Lubes, velocity and accuracy

[Larry Gibson]

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.

I agree Bret, many only see what they want to see. This particularly the case when only one group, usually of only 3 but sometimes 5 shots is looked at.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

357maximum

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.

I believe many of us are in more agreement than not, after all we all shoot cast bullets don't we. Most of us do use the best parts of both methods. The difference in opinion seems based on logical proof as demonstrated by quantifiable testing. Where we disagree is when some say some is "just because" and the other side says; "prove it".

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.

I'll have to disagrre a bit on this one. I think most of us, at least most with any casting experience, do see lube and alloy as componants to a load. The disagreement comes with the charts and graphs as being "componants"; they are not. The charts and graphs are simply visual aides to document the results of tests. They help us to better "see" the results. They are not a part of the componants but demonstrate best what the componants do in a comparative manner. If some do see the charts and graphs as "componants" of a load, as you say then they are mistaken.

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

That they do


Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

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.

Bass

Obviously from the demaning tone of your post you feel the need to justify something. It is obvious you know who the "3 shots with the wife's rifle only in over 80 degree's" applied to. You made those claims in several previous posts and now also see the problem with them so now you attempt justification? While I buy your justification and will say if that works for you then fine. However I will not criiticize where you live as a means of justifying my own good shooting. Obviously you've failed to read many of my posts wherein I referred to living in NE Oregon for many years. The weather there is every bit as severe as where you live. I even told you that directly several times.

You make many statements regarding many myths and old wives tales and you continuously fail to document them with any actual proof. You pooh-pooh the results of tests conducted by myself and many others that disprove the myths with such as "I just ain't burning out my throat or blowing components doing it". Now that is really scientific and prooves a lot doesn't it. Perhaps if you did "blow" some componants in real tests you would find that many of your myths are just that, myths. Oops, I have to apologise, you have actually "blown" componants in real tests. Remember the non-linear test you actually conducted as i suggested? It disproved your myth didn't it, yes it did. Remember the tests you done with bullets you cast from my 311291? Those also dispelled your myths, yes they did. So you see you can conduct tests and come up with good solid evidence that demonstrates a fact. But facts be damned as you still want to believe in myths, old wives tales an such. I do not, I'll take facts each and every time thank you.

Yup, you "lost" me with that last one just about the same as you "lost" me with "best accuracy comes just before leading". More old wives tales, myths and halucinations.............

Larry Gibson

[felix]

Larry, "best accuracy comes just before leading" as stated by John is not entirely out in left field. The assumption usually entails high antimony boolits shot with the same everything but in various conditions such that the "antimony wash" appears at various times. I cannot visually tell when that time is until I miss my designated target twice in a row, and then look at the crown minus an inch or two. If the wash is too thick, then I know to quit and go home. If the number of rounds was not satisfactory, either the antimony is altered for the next time (different composition boolit) or the lube viscosity upped a tad or two before loading. ... felix

[leftiye]

Larry, Your propensity for ignorance is muy irritating. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it witchcraft, wizardry, majic potions, elixirs, old wives tales, and etc. (though how you hold yer mouth does make a difference) You would be much better served by developing the ability to state a position that doesn't confuse all who read it, and avoiding the labels, and insulting typifications. Don't forget - what you believe may be (and has been) just as outlandish to the rest of us.

[44man]

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

Actually, all of my most accurate loads are SLOWER then the recommended powders like 748, 322, etc. AND, I use LESS powder. All of you know I detest looking for pure velocity. None of my revolvers or single shots shoot max velocity.
I know that less amounts of fast powder will give the same velocity but what is lacking is accuracy so a little more cost for powder is a moot point unless you are blasting 1000 rounds a week and do not care what the gun does.
I shoot cast because it is cheaper, I make my own because it is cheaper and even make my own molds because it is cheaper. But to stop there and give up accuracy because I need a few gr more powder and the wrong powder is cheaper kind of wipes out all the effort expended.
I have not reached the point where I need to rebuild primers with paper caps to save money.
If a little more Varget does what I want and Unique does not, guess what I load with?
Now, PLEASE, show that Unique is superior for all applications.
How about an example with the 45-70 revolver using 4227. you are talking 36 to 39 gr. I use 31 gr of 4759 but the amount of powder I use means nothing at all. What it does at the target is all that counts and 4227 is worse then a garden hose on spray. Unique is like a garden hose just turned to a smaller spray. 4759 is like one drop shot out of the hose.
Since I can go through the whole hunting season with one boolit per deer and I need a few more gr of powder per shot, I think you will play hell telling me I need less powder because it costs less.
I will never scrounge on powder as cheap as I am!

[leftiye]

Someone's signature line here says that velocity is fine, but accuracy is final....

[Pat I.]

Never said Unique was superior for all applications or that it would match the velocity with accuracy of a slower powder but I can dump 9 grs in a 30-30, 10 grs in a 308 case , or 11 grs in an 06 case and spend a nice relaxing day sitting at the bench punching paper or shooting at cans. I don't approach every gun like it's a wild beast that has to be tamed, with some guns it's nice to just sit back and smell the roses. I think it's forgotten sometimes, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone I know, that shooting is supposed to be fun and you don't always have to be the bestest, fastest, biggest, or knowingest. I just relearned this last year and my enjoyment in the sport has increased 10 fold. For everything but my bench guns Unique or something similar fills the bill. And that includes everything from the 30-30 to the 50-70 in rifles and all my handguns.

[45 2.1]

Never said Unique was superior for all applications or that it would match the velocity with accuracy of a slower powder but I can dump 9 grs in a 30-30, 10 grs in a 308 case , or 11 grs in an 06 case and spend a nice relaxing day sitting at the bench punching paper or shooting at cans. I don't approach every gun like it's a wild beast that has to be tamed, with some guns it's nice to just sit back and smell the roses. I think it's forgotten sometimes, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone I know, that shooting is supposed to be fun and you don't always have to be the bestest, fastest, biggest, or knowingest. I just relearned this last year and my enjoyment in the sport has increased 10 fold. For everything but my bench guns Unique or something similar fills the bill. And that includes everything from the 30-30 to the 50-70 in rifles and all my handguns.

One of your best posts...............

[44man]

Never said Unique was superior for all applications or that it would match the velocity with accuracy of a slower powder but I can dump 9 grs in a 30-30, 10 grs in a 308 case , or 11 grs in an 06 case and spend a nice relaxing day sitting at the bench punching paper or shooting at cans. I don't approach every gun like it's a wild beast that has to be tamed, with some guns it's nice to just sit back and smell the roses. I think it's forgotten sometimes, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone I know, that shooting is supposed to be fun and you don't always have to be the bestest, fastest, biggest, or knowingest. I just relearned this last year and my enjoyment in the sport has increased 10 fold. For everything but my bench guns Unique or something similar fills the bill. And that includes everything from the 30-30 to the 50-70 in rifles and all my handguns.

Well that WAS a better way to say it. I never told you that I use a lot of Unique and 231 for exactly what you are talking about. And I can go through 200 rounds awful fast just plinking at cans and little targets like black walnuts.
But the start of this post was for testing for accuracy and checking lubes. I still say the most accurate powder for the gun should be used for testing. That is the only point we differ on.
My target/deer loads are a whole lot different then pleasure loads and even if they are tin can good to 50 yards, I would not use them to test anything.

[Bret4207]

Originally Posted by Bret4207 View Post
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.

What I see is a trend indicating what you are doing will result in smaller groups.

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.

Then what you wrote was confusing. ( Yes I realize I left him an opening for a snide insult about my intellectual abilities, he won't be the first!) It sounded like it was working okay to me, you mentioned nothing about leading, in fact as you used less lube you got smaller groups, a sure sign the lube is working if there's no leading as you do this.

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.Kind of depends on your definition of "greatly" doesn't it?

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............
My BS Meter is pegged out most of the time Joe. I've been at this a while too and the idea of a barrel taking some time to "settle", "season" or "become conditioned to the lube" is nothing new. I have several books from the 20's and 30's discussing it for example. It's a sometimes thing as far as I can see and I offered it only as a possible option as to why the groups shrank. If you wish to discount it fine, yet you say "maybe" when explaining why your groups shrink as you continue without cleaning. Huh, haven't quite got that variable figured yet, eh?

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.
No Joe! Of course it's what they show over a long period of shooting. A "wallet group" load on one day might be a "toss it quick" load the next or may end up as THE load combo if you keep testing over time. Your final load was almost a half inch smaller than the first load. That means something to me. It means it needs more testing. By limiting yourself to the "greatly" larger or smaller group you hurt your own testing. Take what you get and see where it goes from there. Your method is tossing the good out with the bad as far as I can see.

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.


With all due respect Joe, I think there's a problem in your method someplace. As with the damaged boolits test I'm seeing something other than what you are concluding. Feel free to call me an idiot, but I personally don't have the time or money to discount things that MIGHT just lead to better performance.

[runfiverun]

thanks, felix...see post #84. at that point i add more lube to the boolit if possible. or change the alloy if not.
joe,,, yer boolit needs a slightly larger nose diameter, j.m.o.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, "best accuracy comes just before leading" as stated by John is not entirely out in left field. The assumption usually entails high antimony boolits shot with the same everything but in various conditions such that the "antimony wash" appears at various times. I cannot visually tell when that time is until I miss my designated target twice in a row, and then look at the crown minus an inch or two. If the wash is too thick, then I know to quit and go home. If the number of rounds was not satisfactory, either the antimony is altered for the next time (different composition boolit) or the lube viscosity upped a tad or two before loading. ... felix

Felix

I agree that we can make certain things happen. However "The assumption usually entails high antimony boolits shot with the same everything but in various conditions such that the "antimony wash" appears at various times" is not the norm. The statement Bass gave and quotes is given as the norm. It is not. Most everyone who is using a correct alloy for the intended velocity will get the best accuracy far below when leading occurs. We can take almost pure lead cast bullets and get the best accuracy from 300 to 800 fps or so. Given a good lube they will not lead for another 200 fps of inaccuracy. Most everyone here who has failed to get accuracy beyond the RPM threshold has done so without leading. Given a typical '06 using a regular cast bullet and lube with a regualr lube like Javelina (sorry 44man but it does work) with get the best accuracy between 1700 and 1950 fps depending on the powder used. They can still push that bullet several hundred fps faster before leading will occur. Perhaps that is "just before" to Bass but it is not to me nor most cast bullet shooters.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, Your propensity for ignorance is muy irritating. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it witchcraft, wizardry, majic potions, elixirs, old wives tales, and etc. (though how you hold yer mouth does make a difference) You would be much better served by developing the ability to state a position that doesn't confuse all who read it, and avoiding the labels, and insulting typifications. Don't forget - what you believe may be (and has been) just as outlandish to the rest of us.

Ah, another wizard makes his presence known. Apparently you find facts documented by serious testing "ignorant". You always proffer lots of critical opinion but it would be nice if you would produce some fact based on a test that you have done that documents your opinion.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

One of your best posts...............

I'll drink to that also and note that many will not consider shooting 300 shots to "condition" a barrel as fun. Pat make several good points, glad to see we all can agree on something.

Larry Gibson

[45 2.1]

I'll drink to that also and note that many will not consider shooting 300 shots to "condition" a barrel as fun. Pat make several good points, glad to see we all can agree on something.

Larry Gibson

The only thing most of us agree on is that you, among others, don't get it.

[Bass Ackward]

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

Ding. And the winner is.

It's only us weirdos that ask for something more. And it's the more processes that really conflict as Professor Gun makes his decisions. The variance on opinion is great no matter what the stance today because the seed is planted for trial at some point in the future as Joe illustrates so well.

It's just the dedicated, focused, scientific, record keeping, perfectionist (you pick what fits you) that argues a point that they will later leave themselves as they move on in the search.

But it is great material for thought no matter how you feel about the messenger.

[Bret4207]

Oh good. Another useless dogfight among the children. I'm as hot blooded as anyone guys, but can't you keep the name calling to a minimum?

[Bass Ackward]

You make many statements regarding many myths and old wives tales and you continuously fail to document them with any actual proof. You pooh-pooh the results of tests conducted by myself and many others that disprove the myths with such as "I just ain't burning out my throat or blowing components doing it".

Yup, you "lost" me with that last one just about the same as you "lost" me with "best accuracy comes just before leading". More old wives tales, myths and halucinations.............

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.

[44man]

I admit to keeping good records as I am testing, writing everything down but if what I am doing is no good, I toss all the records from those sessions. Same if I sell a gun, anything I have for it goes with the gun.
Targets are the same, when the pile gets too high I start tossing them in the recycle bin and now I have been looking for some of them and they are gone. It gets so bad that someone was talking about the .45 one day. I had to grab 5 rounds and go right down, shoot a target Creedmore at 50 yards and post a picture.
When a discussion comes up I find myself searching for the data in my notebooks------No go, been tossed! I don't even have all the chrono session data.
My basement and drawers are still piled with paperwork and it takes hours to find anything.
So my notebooks will have the best loads listed and the velocity, that's all.
I believe in the paperwork reduction act!