Lubes, velocity and accuracy

[Blackwater]

I know it's dangerous, but I was thinking today, and it occurred to me that some of the folks here who I trust most have observed that sometimes, the AMOUNT of lube used can affect accuracy. For one, Jump Trap, a friend, once told me that when loading for 7.62x39, the Lee bullet and his guns seemed sensitive to how much LLA was used to lube them. Too much, and he'd get periodic fliers. Keep the amount of lube at the "right" level, and no fliers. This got me to thinking that:

1. IF the amount of lube can affect accuracy; and
2. IF different lubes tend to work best with a given rifle and boolit at different velocities; then:

A. Does this tend to indicate that, at least as a general tendency (I don't think these things can be truly consistent because of the number of variables involved, but still, is there a GENERAL tendency?) lubes tend to give their very best accuracy at the velocity level just BELOW the point at which they begin to lose their lubricity and become overdriven?

I'm not even sure this question is very clear, but ... if not, tell me and I'll try to ask again more clearly.

Secondly, what is it that makes Felix lube (and others) tend to be "efficient" and accurate over a fairly broad range of velocities and pressures???? Yeah, I know. That's a pretty broad questions, but I thought the answers might be interesting, especially for those who've really given this some thought and experimented with it.

[felix]

BW, your considerations were paramount in coming up with a felix lube which was broad in application. The number one rule is to make lube with the lowest viscosity possible and maintain that level throughout the shooting session without barrel cleaning. That is all there is to it. In practice, however, that is about impossible to do. The major culprit is the various boolit styles folks like to shoot per bore size. Some with humongous lube grooves; some with many shallow grooves amounting to the same amount of lube as the humongous single groove; open versus closed breech guns; length of boolit travel make up the primary concerns for daily range time. Now add the fact that the lube must operate from freezing to boiling temps, and not be too sticky to handle. The lube must be soluble enough to clean up easily, either at the range when hot, or at home after being in the closet for a year or so.

There are lubes "out there" in the computer databases not yet formulated for reality. Frankly, they would not be cheap enough for us because the volume required to be economically feasible for manufacturing is not there. The lube (a polymer) will be formed by a "professional" who has the same hobby as ours, and be allowed to play games (on their own time) using company resources. The designer would have to employ a lab technician with the same interests who can obtain the feed from existing company stock to make up the lube. Fat chance of all this happening in one location, especially in the current economic/political climate. Even then, these two folks would need a shooter with different guns, boolits, and other stuff ready to go outside the door for safety sake, and be inside of some kind of silencer shed to keep the company guards at bay.

The definition of the ideal lube (per application) is one where by the lube will stick to objects other than itself. But, therein is the conflict because how would the excess be kept in a lube groove for storage? Hence the idea of a solid coating. But then, how would enough be kept on the boolit for an entire barrel travel?

... felix

[runfiverun]

viscosity.........
the tacky [yes pun intended] reason for my lubes consistency.
it does stick to stuff, hands,boolits, table, etc... but needs just the slightest amount of heat/pressure to work , or it doesn't.

[Recluse]

I've come to prefer a "tacky" or "sticky" lube in the lubesizer for most of my shooting applications. One reason is that by simply handling the boolit, the residue of the lube gets all over the boolit, and not just in the lube grooves via the lubesizer. So to that end, I've come up with two different formulas for lubesizer lube that are working out quite well. One is easy to make and the other, if you are a Catholic, will have you in the confessional for several hours due to the language you might use.

How much lube on the boolit?

When I first started casting, I used tumble-lube from Lee (the LLA stuff), and like everyone else, I used too much. Got a lot of smoke, it gummed up my seating dies, etc etc. Accuracy was decent to good, however.

Went to a lubesizer and bought pre-made sticks. Simply filled all the lube grooves because I figured that's what they were there for. Accuracy was hit or miss at times (pun definitely intended). Lubesizer broke (old sizer someone gave me for free), tossed it, and worked on an LLA technique.

Nothing earthshattering whatsoever how I do my tumble-lube mix and technique, but the accuracy I get is simply outstanding and equally consistent. I use just enough to coat the boolit. In fact, if I have to err, I err on the side of not enough lube rather than too much.

The fear or leading, pertaining to cleanup, is tantamount to monsters in the closet. ChoreBoy copper cleaners and old bore brushes make short work of lead. So does a mixture of vinegar and H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) in stainless applications.

Recently, I began learning a lot about lube grooves and how much lube--and yes, too much lube can adversely affect your accuracy, depending upon the lube you use.

A high-quality lube doesn't take much to do the job. Too much, it seems (and as I'm finding out), will result in flyers and inconsistent accuracy. The "why" to that is probably worth an entire separate discussion itself. The cheap "melt your favorite color of Crayon and call it a lube" lubes can probably NOT be over-applied. But it may also be why so many reloaders experience leading with their commercially cast bullets. (Along with bore size, too hot of a load, etc).

I've reduced the lube on my .358 148WC to just one lube groove and my accuracy is now rivaling what I get with the LLA/JPW/MS tumble-lube concoction. On the rifle boolits (.309 170 gr, 185gr, 200gr), I'm also only lubing one groove and loading to midrange/uper velocities with no leading and consistent accuracy. I recently picked up the Lee 155gr2R mould, and am playing around with it--it only has one true lube groove, but there is a "groove" where the gas check leaves a gap. I'm experimenting with applying the lube there only.

And yet, no matter what I discover or find out, it may only work well for my guns/loads/lube/allow-boolit combinations. . . may not work at all for yours or anyone else's.

It's the joy of casting your own and rolling your own.

:coffee:

[felix]

"The "why" to that is probably worth an entire separate discussion itself." Not really Recluse. Just means lube viscosity is too high for that application. Personally, I lower viscosity enough so all lube grooves can be filled. That technique is only worth it when the application warrants it. Charging beer can applications don't. Shotgun shells hiding in the weeds at a hunnert do. ... felix

[fredj338]

I find a lot has to do w/ the vel./pressure you push your lead bullets. For low vel./pressure applications like 38WC, a single groove will work fine, for magnum vel. I find you can't have too much lube in the grooves. I also prefer a lube that sitcks to the grooves. The WHite Label BAC or Carnuba are great lubes, very affordeable & they just work.

[44man]

At this point I can only discuss revolvers. I shoot many of all calibers with all kinds of factory molds and home made molds of every flavor in regard to lube grooves. With Felix or Carnauba Red, they ALL get filled and there is lube all over the boolits and on the nose, on the bench, in the dies, on the press handle and sometimes on the dog!
Keeping dog hair off my boolits is a project in itself! :mrgreen:
Nobody can dispute the groups I get, the distances I shoot or the deer I kill.
I tried LLA a thousand times, I gave it all away. The piles of store bought lube sticks in my drawer must be OK though, none have grown mold! :drinks:

[Lloyd Smale]

Im with 44 man. I use the same lubes and if it has a grove its filled. to some extent the lube in the groves keeps bullets with large lube groves from colapsing too.
At this point I can only discuss revolvers. I shoot many of all calibers with all kinds of factory molds and home made molds of every flavor in regard to lube grooves. With Felix or Carnauba Red, they ALL get filled and there is lube all over the boolits and on the nose, on the bench, in the dies, on the press handle and sometimes on the dog!
Keeping dog hair off my boolits is a project in itself! :mrgreen:
Nobody can dispute the groups I get, the distances I shoot or the deer I kill.
I tried LLA a thousand times, I gave it all away. The piles of store bought lube sticks in my drawer must be OK though, none have grown mold! :drinks:

[GLynn41]

In general -- it seems over the chrony that some what harder lubes are somewhat faster-(not much)- Dan at Mountain Mold thinks so too-- but the softer tacky lubes have been some what more accurate for me--in general-- I pretty well fill the groves too---- have not tried Felix's lube yet but one day will-I did try to make my own it is mostly wax based--- carnuba wax- purple cayrons-- paraffin-- Lanolin---transmission fluid too I think? It works --I tend to like the softer lubes Carnuba red does ok but I like the ones just down from it--never did real well with LLA -bullet fit seems to be just as important-- btw Felix hope the current bad weather in the Tenn, Ark, Mo area is good to you stay safe

[felix]

Cold and rainy, or hot and sticky like a good lube? This and last year we have had our share of "fronts" move through. Usually, they go north of here, and slightly west, from the southwest, like in TX,OK,KS,MO,IL,IN. Lately, they have been coming from the west or northwest and then continuing on the path you suggested. ... felix

[Bret4207]

I know it's dangerous, but I was thinking today, and it occurred to me that some of the folks here who I trust most have observed that sometimes, the AMOUNT of lube used can affect accuracy. For one, Jump Trap, a friend, once told me that when loading for 7.62x39, the Lee bullet and his guns seemed sensitive to how much LLA was used to lube them. Too much, and he'd get periodic fliers. Keep the amount of lube at the "right" level, and no fliers. This got me to thinking that:

1. IF the amount of lube can affect accuracy;and
2. IF different lubes tend to work best with a given rifle and boolit at different velocities; then:

A. Does this tend to indicate that, at least as a general tendency (I don't think these things can be truly consistent because of the number of variables involved, but still, is there a GENERAL tendency?) lubes tend to give their very best accuracy at the velocity level just BELOW the point at which they begin to lose their lubricity and become overdriven? I think it can. I think, and mind you this is just my worthless opinion, that differing styles and bore sizes can affect this. I think a smallish diameter boolit fired from a faster twist barrel will be more likely to shed lube if it's not "sticky" enough than a larger diameter boolit from a slower twist barrel. IOW I figure with something like a 6.5x55 from a 1/8.7 ( or whatever the Swede has) shooting Cruise Missiles at 2000 fps would be more likely to shed lube than a 32 Special 1/16 twist or 44 Mag 1/20 (or whatever yours is) at the same speed. That doesn't cover the lubrication factor I realize, but I'm still not sure our lubes actually "lubricate" in the sense that something like oil on steel does. I'm still thinking on that. I often run through this stuff trying to fall asleep. I haven't connected all the dots yet. Lead alloys have been used as lubricants in some steel on steel applications, or at least that's what some Swiss gondola/ski lift engineers told me, so I'm still wondering if our lubes actually lube or just provide a sort of.....barrier between the boolit and barrel. Now that is a lubricant, but that doesn't fill in the blanks for me. OIW- I know lots of lubes work very well and some very poorly, the reasons WHY they do or don't escapes me.

I'm not even sure this question is very clear, but ... if not, tell me and I'll try to ask again more clearly.

Secondly, what is it that makes Felix lube (and others) tend to be "efficient" and accurate over a fairly broad range of velocities and pressures???? Yeah, I know. That's a pretty broad questions, but I thought the answers might be interesting, especially for those who've really given this some thought and experimented with it.

We've discussed this stuff on and off for years. I remember asking WHY lube grooves work several years back, on Aimoo maybe, I think it lasted something like 6 pages and I still don't know for sure if we ever decided on a logical answer. I can't help but think this will end up the same way.:drinks:

[felix]

Bret, that is what "bearing" metals are. They, formulated by Babbit initially, are the lube of choice still today, mainly for large weight applications, like dam generators, and heavy duty power plants in general. Norm Johnson has advocated shooting target wadcutters naked, in 38/357 guns. As long there is enough lead to engage the grooves fully, and not shear off, all is good. ... felix

[Bret4207]

Got that part Felix, these guys were talking about lead being used dry, not with oil as in a bearing application.

[beng]

I was just going to size & lube some 45-70 boolits when I found out I was out of lube. We, in middle Georgia can not go down to the gun store and just get it. I have read or heard others talking about "Home Made Lubes" from toilet wax with paraffin wax etc. What would be a GOOD recipe for a RCBS size & lube? :-?

[runfiverun]

beng welcome.
there is a sticky on just lube recipes there should be something there to suit your needs.
look in the sticky section,and at the top of each section for other stickys

[joeb33050]

Lyman Alox worked fine for many years, then didnj't. Maven sold me some Lyman Super Moly, which worked far better than the defective Alox, shooting 5-shot 100 yard group averages of 2"-2 1/2" or so in my Savage Striker pistol. This with both grooves lubed on 314299. The barrel has a LOT of lube, black, in it. Wednesday with only the bottom groove lubed, and the nose wiped off= no lube, 17/IMR4227 averaged 2.121" for 6 groups, and 18/IMR4227 averaged 1.879" for 6 groups.
I shot 75 shots, never cleaned, the last 5 = .975".
Pat I. said several times, and I have tried, lube in ONLY the groove just above the gas check. It worked for me, but made me very nervous. Chicken.
I think that less lube shoots better and reduces cleaning required, but more data is needed.
I don't know that cleaning all the black moly lube out of the barrel is necessary, it takes a lot of brushing and patches, and seems to screw up accuracy for the first ?10? shots.
joe b.

[44man]

I don't think being "slippery" is good in a barrel. Some friction needs to be there. I know a super shiny bore in a muzzle loader will ruin accuracy. I don't know about an inline with a sabot, I won't own one! :mrgreen:
I read somewhere where moly coated bullets and bores were causing SEE events too. Too much friction reduction.

[357maximum]

Lyman Alox worked fine for many years, then didnj't. Maven sold me some Lyman Super Moly, which worked far better than the defective Alox, shooting 5-shot 100 yard group averages of 2"-2 1/2" or so in my Savage Striker pistol. This with both grooves lubed on 314299. The barrel has a LOT of lube, black, in it. Wednesday with only the bottom groove lubed, and the nose wiped off= no lube, 17/IMR4227 averaged 2.121" for 6 groups, and 18/IMR4227 averaged 1.879" for 6 groups.
I shot 75 shots, never cleaned, the last 5 = .975".
Pat I. said several times, and I have tried, lube in ONLY the groove just above the gas check. It worked for me, but made me very nervous. Chicken.
I think that less lube shoots better and reduces cleaning required, but more data is needed.
I don't know that cleaning all the black moly lube out of the barrel is necessary, it takes a lot of brushing and patches, and seems to screw up accuracy for the first ?10? shots.
joe b.


I have never detected an accuracy difference in any rifle with any bullet, caused by a change in lube. I have never read of a reasonable test showing that lube made a difference in accuracy. There are so many lubes on the market, by so many suppliers, with different lubes used by competitors in cast bullet matches, that I conclude that there's no accuracy difference between reasonable lubes. Colonel Harrison reported that silicone lubes did not work well; I used NAPA Syl-Glyde in a 45-70 and found that it shot fine, as well as bullets lubed with Darr lube.
Lyman Alox bullet lube failed me recently, but this I think is because the formula is off-something's wrong-the bad lube is very light in color.
Now I may be wrong, and all the testing that I and most of you did with paraffin and moly and crisco and beeswax and vaseline and carnuaba wax and steam cylinder oil and lithium grease and ivory soap and mutton tallow and .............. may be wrong. wish there were a lube that tightened up my groups, and I want to hear about any lube and test that shows that. But for now, lube just don't matter.
joe b.



For velocities below 180 fps, using any reasonable cast bullet lubricant, there is no data showing that accuracy varies with the lubricant used. I don't have it, was not able to find it in my testing, and would be very happy to see the results of testing that showed such a variation. N.B. A not-reasonable bullet lubricant is one that has no demonstrated success as a bullet lubricant. Yak butter and gazelle tallow are examples.

joe b.




Joe I am stupid and unable to read the written word. Can you please explain to me how type of lube is incon ..inconseq...makes no difference but amount of lube can.. TAlk slowly and use small words please.

[45 2.1]

Joe I am stupid and unable to read the written word. Can you please explain to me how type of lube is incon ..inconseq...makes no difference but amount of lube can.. TAlk slowly and use small words please.

Now that is a set-up if I ever saw one...........:grin:
One thing you have to remember when testing individual items involved with the load, and that is: "You have to be a good enough shot to tell the difference when you see it". Those who shoot +1 MOA groups will probably not see the difference with most component changes. 357 Max has formulated several lubes which do very well in high velocity/pressure situations and has the ability to see the differences. In dealing with target velocities mentioned, you might pay attention to what Felix has said about lube viscosity, i.e. use as low of viscosity lube as you can for the situation. Accuracy will improve when you do.

[badgeredd]

Glad to see you are getting your own "data" there Joe.

Lube type and amount DO make a difference in my 35s. I also believe that the constant CLEANING of ones barrel will detract from the accuracy once one has a good load/lube developed. Unfortunately, I don't have data to prove it to anyone else...but I've proven it to myself so that's good enough for me. A 2" group isn't good enough for most of my guns since I do have data that proves they will do better with J-words. I am of the opinion that one can achieve accuracy as good as, or nearly as good as j-words if one has the right lube/boolit/load combination. Several on the forum have proved it to be so.

Edd

[joeb33050]

Joe I am stupid and unable to read the written word. Can you please explain to me how type of lube is incon ..inconseq...makes no difference but amount of lube can.. TAlk slowly and use small words please.
I'll do what I can, but no promises! You clearly didn't read what you quoted.
1. I have no data showing that different REASONABLE lubes vary accuracy, and I've certainly asked.
2. Lyman Alox (it said on the label) was a different color, different composition??, and failed me. I spoke to folks at Lyman after sending 2 sticks back. Somehow the Lyman Alox changed and became UNREASONABLE = the accuracy didn't differ slightly, it went very bad.
3. I don't know if the amount of lube affects accuracy. Less lube worked for me a few times, but I don't have enough data to know if this happens often or frequently. (Some would suggest that less lube is "better" than more lube, BUT, I must size 314299s first, then re-set the 450 and run them through again to lube. A PITA, it's easier to run them through once and lube all the grooves.)
4. I don't know "how" or "why" CB things work. There are enough theorists here who will expound in great detail about the how and why.
Did you get it?
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Glad to see you are getting your own "data" there Joe.

Lube type and amount DO make a difference in my 35s. I also believe that the constant CLEANING of ones barrel will detract from the accuracy once one has a good load/lube developed. Unfortunately, I don't have data to prove it to anyone else...but I've proven it to myself so that's good enough for me. A 2" group isn't good enough for most of my guns
I'm still working to getting under 2" reliably for averages of 5 5-shot 100 yard groups with a Savage Striker and a Competitor. I'd like to know how you get under 2" pistol 100 yard groups, what rest, what scope, etc. CBs of course.
Thanks;
joe b.





since I do have data that proves they will do better with J-words. I am of the opinion that one can achieve accuracy as good as, or nearly as good as j-words if one has the right lube/boolit/load combination. Several on the forum have proved it to be so.

Edd
joe b.

[BABore]

Lyman Alox worked fine for many years, then didnj't. Maven sold me some Lyman Super Moly, which worked far better than the defective Alox, shooting 5-shot 100 yard group averages of 2"-2 1/2" or so in my Savage Striker pistol. This with both grooves lubed on 314299. The barrel has a LOT of lube, black, in it. Wednesday with only the bottom groove lubed, and the nose wiped off= no lube, 17/IMR4227 averaged 2.121" for 6 groups, and 18/IMR4227 averaged 1.879" for 6 groups.
I shot 75 shots, never cleaned, the last 5 = .975".
Pat I. said several times, and I have tried, lube in ONLY the groove just above the gas check. It worked for me, but made me very nervous. Chicken.
I think that less lube shoots better and reduces cleaning required, but more data is needed.
I don't know that cleaning all the black moly lube out of the barrel is necessary, it takes a lot of brushing and patches, and seems to screw up accuracy for the first ?10? shots.
joe b.

And there lies most of the problem when you simply dismiss that the type of lube doesn't make a difference. Most, like you, simply shoot a few boolits downrange, with a new lube from a clean gun. Boy! Twelve, 5-shot groups sure seems like a complete test don't it? Now the last group went sub inch. Shazam! Didn't that tell you something, or did you go clean the barrel?

Depending on the gun, barrel, boolit, and load, it may take that many rounds to get the bbl conditioned. Then you can start load developement to find what shoots best. Do you really think that just cause a previous load/lube was kinda accurate that you can change the lube and leave the load alone. Not! Change one variable and you get to start over. Your pet load may, or may not work.

I've shot 357Max's lube's for years. They started out as a Purple Voodoo lube. It worked great in most all magnum pistol and rifle loads from 1,600 to 2,200 fps, for me. I had used Alox, LBT, Beartooth, Caranuba Red, Felix, and several other homemade lubes prior. PV lube was simply better and the targets showed it. About every 6-9 months, 357Max would get a wild hair and change his recipe slightly. Always trying to improve it. On each new batch, I had to make minor tweaks to the load. I would shoot 50-100 rounds with the new lube and old data to get things settled in, then I would rework the load to see if anything was left on the table. Several times there was. In most every case, the latest lube and tweaked load showed an improvement over the previous one. I'm now starting work with Max's latest lube edition. It's totally different than the previous ones and according to him, much better. I will be months evaluating it, not a few shooting sessions. That's how you got to do it.

Oh! And cleaning your barrel?? I've been shooting a new boolit design in my old Remington 700 ADL, 30'06, with LBT lube, for at least 300 rounds. It has a stock tube that has 3,000+ rounds through it and it likes to walk a bit when hot. 3-shot groups average just below an inch. 5-shot groups run around 1 3/8 to 1 1/2". I've never chronographed the load with this 155 grain boolit driven by 37 grains of Reloader 7, but the book says around 2,400 fps. Haven't clean it once.

[joeb33050]

Now that is a set-up if I ever saw one...........:grin:
One thing you have to remember when testing individual items involved with the load, and that is: "You have to be a good enough shot to tell the difference when you see it". Those who shoot +1 MOA groups will probably not see the difference with most component changes.
A 10% difference in average 5-shot group size, with 2 different loads, requires 23 groups be shot with each load to be 90% sure that there's a difference. To be 95% sure, 38 groups with each load must be shot.
So from 1.1" to 1", or 2.2" to 2", or from .55" to .5", we must shoot a lot of groups to know, at some % surety, that there's a difference.
Wednesday I shot 6 groups, 2 loads, a 12% difference in group size. To be 90% sure, I'd have to shoot a total of 16 groups with each load.
This is why data and opinion differ.

357 Max has formulated several lubes which do very well in high velocity/pressure situations and has the ability to see the differences. In dealing with target velocities mentioned, you might pay attention to what Felix has said about lube viscosity, i.e. use as low of viscosity lube as you can for the situation. Accuracy will improve when you do.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

And there lies most of the problem when you simply dismiss that the type of lube doesn't make a difference. Most, like you, simply shoot a few boolits downrange, with a new lube from a clean gun. Boy! Twelve, 5-shot groups sure seems like a complete test don't it? Now the last group went sub inch. Shazam! Didn't that tell you something, or did you go clean the barrel?

Depending on the gun, barrel, boolit, and load, it may take that many rounds to get the bbl conditioned. Then you can start load developement to find what shoots best. Do you really think that just cause a previous load/lube was kinda accurate that you can change the lube and leave the load alone. Not! Change one variable and you get to start over. Your pet load may, or may not work.

I've shot 357Max's lube's for years. They started out as a Purple Voodoo lube. It worked great in most all magnum pistol and rifle loads from 1,600 to 2,200 fps, for me. I had used Alox, LBT, Beartooth, Caranuba Red, Felix, and several other homemade lubes prior. PV lube was simply better and the targets showed it. About every 6-9 months, 357Max would get a wild hair and change his recipe slightly. Always trying to improve it. On each new batch, I had to make minor tweaks to the load. I would shoot 50-100 rounds with the new lube and old data to get things settled in, then I would rework the load to see if anything was left on the table. Several times there was. In most every case, the latest lube and tweaked load showed an improvement over the previous one. I'm now starting work with Max's latest lube edition. It's totally different than the previous ones and according to him, much better. I will be months evaluating it, not a few shooting sessions. That's how you got to do it.

At last, a man who knows!! Please post the data so that this question is finally answered to everyone's satisfaction.

Oh! And cleaning your barrel?? I've been shooting a new boolit design in my old Remington 700 ADL, 30'06, with LBT lube, for at least 300 rounds. It has a stock tube that has 3,000+ rounds through it and it likes to walk a bit when hot. 3-shot groups average just below an inch. 5-shot groups run around 1 3/8 to 1 1/2". I've never chronographed the load with this 155 grain boolit driven by 37 grains of Reloader 7, but the book says around 2,400 fps. Haven't clean it once.
Barrel cleaning with rfs or CBs has various absolutely sure opinions from always to never. I had a CB rifle bore corrode? on me years ago, it ain't fun. Now I clean every time, that's EVERY TIME, I shoot a gun. What I don't know, and the list is long, is HOW MUCH to clean when using Lyman Super Moly.
I'll find out.
joe b.
(Get that data posted!!!)

[BABore]

Barrel cleaning with rfs or CBs has various absolutely sure opinions from always to never. I had a CB rifle bore corrode? on me years ago, it ain't fun. Now I clean every time, that's EVERY TIME, I shoot a gun. What I don't know, and the list is long, is HOW MUCH to clean when using Lyman Super Moly.
I'll find out.
joe b.
(Get that data posted!!!)

How's about you go out and collect your own data and stick it in your spreadsheet. The technique's are well known and for the asking. Then maybe you can write a book. I've got a notebook full of data for each gun I shoot cast in. You really think the data from my guns/loads/techniques are of any practical use? It's the thought process and troubleshooting that are of value.The data for that is understading and doing, not punching numbers into a numeric keypad. I was tutored by a cranky old fart that didn't lay the answers on me "Welfare-Like". He made me do my own work, old school. I combined that ,with my own, "never-be-satisfied" attitude, and am still learning.

[Larry Gibson]

I believe Joe is making several good and valid points. I've been shooting 3 shot 1" groups at 2400 fps out of an '06 sporter (2 of them actually) for some time with Bass's LBT bullet an 311466. That is out of clean barrels without having to shoot 300 rounds to "condition" a bore BTW. I'd also say "shazam" at Joe's last .975" group. Not that it was telling him anything but that it was the smallest group of the test series. That is simply due to random impact of bullets in the group. It is the average or the largest group size that are the measure of the accuracy. I too have had a barrel ruined by not cleaning it some years back when using a new "wonder" lube. I have shot extenstively without cleaning the barrels and with most all quality commercial lubes the barrels are "conditioned" within 1 to 3 shots.

Now those are my observations based on 40+ years of shooting cast bullets extesively. One may very well get a decent group after shooting 300 rounds (30 ten shot groups, 60 five shot groups or 100 three shot groups) but then to claim "shazam" because the the 31, 61st or 101st groups is a small one.....that does not seem too "practical" to me. However, that is my opinion based on what I think is practical or not. If some here want to claim one good group out of 30, 60 or 100 groups makes a load "practical" then that is certainly their choice. I think Joe is on the right track.

Might add also that when questioned a few here (like the previous post) always get nasty and start with personal attacks when someone disagrees with their "expert" opinions. That is a shame because unless we can sort out fact from fiction, truth from old wives tales and leave out the witchcraft how do we learn and advance? Some claim to be still "learning" but yet insinuate if you don't do it their way you are wrong. Not saying that the previous posts contain any of that but Joe's experiments are pointing in truthful direction that keeps us "learning'.

Larry Gibson

[Recluse]

Agree with Larry--no need to get nasty or personal.

I'm about to take a rare afternoon off and head to the range to test some 7.62x39 boolits out of my SKS--which I bought a few days before the Klinton/Reno AWB, and which, to date, has less than forty rounds fired through it. Honest-to-goodness Chinese SKS that doesn't have the Norinco stamp/name on it. Good gun, sort of . . .

Also going to test some various cast boolits in my beloved and prized Savage 110B in 30-06. I get other-wordly accuracy in MOA with jacketed bullets. Now begins the quest to achieve the same with lead. If I can, I can. If I can't, I won't sweat it for even a minute. That gun shoots far too good and too consistent with the copper stuff to get upset over the cb stuff.

My variables? Aside from powder charges (obviously), the variables are amount of lube and type of lube. I have about 70 rounds to test fire. I even loaded up some "fouling" rounds for both guns so that none of the real rounds will have to be fired from a cold, clean barrel.

Now, I'm with Joe on the cleaning part. Maybe it's partly my dad and grandad's fault--drilled into me since I could walk: If you shoot the gun, you clean the gun.

Maybe it's the military's fault: Are you going to trust your life to a dirty gun, mister?

Who knows? What I do know is that I clean every gun after ever outing. Now, I don't strip the things down and put them in the parts waster and whatnot. But I do swab out the barrel pretty good, clean up the bolt/receiver/action/cylinders, and then apply a very light coat of Break Free in the bore and on the friction areas, then a light coat of G96--best stuff ever to come out of a spray can.

I figure that THAT routine is part of MY consistency in how I shoot and test rounds, and eliminates the variable of a dirty or fouled bore, etc. It also helps me sleep at night knowing that I'm protecting my investments. Guns ain't cheap, after all, and they're not coming down in price.

Another thing is that what may work for me, as BadgerEd referred to, may not work for you. And that applies to even jacketed bullets and factory ammo out of matching pre-64 Winchester Mod70's! That is the beauty of the Gun--she is a magnificient thing to behold and takes on a personality unique to the owner who cares for her.

:coffee:

[Bret4207]

And there lies most of the problem when you simply dismiss that the type of lube doesn't make a difference. Most, like you, simply shoot a few boolits downrange, with a new lube from a clean gun. Boy! Twelve, 5-shot groups sure seems like a complete test don't it? Now the last group went sub inch. Shazam! Didn't that tell you something, or did you go clean the barrel?

Depending on the gun, barrel, boolit, and load, it may take that many rounds to get the bbl conditioned. Then you can start load developement to find what shoots best. Do you really think that just cause a previous load/lube was kinda accurate that you can change the lube and leave the load alone. Not! Change one variable and you get to start over. Your pet load may, or may not work.

I've shot 357Max's lube's for years. They started out as a Purple Voodoo lube. It worked great in most all magnum pistol and rifle loads from 1,600 to 2,200 fps, for me. I had used Alox, LBT, Beartooth, Caranuba Red, Felix, and several other homemade lubes prior. PV lube was simply better and the targets showed it. About every 6-9 months, 357Max would get a wild hair and change his recipe slightly. Always trying to improve it. On each new batch, I had to make minor tweaks to the load. I would shoot 50-100 rounds with the new lube and old data to get things settled in, then I would rework the load to see if anything was left on the table. Several times there was. In most every case, the latest lube and tweaked load showed an improvement over the previous one. I'm now starting work with Max's latest lube edition. It's totally different than the previous ones and according to him, much better. I will be months evaluating it, not a few shooting sessions. That's how you got to do it.

Oh! And cleaning your barrel?? I've been shooting a new boolit design in my old Remington 700 ADL, 30'06, with LBT lube, for at least 300 rounds. It has a stock tube that has 3,000+ rounds through it and it likes to walk a bit when hot. 3-shot groups average just below an inch. 5-shot groups run around 1 3/8 to 1 1/2". I've never chronographed the load with this 155 grain boolit driven by 37 grains of Reloader 7, but the book says around 2,400 fps. Haven't clean it once.

Agree pretty much across the board. I've seen the seasoning thing. It seems more prevalent with some guns than others.

[357maximum]

Discussions like this let some people see the truth/open minds/get us thinking, andgenerally make the shooters life easier.only if they are willing to. That was the whole point of this hijacking.

If someone thinks my words were a personal attack........well

"are you stupid or can you not read the written word" were not my words....I just borrowed them.

And yes I read what I quoted, I just do not buy it...I have seen otherwise too many times....maybe the laws of physics are different here....one can never be sure I guess.

To see a member assaulted this way got under my skin a bit....I tend not to forget such things, I forgive, but never forget such a thing, especially when it was doled out to an unsuspecting member simply asking an honest question. If it had been laid upon someone playing devils advocate as I did earlier in this thread, that would have been a different deal altogether.

now back to the program

[joeb33050]

How's about you go out and collect your own data and stick it in your spreadsheet. The technique's are well known and for the asking. Then maybe you can write a book. I've got a notebook full of data for each gun I shoot cast in. You really think the data from my guns/loads/techniques are of any practical use? It's the thought process and troubleshooting that are of value.The data for that is understading and doing, not punching numbers into a numeric keypad. I was tutored by a cranky old fart that didn't lay the answers on me "Welfare-Like". He made me do my own work, old school. I combined that ,with my own, "never-be-satisfied" attitude, and am still learning.
The AF taught me to do some electronics stuff, and I worked in that area for many years. Many of the guys I worked with had rings with beavers on them. Knowledge and assistance were freely available, from and to anyone. Absolute free movement.
Later I ran into folks who had come up as machinists and tool makers and production engineers, and in that end of the world knowledge was closely held, not let go of, and assistance was about non-existant.
I saw this for 40 years, talked to people about it, it seemed to be the rule.
Free passing of knowledge is what I got used to, as in journal articles for example.
Sometimes I forget the other guys and how they worked.
Sorry.
joe b.

[357maximum]

I'll do what I can, but no promises! You clearly didn't read what you quoted.
1. I have no data showing that different REASONABLE lubes vary accuracy, and I've certainly asked.

Did you get it?
joe b.

*THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK, AND SHOULD NOT BE SEEN THAT WAY* when/if I ever decide to make a personal attack...I will write this proceeding my words "mod hat off".

Do you have a shooting range you can use? You could likely find your data there. Quit asking others to do the work for you, and go get it, it will mean more.

Several of us told you about or experiences but you want a chart to publish.....your gonna have to do that yourself.

AND Yes...I got it...several years before this was typed in fact.

[Blammer]

interesting thread

[Bret4207]

*THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK, AND SHOULD NOT BE SEEN THAT WAY* when/if I ever decide to make a personal attack...I will write this proceeding my words "mod hat off".

Do you have a shooting range you can use? You could likely find your data there. Quit asking others to do the work for you, and go get it, it will mean more.

Several of us told you about or experiences but you want a chart to publish.....your gonna have to do that yourself.

AND Yes...I got it...several years before this was typed in fact.

"Mod hat off", right... Obviously you're a power mad dictator type with a mean streak a mile wide. Probably a cop too!:mrgreen:

[Larry Gibson]

357maximum and Bret4207

Come on guys, Joe does shoot and he shoots a lot. He is just trying to get some documented facts based on actual tests. Casual observations of one or two groups is not a "test" nor is remembering "experiences". Any cop who has interviewed witnesses and then reinterviewed them some time later will tell you how good rememberences of "experiences" are. Yes I was a cop and criminal investigator for several years.

I'll repost one of Joe's posts in this thread below. Looks to me like he has a range, uses it and shoots a lot. It also looks like he is trying to gather data (actual data from other sources). If you don't have any actual data then why not just say so or say nothing.

Larry Gibson

Joe's post;


Lyman Alox worked fine for many years, then didnj't. Maven sold me some Lyman Super Moly, which worked far better than the defective Alox, shooting 5-shot 100 yard group averages of 2"-2 1/2" or so in my Savage Striker pistol. This with both grooves lubed on 314299. The barrel has a LOT of lube, black, in it. Wednesday with only the bottom groove lubed, and the nose wiped off= no lube, 17/IMR4227 averaged 2.121" for 6 groups, and 18/IMR4227 averaged 1.879" for 6 groups.
I shot 75 shots, never cleaned, the last 5 = .975".
Pat I. said several times, and I have tried, lube in ONLY the groove just above the gas check. It worked for me, but made me very nervous. Chicken.
I think that less lube shoots better and reduces cleaning required, but more data is needed.
I don't know that cleaning all the black moly lube out of the barrel is necessary, it takes a lot of brushing and patches, and seems to screw up accuracy for the first ?10? shots.
joe b.

[Uncle R.]

I've seen the groups get better as a rifle is shot more - but not always. :roll:
I've long suspected that NOT cleaning might be a wise choice for some loads and some applications but I just can't bring myself to put a gun back in the safe without cleaning it - I know myself too well. Sometimes those " load development programs" get lost in the shuffle of day-to-day living and a gun that I may plan to shoot tomorrow, or next weekend, winds up sitting for months or even years.
As for amount and type of lube - there are so ding-blasted many variables in load testing, including some that a person might not even think of, that it's pretty near imposible to create a real scientific test. Humidity? Barometric pressure? Ammo temp vs. barrel temp? Length of time since the bullets were cast - or sized - or lubed? Differences in the batch of lube? Bullet alloy, exactly?
Real scientific testing requires a control group - and changing only ONE variable at a time. How do we do that in our game? Like it or not, there's always conjecture and "stands to reason" thought in the boolit game, always a lack of certainty and some amount of voodoo.
Oh well - it keeps things interesting...
:???:
Uncle R.

[runfiverun]

humidity is a big deal in the world of lubes.
i have a h/v lube i use in my rifles exclusively as it is kinda time consuming to make.
i made up a batch of boolits and sent them to N.C. when i asked how they shot ,I got the standard they shot fine and a pic of the groups.
the one caveat however was they sure smoked a lot though.
no leading ,outstanding groups. but really smoky.
W.T.H. i barely see anything if even a poof here in s.e. idaho.
temp is paid attention to,visc of lube, etc... but humidity is one of the biggest factors in this cast thing.
humidity while casting,loading and shooting.

[Bret4207]

357maximum and Bret4207

Come on guys, Joe does shoot and he shoots a lot. He is just trying to get some documented facts based on actual tests. Casual observations of one or two groups is not a "test" nor is remembering "experiences". Any cop who has interviewed witnesses and then reinterviewed them some time later will tell you how good rememberences of "experiences" are. Yes I was a cop and criminal investigator for several years.

I'll repost one of Joe's posts in this thread below. Looks to me like he has a range, uses it and shoots a lot. It also looks like he is trying to gather data (actual data from other sources). If you don't have any actual data then why not just say so or say nothing.

Larry Gibson

Joe's post;

Larry- That was a humorous reference to the dozens of time I tried that "mod hat off" idea. No one cares, once you have that Mod shingle you automatically become an overzealous dictator, or so they say....:roll:

[Larry Gibson]

Larry- That was a humorous reference to the dozens of time I tried that "mod hat off" idea. No one cares, once you have that Mod shingle you automatically become an overzealous dictator, or so they say....:roll:

Ain't that the truth!

Larry Gibson

[44man]

Every gun is different. I have discussed many times how I would miss the first shot at an IHMSA shoot when starting with a clean bore. Jacketed bullets in single shots, etc. I ALWAYS needed to shoot one shot before I took a gun to a shoot.
I recently sighted my red dot in with the .44 at 50 yards and with a clean bore, I mean CLEAN! I scrubbed it with M-Pro 7. My first five shots were in 3/4", next was also 3/4", then a 1/4" group and when I got it sighted, the last group was 3/4". I lost that target because it got soaked with all the rain we had.
But I still have the target from when I removed the red dot and put my scope on the gun. I used three shot groups with the scope and the barrel also started CLEAN.
This was my first group at 50 yards from a clean bore. As I adjusted, the next group below, right was also 3/4" as was the group in the bulls eye.
For some reason, this gun never changes and only needs cleaned when the cylinder pin gets too cruddy. Sometimes 6 months or more of shooting.
I just have not found a problem with testing lubes in my revolvers. Without cleaning between a lube change, a group change is immediate and sustainable. Going right back to the better lube will shrink the group right away and is also sustainable.
As a result, I do not put any stock in bore "seasoning", at least with a revolver.
However, if I test LLA, my bore DOES get "seasoned"---with LEAD! :Fire:
I can not speak for rifles.
Anyway, this is one gun I am not afraid to go deer hunting with a clean bore.

[45 2.1]

Originally Posted by 45 2.1 http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images_acps/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?p=594723#post594723)
Now that is a set-up if I ever saw one...........:grin:
One thing you have to remember when testing individual items involved with the load, and that is: "You have to be a good enough shot to tell the difference when you see it". Those who shoot +1 MOA groups will probably not see the difference with most component changes.
A 10% difference in average 5-shot group size, with 2 different loads, requires 23 groups be shot with each load to be 90% sure that there's a difference. To be 95% sure, 38 groups with each load must be shot.
So from 1.1" to 1", or 2.2" to 2", or from .55" to .5", we must shoot a lot of groups to know, at some % surety, that there's a difference.
Wednesday I shot 6 groups, 2 loads, a 12% difference in group size. To be 90% sure, I'd have to shoot a total of 16 groups with each load.
This is why data and opinion differ.

Joe, i'm quite familiar with statistics and confidence levels. What they do not take into account is human variability, skill level and various light conditions along with weather unpredictability. I would say that the conditions are never the same along with your ability to judge light and mirage at any given time. Unless your shooting an unlimited class rifle (in a controlled atmosphere), your test results are going to vary outside where you think they will.


357 Max has formulated several lubes which do very well in high velocity/pressure situations and has the ability to see the differences. In dealing with target velocities mentioned, you might pay attention to what Felix has said about lube viscosity, i.e. use as low of viscosity lube as you can for the situation. Accuracy will improve when you do.

[Larry Gibson]

45 2.1 is correct in that a comparison of todays accuracy of a given load might very welll be different than yesterdays or last weeks. This is especially the case if we are making "comparisons" of a load with a change made if the tests are conducted on on 2 different days. Also as he mentions when yopu get down to under 2 moa (at 100 yards or more) then a difference of .1 or .2" does not give us a sure idea of accuracy. The difference may be more of a random shot dispersion than of any increase or decrese in accuracy.

In my opinion for a comparative test to be valid the variations of the load must be fired on the same day with as close to the same conditions ("condition" includes the ability of the shooter on that day also) as possible. A sufficient number of shots or groups in the test group of each variation must also be tested. A single 3 or 5 shot group tells us only that we may or may not be on the right track. A minimum of a 10 shot group or three 5 shot groups is really necessary to make any kind of conclusion as to accuracy potential. Then to confirm that conclusion another three 10 shot groups or five 5 shot groups should be fired to statistically validate our conclusion. We must also remember that the accuracy potential of any load is not the smallest group fired nor the "average" group size fired. The true accuracy potential is the size of the largest group fired. The other two figures just make us feel good about a load that in reality may not be that good.

Larry Gibson

[Bass Ackward]

<<Lyman Alox worked fine for many years, then didnj't. Maven sold me some Lyman Super Moly, which worked far better than the defective Alox, shooting 5-shot 100 yard group averages of 2"-2 1/2" or so in my Savage Striker pistol. This with both grooves lubed on 314299. The barrel has a LOT of lube, black, in it. Wednesday with only the bottom groove lubed, and the nose wiped off= no lube, 17/IMR4227 averaged 2.121" for 6 groups, and 18/IMR4227 averaged 1.879" for 6 groups.
I shot 75 shots, never cleaned, the last 5 = .975".
Pat I. said several times, and I have tried, lube in ONLY the groove just above the gas check. It worked for me, but made me very nervous. Chicken.
I think that less lube shoots better and reduces cleaning required, but more data is needed.
I don't know that cleaning all the black moly lube out of the barrel is necessary, it takes a lot of brushing and patches, and seems to screw up accuracy for the first ?10? shots.
joe b.>>


Joe has me in stitches again!!!

This is a very interesting discussion EACH and EVERY time it comes up. Sad thing is that we forget the lessons that are learned each and every time. Thank God I can be the one to address it because " I am not confrontational". :grin:

I have stated that a gun changes over the course of it's lifetime and that it will require different things at different times. So this doesn't surprise me at all. I have also stated (and was maligned by Joe) that the best accuracy occurs just before leading begins. Ala George Marshall. This also mirrors my experience. The smoother a bore becomes, the more critical conditioning will become. The less lube a bullet carries, the more sensitive it will become. These aren't laws, but trends that support Marshall's conclusion.

The tough part with top end cast performance of all kinds, whether that be accuracy or accuracy with velocity is translation. Take the last statement about best accuracy just before leading begins. That can also be said to be exactly the same thing as , "don't use any more lube than necessary for conditions". Or change the viscosity of your lube. Plus maybe a dozen other ways to say the same darn thing!!!

What you ARE doing is creating a scenario where the best accuracy occurs JUST BEFORE leading begins!!! Ala Marshall God rest his sole. And Joe, you hate Marshall!

Some loads require seasoning and some don't. These are invariably the PREMIER loads for long shot strings if that is what is required. Many guys here have said that it takes 100 rounds or more to see what you really have. How is this news? This is particularly noticeable with 22LR loads. Winchester used to make it's 52 barrels like a corn cob inside to beat this effect. But it remains load, bullet design, and gun dependent. Each 52 will invariably perform better with one brand of ammo.

I have seen bullets (designs) that didn't shoot for squat later become the prize mold to own. And this didn't always follow a logical pattern that we would deduce. I can develop loads that do their best work up front. This works better for hunting or high velocity. Or for the guy who cleans after every time. Warning: You can't have a load that requires conditioning that will stay stable though all climatic conditions. Just ain't gonna happen. Sorry, I don't care what velocity level you are running. So it depends on what I need from a load and how I go about achieving it.

Lubes go from winners to losers. And back if you follow it long enough. To put it in many peoples point of view, as a bore smooths, the requirement of a lube goes from one that "seals" to one that lubricates to prevent galling. This happens to EVERY gun over time unless a single load is used with lube volume that is in VAST excess of what is required. Seasoning is buildup of fouling to reproduce "a perfect" condition that is eventually replaced by smooth, dimensionally correct steel. How do we translate that? Another thread.

Well all that means that it is STILL gun, load, hardness, pressure, velocity, temperature, humidity dependent. You get the idea. The closer you work to the edge of any of these variables, the more sensitivity you are going to see regardless of cartridge or velocity level. That is right up until your gun changes conditions and changes what " IT " defines the edge to be.

So from what point do our statistics come? From the bad point or after the good takes over. Define bad and good? Because what is one to one man is the opposite to another. With a handgun I want VAST, multiple, accurate shot strings. For my rifles, I need three shots. PERIOD.

This is the big "complexity" with CAST that some never get over. PEOPLE looking for mathematical formulas and theories that have to be based upon fact. There are no facts with shooting. This is the sad part that the MOST CONCIENENCIOUS of us CAN NOT GET passed. And it dooms them accordingly. And poor Joe keeps on knocking at that door that no one can be behind. :grin: God bless him.

So what good are statistics? 1000 people use LLA and 975 say it sucks. But for 25 it works like a charm. Do they CARE about statistics? Are you one of them? If we go by the statistics, no one will ever try LLA again. Imagine how many people will be denied happiness and bliss.

All rules, trends, statistics, whatever are all destined to be broken. Get passed "YOUR " journey and learn to enjoy the destination once in awhile. If you hate your destination, make another journey. Don't look for statistics from others that have achieved the same standard. Pick a better standard! Look up, not down.

I know this is wasted, but I had to try.

Then thank Marshall (and the guy he got it from) for your recent results Joe. :grin:

[Bret4207]

Dang Bass, I sure missed ya!!!!:drinks:[smilie=w:

Did you mean George Marshall ( I'm not familiar with him) or Frank Marshall?

[Leftoverdj]

Ran into something that might be relevant. Bought a case of PMC Moderator when it was being closed out. Shot up over a brick in a CZ 452V. Got dead predictable 5/8" - 3/4" 50 yard groups in the fall with temperature running in the 50s, maybe low 60s.

Dug the rifle and the ammo out again with the temps running in the 80s to low 90s. No change but the temperature, and it's giving consistent sub half inch groups, mostly around 3/8". Nothing has been changed but the temperature, and the only thing I can see that changing is the viscosity of the lube.

[runfiverun]

I think viscosity was the answer to felix's question.
thee problem is the weather variations and the goals that are set by each individual.
john only looks for three shots at 2700 fps.
i want 50 shots at as much velocity as i can get within an accuracy window.
my kids want 500 shots a day and to hit that rock at 300 yds.
and the lube question is gonna be kicked to death.
set your goals and try a few things. or buy something else 4 bux aint gonna kill ya.

[44man]

I do everything the easy way because components just cost too much. I figure if I can go to my range and hit a pop can and more often then not, a beer :mrgreen: can at 100 yards with the first shot from any of my revolvers from sandbags and not be more then 1/2" off center, any day of the year, I am good for deer.
Picking the exact holdover, a can at 200 yards is also dead. As is a steel ram at 500 meters.
I will not quibble about 1/16" difference in group size and I don't need to shoot 10,000 groups to prove a thing.
Accuracy, repeatability any day of the year, hot or cold, no bore leading or a need to clean, but above all confidence that my boolits go to the sights is all that is important to me. It has taken years of work and much thinking, rejecting stuff that just never works or only works if conditions are perfect just once. I do not need a load change from hot to cold. I do not need a lube change from hot to cold. I do not need a primer change.
Now the thing none of you get is that if any single one of you came to my range and I set my revolver, any one of them, on bags and I set you down behind it, you will also hit the can at 100 yards. You will go home shaking your head and with a new appreciation for a revolver. Heck, I might get you down to shooting 1-1/2" targets out there! :Fire:
There is no voodoo or magic. I just tossed out all the old fashioned ideas that keep running around on this and all other sites. All I did was picture in my little mind what happens in the gun when the hammer falls and eliminated everything that ruins a boolit. Kind of simple, really! I have made the revolver shoot cast better then jacketed.
I have spent my life proving many things wrong about ideas with revolvers, rifles, muzzle loaders, archery, you name it.
So after over 56 years, Bass wants me to say Alox is OK!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gee whiz, have fun. I was a teenager when I found the stuff sucked. [smilie=1:
Seasoning a bore? What is that? Accuracy before leading? What is leading? Changes in a gun as it gets old? Darn I just passed 59,000 heavy loads in that poor shooting Ruger SBH and nothing has changed from day one. Every BFR shot sub 1" at 100 yards right out of the box and continues to do so whether I ever clean them or not. Come shoot mine, if you miss it is YOUR FAULT! I don't care if it is 100* or below zero, dry, raining or so humid you can't breath, you will hit what you shoot at as long as YOU do the job.
Too many statistics, too much math, too many theorys, too much of everything. Don't any of you EVER RELAX! :???:

[joeb33050]

Never have so many words, with so little meaning, been writ by one man. So good to have the drivel back.
joe b.


<
Joe has me in stitches again!!!

This is a very interesting discussion EACH and EVERY time it comes up. Sad thing is that we forget the lessons that are learned each and every time. Thank God I can be the one to address it because " I am not confrontational". :grin:

I have stated that a gun changes over the course of it's lifetime and that it will require different things at different times. So this doesn't surprise me at all. I have also stated (and was maligned by Joe) that the best accuracy occurs just before leading begins. Ala George Marshall. This also mirrors my experience. The smoother a bore becomes, the more critical conditioning will become. The less lube a bullet carries, the more sensitive it will become. These aren't laws, but trends that support Marshall's conclusion.

The tough part with top end cast performance of all kinds, whether that be accuracy or accuracy with velocity is translation. Take the last statement about best accuracy just before leading begins. That can also be said to be exactly the same thing as , "don't use any more lube than necessary for conditions". Or change the viscosity of your lube. Plus maybe a dozen other ways to say the same darn thing!!!

What you ARE doing is creating a scenario where the best accuracy occurs JUST BEFORE leading begins!!! Ala Marshall God rest his sole. And Joe, you hate Marshall!

Some loads require seasoning and some don't. These are invariably the PREMIER loads for long shot strings if that is what is required. Many guys here have said that it takes 100 rounds or more to see what you really have. How is this news? This is particularly noticeable with 22LR loads. Winchester used to make it's 52 barrels like a corn cob inside to beat this effect. But it remains load, bullet design, and gun dependent. Each 52 will invariably perform better with one brand of ammo.

I have seen bullets (designs) that didn't shoot for squat later become the prize mold to own. And this didn't always follow a logical pattern that we would deduce. I can develop loads that do their best work up front. This works better for hunting or high velocity. Or for the guy who cleans after every time. Warning: You can't have a load that requires conditioning that will stay stable though all climatic conditions. Just ain't gonna happen. Sorry, I don't care what velocity level you are running. So it depends on what I need from a load and how I go about achieving it.

Lubes go from winners to losers. And back if you follow it long enough. To put it in many peoples point of view, as a bore smooths, the requirement of a lube goes from one that "seals" to one that lubricates to prevent galling. This happens to EVERY gun over time unless a single load is used with lube volume that is in VAST excess of what is required. Seasoning is buildup of fouling to reproduce "a perfect" condition that is eventually replaced by smooth, dimensionally correct steel. How do we translate that? Another thread.

Well all that means that it is STILL gun, load, hardness, pressure, velocity, temperature, humidity dependent. You get the idea. The closer you work to the edge of any of these variables, the more sensitivity you are going to see regardless of cartridge or velocity level. That is right up until your gun changes conditions and changes what " IT " defines the edge to be.

So from what point do our statistics come? From the bad point or after the good takes over. Define bad and good? Because what is one to one man is the opposite to another. With a handgun I want VAST, multiple, accurate shot strings. For my rifles, I need three shots. PERIOD.

This is the big "complexity" with CAST that some never get over. PEOPLE looking for mathematical formulas and theories that have to be based upon fact. There are no facts with shooting. This is the sad part that the MOST CONCIENENCIOUS of us CAN NOT GET passed. And it dooms them accordingly. And poor Joe keeps on knocking at that door that no one can be behind. :grin: God bless him.

So what good are statistics? 1000 people use LLA and 975 say it sucks. But for 25 it works like a charm. Do they CARE about statistics? Are you one of them? If we go by the statistics, no one will ever try LLA again. Imagine how many people will be denied happiness and bliss.

All rules, trends, statistics, whatever are all destined to be broken. Get passed "YOUR " journey and learn to enjoy the destination once in awhile. If you hate your destination, make another journey. Don't look for statistics from others that have achieved the same standard. Pick a better standard! Look up, not down.

I know this is wasted, but I had to try.

Then thank Marshall (and the guy he got it from) for your recent results Joe. :grin:

[joeb33050]

...Real scientific testing requires a control group - and changing only ONE variable at a time. How do we do that in our game? Like it or not, there's always conjecture and "stands to reason" thought in the boolit game, always a lack of certainty and some amount of voodoo.
Oh well - it keeps things interesting...
:???:
Uncle R.
Seems correct. but, it ain't.
Whilst amongst the wizards, I might as well explain that this is incorrect. Scientific testing, that costs money, is frequently conducted after changing several variables or conditions, with a TEST PLAN.
Tomorrow is shooting day. Savage Striker pistol, Simmons 2-6X scope at 6X. 314299, .309", Lyman Super Alox, bottom groove lubed, WLR, 17/IMR4227, 2.790", 50 of these for practice.

Then, 314299, .312", 16/IMR4227, Rem 2 1/2, 2.790", Lyman Super Moly lube,
15 with 1 groove lubed
15 with only the groove above the gas check lubed

So the diameter, primer, powder charge and amount of lube changed.
This is my way of looking at, glancing at, several variations at the same time.

To read an explanation of how this is done scientifically, see
6.6 How to work up an accurate rifle load
and under this, down a bit
WORKING UP A CAST BULLET LOAD
By Jesse Miller OD. CBA Competitor.

under which, Jesse writes:
TIC – TAC – TOE chart
How do you decide between 3 primers, 3 powders and 3 different charges? Yeh how do you do it? Well my approach is what I call Tic-Tac-Toe.

There are many other sources, the statistics does the job.
joe b.

[Bass Ackward]

So after over 56 years, Bass wants me to say Alox is OK!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gee whiz, have fun. I was a teenager when I found the stuff sucked. [smilie=1:
Seasoning a bore? What is that? Accuracy before leading? What is leading? Changes in a gun as it gets old? Darn I just passed 59,000 heavy loads in that poor shooting Ruger SBH and nothing has changed from day one. Every BFR shot sub 1" at 100 yards right out of the box and continues to do so whether I ever clean them or not. Come shoot mine, if you miss it is YOUR FAULT! I don't care if it is 100* or below zero, dry, raining or so humid you can't breath, you will hit what you shoot at as long as YOU do the job.
Too many statistics, too much math, too many theorys, too much of everything. Don't any of you EVER RELAX! :???:



I think that you miss the point. I don't care whether you use LAA or what you think of it. But if what you think deters someone else from trying it, that's the shame. That person might be one of the success stories. Rest assured that if he is not, he will whine too. Did I ever tell you I hate bore ride bullets? :grin:

So you are the other end of the lube extreme. You are the anti-statistic. Why don't you get with the program. Load some softies and learn how fun problems can be. Or only lube one groove on the ordinance and experience some pain. Then you can be just like us and theorize. :grin:

Gee, if not for my needling, you must hate this site. :grin:

[44man]

I think that you miss the point. I don't care whether you use LAA or what you think of it. But if what you think deters someone else from trying it, that's the shame. That person might be one of the success stories. Rest assured that if he is not, he will whine too. Did I ever tell you I hate bore ride bullets? :grin:

So you are the other end of the lube extreme. You are the anti-statistic. Why don't you get with the program. Load some softies and learn how fun problems can be. Or only lube one groove on the ordinance and experience some pain. Then you can be just like us and theorize. :grin:

Gee, if not for my needling, you must hate this site. :grin:
Been there, done that Bass and it does not fit what I shoot. I understand and often said that some have good luck with Alox, it is that I don't.
That is why I gave up what gave me problems. I will take a new revolver, load 5 of each load with a given boolit and in an hour find what it likes. Then I load a bunch. I will move to another boolit and do it again. The only gun that gave me trouble is the BFR 45-70 because I had to test too many powders and primers. Boy, will a 10" barrel 45-70 sort out the wrong powders fast. :bigsmyl2: Only ONE powder works and it works for every weight and style boolit, SR4759. My revolver will outshoot every 45-70 rifle I have ever seen! [smilie=w:
Now, where I differ is I never wrote down or recorded anything until the groups were what I wanted. I saved a few bad targets with notations but scrapped most. I never mess with a chrono when working loads, it is worthless until I want to see what velocity my best loads shoot. I don't have note books full of useless information because I will never visit the wrong loads again.
I have a little notebook and a page has my load for each boolit in that gun, another page for the next gun. No more is needed and no change is ever needed, only the addition of another boolit.
I did the same with rifles and single shot pistols.
I have three hunting bows and there is a page for each listing different arrow sizes and broadhead weights and how to adjust the bow for any combination. I do not need to test shoot anything and can adjust the bow in the basement and go kill deer with perfect arrow flight.
Only accuracy is interesting, nothing else matters.
You can needle me all you want, just never mention my hat! [smilie=s:
I am glad to have you back.

[Larry Gibson]

Joe

Continue your tests and the reporting of the results. Many of us do understand and appreciate the results, the "wizards" not withstanding.

Larry Gibson

[357maximum]

This whole lube discussion thing is like N.A.S.C.A.R , it goes around and around in circles for a long time but does not really go anywhere.....

it is unlike N.A.S.C.A.R, as that game has a winner, usually decided by simply being in the right place at the right time for one of many different reasons...the only reason there is a winner is in one simple difference...it has an end point.

BTW...I love N.A.S.C.A.R also.:twisted: It is basically pointless yet for some reason it satisfies some primal urge deep down inside.:drinks:[smilie=w: GO #14

I am making the decision at this point to bow out of the lube makes a difference threads..they always go to the same point (dead end)...and I am simply bored with it.

I know it makes a difference, so why kick a dead horse.


I would be willing to bet that if someone posted the recipe for the lube to rule all lubes....maybe 10 people out of the 10,000 here would actually make it, and then 5 of them would not like it...........I have reached the 'WHATEVER POINT"[smilie=b:[smilie=b:

[calkar]

I have always liked the KISS theory. So 50/50 olive oil and local beeswax has been just fine for me. I have many other things that I like to do also like fish so I do not have time to overcomplicate. That 50/50 mix work fine in my 30-30 which chronys 1800.

[calkar]

Wow! chrony results worthless, in my experience chrony readings have given me many clues as to why certain loads were not as good as others.

[Bass Ackward]

All you have to do with any of these subjects is read deeper and answers from what people have seen are all over the gambit. Are they lying? I doubt it. Just look at how they defend their positions. Just stick with the subject of lube.

Some believe that it makes a difference and others do not.
Some swear that soft is the only way lube should be made and others like hard.
Some swear for for bees wax lubes while others prefer paraffin.
Some want over lubrication and some want under.
Some lubes are better in hot weather and some are better in cold. Some folks have one that works under all conditions.
And no one can agree even on a basic formula.

There is probably more here that hasn't been listed, but these are enough to make my point. If you shoot long enough, you will find yourself on different sides of the same argument that you yourself made awhile back. How do I know? Because I am no different. The biggest reason is that we forget what we saw years back in preference to the "NEW" data.

Joe goes out and has very good success that I congratulate him on and immediately he thinks that he has discovered the greatest thing since sliced bread. And he asks for statistics. Not only does he want statistics but he will want the data a certain way. Because ONLY in this way CAN results be validated on something that can't be. :grin: I can't tell you about how many articles I have read in my lifetime about seasoning that someone who discovered it felt compelled to write about their discovery. Then their life went on. Nothing new under the sun.

I brought up the Marshall point because I told Joe about this about 2 years back and he dismissed it with a snide remark about the man I mentioned. It's not about the man, but the message. And we forget that we aren't inventing the wheel here. Everything has been done and forgotten and done again and forgotten long before our time when most people had to shoot cast to be able to shoot. Are we smarter than them? Is our way the better way? Do we keep better statistics? Just go back through these posts over the years and see for yourself as the subjects are revisited.

Our arrogance, and I will include myself in this, is often laughable. And after having stepped away from this for awhile, I can see it plain as day. Just as soon as we think that we have that or any other subject figured out (or justified away) along comes someone that does it and wants statistics to be able to justify their position, our position, or why THAT person can't possibly be doing something that we couldn't.

The more I see of this, cast bullets are like life. Everyone walks the same road, has different experiences, reacts differently to those experiences, and takes away what they feel is important. Now you can help that fella out if he gets stuck or in trouble because at that point, he will be open to assistance. But he WILL NOT accept you telling him how to live his life. You can give him all the statistics about drinking or jail or aids or whatever and he is still going to walk the road as he chooses.

It's the same with cast bullets. We can help people who are stuck or want to learn more, but we can't tell them the best way or the only way. Because there isn't one. There are no rules (or facts) to shooting cast. In the end, there will be some things that people can not do. Or .... can not do as well as others. Fact of life.

So enjoy the successes. Don't ruin them. Good Job Joe!

[44man]

You said it right Bass. :drinks: I enjoy reading about all the tests too and all are interesting, I am not complaining about them and want them to continue. I was just telling how I have had to do things the easy way for most of my shooting life. I just could not and still can not afford to do all of that testing. Just one of the tests listed here and on other posts would break the bank! :-?
With things today I even have a fear of running out of lead and had to make a trap to catch as much as I can.
I hate the feeling that we can scare off a new fellow by telling him he needs to shoot 10,000 rounds to prove anything, that there IS an easy way for him. Every one can glean knowledge from those that do test and I appreciate what is done. The new guy should be shown both sides of the page because most who start casting are on a tight budget, looking for a way to shoot more without spending more. If I can tell him a shortcut and save him a dime, I feel good about it.
Some of you read the wrong things into what I do and say. :confused:
I am the same with lube, out of necessity I find what does what I want as fast as I can. The best lube for all applications will never be found and those that swear by one will have others cussing with it.
If you spend a fortune and a year testing for a 30-06, the guy with a Hornet can't get much out of it, neither can a revolver shooter or the guy with an ACP.
To make a lube test valid you need to start with the smallest caliber and work through to the largest caliber and test every lube on earth with every single cast boolit made for each rifle and handgun. Of course you need to test the amount of each lube that is needed on each and every boolit too. Now don't forget the powders that also effect results so we must include every powder listed for use in each caliber. Now add in the different alloys that you can make for every boolit. Then the changes in neck tension needed for each alloy and seating depths for each gun. Oh, don't forget all the different velocities that every gun can shoot.
You will exceed Obama's budget by a long shot and will die of old age long before you are finished with a usable list. [smilie=1: By then the bees will have all died and you will need to start over. Worst of all, lead will cost $50,000 an ounce and the law will tell you that you can't shoot lead. :Fire:----------air powered steel bullets!
Gee, this is FUN! :twisted:

[44man]

Wow! chrony results worthless, in my experience chrony readings have given me many clues as to why certain loads were not as good as others.
It's true, it will never make a load more accurate! If you are going to spend months looking for the smallest SD's only to find the load with the largest is the most accurate, what has it told you? :confused: 99% of the time a higher one is the most accurate. If you try a powder that gives good chrono results but the gun shoots for crap, what will you have?
If you work up a super load that puts all bullets in the same hole every time, every day of the year and run it over a chrono to find it is horrible, will you throw out that load? If you depend on the chrono, you would have never found the one hole load. [smilie=1:
Leave the thing home until you find a load, then check the velocity and ignore all the other figures.
Been there, done that, it is a waste of time and components.

[45 2.1]

It's true, it will never make a load more accurate! If you are going to spend months looking for the smallest SD's only to find the load with the largest is the most accurate, what has it told you? :confused: 99% of the time a higher one is the most accurate. If you try a powder that gives good chrono results but the gun shoots for crap, what will you have?
If you work up a super load that puts all bullets in the same hole every time, every day of the year and run it over a chrono to find it is horrible, will you throw out that load? If you depend on the chrono, you would have never found the one hole load. [smilie=1:
Leave the thing home until you find a load, then check the velocity and ignore all the other figures.
Been there, done that, it is a waste of time and components.

Funny, i've used a chrongraph at times and have never ran into the what you have, but I don't shoot balls to the walls loads either. Anytime I tested one of those "one hole loads" I found an extremely small (single digit) velocity spread. The poorer shooting stuff was up in the mid double digits. There are a lot of "ways" to load things............................aren't there.

[44man]

Funny, i've used a chrongraph at times and have never ran into the what you have, but I don't shoot balls to the walls loads either. Anytime I tested one of those "one hole loads" I found an extremely small (single digit) velocity spread. The poorer shooting stuff was up in the mid double digits. There are a lot of "ways" to load things............................aren't there.
Well of course but I never said it was not fun to use one at any time. But even with BP where a very small ES is always looked for, most times it does not pan out to be the best load. Yes, I get an SD of 3 with some loads and you are welcome to come and try to hit ANYTHING with that load! :mrgreen:
I still find it is best to find the perfect load first and not depend on numbers.
You should be the first to admit that with the wrong powder, an SD of 1, that the load is not a sure bet for the best accuracy.
Then what about the wrong boolit with an SD of zero and an ES of zero, is it going to be accurate?
To just search for accuracy by reading the chrono when a lot of other stuff is still wrong will not correct anything. All it will do is make you look for smaller numbers. I never wrote down the SD, ES or anything else for my best 45-70 load that shoots sub 1" groups at 100 yards. I only kept the velocity. Because it does not matter. I remember The SD was a little high and I won't let you tell me it is too high for accuracy! [smilie=1:

[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! :Fire:
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! :drinks:

[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! :confused:

[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! :confused:

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. :drinks:


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..[smilie=1:


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..[smilie=1:

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[smilie=1:. Healthy discussions are only a bad thing when done by politicians, oops oxymoron time. :)

[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..[smilie=1:

That they do:wink:


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! [smilie=1:

[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...............:drinks:

[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. :Fire:
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...............:drinks:

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! :roll: 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. :Fire:
I believe in the paperwork reduction act! :drinks:

[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! :drinks:

[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......