This thread is an outgrowth of discussions on the chicken bullet thread and the lubricity thread.

Let me start by saying that I think centrifical force deposits the lube on the surfaces of the rifling as the bullet travels down the barrel.  In an earlier post I made the statment that the bullet base band and any wad would remove any EXCESS lube from the barrel.  I want to make it clear that I don't believe that they remove all the lube.

Horsefly made the staement that the lube deposits fat on the rifling surfaces and a soap is formed when the alkaline powder residue is combined with the fat.  I agree wholeheartedly with that theory.  So why the question of soft lubes verses hard lubes with black powder?

I've been shooting soft lubes for quite a few years and never considered a hard lube for black powder.  I became aware of the fact the government lubricated their 45-70 cartridges with straight Japan wax back in the ninteenth century.  Since all the lubes in use today are formulations of several different substances, my curiosity was piqued concerning Japan wax.

While researching the subject on the Internet one day I encountered a paper that stated Japan wax reacted differently from other waxes.  This paper claimed that under a microscope and with pressere, fat particles within the Japan wax would migrate to the outer edges of the wax.  Unfortunately, I didn't make a copy of that paper nor did I record its location.  I can't say if it is true or not.

I've since learned that Japan wax is not a wax at all.  It is a fatty glycerine with  a very high melting temperature and therefore it is classed as a wax.  It is usually mentioned with Bayberry wax and the governmeent also lubed bullets with that wax as well (according to horsefly).  Both waxes are very hard.

If the paper was correct about the fat particles migrating to the outer edges under pressure, then that would explain how the Japan wax worked.  The fat particles in the Japan wax would be deposited on the rifling and the powder residue behind the bullet would attach to the fat and form soap.

The advantage of such a wax would be the elimination of any process to combine additional ingredients with the wax and an unadulterated consistency.

If a hard wax was good enough for the government back then why shouldn't we give it a try today?  What did they know that we don't?  I'm looking for input and opinions.

feather

feather,

  Ok..... Your point is well taken, and it looks like your research says it should work.

  The one thing you haven't mentioned is what "hard" lube are you using? If it's Japan Wax then........

  The big question is where do you get Japan Wax? I haven't done any research on it, but don't recall seeing anything listing where you can get it on any of the Forums. You can get Bayberry Wax from candle shops, etc, but it seems like they want $4 an oz. for the stuff. If that's the case with Japan Wax I'll stick with SPG.

PETE

Feather and Horsefly:  Help me out here.  Re: hard or soft lubes.  As a side light, I'm wondering about "carnuba wax" I can't seem to find much on it, but I think I recall seeing it substituted for Japan wax in somebody or others old formula.  Would it have similar properties?    Thats not the real question though. Here goes and I hope you can follow this::    If the bullet lays down a thin coating of lube in the bore which I agree it does, what happens with, and what is going to work better as the bullet exits the muzzle?  I'm thinking that there is still quite a bit of lube left on the bullet. I know people say the lube should all be used up in the bore, but I don't believe that, and don't think it happens.   I've seen lube  evidensed on the the chronograph 10 feet downrange, not once but almost every time, and this is with various commercial hard and soft lubes, SPG, Rooster BP-7, Black Magic, Lyman gold, etc and some various  type home mixes. So as the excess lube is slinging off, which is going to come off quicker, hard or soft, and I guess it has alot to do with how "stickey" the lube is or how hot or liquified the lube is.  No doubt using a "stickey" base of what ever percentage of beeswax as in many mixes do may add to this problem. At least I think this is a problem.  I guess what concerns me is that if upon exit, the bullet is slinging lube and some of it does not come off, or comes off rather slow, or sticks in one side or the other of the bullet grooves; and that since the first 200 yds or so the wind has the biggest effect on the bullet,  a bullet slinging lube would not be as consitently stable, from shot to shot as masybe it could be with a "better" "improved" lube. This first wind effect, on a lube slinging less stable, down right rat trap un-American, no fun bullet,  has certainly  got to have some detrimental effect on where the bullet lands from shot to shot especially at the longer distances ram line to 1000yds.  If you can follow this, how do we make the lube to do its job, get it to come out of the bullet grooves, I guess as fast and completely as possible.  Is this a har or soft thing or more of a ingredient thing.  If so what do we do here.     Best regards steve witt

feather,

re: rotational velocity.

  Yes rotational velocity is lost as the bullet travels down range. This is the cause of a stable bullet starting to tumble. According to what I recall Dick Gunn saying this slowing down is quite a bit less than forward velocity. Again, if I recall right it's due to less air resistance being exerted on the sides than on the nose.

  lube loss:

  As you and Steve mention with soft lubes there is quite a bit of splatter on my chronograph to, and is why I made a "blast" shield to keep as much off as possible.

  But, I have also noticed this splatter on targets at 100 yds. with soft lube such as SPG and Javelina. Not a lot, nor all the time, but enuf to suggest it's not all leaving the bullet as it immediately exits the muzzle. This is especially evident when shooting pistol at 50 ft. indoors, or outdoors at 25 & 50 yds. Just about every target will have some on it.

  If this affects accuracy tho I'm not sure, but maybe we could get more acuracy in Schuetzen if it does.

  The CBA shooters seem to gravitate to hard lubes and they are shooting smaller groups than we are. But, they also use a lot harder bullets and a lot more MV than we do to, so which is the contributing factor to their accuracy?

PETE

  Here's a question I've been thinking about for the last few days. Not particullarly about hard or soft lubes, but......

  Why do we feel we need as much lube as we're using?

  Schuetzen is quite similar to CBA competition and most of them shoot bullets with only one or two lube grooves. Yet most of us persist in using bullets with 4 or 5 lube grooves. One of the bullets I use is NEI #20 from which I had the gas check shank expanded out. It only has 1 lube groove and does very well, altho I wont say it better than another old Ideal bullet with 5 lube grooves. Then we have the Lyman 311334 I use in my Springfield. It only has one lube groove, plsu a little in front of the gas check. On a good day and with a little luck, it will keep them them all in or touching the X ring on the 100 yd. Small Bore Rifle Target with the #6 aperture on the rear sight staff.

  Now, I can see where we'd need all the lube we can get when shooting BP, dirty. Some on other Forums even feel that a good sized lube cookie is needed. But why do we need all that lube if we're wiping out between shots?

  To tie this in with the possibility of a loss of accuracy caused by an unbalanced bullet as it sheds it's lube over varying distances. It's pretty well known that as a bullet changes from center of form to center of gravity on exiting the muzzle that it takes X number of feet to stabilize. A cross wind seems to have more effect on the bullet during this transition period than further down the line when it's "gone to sleep". With less lube wouldn't there be less effect and a quicker stabilization?

PETE

Well, there are people shooting monogroove and grooveless bullets with BP, so there may be some truth to the 'too much lube' issue... - to which I am also guilty, I presume.  But a point I have seen raised, and which seems very valid indeed, is that the amount of lube itself is not important.  Rather, the amount in contact with the bore is...  Meaning that theoretically shallow, large grease grooves should work better than small, deep ones.  Personally I do believe that there is some merit to it -after all, all lube thrown off the bullet after leaving the muzzle is excess lube, which could cause stabilisation problems as already mentioned.  Just to stir the pot a bit more...

Hi Martini,

Last year I purchased a Corbin Knurling Tool to knurl smooth sided paper patch bullets up to groove diameter.  I haven't had time to play with it yet but a friend of mine wanted to try some bullets to see what they would do.

He knurled bullets that were 0.452" diameter up to 0.458" diameter.  He then ran them through a lubrisizer with a 0.460" diameter sizing die to lubricate them only.  All the little diamonds were filled with lube and they looked very nice.  The only report that I got back from him was that the accuracy was terrible and it took him a long time to get the lead out of the barrel.  This was with a lube that on its worst day only rarely gave him small flecks of lead in the barrel after shooting.  Perhaps his results are the real reason why I haven't gotten around to working with the knurling tool yet.

Pete,

I have to agree that longer barrels are a consideration regarding the amount of lube required.  I also agree that we should test the amount of lube as well as the hardness when we make the comparisons.  Testing at this time of year can be a bit of a problem.

feather

I don't know a fraction of what there is to be known on this subject. I have some thoughts resulting this thread however. (1) Jim is correct about the gov'ts use of hard lubes. Make it hard or in haot weather you won't have any left when you need it!. (2) I personally believe,from my reading, that in general today we get better consistent accuracy with BP than 19th century shooters did. (3) Hard lube, soft lube, too much, too little? All that matters is how does your load group  and does your lube keep the BP fouling soft enough for shooting dirty.      

Old-Win,

  I can't say I've ever seen lube splatter at 200 yds., but sure don't dispute you have. I haven't really checked but was planning on doing so next Spring. As to it affecting accuracy at that range, I really don't know for sure. All I could say would be for you to try less lube, or a different one, and see what happens. Right now I don't think there's much info that can actually say what the best answer is as to whether your accuracy is being affected. But does get you to wondering, doesn't it?.

  On changing wads...... It could very well be that going from the LDPE wad to a fiber wad is the problem. Altho I only shoot smokeless in my 8.15x46R I've found I had to put in a LDPE wad, because with a milk carton wad the slightly rough bore would foul out at unexpected times. This load without the LDPE was very accurate at 200 yds. but when it decided to foul out you couldn't hit the whole target. With the LDPE I can shoot indefinitely with no loss of accuracy. So, might be the LDPE was doing a better job of scraping the bore out. The slight addition of powder would also contribute to a bit more fouling.

PETE

Old-Win,

I think your tale of finding a bullet in the group and a lube mark outside the group at 200 yards is very interesting.  I can't offer an explanation yet because I need more time to think about it.  Of course any answer I give you would only be speculation.

As for LDPE, let's call it what it really is.  It isn't a wad at all.  It's a gas check that isn't attached to the bullet and if the NRA had any backbone they would ban it from BPCR Silhouette.  The rules say NO GAS CHECKS.  I refuse to use them.  I may never win a match but I don't have any problem looking at myself in the mirror.

As for the lube melting in the chamber, melting temperature not hardness or softness determines whether or not the lube will melt out of the grooves.  There is a very simple way to determine the melting temperature of any lube.

You need two similar material pots of different size, a candy thermometer and a hunk of lube with a fairly flat surface.  Put enough cold water into the larger pot to hold the smaller pot sort of level.  Insert the candy thermometer into the water between the two pots.  Place the lube into the smaller pot with the flat surface on the bottom.  Slowly apply heat to the pans and as the water warms, check the bottom of the lube by lifting it out of the pot.  When the lube begins to sweat, that is the melting point.  Record the temperature on the candy thermometer and you have the melting temperature of the lube.  You may be surprised at how low some of the melting temperatures are with the various lubes.

feather

feather,

I guess I don't see where you're coming from when you say an LDPE wad is a gas check. Care to explain?

  To me a gas check is something that is crimped onto the base of a bullet. Usually, but not limited to, a copper cup shape. I don't see that with an LDPE wad.

  Neither the ASSRA or the WSU..... and probably the ISSA to..... don't allow gas checks, but as far as I know they don't classify an LDPE wad as one.

  My personal opinion then, if I thought as you do, would be that anything that protects the base of a bullet could be considered a gas check, which would include a veggie, milk carton wad or some kind of filler to. Actually anything between the powder and the base of the bullet.

  The only difference between the above and an LDPE wad is that the LDPE just does a better job of protecting the base of the bullet.

PETE

I have found any lube that don't go "BANG SQUEECK" is a good one.

Feather:  Wish you would rethink your position on LDPE wads but seems as though your mind is made up because you feel that they are too superior to more traditional materials.  I found that LDPE wads actually doubled the size of my groups in my 40-70 SS and are marginally worse in the 45-90.  I don't think they work as a scraper but seal the bore and create a better burn in the large capacity cases thus reducing fouling in this manner.  Some shooters get their best groups with a simple wax paper wad so how can you discriminate against one material over another?  But enough about that.  I'm still interested in your thoughts on hard lubes so am going to start a new thread on lubes and lube grooves.

I find myself drawn to this argument, not by dint of actual experience with any of the following, but from a historical perspective.  In reading Roberts and others, I find repeated mention (and may I say lament at the current inavailability) of the old Leopould Oleo Wad made around the turn of the century, and of the IPCO wad made of wax and powdered graphite.  Both of these are historical and were rather widely used by the shooters of the time we consider our inspiration (at least for schuetzen if not for the buffalo hunting days.)  The LDPE wad, which I have used for only a couple of dozen shots in one of my .32-40s did NOTHING  for me, but I have seen wads cut from the exact same piece of stock do wonders for another shooter's performance.   

I find it fair and logical then to make the LDPE available to those who want it, and for those who don't...just don't use it.  BTW, Pope was said to use old felt hats and post cards to make his wads, soaking the felt in bullet lube.  Should we limit ourselves to 19th century Fedoras and post cards that were delivered prior to WW I?  That WOULD be authentic, I guess!    

The ASSRA rulebook says specifically that wads must be non-metallic and non-asbestos, but other than that, any material for a WAD that is placed behind the bullet but not attached to it would seem to be acceptable.  JMHO, YMMV.   8)

Yours for historical shooting enjoyment,
the Azure Amphibian

Old-Win,
It is incredible that a chunk of lube could hang onto a grease groove for two hundred yards.  But on the other hand, if it did the transition to subsonic velocity may have knocked it loose.  Otherwise, I'm thinking that the velocity is getting slower and the rotational speed is also somewhat reduced, so why would the lube leave the gg at that point?  Were the bullets hitting the target without yaw?  Could the lube have been on a wad that was stuck to the bullet base?  I'm going to start taking my camera with me to the range, just in case something interesting like that happens to me.
Keep on hav'n fun!

Old-Win:   Hi Bob, glad you joined in this discussion.  You have raised some very interesting issues, at least for me.  Talking about hard fowling 4-5" in front of the chamber, you ask if the wad cange and addition of 3 gr swiss could make a unbalanced load.  I have seen this hard fowling on several occassions myself while developing loads.  In almost every case its where I have increased powder charge. Using Swiss, every time I go from 85-86 grains up to 88-89 grains I seem to get more and harder fowling near the chamber.  I do not think it is wad related.  I think its more a compression related issue.   In your example of changing wad thickness and adding powder I believe you actually increased compression an additional .030 overall.  You don't mention how much compression you have with the old load, but if its say .300 then the 10% could/might be significant.  If its .100 compression and you add .030 that's real significant...33%   Every time I drop back to the 85-86gr load the hard fowling goes away.  I guess for whatever reason this is a more ballanced load (what ever that is) for me.   If I were you I'd  just try a .030 LDPE wad in that same load just to prove to yourself its not really the wad.  Then I'd shoot the old and new load side by side and compare the fowling.  As for accuracy, I'd take the one with the less fowling period.  No matter how much you blow tube, I don't think you can keep up with it once it gets away form you.     Next your lube smear at 200yds is interesting.  I am of the opinion that if lube is sticking and flinging off the bullet in the first 200 +yds, then we probally need to change the lube.  I think slinging lube can and does cause or adds to the problem of unstable bullets and wind deflection.  I think this becomes most critical when we are shooting Creedmoor distance targets, as it does'nt take much to open the MOA up  at that distance, and the first 200 yds or so is darn critical..   You mention the bullet hit was still in the "group", but if you don't know exactly where I';d assume it was one of the outside edge shots of the group.  You don't state your group size but you could extrapolate from center group, the worst case shot, and then apply this to what would that shot have been moved at 1000 yds.  I love those 6's at Lodi, cause its still a hit, but I hate those 6"s when it could have been a 10.    Now re: your shooting partner, who's lube melted off in the chamber.  I've observed this condition also with at least three commercial products and several home brew products, when the barrel was very hot and/or when the outside temp was quite high.  I've tested several lubes  to see how fast they glisten up and start to melt, just sitting in the hot summer sun.  Its amazing how fast they actually start to puddle. So which is better one that melts fast and liquifies quickly, and surly slings off the bullet much faster outside the muzzel or one like maybe your lube, which some portion is off and some portion is on the bullet?   Obviously we need fairly high melt point, soft and not sticky ingredieants.  Along with this I still believe that the ingredieants in and of them selves have to be such that they actually provide a lubricity factor. And  then again the keeping the fowling soft aspect with the induction of moisture with the tube I'll call it the "soap" factor.   Sounds like a monumental task the holy Grail if you will, but I believe bottom line there are a combinataion of "modern" synthetic products when properly combined that can accomplish at least most of this.  This is the direction I'm headed for lube.  Now just a comment for Feather.  As long as the rules are observed as in LDPE wads or synthetic lubes, or driving to the range in your new truck, you are limiting the development areas for your shooting with the strictly traditional approach. PS how long does it take you to get to the range on the horse?   Its great for you and I applaud it.  I'm just trying to get past the horse and wagon.   Bob as you said so much to ponder!!!!   Best regards steve witt

  Bob,

  I'm not your man but maybe a math whiz on here could tell you what amount of lube you would have with different types of lube grooves and then you would be able to go from there. It would seem to me that all you would need is the width, depth, and outer circumference of the bullet and the volume could be figured out.

  Possibly even the mould maker could figure this for you since they have to be able to take a drawing, or whatever, of what you want and figure out what the diam. will be out of the alloy you want to use.

PETE

Old-Win,
Something to think about, when you talk of smaller grease grooves.  If your luble hangs onto the grease grooves in your current bullet, would it not be able to hang onto a narrower groove even better?  Maybe wider grooves would get rid of the lube quicker.
Keep on hav'n fun!

Steve:  You're probably right on the lube grooves, but it's something that might be worth trying in a new bullet mould.  Like I really need another one.   On a serious note, do you stop and wipe periodically during a long range match and then pre-condition with ballistol for the next shot or two or do you shoot your entire string without wiping?  I've only attended one Lodi match but plan on making it a bi-annual event if I can.  I need to know every secret you guys are using so the gap between us doesn't get any bigger. 8) There were some fantastic scores shot at the spring match but heard the weather took its toll this fall.

Old-Win & Steve,

  Personally I think if you want the lube to come off the bullet on exit you'll have to go to a very hard lube that is only held on the bullet by it's being a band around it and not really adhering to tightly. Considering the rotational force imparted to the bullet it seems any relatively soft lube wouldn't stay on the bullet either. Yet some residue seems to. Thus our seeing it on targets at varying ranges.

  I believe it's centrifigal force that mainly applies the lube to the bore, so the hardness of the lube wouldn't make any difference as long as it did it's job. Something on the hardness of a crayon comes to mind.

  This might be what feather is trying out as he mentions having to use a heat source to apply his lube.

  I would also doubt whether there is enuf lube applied to really soften the fouling, so all the lube would have to do is prevent Leading.

  I wonder tho about any stability factors coming into question. I could see this if we were talking smoothbores but the main job of rifling is to provide the spin that evens out any internal imperfections by rotating them fast enuf they balance themselves out. Of course to much off wgt. balance would throw the bullet off. But, as Mann showed you can pretty well ding a nose up, which would throw it off balance, and not lose accuracy. At least at the distances he did his testing at.

  But, if you take into account what Steve said about his thinking how much lube stayed on the bullet it's a very small percentage of the bullets wgt. (considering a 525 gr. bullet) Many Shilouette shooters are using bullet wgt. variations of 2 or 3 grs., and I've read where 5 grs. is not uncommon, so it would seem that the small amount of lube left would not add appreciably to the problem even if most of the lube stayed on. In fact this would very probably be lost in the "soup" of other conditions.

  Are we tilting at windmills here?

PETE

Feather:  Very interesting point.  I never thought about the target backer.  It is 1/2" plywood.  It maybe possible that when the bullet impacts something that hard that the lube would fly out. I'm thinking if that is the case though that I would see it more often and around the bullet hole in several directions.

Pete:  I probably am looking at this whole issue too much and alluded to such in my initial post.  The lube slinging may not even be an issue because of the rotational forces on the bullet.  I've been wondering about it though and trying to relate it to Schuetzen accuracy.  It seems as though when bore diameters get above .38 cal, the accuracy drops off.  I'm sure that a lot of it is due to the special built purpose of  Schuetzen rifles and shooting them from extremely solid rests and even recoil that the shooter is thinking about when he pulls the trigger.  I'm sure you have lots more ideas why accuracy drops off.  But an inch at a 100yds is ten at a 1000.   Also, an unstable bullet at those distances doesn't lead to many 10's.  Have a good day.  Bob

Pete: I think your estimate that "many" silhouette shooters shoot bullets of 2-3 grain variation and that its not uncommon to shoot 5 grain variation bullets is not to my way of thinking.  I don't have any idea the norm for bullet weight variation for Schutzen, but I'd guess very few would should matches with this kind of variation in their bullets.   For me anyway the most I'll go to a match with is + or - .5 gr, and thats probally too much, especially when you get to the ram line at 500M.  Now compared to the 1000Y target the 500M is a chip shot, but in no case are you going to be very consistantly successful shooting bullets that vary as much as 2-5 grains.  I don't know if the lube hanging on the bullet is really that serious, but its just one of those things I'm going to work toward eliminating so I can sleep better at night.  Trouble is I still have not come to grips as to how to do it. 

Bob: I wish I had some of those secrets to share, the more I think I know the more it really is apparent I don't know.  Anyway you asked if re: Lodi LR if I stop and periodically wipe and then pre lube againand keep going.  No, I only prelube for the first 2 to 3 shots to keep the first shots in the group. And this even for the sighters and spotters.  Then I start the match with what I call a stablized bore (thats some consistant ammount of fowling that seems to be able to be held for 10 or so shots) from that point on I probally would be trying to control things with the blow tube the whole rest of the way. Counting sighters and spotters I can usually go 10 to 12 shots comfortably with the tube, but much past that you better be paying close attention..  If at any time it starts going away, depending on the days conditions, I usually will simply brush the the barrel up and back with a brass bristle and push out some excess fowling and then tube it and keep going. This method seems to get me back near to the "stabilized bore"  Seems to work pretty well. But as the barrel gets hotter and hotter it goes away much faster, and you may have to brush more and sooner.  At a Buffalo shoot, I don't have time to blow tube.  I shoot 5 maybe 6 shots, depending on the conditions of the day, and dry brush the bore up and back and up and back and start fireing away for 5 more shots, then do it again and again till finished with the set of 25.  Works pretty good for this type match, as the distances are not all that far and some loss of accuracy is tolerable, given the time constraints for the match.  I am of the opinion that we are being silly not to wet patch and dry the bore each shot for the LR as there is plenty of time to do it, but I just can't seem to break some old bad habits...."Ultimate Lube" is on its way, just not born yet 
Best regards steve witt    

Steve,

  My comments on what the Shilouette shooters use as a bullet wgt. spread are just what I've read on the Forums. From that reading it seems as tho 1 or 2 grs. variation is considered no big deal. If your experience with talking to other Shilouette shooters is different than that, then I stand corrected.

  You're right about Schuetzen shooters not taking this cavalier attitude toward their bullets. There are at least two schools of thoughts on what's exceptable for selecting your bullets.

  The first feel confident enuf in their casting technique that they will shoot their bullets in the order they cast them. They figure the slight differences you notice in wgt. from the start to finish of a session is addressed in this manner.

  The second method is the one I follow. After casting up a lot of bullets I will weigh them all out in one tenth grain increments. Needless to say all visually imperfect ones get tossed. When all weighed out I will establish a range of wgt.'s for that lot where 90% of the bullets fall into it and those outside this range are either thrown back in the pot or used as foulers even if they look good. The + or - I use for 525 gr. bullets, to give you an idea that you can relate to, is one grain. For the 200 gr. .32/40 the + or - is two tenths of a grain. Smaller calibers have tighter ranges.  I will then shoot this lot, in order, from lightest to heaviest. In that way there will be no group that the bullet varies more than a tenth grain. I do it this way shooting Schuetzen and did it this way when I shot the Buffalo match. 

  As you can see I can get pretty anal on what I consider a good bullet, and this carries over to everything else I do in shooting. As I tell the people I'm showing how to go about all this correctly...... "If you learn nothing else from me learn to do everything in a consistent manner." Everything means just that. Everything! This is the hardest thing to get into peoples heads.

  So, altho there are probably people who do think, and use, bullets with up to 5 grs. variation, I'll bet they aren't in the winners circle to often either. Winners sweat the details!

  Had to laugh at your comment to Bob about the more you learned the more you found out you had more to learn. So true!

PETE