bullpen7979
06-06-2011, 11:15 PM
Earlier today, I loaded up a few rounds to test various sizes and lube procedures.
I tried the pan lube procedure with javalina on a few boolits and loaded them as cast (from ww +1ish% tin) which from the 356-125-2R mold dropped at about .3595. The goal is to make the 9mm as affordable to shoot as possible.
(And, as a number of you predicted, all I'm really doing is spending money on new stuff like sizing dies, paraffin, vaseline, oil treatment, crayons for color.etc...)
I saddled up the bike and scooted over to the range about a half hour before sundown. First round were the pan lubed, as cast rounds, which performed pretty miserably...
http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j335/ehommedieu/IMAG0370.jpg
I removed the barrel, and sure enough, a little bit of fouling, as expected. Dang it.
Of the batch that I pan lubed, I took and put about 15 thru the Lee .357 sizing die, and then tumble lubed them with some 45/45/10 formula I made (substituting the brand of paste wax for another I had on hand.) Allowed to dry for about 3 hours or so, then loaded with the same powder charge (3.4 grains Titegroup). So I now have effectively, two lube processes going.
I was amazed at the difference in performance that the sizing and second lube procedure gave.
http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j335/ehommedieu/IMAG0369.jpg
Inspection of the barrel after the second phase of the test showed virtually no increase in fouling, leading me to think that I am on to something....
Both of these tests were fired from a distance of seven paces (roughly five yards)
I know that's not real far away, but given the issues (new reloader, and newer caster) I wanted to make sure I could account for all my shots leaving the barrel.
Perhaps it won't happen again. Perhaps I will do the exact same thing in the same way, and will net totally different results. But today, as I rode home at sunset, I got a small sense of accomplishment that I know many on this forum have enjoyed. Gotta say, it was pretty cool.
I tried the pan lube procedure with javalina on a few boolits and loaded them as cast (from ww +1ish% tin) which from the 356-125-2R mold dropped at about .3595. The goal is to make the 9mm as affordable to shoot as possible.
(And, as a number of you predicted, all I'm really doing is spending money on new stuff like sizing dies, paraffin, vaseline, oil treatment, crayons for color.etc...)
I saddled up the bike and scooted over to the range about a half hour before sundown. First round were the pan lubed, as cast rounds, which performed pretty miserably...
http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j335/ehommedieu/IMAG0370.jpg
I removed the barrel, and sure enough, a little bit of fouling, as expected. Dang it.
Of the batch that I pan lubed, I took and put about 15 thru the Lee .357 sizing die, and then tumble lubed them with some 45/45/10 formula I made (substituting the brand of paste wax for another I had on hand.) Allowed to dry for about 3 hours or so, then loaded with the same powder charge (3.4 grains Titegroup). So I now have effectively, two lube processes going.
I was amazed at the difference in performance that the sizing and second lube procedure gave.
http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j335/ehommedieu/IMAG0369.jpg
Inspection of the barrel after the second phase of the test showed virtually no increase in fouling, leading me to think that I am on to something....
Both of these tests were fired from a distance of seven paces (roughly five yards)
I know that's not real far away, but given the issues (new reloader, and newer caster) I wanted to make sure I could account for all my shots leaving the barrel.
Perhaps it won't happen again. Perhaps I will do the exact same thing in the same way, and will net totally different results. But today, as I rode home at sunset, I got a small sense of accomplishment that I know many on this forum have enjoyed. Gotta say, it was pretty cool.