gear if you want "tack" why not do what we do add in a long chain Poly butene commonly called Partac, this is what impats the tack to way lubes and chaqin bar oils.
normal trat is about .5-1.0%wt.
Printable View
gear if you want "tack" why not do what we do add in a long chain Poly butene commonly called Partac, this is what impats the tack to way lubes and chaqin bar oils.
normal trat is about .5-1.0%wt.
that would certainly work.
i'm sure the lube has no tackyness whatsoever.
Actually it has quite a bit of tack, it's the smooth "smearability" that's a bit lacking unless the right vaseline component is used. Long-chain hydrocarbons seem to do the trick, ones in the 22+ molecule range. The sticky, stringy effect of Lucas oil stabilizer and chainsaw bar oil is exactly what I'm looking for. The Fluidmaster toilet rings have that sticky, stringy quality, but Bol Wax doesn't.
The reason for wanting the long-chain polymers is that it adds a great deal of film strength to the lube, as I've compared this with my wear tester. I know the polymers aren't shear-stable, but they only have to last one trip down the barrel.
Gear
boy my spelling sucks I will send some to you, run do want some too?
i too have been using the lucas oil additive as a tackifyer/plasticizer.
bruce would the hto wax supply the long chain needed?
hmm lucas red and tacky?????
for a smother tacky feel the HTO will not work not same thing that imparts tack and smoothness.
no i don't need any,, thanks though.
Bruce, mix a few drops of that stuff with some of that soft microwax you have and see how much it improves the "string" of it, take a blob between thumb and index finger and pull them apart, see how far it can go before the string parts.
Gear
anyone reading this i'll splain the tack.
it does help the lube stay in the groove,but more importantly it helps pull the lube out of the groove all at once.
now too much tackyness will try to do both at once.
like everything else there's a balance.
you need a glide to the lube but too much causes accuracy problems.
you need a body to the lube but too much causes it to not lube.
likewise a softness too soft and it won't resist the forces acting on it when it makes the jump from the case.
You get it.
There is a very delicate balance of ingredients to get the right "tack". It needs to be more like that non-sticky, stringy putty used for cleaning keyboards than any sort of "adhesive" stringy. If it sticks to your fingers much, it's too sticky. If it breaks into chunks when you pull it apart, it isn't stringy enough. It needs to be more cohesive and less adhesive.
With the soap lube I'm finding as little as 5% variation in the vaseline percentage will push the consistency too far either way.
Gear
too late you are both getting some UPS, when used in grease it makes the grease smoother more candy taffy like.
:lol: thanks bruce
i'll surely give it a try.
it might offset the extra "bit" of sulpher oil i [ummm] used [too much of [rolling my eyes here] in an E-yellow modification.
Hot dang, Bruce! Thanks!
One really great thing about Joe's soap lube is that there are three fairly constant ingredients whose exact makeup doesn't seem to be extremely critical, and one that IS, so only really one variable to tweak. The object here is to build a better Vaseline, but it's easy to see what's needed both by looking at the targets and feeling the lube.
Gear
i know they changed vaseline a few years back but for the life of me i cannot remember exactly what was changed.
it went from that light brown color to the light whitish color.
i have a suspicion it was when they started hydro-cracking the oils for more petroleum production.
it may have lowered the temperature used.
which would have made the older vaseline more like alox. [yeah i said it alox,alox,alox]
it might be the mod you need and a small [5] percentage might just be all thats needed with the white version.
I love it when you guys descend from the heavens and break out the plain English for us relative newbies. :veryconfu
I'm guessing that this may be part of why this has turned into such a monumental task. The variables that immediately occur to me are:
1. Twist rate: How much rotational force is a particular firearm placing on a lube to blow it out of the grooves? This of course is in the same camp as. . .
2. Muzzle velocity: More speed = more spin = more centrifuging.
3. Shape and depth of lube grooves: Is a lube going to fling easier out of a square-bottomed Keith groove? How does total mass of lube play into this? Are small grooves going to be harder to clear than big ones or vice versa?
4. Jettison qualities based on temperature: Flingable hot may not be flingable cold.
5. Engraving of the lube grooves by rifling: This one just occurred to me as I was typing this out, so may just be idle theory . . .As a bullet compresses into the lands and grooves, some of the lead has to be dragged back into the lube grooves, possibly forming a little spur at each land - or maybe even a full diameter ring around the entire slug - that might work to hold lube in and prevent even separation. This might suggest some superiority to Elmer's big lube groove concept - more lube mass at the back to help pull out the "stuck" bits at the front.
So what's going to jettison from a 600fps, 1-16" twist wadcutter pistol bullet as easily as a 2500 fps, 1-10" .30-06?
the rpm's [gawd i hate even typing that] on a 16 twist at 6-700 is still over 50,000 rpm.
and the 0-6 at 2500 is in the 190k range off the top of my head.
flinging force is enough either way.
even flinging is essential.
and a softer lube will fling off much more readily,no matter the lube groove shape.
here's where the balance and the tack matters,the tackyness is also going to affect friction.
build up in the form of heat,and residue left behind in the bbl.
maintaining enough lube viscosity at both ends is what we really are working on.
so far i have done quite well from the 30's to about 95.
over that and i have had oil control issues, and i have not had cold enough temps to try the new lubes below the mid 30's just yet.
generally tackyness/glide/oils aren't affected by temp [within limits] but [big but]
the carriers and how they release oils [from the boolit and from the bbl] are affected by temperature swings.
we have been working on reducing the carriers or making them a lube ingredient as much as possible.
we are trying to look at as many new possibilities as far as ingredients go as we can.
and remembering that not everybody has access to some uncommon ingredients makes it a bit harder.
OK. . .this one's maybe a little out in left field, and is more related to mold design than what you guys are working on, but it links with this idea of lube separation, so here goes:
Fryxell's chapter on lube, what it does, and how it moves around while in the barrel was a big eye opener for me. The goal (it would seem) is to come up with ways to steadily force the lube out of the grooves and against the bore. Historically this has been done by a combination of forward compression / obturation by the powder charge, squeezing by the rifling, and growing centrifugal force as the slug accelerates down the bore.
I'm thinking that there's another force at work we could use, and that's the rotational acceleration of the boolit. I figure that since the boolit is tightly gripped by the rifling, and the lube is essentially a wad of loose slush on the surface, the boolit might rotate and the lube will want to remain stationary.
So what if you crafted your boolit mold to have little peaks in the lube groove? If you sawed the base of the boolit off at the groove, you'd be looking at something like this:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - except of course in a circle. I'm envisioning this as a relatively deep groove with the peaks extending maybe halfway up from the groove's "floor".
The idea would be that since the lube isn't picking up rotational acceleration as fast as the boolit, the peaks would shove the lube outward into the bore. This extra pumping mechanism would not only improve the lube seal around the boolit, but it would seriously disrupt the lube contact with the bottom of the groove. By the time the boolit makes it to the muzzle, there would be very little surface tension holding the lube in place, and it would tear free much more easily in flight.
Thoughts?
Good idea. Machining would require multiple additional steps, like employing EDM/laser cutting the lube-ring areas into circumferential peaky waves. Costly. However, that being discussed about the lube quality, tacky versus stringy, fits into the equation the very same way. ... felix
or to test the theory.
a square bottomed lube groove could have a canellure tool run in it.
i didn't even think about the channeled affect when i cut canellure grooves in some slick sided swaged boolits as lube grooves.
i was amazed at how small of an amount of lube can be used in a 24" bbl with about 35-k behind it.
I'd thought of a CB with pockets instead of lube grooves, but couldn't figure how to get it out of the mold. Like half round BB pockets that would increase the CB bearing surface and strength. Yes, the rifling 'tears' could cut into the lube 'ring' but won't stop the lube from 'circulating' around the CB - it doesn't 'circulate', just pushes outward. They may cause the harder lube ring to separate in defined 'size' chunks, which should be good.