Lubes, velocity and accuracy

[Larry Gibson]

That's not disputing you. just a fact of shooting of which needs bringing out. Heat destroys barrels regardless of the material. And they only have so much life. But it is meant to be used, so use it how you choose.

But consider this. Since no world record holder meets or sets world records everyday and hasn't for over 300 years of record keeping data, I draw the following conclusions.

1. Your load and gun will not perform the same way everyday. Or the same year round. Or the same over it's lifetime.

2. You will not perform the same way everyday or year round or over your lifetime.

3. Nothing new under the sun. No one gun, or powder type, or caliber, or anything else has proven superior because we are still groping for answers.

That's pretty good data because it encompasses everything we discuss every day plus both types of bullet material that we don't utilizing all methods devised. All of these guys were human and I am sure some of them were just like us. And probably some of them thought they had the real deal when it came to methodology and experimentation only to learn what history teaches, that it was simply for that set of circumstances at that point in time.


If you have better data than that, what can you teach us? I'm open.

Bass

Well now isn't this profound! It leaves us with an excuse for just about everything and no need for an explanation for anything. No need for facts or even off the wall theories. We can just say; 'Hey, it was just one of those days!"

BTW, just out of curiosity, how many sporter '06 barrels have you actually shot out? Okay, let me be more general, how many sporter barrels of any cartridge have you shot out? I ask because your reasoning (or "just one of those days") for not testing seems pretty lame. I shoot a lot and have shot a lot in my lifetime. Other than rifles for high power competition and varmint shooting with jacketed bullets I've manage to shoot out only one sporter rifle barrel. It was, in fact, an '06 through which I shoveled large quantities of 4350 behind 180 gr jacketed bullets over the last 30 years. Hmmmm let me see now, one barrel (it still shoots 1 1/2 moa BTW but won't for long as the throat is quite washed) shot out in 30 years of shooting it and no other sporters shot out even after all the shooting I've done with them.

Consider also that the practical accuracy life of a competition HP '06 barrel is somewhere in the 6-8000 round range. We know that cast bullet loads can wear on a barrel but are not anywhere as intense as jacketed competition loads so the barrel life must be much longer. Last year when i was heavily testing with 3 different .308Ws I managed not quite 400 rounds through each of them and have put about 300 rounds through one of them since. So if I take the one rifle's barrel life for instance and figure on perhaps 10,000 rounds of accurate cast bullet shooting then with the original 400 rounds + 300 rounds per year the rifle should last 33 years. Yup, that sure is "only so much barrel life!

Then when we consider those cast bullet shooters who use 11-12 gr of Unique or maybe 20 gr of 2400 with cast bullets shooting several hundred rounds per year no doubt have little barrel life to waste on "needless testing". I do have say I'm somewhat pee'oed at you. You have, over the course of the last couple years asked me to conduct numerous tests with both my '06s and .308Ws. This was apparently without concern for the barrel life of my rifles! From your point of view that was very inconsiderate. From my point of view I conducted the tests because shooting out barrels (very rarely done with cast bullet loads) is just a minor concern, if a concern at all, of shooting cast bullets and learning.

However, I do not think you are inconsiderate at all. I think this is just another excuse for you not to test. I believe you have done 2 maybe 3 tests of which I have suggested. In all the out come was as I stated because my reasoning was based on proven facts, proven by testing. You didn't like the results of your own results because they did not verify your abstract concepts, theories and notions (synonymous with old wives tales). Can't say I blame you for coming up with such a lame excuse not to prove yourself wrong. But what the heck, it's just one of those days.

Larry Gibson


PS; this thread has denegrated into the usual so I'll back on out unless someone has anything germain (I include myself in that) to Joe's discussion. I found Joe's testing interesting and also agree with his summary and conclusions. I will say I have some questions concerning the applicability of those conclusions (the part about the amount of Lube not making a difference) to rifle barrel lengths of say 22+ inches. My testing has consistantly demonstrated that if you select an appropriate component for the load be it primers, GCs or lube that there will be little, if any, appreciable accuracy difference between them. Additionally I have found little evidence to suggest case neck tension, with GC'd bullets, or brand of case makes any appreciable or measureable difference.

What does make a difference in accuracy when using well cast bullets is alloy and BHN, type of powder used, controlling powder positioning (use of fillers with some types of powders), correct sizing of the bullet, seating depth. use of single cavity vs multiple cavity moulds and of course keeping the RPM under the RPM threshold if seeking the best accuracy.

[45 2.1]

Last year when i was heavily testing with 3 different .308Ws I managed not quite 400 rounds through each of them and have put about 300 rounds through one of them since.

I'm astounded that Larry used so little testing to assert his "RPM threshold theory". I'm also quite sure the use of his 311291 with a undersize nose was part of the scheme for this also, being he considered it a normal cast boolit. I would refer him to what BruceB has done for a single rifle to get it shooting well.

[Larry Gibson]

Last year when i was heavily testing with 3 different .308Ws I managed not quite 400 rounds through each of them and have put about 300 rounds through one of them since.

I'm astounded that Larry used so little testing to assert his "RPM threshold theory". I'm also quite sure the use of his 311291 with a undersize nose was part of the scheme for this also, being he considered it a normal cast boolit. I would refer him to what BruceB has done for a single rifle to get it shooting well.

Typical of how little the wizard 45 2.1 pays attention; those 3 rifles were only half of the test. The other half involved 2 different '06s. If you'd bother with the math I've fired over 2,000 shots during the test. Perhaps you would elaborate on how many shots you have fired to validate your ascertain that the RPM threshold theory is invalid? Oh, excuse me, when just offering opinion based on one or two groups you do not have to shoot that much. Perhaps you're afraid of shooting out your barrels too?

BTW 45 2.1: inclusive in those 2,000+ test shots there were 4 different cast bullets.

The initial testing was done with the Lyman 311291 to which you refer and was representative of the "typical" commercial mould available to most casters. It also is one of the most popular moulds used. You forget to mention that I sent that mould to Bass who was going to "show me" how to make it shoot accurately at 22-2300 fps out of his wife's '06. He needn't have bothered because I was already shooting that bullet with the same accuracy as he did but out of the 2 of my own '06s. We both were getting 2 moa +/- at 2300 fps or so. I don't recall the alloy Bass used but when cast of 60/40 WW/linotype the nose on the bullets runs .299" which is a perfect slip fit in both of my '06s.

The GB 314041 has also been used. It casts a very nice bullet with a .302" nose. Just yesterday I was again shooting it in my Palma 14" twist .308W. At 2400 fps the first 5 shots were going into moa and a 15 shot group was 2.1 moa. When is the last time you fired a 15 shot group during a test?

Another bullet used was Bass's own 154 gr LBT of which he had previously sent me a quantity. With those bullets the tests again demonstrated the best consistent accuracy with all 3 twists, 10, 12 and 14", was at or below the RPM threshold. Yes both Bass and I could push the threshold and achieve 1 -1.5 moa at much higher RPM but only for 3 - 5 shots from a cold clean barrel after which accuracy went south (3-5 moa)if more shots were fired.

The majority of the testing in the three .308W rifles and the two '06 rifles has been with 311466. Not much of nose there but since it is a Lovern design there is no nose to ride the bore. With that bullet in the 14' twist I have been shooting consistent sub 2 moa 10 shot groups at 24-2500 fps which is at the top end of the RPM threshold. Several others here have been pushing their 12" twist .308Ws into the 22-2300 fps range and maintaining sub 2 moa for 10 shot groups also. Seems the RPM of their 12" twist rifles is about the same as with my 14" .308W, at the upper end of the RPM threshold.

The evidence to support/prove the RPM threshold is there and it is consistent throughout the 2,000+ shot test.

So, 45 2.1, why don't you explain to us the extent of your testing to disprove the RPM threshold? Your failing to do that then will just leave us to guess it’s just your opinion based on a group shot here and there, your memory and the continued repeating of old wives tales, myths and witchcraft.

Larry Gibson

[leftiye]

Yup, And Joe b 3030 wants you to do a test for his book while you're at it. Tell'em to do their own work, my opinion. But Larry Just HAS to dis anyone who dis agrees with him. Perhaps it is better to be a wizard (the root of the word is wise - [ard] after all) BTW than.... ? I'm a wizard too, and I didn't even propose any competing methodology or opinion!

[Bret4207]

This thread needs closing.

[44man]

This thread needs closing.

I agree!

[runfiverun]

yhere is still a lot of info in this thread regardless of whether it has to do with lube or not.
hopefully it hangs around to be read......