averaging about 2" and mine were five shot groups averaging 1"

These results don't conform to the conventional wisdom about what actually happens so they have generally been ignored.  

I would be interested in your and others comments?

John

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Bud Hyett
RicinYakima posted this 14 March 2022

Having cleaned maybe 50 1903 Springfield's that had not have the bore cleaned down to the metal since made, there is a lot of "stuff" in the barrel. I do know that reverse electrolysis will not remove it all without boiling water scrubbed through the bore also. There is so much porosity in the bore as the bullet passes down it, that they are never "clean".  IMHO

Attached Files

Wm Cook posted this 14 March 2022

No, I am pretty sure it is a "scraper groove", and its purpose is to scrape fouling from the bore and the groove is a place for fouling to go and be carried out with the bullet.That's my story and i'm sticking to it.

Lee that works for me.  That's the first justification for the little groove that I have ever heard of.

Couldn’t one just use the chamber reamer drawing and put a lube groove or two.  Draw a bit of a nose on the end of the top of the lands and call it good?

Barra that was my first though.  Everything I heard hammered home the need to have the bullet fit the bore.  Remember I'm only into cast accuracy for about a year now and I had to totally erase everything I knew about seating depth and jacketed bullets.  I kind of think that's why the bore rider is so popular.  Even if the nose is undersized and even if it's not touching the lands many shooters aren't particularly concerned.  If it chambers and stays minute of deer at 100 yards it may fill the bill for them. 

Like others have said, the bearing / leaning surface contact may be more critical when the accuracy expectations are raised.  On the left is a bore rider that has a nose of about .300 out of a barrel that had a bore of about .3014.  After firing you could see very VERY faint land tracks.  On the right is a tapered bullet designs that looks to have a good fit to bore.  One of the KC guys was nice enough to send me a few samples of that one so I could start to figure things out. 

This was a fudged test because I had to keep the load subsonic so I could trap the bullet.  At competition velocity I would assume there would be more obtrusion. I just did this to see if I could get a percentage of bearing versus leaning surface.

With the linear design of a tapered bullet you can come close to the dimensions you'll need by building an equation to determine the dimensions of the front and rear of the nose you need by taking the nose length, the throats freebore, the bore dimensions and you can order a custom mold. I used this on a tapered design mold I just got from Accurate and I was a little to conservative. I wish I would have gone another .0005 - .0007 on the tip of the nose.

With a bore-rider the closest I could come up with to determine true bore diameter was with a small hole gauge set.  Then it seems that you have a little flexibility with alloys and casting methods to nuance it to where you can get a felt drag on the nose as its being chambered. 

Then reality sets in when you find out that without a pointed nose the BC of what can be readily had with a custom mold becomes an issue.  Maybe I'm wrong on that.  Still got a lot to learn.  I'm still trying to figure out bullet fit to free-bore, leade at 100 yards and get it to shoot competitively.  Bill Cook.

 

 

 

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
  • RicinYakima
Tom Acheson posted this 14 March 2022

Larry.

    If it's a lubed cast bullet it is riding on a layer of lube. 

Hope I have this figured out. Since the nose is not lubed, it is not depositing lube on the top of the lands. But….the previous bullet’s lube that was in its grease grooves that got extruded out, did leave lube behind, on all of the surfaces in the bore. This is the lube the nose is “riding” on. Correct?

Tom

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Wm Cook posted this 14 March 2022

To anyone who has an opinion on this.

Regarding “bearing surface”; Is there a proportional difference between the value of the “leaning surface” of the nose on a bore rider and the engraved contact of a tapered bullet design?

Both can come out to +70% bearing surface if you discount the fact that the bore riders nose is ~ .300 going down a ~ .300 bore.

Shouldn’t the nose of the tapered design with most of the nose etched by the lands .003 to .006” have less wobble than a bore rider. Not sure if the results show that’s true all the time.

In the Nationals last fall I think the bullet design used in first through third place in unlimited rifle was a tapered, a bore-rider and the LBT 310 180 which I think is a spitzer.

Bill Cook.

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 14 March 2022

John

The intent of my post was based on the first sentence; "If it's a lubed cast bullet it is riding on a layer of lube."  Thus it excluded PP'd, PC'd and other non-lubed bullets.  The point being the bullet alloy of a lubed bullet should not touch the bore and is swaged down further than bore/Groove diameter because of it.  Thus the room for "wobble".

I followed the article/experiments on lubed vs non lubed bullets with John Carlson in TFS.  In the past the unlubed, minimally lubed bullets or lubed with a poor lube I've used have all caused leading, especially commercial cast.   I found them interesting and have intended some experiments of my own.  Just haven't got around to it yet.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 14 March 2022

"Tom Acheson posted this 1 hour ago

 

 

Larry.

    If it's a lubed cast bullet it is riding on a layer of lube. 

Hope I have this figured out. Since the nose is not lubed, it is not depositing lube on the top of the lands. But….the previous bullet’s lube that was in its grease grooves that got extruded out, did leave lube behind, on all of the surfaces in the bore. This is the lube the nose is “riding” on. Correct?

Tom"

 

That is essentially correct.  Years ago I recovered numerous 311299s down range when the snow melted.  They had been shot out of my M1903A1 match rifle I had at the time.  The noses ran .298 - .299 and did not fit the .3015 bore (at the leade) .  There was rifling indentations on one side of the noses but not on the other indicating the bullets had tipped in the bore during acceleration.  The load used would give 2 - 2 1/2 moa accuracy for 10 shots at 100 yards. 

I got a 314299 mould and the .302 noses fit the bore at the throat perfectly.  The same load with those bullets gave 1 1/2 moa accuracy all day long.  I used that bullet in that rifle (back in the early '70s) for local service rifle matches and did very well with it consistently shooting very good scores.  

I my M1903A1 NM Type II I put together with a new 4 groove RA-42 barrel the bore is .300 at the leade with a .3105 entrance from chamber to throat.  I use the 30 XCB bullet or the Lyman Lovern 311466 in it.  Both shoot extremely well, better than the 311299 or the 314299, as neither has any bore riding nose and both have maximum bearing length.

LMG

 

30 XCB over 2400.  Two sighters with sight adjustment and then ten "for record".

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
MP1886 posted this 14 March 2022

I've been shooting the 314299 for 40 years from two 30-40 Krags and three 1903 Springfields. My best groups were 3/4 inch from all of them with iron sights back when my eyes were younger and better.  Excellent bullet, but it has a velocity limit or it will keyhole. I've also shot if from various Finn 39, 7.7 Japs, SVT 40's, and both 1891 and 109 Argentines with very good results. Not as good as the Krag or 1903's.  

The theory about the lube left in the bore lubing the nose on the bore riders sounds good, but when handling the bullets sizing and lubing them, they do get a minute amount of lube on the noses.  I've been known to "paint" the noses with LLA too with good results. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 14 March 2022

The idea that the function of bullet lube is like the function of oil or grease for machines  -- that is, to reduce sliding friction and provide a layer of lubricant between the sliding parts is attractive and simple, but it may be wrong.  Ken Mollohan's work to try to prove or disprove this raises a lot of unanswered questions and provides what looks to me a better mechanism. (Part of his work is quoted in TFS 264 p. 6.)

Some of the questions that are not answered by the simple sliding friction theory:

1. Completely bare bullets shoot well without bullet lube if well sealed in throat. Alloy must be sliding directly on steel without a lube layer and without leading.

2. When I compare the MV of lubed vs. bare bullets the velocities are identical. If bullet lubes reduce           friction why don't they go faster?

3. Mollohan and others successfully shot lead alloys at high velocities with Cream of Wheat between powder and bullet and no lube on bullet without leading.

4. Some successful bullet lubes don't make good lubricants for reducing sliding friction.

Ken made a good case that the mechanism that makes bullet lube work may be different. It might be interesting to try and see if he was right.

John

 

2. 

Attached Files

Boschloper posted this 15 March 2022

To build on John's comment "some successful bullet lubes don't make good lubricants", I have long felt that our bullet "lubes" were more "anti-fluxing agents" that prevented gas-cut droplets of lead from soldering to the bore ahead of the bullet than they are barrier film lubricants.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 15 March 2022

And I go with "floating" gas checks. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Bud Hyett posted this 15 March 2022

There are several factors associated with this topic. Added to this that each rifle is a law unto itself, the only way to come to an universal answer is testing several hundred riles in one controlled experiment. Not one of us can afford to do this designed experiment including the added factors.

At the Marston Ballistics Laboratory in the late 1970's, we built a bullet recovery box. Shooting gas checked bullets into it, we found lead slivers trapped in the groove of the gas check. This suggested the gas check acted to scrape the bore of the residue from the bullet body as the bullet went down the bore. This cleaned the bore and also picked up the powder residue leaving an even coating for the next bullet traveling down the bore. 

In my opinion, the gas check does several functions; protecting the base, scraping the bore of lead, leaving the same burned powder bore condition shot-to shot. The bore-riding bullet helps by pressing the bullet into conformity if the bullet is started straight. 

Also, with the current Remington 700-type bolt faces holding the case centered as the bolt closes. The bullet centered in the leade with slight witness mark, would not this be like putting a piece to turn on lathe holding it center-to-center. This contrasts with a 98 Mauser-type claw extractor where the case lays on the bottom of the chamber.

We're lucky to have the equipment with the capability to shoot was well as we do. The bore-riding bullet is the most common used in matches. 

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 15 March 2022

Bud,

I think I know of the Marston Ballistics Laboratory. Is this the same Marston, IL that is a small town near the Wind Hill Range? Was Ed Doonan a technician in that lab?

Tom

 

 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 15 March 2022

Boschloper: Your theory of how bullet lubes work is pretty much what Ken Mollohan was suggesting. To me It sounds more likely than the one on reducing sliding friction.

Bud: Tell us more about you and Ed found by looking at recovered bullets. Not many shooters have had the advantage of actual looking at undamaged fired bullets.

It seems to me that your thoughts on the role of extractors would only apply to the brass's first firing unless the shooter was overdoing it with a full length sizing die between shots.

It also doesn't seem to me likely that alignment of the base of the case would make much difference as long as the neck and throat were concentric with the bore. I like your analogy of a lathe but it seems to me like it applies better to the front and rear of the bullet when chambered.

John

Attached Files

Bud Hyett posted this 15 March 2022

Tom - I think I know of the Marston Ballistics Laboratory. Is this the same Marston, IL that is a small town near the Wind Hill Range? Was Ed Doonan a technician in that lab?

"Marston Ballistics Laboratory" - This was the name we used for the testing in the winter inside Ed's shop. and at the range the other days of the year. The testing was structured in that we set up a test with Mission, Goals, Objectives concept before we shot. I'd often spend Saturdays there, arriving in the morning with Ed already starting a test and working all day to discover or prove some concept. 

Our biggest tool was the bullet recovery box, looked like a coffin for a python. Built principally out of two sheets of plywood, it was two foot square. The baffles were scrap foam rubber in the shape of the funnel of a fish trap with slots every foot. Oiled sawdust as no problem since Ed was a carpenter who had plenty and we both changed our oil. The first discovery was that bullets traveled in unpredictable lengths into the sawdust. This necessitated slots every foot in the top in the with a frame using waxed kitchen paper that pulled out so you could see where the bullet stopped. 

Both jacketed and cast bullets were shot. Varmint bullets blew up in the foam rubber and were dropped. Cast bullets traveled into the first half with jacketed bullets going into the second half. The only bullets we tested that went to the end were the .45-70 Government 500 grain round nose at black powder velocities and the .30-'06 National Match load. Both dented the end panel. Shooting a Marlin 1895 with the RCBS 45-300-FN bullet at 1500 feet-per-second, this bullet didn't penetrate as far as the Government 500 grain load even with higher velocity. 

Bullet Trap Testing:

  • Bullet penetration for distance in the box at varying velocities.
  • Bullet twist entering the leade and bore. Easily seen in the rifling marks.
  • Bullet twist with seating into the leade, off the leade, slightly touching the leade, .030 jump into the leade.
  • One test was the result of seeing the impressions of 2400 powder kernels firmly marking the base of the Keith 240 grain bullet. This was in contrast with the bore of the revolver having few kernels left in the bore after firing. We wanted to see how hard the primer  ignition pushed the powder column. 

Bullet hardness was tested.

  • Hardening by dropping the bullet into ice water from the mold versus using an oven was tested.
  • Hardening by air drying versus freezing overnight in a freezer.
  • Pure Linotype versus used Linotype versus 94/4/2 Pb/Sb/Sn alloy dropped into ice water from the mold.  

Unfortunately, Ed's son after Ed's passing burned the notes from this time. I understand some pages were salvaged and I'd like to have a copy to see if I could resurrect the notes and publish in Ed's honor.

Note: Marston was a thriving small town up through the 1930's. Wheat grew in the area at 40 bushels per acre which was a good yield. Farmers were prosperous and the town was large enough to have a Ford dealership, several general stores, farm implement dealer, church (still there), and many houses. Then the wheat field suddenly would only yield 15 to 20 bushels per acre and the town began a slow decline. Today, the church remans and the place with all the partially disassembled trucks was once a general store. Ed joked that we would revive the town with the ballistics laboratory.

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 17 March 2022

Mr Alexander I am going to answer your question on why don't lubed cast bullets have a higher velocity then bare cast bullets. It's well known and been around for a long time.  That lube you witnessed was too viscous, which you know to mean the viscocity was too high. If you got into shooting moly coated bullets you would know that to get the velocity with them that you got using the same load with regular non moly coated bullets you had to increase your powder charge. They are just too slippery.  This is also true of powder coated bullets. 

I believe when they first started lubing ball or conical projectiles it was more for the purpose of keeping the BP fouling soft.  Then they just kept on going with lubed cast bullets after that and following into the smokeless powder era.  I do believe you can only fire so many bare lead bullets before you get leading. 

My assumptions on gas checks is they have a muti role and we know the one is to prevent gas cutting, thus their name. I'm not sure of using the word "scrape" to describe how they clean leading out of the bore, I'm sure it does that, but I'm leaning towards being they are harder then the alloy of the bullet they push the lead out of the bore much like firing a jacketed bullet after shooting lead bullets to clean the bore. That is if the lead hasn't "soldered" itself to the bore and the jacket bullet rides over it.  

I never was a full advocate of that lube seals off gas cutting. 

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 17 March 2022

Attached is the work of Harold R. Vaughn, PhD, designer of the US nuclear weapon housings. He was the author of "Rifle Accuracy Facts" that debunks lots of myths.

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Spindrift
Larry Gibson posted this 18 March 2022

Would love to have/read that book but it's a little on the spendy side. 

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 18 March 2022

Would love to have/read that book but it's a little on the spendy side. 

LMG

You can now find the first edition, 1998, on line in a PDF format. 

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 18 March 2022

Here you go Larry Gibson:

 

http://storage.dynamic-arms.com/t-class/books/Rifle%20Accuracy%20Facts%20Full%20v1.1.pdf

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Spindrift
hporter posted this 18 March 2022

Thank you for the pdf link. 

The book looked very interesting, so I started looking for a copy.  Larry was right - they are asking quite a bit for it online.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 19 March 2022

MP1886 posted this yesterday

 

Mr Alexander I am going to answer your question on why don't lubed cast bullets have a higher velocity then bare cast bullets. It's well known and been around for a long time.  That lube you witnessed was too viscous, which you know to mean the viscocity was too high. If you got into shooting moly coated bullets you would know that to get the velocity with them that you got using the same load with regular non moly coated bullets you had to increase your powder charge. They are just too slippery. 

=================

It may have been known for a long time but like a lot of things that have "been known" it looks like it is dead wrong.  Harold Vaughn's work is pretty compelling.

If my experiment with lubed vs. unloved bullets had been either high viscosity or low viscosity and the sliding friction theory was valid it would have changed the MV one way or the other.  Since I found NO difference in MV as Vaughn would have predicted.  

That result also tends to refute the sliding friction theory which has never made much sense when you think of the magnitudes or the temperatures and forces involved.

John

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 19 March 2022

MP1886

Thanks for the site, I'm sure others will find it useful.  I already had the book in electron form, but I am so like last century or just a dinosaur who is extinct but just hasn't died yet....  I prefer to have an actual book in my hands when reading.  This particular book is just a little too spendy to feed that personal preference.  I read very few books on the computer, pad or phone.  Just me.  Guess it is what it is though.  Some excellent information in that book.  Thanks again for posting.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 19 March 2022

I ran a fairly comprehensive lube test of 13 different lubes a few years back.  I measured the velocity and pressures of those lubes with 10 shot tests.  I found most of any variation in velocity or pressure were simply within the normal expected test to test variation of both.  In that one test some were 'faster" than others, but I wouldn't draw any real conclusions based on that one test of a viscosity difference being the cause.  There was a distinct difference in accuracy between the lubes which I have repeated in a few subsequent tests.  Interesting topic of discussion.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 19 March 2022

MP1886 posted this yesterday

 

Mr Alexander I am going to answer your question on why don't lubed cast bullets have a higher velocity then bare cast bullets. It's well known and been around for a long time.  That lube you witnessed was too viscous, which you know to mean the viscocity was too high. If you got into shooting moly coated bullets you would know that to get the velocity with them that you got using the same load with regular non moly coated bullets you had to increase your powder charge. They are just too slippery. 

=================

It may have been known for a long time but like a lot of things that have "been known" it looks like it is dead wrong.  Harold Vaughn's work is pretty compelling.

If the friction had been either high viscosity or low viscosity and the sliding friction theory was valid it would have changed the MV one way or the other.  Since I found NO difference in MV as Vaughn says.  

That result also tends to refute the sliding friction theory which has never made much sense when you think of the temperatures and forces involved.

John

 

 

You need to learn about dynamic viscousity and kinematic viscousity John.  Notice Larry Gibson's comprehensive test of different bullet lubes.  One thing sticks out that he mentioned and that is:  there was a difference in accuracy. Why do you think that is John, or should I say what is your suppositon or assumption on that because I know you don't know. Do you know how GM's clutch fan on an automobile works John?  It has all to do with the viscosity of the oil used in them. 

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 19 March 2022

I ran a fairly comprehensive lube test of 13 different lubes a few years back.  I measured the velocity and pressures of those lubes with 10 shot tests.  I found most of any variation in velocity or pressure were simply within the normal expected test to test variation of both.  In that one test some were 'faster" than others, but I wouldn't draw any real conclusions based on that one test of a viscosity difference being the cause.  There was a distinct difference in accuracy between the lubes which I have repeated in a few subsequent tests.  Interesting topic of discussion.

LMG

 

Larry why do you think there was a distinct difference in accuracy between the lubes? Here is a test for you to find out.  First, before you begin the accuracy test, have the viscosity of all the lubes tested.  Then do the shooting and compare accuracy of each lube to it's viscosity.  This would be most interesting. 

Have you ever heard this story. It's about back in the days of black powder target shooting with the best rifles they could produce at the time. A particular rifle that was extremely accurate all the sudden wasn't as accurate  anymore. They couldn't find anything at first, but then they noticed from shooting all those lead bullets that the bore had become very shiney and smooth.  They surmised this must be it, the bore is too "slick".  So they rusted the bore and once again the rifle because very accurate.  Ponder that for a while. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 19 March 2022

MP1886 wrote:

You need to learn about dynamic viscousity and kinematic viscousity John. Notice Larry Gibson's comprehensive test of different bullet lubes.  One thing sticks out that he mentioned and that is:  there was a difference in accuracy. Why do you think that is John, or should I say what is your suppositon or assumption on that because I know you don't know. Do you know how GM's clutch fan on an automobile works John?  It has all to do with the viscosity of the oil used in them. 

----------------

MP 1886,

The discussion was about how lubed bullets affect velocity. Then the page from Vaughn's book and  Larry's experiment with several lubes found "most of any variation in velocity or pressure were simply within the normal expected test to test variation of both" were posted.

Both refuted what you had said about friction of the bullet affecting velocity.

Your semi-nasty rebuttal above telling me what "I need to learn"  and  that you "know I don't know"  tries to change the subject to one about viscosity and accuracy a completely different topic. This is a debating trick and I expected better of you.

Good civil arguments based on presenting evidence are one of the purposes of this forum and one of the ways we can learn from each other. This will, of course, sometimes involve posters showing evidence that you are wrong. This is not an act of aggression, but a different view that should be considered. Responding with personal attacks instead of presenting your evidence and arguments isn't allowed on this forum. When you make slurs like those above you have crossed the line. If they had been aimed at anyone but me, I would have deleted them.

Let's all try to keep it civil. It may be tempting to lash back personally when someone claims one of your statements or long held beliefs is incorrect and presents evidence to support their argumets, but please resist the temptation and make your counter arguments and evidence in a civll manner.

John

           

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Carlson
Lee Guthrie posted this 19 March 2022

Larry:

I don't suppose you would care to list the 3 most accurate of those lubes?  (And don't tell me that M&N was one -- I'm down to my last stick.  drained)

Lee

Attached Files

Wm Cook posted this 19 March 2022

Sorry for interrupting, but..

Larry wrote; “ I ran a fairly comprehensive lube test of 13 different lubes a few years back. I measured the velocity and pressures of those lubes with 10 shot tests. I found most of any variation in velocity or pressure were simply within the normal expected test to test variation of both. In that one test some were 'faster" than others, but I wouldn't draw any real conclusions based on that one test of a viscosity difference being the cause. There was a distinct difference in accuracy between the lubes which I have repeated in a few subsequent tests.”

I have zero knowledge of lube’s effect accuracy, velocity, pressure etc.

I’m new to cast accuracy but I learned more about cast accuracy in the past year than the previous 30. But on lube I’m as stupid as I was about bullet fit to bore a year ago. Which is to say I knew nothing at all.

If anyone could point me to a post or to possibly a written text that I could buy of Larry’s work from a few years ago about lube I would be most appreciative.

Ok John I’ll let you get back to demonstrating civility. Thanks, Bill.

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 19 March 2022

Lee:  i have a stick of M&N if you want it ... PM me ...of course it is 35 years old ... maybe have to run an exhaustive test on the effects of aging on bullet lubes ... cool

ken

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Ross Smith
Lee Guthrie posted this 19 March 2022

Mr.  Cook:

I don't know that I'm able to give you any technical advice on lube, other than you can use both too little and too much. (Just not on the same bullet at the same time.)  applause

I am attaching an indexed list of LUBE discussions in The Fouling Shot, which is presently around 90% current.

If you have access to all issues of the FS the index should give you some insight on lube.  Please forgive the formatting as copy and paste went a little wacky.

Lee

 

 Lube:                                                                                              #269-15

a.  Alox                                                                            #10-4, 18-4, 115-8, 147-16, 161-11, 217-13                            

       b.  Apache Blue                                                                       #57-10, 67-26

       c.  Bullet Master                                                                       #29-6

       d.  Case, home-made                                                               #150-21

       e.  Chemical basis for function                                                #122-12

       f.   Cold weather                                                                      #37-8, 130-8

       g.  Crayon                                                                                #223-14

       h.  Darr lube                                                                             #70-3

       i.   Diffusible components                                                        #151-16

       j.   Dry lube                                                                              #43-8, 44-11, 120-4

       k.  Experimenting                                                                     #37-24, 65-30

       l.   Flying                                                                                  #93-3

       m. Graphite lube                                                                      #49-2, 52-10, 96-21,

       n.  Groove

            (1)  design                                                                           #150-3

            (2)  drag from lube groove                                                  #169-24

            (3)  How many to fill                                                          #233-6

       o.  Heater, inexpensive                                                             #91-15, 120-18,

       p.  Heating tests                                                                       #165-8

       q.  Homemade                                                                          #99-12

       r.  How they work                                                                    #235-23

       s.  In general                                                                             #5-3, 88-10, 130-12

       t.  LBT Blue                                                                             #54-14, 78-28

       u.   LEE                                                                                    #59-3, 217-13

       v.  Lithium grease                                                                    #18-9

       w.  M & N                                                                                #21-14

       x.  Metal lube, case neck                                                          #68-24

       y.  Meyer's Lube                                                                      #91-20

       z.  Mica, NOT talcum                                                              #173-16

      A.  Migration (Contamination)                                                 #170-10, 174-15

      B.  Modern,  Dexron ATF                                                         #220-14

      C.  Mold, making for lube                                                        #161-14

      D.   Nose lubing                                                                        #90-15,

      E.  Pan lubing                                                                            #239-7, 267-3

      F.  Physical properties                                                               #156-24

      G.  Pockets                                                                                #134-11

      H.  Pressure in the bore                                                             #130-7, 136-8, 137-5

      I.  Pump, base wad extrusion lube                                            #152-3

      J.  Purging (lube purging fliers)                                                 #120-5, 129-12, 237-13,

      K.  Radix Magnum dry film                                                     #61-14

      L.   Rooster Red                                                                       #64-28, 78-28

     M.   SPG                                                                                    #105-16,

      N.  Smokeless                                                                           #90-3

      O.  Soap in bullet lube                                                              #168-17

      P. Sugar in beeswax                                                                  #55-2

      Q. Tallow                                                                                  #98-6, 100-9,

      R. Texaco Taurak 250                                                               #77-5, 87-8, 163-16, 170-3

      S.  Tumble                                                                                 #153-17, 189-18, 217-13

      T.  Water soluble                                                                       #114-16

      U.  Without lube, shooting                                                       #80-8, 82-14, 83-23, 84-21, 114-7, 161-13

                                                                                                       

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
Lee Guthrie posted this 19 March 2022

That might involve more than one stick ................................

 

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 19 March 2022

John John John Alexander.  You know that you being a moderator is very akin to the power that the Democrats have right now. You rule the roost here and us peons don't have say when it comes to arguing.  Anyone on this forum can only go so far in having a debate with you and you ALWAYS bring it back to your last post to me. So I'm not going to argue with you.  You and your  constitutes are the ones having problems with shooting lubed cast bullets, I am not, so guess what, do as you wish and follow who you will and I'll go along my merry way and enjoy my shooting to the fullest.  I'll ignore anything you say and pay more attention to Larry Gibson.  At least Larry does the tests and finds things.  We're not talking about 100's and 100's of feet velocity differences.  They are minute, but I think it's most interesting that Larry found accuracy differences. What's more important in cast shooting, velocity or accuracy???Remember when geargnasher was on here about powder coated bullets (he's gone now as he's fed up with the bunch of you, and some of his exact words were "you can't tell them anything") was getting the PC coated bullets to shoot quite well, but not with the same guilt accuracy of lubed casted bullets, yet still decent.  Well guess what?  PC bullets are slippery, very slippery, like in less friction. Ring any bells? Their accuracy just isn't there yet. So adios amigo's

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 19 March 2022

Here is a brief synopsis of the lube test.  

The objective of the lube test I conducted was to see if there was any difference in accuracy at high velocity meaning 2500 to 2600 fps.  The test rifle was my Palma rifle with a 27.5' barrel with 14" twist chambered in 308W.  Test bullet was the NOE 310-165-FN XCB cast of #2 alloy.  Cases were match prepped Winchester Palm's.  Primers were WLRs.  The load was 47 gr of AA4350.  All testing was done at 100 yards with the barrel cleaned between tests and 2 foulers shot before the 10 shot group was fired.  Internal and external ballistics [pressure and velocity] were recorded via an Oehler m43 PBL.  

I tested 14 different lubes. 

Here is the raw ranking according the accuracy at 100 yards with the CTC measurement of the two wides shots of the 10 shot group;

1.  2500+.........1.5"

2.  Javelina......1.5"

3.  LOTAK.......1.82"

4.  2700+........1.9"

5.  FWFL........1.9"

6.  Voodoo......2.2"

7.  Super Moly..2.3"

8. Tac 1..........2.44"

9.  Carnauba Red...2.45"

10.  Orange Magic..2.45"

11.  SL-68.......2.58"

12.  Tac X.......3.55"

13.  LBT Blue..3.75"

14.  SL-68.1....3.95"

 

Here is the basic results ranked by highest velocity to lowest velocity with the attendant psi for the lube and the ranking in () velocity;

1.  LOTAK ..........2597 fps.......42,100 psi....(3)

2.   2700+............2592 fps.......41,600 psi...(4)

3.   Tac X.............2584 fps.......42,200 psi...(12)

4.   2500+............2578 fps.......41,900 psi...(1)

5.    Tac 1............2576 fps........41,000 psi...(8)

6.    Super Moly...2574 fps........41,300 psi...(7)

7.    Voodoo........2573 fps.........41,200 psi...(6)

8.     Felix FWFL..2571 fps.......41,700 psi...(5)

9.     Carnauba Red..2571 fps....41,000 psi....(9)

10.   LBT Blue....2565 fps..........40,600 psi...(13)

11.   Javelina.....2563 fps...........41,500 psi...(2)

12.   SL-68.........2562 fps..........40,800 psi...(11)

13.   SL-68.1......2542 fps..........39,500 psi...(14)

14.  Orange Magic.. 2535 fps.....39,200 psi...(10)

Note:  I could find no correlation between fps, psi and/or accuracy.  The internal ballistics for all the lubes were excellent.  The SD and ES with 11 of the lubes had less than 50 fps with 9 of those having less than 40 fps.  The SDs ran 9-14 fps which is very, very good if not excellent.  The top 4 lubes accuracy wise had SD/ESs of 10/28, 10/34, 12/36 and 10/29 fps which, in and of themselves are also excellent.   

The ES between the average velocity and psi of all the tests was only 62 fps and 2,000 psi between the highest and lowest.  As I mentioned earlier, that is well within acceptable test to test variation.

As to viscosity and if it is relevant and/or plays a part I do not know.  perhaps with this data MP1886 can find the viscosities for the 14 lubes and see if there is any correlation?

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 19 March 2022

Larry,

Did you ever test the Tom Gray # 24 lube?

Tom

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 19 March 2022

Here is a brief synopsis of the lube test.  

The objective of the lube test I conducted was to see if there was any difference in accuracy at high velocity meaning 2500 to 2600 fps.  The test rifle was my Palma rifle with a 27.5' barrel with 14" twist chambered in 308W.  Test bullet was the NOE 310-165-FN XCB cast of #2 alloy.  Cases were match prepped Winchester Palm's.  Primers were WLRs.  The load was 47 gr of AA4350.  All testing was done at 100 yards with the barrel cleaned between tests and 2 foulers shot before the 10 shot group was fired.  Internal and external ballistics [pressure and velocity] were recorded via an Oehler m43 PBL.  

I tested 14 different lubes. 

Here is the raw ranking according the accuracy at 100 yards with the CTC measurement of the two wides shots of the 10 shot group;

1.  2500+.........1.5"

2.  Javelina......1.5"

3.  LOTAK.......1.82"

4.  2700+........1.9"

5.  FWFL........1.9"

6.  Voodoo......2.2"

7.  Super Moly..2.3"

8. Tac 1..........2.44"

9.  Carnauba Red...2.45"

10.  Orange Magic..2.45"

11.  SL-68.......2.58"

12.  Tac X.......3.55"

13.  LBT Blue..3.75"

14.  SL-68.1....3.95"

 

Here is the basic results ranked by highest velocity to lowest velocity with the attendant psi for the lube and the ranking in () velocity;

1.  LOTAK ..........2597 fps.......42,100 psi....(3)

2.   2700+............2592 fps.......41,600 psi...(4)

3.   Tac X.............2584 fps.......42,200 psi...(12)

4.   2500+............2578 fps.......41,900 psi...(1)

5.    Tac 1............2576 fps........41,000 psi...(8)

6.    Super Moly...2574 fps........41,300 psi...(7)

7.    Voodoo........2573 fps.........41,200 psi...(6)

8.     Felix FWFL..2571 fps.......41,700 psi...(5)

9.     Carnauba Red..2571 fps....41,000 psi....(9)

10.   LBT Blue....2565 fps..........40,600 psi...(13)

11.   Javelina.....2563 fps...........41,500 psi...(2)

12.   SL-68.........2562 fps..........40,800 psi...(11)

13.   SL-68.1......2542 fps..........39,500 psi...(14)

14.  Orange Magic.. 2535 fps.....39,200 psi...(10)

Note:  I could find no correlation between fps, psi and/or accuracy.  The internal ballistics for all the lubes were excellent.  The SD and ES with 11 of the lubes had less than 50 fps with 9 of those having less than 40 fps.  The SDs ran 9-14 fps which is very, very good if not excellent.  The top 4 lubes accuracy wise had SD/ESs of 10/28, 10/34, 12/36 and 10/29 fps which, in and of themselves are also excellent.   

The ES between the average velocity and psi of all the tests was only 62 fps and 2,000 psi between the highest and lowest.  As I mentioned earlier, that is well within acceptable test to test variation.

As to viscosity and if it is relevant and/or plays a part I do not know.  perhaps with this data MP1886 can find the viscosities for the 14 lubes and see if there is any correlation?

LMG

 

Larry you done a fine test and I thank you for that.  Very well done.  I'll try to dig into some things and see what I come up with for viscosities.  As we know Larry simply put viscosity is the resistance to flow. Long ago when I was in school the viscosity test consisted of having the oil at a certain temperature and they you let it by gravity flow through a known size orifice and you recorded the time that it took and that basically gave a viscosity figure. The oil I mentioned to John in the old clutch fans was very viscous only when it become heated.  When the engine is cold you can turn the fan with your little finger and the oil inside the clutch let it slip.  As you drove the car and your engine heated up and the radiator become hot, the heated air coming through the radiator heated up the clutch fan and it begin to turn.  So Larry wouldn't you think that viscous oil is more grappy to things it's associated with like the two clutch discs inside that clutch fan?  That would carry over to any viscous material and leads me to believe bullet lubes are such a material. You also have heat in firing a firearm. Notice too many talk about the first shot fliers when the barrel and lube are both cold.  

Do any of your gentlemen know about heating CO2 up to high temperature and turning it into a very thick and viscous material. I'm currently working with a group of men involved in using this heated CO2 to drive turbines much as steam turbines at a slow speed and then through reduction gears speeding up the results. This by the is being run by the NRC.  If you do know of this then you'll understand what viscousity of liquids and gases can do. 

Keep up the good work Larry.

Attached Files

Lee Guthrie posted this 20 March 2022

WHAT DOES  BULLET LUBE DO ???    Fouling Shot 264 at page 5

 

ummmm   I don't know, but if the answer is not in FS 264 at page 5,  then there is a lot of info in this thread that would make a good follow up article. Maybe one of you that have the tech know how would undertake the task of update and submit it to Glenn.  

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 20 March 2022

Wm. Cook wrote: "Sorry for interrupting, but."

Bill,

I had to laugh at your opening.  Can the original author interrupt in his own thread?

It is the rest of us who have dragged you thread this way and that way until the original question has been forgotten. We are the ones who owe you an apology.  It must be OK to interrupt the interrupters.

After the answers by Lee and Larry to your lube question you must feel like you are trying to get a sip from a fire hose.  Larry's test results are excellent as usual and you could spend a year digging into past Fouling Shot articles with the help of Lee's index.

In the meantime, I have a quick and dirty answer for you -- for what it is worth.  At the velocities you are shooting -- between 1,400 and 1,800 fps about any lube you see listed by the top half of shooters in the match results will work as well as another. My ongoing tests may even show that no lube at all may be OK but it is too early to make that claim.

High velocity loads are another thing and Larry's results somewhat match the resits of the excellent tests on lubes for high velocity done by Dan Lynch that are in the archives.

I think your time is better spent on other factors rather than worrying about best lube.

John

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Wm Cook posted this 20 March 2022

John, when you're as old as I am you have to laugh once in a while so people know you haven't dozed off. 

Lee, thanks for the lead on the FS articles.  Now I gotta get the CD's.  It almost sounds like you have a glossary of what articles are where.  Sort of like Rifle and Handloader had back in the day.  I got all of he Rifle and Handloader back to issue 1's but not so lucky with the FS.  Only became a CBA member last year and as dumb as I am I took the E version instead of the hard copy.  I lived off computers for decades but can't bring myself to read anything on them. Gotta have a hard copy in my hands to enjoy it.  My membership is due to renew so I can correct that.

Larry the work you put out was a genuine Christmas present.  It was one of those learning moments that filled a knowledge hole that once was stone cold empty.  I can say the same for when you pointed me where to find twist rate calculations for bullet length and when John taught me how to Beagle a mold.  And John's probably right in that at the 1700 - 1750 fps pedestrian velocity I'm running lube may not be as great a concern but its another arrow in the quiver for the day will come when greater velocity will be needed.  Looking at the Nationals, not all but many shooting Heavy, Unlimited Rifle/Piston were running north of 2000fps. 

As I was digging around on the CBA website I found a PDF revised on 2016 by Ralph Schneider and Steve Hurst on Cast Bullet Lubricants.  If anyone is interested more information about lubricants they can get file by clicking HERE.  It has a lot of detail and it gives you a roadmap where things can be found. 

I'd like to thank everyone who makes this forum a reality and another big thanks to those that contribute.  There are a lot of shooters out there that want more out of cast shooting than to just hear a bang when the trigger is pulled.  Again, thanks. Bill C.

 

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
John Alexander posted this 20 March 2022

Bill,

I have also found it helpful after your hearing has been shot out, not to answer any questions in a conversation. The question you thought you heard probably isn't the one that was actually asked and your answer will confirm their belief that you are as out of it as you look.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Larry Gibson posted this 21 March 2022

Huh......

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Wm Cook posted this 21 March 2022

Two old guys talking.

First one says “ I just got the best pair of hearing aids that money can buy”

Second one says “Really. That’s great. What kind are they?”

First guy looks at his watch and says “60”

Bill.

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 24 March 2022

I know most you men have read this and know it, especially Larry Gibson. Larry here's one from you're favorite "little engineer":

The Basement Articles #6: Cast bullet lubrication


After more than four years of non-stop testing by my myself and a few other dedicated accuracy enthusiasts, and an ongoing, 2400-some post thread on another site documenting the endeavor, I'm going to attempt to condense the essential information we've gathered about cast bullet lubrication into a single post.


I think I might even be able to do it in a single sentence: An effective cast bullet lubricant provides a fluid film barrier between the bullet and barrel during the firing event, leaves the surface of the bore the same condition shot-to-shot, and completely departs the bullet at the muzzle to prevent balance disturbances farther downrange.


Sounds simple, doesn't it?


I thought for many years that the most important qualities a bullet lube could possess were the correct "lubricity", or slickness, and the correct overall viscosity for the pressure and velocity of the load. I also thought that lube acted somewhat as a "ballistic stop leak", to put it in Glen Fryxell's terminology.


While I maintain that lube does actually help a teeny, tiny bit to obturate the bullet, I think it's on a much smaller scale than I once did. As for lubricity and viscosity, I have a different way of looking at that now, too. If a lube is too slippery, it can behave unpredictably in the bore, causing the bullet to stutter and skip, or even hydroplane as a car can on a wet, uneven road. Viscosity, defined as resistance to flow, is less important than shear stability and what Runfiverun and Eutectic have recently brought up with the subject of "wipe pressure".


Eutectic's concept of Consistency Of Residuals Encountered, or CORE, is the solid gold key to achieving an accurate-shooting bullet lubricant. Building a lube formula that leaves the bore in a stable, repeatable condition shot after shot, in any weather, any temperature, five seconds after the last shot from a hot barrel or the first shot from a cold barrel five days later does more for accuracy than just about any other single factor I can think of. Observing the residue around the first bullet hole in a target fired from a cold barrel previously fouled with the same lube tells a tale, as does where that first shot lands compared to the following shots in the group. Observing what's left in the bore by a given lube also gives us clues, and testing dozens upon dozens of formulas, compiling data, and studying the effects of many different lube ingredients begins to paint a picture of what substances work and which ones don't.


The last factor I mentioned in the first post has proven to be very important, too. I started devising "jettison tests" a few years ago where I shoot through clean cardboard at a distance of just a few inches to observe the pattern and and size of the lube droplets, and also observe how dirty they are, and the relative state of the lube as it flew off, or failed to fly off of the bullet. I look for a dirty, atomized mist. Chunks of clean lube show that at least the bulk of it wasn't reaching the liquid state under pressure, and therefore not doing any good. Making it out of the gun and flying out of the grooves in chunks can slightly destabilize the bullet and open up groups. Making it halfway or more to the target before losing all of the lube, or making it to the target with a few bits still in the grooves is even worse. It may not sound like much, but a speck of lube hanging in the edge of a groove at 150,000 rpm or more can play hoc with accuracy. A lube that goes liquid in the barrel is likely to purge more consistently each shot, not hurt things if a blob is blown ahead of the bullet and "run over" later down the tube, and wipe more completely away each shot leaving less behind to affect the next shot. Leaving a minimum behind is the easiest way to control the effects of WHAT is left behind.


Waxes have been our nemesis from the start. The current evolution of Thick 'n' Thin, or TnT lube, which is essentially an ester-based, NLGI #6+ sodium brick grease, leaves very little behind, is soft, jettisons well, flows well in the cold yet won't melt even at take-your-skin-right-off temperatures, has very little bleed, doesn't build up in the barrel, doesn't leave enough oil behind to cause cyclic purging, and works at low and fairly high velocities. Another formula, which has proven over the past couple of years to be up to all of the aforementioned tasks and has done even better at high velocity is another soap lube, experiment #68, or "SL-68". Member JonB has been making and testing this formula along with myself and Brad, and some other advantages we have observed with this formula is how "dry" it shoots, meaning that it leaves little to no oily residue on the outside of revolvers, in the gas systems of self-loading guns, or in the action/magazines of self-loading pistols. It has a melt point of nearly 300 degrees F, quite the advantage in hot summer weather, yet in below-freezing cold, the lube remains pliable. In tests from 105F to minus 7F it has held its own. While the "Quest" for a truly universal, all weather, all temperature, all load level lube that can tolerate a variety of bore finishes and lube groove designs well may never be fulfilled, we have a few things that fill the bill pretty well so far.

Ian

Link to Article #7:http://www.artfulbullet.com/index.php?threads/article-7-crafting-accurate-ammunition.139/   Sounds like he grapped some stuff off of Fry. 

 

 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Larry Gibson posted this 24 March 2022

Certainly, have to agree with Ian's; " testing dozens upon dozens of formulas, compiling data, and studying the effects of many different lube ingredients begins to paint a picture of what substances work and which ones don't."

I conducted a test sufficiently to prove which lube(s) to use at HV which are readily available without a lot of at home "witchcrafting".  Yes, I've made a couple of "home brews" myself but found it really wasn't worth the effort as I found no improvement over several commercial lubes available.  Especially after reading the long lengthy trials and tribulations on the boolet and artful forums the now "artfull" crew has gone to.  Can't say there really has been any improvement for all the effort.  Actually, one of that artful crew has given up on lube and is PCing.  

All that, whatever they chose to use, is fine with me.  I keep reading their results, especially gear's results with PC, hoping to see a "breakthrough" that is worth using.  Haven't yet but I keep watching.  

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • John Alexander
MP1886 posted this 24 March 2022

Larry I was talking to gear months ago about pc'ing. We had a falling out, but I got enough to get me going.  I believe I may have exceeded his accuracy level. I think his leverl was 1.5 or so at high velocity.  I'm definitely at one inch and approaching .5 moa.  It does have some merit. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
RicinYakima posted this 24 March 2022

Reaching for a gold ring on the merry-go-round has lots of failures. Only the strong keep looking and working on the problem and inches us up to better precision. Don't fight and bicker, just keep working the problems. 

Attached Files

OU812 posted this 24 March 2022

Grease cookie has more effect of conditioning barrel than traditional lube grooves only. I have some experience using lbt soft grease cookie in bottle neck cases...more testing needed.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 24 March 2022

MP1886 posted this 12 hours ago

 

Larry I was talking to gear months ago about pc'ing. We had a falling out, but I got enough to get me going.  I believe I may have exceeded his accuracy level. I think his leverl was 1.5 or so at high velocity.  I'm definitely at one inch and approaching .5 moa.  It does have some merit. 

 

Sounds intriguing, details?  Perhaps another thread?

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 24 March 2022

Ric

I couldn't agree more, lots more testing and "working the problems" needs doing on numerous topics.  Been doing lots of testing for years but sometimes I get tired, want to pass the torch to others, so to speak, and just want to go shooting.......

LMG

 

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Wm Cook posted this 24 March 2022

Match reports can only give you so much.  But if the equipment list is even 80% accurate sometimes you'll see indications of what works.  

Here's an example.  In jacketed benchrest competition bullet choice is still the wild wild west.  A number of shooters list "Self" as the maker.  But its not so with what powders is used in 6PPC jacketed benchrest. 133 has been the choice for 30 years. 

Here's the results from last years Nationals. I'm not up to speed on lubes (I've got my hands full trying to catch a lot of other greased pigs running around the pen) so the PC names don't jump out at me. 

So can anyone tell me if there are any PC'd on this list? I have to ask this because if powder coating gave you an edge it would show up at competition. Thanks, Bill.

Sorted by Class, Rank 100 & 200 Yard 5 shot Agg, Rank 100 & 200 yard 10 shot Agg

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 24 March 2022

Match reports can only give you so much.  But if the equipment list is even 80% accurate sometimes you'll see indications of what works.  

Here's an example.  In jacketed benchrest competition bullet choice is still the wild wild west.  A number of shooters list "Self" as the maker.  But its not so with what powders is used in 6PPC jacketed benchrest. 133 has been the choice for 30 years. 

Here's the results from last years Nationals. I'm not up to speed on lubes (I've got my hands full trying to catch a lot of other greased pigs running around the pen) so the PC names don't jump out at me. 

So can anyone tell me if there are any PC'd on this list? I have to ask this because if powder coating gave you an edge it would show up at competition. Thanks, Bill.

Sorted by Class, Rank 100 & 200 Yard 5 shot Agg, Rank 100 & 200 yard 10 shot Agg

 

Pc'ing, in my opinion is not perfected by the many users yet.  There  are so many variables there are with lubed cast. One thing left out for pc is of course the lube so that's not a variable, BUT that has been tried to see if it improves them and so far it has not.  Then there are the multitute of different brands of powder coating powders. Add to that it seems that colors make a different. More then likely that has to have something to do with the different chemical composition of the colors.  Look how long cast bullet have been in existance. Don't expect pc'ing to take the lead immediately.  The thing that gave me hope is that some major ammunition manufacturers are selling powder coated ammo.  

Attached Files

Wm Cook posted this 24 March 2022

With due respect, PC has been out long enough that if it improved accuracy it would show up in the equipment list. As far as one color being more accurate than another……..?

Now PC color effecting velocity I can handle. I think blue would be the fastest. Yellow obviously the slowest. Just kidding. Thanks, Bill.

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

Lee Guthrie posted this 24 March 2022

I "believe" Poly Coat is the only powder coating in the results.

 

Attached Files

Wm Cook posted this 24 March 2022

Are Wht Lbl 2500, Wht Lbl 2500+ and Wht Lbl BAC all the same??

And how about LBT Blue and LBT BlueSft. Are they the same?? Thanks Bill.

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 24 March 2022

Here is their home page with all their products; https://www.lsstuff.com/

I don't know anything about the LBT lubes. 

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 24 March 2022

Here is their home page with all their products; https://www.lsstuff.com/

I don't know anything about the LBT lubes. 

 

Me and two other old Castboolit member believe LBT to be a soap based lube. I use to shoot it for high velocity stuff until I became aware of Starmet's soap based lubes. Don't use anything else now and haven't found anything that it can't do. 

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 25 March 2022

I have just deleted a post in this thread.  In my opinion telling someone who disagrees with you to stop talking about the subject  i.e. shut up, is over the line. Disagreements are not attacks. 

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • John Carlson
Wm Cook posted this 25 March 2022

Well this was educational.  LBT Blue and LBT Blue Soft are from LBT Molds.  Like the White Label varieties LBT has a written description that gives a summary for its targeted use (no pun intended) and the temperature range it'll flow at.  Click on either company's name to go to their site.  I've been using Carnauba Blue for the past 5 years.  Before that was Lyman Orange.  I use a heater to get started up then shut it down when I get in the flow (darn, there goes another pun again) of things.  Thanks again, Bill. 

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

MP1886 posted this 25 March 2022

Wm Cook......Bill I want to clear something up.  Sir I did not tell you to shut up about pc'ing, but according to the SCOTUS's OPINION, he said I did. I'm also not arguing with you, merely debating.  Tony

Attached Files

Wm Cook posted this 25 March 2022

Tony. Bill here. You’re post didn’t come across as soft as you intended.

To be honest, I was half way through a response back to you that I would have probably regretted when your post was pulled.

So we both learned something and we’re coming away smarter knowing that we have to be a bit more sensitive about what we say.

Thanks, Bill.

A “Measured Response” is as effective as tongue lashing a stuck door.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Close