Hocus pocus....

  • 13K Views
  • Last Post 03 March 2009
ssgt posted this 06 December 2006

I would like to hear some opinions on bullet lube.

Do yall really think its that mysterious, eye of newt, bat wings and snake blood? Ive used alot of different lubes and my experience is that its not that complicated. My rifle loads are almost always full speed loads, actual rifle powders. The fastest thing I use in rifle loads is 2400. And handgun loads, Ive even used vaseline on some of those just for the heck of it. Whats yalls thoughts on this? Am I going up against a “sacred cow” here or am I too simple minded? This isnt to say that anything will do, even I have certain requirements lube must meet, i just think its overly complicated when it doesnt need to be.

Ed Harrison

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
R D posted this 03 March 2009

Thanks recluse; That seems to fit in with what I had seen and what I have learned in the last few months. Now I got to get time to burn and serve. If stuff will quit breaking.

Jeff; I had been considering doing something like this but was concerned with any air space over the powder, some loads only. Sort of a gas check for flat base bullets that doesn't cost an arm and leg. I have had great results with the Lyman 358156 in the past and it had become my standard magnum bullet in 357 but with the current cost of gas checks I want to use a bullet that is ready without extras. I want a good stout load but don't want to pay for more powder than I have to or have unburned powder left in the gun. My experience and what I see in the loading manuals is that standard weight cast bullets offer lower resistance in travel down the barrel and do not give optimum burn characteristics for powders like H110, even to the point of being dangerous, and I don't want to go up to 4227.  I currently use AL-8 in 4 to 5 inch 357's and even it is compressed some but some new data shows good speed and energy with less bulky and lower charge weights of powder.  I know that it will come down to burning powder but would like as much information as possible before I start. These OP wads seem to be a good option. I even intend to try gasket material if I get into it. Like you I shoot more low power loads but if I am just out bumming around I want the good stuff. Too many years of walking beside one that had the stuff and now with new components and information I want to get it right early. And yea I know AL-8 is old technology. It falls in with blue dot, power pistol and Herco but with better results. also I am running low on it.

Thanks for your help

Rodger

Attached Files

CB posted this 02 March 2009

Now I am gonna really mess yer day up!

If you use a moderate strength 8-12bhn boolit and get ya one of them wad punches that Fred Cornell sells in the diameter you need for yer magnum gun, get some .062 thick type 1 PCV sheeting and punch out some wads, put them little buggers on top the powder charge and under the boolit, you can pound them boolits downrange at mag velocities..

I dont do if often, dont like recoil that darn much, but I have done it. No leading either..

Attached Files

Recluse posted this 02 March 2009

The fit seems to be more important than the lube in preventing leading and a good hard kick to get it started is required to get the fit. Am I seeing something important here or have I smelled too much gun powder?

Based on my experience, it seems to be about a 60/40 ratio--with proper fit being the 60% factor in reducing/eliminating leading, and proper lube being the remaining 40%.

However, integrally they go hand in hand and are inseparable. I've tried casting to bore size, casting to bore plus 1/1000 up to 3/1000 over, and a variety of alloys then working a corresponding combination of charges and then shooting with NO LUBE.

Got leading every single time with the moderate to higher velocities.

I then took the same loads and configurations with boolits I had lubed. On about half the loads, I used three different configurations of a tumble lube. One was straight LLA, one was LLA cut about 50% with mineral spirits, and the third was half and half LLA with JPW, then cut about 10 to 15% with mineral spirits. With that last configuration, I always have to take the heat gun to the LLA bottle to get the mix warmed up enough to tumble thoroughly.

For the tumble-lube configurations, according to my (old) notes, the last version worked the best--the version of half and half (which is what I call it) LLA/JPW thinned with mineral spirits.

I got .357 Magnum velocities with a Lee TL158SWC up to just under 1400fps with no leading and more than acceptable accuracy. Pushed beyond that, I encountered both leading and noticable loss of accuracy. I encountered similar results with .44 Magnum using a favored RCBS 240SWC mould.

Now, when I took the same loads and used boolits I had run through the lubesizer, things began to change a bit. First thing I noticed in the .357 magnum rounds was that accuracy fell off quicker than it did with the half-and-half (LLA/JPW) mix. However, I didn't encounter any leading.

One HUGE mistake I made was in not putting the micrometer and calipers to the sized boolits. (I wish there was a smiley face that slapped his head in frustration over his stoooopidity.)

:doooah:

Later on, I mic'd the boolits and found that they were sizing a bit too large for my bore according to the slugs I'd run through (S&W Mod 686).

Rather than buying a new (RCBS) sizing die, I simply went with the TL158SWC boolits tumble-lubed. In all honesty, I don't shoot a lot of cast magnum stuff. Sacrilege and heresy notwithstanding, I still prefer jacketed bullets for my magnum loads.

But now, my interest is piqued with a couple of new lube formulas I've been working on for the past year or so.

No doubt that size matters. But what I found out in my highly scientific testing :wnk: is that the best sizing in the world, at high velocities, will still net you some leading without lubrication. Likewise, even the best lubes will not prevent leading if the boolits aren't sized properly to the bore you're shooting them out of.

:coffee:

Attached Files

R D posted this 02 March 2009

Jeff;  they probably were as I was sizing to the barrel dia. My experience was a while back and I am just getting back in, Life happens.

Rodger

Attached Files

CB posted this 02 March 2009

Are the bullets sized to the diameter of the throat in the cylinder? Sounds to me like they may be a bit small and the increased pressure obdurates the base enough to seal it in the throat/barrel.

Attached Files

R D posted this 02 March 2009

Good day    I have been following this thread and find it very informative. I have used cast mostly in magnum revolvers and have noticed something and am wondering if others have seen this also or am I just seeing shadows. It seems that when using my cast bullets that are mostly just wheel weights that have a little tin added I get leading unless I keep the pressure near the top. That is I adjust my powder choice to give me near max pressures when I get the velocity that I want from mild target to high speed loads. I have had times when increasing the powder charge has eliminated leading. The theory I have is that the bullet must be forced into an intimate contact with the cylinder and barrel in able to stop the leading and that low pressures for the velocity will not force this condition. I have had guns that would not do as described above and got rid of them. I do not know about the dimensions in them as at that time I swapped until I found a good shooter instead of changing the load to match the gun. I have always sized the bullets to at or slightly above the bore size. With commercial swagged bullets I have also noticed this trend at lower pressures. I have tried to learn as much as I could about cast bullets and found a lot of contradictory information from the experts. The fit seems to be more important than the lube in preventing leading and a good hard kick to get it started is required to get the fit. Am I seeing something important here or have I smelled too much gun powder?

Rodger

Attached Files

CB posted this 02 March 2009

I have often thought that if one were to instrument a barrel with thermocouples and strain gauges from chamber to muzzle, and have a data recording unit and take say 250K samples per second, do a complete dimensional analysis and look at the bore with a highly magnified borescope and then correlate the image to the DA and instrument readings, I bet we would have a very accurate look at what actually happens.

But that is a fantasy and not very practical for the average Joe unless he hit the lottery.

There are many variables as you state Bill, I am impressed that you thought of the cartridge mis-alignment. When I shoot competition in production class where we can not change the chambering to correct such an issue, we seat the bullet only by as much of the gas check that will hold the bullet. When we size, we size to the freebore dimension which is the area between where the case ends and the rifling begins. Some of us re-throat the lead into the rifling and then taper the bullets in a special press. This helps correct that condition, but does not solve it.

I do not get any leading in that rifle, I am sure the over kill on strength of the bullet, coupled with the lower velocity (1800fps) very high quality lube and a fire lapped bore help make that possible.

Now I have seen where the bore diameter is not consistant from breech to muzzle, in fact the rifle I speak of has a new factory barrel because the old one (less than 1000 rounds) had a tight muzzle and did lead and the accuracy was terrible. But that was a mechanical problem with the rifle, it actually shaved lead and left lots of little strip like flakes on the patches.

I am very confident that if you had the proper bullet strength, barrel twist, good lube and mechanics of the weapon, you can drive a bullet over 3000fps with out leading. In fact I have seen it done.

Attached Files

JetMech posted this 02 March 2009

Jeff Bowles wrote: I would suspect that the leading due to pressure leak past the gas check and lube would occur at the point of travel down the boar where the peak pressure of the load occurs. If a bore shows erosion in the first 6 inches of the barrel, I think that is the area of peak pressure. Now the question, is this first 6 inches of the barrel where the gas check and lube become compromised and the leading occurs from that point on, or is there something else that is going on that I am not thinking about? Given a smooth, consistant bore from throat to muzzle, your reasoning seems sound. There's a variety of reasons for failure in the first 6 inches. Under-sized bultets, mis-aligned cartidge (bullet) with the throat/bore, bullet jumping to the rifling before the powder charge is fully ignited (caused by hot primers or position-sensitive powders). What else is going on there?

As to the peak pressure question, I would ask that generally, the most accurate load will yield a pressure curve that is on the downward side of peak at the muzzle so there is the least disturbance as the bullet exits the muzzle? And also, isn't leading at the muzzle due more to velocity exceeding the capabilities of the alloy? Even in loads that peak pressure is reached rapidly, say in the first 12 inches of barrel, you can still get leading at the muzzle end if velocity is too high.  I've never had a load that leading started in the middle of the barrel. It's either at one end or the other.

One thing about lubes. I was taught that the lube should turn to a liquid state in the bore, because liquids are generally considered to be incompressable, while solids are not. How that comes into play during the bullets travel down the bore, I'm not quite sure. You guys have a great thread going here. Alot of intelligent thought being put down.

Attached Files

CB posted this 02 March 2009

Anyone else have any ideas about leading and lube?

Question about the sealer theory. How do bullets that have a coating like the Hornady pistol bullets work?

Attached Files

CB posted this 02 March 2009

I would suspect that the leading due to pressure leak past the gas check and lube would occur at the point of travel down the boar where the peak pressure of the load occurs. If a bore shows erosion in the first 6 inches of the barrel, I think that is the area of peak pressure. Now the question, is this first 6 inches of the barrel where the gas check and lube become compromised and the leading occurs from that point on, or is there something else that is going on that I am not thinking about?

Attached Files

Recluse posted this 02 March 2009

Jeff Bowles As for the leading that Pat is asking about. I think there are 2 types of leading that occur. One comes from pushing a boolit past the strength of the alloy and that results in stripping the boolit past the rifling. The other is melting caused by leakage past the gas check and the lube. Of course you can have a very rough bore with pits that cause a scrapping type leading I see in some of the not well taken care of military guns.

At least that is my opinion.

I'll agree with all of the above, and even take it one step further regarding the melting theory of leading.

First, I do agree that inferior lead--be it BHN hardness, composition, impurities, etc--will degrade itself when subjected to pressures encountered inside the bore. Add a pitted or rough barrel (of which I have have a few. . .), and leading is 100% inevitable. About all you can do with a good lube is try to coordinate with a proper primer/powder charge to minimize leading.

But you're still gonna get it.

As far as the melting theory goes, I'm right with it. However, my big question and quest for knowledge is why and where does the melting occur.

If the melting comes very early on in the barrel, it's pretty safe to assume that accuracy goes the way of a political promise during an election year.

But if the melting comes towards the end of the barrel and you have a basically clean barrel at the outset of your shooting, it's been my experience that your accuracy doesn't suffer nearly as much for your first few shots. When hunting, I rarely get more than a couple of shots a day for most outings. Back at camp, I clean the gun thoroughly, eliminating any fouling/leading.

What I'm working on with my own lube development is to formulate a lube that when it liquidizes, it forms a barrier to the gasses that result from detonation of the powder. That barrier also needs to absorb some of the heat to better protect the base of the boolit. Gas checks definitely help in a big way with that, but I want additional protection for the checks and subsequent boolit.

This is where I believe that the super-grade lubricants and hybrids and full synthetics ultimately prove superior. Their viscosity is unreal and they simply do not break down the way conventional mineral oils do.

A chemist at the old Phillips Petroleum refinery once told me (and don't know if he was right on or full of fertilizer--I'm definitely not a chemist) that pure heat was a mineral oil's worst enemy. Seems kind of basic to me, but this was a long time ago when I was first getting into the black art of boolit casting and wondering out loud about lube formulas.

I do remember some impressive demonstrations when I worked on the Mobil 1 (advertising) account. They sold me on synthetic motor oil, and I've used nothing else in any of my cars or other vehicles for the past fifteen-plus years.

Bottom line is I believe that leading (other than that from inferior alloy or less-than-smooth barrels) is a result of the gases getting past the lube and damaging the forward end of the boolit as it travels down the bore. If anyone can develop a lube that will both form the correct, gas-impervious seal, plus lubricate so that whatever alloy sloughs off, then we can probably see leading cease to exist with properly formulated loads.

So do I believe in Santa Claus or what?:)

:coffee:

Attached Files

CB posted this 01 March 2009

Well Since you all starting in on this.. Allow me to grab my soap box.

Do keep in mind that I am not plugging one lube over another here, but the facts is the facts.

I make lube as many know. My lube has almost all of the qualities RunfiveRun is working on. Yep that means it is pretty soft, but it is dryer than most. The only difference is I dont have to heat mine. It is right on the ragged edge of needing heat and in colder climates a bit if heat may be needed. Now I had a lot of help getting this lube up off the ground. I am sworn to secrecy as to the formulation. But there is some rather expensive stuff that is difficult for the average joe to buy called zinc stearate. If you take this or a similar compound called Arcrawax (used in the powdered metal industry) that can serve as the drying agent you are speaking of.

As for the leading that Pat is asking about. I think there are 2 types of leading that occur. One comes from pushing a boolit past the strength of the alloy and that results in stripping the boolit past the rifling. The other is melting caused by leakage past the gas check and the lube. Of course you can have a very rough bore with pits that cause a scrapping type leading I see in some of the not well taken care of military guns.

At least that is my opinion.

Attached Files

runfiverun posted this 01 March 2009

the no obduration boolit definately has it's merits. i have been re-thinking this recently since i got my 358 and it's bbl was just over 3575 in size. closer to 358. my mold saeco 245gr poured just under 359 and the only sizer i had on hand was a 358 so a daaaaang close fit from boolit to bbl. i have been working on a lube that is solid but soft and requires just a bit of heat in he sizer. it also stays like a hard putty even when cold. bout right i figured for pressure situations. now i have been pushing this boolit with from 48 to 50 grains of rl-19 and have wavered between the two for various reasons. but i have fired over 200 rounds from this combination with no cleaning of the bbl nor loss of accuracy.but after firing 40 rounds yesterday i was noticing the black in the bbl from powder fouling and the darker lube star. with just a touch of antimonial wash on the lands. was this due to lube? fit??? pressure?? 45k-50k on an alloy of 1/3 water dropped. or is this just a combination of all three. with good bbl fit, no obduration, and a lube good enough to get to the end of the bbl.

Attached Files

Fred Sinclair posted this 01 March 2009

“Personally I think in smokeless neck seated loads the best accuracy and least amount of leading will come when there's most likely no obturation at all but I'd like to get some opinions.”

 I'm with Pat on this one but would add, smokeless neck seated rifle loads having bullets of 18BHN or harder, to his load description.  

Not being a hand gunner my observations, regarding lubes, apply only to the above mentioned loads. I find that bullets cast at 18BHN and above require only minimal amounts of lube. I do rely on the “star” appearance to tell me when that amount is achieved. The “stars” are lube/powder residue. If the residue on the muzzle is excessive it is time to make load adjustments of some sort. 

 I have also observed that the residue of some powders will have a forgiving effect on the efficiency, or inefficiency, of the lube. I tend to use powders that have slower burning rates than the traditional. At the same time the slower powders can produce more powder/lube fouling build up if the bore is not routinely cleaned.

 I expect some sort of dry coating is the cure-all, we just have to find it.

Attached Files

CB posted this 01 March 2009

To change gears a bit can I get some opinions about what causes leading? Personally I think in smokeless neck seated loads the best accuracy and least amount of leading will come when there's most likely no obturation at all but I'd like to get some opinions.

Attached Files

JetMech posted this 01 March 2009

Just because we cannot “see” what is happening inside the barrel doesn't mean that we cannot understand what is going on. I certainly cannot see the atomic structure of the barrel, lube, bullet, etc, but I (with alot of help from folks more learned than I) can understand the physics. And that is not conjecture. We apply what we know to achieve the desired result. There are alot of variables in every different load and rifle and while the ultimate goal is no leading and top accuracy, depending on the variables, it takes different lube properties to achieve that goal. Also keep in mind that not everyone has the same goal. One guy wants top accuracy for a 5 or 10 shot string. While his test results may show that lube “X” delivers the best results, it may not hold up if the string is extended to 40 shots, where lube “Y” delivers the goods. That why, this is still an art, rather than a science. To paraphrase Ed Harris from a different thread “We are Alchemists, gentlemen".

Attached Files

CB posted this 01 March 2009

I think you are right on target Recluse.. The only thing I would add is this. Some of the lube does burn or partially carbonizes. This once burned soot it what makes the seal, especially in lubes that use a base lubricant of natural oil or grease.

The difference with synthetics is that the base oil component does not carbonize or burn. A simple test can prove this and if you were to try and take a synthetic based lube and flux your lead pot with it, all you will get is a lot of smoke and a big mess in your lead pot.

In many of the bullet lube formulas floating around the internet, you will see the formula call for ivory soap. It isnt the actual soap they want from this, but the sodium stearate they use to make the soap. Sodium stearate helps bind all of the ingredients together. It also helps to raise the remelt temp of the lube and adds a thickining action to the lube.

Most of the ingredients people use for lube can burn, so if you think of it this way, would you want something that is creating the liquid seal to burn, or do you want it to not burn.. Ah, that is the question...

Another function of some ingredients that are added, and this one class of ingredient in particular, is to keep the inert ingredients and any lead from adhering to the bore.

Everyone has their own opinion as to what boolit lube does, and has been the basis of many a discussion and even arguments.

Because we can not actually see what happens, much is conjecture. That is why there are people that are materials and chemical engineers. I have had the privilege of having access to both in my line of work. With a little guidance and at a cost of a couple of lunches I got a lot of what I know from them.

Attached Files

Recluse posted this 01 March 2009

pat i. wrote: What I don't understand is how can a lubricant/sealer that has a much lower melt temp. than the lead bullet that's supposedly being melted by the hot gas flowing past it seal anything.

My thinking is that as the lube “melts,” it goes from a solid to a liquid. As you know, liquid under pressure can resist very high gas pressures. The liquid (molton lube) is effectively “trapped” within the lube grooves of the boolit, and as obturation occurs, the liquified lube acts as a sealant. The key is in the base ingredient(s) of the lubes being used and what their (sustained) flash point is.

:coffee:

Attached Files

hunterspistol posted this 16 November 2008

:coolgun:  I've used Lyman moly because it just came out about the time I started reloading. Used a lot of alox too. My thoughts run along the same lines, at lower velocity, the lube doesn't make all that much difference. I have a 22 Hornet barrel that crosses the line there. At tops, it's over 1800 fps and requires a gas check. I loaded most of it as a beginner, so the lube wasn't all that important. The bore in this 10” barrel is polished out with molybdenum disulfide and some Slick 2000 mix. It might not be lapping but, it did improve the accuracy. I've been told moly disulfide is corrosive-don't know if that's true.

Recently, I've been moving up to harder lubes used with a heat element on my lubesizer. I'm shooting a 7mmTCU that runs 1900 fps, about like a 30.06. Since I'm working on it slowly, haven't quite got it accurate to 200 yards. I think either the alloy, bullet design (changed that) or lube has something to do with it.

     I don't know if it's hocus pocus but, I'm inclined to think that a rifle bullet that takes a gas check at high velocity may need a better lube. I don't see 1000 fps as being so fierce as to require anything more far-fetched than grease or tallow, alox just smells better.  I'm going to venture that the closer one gets to 2,000 fps, the more the lube might matter- I didn't say it's a fact, though.

Attached Files

R D posted this 16 November 2008

I am new here but I will put in my  $.02 worth just because of a couple of things That I haven't seen yet. This is What I think But don't know. The lube may act as a lube or as an anti flux. Either way it helps to keep the lead alloy (solder) from sticking to the steel. The lube properties will help to keep the temperature lower in the bullet. The lube may also act as an insulator so that the bullet does not pick up heat from the barrel. 

    If you have ever seen a cutting torch in use you know that a flame heats the steel but that a cold jet of oxygen does the cutting. All of the bullets and photos of bullets that I have seen that show a reduction in size from gas cutting look like the kerf from a cutting torch.  I think that if a bullet is very close to the bore in size and the pressure is high enough to force the lead into contact with the barrel the lube acts as a seal to those minor places where we don't have a perfect fit. If the bullet is not a near perfect fit (too Small) the Gas going by it will blow out the lube, cut the bullet and leave us very unhappy with the performance of the lube.

    How can a low temp lube seal high pressure gasses? Have you ever drug your garden hose to a faucet and after hooking it up and turning on the valve, had water start coming out and then had the end of the hose whip violently and make a loud hissing noise? The Gas, (air) is light and easy to move. When Gas tries to pass through a small passage it goes very fast and creates heat even while causing a cooling effect down stream from it. When a fluid is passing through the same small passage it goes at a much slower pace just like the water and air in the garden hose.  The reference to an auto engine is similar, the oil on the rings is so thin that you could hardly measure it but it seals the burning fuel gases in the combustion chambers. It does this by sealing those minor faults where the parts don't fit perfect and because the molecules of oil (fluid) are so much heavier than air (gas) they start and move much slower. If the gas moves it creates friction and makes that spot much hotter than the gas temp just like the cutting torch. If we can stop the flow of gas through these small areas that don't fit well we get a well formed bullet out of the barrel and the lube, as stated above does not have to work forever just to the end of the barrel. Also the larger the passage, the faster the gas and fluids will go through.

    I am working on a homemade lube that I have pushed to about 2600 FPS (book Vel) with a 55 gr GC bullet in a 223 rem. After 25 rounds the bore was cleaner than it was at the start and the bullet passed through 6 inches of seasoned yellow pine pressure treated lumber (solid)15 ft from the muzzle and went another 6 or more inches into the ground (hard clay). It was a quick test and as I now have blown out a knee it will be some time till I can get back to work on it. It worked as an anti flux, and as a lube. I don't know if it will be accurate or if it will store well in ammunition yet. It does show promise.

    The above I believe but the following I know. Every gun is a law unto it's self when shooting cast bullets and very minor things can have a large impact. What looks good will not always work. 2 identical guns will not shoot the same. Perhaps discussions like this will help us get closer to the truth.

    One other thing that I believe is that bullets should fit very snug in the cyl & bore and that the barrel should get tighter toward the muzzle and never get larger. A Smooth finish is good but that a mirror finish is not necessiarly better. As You can see I think quite a bit but don't know much, such is the lot of a mechanic.

God Bless all

R D

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close