Lubes, velocity and accuracy

[leftiye]

I'm with 44man, - If it shoots so good that it piffes all of your friends off, it may just be good enough. Statistics, scientific method, chronographs, etc. can be a waste of time.

I do cut my losses by doing everything as best as absolutely can be done, and also applying "principles" to my endeavors. If there are no "principles" we should all find something better to do as reloading would be a really big (total) waste of our time.

[44man]

I'm with 44man, - If it shoots so good that it piffes all of your friends off, it may just be good enough. Statistics, scientific method, chronographs, etc. can be a waste of time.

I do cut my losses by doing everything as best as absolutely can be done, and also applying "principles" to my endeavors. If there are no "principles" we should all find something better to do as reloading would be a really big (total) waste of our time.

Thank you.
Just for the heck of it I read the article in the new Handloader by Charles Petty on the .223 because his findings mirror a lot of what I believe about a lot of useless work that will not improve accuracy. I do not nor will ever own a .223 but findings are the same for every caliber.
I want to quote his words about SD's.
"If you look back you will see many illustrations of the fallacy of SD as a predictor of accuracy, because so often the group with the highest standard deviation in velocity gave the best accuracy."
If you have the magazine, read the rest of his thoughts on chemical reactions. etc. Even though he is advertising for Cooper Arms, I have to acknowledge his expertise and his writings are very informative.

[44man]

I know it is high jacking the thread a little but I would like to look at my 10" barrel, MOA in 7BR. My friend loaded 322 behind the Hornady 154 gr bullet. He let me shoot an IHMSA shoot with it and I shot a 40. Later he sold me the gun so I used the same load which had a very low SD and ES. As conditions changed during the year, I lost accuracy many times. I started to work on powders and called IMR to ask about 4759 and they said 18 gr with that bullet. Amazing! If I missed steel it was my fault. SD's were twice what I had with 322. After a shoot one day I spotted something at 300 meters hanging by a chain. My spotter was not there yet but I started shooting at it and adjusting the sight until I hit it. He set up the scope and told me it was one of those gallon size freon tanks. He watched and I kept the last 30 shots I had in it with open sights.
Later I found 322 came into it's own with 162 and 175 gr bullets. The latter punching 5 shots into 3/8" at 100 meters and sub 2" groups at 200 meters. Yes, the SD was more then double what I had with the 154 gr bullet.
I wanted to shoot a deer with the gun but the 154 is too tough but I could NOT get any 120 gr bullet to shoot even with super SD's and ES's. I called Hodgdon about Varget and they told me it was too slow and will not work. OK, I heard that before so I played with it anyway. Well 32.5 gr gave me less then 1/2" groups at 50 yards at 2175 fps. Guys, I have a deer load by bucking what I was told!
All of you should know me by now and that I go against the grain and common knowledge every day. I just LOVE to prove things wrong!

[45 2.1]

Nice data, but its with jacketed. You real sure that cast, in its myrid forms works the same?

[44man]

Nice data, but its with jacketed. You real sure that cast, in its myrid forms works the same?

Yes, 100%. There is no predicting what paper figures will tell you, only the groups will show you.
I went into my pile and found the MOA targets I worked loads for deer with using the 120 gr SSP bullet. Shot at 50 yards from Creedmore using Varget that should not work.
This is the WRONG bullet for the twist and with other powders just sprayed the target. The gun is built for shooting steel with heavy bullets. Heavy bullets will do this at 100 yards but I could NOT get the light ones to shoot. Just a powder change to the wrong powder does this. SD's were much higher then other powders with heavy and light bullets.
The targets are 31, 31.5, 32 and 32.5 gr. If I was watching the chronograph, I would reject these loads. To go from over 6" to this!!!! Kind of hard to pick the right load, isn't it?

[Larry Gibson]

Obviously some have forgotten, or didn't know in the first place, that SD and ES's are about consistency not accuracy. It is very easy to get a consistent load with small SD/ES and poor accuracy...simply shoot a too heavy bullet in a slow twist or a very light bullet fast in a fast twist.

Another thing lost on many is the fact that the second and third decimal places of group sizes we often report are really meaningless for comparative purposes.

Seems to be two camps here; the wizards who think that magic potions, elixirs and one 3 or 5 shot group tells all and those who believe adequate scientific testing is the means to the end. Obviously I am one of the latter.

The wizards remind me a lot of the shamans and witch doctors I have seen around the world who prescribe potions that make you bullet proof. They always have a couple caveats though; if you drink alcoholic beverages or have sex with your wife, another woman, another man or your self the potion doesn't work. Now what is it that most men really want to do before battle......drink or have sex is the right answer. Then when the body count is high due to bullets the shaman/witchdoctor can claim (alibi) that those who got killed obviously had sex or drank the night before. And who is around to dispute the "facts". In the case of cast bullet shooting the wizards here always point out such "facts" based on past experiences or one 3-5 shot group but can not provide any notes or conclusive facts from any tests that document such facts. The wizards make such statements as; "Statistics, scientific method, chronographs, etc. can be a waste of time." Notice the "caveat" in that statement? Such is typical.

On the other hand there are those of us who attempt to "prove", "document" or at least "verify" facts by some semblance of scientific testing using techniques that provide some semblance of statistical validation. Joe is attempting that with his test in this thread. If some are wondering how such tests are conducted and don't care to take Joe's, several other's or my word for it then I'll refer you to a series of articles by Charles Petty in the last few issues of Handloader magazine. He has conducted a series of tests using a very accurate .223 rifle. The tests isolate one variable at a time. He uses a chronograph and shoot five 5 shot groups of each variable to come to several answers in his "summery and conclusion". It is a well done test and lends considerable doubt to several "required" steps for loading accurate ammunition. Granted it was with jacketed bullets but the scientific testing process is the same whether we use jacketed or cast bullets if we want reliable results from which to base a summary and conclusion.

A quote from the last article. .223 Wrap-Up written by Charles Petty applies here also; "I get a little testy when someone tells me I have to do something without being able to tell me why. Now I am the first one to admit that those things sound reasonable and may have become gospel because of that, but it would seem to me that, after all these years, some evidence would emerge to confirm them. To be sure I have read scholarly pieces that describe wonderful loads or paranormal feats, but so often the evidence offered in support is based on one group or an unknown quantity. I also freely admit to being something of a contrarian, but this is not the first time I've tested brass myths in both rifles and handguns and have yet to find confirmation for any of them."

I concur 100% which Mr. Petty and believe that part of his "conclusion and summary" applies to this discussion and others we've had on these Cast Boolit Forums. When claims are made and a request for "documentation" is asked for the responses are most often negative to say the least.

The responses from the wizards really get negative when tests are conducted that fail to document their claims. That is the crux of this discussion and numerous others. There those of us who make claims based on documented tests. Then there are those who make claims based on limited undocumented observations or be cause some dearly departed individual says something like; “best accuracy comes just before the primer pocket blows but only on an 80 degree day with a rifle borrowed from your wife and shooting 3 shot groups. If the primer blows on the first or second round then you had "aspirations" on your wife the night before and all bets are off." Or from wizards of long standing; "if you don't know by now all is off because it's all been said before and if you can't do it then you are just limiting yourself by your self imposed opinions." Obviously there is a lot of documentation with such claims.........

Summary and Conclusion; Perhaps 357maximum is correct that these discussions go 'round and 'round and never reach any meaningful end. I guess for those of us that believe in a scientific approach to testing and drawing conclusions based on tests will always be criticized by the wizards who still want to believe in magic, old wives tales and myths. Conversely the wizards will be criticized by the scientific types because no scientifically derived documentation of claims, old wives tales and myths is forthcoming. As for all those cast bullet shooters caught in between who just want to cast a few bullets and go shoot them with a reasonable degree of accuracy, I guess they'll just have to make up their own minds won't they?

Larry Gibson

BTW; If you want to see a very poor test done in a half assed manner where in the tester lets his own personal opinions rule out several methods then read the article "Cast Bullet Expansion" in the June issue of Handloader by John Havilland.

[44man]

And yet Larry I don't know if you are calling ME a wizard or not but then go on to agree with Mr Petty and my exact findings confuses me. You agree with me then disagree so many times I do not know how to interpret your post
To allay things, I am not a one group shooter and shoot the same all year. You repeat what I say and then change so I do not know if I am one of those witch doctors or not in your mind.
Would you clarify!

[joeb33050]

6/24/09 308 Win Savage Striker, 314299, Dot, .309”, 1 groove lubed Lyman Super Moly, WLR, 17/IMR4227, 2.790”, 100 yards, Simmons 2-6 @ 6X
8 5-shot groups, 2.0”, 1.25”, 2.175”, 2.5”, 1.7”, 1.15”, 2.75”, 1.8”; Average 1.916”

Same except Rem 2 ½ not WLR, .312” not .309”, 16/IMR4227 not 17
3 5-shot groups, 1.775”, 1.45”, 2.125”, Average 1.783”

Same except Rem 2 ½ not WLR, .312” not .309”, 16/IMR4227 not 17, only the GC groove lubed, 3 5-shot groups, 1.7”, .975”, 2.0”, Average 1.558”

The last group shot was 1.8”, after 87 shots without cleaning, from 9A.M. to 1 P.M.

What have I learned?
There was something wrong with the Lyman Alox.
Less lube = easier to clean, maybe more accurate, but takes more passes through the Lyman 450.
.309”(Really .3095”) vs. .312”= no great difference
WLR vs. Rem. 2 ½ LP = no great difference
16 vs. 17 IMR4227 = no great difference
Brushing, thorough cleaning to white patch not necessary each time the gun is shot.

What do I think?
Since I got the Lyman Super Moly sort of at random from Maven, I still think that there’s no marked difference in accuracy with any reasonable lube.
I don’t think primers make a lot of difference. I’ve used Rem 2 ½ primers in LV CB loads for many years, because I was taught that they were the best. Can’t prove it, but I’ll use them. Probably any reasonable primer works just fine.
Sized diameter, in 30 caliber for example, doesn’t make much difference, as long as the bullet is big enough. .
Powder charges for rifles should end in .0 or .5, the others, .1, .2, .3, .4, .6, .7, .8 and .9 make no sense.

And, 314299 with OAL of 2.790” has the gas check and half the bottom band below the case neck, suggesting that for LV loads at least, bullet below the neck doesn’t affect accuracy much if at all.
joe b.

[Larry Gibson]

And yet Larry I don't know if you are calling ME a wizard or not but then go on to agree with Mr Petty and my exact findings confuses me. You agree with me then disagree so many times I do not know how to interpret your post
To allay things, I am not a one group shooter and shoot the same all year. You repeat what I say and then change so I do not know if I am one of those witch doctors or not in your mind.
Would you clarify!

For the most part we are in agreement. On a few things (like the use of alox lubes we disagree but I won't hold that against you ) For the most part your tests are scientifically conducted and you are meticulous in your load preparation. However you do not keep meticulous records to verify your findings. Perhaps it is not I that am contradictory. None the less for the most part we agree on many subjects here. I especially concur with you with regards this thread on that you like the bullet to go to group from a cold or fouled barrel. So di I. If I have to shoot fouling shots (some have mentioned upwards of 300 shots) then that is not a practical load for me.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

You guys are funny, going off into fantasy land and useing jacketed bullets to support yourselves. If your going to post such things, please do it with cast boolits and don't go off on a tangent.

[Bret4207]

Larry, I agree with you basically. What I don't agree with or understand is when someone publishes or posts groupings and his "summation" completely disagrees with what I'm seeing. It happens again and again with some people.

[Bret4207]

6/24/09 308 Win Savage Striker, 314299, Dot, .309”, 1 groove lubed Lyman Super Moly, WLR, 17/IMR4227, 2.790”, 100 yards, Simmons 2-6 @ 6X
8 5-shot groups, 2.0”, 1.25”, 2.175”, 2.5”, 1.7”, 1.15”, 2.75”, 1.8”; Average 1.916”

Same except Rem 2 ½ not WLR, .312” not .309”, 16/IMR4227 not 17
3 5-shot groups, 1.775”, 1.45”, 2.125”, Average 1.783”

Same except Rem 2 ½ not WLR, .312” not .309”, 16/IMR4227 not 17, only the GC groove lubed, 3 5-shot groups, 1.7”, .975”, 2.0”, Average 1.558”

The last group shot was 1.8”, after 87 shots without cleaning, from 9A.M. to 1 P.M.

What have I learned?
There was something wrong with the Lyman Alox.
Less lube = easier to clean, maybe more accurate, but takes more passes through the Lyman 450.
.309”(Really .3095”) vs. .312”= no great difference
WLR vs. Rem. 2 ½ LP = no great difference
16 vs. 17 IMR4227 = no great difference
Brushing, thorough cleaning to white patch not necessary each time the gun is shot.

What do I think?
Since I got the Lyman Super Moly sort of at random from Maven, I still think that there’s no marked difference in accuracy with any reasonable lube.
I don’t think primers make a lot of difference. I’ve used Rem 2 ½ primers in LV CB loads for many years, because I was taught that they were the best. Can’t prove it, but I’ll use them. Probably any reasonable primer works just fine.
Sized diameter, in 30 caliber for example, doesn’t make much difference, as long as the bullet is big enough. .
Powder charges for rifles should end in .0 or .5, the others, .1, .2, .3, .4, .6, .7, .8 and .9 make no sense.

And, 314299 with OAL of 2.790” has the gas check and half the bottom band below the case neck, suggesting that for LV loads at least, bullet below the neck doesn’t affect accuracy much if at all.
joe b.

Joe, please explain this to us. You got increasingly smaller groups, average spread, as you altered this short test. Based on what I see your changes DID makes a noticeable difference. You shrunk your groups by almost a half inch over 87 shots, say the lube is no good, and that all this means little. My view is that either your bore was becoming "conditioned", which could have been proved or disproved by continued shooting, or the things you did changed the results. The small variations DO seem to make a difference to me when I look at your work, yet you say they don't. Same thing with your damaged boolits test, I thought it made a clear difference and you didn't. Could you shed some light on this please?

[357maximum]

Summary and Conclusion; Perhaps 357maximum is correct that these discussions go 'round and 'round and never reach any meaningful end. I guess for those of us that believe in a scientific approach to testing and drawing conclusions based on tests will always be criticized by the wizards who still want to believe in magic, old wives tales and myths. Conversely the wizards will be criticized by the scientific types because no scientifically derived documentation of claims, old wives tales and myths is forthcoming. As for all those cast bullet shooters caught in between who just want to cast a few bullets and go shoot them with a reasonable degree of accuracy, I guess they'll just have to make up their own minds won't they?

Larry Gibson

Larry that was proably one of the best posts of yours I have ever read.


I have a question to pose that some who have not been in this game long enough to have actually killed a mastadon may ponder.( That is not an agist remark, most of my true friends are older than myself. The only part about that that truly sucks is that you end up going to their funeral and they refuse to come to yours)

What if someone had a real open mind and was willing to use the best parts of both methodilogies hybridized together to get to the end goal?

I really do not think we all disagree as much as it would seem at first glance.

The big difference is that some see LUBE and ALLOY compositions as components to a load and others do not. Some some see charts and graphs and statistacal figures as components to a load...others do not.

The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round... round and round..


Michael

[Bass Ackward]

Seems to be two camps here; the wizards who think that magic potions, elixirs and one 3 or 5 shot group tells all and those who believe adequate scientific testing is the means to the end. Obviously I am one of the latter.

Larry,

To show you what I mean by over focused, you miss the point and have missed it for years. Emotion doesn't help either. Either that or it is a superiority issue. A load is not a one day thing. It always has to be shot tomorrow.

So do what "you" need. Well, I don't shoot my deer nine more times after it is down just to see if the first shot was a fluke. But I do shoot my loads 365. So I know what 5 shots works in 30 below and what it will do at 100. All totalled, I might shoot groups consisting of a total of 50 rounds a year after (key word there is after) I have settled on them in that one gun. And I change bullet designs fairly often. If you want real data a load has to be used over 20 years or so. But added up my 50 shots meets your standard. It just takes longer so I know it's limitations. And they all have them, even yours.

So we are shooting the same amount of shots into groups. I just ain't burning out my throat or blowing components doing it. I am not inducing more human error because I can't concentrate for 10 shot strings. So really, my data is more valid, not less.

And as to the superiority of either method, I don't know any idiot that shoots five shots or just ten for that matter and then lays a thousand dollar bill on the table and says winner takes all. Even 10 is kind dumb huh?

Do I have warm temperature loads? Sure. Do they do well in cold? Some people might think so, not me. Some do quite poorly. Do I have cold temperature loads? You betchya. Does one work all year round? No. Not good enough to meet my accuracy standards. Handguns, maybe but even tweaking there shows benefits so they are adjusted.

Now if I could just lower my year round accuracy standards, maybe I could accept 10 shots in June or January.

But just because a person might live in a moderate climate that "one load" comes closer for him, doesn't make my methods or my data any less valid than anyone elses. No rules in cast. That means factual or imposed.

Thry this. Say you had a next door neighbor and he came over to your house and told you that your lawn was substandard on a year round basis and that you had to mow it three times every time you mow to meet his standards. Bet I still lost ya huh? Different point, same principal.

[joeb33050]

Joe, please explain this to us. You got increasingly smaller groups, average spread, as you altered this short test.
Based on what I see your changes DID makes a noticeable difference. You shrunk your groups by almost a half inch over 87 shots,
The tests with several things changed only had 2 sets of 3 groups. 3 is enough to say that no "great difference" is seen with a change in primers, diameter, powder charge or amount of lube. But certainly not enough to say that groups were significantly smaller or larger.

say the lube is no good,

As I wrote here, I had trouble with Lyman Alox Lube, some sticks that were very light in color. I changed everything with no fix, finally changed the lube, it's fixed and now believe that the lot of Lyman Alox was defective, for some reason. I've tested enough to say that.

and that all this means little.

I don't say or think that the test means little. It reinforces my belief that variations in many variables does not greatly change accuracy.

My view is that either your bore was becoming "conditioned", which could have been proved or disproved by continued shooting,

I know nothing about "many shots needed to condition the bore". I've been doing this CB stuff and reading about it for a long time, this is my first memory of the contention. This would suggest that cleaning can't be done to keep accuracy. I can cite too many examples to the contrary. My BS alarm buzzes. I suspect nonsense, but am ready to change my mind if data is available.
My experience, as I've written, is that as more groups are shot at a session, the groups get smaller. I think that I get settled in and comfortable and used to the setup. Maybe............

or the things you did changed the results. The small variations DO seem to make a difference to me when I look at your work, yet you say they don't.

They don't make a statistically significant difference. We're in the "wallet" group area here, one group or 3 groups means nothing, unless they're GREATLY larger or smaller than others.


Same thing with your damaged boolits test, I thought it made a clear difference and you didn't. Could you shed some light on this please?

First, I tested with 4 variables changed. Folks write that scientific testing requires only 1 variable be changed. That is neither true, nor what most of us do.. Fess up. Scientists for decades have tested after changing several to many variables-but have to do the stats. This is how drugs are designed, for example.
Second, statistics is there, pointing to true or false, or unfortunately, don't know. Folks may not like stats, may not understand, but the stats don't care, it's still there.
Third, without data we don't know much. I've written aqbout the necessity for comprehensive record keeping, over and over. Write it down!! Without data, we have opinion. (I believe, my opinion, that Rem 2 1/2s are the most accurate LV CB primer. Never even tried to prove it, mainly because the difference is small. I think. Sometimes I act on opinion, as we all do. But I call it opinion.)

Does that explain?
joe b.

[45 2.1]

What if someone had a real open mind and was willing to use the best parts of both methodilogies hybridized together to get to the end goal?

That doesn't happen very much with some folks............


The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round... round and round..

On same route, time after time too.

[44man]

For the most part we are in agreement. On a few things (like the use of alox lubes we disagree but I won't hold that against you ) For the most part your tests are scientifically conducted and you are meticulous in your load preparation. However you do not keep meticulous records to verify your findings. Perhaps it is not I that am contradictory. None the less for the most part we agree on many subjects here. I especially concur with you with regards this thread on that you like the bullet to go to group from a cold or fouled barrel. So di I. If I have to shoot fouling shots (some have mentioned upwards of 300 shots) then that is not a practical load for me.

Larry Gibson

Thanks Larry, I was just a little confused is all.
45 2.1, I know, jacketed was out of place but I wanted to show that gold nuggets can sometimes be found by ignoring what is read or what you are told by those that are supposed to know everything, like the powder company.
Now since I decided not to sell this MOA or my Wichita 7R, which by the way also shoots like crazy with Varget, I am going to make a mold for them because jacketed is too expensive. I think Varget is going to work just fine with cast.
Since I found Varget and 4759 to be so accurate and versatile in other guns with cast, I have to wonder why I never see anyone testing these powders in their cast boolit rifles????
Why does everyone stay with Red Dot, Unique and 4227 with the larger cases instead of getting a slower initial start to a soft boolit?
Since both powders also work so great in the tiny cases like the 7BR, why are they overlooked?
4759 is supposed to be faster then 4227 but due to it's bulk and grain structure, I feel it is more gentle on a boolit. It is also very easy to light off, not needing a strong primer.
Anyway, just some thoughts that should be relevant whether shooting cast or jacketed.

[45 2.1]

Since I found Varget and 4759 to be so accurate and versatile in other guns with cast, I have to wonder why I never see anyone testing these powders in their cast boolit rifles????
Why does everyone stay with Red Dot, Unique and 4227 with the larger cases instead of getting a slower initial start to a soft boolit?
Since both powders also work so great in the tiny cases like the 7BR, why are they overlooked?

I've never used Varget, but 4759 i've shot a lot of cases of. You change the combustion space and shape, you change what type of powder the cartridge likes at certain pressure levels along with the way it burns. 4759 isn't what you think it is then. There is no substitute for trying something yourself. You will have a lot of questions after you start.........

[Pat I.]

Varget's an old stand by in my neck of the shooting world for PPC/BR sized cases and also for the .308. 4759 is a popular powder in the military side of the game.

I think for the most part people stick with the faster burning powders because why use 28 grs of Varget to shoot a hole in a piece of paper when 11 grs of Unique will do the same thing. Contrary to the impression given by cast bullet forums most people could care less about blistering speeds or half inch groups. They shoot cast bullets for the economy and for a leisurely day out on the range or wandering through the woods without beating the living daylights out of themselves

[357maximum]

Contrary to the impression given by cast bullet forums most people could care less about blistering speeds or half inch groups. They shoot cast bullets for the economy and for a leisurely day out on the range or wandering through the woods without beating the living daylights out of themselves

Pat

That is one of the greatest things about this place. There is room for all the reasons. Some of us actually shoot cast for all the reasons you list..and a few more.Does not mean we cannot elbow each other in the ribs from time to time though. Healthy discussions are only a bad thing when done by politicians, oops oxymoron time.