Im thinking that lube is critical for accuracy!

[mainiac]

I dont know how im going to prove this to myself, but in my muzzleloaders, i can change group shape and size,and impact location,just by changing to different lube recipes. If this is so obivious in the smoke pole,than it must have a similar effect in lead boolits? Dont know how im going to find this out,as it will intail a huge amount of time and work!As an example of what im talking about..... Ive been trying out dry lube patches that are made with ballistol/water,and letting the water evaporate. Ratioes between 5/1 and 10/1 will change the shape,size and impact of every group fired. Just this simple change!! Im thinking I must look into boolit lubes far more than i have before. I hate to change what ive used for 3-4 years now,because i get ZERO leading,but i feel i ought to start friggin things up!!! HA!

[Doc Highwall]

Yes for best accuracy lube does make a big difference. You can have 10 different lubes and none of them will give you any leading but they will all give different accuracy. Check on here and you will find the comments from the shooters as to what they have used and what they are using now along with pictures of their targets.

[44man]

Very true. Shoot for groups with lube like you do with powder and primers. Forget about the leading as being all that counts.

[MT Gianni]

Lube can also have an effect on pressure. A high pressure pistol load may be over pressure with a different lube.

[runfiverun]

yes, lube has a definat effect, and just cause it's a soft lube don't mean its better.
oh yeah temperature has an effect on how a lube works too.
you need to shoot them in the summer and winter before declaring it good unless you wanna use two lubes or loads,sometimes it's as simple as filling the/or another groove for the winter/summer.

[Bret4207]

It's all variables. When you get a "good enough" load with a certain alloy and lube we tend to stick with it. That's what I do for 95% of my shooting. I simply don't have time to tweak loads for 80 some moulds in 20+ handguns and 40+ rifles. So I stick with the "good enough for now" loads using WW and 50/50 lube or Mule Snot.

When I tweak a load all the variables come into play- size, nose size, alloy, powder, case, primer, heat treating, seating depth, HP or solid and lube, number of lube grooves filled, etc. Even the type of sizer can make a difference. With that in mind I see no reason to think your lube ideas are incorrect. Look what we go through getting jacketed to shoot to the max degree. Cast is just more of the same with more variations thrown into the mix and less tolerance for mistakes.

[joeb33050]

I have never detected an accuracy difference in any rifle with any bullet, caused by a change in lube. I have never read of a reasonable test showing that lube made a difference in accuracy. There are so many lubes on the market, by so many suppliers, with different lubes used by competitors in cast bullet matches, that I conclude that there's no accuracy difference between reasonable lubes. Colonel Harrison reported that silicone lubes did not work well; I used NAPA Syl-Glyde in a 45-70 and found that it shot fine, as well as bullets lubed with Darr lube.
Lyman Alox bullet lube failed me recently, but this I think is because the formula is off-something's wrong-the bad lube is very light in color.
Now I may be wrong, and all the testing that I and most of you did with paraffin and moly and crisco and beeswax and vaseline and carnuaba wax and steam cylinder oil and lithium grease and ivory soap and mutton tallow and .............. may be wrong. wish there were a lube that tightened up my groups, and I want to hear about any lube and test that shows that. But for now, lube just don't matter.
joe b.

[pdawg_shooter]

I am not good enough with a hand gun to tell the difference. In rifles I paper patch everything. With paper, any lube will do. I even tried no lube and they shot fine. I can tell no difference, accuracy wise, regardless of what lube I use. Right now I am using BAC for ease of application and cost. I stay away form no lube because I think dry paper MIGHT accelerate bore ware. No proof, it just seems reasonable.

[largom]

I have never detected an accuracy difference in any rifle with any bullet, caused by a change in lube. I have never read of a reasonable test showing that lube made a difference in accuracy. There are so many lubes on the market, by so many suppliers, with different lubes used by competitors in cast bullet matches, that I conclude that there's no accuracy difference between reasonable lubes. Colonel Harrison reported that silicone lubes did not work well; I used NAPA Syl-Glyde in a 45-70 and found that it shot fine, as well as bullets lubed with Darr lube.
Lyman Alox bullet lube failed me recently, but this I think is because the formula is off-something's wrong-the bad lube is very light in color.
Now I may be wrong, and all the testing that I and most of you did with paraffin and moly and crisco and beeswax and vaseline and carnuaba wax and steam cylinder oil and lithium grease and ivory soap and mutton tallow and .............. may be wrong. wish there were a lube that tightened up my groups, and I want to hear about any lube and test that shows that. But for now, lube just don't matter.
joe b.

I'm confused! If lube "just does'nt matter" how could the Lyman Alox lube fail?
Larry

[44man]

Over the years I have tested many lubes and now use Felix most of the time. Lar's Carnauba Red is very good as are LBT's soft lubes. LBT Blue is good in rifles and works fair in revolvers but is not as accurate as Felix. It is not as good with revolver rounds in a rifle either.
The problem with a lot of lubes are that they are either too slippery, too hard or burn in the bore leaving ash behind. Why keep mixing up millions of ingredients that just stop leading?
When you are crazy like me and want a revolver to shoot like a rifle, you will discover lube DOES make a difference. Then it is just as important with a rifle too.
Those that have not tweaked the maximum accuracy from their guns will never see a difference with a lube change and just keep searching for the lube that does not lead the bore.
Here is just one target of hundreds that shows a difference in lube.

[Maven]

Maybe we need to reframe the question as follows: How great a change in accuracy (rifle & handgun) can be attributed to (a) type of lube used and (b) amount of lube used? I suppose we'd need a BR rifle and shooter to be able to determine this and a Ransom Rest (or equivalent) for handguns.

[felix]

44man, in defense of the many, most folks don't demand that kind of accuracy for the kind of shooting they do. They just are not into it as much as we are. ... felix

[felix]

Maven, you are correct in that most guns cannot tell the difference anyway. I only have two or three handguns that are "match" quality, and only two rifles that are accurate. ... felix

[44man]

Yes, I have shown this target many times but it is the most graphic picture I have for lube results. I have shown many others in quite a few years but not a single one of you has ever seen me post a good group shot with Alox in any form because it just does not happen.
I will never understand the love for Alox! Lee snot is a lazy mans excuse for lubing easy. 50-50 is a little better but still ruins groups. Most store bought lubes are still in a drawer, never to be used again.
So far Felix lube is the one to beat for accuracy under all conditions and I will forever be indebted to him for his genius! :drinks:
THANK YOU FELIX! :Fire:
Glen makes some great lubes and his Carnauba Red is very good and he makes a fantastic BP lube but a lot of his sales are lubes with Alox because the demand is there. I don't blame him, he is in business and is a super guy. If I bought more lube I would only buy his but SS income makes it hard to even keep enough powder or primers so I can do some shooting. Each year gets tighter.
Using automotive grease and air conditioning oil and thousands of other things is nothing but a waste of time and money and a search for something better that does not exist.
We have Felix and Lar and Speed Green that I have not tried yet because I value my Bull Plate lube too much. I need to buy some so I can test the lube.
I can only assure you that your choice of lube will make or break groups and until one of you posts one hole groups with the lube you make, I will not change what I use.

[Larry Gibson]

I concur with Bret4207 and joeb33050.

I too stick with a proven lube that works very well from minimal velocities of a few hundred fps up through 2500+ fps in cold weather and hot weather. There are too many variable to test under the same controlled conditions. None of us have a shooting laboratory where conditions are precisely controlled that I am aware of. How many of us have shot a really nice group one day only to go out another day and shoot a so-so group with the same load....all of us is the answer. Only a test that is conducted under the same conditions will give us reliable comparative results. That is why one 3 shot, or even one 5 shot group is only indicative of the potential. A 10 shot group is better but three 5 shot groups or three ten shot groups shot on the same day to as close to the same conditions as possible will give us the best data. Now how many of us are able to do that with all of variables, especially with all of the moulds and firearms many of us have?

As part of the recent RPM tests one of the variables tested were lubes. I had received numerous criticisms, complaints, whatever, etc. that the Javelina Lube was "failing", not adequate, etc. That criticism was coming from the same folks who were criticizing every other variable also but I had intended to test the variables anyway. I conducted the following test all on the same day, with the same rifles, the same bullets, the same sizing, the same alloy, the same GCs the same powder, the same cases, the sam primers.....every thing was the same except the lube used on the bullets. The temperature at the range did change some 9 degrees during the several hours (10 hours) it took to conduct the test. However the temperature range was well within the accepted norm for performance of all the lubes.

With each rifle (2 rifles in .308W with 2 different twists 10 and 14") I fired two 10 shot groups at 100 yards with each lube in the RPM threshold (at the velocity that gave the best accuracy) and two 10 shot groups at 2500 fps with a load that gave excellent internal ballistics (measured with an Oehler M43).

This test was done using 6 different lubes, all commercially available, all of which are reputed by many members here to be "the lube" to use. At the end of the test when looking at both the groups within the RPM threshold and those at high velocity there wasn't a bit of difference between them. They all worked equally well. Only one lube did not perform well at high velocity but it was not reputed nor advertised for that purpose. Again, there was not a bit of difference between the soft, the hard, the blue or the red.

For many, many years I have used Javelina or other commercial alox/beeswax lubes with most every cast bullet load (caveat; that is with smokeless powder cast bullet loads) simply because it gives consistently accurate results with no leading from 200 to 2600 fps in all reasonable weather temperatures. I have, over the years experimented with other lubes but never found any that were really better. The results of my latest test were pretty conclusive to me. Bret and Joe are correct.

Larry Gibson

[WildmanJack]

Since my 45 colt molds throw the exact size I need for my 73 Winny, I decided to use Moly lube on the boolets. I bought the Lyman kit with the two bowls and ceramic media. So far I've lubed a few boolets but haven't had a chance to load them and test them out. Any feelings pro or con on using moly only on your boolets?? As always, thanks in advance ffor your input.. Hope I'm not hi jacking this thread..
Jack:drinks:

[joeb33050]

I'm confused! If lube "just does'nt matter" how could the Lyman Alox lube fail?
Larry
Let me help untangle your confusion. Lyman Alox, in 2 tubes that are VERY light, tan, beige, light, lighter than the other tubes of Lyman Alox, caused hard gritty granular not-lead-but-feels-like-lead fouling in 2 guns in 308 Win. A Savage Striker and a Creighton Audette M98 Mauser. After ~3 months of testing, I'm left with the result that changing ONLY the lube eliminated the fouling. Shooting 3 foulers and 10 for record and cleaning gave very acceptable accuracy. I guess that the VERY LIGHT Lyman Alox is a mistake, an error, a different formula, a something.
Now, to repeat. I have never found, nor have I read of anyone else finding, that any one "reasonable" lube is less accurate than another. Reasonable includes the array of commercial lubes and those invented by reasonable shooters such as H. M. Pope, B. Darr, Leopold, etc.
I wish it were true that some lube gives significantly better accuracy, hope that somebody finds it, but I haven't seen it yet.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Anyone can shoot one target that's way better than another. That's just luck. By shooting more groups under ~ the same conditions, luck recedes and we start to learn something. One target means nothing. NOTHING. Shoot 5 5-shot groups with everything the same except the lube, and maybe you'll know-or at least suspect-something. Testing anything requires a lot of samples. Not one group. One group, one target, means NOTHING.
joe b.




Over the years I have tested many lubes and now use Felix most of the time. Lar's Carnauba Red is very good as are LBT's soft lubes. LBT Blue is good in rifles and works fair in revolvers but is not as accurate as Felix. It is not as good with revolver rounds in a rifle either.
The problem with a lot of lubes are that they are either too slippery, too hard or burn in the bore leaving ash behind. Why keep mixing up millions of ingredients that just stop leading?
When you are crazy like me and want a revolver to shoot like a rifle, you will discover lube DOES make a difference. Then it is just as important with a rifle too.
Those that have not tweaked the maximum accuracy from their guns will never see a difference with a lube change and just keep searching for the lube that does not lead the bore.
Here is just one target of hundreds that shows a difference in lube.

[markinalpine]

Anyone can shoot one target that's way better than another. That's just luck. By shooting more groups under ~ the same conditions, luck recedes and we start to learn something. One target means nothing. NOTHING. Shoot 5 5-shot groups with everything the same except the lube, and maybe you'll know-or at least suspect-something. Testing anything requires a lot of samples. Not one group. One group, one target, means NOTHING.
joe b.

AGREED. :Fire:

To perform a meaningful test, comparing different lubes, you'd have to eliminate all other variables, which is problematic. You could put a handgun in a Ransom (sp?) rest, or some other similar holding device, and the same for a rifle, but you'd have to be careful to not overheat the barrel, so you'd have to allow time for the weapon to cool down. You'd have to account for environmental conditions.
It would require the resources at a level higher than most of us to do this.

I like the comment of Richochet, who was describing how he made up some lube, that was posted in one of the Stickies, with words to the effect that it's all very scientific. This was said, I'm sure, with his tongue in his cheek, as he was grabbing what ever he had at hand to mix his lube.

Mark :coffee:

[Larry Gibson]

I should add to my above comments that that day of testing was long and tedious. The conclusion I came to is that if a good quality lube is giving good accuracy with no leading (at or under the RPM threshold) in the spectrum of conditions you'll use it in then further testing of other lubes seeking better accuracy is probably a waste of time and effort. I would not hesitate to us any of the 6 lubes I tested for normal cast bullet shooting. For high velocity I would not hesitate to use any of the 5 that performed equally well. I did not find any lube, nor have I ever and I've tried a lot of them, that would "shrink groups in half" as so often quoted on this forum, other forums and in advertisements. If you've a lube that is giving consistent moa or 1 1/2 moa groups in a moa capable rifle then searching for a lube to get 1/2 moa is a waste of time. It just isn't going to happen.

I use Javelina and other alox/beeswax 50/50 lubes because they work for me. I have always gotten consitent and excellent accuracy from them in rifles and handguns. I have seen many "rifle like" groups fired at 50 yards from many handguns using 50/50 lube. I've seen many a 2" or smaller 24 shot group at 50 yards from PPC revolvers using alox 50/50 lubed bullets. I've seen numerous like groups fired from older quality made S&Ws, Colts and Dan Wessons using cast bullets and Javelina. I'm sure other lubes would do as well but I doubt any better. There was a time when 6 shots "around the cylinder" into 1" at 25 yards was expected. Now it seems that 2-3" is acceptable. I do not think the lube has anything to do with it.

I've some other lubes left over from the tests that I will end up using also. I expect good accuracy with them but do not expect any better accuracy or miracle accuracy from any of them. If you're using a lube that works for you in rifle or handgun or both then by all means keep using it. If you're using a lube that is not working for you, especially home made concoctions, then you might might try a known performer like Javelina to have a yardstick to measure the home made concoction's performance from.

Bottom line is there are many things that adversley affect accuracy. If you're having accuracy problems (3+ inch groups in a rifle known for moa accuracy with jacketed bullets for example) and you're using a quality lube for that application then the lube is about the last thing to look at.

Larry Gibson

[Bladebu1]

what I think
frist I am not a exspert
But we all know varibles are just that
I would bet just like one rifle (likes ) a type wieght and style of bullet
there is also a powder ? amount that it will (like ) as well
I have been told 1 or 2 tenth"s of a grain could make the differnce
and all rifles are not the same so what may work in one rifle "like a 700 rem" and the next one dose not shoot the same Mix of compoants well
I think that that is one of the reasons we are all here
we all want the holy grail of what works the best
just Like I could think lube could all be part of the" mix "
of what works

[Maven]

joeb & markinalpine are correct: Large samples obtained under controlled conditions would help decide the issue. Maybe bullet lube acts as a limiting factor in that bad lubes result iin leading* (because they run out of lubricity?), which has a deleterious effect on accuracy? Moreover, E.H. Harrison of the NRA found that some lubricants, e.g., metallic soaps (white lithium grease) and gear & cup lube I think, weren't suitable for CB/gun use. I'm also wondering whether this is partially a semantic problem since "accuracy" and the lubricity factor of bullet lubes are undefined. Lastly, could this also be a problem in logic? E.g., I lube all my CB's with "SlipSlidin'Away" lube and push them to say, 1,900fps and get poor accuracy from a gun known to be accurate. When I clean the gun I find lots of leading and vow to do something about it. On my next trip to the range, I use the same lube, but push the same CB's with the same powder & primers to only 1,750fps and accuracy is wonderful with nary a speck of lead in the bore. Was it the lube only (Post hoc, ergo propter hoc)? the limits of Slipslidin'Away lube? bullet hardness, shooter's luck (vs. bad luck the first time)?, etc. You'll have to agree, this is a very difficult problem to resolve in part because of the number of variables involved and the complex research design needed to address it.


*controlling for bullet hardness, velocity and amount of lube the CB carries.

[felix]

When I compared the various formulations, I made sure there were DIFFERENT conditions. Perhaps I shot 200 rounds or more of a specific lube before rejecting or taking it for another season, or different boolit. ... felix

[BD]

It's been a long time since I used anything but Felix lube, or felt I had any reason to.
I started with LLA, but as soon as I tried my first "real" lube I couldn't see any reason to use it unless you were tumble lubing, what a PITA.
I got a dozen sticks of 50/50 lube along with some other stuff I bought and I used that. It was OK, but really made a gooey mess in the 1911s after 500 rounds or so.I bought some LBT blue off of Veral and it worked pretty good.* But it needed heat, even in the summer, and I had to buy it.Then I found the old shooter's board, made my first batch of Felix lube, and never looked back.* Mine is pink because I like a little of that wax seal off the Makers Mark bottle in there.* BD

[44man]

Anyone can shoot one target that's way better than another. That's just luck. By shooting more groups under ~ the same conditions, luck recedes and we start to learn something. One target means nothing. NOTHING. Shoot 5 5-shot groups with everything the same except the lube, and maybe you'll know-or at least suspect-something. Testing anything requires a lot of samples. Not one group. One group, one target, means NOTHING.
joe b.
I think with all I have posted and the group pictures I put here, you can never claim I lucked into ONE good group. Please show all you have done and are doing.
I do not EVER luck shoot. I work my butt off and it is an every day thing, not one good group to brag about. I do NOT like to brag, I want to help and inform so everyone can shoot the very best.
So far not one single "expert" has ever posted better results. I don't know it all and will never claim to but to be run down all the time without a single bit of proof that what you do is better, it is time to show all of us. Get off the keyboard and post 50 and 100 yd group pictures.

[357maximum]

Try this for yourself all in one afternoon/morning under the same conditions:

Load 200 BR quality rounds of a proven long term tested load of at least 2300FPS in your tightest shooter using the following for groups:


Shoot 20 round groups at 100 yards: (you can vary the brands of lube and still see the writing on the wall if your eys are open and your grey matter has synapses that fire)


20 rounds with LBT soft blue
20 rounds with Felix
20 rounds with a lithi-bee or lithi-micro type lube
20 rounds with NRA 50/50

and 20 rounds made up 5 rounds of each of the above intermingled at random....................


Now do the very same experiment in exact reverse order without ever cleaning the gun....number the targets keep good notes at all stages AND MOST IMPORTANTLY...............NO PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS

(it may even be helpful to have another sharpshooter buddy shoot the last 100 reversed loads...your brain will not taint the proceedings that way).




....it may not be a HUGE difference but it can/will make as much difference as a primer change or a powder charge/type change. Will it make a terrible load into a 1-holer ...definately not...but it does make a difference and may very well turn a good load into a great load...................LUBE.......it is a load tweak..not a cure all.

[leftiye]

What .357 said..... With the addition that some lubes just plain suck and don't EVEN do the job. Because of this , if the bad lube were to happen first, and then one went to a good lube, there would possibly be a BIG difference.... And then there are the very good lubes. My choice is to never use a poorly recommended lube, but to only use those which do best. And then experiment. It JUST AIN'T ENOUGH MONEY TO WORRY ABOUT - IMHO.

[357maximum]

I got interrupted on my last post and did not finish "MY METHOD" so here it is:

Take the 1st and 2nd shot of each group and throw them away..totally discount them two shots they mean nothing at this point due to a residual lube issue.

Pick your best lube from the test to continue your testing with.


If you do this and you notice the results are not the same (as good) pick the lube you shot immediately before the good group and try that lube to further your testing.....if you do this you can (either directly or through residuals left behind)weasel your way into finding "the lube" for "that load"

If your intermingled groups shoot as good as the rest of the groups you need to 1. learn how to shoot or 2.find out what is wrong with your rifle 3. tune the load (boolit/primer/powder/case prep/ boolit sizing, loading method) further before you even think about lube as a component.

[Bret4207]

I have never detected an accuracy difference in any rifle with any bullet, caused by a change in lube. I have never read of a reasonable test showing that lube made a difference in accuracy. There are so many lubes on the market, by so many suppliers, with different lubes used by competitors in cast bullet matches, that I conclude that there's no accuracy difference between reasonable lubes. Colonel Harrison reported that silicone lubes did not work well; I used NAPA Syl-Glyde in a 45-70 and found that it shot fine, as well as bullets lubed with Darr lube.
Lyman Alox bullet lube failed me recently, but this I think is because the formula is off-something's wrong-the bad lube is very light in color.
Now I may be wrong, and all the testing that I and most of you did with paraffin and moly and crisco and beeswax and vaseline and carnuaba wax and steam cylinder oil and lithium grease and ivory soap and mutton tallow and .............. may be wrong. wish there were a lube that tightened up my groups, and I want to hear about any lube and test that shows that. But for now, lube just don't matter.
joe b.


It's a variable Joe, and I know you LOVE variables. (Oops! That's right, they don't exist) All I'm saying is that it CAN have an affect. Some people have seen it, others like you haven't. All it takes it a particular lube altering the pressure curve enough to tweak the barrel harmonics into sync with the Gods of Accuracy and it'll make a believer of any one. Will that happen in every rifle/load combo? Of course not. But just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't happen.

Have faith brother.

[Larry Gibson]

Can't say that I did a test exactly as 357 mentions but my assitant and I fired 250 rounds apiece in one day testing 6 different lubes. We did clean the barrels between the 10 shot groups at 2500+ fps and cleaned the barrel between types of lube with the loads in the 1850 fps range. One or two foulers (same load with same lube) were fired before each test string. The lubes tested were;

Javelina
Carnauba Red
LBT Blue
LBT Blue Soft
XLOX 2500+
BAC

I had no preconcieved notions going into this test. Actually I was hoping for some miracle lube that would give me 1 moa or so for 10 shots at or above 2500 fps. I would really still like to find that. However, given the acclelleration necessary to achieve 2500+ fps, even in a 27.5" barrel with a 14" twist, is horrendous for a cast bullet. I belive that other things are adversly affecting the balance of the bullet. There isn't any lube that is going to negate those adverse affects on the balance of the cast bullet during accelleration. Slapping a jacket, either copper or paper, on the bullet seems the next best solution.

Perhaps 2300 fps was the key to success? Remains to be seen as I have pushed Bass's LBT bullet lubed with LBT blue and 311466 lubed with Javelina in a side by side comparison test out of my 12" twist .308W M70 match rifle. Both maintained close to 1 moa for 5 shot groups up through 2350 fps. That seems to be about the best accuracy with cast bullets at high velocity the rifle is capable of.

357, are you telling me that Felix lube or a "lithi-micro type lube" is going to give me better accuracy?

As stated previously with the exception of the HV load with BAC there was no discernable difference in lubes, especially down in the 1850 fps range. Going above the RPM threshold presents a whole new set of variable and so far my tests show that lube is not one of them if a good quality lube is used in the first place.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

What .357 said..... With the addition that some lubes just plain suck and don't EVEN do the job. Because of this , if the bad lube were to happen first, and then one went to a good lube, there would possibly be a BIG difference.... And then there are the very good lubes. My choice is to never use a poorly recommended lube, but to only use those which do best. And then experiment. It JUST AIN'T ENOUGH MONEY TO WORRY ABOUT - IMHO.

leftiye

Absolutely correct; good lubes are good and work. Bad lubes may work some times under some conditions but always lead to problems. No sense chasing bad lubes with good money, the good ones just aren't that expensive as you mention.

Larry Gibson

[mainiac]

Well,ive been away from this machine,and i come back,and just what i was hoping to happen,,,,HAPPENED!!! I was hoping you fellars would pick this up and run with it. Now i can sit in the bushes and get you folks ideas. Someone wrote on here that lube style didnt matter towards accuracy? Only thing i can say is that in my muzzleloaders, i can shift P.O.I. all over the top of the ten ring,both vertically and horizontally, just by a slight change in lube amount/style. I have some full-blown benchrest rifles here,(.30 cal 15-16 twist,hart and shilen barrells) and one of these days im going to get set up and find out about extreme accuracy with cast. I not quite ready to take on this huge project quite yet,as i can see thousands of boolits fired for each variable.BTW, i think i did rather well stirring this topic up!HA!HA!HA!

[MT Gianni]

Joe, How much does temperature and humidity vary when you shoot? Mine runs from -20 F to 105 F and bone dry to misting fog. I think, but have never researched, the affects that has on lube can be large.

[357maximum]

Can't say that I did a test exactly as 357 mentions but my assitant and I fired 250 rounds apiece in one day testing 6 different lubes. We did clean the barrels between the 10 shot groups at 2500+ fps and cleaned the barrel between types of lube with the loads in the 1850 fps range. One or two foulers (same load with same lube) were fired before each test string. The lubes tested were;

Javelina
Carnauba Red
LBT Blue
LBT Blue Soft
XLOX 2500+
BAC

Stop cleaning the barrel..would be my recommendation to the above.

I had no preconcieved notions going into this test. Actually I was hoping for some miracle lube that would give me 1 moa or so for 10 shots at or above 2500 fps. I would really still like to find that. However, given the acclelleration necessary to achieve 2500+ fps, even in a 27.5" barrel with a 14" twist, is horrendous for a cast bullet. I belive that other things are adversly affecting the balance of the bullet. There isn't any lube that is going to negate those adverse affects on the balance of the cast bullet during accelleration. Slapping a jacket, either copper or paper, on the bullet seems the next best solution.

Perhaps a slower rate powder would help

Perhaps 2300 fps was the key to success? Remains to be seen as I have pushed Bass's LBT bullet lubed with LBT blue and 311466 lubed with Javelina in a side by side comparison test out of my 12" twist .308W M70 match rifle. Both maintained close to 1 moa for 5 shot groups up through 2350 fps. That seems to be about the best accuracy with cast bullets at high velocity the rifle is capable of.

I was saying at least 2300 fps in velocity...below that the difference won't likely be apparent to alot of irons

357, are you telling me that Felix lube or a "lithi-micro type lube" is going to give me better accuracy?Definately,maybe, perhaps[smilie=1: Honestly there is only one way to know...ask professer gun[smilie=1:

As stated previously with the exception of the HV load with BAC there was no discernable difference in lubes, especially down in the 1850 fps range. Going above the RPM threshold presents a whole new set of variable and so far my tests show that lube is not one of them if a good quality lube is used in the first place.

Larry Gibson

If you are struggling to get 1MOA out of a rig like that...I am likely not going to be much assistance to you. A different boolit design/alloy composition..or temper/powder might be of great assistance however. Maybe you are correct in thinking a jacket of some sort will help you with your issues.

[runfiverun]

a too slippery of a lube willaffect groups in a definately bad way too it will keep the boolit from gripping the rifling correctly. i also think the maleability of a lube has an effect also.
i generally look for a more taffy/putty like consistency in my lube for the higher velocities.
and a more plastic type consistency for the lower velocities.
just what works for me.

[joeb33050]

Joe, How much does temperature and humidity vary when you shoot? Mine runs from -20 F to 105 F and bone dry to misting fog. I think, but have never researched, the affects that has on lube can be large.
In the summer it is ~95 degrees most days, it has never been 100 degrees in Miami, but it's close. In the winter the temperature plunges to the low 60s some mornings, maybed rarely lower.
Humidity seems to be about 110% all the time.
Bud Welsh wrote, then I wrote, that you shouldn't target shoot if the temperature is uncomfortable. I'd have to look and see what we said, but maybe 40 to 80 are reasonable limits.
Prior to retiring here I shot in MA, with temps 0-100 degrees, and sometimes I shot in the hot or cold.
I've never noticed any accuracy difference within reasonable temps. If I'm shivering or over-sweating I can't keep my mind on the shooting.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

It's a variable Joe, and I know you LOVE variables. (Oops! That's right, they don't exist) All I'm saying is that it CAN have an affect. Some people have seen it, others like you haven't. All it takes it a particular lube altering the pressure curve enough to tweak the barrel harmonics into sync with the Gods of Accuracy and it'll make a believer of any one. Will that happen in every rifle/load combo? Of course not. But just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't happen.

Have faith brother.
For me, this is about a search for truth about cast bullets. Talking about philosophy, pressure curves and barrel harmonics doesn't advance that search. DATA does. Do you have any data re lube vs. accuracy? Do you know of any? I have none, never found any, can't make it work. DATA counts, opinions are like cowboy hats.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Well,ive been away from this machine,and i come back,and just what i was hoping to happen,,,,HAPPENED!!! I was hoping you fellars would pick this up and run with it. Now i can sit in the bushes and get you folks ideas. Someone wrote on here that lube style didnt matter towards accuracy? Only thing i can say is that in my muzzleloaders, i can shift P.O.I. all over the top of the ten ring,both vertically and horizontally, just by a slight change in lube amount/style.
How about maybe 5 5-shot groups with each of 2 lube amount/styled conditions? I shoot only a little ml, but it would take me maybe 3 hours to shoot those 50 shots. That would be tough for me. If you do it, we'll know about this effect. (I use Murphy's/neatsfoot oil half and half, got the recipe here. Works for me.)
joe b.





I have some full-blown benchrest rifles here,(.30 cal 15-16 twist,hart and shilen barrells) and one of these days im going to get set up and find out about extreme accuracy with cast. I not quite ready to take on this huge project quite yet,as i can see thousands of boolits fired for each variable.BTW, i think i did rather well stirring this topic up!HA!HA!HA!
joe b.

[Bret4207]

For me, this is about a search for truth about cast bullets. Talking about philosophy, pressure curves and barrel harmonics doesn't advance that search. DATA does. Do you have any data re lube vs. accuracy? Do you know of any? I have none, never found any, can't make it work. DATA counts, opinions are like cowboy hats.
joe b.

But you have people here telling you they've seen it Joe! This is the problem you seem to have- you want hard data (you can put in your book) from hobbyists who don't take pictures and save targets and copious notes. You've done this before and you need to face facts- you aren't dealing with scientists. You're dealing with guys who dismiss things that don't work and forget about it. Personally I have seen this much: I had Lazercast Boolits with the crayon lube and my own boolits with 50/50. The Lazercast shot wild and leaded, mine shot great. Now was that because of lube or because of the fact the Lazercast were too hard for the application? Both measured .430 and were similar in form. I used what I believe was old Lyman Black Magic on a 358318 over 13.0 Red Dot in a 35 Whelen and it was terrible. Switched to fresh 50/50 and it worked great, no wild grouping. Was that because the BM was old and dried out a bit or because the 50/50 is a better lube? I used some 30 year old Alberts 32 wadcutters with the waxy film lube and got minor leading and the groups opened up as I shot. TL'd them in Mule Snot and no more leading and better grouping. Does that mean Mule Snot is a great lube for everything? No. It just worked better in this case.

If you're going to discount anecdotal information, pressure curves and barrel harmonics then you might as well just stop what you're doing now because you are wasting your time. The absence of evidence one way or the other does not eliminate the possibility a thing exists. That , or words to that effect, is supposed to be one of the foundational principals of scientific research. Open your mind a little.

[BABore]

One important thing to remember for any meaningful lube test is to shoot enough rounds. Whether the bbl has been previously cleaned, or your shooting over another lube, it takes "X" number of shots before you will see the true story. In some of my guns that might mean 5-6 shots. In some cases it may be 20-30. Many a test has been dismissed because the lube was never fully tried out. You all know what happens to the lowly 22 LR when you clean the bbl good. It may take a box of shells before the accuracy comes back. You may also have to tweak your powder charge slightly to get the bbl harmonics back in tune. When I test a new lube I will rework the load +/- a grains or more to see if I'm leaving something on the table. This is after I fire at least 5 groups at the original data.

[44man]

I clean my revolvers often, at least every 6 months or when powder residue mucks up the STP on the cylinder pin! :mrgreen:
Funny I can take one out of the safe, go down and pop off beer cans at 100 yd's from a rest and hold around 1" groups. I run through 50 or 100 rounds without a change in accuracy, day after day until the cylinder gets hard to turn. Sometimes I just clean the cylinder---too lazy to mess with the barrel. [smilie=1:
Tried Lee snot and 20 shots put it in the dumper with a ton of lead in the bore. Every revolver from 1170 to near 1700 fps showed the same results. I do not like 10 times the cleaning.
Many lubes give me accuracy but some I will not touch with a 10' stick.
For over 56 years I have strived for accuracy with revolvers and at one time I was shooting way under 1" at 100 yards with a S&W .357. I have worked with the .44 since 1956 and around 1957 I was hitting small targets at 200 yards because I followed Elmer but in the years since, I have bettered him in all respects with better boolits.
IHMSA changed me even more and made me work harder. I have shot hundreds of thousands of groups while testing. I make my revolvers outshoot a lot of rifles.
Then I am accused of shooting ONE group! :confused:
In all of those years I bought and rejected many lubes while some worked and still do. Then I started making my own, many failed too. The quest was to have no lead stuck to the bore and the accuracy I wanted for as long as I wanted to shoot in any conditions from over 100* to bitter cold for hunting.
I consider many of you rank beginners and some need to shoot at exactly 72.0004* for groups to be tight. At 73* the lube fails. Others need their gun to shoot at 2100.000003 fps or the lube fails.
Some want super hard lube so the loading dies never muck up.
Some are lazy and dump a pile of boolits in a container to swish around while I sit and lovingly rub lube in the grooves with my fingers so every shot hits exactly to the sights at ANY range, summer or winter. I think 10 perfect rounds are better then the thousands many load like crazy.
Just try to convince me that lube does not matter! :Fire:
I have tweaked Felix lube a lot by adding carnauba without any change however I stay away from paraffin because I do not want a harder lube. You might as well cast all boolits with voids if hard, brittle lube flies out of one side of a boolit.

[Larry Gibson]

Oh what the heck do I know! I can’t wake up in the morning, run to the range and shoot a 1” group at 100 yards with any revolver, clean or dirty! Hell, I thought I was doing great shooting 1” groups at 25 yards with several PPC revolvers let alone any .357 Magnum I’ve ever owned. “Hundreds of thousands” of groups testing…and I thought I did a lot of testing! I bow to your obviously greater skills at casting, loading and shooting revolvers 44Man!

44Man is right though, lube does matter, a good lube is a good lube. If you are using a good modern lube (alox/beeswax and newer) that is a proven performer for the application at hand then lube doesn’t matter. I have played the “change lubes and you improve the accuracy” game too many times. If your using a bad, old or lube not for the task at hand and you get poor accuracy or leading then change to a good lube with a proven performance for what your shooting and it works….and that should be a revelation? Why don’t shooters just use a known product instead of being cheap and using stuff that’s old or not for the application used. For example; SPG is generally a BP lube and it works quite well. It also works quite well for smokeless loads upwards of 1800 fps or so. However try it at 2300 fps and you’ll get horrible accuracy and leading. Then switch to LBT Blue soft and the groups will get cut in half….this should surprise us or be a revelation? I think not. Use a proven lube for the job at hand. I’m not even going to discuss some of the homemade concoctions and or use of “slip-n-slide” type products as bullet lubes. If your using those and get garbage groups and then are amazed at the “miracle” of LBT Blue soft , or Javelina for that matter, then just remember; garbage in, garbage out. It’s always best to use a known product that works.

Are we going to test ad nauseum numbers of groups until we get one good group and can then yell and shout that the lube is working? I don’t think so. I’ve shot enough cast bullets to know that at normal cast bullet velocities ranges it is easy to get a load where the first shot goes to group regardless of clean or fouled barrel. Extremely high velocity loads are another story though. Also when shooting for accuracy (matches) a couple foulers is good to do whether or not the barrel is clean or fouled. I’ve shot a lot of .22s and one that takes a box of shells to start grouping is quickly discarded. Also you don’t get to shoot much more than 2 “sighters’ in any match so having to shoot many shots to foul or “condition” the bore simply means your using a poor lube. One to two shots at the most should do it.

I also know there are some loads you can shoot without cleaning the barrel/firearm and maintain accuracy. Though many times if the firearm hasn’t been shot in quite a while the lube and fouling gets hard (it does contain carbon you know, residue from the powder). This many, many times will result in a first shot flyer. Sometimes it takes more than that to “warm” up the barrel. My experience is that clean firearms most often are the more accurate firearms. This is especially the case with cast bullets when you’re pushing soft alloyed hunting bullets or shooting high velocity loads.

The weather conditions do play a role in this. Fouling gets harder quicker the hotter the ambient temperature is and/or the hotter the barrel gets. This increases fouling and leading regardless of the lube used. Bullet designs that carry more lube help alleviate this to a degree but they induce other problems if high velocity (high acceleration) is used. Cold weather (40 degrees and below) caused the lube residue to harden. This can and does cause first and second shot flyers until the barrel is “warm” again. If the barrel cools then the lube residue hardens and flyers occur again. A very good soft lube is needed for shooting cast bullets in the cold. One successful cold weather lube out there a synthetic oil used in snowmobiles as part of it’s ingredients. That makes the point that a good lube must be used for the job at hand. I think it has been already discussed that if you’re going to shoot mostly in 65-80 degree weather then many lubes will work well. But if you are shooting from minus 0 upwards of 100+ degrees then the choice of lubes narrows considerably. For that extreme one might even consider using two different lubes to match the conditions.

A good lube is a good lube, a bad lube, even if it works well once, sucks.

Larry Gibson

[WildmanJack]

Since my 45 colt molds throw the exact size I need for my 73 Winny, I decided to use Moly lube on the boolets. I bought the Lyman kit with the two bowls and ceramic media. So far I've lubed a few boolets but haven't had a chance to load them and test them out. Any feelings pro or con on using moly only on your boolets?? As always, thanks in advance ffor your input.. Hope I'm not hi jacking this thread..
Jack:drinks:

Well I guess from the lack of responses, that no one uses or has used Molly lube on their boolets.. Thanks anyway..
Jack

[felix]

Molly works in high pressure friction apps; motor mica works in low friction apps and not as good when pressure mounts. Use mica for boolit lube; use molly for bullet lube. ... felix

[leftiye]

Joe, I jusy can't resist opening my pie hole. I heard you say that you don't think philosophy, etc doesn't advance the search for "truth." Sounds to me like the ideological dilemna we all experience as young people confused by reality, and trying to find a methodology to come to understainding, and therefore be able to cope. The purely scientific method is so involved, and "data" is not usually available to the extent that if you wait for "proofs" you end up knowing next to nothing.

The scientific test is for micro capsules where a small detail can be exhaustively tested. The present topic for instance is appropriate for this. First though one must achieve some true understanding or they won't have a clue as to where to apply the effort of a test. One can see that the understanding is more valuable (vastly) than the micro tests.

[WildmanJack]

Thanks for the response Felix. Sure appreciate the input.
Jack

[dubber123]

Well I guess from the lack of responses, that no one uses or has used Molly lube on their boolets.. Thanks anyway..
Jack

If you mean Lyman Super Moly lube, I used it for a while, and got very satisfactory performance from it, leading and accuracy wise. Many don't like it for being messy, but it worked very well for me. My only complaint is that is would dry and shrink on stored boolits after a while.

[WildmanJack]

Dubber,
Thanks for the input. I'm using the dry molly super fine grain. It's applied in a tumbler bowl and then polished with corn cob media. It is truly messy, I give u that. so I wear gloves when [I] handle the boolets fresh out of the ceramic media that applies it, but after a few minutes in the corn cob it's pretty stable. Thanks again for the response.. All the best,
jack

[sundog]

+1 Dubber. Lyman Super Moly is good stuff as long as you loob and shoot within a reasonable period. Worked well in hot and cold. Messy, too. When I switched over to Felix loob exclusively it took quite awhile to purge the last of it in black streaks out of several loob-sizers.

I am quite content with Felix loob.

[44man]

Thank you Larry! :Fire:
You said it right. If you notice the lube testing fellas have done all run about the same formulas with only a different name and maker or more important, a different color.
I suppose if I shot 10 different 50-50 lubes, all would shoot the same but just maybe the red does better then blue and the blue is better then black!
Take a 50-50 lube and add a little moly or graphite and what do you have? A 50-50 lube with a little moly or graphite! Did that improve anything---NAW, just changed the color and black is OUT! [smilie=1:

[joeb33050]

Here's the target from today. The top 5 groups are with a Competitor pistol in 30 BR at 100 yards. Simmons 2-6 power pistol scope.
All other targets are with a Savage Striker, 308 Win, Simmons 8-32 X scope.There are 3 sets of 5 5-shot groups.

[joeb33050]

Here's the book page for the competitor 12.5 A#9.........
Average for 5 groups = 2.42"
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Here are the pages for the striker
18 A5744, 2.515" average
19 A5744, 2.295" average

My opinion is that record keeping something like this is necessary to begin to understand what's going on with any load. If you don't care, don't keep records. If you want to offer opinions based on somewhere between no and little data, offer away.
Opinion sans data = nonsense. What I'd expect from Republicans.
joe b.
P.S. 44 man, how about shooting some targets on one piece of paper, and showing them to us. Certainly you can shoot better than this!!!
j.b.

[joeb33050]

Another try at the pictures.

[44man]

Will do as soon as the rain and mud on my range goes away. I also have to get the boolit catching box down, thing is heavy and I can't lift it.

[Bret4207]

Here are the pages for the striker
18 A5744, 2.515" average
19 A5744, 2.295" average

My opinion is that record keeping something like this is necessary to begin to understand what's going on with any load. If you don't care, don't keep records. If you want to offer opinions based on somewhere between no and little data, offer away.
Opinion sans data = nonsense. What I'd expect from Republicans.
joe b.
P.S. 44 man, how about shooting some targets on one piece of paper, and showing them to us. Certainly you can shoot better than this!!!
j.b.

Bite me Joe. This is why no one gives crap about helping you. Take your pompous attitude and hit the road.

[Maven]

You know, this very topic was discussed at length two years ago on the CBA Forum. I generally think joeb's right about lube and wrote this response in May 2007:

Joe, I strongly suspect you are correct on this one, but wish to mention a flaw in your critics' logic. To wit, none of them has considered the effect of user expectations on outcome, i.e., purported accuracy. To digress, there is a large body of literature in the Behavioral Sciences and Medicine about this very phenomenon: Self-fulfilling prophesies, auto-suggestion, the effect of researchers' expectations on outcomes, the effects of [human] subjects' expectations on outcomes, etc. Robert Rosenthal (Harvard) and Martin T. Orne (U. of Penn.) were two of the pioneers who designed experiments to test this phenomenon. It is probably "do-able" with bullet lube as well, but you'd have to use the double blind technique and sophisticated coding to ensure repeatable results (and to prevent testers from discovering which lube they're actually testing). Btw, I too think many claims having to do with cast bullets could be attributed to user expectation, poor sampling & research design and selective recall. However, life's too short to argue the point or to suggest people spend time reading journal articles in the aforementioned fields.

As for his views on politics, I'll say this: Lots of you have made comments about Democrats, either the party or individuals, that were just as snide as the one joeb made. How does it feel when you get a dose of your own medicine? (Turnabout is fair play you know.) However, I won't let this degenerate into a political rant. What I told a former member (Jumptrap) still is true: Stick to what you know best (casting & cast bullets) for when you talk politics, you talk rot.
And this will be my last post on "politics." Flame away if you must, but you won't get a rise out of me.

[sundog]

what caliber? cartridge? boolit? hardness? PD or GC or PP. and the list goes on and on and on....

as far as I'm concerned this is a failed discussion.

[Bret4207]

Your right Corky. And when the great god of cast bullet books is looking for free research help and doesn't like the answers and doesn't want any ideas that conflict with his own ego then it's not research at all is it? It's "stroke my ego and maybe I'll actually give you credit in my Boolit Bible". I've had quite enough of trying to reason with Herr General Joe. He claims to have been banned form the CBA site. Little wonder in my mind.

Paul, the "Republican" comment was a shot at me I suppose, and he didn't even get that right.

[Pat I.]

I suppose everyone's experiences are different but I've tested quite a few of the better lubes out there against each other and IN MY GUN WITH MY BULLET there was a discernible difference with LBT Blue leading the pack. The only problem I've found with the LBT is that IN MY GUN WITH MY BULLET it seems to act up in cold weather. The fix is to either use less on the bullet or thin it a bit with some trans fluid but that's what I've found.

I totally agree with Maven's last post but in this case I was looking for the best accuracy so had no reason to hang my shirt on any bedpost. Granted the testing was extremely limited but the results were what they were. With all the different lubes being used obviously there's isn't a "best" but I do think they can make a difference. Probably the hardest thing about lubes is trying to convince people they don't have to load up all the grooves. I've shot my 30x47 at over 2600 fps with just the space over the check filled in cold weather using LBT Blue.

[Larry Gibson]

Concur with Pat and Maven.

When conducting my test (about 500 rounds BTW) comparing the 6 lubes I also was looking for the most accurate. However my testing was limited (500 rounds - limited?) to 2 basic velocity ranges, 1850 fps and 2500+ fps. I too found no discernable accuracy difference between 5 of the lubes purported to be useful at both velocity levels. As I said before, once you get really close to the accuracy capability of the rifle/handgun then it's not the lube that will make any additional benefit to accuracy. Use a good lube that is a proven performer for the cartridge/velocity level to begin with. Then work on the other variables.
There are many things that we take for granted with too little test sampling. As an example yesterday I got a chance to shoot my Remington M504 .22LR bolt action rifle. This is a very nice top end .22LR that is more like a "big game" CF rifle than a .22LR. I have wanted a top end .22LR sporter for some time and manage to get this one some months back. I'd put a 4x12X Simons AirPro scope on it in Leupold rings and base. so I wanted to see if the POI changed as the power was changed. The barrel was clean so with CCI MiniGroup I checked the zero at 50 yards on 12X. First 2 foulers were slightly out of the group with the remaining 8 shots going into .65" and the total 10 shot group at 1". I then shot a target at 50 yards with 9 aiming points shooting 5 shots on each target at a different aiming point. The total over laid 9 groups of 45 shots total were all within 1.1". There was a minor shift of POI on 2 powers which I now know not to use. The weather was intermittent drizzly rain with no discernable wind, not great for testing but it was good enough for the test to tell me what I wanted to know. Other than that squirrels are in serious danger. The point here is that of 9 groups the smallest 5 shot group was .45" (average of the 9 five shot groups was .71") and shot at 5X. Could one then surmise that the CCI Minigroup was the most accurate at 5X? I know that sounds silly but I have heard many such deductions on this forum. I'm sure 5 five shot groups at 5X would have produced close to the same average group size as the 9 test groups did. I believe that is what Joe, Maven, Pat and probably Bret are all saying. There must be a sufficient test sampling to draw any kind of meaningful conclusions.

Larry Gibson

[felix]

What Maven says is correct, especially when designing experiments from the top down. Top down design limits the scope by definition. Tools exist for eliminating certain attributes based upon certain numerics. However, in the real world the QUANTITIVE design depends on ease of fabricating a realistic numerical value to each and every one of the attributes under scrutiny. In the bottom up approach, numerics typically exist for any attribute we consider under the scope's umbrella. The question then becomes how wide does the scope need to be to insure QUALITY? That is the quandary here in a nutshell. ... felix

[44man]

I suppose everyone's experiences are different but I've tested quite a few of the better lubes out there against each other and IN MY GUN WITH MY BULLET there was a discernible difference with LBT Blue leading the pack. The only problem I've found with the LBT is that IN MY GUN WITH MY BULLET it seems to act up in cold weather. The fix is to either use less on the bullet or thin it a bit with some trans fluid but that's what I've found.

I totally agree with Maven's last post but in this case I was looking for the best accuracy so had no reason to hang my shirt on any bedpost. Granted the testing was extremely limited but the results were what they were. With all the different lubes being used obviously there's isn't a "best" but I do think they can make a difference. Probably the hardest thing about lubes is trying to convince people they don't have to load up all the grooves. I've shot my 30x47 at over 2600 fps with just the space over the check filled in cold weather using LBT Blue.
I have used many, many sticks of LBT Blue and you are correct. It does get brittle in very cold weather. The problem happens if a chunk flies out of one side of the boolit when it leaves the muzzle. You cut down the imbalance by filling a smaller area. It is not really how much lube you use but what happens to that much lube when brittle. I found the LBT magnum lube increased accuracy in all weather.
Many fellows have sent me boolits to test. The boolits were great but half the lube would be in the bottom of the shipping box and the rest was heck to remove, some had to be boiled. The one thing I don't want is different amounts of lube flying off the boolit in flight.
A lube that dries out on stored boolits is also bad.
A sticky lube is better and even though I don't like Alox, it is the stickyness that makes it a decent lube even though I am convinced any left in the bore behind a boolit burns and smokes.
Using a very high flashpoint oil and lanolin is much better.

[Pat I.]

I haven't experienced LBT Blue getting brittle in any weather. It gets mighty stiff but I've never seen brittle.With the better lubes out there it probably matters more how much you use than on a specific manufacturer. Most of the moulds I regularly use have one .070 wide lube groove and a .090 long check shank so LBT works best for me. If I had another groove or if the one I had was wider maybe something else would work better, don't know.

[Bret4207]

Maybe we could return to the original question- can lube affect accuracy? Yes, it can. Simple example- take a poor lube, lets say we use melted crayons like so many guys tried back in the 80's. Shoot it in a side by side comparison with a known good lube, whatever your favorite is. Do you honestly expect equal results with a poor lube and good lube? That's the simple example and you extrapolate from there. OTH if you have 2 or 3 known good lubes, say Felix lube, LBT Blue and LARs 2500. There is a chance that by switching between lubes a guy could tweak things just enough to get a somewhat better group with one or 2 over the other. Is anyone doing this? Probably. Check the CBA records and see if anyone is using roofing tar or dog droppings for lube. I'm betting they all have their favorites and getting them to switch would be akin to pulling teeth.

I suppose the key word in the thread tittle is "critical". It's only critical if your poor lube fails. Otherwise, using good lubes, it's not critical as much as "another variable".

[joeb33050]

Your right Corky. And when the great god of cast bullet books is looking for free research help and doesn't like the answers and doesn't want any ideas that conflict with his own ego then it's not research at all is it?

Give me an example. Give me some data. Tell me about this happening. I have no memory of it. Are you presenting opinion, or do you have any facts to support what you said?
I, on the other hand, can point to many examples of where I have changed my mind and printed the changed conclusions. These changes can be found in the book, which I don't remember sending to you. Perhaps I should.
Bite me??? Is this any way for a moderator to talk? If it weren't for the fact that you have finally properly acknowledged my status as the "great god of cast bullets", I'd be hurt.
I know it's cold up there, and I know that you think the wrong party is in power; but cheer up-spring is coming-and the depression will be averted.
Remember, there really is a difference between fact and opinion; and the difference is data.


It's "stroke my ego and maybe I'll actually give you credit in my Boolit Bible". I've had quite enough of trying to reason with Herr General Joe. He claims to have been banned form the CBA site. Little wonder in my mind.

Paul, the "Republican" comment was a shot at me I suppose, and he didn't even get that right.

joe b., or you can call me "ggocb".

[Pat I.]

When it comes to the idea of lube making a difference I think you're going to have to rely on empirical science, just like most things when it comes to shooting cast bullets.

[joeb33050]

This is hard to believe, but I made a couple of mistakes in what I've written about this topic.
I know nothing about what happens with cast bullet accuracy or anything else at velocities of over ~1800 fps. Don't go there, never been happy there.
When I say that lube doesn't matter, I should have said that there is no difference between "GOOD" or "REASONABLE" lubes.
From the book:
"Midway" is a mail-order supplier of shooting and reloading equipment. In their Bullet Casting catalog #1 for 2002, they list the following bullet lubricants for sale: Alox (several makers), Lee Liquid Alox, Lyman Black Powder Gold, Lyman Ideal, Lyman Orange Magic, Lyman Super Moly, RCBS Pistol, RCBS Rifle, Rooster Red High Velocity Rifle, Rooster Red Zambini, Saeco Gold, Saeco Green, SPG, Thompson Bear Cold, Thompson Bear Heat, Thompson Blue Angel, Thompson PS Black Powder and Thompson Red Angel.
After thoroughly testing these and the other readily available bullet lubricants, some dissatisfied shooters mix up their own lubes.
In the cast bullet game, the concocting of bullet lubes using strange and hard-to-obtain ingredients is a rite of passage for us all. We’ve all done it, it doesn’t hurt anything, and it’s something to talk about. It’s a shame that we’ve never found the secret lube.

These are what I would call "good" or "reasonable" bullet lubes. There are many others.

Some time back I thought it was time to try Felix lube, that maybe it was the secret. Since making it would be very difficult here in the condo, I came to this forum first and asked for results, "is Felix lube more accurate than other lubes?" There were zero claims about the superior accuracy with Felix lube. None. Not one BAD result was reported. I weighed the problem with making it vs. the reports and concluded that Felix lube is probably a good and reasonable lube.

This is also from the book:

Here’s the deal. If, with a good lubricant, your gun averages 3” at 100 yards for 5 shots, another bullet lube ain’t going to fix it. I know you’ll try, but it won’t work.
If, with a good lubricant, your gun averages 1” at 100 yards for 5 shots, another lubricant may reduce your groups by a bit, but I’ve never seen it happen.
Without getting embroiled in the morass of statistics, let me say that a hell of a lot of groups must be shot to demonstrate a small difference in mean accuracy around 1”.
I am extremely suspicious of any reports of a "new" bullet lubricant producing better accuracy than an established lubricant such as the NRA ALOX formula.
Some shooters have reported better accuracy when LESS lube is used, in both revolvers and rifles. I have found that when I lube only one grease groove on 31141 and 311299 bullets there is no leading, most of the time. I have also tried lubing only the groove above the gas check with Eagan and NEI 22 caliber bullets with no leading. I haven't yet seen increased accuracy with less lube, but the experiments continue.

I hope that someone invents the wonder lube, Lord knows that I need the help.
joe b.


Maybe we could return to the original question- can lube affect accuracy? Yes, it can. Simple example- take a poor lube, lets say we use melted crayons like so many guys tried back in the 80's. Shoot it in a side by side comparison with a known good lube, whatever your favorite is. Do you honestly expect equal results with a poor lube and good lube? That's the simple example and you extrapolate from there. OTH if you have 2 or 3 known good lubes, say Felix lube, LBT Blue and LARs 2500. There is a chance that by switching between lubes a guy could tweak things just enough to get a somewhat better group with one or 2 over the other. Is anyone doing this? Probably. Check the CBA records and see if anyone is using roofing tar or dog droppings for lube. I'm betting they all have their favorites and getting them to switch would be akin to pulling teeth.

I suppose the key word in the thread tittle is "critical". It's only critical if your poor lube fails. Otherwise, using good lubes, it's not critical as much as "another variable".

[softpoint]

I just cooked my first batch (triple batch) of Felix lube a few days ago, having used commercial stick lubes and Lee liquid alox for the last 30 odd years. I followed the directions exactly, cooking and mixing as prescribed. I've checked it now, and several days later, there is no separation of ingredients, and the stiffness, or lack of , seems exactly right for lubersizer without heat. I have yet to lube a bullet with it. So, did I waste my time? At the very least this should be as GOOD as anything else I've used? Many lubes are now selling at five bucks a stick at some of the major sporting good stores. I recently ordered some carnuaba red that was less money, but have only used it on .45 hangun so far.:Fire::coffee:

[Bret4207]

joe b., or you can call me "ggocb".

Since when am I a Moderator Joe? Do you see a Moderator shingle attached to my name? And time after time ( you can look back through your own posts, I'm not doing more work for you) you refuse to listen to dissenting opinions and berate anyone who disagrees with you. Pompous and arrogant and closed minded. That's what all good researchers are made of.

[Pat I.]

This is no slam at anybody but I often question the reasoning behind mixing lubes or making gas checks because of a cost savings. 5 bucks for a stick of lube or 3 cents for a gas check doesn't sound that outrageous to me. I think you'd have to do one heck of a lot of shooting to see any big cost savings. If the home made lube or checks made a difference in performance I'd jump right in but as far as saving a ton of money I can't see it. Try using half as much of a good commercial lube and you'll probably break even and not waste a lot of time and energy.

[44man]

I just cooked my first batch (triple batch) of Felix lube a few days ago, having used commercial stick lubes and Lee liquid alox for the last 30 odd years. I followed the directions exactly, cooking and mixing as prescribed. I've checked it now, and several days later, there is no separation of ingredients, and the stiffness, or lack of , seems exactly right for lubersizer without heat. I have yet to lube a bullet with it. So, did I waste my time? At the very least this should be as GOOD as anything else I've used? Many lubes are now selling at five bucks a stick at some of the major sporting good stores. I recently ordered some carnuaba red that was less money, but have only used it on .45 hangun so far.:Fire::coffee:
No, you did not waste your time, it will shoot great. The one thing many can't wrap their thoughts around is lube changes also effect boolit pull and friction in the bore. Bore friction is NEEDED for accuracy and a slight change can open groups. There is much more to lube then thought and I do not believe in the greased pig theory or the dry boolit stuff either.
Years ago, Bill Large said a muzzle loader using a patched round ball would "Shoot smooth." He was right and old timers would fill the bore with urine over night to etch the surface. I have used white vinegar to bring back accuracy. (Try to get a chrome plated bore to shoot.)
Now we smokeless shooters want super polished bores and most guns come with very nice bores or we power lap them, etc. That works just wonderful with jacketed bullets but is it right for cast? I am NOT talking about tool marks in a circular pattern down the bore but the actual polish in the bores direction.
What happens to a broken in bore shot with many jacketed bullets? Is it better for cast? Will a slippery lube work or should we "Get a grip?"
Much is said about barrel vibration, harmonics and whip. No thought is given to the effect lube has on these things. WHY?
First thoughts posted here are ONLY about leading in the bore and what needs to be done to stop it. Is there any mention about accuracy? Nothing is said about how a boolit takes the rifling at the start of entry into the barrel.
No, repeating this stuff over and over is not proving a single thing and shows the gun is not shooting to it's potential to start with so that a lube change means nothing.
I have proved it thousands of times with muzzle loaders that a lube change will DESTROY accuracy in a second. Other lubes can shoot hundreds if not thousands of super accurate shots without cleaning.
Two things all of you do bother me. One is that revolver twist means nothing and anything will shoot and the other is any lube is good for any gun.
If a poor lube shoots for you it only means SOMETHING ELSE is controlling the process.

[Bret4207]

This is hard to believe, but I made a couple of mistakes in what I've written about this topic.
I know nothing about what happens with cast bullet accuracy or anything else at velocities of over ~1800 fps. Don't go there, never been happy there.
When I say that lube doesn't matter, I should have said that there is no difference between "GOOD" or "REASONABLE" lubes.
From the book:
"Midway" is a mail-order supplier of shooting and reloading equipment. In their Bullet Casting catalog #1 for 2002, they list the following bullet lubricants for sale: Alox (several makers), Lee Liquid Alox, Lyman Black Powder Gold, Lyman Ideal, Lyman Orange Magic, Lyman Super Moly, RCBS Pistol, RCBS Rifle, Rooster Red High Velocity Rifle, Rooster Red Zambini, Saeco Gold, Saeco Green, SPG, Thompson Bear Cold, Thompson Bear Heat, Thompson Blue Angel, Thompson PS Black Powder and Thompson Red Angel.
After thoroughly testing these and the other readily available bullet lubricants, some dissatisfied shooters mix up their own lubes.
In the cast bullet game, the concocting of bullet lubes using strange and hard-to-obtain ingredients is a rite of passage for us all. We’ve all done it, it doesn’t hurt anything, and it’s something to talk about. It’s a shame that we’ve never found the secret lube.

These are what I would call "good" or "reasonable" bullet lubes. There are many others.

Some time back I thought it was time to try Felix lube, that maybe it was the secret. Since making it would be very difficult here in the condo, I came to this forum first and asked for results, "is Felix lube more accurate than other lubes?" There were zero claims about the superior accuracy with Felix lube. None. Not one BAD result was reported. I weighed the problem with making it vs. the reports and concluded that Felix lube is probably a good and reasonable lube.
Where's the data Joe? If you're tearing into us for not supplying hard data, where's yours?
This is also from the book:

Here’s the deal. If, with a good lubricant, your gun averages 3” at 100 yards for 5 shots, another bullet lube ain’t going to fix it. I know you’ll try, but it won’t work.
If, with a good lubricant, your gun averages 1” at 100 yards for 5 shots, another lubricant may reduce your groups by a bit, but I’ve never seen it happen.
Without getting embroiled in the morass of statistics, let me say that a hell of a lot of groups must be shot to demonstrate a small difference in mean accuracy around 1”.
I am extremely suspicious of any reports of a "new" bullet lubricant producing better accuracy than an established lubricant such as the NRA ALOX formula.
Some shooters have reported better accuracy when LESS lube is used, in both revolvers and rifles. I have found that when I lube only one grease groove on 31141 and 311299 bullets there is no leading, most of the time. I have also tried lubing only the groove above the gas check with Eagan and NEI 22 caliber bullets with no leading. I haven't yet seen increased accuracy with less lube, but the experiments continue.

I hope that someone invents the wonder lube, Lord knows that I need the help.
joe b.

You just contradicted you premise. Variations in lube and lubing can make a difference. And I don't recall anyone mentioning a "Wonder Lube", just that a change might shrink a group a little.

[leftiye]

Nonsense = Not being or not acting in accordance with good sense (duh, by definition). To include not being able to evalute opinions, better known as hypotheses, or theories. Worse still to avoid or refuse to do so. If you cain't think, you're lost.

[Frank]

joeb33050 writes

These are what I would call "good" or "reasonable" bullet lubes. There are many others.


Where is your empirical evidence? :shock: Can you prove any of the lubes Midway lists are "good" or better than homemade lubes? :confused: What makes the lubes Midway lists more "reasonable"? :mad: For a scientific guy you sure like to judge based on non-scientific criteria. So it's a "good" or reasonable lube if Midway mentions it? :violin: And you also quote from your own book? "It says it right here, in my book", you say, so it must be right!! [smilie=l:

[Recluse]

joeb33050 writes


Where is your empirical evidence? :shock: Can you prove any of the lubes Midway lists are "good" or better than homemade lubes? :confused: What makes the lubes Midway lists more "reasonable"? :mad: For a scientific guy you sure like to judge based on non-scientific criteria. So it's a "good" or reasonable lube if Midway mentions it? :violin: And you also quote from your own book? "It says it right here, in my book", you say, so it must be right!! [smilie=l:

Heh heh. I shoulda used some of Joe's "research and defense" techniques in my master's thesis all those years back. I kinda like that nouveau direction: "Since I wrote it and I quoted myself therein, I therefore AM the source and subsequently that is all the empirical evidence needed."

Sounds a lot like today's Congress.

Only one thing and one thing only determines for me if a lube is good or not and that is how it affects accuracy. A little leading simply doesn't bother me. I know it bothers some folks mightily, and that's okay--that's their business. If I'm hunting, one or two shots isn't going to make the barrel unusable. If it does, and the lube (and other factors) contribute to that severe of leading, then I have more problems than just bad lube.

And, chances are slim that I'm getting anywhere close the accuracy I desire.

I have several lube formulas that work extremely well for me. Two of them, I have quit messing with. I brew them up, pour them into my moulds, then wrap the sticks in wax paper and store them. One formula I was getting ready to scrap, but I went back and redid my testing. Scrapping this one would've been a huge mistake.

But I agree with the "my lube for my boolit for my load for my gun" approach. I have no interest in going into the commercial lube business. Instead, I enjoy tinkering and occasionally along the journey I come up with some really good stuff for "my boolits for my loads in my guns."

That's the thrill for me.

:coffee:

[joeb33050]

Since when am I a Moderator Joe? Do you see a Moderator shingle attached to my name?

How about :You know who I am, what I did for a living, where I live and what I think. I will not hide who I am. I will not knuckle under just for the "glory" of a Moderators position.

I thought that this was your statement about being a moderator.















And time after time ( you can look back through your own posts, I'm not doing more work for you) you refuse to listen to dissenting opinions and berate anyone who disagrees with you. Pompous and arrogant and closed minded. That's what all good researchers are made of.

How about ONE example, surely a wise moderator like you can easily find ONE example?
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Heh heh. I shoulda used some of Joe's "research and defense" techniques in my master's thesis all those years back. I kinda like that nouveau direction:

"Since I wrote it and I quoted myself therein, I therefore AM the source and subsequently that is all the empirical evidence needed."

Did I say that? Did I imply that? Where did you get a master's degree without being able to read?


Sounds a lot like today's Congress.

Only one thing and one thing only determines for me if a lube is good or not and that is how it affects accuracy. A little leading simply doesn't bother me. I know it bothers some folks mightily, and that's okay--that's their business. If I'm hunting, one or two shots isn't going to make the barrel unusable. If it does, and the lube (and other factors) contribute to that severe of leading, then I have more problems than just bad lube.

And, chances are slim that I'm getting anywhere close the accuracy I desire.

I have several lube formulas that work extremely well for me. Two of them, I have quit messing with. I brew them up, pour them into my moulds, then wrap the sticks in wax paper and store them. One formula I was getting ready to scrap, but I went back and redid my testing. Scrapping this one would've been a huge mistake. ANY data?

But I agree with the "my lube for my boolit for my load for my gun" approach. I have no interest in going into the commercial lube business. Instead, I enjoy tinkering and occasionally along the journey I come up with some really good stuff for "my boolits for my loads in my guns."

That's the thrill for me.

:coffee:
joe b., see the book!

[joeb33050]

joeb33050 writes


Where is your empirical evidence? :shock: Can you prove any of the lubes Midway lists are "good" or better than homemade lubes? :confused: What makes the lubes Midway lists more "reasonable"? :mad: For a scientific guy you sure like to judge based on non-scientific criteria. So it's a "good" or reasonable lube if Midway mentions it? :violin: And you also quote from your own book? "It says it right here, in my book", you say, so it must be right!! [smilie=l:
Another non-reader. Tell me this, I'm curious. Which is it. Are you stupid, and unable to understand the written word? Or are you just being a pain in the neck? I don't remember sending you a copy of the book, and I think you need one.

[joeb33050]

For velocities below 180 fps, using any reasonable cast bullet lubricant, there is no data showing that accuracy varies with the lubricant used. I don't have it, was not able to find it in my testing, and would be very happy to see the results of testing that showed such a variation. N.B. A not-reasonable bullet lubricant is one that has no demonstrated success as a bullet lubricant. Yak butter and gazelle tallow are examples.

joe b.

[Bret4207]

How about ONE example, surely a wise moderator like you can easily find ONE example?
joe b.

I'm not a Moderator Joe. I thought you could read. If I was a Moderator there'd be a Moderator shingle under my name. Do you see one? I'm just a peon like you Joe.

An example? This thread is a good example. So is your damaged boolits thread, that one jumps to mind since you contradicted your own findings there too. Overall, anytime someone like me brings forth the idea that all the little variations matter you go nuts and quote from "The Book" about how it's utter nonsense. I find that to be a self defeating attitude, not to mention pompous and arrogant, for a person who prides himself on his "scientific" methods to completely discount things just because he hasn't run into it yet, or more to the point because it doesn't agree with what you think.

Saying that any component in a cast load has no effect is the height of arrogance and foolishness. I'd think if your data mining here and elsewhere taught you anything it would be that each gun is a law unto itself and sometimes the gun crops up that needs very specific components, handled a certain way, loaded to a certain standard to give the best results. .001 diameter can make or break a load. A mediocre lube can do the same thing. Is a particular lube CRITICAL to accuracy as the OP stated? I'm willing to allow it could be in someones rifle, especially as you go beyond the "comfort zone" of 15-1600 fps. But you don;t even want to consider that Joe. Said so a couple posts back. Interesting the way you pick and choose what parameters to use. Kinda works in your favor. How about cutting the guys a little slack and keeping an open mind about it?

[Bret4207]

For velocities below 180 fps, using any reasonable cast bullet lubricant, there is no data showing that accuracy varies with the lubricant used. I don't have it, was not able to find it in my testing, and would be very happy to see the results of testing that showed such a variation. N.B. A not-reasonable bullet lubricant is one that has no demonstrated success as a bullet lubricant. Yak butter and gazelle tallow are examples.

joe b.

Actually Joe, tallow was a major component in lubes for many decades. If you have evidence that gazelle tallow is somehow inferior to sheep tallow or beef tallow, all properly prepared of course, I'm sure we'd love to see it.

One day you should try speeds above 180 fps. It's a whole other world.:mrgreen:

[joeb33050]

Nonsense = Not being or not acting in accordance with good sense (duh, by definition). To include not being able to evalute opinions, better known as hypotheses, or theories. Worse still to avoid or refuse to do so. If you cain't think, you're lost.

Maybe this is part of the problem.
Look up the words "opinion", "theory" and "hypothesis", seem what they mean.
An opinion is a subjective thing, can't be proven right or wrong, "Blue is the best looking color".
I, yes I, and a lot of scientists, believe that opinions should not be offered regarding topics that can be proved either way. However, in the US, anyone may offer an opinion about any topic, no matter how stupid. "Pi should be 3, stop the foolishness."

Hypotheses and theories suggest how and why a thing happens, and methods to approach the truth. "Lube choice may affect accuracy. Following is a method of testing this........."

One can and may offer and test hypotheses and theories, in the rational world. Data, the result of testing, is what tells us if we're approaching truth.

One can but should not offer opinions about matters of fact. "I believe that Pike's peak is higher than Mount McKinley" is certainly legal, but improper in the context of a scientific query.

The key here is that opinion and theory and hypothesis are not ords with the same meanings, and if you and I don't speak the same language, misunderstandings and animosity results.

joe b.

[Pat I.]

I think it's impossible to run "scientific" tests on a lot of things when it comes to shooting in general and cast bullet shooting in particular. There's just too many variables involved from the alignment of the planets to if a butterfly flapped it's wings in the Brazilian Rain Forest. Going with the majority experience seems like the way it's got to be. If 95% of the populace says blue is the best looking color then obviously blue is the best looking color.

You stated earlier that you found that lube doesn't make a difference. Since you're in the minority shouldn't it be up to you to prove it doesn't instead of asking the majority to prove it does? We all have different opinions and experiences so proving the majority wrong is the way advances should be made not the other way around. We'd all still be thinking the world was flat if some forward thinking individuals hadn't set out to prove the majority opinion wrong.

[runfiverun]

opinions are generally formed through observations.
you "see" that at 2300 fps you got leading, you change something.
you then "see" you don't have it. hmmm test [yep] you didn't know it would work,it was a test.
observation: it worked, so that the next time you "see" the same thing. you are going to do it again.
maybe it'll work this time too.

[joeb33050]

I think it's impossible to run "scientific" tests on a lot of things when it comes to shooting in general and cast bullet shooting in particular. There's just too many variables involved from the alignment of the planets to if a butterfly flapped it's wings in the Brazilian Rain Forest. Going with the majority experience seems like the way it's got to be. If 95% of the populace says blue is the best looking color then obviously blue is the best looking color.

You stated earlier that you found that lube doesn't make a difference. Since you're in the minority shouldn't it be up to you to prove it doesn't instead of asking the majority to prove it does?

Think about it.
In order to prove that lube choice does not affect accuracy, one must test, reliably, EVERY lube vs. EVERY other lube and see the accuracy differences.
In order to prove that lube choice DOES affect accuracy, one must find ONE reliable example of a test showing that lube affects accuracy. That's the DATA I'm asking for.
ONE reliable example of a test.
(It's impossible to prove a negative. Often said. )

We all have different opinions and experiences so proving the majority wrong is the way advances should be made not the other way around. We'd all still be thinking the world was flat if some forward thinking individuals hadn't set out to prove the majority opinion wrong.
I'm done with the nonsense, believe what you wish.
joe b.

[Pat I.]

I think I'm pretty reliable and last summer I tested LBT against both Voodoo and Lars. 25 rounds of each from a clean gun. LBT shot the best in my gun with my bullet on the day of the testing, what more can I say. Granted it was a limited test but a test none the less and the facts were there on the target for me to see. I don't do testing with an eye on publishing the results so when the test was done the targets went in the can and I was happy.

I understand your frustration but I don't think it's nonsensical to want to debate something people have proven to themselves and believe to be factual.

[Frank]

Pat I. wrote

This is no slam at anybody but I often question the reasoning behind mixing lubes or making gas checks because of a cost savings. 5 bucks for a stick of lube or 3 cents for a gas check doesn't sound that outrageous to me. I think you'd have to do one heck of a lot of shooting to see any big cost savings. If the home made lube or checks made a difference in performance I'd jump right in but as far as saving a ton of money I can't see it. Try using half as much of a good commercial lube and you'll probably break even and not waste a lot of time and energy.


Making your own lube or other components is also a benefit because of supply and demand. Gas checks were unavailable for a while recently. What if supply became scarce? Same with lube. Why depend on something you can do for yourself? :coffeecom That's also part of the fun of the hobby. And if it shoots better then all more the reason to get into it. Right? :redneck:

[felix]

It took many years to develop an idea into a factual outcome. Nuclear energy, for one gigantic example. Ideas came from fiction writers Jules Verne first, then HG Wells by expanding on the idea. Then the scientists grabbed the idea making it feasible, and then the engineers developed the feasibility into reality, and finally the technicians to make it work in all PROBABILITY. NO DATA, NO PROOF, Just God given imagination, Joe! ... felix

[sundog]

Softpoint, no you did not waste your time or ingredients. Anyone remember GonHuntin? I gave him a tuna can of FWFL which he promptly set in his truck at one of big gun shows in Tulsa, and it sat there all day in the heat. He reported no leaking. The stuff shoots as well or better than anything else I've used. Since I have ingredients, I make it and use it. Besides, all of my loob sizers are set up for and changing loobs is a PIA.

Pat I. Can't argue with you about buying sticks of loob or gas checks. It's part of the process. Whatever trips your trigger is just fine with me. I used to used a lot of Ly Super Moly. Good stuff and never regretted shelling out coin for it. Before that it was any of the alox blends. Even used Orange Magic with good results. In fact I still have one loob sizer set up with a heater that is loaded with OM.

I hang around a bunch of very talented single shot shooter a couple times a year. Their collective knowledge is awesome, and they are the nicest bunch of folks around. Spouses, too. It's a family affair. No voodoo, no magic, just stuff that works. Some of these folks are darn fine shots, also.

I usually don't say too much negative, but Joe, your post #68 is kinda off base. Quit trying to to defend your book. Let it stand on it's own merit. Myself, I doubt if I ever flip a page of it because of your attitude. And just because I don't care about it does not make me stoopid. Making whipping boys of the fine folks on this forum is getting tiresome.

[Recluse]

joe b., see the book!

Joe, you don't wanna dance with me and discuss your research methods and "conclusions" that you published.

Trust me.

I've read more than enough just in the ramblings you've posted here and elsewhere. I have no problems with opinions--none whatsoever. But simply having one's name on a dust jacket does not make one a "published expert." In fact, given the manner of most of today's journalists, self-help writers, financial publishers, et al, it often does just the opposite.

:coffee:

[BD]

I'm not sure if I've drank enough water today to get into this conversation. And it's way too early in the day for a beer.

However, I do have at least one example of lube making a significant difference. This was a few, (maybe more than a few), years ago when I was trying my best to get my old swedes to shoot cast. I pretty quickly figured out that 1,700 fps or so was gonna be the limit, and that idea that was reinforced by everyone else giving it a go at the time. 3" groups was the best I could do.

The thought had occured to me that the fast twist and high rpms might be flinging the lube off as the boolit left the barrel. So I tried Lee liquid alox in the hope that it would stay on. The results were that the 150 grain lyman would only stay in about 6" at 100 yards with the LLA, but it would still shoot into 3" using Felix lube.

I realize that this is only one example, and it's in a relatively difficult cast booit application, but it's still an example.

Real accuracy didn't come until I got one of the Jumptrap 140 grain molds from the group buy. I had fun trying though. And, unlike certain residents of Montanna, I managed eventually to get to a "good" load without putting any extra holes in my garage, pickup truck or electrial meter panel.

BD

[Pat I.]

I'm not implying that making your own lube, or anything else for that matter, is a bad thing I just don't understand using economics as the reason. I have two Freechex tools, a Cornell Wad Punch, could pick up the ingredients to make lube at the local Walmart, and the list goes on. In the grand scheme of things lube and gas checks are pretty low on the totem pole of ammunition costs.

Some people might require copious amounts of data to prove or disprove something. I say that if I tried it and saw something happen that's data enough for me . Thought about reasonably unless you're a lube maker or came up with a formula what possible reason would anyone have to to lie about the subject? Imagination is one thing holes on a target are another.

[Doc Highwall]

I just finished reading all of these posts and in most cases nobody mention the alloy that they were using with their loads. I am starting on my own quest for accuracy with my Remington 40X in .308Win. My goal is to find a load that I can shoot for hundreds of shots without any loss of accuracy in any reasonable shooting weather. For this test my components are as follows. Federal Gold Medal case, Remington 9 1/2 primer and AA5744 powder. The boolits consist of indoor 22lr range lead mixed with tin for a 30:1 mix (250lbs in one melt) so as not to introduce a variable with the alloy. The gas checks are Hornady and have been annealed. The mould is SAECO #315 175gr TCGC. Boolit dimensions out of the mould are .3118 at the base and .302 on the nose, and weigh 174.2grs. They are sized and lubed .310 with BullShops NASA lube. The cases are sized with a LEE collet neck die and expanded with a .308 x .312 M die that I made for a .002 press fit. I started with 19.0 grs of AA5744 and a OAL of 2.668" and the gun grouped about 1.2" to 1.5" I also had a lot of jumping of the gun off the front rest. Then I made two changes at the same time with the load. I increased the powder charge to 19.2 grs, and seated the boolit out longer for a OAL of 2.75". I played with where the gun was resting on the front rest and now the gun recoils straight back. With this load I shot a .781 10 shot group for the April bench rest match. The only change I am going to make now is increase the powder charge in .2 gr increments until the compressive strength of the 30:1 alloy is exceeded. So far I have learned that the gun can shoot over 100 shots with out being cleaned and the group size is getting smaller. the two best five shot groups so far are .550" and .626" at 100 yds. When the groups open up I will back the powder charge down and play with the seating depth or OAL.

[Larry Gibson]

BD does provide us with a good example. However his conclusion perhaps could use a little more explanation. LLA is not a good lube at 163,000+ RPM that his 6.5 Swede load provides, he has demonstrated that with his test. It has been proven through testing by most all of us who have used LLA extensively that it works well up into 1800-1900 fps with 10" twist rifle barrels. It is generally accepted then that LLA is not a good alloy above that velocity range but that isn't quite correct either as BD's tests show. My tests in the Swede also show that LLA is not a good lube above 140,000 RPM. Other lubes do perform well.

My point here, once again, is that there will not be much difference in accuracy between good lubes that that are proven performers in the velocity/RPM range of the intended load. I don't use LLA, SPG, Lyman's old graphite lube and/or a host of other lubes that are not proven performers at high velocity (2300-2600+ fps) in my rifles because it is known they will not work. My tests of 5 lubes of known performance is demonstrated clearly there was accuracy difference between them. I quess almost 500 rounds in a test may not be enough for some to draw a scientific conclusion from but it is for me. At least it beats an occasional 3 or 5 shot group as to opinion formulation.

Larry Gibson

[badgeredd]

I'm done with the nonsense, believe what you wish.
joe b.

Now that is a real mature and educated attitude! Scientific too!

I find it humorous that when someone suggests that YOU do the work, it obviously upsets you. Sorry if I offend you but that's how I see it.

Edd

[felix]

Doc, you are doing it correctly. It's nice to have a good gun, eh? You mentioned a BR match. Where? Blue Trails still operating in the same location as in the 70's? I spent many hours there over four years. ... felix

[Pat I.]

Obviously you're doing something right but if you're only running a .002 press fit you could try barely seating the bullet with your fingers and let the throat decide the final seating depth.

[Doc Highwall]

Felix, the match was run here as a postal match. Here is a picture of the 10 shot group which shows either barrel harmonics or bad rear bag technique or both, and a picture of the loaded round. I am lucky that I have a complete wood shop and a real Bridgeport and lathe in the basement for making things that I need.

[45r]

I think Lar's Carnuba red or 2500 plus is as good as any lube out there.Been using 2500 because it doesn't need heat.I think finding a load the gun likes involves proper hold and the right sweet spot on pressure more than lube.The right powder and primers also.I just started trying 5744 in my 45-70 highwall and can't hardly believe how well it shoots 480PB saecos.I used 2500 in all my load testing with no leading but the 5744 loads started shooting in the same hole and the other powders didn't.4759 does the same also but needs a cotton ball wad.I've found that Vitt-133 does the same when it matches up with what a gun likes.I think finding the right powder matters more than anything.

[leftiye]

Originally Posted by leftiye
Nonsense = Not being or not acting in accordance with good sense (duh, by definition). To include not being able to evalute opinions, better known as hypotheses, or theories. Worse still to avoid or refuse to do so. If you cain't think, you're lost



Maybe this is part of the problem.
Look up the words "opinion", "theory" and "hypothesis", seem what they mean.
An opinion is a subjective thing, can't be proven right or wrong, "Blue is the best looking color".
I, yes I, and a lot of scientists, believe that opinions should not be offered regarding topics that can be proved either way. However, in the US, anyone may offer an opinion about any topic, no matter how stupid. "Pi should be 3, stop the foolishness."

Hypotheses and theories suggest how and why a thing happens, and methods to approach the truth. "Lube choice may affect accuracy. Following is a method of testing this........."

One can and may offer and test hypotheses and theories, in the rational world. Data, the result of testing, is what tells us if we're approaching truth.

One can but should not offer opinions about matters of fact. "I believe that Pike's peak is higher than Mount McKinley" is certainly legal, but improper in the context of a scientific query.

The key here is that opinion and theory and hypothesis are not ords with the same meanings, and if you and I don't speak the same language, misunderstandings and animosity results.

joe b.

I think this is the Yak snot you mentioned. You don't consider any of the above anyway, and that (and this response) is nonsense.

[leftiye]

One small thang that has suggested itself to my "imagination" while reading these last few posts is - that it may be a little unfair to look at the field of lubes, the top rated ones, the old standbys that also ran, and the mule snot ones - as if they are totally different categories. To say this lube is fine if you're only gonna shoot 1500 fps, and that you'll have to go to at least say 50/50 if you're going to shoot faster than that, or to Felix lube, C-Red, 2700, LBT Blue etc if you want to shoot in the mid 2000's may be correct and true, but right there the original question is also answered. Lubes can and do make drastic differences. The fact that the best lubes all work well in that rare atmosphere doesn't say that lubes don't make a difference. Plus there are still examples of one shooting better than another in that scenario. Even given this, there is still (no one will dispute, I'd guess) room for improvement in lube performance (as lube failure is still experienced). I. E. if lubes don't make a difference, we may as well take up fly fishing.

[felix]

45R, absolutely, you gotta' have the proper acceleration curve starting, of course, with ignition. A variation in acceleration (powder burn and therefore boolit) causes the vibe differences. If the conditions are called correctly, Doc's target shows what happens, assuming the vibes were indeed just about horizontal. The odds are, though, that particular horizontal line is a combo of vibes and wind thrust. The vertical as shown is indicative of a bag shift, provided the top and botton lines were entirely consecutive. If not, then powder is shifting back and forth between shots. If a cotton ball was used, then the cause could be boolits are hanging on the rifling during ignition on the high plane, and loose for the bottom plane shots. That is a damn good target, Doc, because it truly shows a lot. ... felix

PS. Doc, make sure the contact with the rifling is absolutely square. 'Bout the only way to assure that would be to run the boolit into a swage (bump) die. See Larry the Gator for the die; he would need sample, finished boolits. However, if that throat is worn off-center, the die would not make sense. That is a fine shooting rifle you have. ... felix

PPS. If the throat is worn, try a tad faster powder; faster ignition is what we really need to take out some time before the curve enters its upwards slope. ... felix

[runfiverun]

i have been swapping lubes slowly through my 308 with a 165 rcbs silhouette boolit.
why that one? it don't hold a ton of lube,the bbl is a 10 twist and i am pushing it pretty hard.
you know when the grey smoke hits the air, that you just got leading.
i push till i lose accuracy, switch, push again.
would a better design work here? probably, as would having the throat cut.
not gonna do it.
i have been trying to learn how lube works in these situations............
this has been going on for what, a year and a half now?
and i have learned a few things.
seems that joe don't wanna try lube as a variable.

[wash72]

I wanted to compare for myself. I just got back from the range. The gun was a ported 1895G with Williams peep sight. Lee 405 gr FP ACWW sized to .459. 23gr SR-4759 with wad. Starline cases. Win primers. OAL 2.550. The only difference between the two loads I shot was 20 rounds lubed with Super moly and 20 with two light coats of Alox. I alternated groupings of moly, alox, moly, alox.
The average for 4 5-shot groups with the Super moly was 2.5".
The Alox boolits impacted 3 inches to the right and 3 inches high vs. the Moly. I only shot two groups of 5 with the Alox because the groups were about 4". Simply based on the vastly different POI's, I came to the conclusion that lube does seem to affect accuracy in THIS gun and THIS load.