Hi guys, Just been watching from the sidelines since the demise of the old Shooters.com but wanted to get into the discussion here on lubes.  Lots of good observations about hard vs. soft lubes and wanted to report some of what I've observed since joining this game about 4 years ago, all in the BPCR games. (Wish I had time for schuetzen.)  Horsefly and others have reported seeing lube splatters on sky screens and paper at various distances.  This summer while working on load improvement for my 45-90 at 200 yds, I had a nice group going to the side of a black bull and all of a sudden, the proverbial flyer about 4" to the right in the black.  When I got to the target, it wasn't a bullet hole at all but a large half moon smear of lube.  This is at 200 yds!!!  I would describe my lube as soft but sticky because of the addition of annhydrous lanolin.  The bullet was still in the group but the question comes up; would the lube coming off at this distance affect downrange accuracy.  Why was the lube still on the bullet in the first place ???  Should we go to bullets with many mini-grooves?  I use the 45-90 solely for the long range shoots here in the midwest at Lodi, Harris and Ackley.  I always felt that my lube has done well for me as I get no leading and has always managed to keep my fouling soft.  That is until the midsummer Harris shoot.  I got terrible fouling at that shoot and I wouldn't call the conditions too hot or dry.  But I had changed 2 things in my load.  I dropped my .060 LDPE wad for a .030 fibre wad and 3 grains more of 1.5 Swiss.  I felt this load was more accurate than my previous but it produced very hard fouling about 4-5" in front of the chamber.  Could the change of a wad and 3 grains of powder cause an unbalanced load even though it was more accurate ???  Is that what caused the fouling??  I definitley use the blowtube more as the barrel heats up.  I also have a friend that shot White lightning lube at Lodi and his load has exposed lube grooves.  I advised him to hold a condition for a wind shift and he opened his action to retrieve the cartridge and the lube had melted out of the lube grooves after only being in the chamber about 10 seconds.  What does that do to accuracy?   So much to ponder while waiting til April.      R. Saathoff

My experience with both BPCR and LRML has clearly shown to me that LDPE wads are superior as I use them. I have seen evidence of fiber wads (and scraped lube) on 200 yd targets regularly with fiber, but never with LDPE. Maybe I don't clean the base of my bullets well enough or something.

I do think that the LDPE wads do seal better. Using 'hard' (30-1) grease groove bullets for LRML at 1000 yds the change to LDPE moved me from not able to hit a 6'x6' target at 1000 yds to scoring in the 80's with no other change.

Works for me.

Gene 4060:  I plan on going back to the load using less powder and the LDPE wad this spring.  I felt the load with the fibre wad was a little more accurate but had not fired an 18-20 shot string with them and the fouling raised its ugly head as the barrel got hot.  I've not tried wiping between shots and don't think I want to start yet.  I'm going to continue trying to manage fouling with lube and a balanced load.

Feather:  Too bad you feel the way you do about LDPE wads.  I'll continue using them as long as rules allow.  As far as comparing it to a gas check, What defines a gas check???  What it's made out of? Modern materials? How well it seals the bore?  Is it a scraper?   Too me, the fibre wad is made out of modern gasket material and is just another thing to try to improve accuracy.  As far as melting points, I understand them completely.  I believe some of the original discussion was on how lube gets on the barrel walls and how quickley it leaves the bullet.  As iowa pointed out, he believes a lot of lube goes down range with the bullet.  The amount of lube on my target was about half of what's in one lube groove.  In fact it looked half-moon shaped and stripped from the bullet just before it got to the target.  This makes me think that a bullet is shedding lube indiscriminately for quite a distance as it travels down range.  So!!  Should we use lubes with low melting points (which usually makes them softer) as they probably liquify and are shed much more quickly or are the forces keeping a bullet on its course great enough that lube being flung off is nothing to worry about?  Obviously, my lube is not leaving the bullet as it should or staying on the bullet until it reaches the target.

Pete and Old-Win,

What makes LDPE different from other wad material is that it has memory, elasticity and resiliency.  The purpose of a gas check is to prevent burning gases from damaging the bullet base and prevent gas cutting that can lead to leading.

An LDPE wafer that is slightly larger than the groove diameter absolutely prevents those two conditions.  When it is squeezed down to fill the grooves, it has the memory to become larger again.  If a portion of the outer edge becomes damaged by the rifling, it has the elasticity and resiliency to fill any small void that might develop on the outer surface and the memory causes it to do just that.  I know of no other wad material that has those properties.  At one time the Silhouette Committee agreed with me until the vocal protests from the people using them to get increased accuracy caused them to change their mind.

Why do you think so many shooters see improvement in their groups when they switch to LDPE?  It's because it functions exactly like the gas check that it is.  You may argue that because it is not attached to the bullet it is not a gas check.  If I put a bronze wafer behind a bullet is it a wad or a gas check?  With your thinking it would be a wad but I'm confident the NRA and all match directors would call it a gas check, even though it isn't attached to the bullet.

feather

feather,

  You bring up very good points, none of which I can really argue with. But, there are some points you are overlooking.

  Looking up some fuel for the fire  there was only one source I could find that described what a gas check was. Interesting. Everybody seems to know what a gas check is, so guess it's one of those generic terms it's expected that you will know. Lyman's 46th Reloading manual was the only quick description I could find, and here's what they say.

  Gas Checks:  A gilding metal cup which is used to protect the base of a cast lead alloy bulllet from the effects of burning powder gases.

  Lets take that apart. An LDPE wad definitely isn't a metal cup. But, it does protect the base of a Leads bullet from the powder gases.

  Now it has always been my impression that all the wads we use, of various materials, does exactly the same thing. So..... Are they gas checks to? Would seem so, and if it's the case then they should be outlawed to. From what I can see your objection to the LDPE material is that it protects the bullet base better than the other materials.

  So, lets look at this "better" a little closer. Isn't "better" what we look for when we get a new mould to try out? Better BC, better velocity retention over long distances, etc. Isn't "better" what we look for when testing different alloys and lubes? Isn't "better" why we try different powder brands? To find the most efficient, cleanest burning, and most accurate?

  The list goes on and on. But the whole idea is we are constantly trying..... within the rules... to find a better way of getting the best we can out of our rifles. To reject a material that doesn't meet the definition of gas check just because it does a better job than any other material just puts us on a slippery slope.

  If we reject the LDPE wad, because it is more efficient than other materials that do the same job within the rules, then we can also make the case for outlawing the currently used .40/65, the .32 Miller short, and several other calibers because they are more efficient than others. The .40/65 especially comes to mind. It only resembles in name only it's original description as to bore size, twist rate, and bullet wgt.s used. But, it's a more efficient cartridge now. Same for the ,45/70, the .38/55, the .32/40, and many others. All have been changed from their original spec.'s to one extent or another yet I don't see anyone wanting to outlaw them. Why not? The same reasoning can be used for them as for the LDPE wad.

PETE

Pete,

I learned a long time ago that I will never convince anyone who wants to use LDPE as a wad that they are a gas check.  I also have an Ideal Handbook.  It is No. 34 published in 1942 and it explains why Mr. John Barlow created the gas-check cup.  It was to permit higher velocities using smokeless powder while preventing burning gases from burning or fusing the base of the lead bullet thereby destroying accuracy.  If they had LDPE back when the gas-check cup was developed, we probably wouldn't have a gas-check cup today.

If you hold to the premise that only a guilded metal cup is a gas check, then you are correct.  LDPE would not be a gas check.  If you look at how the material performs, it does everything a gas check does and more because of its properties.  None of the other wad materials being used today have the properties of LDPE.  Please note that Lyman refered to their device as a gas-check cup which I translate to mean a cup designed to check burning gases.  Rule 3.4 (e) states, "NO GAS CHECKED BULLETS".  Is that the same as no bullets having gas-check cups?

Now, if only a guilded metal cup is a gas check, does that mean I can order .458 sawging dies from Corbin with their Base-Guard die to attach metal washers to the base of the bullet and use them for silhouette competitions?  Granted, the washers are attached to the base of the bullet, but they aren't a cup.  That would eliminate the need for lube, wiping or blow tubing between shots and there would be no leading.  I'd call in my order on Monday but I'm certain the NRA would never allow it.  On the other hand, if we  could get 100 shooters to do it, they probably would allow it.

I know that nothing I could say will change your mind because you want to use LDPE.  That's fine.  It's your choice.  I'll live with mine.  I have no desire to argue the issue.

feather

feather,

  Well, actually I don't use LDPE wads.  Like Froggie I've tried tham and find they don't give me any added accuracy over veggie or milk carton wads. The latter I punch out myself. On some loads I will use a veggie wad as I need the added thickness to act as a filler in order to get the compression I need.

  What I was doing with my messages was showing the other side of the coin and possibly why the NRA, ASSRA, WSU, & ISSA don't outlaw them.

  Just like on the chronograph thread.... I'm not trying to change your mind as you seem pretty well set on the idea they constitute a gas check. But, there might be others on here who would like to see both sides of the story and then make up their own minds. I've think we've done that and can let it lay.

PETE

Mike:  The bullet is a PJ Creedmoor weighing 536 gr in 25-1.  It is a 3 groove bullet that I had cut with a wider front driving band so that no lube grooves are exposed when seated just short of the lands.  This bullet has been very accurate out to a 1000 yds with no sign of tipping.  The 3 groove design is what has me concerned though because the mass in one groove has to be more than in the typical 4 groove bullet.  I had always thought that the lube would be gone in the 1st few yards but that observation showed me that this was not the case.  I am thinking of a similar bullet with 5 or 6 shallow lube grooves but with black powder, we have the fouling to contend with.  I hope to get some information here that will help in a decision before I get another mould cut.  But then with all the forces acting on a bullet as it goes down range, lube slinging off may not even be an issue.  How does one test for something like that?  Ooorrrrr!! Maybe the search for the Holy Grail will be found.  The perfect lube that prevents no leading, is used up in 32" and reduces blackpowder fouling to nothing.