"Extreme" boolit lube, The Quest...

[geargnasher]

If you need a lube formula that works, tell me what kind of temperatures you're dealing with, length of shot strings, cooling periods, your bore cleaning habits, etc. and either me or Run can easily give you an exact recipe to do the job within about a 50 degree temp window, no guessing, and no BS.

Gear

[runfiverun]

mj being in wyoming, would have temps very similar to what i have here.
of the many trips i make back and forth between here and rock springs the temps were usually cooler here..
b.a.c. is one of the lubes i have used with good success but i lower the alox to 40%, adding a little bit of lanolin helps too.
and keeping the carnuba level in the 2-3% instead of the 5% most normally use will help too.
a seasoned bore will definately help with the b.a.c.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...=143420&page=2
here are some groups littlegirl and i shot with the b.a.c. using the rcbs 165 silh boolit at 100 yds, in my 308

[popper]

Ok, got some data. Pressure data is from Larry gibson, for a 308 311466 160 gr CB, measure MV = 2140 fps. I converted psi to #-force on the bullet, subtracted frictional force (#), compenstated for twist(1/10) and calculated velocity and force on a 4 groove bbl. I don't care about the spin force, it is so small, the CB only does 2 rev in bbl. I approximated friction as 5#, about what it takes to slug my bore, and 200# for swaging the CB into the bore. That may be high, but is there only a fraction of the time. I mashed a .401 CB ( BHN ~ 18) by .021 (L) and measured base diam @ .411, with ~200 #. My conclusions are for a hot CB load, the lube only needs to take 500 # force, for a short period of time and the alloy must be able to take this force. The rest of the lube requirement is consistently low viscosity from 0-400F. Any thickeners (for lubrisizer, storage, etc.) need to contain the real lube, liquify to low viscosity with pressure and stay that way to exit the muzzle as a mist to not cause flyers. Hopefully this info will help in your lube component selection. Just my 2 cents.

[geargnasher]

Thanks for that, Popper, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, especially disregarding "spin force". Pressure on the base doesn't mean much, it's the rotational force imparted to the boolit by the rifling that causes widening or stripping of the land engraves, so we can disregard forward velocity and pressure except to get the rate of acceleration (rate of change of speed) of the boolit as it's driven against the angle of the rifling and resisting being rotated due to its static inertia. That's the whole deal, right there. It takes energy to get a top spinning.

If you shoot a boolit at a steel plate so that it hits the plate at, say, 3.52 degrees, the boolit will smear on the plate even with much more surface area than the engagement area of the rifling. By that logic, one could simple calulate muzzle energy of Larry's boolit at 1,627 lb/ft, and the energy it would take to deflect the boolit 3.52 degrees would be right at 100 lb/ft. Imagine taking a torque wrench and applying a 100 lb twisting force to your .308" boolit for a few milliseconds, and also imagine that the force is distributed at 25 lb/ft per each of four bearing points less than .0012 square inches in surface at .156" from the center axis while in the barrel. I don't believe this is a force to be discounted.

Much shooting of HV rifle boolits, using different alloys, loading techniques, paper jackets, powders, etc. has narrowed the ultimate accuracy/velocity window down to the point of land engagement failure, at least in my mind, so I want to make sure my lube is up to the task.

Gear

[popper]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The COS(3,5) deg is .998, so 99.8% of the force goes STRAIGHT AHEAD (if it can) 2% goes at 90 deg. Even if the twist angle is 15 deg, 96.6% forward, 4.4% sideways. The sideways/90 deg component does create torque. 100 ft# of torque will twist the gun right out of a normal persons hand (lug nuts take 80 Ft-#). The real torque is more like 10 ft-#. Any rotational shear is MUCH less than the axial shear on the CB. I don't know why people get all into spin 'in the bbl', the only thing that can happen by over-spin is launching multiple projectiles at once.
Yes, when the CB is being swaged to the rifling, the torque is MUCH higher. I tried to accommodate that torque with my gross friction number of 200#. Yes, the shear or torsion strength of Pb is much less than the compression strength, ~ x 5 as best I can determine. After swaging, 99% of the force is pushing the CB down the barrel. The psi on the lands is MUCH higher than the FORCE-#, the area of friction is SMALL. However, the COF as I gave in a formula earlier and you should understand from brake systems, AREA is NOT part of the friction calc, except for heat dissipation.

[runfiverun]

there's no way that 2k of pressure is constant????

your graph did reming me of some interesting pressure peaks i seen in several of larry's graphs and wondered if it was the boolit entering the bbl.
it lead me to not grossly oversizing my boolits.

i am not sure how those numbers would affect a lubes requirements.

[geargnasher]

I'm not following your geometry at all. The only geometry needed here is to determine the rifling pitch solving for the arctangent of Theta, where "Opposite" is given by Pi X groove diameter, and "adjacent" is the length of one revolution, therfore Arctangent of Theta is.968"/10, or actually 5.53 degrees (I figured rise incorrectly above, so the 3.5 degree number is off). Inversely, we find that the Tangent of 5.53 = X/10, or the deflection amount is the length of the "opposite" leg, again, .968" Cosine will give the length of the hypotenuse, which is X=10/Cos5.53, which solves as 10.0468" rounded a bit.

Comparing rotational moment of inertia to the energy it takes to deflect the entire object is, of course like comparing apples to oranges where glancing off steel at an angle involves both forward inertia (considerable), and the entire inertia of the boolit, whereas figuring the amount of force/time it takes for radial acceleration to happen involves only a portion of the mass, as mass decreases to zero approaching the axial center of the boolit.

So really, there might not be much force on the lands, but there is some, and we need to know about what it is so we can formulate alloys and lubes appropriately.

The word problem here is "How much force (N) is required to accelerate a solid lead cylinder (say 10g/mL) 3.08" in diameter and 1 inch long to a rotational velocity of 61 M/S in the amount of time the boolit is in the barrel after being fired?" Force, being a function time, would give us a ratio for an answer. 61 M/S is the rotational velocity of a .308" boolit at 150K rpm.

Gear

[geargnasher]

there's no way that 2k of pressure is constant????

your graph did reming me of some interesting pressure peaks i seen in several of larry's graphs and wondered if it was the boolit entering the bbl.
it lead me to not grossly oversizing my boolits.

i am not sure how those numbers would affect a lubes requirements.

Part of it is engraving pressure, you can sometimes see that in the graph as a separate bump. Sometimes you can see the bump in pressure trace data where the boolit actually breaks the crimp. The main part of the peak is usually the powder reaching it's peak burn right before it starts to be totally consumed, and the expansion rate is still low (high resistance) because the boolit is still moving slowly at that point. Pressure drops off as the expansion rate increases (due to boolit acceleration) and the powder is all burned up.

Looking at a graph of chamber pressure vs. distance the boolit has traveled, as in Quickload graphs, will reveal a lot. I gotta get me a copy of that program.

Gear

[felix]

Consider the stripping torque lost per land when the forward movement of the boolit is excessive. Very seldom is the width of engraving the very same from start to finish alongside the boolit. The resistance of the paper jacket should give a more consistent engraving experience, and approach that of condoms which are mostly 100 percent for argument sake. I typically reject loads which exhibit more than 50 percent of perfect engraving, no matter the accuracy. ... felix

[45 2.1]

If you need a lube formula that works, tell me what kind of temperatures you're dealing with, length of shot strings, cooling periods, your bore cleaning habits, etc. and either me or Run can easily give you an exact recipe to do the job within about a 50 degree temp window, no guessing, and no BS. Gear

While the above may be important to you, it is far down on the list when dealing with..... shall we say......match grade accuracy. Several other factors control that item. I've recovered many boolits shot at long range out of bolt guns and semi-autos shot at higher velocities than normal for this forum and notice no widening of land engravings on them from front to back. Perfect your boolit fit and find the proper alloy, then your lube problems become nil.

[geargnasher]

I think you miss the point, 45 2.1. We have plenty of lube formulas that make it a non-issue accuracy-wise, under a certain set of weather conditions, and leave our accuracy up to the other things you imply. However, I'll drive to Chicago and kiss your **** if you can show me that your lube will put the first shot from a cold barrel in the group at both sub-freezing conditions AND Texas Summer, and hold groups through a "reasonably" long string of fire under either set of circumstances.

Gear

[runfiverun]

the fit and hardness are important ,most important.
once you have that and want to do it at 20*f or less or at 90*F then what?
my shooting time is when i get it. if i waited for nice 70* days to shoot i would get about 3 a year.
that's why this is imortant.

[geargnasher]

the fit and hardness are important ,most important.
once you have that and want to do it at 20*f or less or at 90*F then what?
my shooting time is when i get it. if i waited for nice 70* days to shoot i would get about 3 a year.
that's why this is imortant.

Exactly. The Lube Quest one that assumes you already have your schnitz together at the reloading bench.

Gear

[popper]

There is force on the lands from radial movement, it's just that the force from axial movement is so much greater. Larry's data is an actual transducer rig, not QL. I've seen a pic on this site of a stripped jacketed round, the groove was triangular from front to back(widest at front, as it should be). I don't know if that pressure bump is the primer or the jump to the lands. Are we in agreement yet that lube pressure requirements are not really that high and heavy duty greases aren't really needed, the reason for my post? Several of us are interested in CB alloy requirements also, but this is Gear and R5R lube thread. Their work just might provide us with a lube that meets their list of requirements. If they do, I'll use it.

[geargnasher]

There is force on the lands from radial movement, it's just that the force from axial movement is so much greater. Yes, of course it is. Larry's data is an actual transducer rig, not QL. Yes, I know. You won't see the engraving bump or the bump from the boolit breaking the crimp on QL, either, since it's just a prediction, not a measurement. I've seen a pic on this site of a stripped jacketed round, the groove was triangular from front to back(widest at front, as it should be). And you still don't think the radial acceleration forces are significant? I don't know if that pressure bump is the primer or the jump to the lands. Are we in agreement yet that lube pressure requirements are not really that high and heavy duty greases aren't really needed, the reason for my post? How could we be in agreement, neither of us has produced any valid data or calculations yet. Several of us are interested in CB alloy requirements also, but this is Gear and R5R lube thread. It's an ANYBODY thread, for those with interest, questions, or contributions, like yourself, please continue to contribute. We don't have to all agree and reinforce each other's conceptions or very possible mis-conceptions on every point, otherwise we'll never be any the wiser. Their work just might provide us with a lube that meets their list of requirements. If they do, I'll use it.

And Peanut butter might be a great HV rifle lube, but if it isn't, will you know why? Part of the huge problem with making an all-season lube is trying to figure out how a successful lube works in the first place, so we can extrapolate those qualities over a larger temperature range by careful selection of ingredients and ingredient combinations.

One approach to this, the tribologist's approach, is largely mathematica. Problem is, speaking for myself, I have very little useful data to give someone like Bruce, so I'm trying to get somewhere with that for the benefit of all of us.

Knowing the pressures a lube must withstand will eliminate a lot of things right off the bat and simplify this project considerably. It may turn out that the pressure a boolit is under to hold while being accelerated against the minimal bearing surface of the edge of the lands is negligable, but I don't think it is. Now, obviously, a lube will not prevent alloy failure if the alloy isn't up to the task, but a good lube formula must be able to perform under the pressures, or the alloy SURELY will faill. Can we agree on that?

Gear

[runfiverun]

popper:
we still need the data to help develop the lube.
it helps to know what we are looking for in all the test numbers we see on different spec sheets.
and we need to give gruce some specifics to work with.

the point of using some of the heavy greases and such is to change the volume of other additives.
making b-wax/soy wax a component rather than a carrier is one step forward,being able to get the lube to flow at the right time is another, getting the components to cross over each other at different temps is the major one.
we also have to worry about maintaining a bore condition.



larry uses the oehler transducer.
when the original rpm thread was going on i was shooting loads concurrent to his while doing the linear group shooting.
it was pretty neat to see data from the loads and the group dispersions i was getting.
i also used richard lee's load reduction math to predict my velocities and pressures,and it was pretty cool to have that data right in hand and then larry's to compare it with.

[45 2.1]

However, I'll drive to Chicago and kiss your **** if you can show me that your lube will put the first shot from a cold barrel in the group at both sub-freezing conditions AND Texas Summer, and hold groups through a "reasonably" long string of fire under either set of circumstances.
Gear

Several lube formulas will do that........... and were here long before we were. However, i'm not anywhere near Chicago.

[popper]

R5R - that is the purpose of my posts, to get you some added info. My take on lube is(yea, Gear, I'm - strange) think sticky paint balls with lube inside some, sealer(solid particles) inside others. Now lets look at Felix lube, if that's OK with Felix. Mineral and Caster oils - lubes, caster is low viscosity @ higher temp and ~300 smoke temp. Mineral oil I think is about the same, with lower smoke temp. Both show high viscosity at low temp. Lanolin, B-wax, carnuba are waxes. Solid at room temp, different pressure strengths, hardness and smoke points. Add some lube capability and stiffness for handling and storage. Ivory soap makes the paint balls (encapsulates the oils and waxes), sort of. I don't know if the Carnuba scrubs gunk or fills in the bbl roughness. Maybe both. The only problem I see with the waxes is that their viscosity changes greatly with temp and they are not consumed or ejected at firing. Back to my P-B theory, if the P-b's stick together (for handling) and break under pressure to release the contents and everything gets blown out the bbl? Just some strange thoughts.

[felix]

I encourage any functional discrepancies be found in that they all must be eliminated from any "established" formula. ... felix

[geargnasher]

I encourage any functional discrepancies be found in that they all must be eliminated from any "established" formula. ... felix

"Descrepancies" are relative, too, Felix. I don't believe your formula was developed for precision hunting in freezing weather, so if there is a first shot flier traceable to lube, and modifications to the recipe (that you recommended yourself, on an "if necessary for your application" basis) fix the issue, then there really is no fault with the formula.

Not all beeswax is created equal, neither is castor oil, or mineral oil, or even Ivory soap. Lanolin is probably the most "constant" of the ingredients, the rest varies by brand and by lot number. That being the case, you have established a formula that works very well despite the fluctuations.

My belief is that, with all the man-made molecules out there, it should be possible to extend the useful, accurate temperature window of a lube formulation to overcome some of the shortcomings of the natural and petroleum oils and waxes in current use.

Right now I'm working on the "thick grease" tack, using a grease thickener as a carrier instead of wax, and using synthetic PAO oil with a very high VI as a lube. So far I'm still having to use a little wax for firmness, but the sticky, the viscosity, and the lubrication are coming mostly from the grease, which is very consistent from 0-125 degrees. Tests in the midrange temps are starting to show some promise, I'll keep everyone updated when I have more valid information.

Gear