and yet another question

[Echd]

I've had dillon presses for years, as well as turrets (Also, it's "turret", not "turrent"). I recently sold a redding T7 to a member here in an FTF transaction. Clearly that must have been a real piece of junk, right?

And tumble lube is a great option for lubing mass quantities of bullets. The only reason I don't use it anymore is because it gums up bullet feeders and I don't like cleaning my suppressors.

Again, physics aren't opinions. If you can't figure that out, then maybe crack a textbook. This isn't revolutionary data here.

Although, I've been powder coating for several years at the least, as well.

Maybe you're implying that much like physics, turret presses and tumble lubricants don't work?

Now, how about you cut the ad hominem.



Documentation from a ballistician at norma about pressure and velocity decrease resulting from bullet coatings:

http://www.6mmbr.com/normamoly.html

Some guy documenting velocity decreasing with pressure-reducing compounds:

http://www.all-science-fair-projects...oject_1214_147

Guns Magazine

http://gunsmagazine.com/moly-yes-or-moly-no/

Let me cut the relevant snippet out just for you:

Once the bore has a thin coating of moly, when moly coated bullets are fired through it pressure is reduced, as is velocity.

More 6mmBR articles, with relevant quotation:

http://www.6mmbr.com/bulletcoating.html

Well, there is no free lunch. By reducing friction, bullet coating has the effect of reducing pressures in your barrel. This means that you'll get less velocity with coated bullets than naked bullets, given the same powder load. Anti-friction coatings are Speed Robbers. You can expect to lose 20-80 fps after coating your bullets, maybe more with large cartridges and bullets with long bearing surfaces. In order to get back to the velocity you had before coating your bullets, you'll need to adjust the powder load upwards--perhaps a half-grain or more. That's not a problem ... IF you have extra capacity in your case. If you've already maxed out your case capacity, you may need to change powders, or just accept the slower velocity as the "price" of coating your bullets.

From Accurate shooter:

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/boron-nitride/

Coating bullets with a friction-reducing compound such as Molybdenum Disulfide (Moly) offers potential benefits, including reduced barrel heat, and being able to shoot longer strings of fire between bore cleanings. One of the effects of reduced friction can be the lessening of internal barrel pressures. This, in turn, means that coated bullets may run slower than naked bullets (with charges held equal). To restore velocities, shooters running coated bullets are inclined to “bump up” the load — but you need to be cautious.

Oh, and here's the biggest one of all, Bernoulli's Principle, which everyone has heard of (and erroneously attributed to airplanes)

Bernoulli's principle states that for an inviscid flow of a nonconducting fluid, an increase in the speed of the fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a decrease in the fluid's potential energy.

(Yes, virginia, air is a fluid, at least in most contexts like this)

Within the same dataset, reducing pressure will reduce velocity.

[noisewaterphd]

what qualification do you and he have that I should take everything you say to the bank without a single doubt? All ive seen or heard are opinions. Where is the test data? It wasn't but two year ago that he was loading on a turrent press and bragging that on tumble lube as the best answer to lubing bullets.

Not opinions Lloyd, that's the point.

Also, what's wrong with a turret press, or tumble lubing for that matter? I fail to see either of those as the insult you intended them to be.

[Lloyd Smale]

nope post count doesn't guarantee anything. But I know the guys with high post counts have been here for a good long time. That to me at least means they been doing this for 10 years or more. Like I said to your buddy show me the proof. Not just lip service. Believe it or not I'm still here to learn. Many have come and gone here that thought they had the answers or could bs people into at least thinking they did. So teach me. Show me the facts.

Loyd, this is at least the second time you have inferred that post count == real world experience, or intelligence, which is one of the most ridiculous things you could be posting.



Loyd, pay attention to that post by Echd, you can't keep taking the argument out of context. Pressure and velocity do not rise in lockstep.

[Lloyd Smale]

Now I'm going to back out of this post. I will sit back and watch and see how much real proof will be shown. How much real world bullet shooting, bullet testing is done. I'm done with the :takinWiz: match. You guys my very well be experts on this but its going to take more then beating your chest. Show me actually pressure testing and testing of which is the smoothest bullets going down a bore. Show me examples of actual guns that were tested with rough barrels that showed velocity increases. Scientifically like you guys seem to like it. If you cant then id suggest just like me you back away like a gentleman.

[Echd]

Already stood up to it, pardner. But if you want to slink away with your tail between your legs given my most recent post, go right ahead. This wasn't a peeing contest until you started insulting people.

I don't know what other proof you want other than guiding principles of physics and the word of ballisticians at top companies.

[454PB]

Not my research, but worth watching, Lloyd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu7UfKITMF8

[noisewaterphd]

Now I'm going to back out of this post. I will sit back and watch and see how much real proof will be shown. How much real world bullet shooting, bullet testing is done. I'm done with the :takinWiz: match. You guys my very well be experts on this but its going to take more then beating your chest. Show me actually pressure testing and testing of which is the smoothest bullets going down a bore. Show me examples of actual guns that were tested with rough barrels that showed velocity increases. Scientifically like you guys seem to like it. If you cant then id suggest just like me you back away like a gentleman.

You are the only one talking about guns with rough barrels, I'm guessing attempted misdirect.

I can totally get you pressure and velocity results for almost any caliber/bullet combination, you name it. Barrel lengths will be limited.

[Lloyd Smale]

I don't know what other proof you want other than guiding principles of physics and the word of ballisticians at top companies.

show me the money



and the first personal attack was yours calling out my grammar. All I did was disagree with you and ask for REAL proof instead of opinion and I got just the answer I expected, generalizations, and more personal attacks and not one fact. Not any quote from any ballistician from any top company and certainly nothing from Isaac Newton or any other physicist. Again just you. This certainly isn't worth wasting another minute of my time on. I'm sure not going to get any real answers here. After two years you no doubt are one of the leading experts on coating bullets and how physics relates to ballistics. If I ever doubted it noisewater set me straight.

[Echd]

Willful ignorance is an insidious thing, but you seem to lavish in it. Continue to reject simple things out of highschool textbooks in favor of insulting people on the internet if you will, I will enjoy being right. Being so right that a simple google search turns up page after page of evidence backing up the extremely simple idea that I am espousing...

And all over something so simple.

Also, I never insulted you once nor called out your grammar. You are the one flying off the handle over nothing at all... literally, a completely neutral statement was my first post in this thread. Mostly, I was just curious why posting

You can shoot identical jacketed bullets right next to moly coated ones and see velocity decrease for the slicker bullets. Less pressure is less speed.

Now, can you increase that load and end up somewhere else? That's another story with another unsatisfyingly inconsistent answer.

is met with

where are you getting your facts?? Have you done extensive pressure testing or any for that matter... Or are you just passing on stuff you've read somewhere. Anyone can make up a theory on this and post it on the internet. Where are the actual tests?. theres guys on here that if they told me something they experienced it take it as wrote in stone. Guys with 30 or 40 years of experience at this stuff. But with only 500 posts I have to ask how long you've been even casting and loading.

Generally speaking, baseless attacks on the source instead of the information presented are the textbook definition of an "ad adhominem" attack...

Which is odd when I, you know, showed you exactly how you can prove the thing you claim you want to know but deny at every turn... something which I have personally done, because molycoat was soooo cool in high power circles back then, and it proves how a slick bullet will have lower velocity with the same load. Playing with molycoating was old hat when I started reloading... surely you, with your infinite wealth of experience in practical matters would have tried that by now?

Guess it doesn't matter. I like to understand someone's thought processes... or lack thereof. Guess if you're really leaving the thread I won't know why you're so upset over it.

[noisewaterphd]

Lloyd, I've already told you that I'm happy to share my personal log books with you.

I also told you to name your cartridge and bullet (assuming I have access to the particular bullet), and I will give you the pressure, and velocity results. I can do this for most any round, some might require some new tooling, but it would have to be pretty obscure.

But, the exercise is pretty pointless. Again, these aren't opinions we are arguing about.

Still, I'm happy to do it.

[Lee S. Forsberg]

I just got here. What an argument!! I've read mostly about velocity not to much about accuracy. I've sized and lubed and applied gas checks over powder coating and it works just fine. I haven't measured velocities let alone the difference between PC and non PC bullets velocities. If I notice tighter groups with lubed PC bullets I might test the velocity just for fun so I know what it is. If lubed PC bullets don't group any better than PC only bullets I'll stop lubing them. Or for that matter if PC bullets don't show improved accuracy over lube only I'll stop powder coating. I'm looking for the correct velocity to produce the best accuracy.

[Lee S. Forsberg]

Has anyone tried taking a pc bullet and conventionaly lube sizing it? I wonder if at high velocitys (over 2k) if the addition of a good lube wouldn't help you get even more velocity before problems start.

I just got here. What an argument!! I've read mostly about velocity not to much about accuracy. I've sized and lubed and applied gas checks over powder coating and it works just fine. I haven't measured velocities let alone the difference between PC and non PC bullets velocities. If I notice tighter groups with lubed PC bullets I might test the velocity just for fun so I know what it is. If lubed PC bullets don't group any better than PC only bullets I'll stop lubing them. Or for that matter if PC bullets don't show improved accuracy over lube only I'll stop powder coating. I'm looking for the correct velocity to produce the best accuracy.

[Lee S. Forsberg]

Sorry for the double post. Mods please delete one of them.

[Lloyd Smale]

lots of keyboard work just to say in the end I'm stupid and still not one iota of proof. Not one example of actual pressure testing a coated bullet to prove the pressure is lower and so is the velocity. Just more you "you can find it anywhere" Personally ive never seen a single high school text book that had anything to do with bullet casting or shooting of a gun in any way. But then ive lived up in the sticks all my life. I guess the guys I was friends with in NC didn't care much about book smart people either. They, like me went by what they saw what was put in front of them. they knew with a couple years experience and a couple books you could talk the talk but few have actually walked the walk. I guess in this case we will call it blissful ignorance because now theres nothing I want to learn from you and to think all it would have took is for you to do one of your simple google searchs and then because you like it so much, you could have been right. Ive been on this forum since 3 months after its inception. In that time ive only put two guys on my ignore list. Both of them eventually went away. They either decide that this wasn't there main hobby in life or realized they weren't wanted here. I don't know which. You will be my third so you can come back and lash out at me again and get the last work in and I wont even see it. I know I wont miss any earth shattering knowledge over the next couple years and my guess is youll probably join the other two eventually anyway. See ya!

Willful ignorance is an insidious thing, but you seem to lavish in it. Continue to reject simple things out of highschool textbooks in favor of insulting people on the internet if you will, I will enjoy being right. Being so right that a simple google search turns up page after page of evidence backing up the extremely simple idea that I am espousing...

And all over something so simple.

Also, I never insulted you once nor called out your grammar. You are the one flying off the handle over nothing at all... literally, a completely neutral statement was my first post in this thread. Mostly, I was just curious why posting



is met with



Generally speaking, baseless attacks on the source instead of the information presented are the textbook definition of an "ad adhominem" attack...

Which is odd when I, you know, showed you exactly how you can prove the thing you claim you want to know but deny at every turn... something which I have personally done, because molycoat was soooo cool in high power circles back then, and it proves how a slick bullet will have lower velocity with the same load. Playing with molycoating was old hat when I started reloading... surely you, with your infinite wealth of experience in practical matters would have tried that by now?

Guess it doesn't matter. I like to understand someone's thought processes... or lack thereof. Guess if you're really leaving the thread I won't know why you're so upset over it.

[Echd]

I'd say it wasn't worth my time, but an attempt at battling ignorance always is. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I tried.

I will probably be better off avoiding comments from somebody who flies off the handle like that.

It just baffles me that someone can provide page after page after page of proof to something so trivial- that a decrease in pressure decreases velocity, and that an increase accompanies an increase in velocity- yet it is rejected for no reason and that the person submitting the proof is yelled at.

[noisewaterphd]

Not one example of actual pressure testing a coated bullet to prove the pressure is lower and so is the velocity.

Lloyd, are you serious? You will never get that example because NOBODY ever said that. What was said is that a powder coated bullet creates slightly higher pressures, so goes slightly faster.

?

Unless you are talking about a moly coated bullet? In which case there are more examples available to your fingertips than you could ever read through.

[Echd]

I think the ambiguity stems from him talking about a "slicker" barrel, which isn't a very meaningful description, compared to a rougher one. The only way you can make this determination is through comparing identical chambers, throats, etc, not different barrels. However,as noted many, many times, one can apply coatings like molybdenum disulfide to a barrel's interior to make it slicker... and decrease velocity in the process. And also make an unholy mess! I doubt I will ever fool with moly coating again.

Not that it all matters... the science is settled, regardless.

[Smoke4320]

[QUOTE=noisewaterphd;3626440]Lloyd, are you serious? You will never get that example because NOBODY ever said that. What was said is that a powder coated bullet creates slightly higher pressures, so goes slightly faster.

Every report I have so far will all else being the same is about a 4% increase in speed PC over the exact same bullet lubed ..
Now for some people that means they will need to adjust their load a little to tweek accuracy .. As with every change in a load

[Stilly]

Has anyone tried taking a pc bullet and conventionaly lube sizing it? I wonder if at high velocitys (over 2k) if the addition of a good lube wouldn't help you get even more velocity before problems start.

LLOYD!

Correct me if I am wrong but the last time I saw you had said that you thought PC was stupid and you did not see the point to it. Maybe i got you mixed up with someone else. But it sounds like you might have found a color you like and are looking for a "practical" reason to get into PC, or at least a better reason then liking the color...

Hmmm. I have not done what you are asking about. But I would not do it because I PC so that I do NOT have to deal with lube or star sizers or any of that mess.

BUT, Perhaps once you pc you can coat your pills in Moly or what is that white stuff? Boron Nitride something? BNH? BHN- yes, BHN I think it is called.

I do NOT know what it would do, but it might give you better results than lube would on account that that white BHN powder was supposedly slicker than moly which is supposed to be slicker than lube...

Whatever your choice, good luck and keep us posted.

[noisewaterphd]

Every report I have so far will all else being the same is about a 4% increase in speed PC over the exact same bullet lubed ..
Now for some people that means they will need to adjust their load a little to tweek accuracy .. As with every change in a load

Exactly what we are trying to get across here. And again, nobody is saying that is a bad thing, just that it happens.