Tumble Lube vs Traditional designs

[awaveritt]

I know this has probably been hashed out, but which boolit would theoretically be more accurate within a certain style when comparing Tumble-lube designs to traditional lube groove designs? I know there are a million variables but..... all things being equal, what do you think?

Also, for the sake of discussion, do you think the LLA does BETTER with TL designs than with traditional designs? (I know Lee recommends LLA with all styles, but. . .)
I ask this question because I have, so far, only invested in LLA for lube but want to try it on traditional lube-groove RNFP's.

What, say you, is the conventional wisdom on this subject?

Edit:
Montana Charlie wrote:


awaveritt,
You asked two different questions, and I can't answer either of them.

Unfortunately, you asked your oh-by-the-way question after asking your 'this-is-what-I-want-to-know question.

So...all of your responses have focused on the most recently seen question...not the one in the thread title. And...since the question being answered is about 'lube', the discussion is starting to drift off toward the lube nebula...from which few threads ever return.

Better luck on your next try...
CM

Thanks for the advice. So. . . . ., back to the original question: about comparing Tumble-lube designs to traditional lube groove designs?

[mpmarty]

I have H&G 68s and Lee tumble lube molds and can't tell the difference when both are tumble lubed and sized same diameter (.452) and then tumble lubed a second time. I have a star and a lyman sizer lubricator and for pistol and low velocity rifle they just don't get used anymore. I do not dilute the LLA and give it 24 hours to dry between applications and then dust lightly with motor mica as a final step. I cannot tell the difference shooting the two different 200 gr boolits in any of five pistols that take that boolit. Unfortunately my XD 45 won't function with semi wad cutters so I've gotten away from casting any more of those two boolits. I've got enough stockpiled for the 1911s and other 45s to last many years.

[HammerMTB]

I have tried LLA on several of my conventional lube grooved boolits.
It has worked in every case up to my pistol vels of 1350 FPS or so.
I just got an 1895 so may be checking the limits of LLA.
Then again, it may be a while before I do that as I want to PP some and try 'em.
I don't see why LLA wouldn't work as well in either boolit design, but I'd certainly concede that I don't always think of every possibility.
It'll be interesting to read what others have to say....... [smilie=1:

[Shiloh]

Alox lube has worked on all applications where it was tried with traditional lube groove boolits. My experience is at the lower target velocities, 1000 fps or less. From what I have read on the forum, I would feel comfortable boosting that to 1200 or so.

Others have run rifle boolits at considerably higher velocities. I have never used alox as a rifle boolit lube, other than boolit noses of conventionally lubed rifle boolits.

Shiloh

[Shiloh]

Alox lube has worked on all applications where it was tried with traditional lube groove boolits. My experience is at the lower target velocities, 1000 fps or less. From what I have read on the forum, I would feel comfortable boosting that to 1200 or so.

Others have run rifle boolits at considerably higher velocities. I have never used alox as a rifle boolit lube, other than boolit noses of conventionally lubed rifle boolits.

Shiloh

[44wcf]

MPMarty
Where do you get the motor mica?
Thanks
44wcf

[BABore]

Ballistic Products or Midway.

[montana_charlie]

awaveritt,
You asked two different questions, and I can't answer either of them.

Unfortunately, you asked your oh-by-the-way question after asking your 'this-is-what-I-want-to-know question.

So...all of your responses have focused on the most recently seen question...not the one in the thread title. And...since the question being answered is about 'lube', the discussion is starting to drift off toward the lube nebula...from which few threads ever return.

Better luck on your next try...
CM

[awaveritt]

montana charlie: Your point is well taken. Therefore, I've edited my OP in hopes of preventing the dreaded drift.

[bohokii]

traditional is old theoretically it reduces bore friction but those large lube grooves are kind of wasteful of lube if you ever see a fired one 90% of the lube is still in the lube groove

lubey lube lube

[Maven]

bohokii, I'm going to post a reply in the bullet lube section so as not to hijack the thread.

[theperfessor]

Your first post asked what we thought about a certain problem, so I'll share an opinion. I would think that a TL - designed bullet (numerous shallow lube grooves) with TL would potentially be more accurate than a TL bullet with conventional lube. Same thing in reverse for bullets designed for conventional lubes (fewer large grooves).

Remember that traditional bullet designs were developed during a period of time when there was less knowledge of fluid mechanics and chemical compositions. Traditional lubes evolved using organic materials (beeswax, animal fat, etc.) that have certain characteristics, properties, and limitations. You make up for a lot of these limitations by using more of the material.

I also think that as a practical matter as long as enough lube is available to maintain a gas tight seal and have enough lubricity and volume to replace the lube pushed out ahead of the bullet then the differences in performance between lubes in similar bullet designs is probably insignificant.

My $.02 worth.

[Recluse]

I know this has probably been hashed out, but which boolit would theoretically be more accurate within a certain style when comparing Tumble-lube designs to traditional lube groove designs? I know there are a million variables but..... all things being equal, what do you think?

Handgun rounds, my number one boolit of al time is a TL design (TL158SWC). An extremely close number two--and I mean VERY close--is a traditional groove design (.452 200SWC).

My least accurate boolit, bar none, is a .356TL124RN.

My long gun boolits that perform best are all traditional lube groove designs--with GCs.

You're right: There are a million variables with just the boolits and lube, not to mention when you throw in powder, primers, brass, and even the GUN itself.

What works for me might hoover for you. Vice versa.



Also, for the sake of discussion, do you think the LLA does BETTER with TL designs than with traditional designs? (I know Lee recommends LLA with all styles, but. . .)

In my experience, zero difference in efficacy using tumble-lube formulas between microband boolits and traditional grooved boolits. It either works, or it doesn't. At higher velocities in the long guns, I get less accuracy out of most of my tumble-lubed boolits. I still do not get leading, but I get less accuracy.

With one of my (own) lube formulas, I get superb accuracy and no leading. Guess which one I prefer and use? :wink:

:coffee:

[Bret4207]

I think, I may be wrong, that the theory says that if both boolits are fired in guns with twists right for then and speeds right for them they should both be potentially as accurate as the other. The fly in the ointment is those million variables mentioned. I don;t think there's a clear answer to which would be more accurate. Range plays a part too. A WC can do get at close range, but they go nuts at longer ranges. A SWC or TC or SP may do well at longer ranges but the CG is all over the place between the various designs so there's no saying if the groove style has any play in the success or failure. You have to find what you and your gun like.

Mule Snot isn;t the best lube, but it's not a poor one either.