Tumble Lube vs. the Lubrisizer

2.3K Views
Last Post 16 October 2019

CBA Board

John Alexander posted this 20 July 2019

Various kinds of tumble lube have been around for a long time -- maybe forever. oMany shooters use nothing else and claim excellent results. For large batches of bullets it saves a lot of time.

Yet, CBA tech data sheets give little hint that our competition shooters use it at all. That seems to apply to both military rifle shooters and our traditional benchrest shooters.

It's not because our competitive shooters don't try different lubes. At our national tournaments there are usually 15 to 20 different lubes used -- but none of them applied as tumble lube as far as you can tell.

What does this mean? Many have tried it and tumble lube doesn't give the accuracy needed for match shooting? Competitive shooters are so conservative that they never try anything new? The match winners have found that tumble lube gives them the winning advantage and they are keeping it a secret by lying on their tech sheets? We are such a bunch of cabbage heads that we haven't tested the two approaches head to head and really don't have a clue which is better? Or. we just don't like sticky bullets?

At one time I could ask the same questions about powder coating but at least a few shooters are trying PC in competition. Why is tumble lube ignored?

John

Attached Files

Liked by

33 Comments

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes

Standard Member

Rich/WIS posted this 16 October 2019

My only experience with LLA was in 9mm and was not a success. Built up in the seating die and needed cleaning every 100 rounds, what a pain. Did this while Germany and my lube sizer was in storage. Went back to my faithful Lyman 450 when I got back to the states. This was pre internet days and when I got on various forums and saw pics of other people's use of LLA figured out what I was doing wrong. The pics showed barely a hint of lube, mine looked like chocolate covered peanuts. Never did go back to LLA but suspect it would work if I did it right. My thought in not going back is if I lube with LLA still need to size, and maybe lube again. For me just as easy to size and lube in one step.

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

RicinYakima posted this 16 October 2019

kjohn, It doesn't matter if you are a precision shooter. Are you having fun? Do they shoot good enough for your needs? That is the criteria that you need to work with.Ric

Attached Files

Standard Member

kjohn posted this 16 October 2019

Great thread. Many years ago, when I was getting into shooting my first center-fire revolver, I asked an older shooter what was involved in casting. His description kept me away from casting until I read a good article by Dean Grennell (sp?) about Lee TL bullets. That caught my attention, and I got involved.

I can't see the big deal about tumble lubing bullets. I've only ever used LLA. I TL rifle and handgun bullets, 90% LEE molds, and both types, TL and regular. The only time I had leading trouble was in a big old 44 mag S&W revolver, and I take the blame for that. I shoot almost exclusively cast in my rifles.

I cast a batch, TL with a very light coating, gas check through a LEE sizer die, then give them another light LLA coating. Bear in mind that I most certainly wouldn't qualify as a precision shooter, by any stretch.

Two things you never want to run low on.....

Attached Files

Standard Member

shootcast posted this 29 July 2019

Liquid lube was all I used for several years. Didn’t have money to buy a lube/sizer. I don’t shoot well enough to say one is better than the other. Occasionally I still try both ways just to see what if ! I shoot bore riders often and like to dip my loaded round into liquid lube and pull it and invert it to dry. It will run down the bullet and hopefully stop at the grease grooves. This way the bore section is being lubed. Sometimes I swore this helped. But like most things just when you think you got it you don’t.

Attached Files

CBA Board

John Alexander posted this 28 July 2019

Brodie,

I don't doubt it a bit there are plenty in engineering as well. Have to get those papers out no matter what's in 'em. But we do muddle along and make some progress by those who have their heads screwed on better. Although I hear that leaches may make a comeback -- hopefully not sorted by weight.

John

Attached Files

CBA Member

Brodie posted this 28 July 2019

John,

There are a large number of medical researchers who do just that. They have no concept on how to do research, nor how to manage it. I know I worked for one, and saw a quite a few others who had no business in that field. They were excellent Physicians, but approached research from a "clinical" perspective.

B.E.Brickey

Attached Files

Standard Member

OU812 posted this 28 July 2019

"Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them."

Albert Einstein

Attached Files

CBA Board

John Alexander posted this 28 July 2019

"Testing is the key to accuracy in all things cast."

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

Jon,

So true. Also true for all other fields of knowledge as well. If medical researchers had used the same approach as most cast bullet shooters to advance their field, we would still be being bled with leaches but each leach would weigh the same to the .1 grain and be completely cleaned inside and out. The devil isn't always in the details.

I don't know, but the pity is that there is probably some good cast bullet research being done but it takes work to report it so most of it dies with the researcher. I can sympathize with that since good research published in TFS is ignored and we cling to the old wive's tales we love.

I just got back from a cb match in Roseberg, OR and one of the experienced shooters was blaming his woes on the difference in neck tension from shot to shot. Gerry Bottiger destroyed that theory several years ago in reports to TFS but facts don't seem to dent blind belief.

John

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Member

longhunter posted this 27 July 2019

When I was an Single shot shooter a good friend of mine,Charlie Dell did extensive testing with lubes. He had hundreds of formulas. We shot tapered bullets and breach seated our bullets. Accuracy was pretty amazing. 200 yards was the normal range. Testing is the key to accuracy in all things cast.

Jon

Jon Welda CW5 USA Ret.

Attached Files

Liked by

Standard Member

OU812 posted this 27 July 2019

I have shot lot of John's 80 grain bullets by just smearing Lee alox onto bullet after seating. I noticed that the longer alox was allowed to dry on the bullet accuracy got worse. Smearing alox on bullet the night before shooting worked best (alox was not as hard). And yes it shot well in a 1/12 twist Remington barrel. I need to get back to the range after being off for a while.

Attached Files

CBA Board

John Alexander posted this 27 July 2019

Lee,

I feel honored to be confused with John Ardito who taught us a lot and set offhand records that I believe still stand while barefooted which he claimed helped.

John

Attached Files

CBA Member

Lee Wiggins posted this 26 July 2019

Sorry for the confusion John Alexander. Did not have my thinking cap on , I was talking about John Ardito.

Lee

Attached Files

CBA Board

John Alexander posted this 25 July 2019

Lee Wiggins wrote: "It was mentioned in this thread How do we know that John A only lubed the space ahead of the gas check? I know for a fact that he lubed the rear lube groove and space ahead of the gas check."

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

Hi Lee,

I don't know how you "know for a fact" that I also lubed the rear lube groove as well as the space ahead of the gas check. Please let us know.

However, you are right I have done it that way. I even wrote a TFS article where I compared lubing 1, 2, or 3 grooves filled. I have also rubbed elixirs on the nose of the bullet in vain attempts at improvements and tried tumble lube. I would whisper magic incantations before shooting each shot if I thought it would improve accuracy.

However, for the last several years I estimate that at least 95%, and maybe all, of the cast bullets I have shot in competition had lube only in the gap ahead of the gas check. The same for practice and most bullets used in experiments. Others lube all the grooves available and sometimes beat me. It ain't an exact science, or if it is we don't understand it yet.

John

Attached Files

CBA Member

Lee Wiggins posted this 25 July 2019

It was mentioned in this thread How do we know that John A only lubed the space ahead of the gas check? I know for a fact that he lubed the rear lube groove and space ahead of the gas check.

Lee Wiggins

Attached Files

CBA Board

Paul Pollard posted this 25 July 2019

John,

During 2016, I used a tumble lube for the entire year. It was a very light coat of Planet Waves carnauba, which Fred Sinclair showed me. He said to use it sparingly. His bullets looked like there was nothing on them. Throughout the year, I fiddled with it and became confident enough to shoot it at the 2016 National Match. The velocity with the 6PPC was 2300 - 2400 fps. It did tend to lead a bit, but I brushed and swabbed after each target. It shot competitively. The bullets were not messy at all.

Most of my testing is long term, usually throughout a year with the latest hair-brained idea. This tends to eliminate fascination with a “wallet group.” The above lube example tends to show that lube may be done to excess.

Attached Files

Standard Member

Tom G posted this 25 July 2019

Guys, I should have mentioned that my adventures with tumble lubing were with pistol bullets only. I shoot around 3 to 4 thousand a year so I'm always looking for ways to make more good bullets faster. My comments about the junk in the gun was in a 1911 45 auto and it was mostly in the magazine and chamber area. It was definetly a lot messier after I shot a hundred or two through it than with conventionally lubed bullets. I didn't get leading in the 45 auto but got lots of it in a 9mm Para.

I'm currently working on finding a good standard load for a very nice FN Browning Hi-power. That 9mm is the most finicky cartridge I ever ran into. Very high pressure and very small case capacity. Not very forgiving and bore diameters on those guns run all over the place. I finally had good success when I slugged the barrel and found that it wants 38 caliber bullets.

Today, I shot sample groups in the Hi-Power with three different alloy hardnesses. Linotype, half lino and half wheel weights and lastly bullets made of straight wheel weights with 2 % tin added. They all shot well so far with just a few flakes of lead that was not stuck to the barrel. Initial impression is that ww's will be fine at 1000 fps. as long as they are .001" larger than groove dia. If anyone has any good advice on good cb loads, I'm all ears.

Tom

Attached Files

CBA Board

John Alexander posted this 24 July 2019

As those who hang around here know I have been lubing only the tiny gap ahead of the gas check for all my match loads for several years. The vanishing amount needed is what got me thinking about no lube at all which I have had some promising results but that is still a work in progress.

My personal interest in tumble lube is to explore the possibility that I can get better results that way. Either better match accuracy or longer periods before bore cleaning is needed to reduce groups back to size. My limited testing above seems to show that accuracy may be equal. More uniform bore condition - maybe. Shot ten more groups this morning with encouraging results but more testing is needed before trying tumble lubing for a match. Like everybody else I have always used conventional lube -in- the-groove only, but would change in a minute if I think it will give me an improvement -- any mess be damned. As far as I know nobody else is even considering the idea.

John

Attached Files

Standard Member

JeffinNZ posted this 24 July 2019

I agree with Tom. Also, as the lubesizer has a 'stop' you can size only part of the bullet. EG: nose first bullet into the die to size only the top band. I do this with my .303 bullets. .304 on the nose, .312 first band, .316 balance of bullet.

Cheers from New Zealand

Attached Files

Liked by

Standard Member

Tom G posted this 24 July 2019

One of the advantages of a lube sizer that I can think of is that you have the option to fill as many lube grooves or leave empty as you deem best. I used to shoot a loverin style bullet with several smaller lube grooves. With that style, I conducted some tests with my lube formula and determined that .4 grs. of lube applied to the bullet gave the most consistent groups. Too much would cause a lube purging flier in a 10 round string and too little would cause some streak leading which did cause a slight loss of accuracy.

I think that how well the bullets seals when it starts to move determines how much lube you need to apply to the bullet to have enough to make it to the end of the barrel. I used a .0003" interference fit at the back of the bullet to seal off as the bullet was seated. This, in my mind kept the initial gas (young gas?) from blowing by the bullet before it obturated completely and sealed off. Any leakage by the bullet could blow the lube out of the grooves before it sealed up.

I went to a match up in Minn, one time and Ron KlerK De Rues was shooting my lube and stated that all he had on the bullet was what was in the gap in front of the gas check. He had none in the lube grooves, He shot pretty well with that load and didn't get any leading.

With Tumble lube, i guess you could control the amount of lube by using different numbers of coatings or by diluting the lube mix. But for me, I felt more confident lubing two or three grooves on a multi lube groove bullet.

I've tried tumble lubing pistol bullets and didn't like the mess and the junk that built up in the gun.

Tom Gray

Attached Files

Liked by

CBA Board

John Alexander posted this 23 July 2019

Paul Pollard wrote -- "Although the tech sheet has lots of room, the match report has a limited amount of space for lube data. Maybe a simple “LS”, “TL” or “PC” notation with lube name would suffice."

Hi Paul,

Good suggestion. There may be other improvements we could make. Anybody think of another you would like to see?

John