Outers Foul Out II unit.
Kevin D Horn
followed the directions and after approximately 8 hours the clean light
came on. About a week later I had a gunsmith inspect the bore with a
hawkeye bore scope and he said there was still a tiny trace of copper
fouling left. Even when the Outers Foul Out unit is used properly, will
there still be minute amounts of copper fouling left?
Thanks
Kevin David Horn
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find out about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
Rec.guns supports the MPFO rifle raffle! See http://www.direct-action.org
Ken Marsh
Hi,
Kevin D Horn <kdh...@webtv.net> wrote:
#I've just used my Outers Foul Out II unit for the first time. I
#followed the directions and after approximately 8 hours the clean light
#came on.
You just made a self-contradictory statement. You said that you followed
directions, but yet you also say that you left it running for 8 hours.
Try re-reading the directions. If the light is still on after 2.5 or 3
hours, the electrolyte is exhausted and you need to change the fluid
out. Leaving it running past that time just increases the chances of
pitting the bore through electrochemical action.
If it is any consolation, the editors at American Rifleman (the NRA's
magazines) didn't read all the instructions either.
# About a week later I had a gunsmith inspect the bore with a
#hawkeye bore scope and he said there was still a tiny trace of copper
#fouling left. Even when the Outers Foul Out unit is used properly, will
#there still be minute amounts of copper fouling left?
No, when it is used properly, there is no fouling left. Try reading the
directions more carefully. After a 2.5 hour run, if it is still reading
"cleaning", stop, drain, wipe out the newly exposed powder fouling with
dry patches, refill and run it again.
Typical fouled rifles take about 2 runs to clean the first time. Old
ex-military rifles or heavily fouled overbore rifles (magnums or varmint
calibers) take about 3 runs. It is very important to remove all the gunk
between runs. (The gunk is powder fouling freed by the copper already
removed). It is also important to get out all the cleaning oil and
solvent, I use RemClean to degrease the bore on a tight-fitting patch
and jag.
If properly used, the unit will remove all copper to the point that
only the most sophisticated chemical instruments could detect that
there was ever copper there.
I found that using a 316 series stainless "steel" (available from the
good folks at http://www.onlinemetals.com/ ) works well, especially on
larger bores where you would be paying a lot of money for the fluid.
The increased electrode surface area and the closer proximity makes
the cleaning go faster. The reduced fluid volume is more economical
and is exhausted sooner. This means that a 2-run cleaning might take
3 runs, but the total time will be about the same and less fluid will
be used and money will be saved. Also buying the rod from OnlineMetals
will save big $$ over buying it from Outers.
Apparently it is OK to use the new CopOut Plus fluid with F.O. II units
but not OK to use the old CopOut II fluid with the new F.O. III units. I
like the F.O. II because it gives me more options on what rod to use- I
don't have to buy their overpriced rods. The new FO III unit is more
dummy-proof, though, because you can't reverse the electrodes and
copper plate your bore. :)
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Edit a binary .INI file, then tell
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | me that UNIX is too complicated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Z
#I've just used my Outers Foul Out II unit for the first time. I
#followed the directions and after approximately 8 hours the clean light
#came on. About a week later I had a gunsmith inspect the bore with a
#hawkeye bore scope and he said there was still a tiny trace of copper
#fouling left. Even when the Outers Foul Out unit is used properly, will
#there still be minute amounts of copper fouling left?
#
If the bore has never been cleaned this way before, yes. The barrel
likely has layers in it of powder residue, then copper, then powder
residue, then copper, etc. Did you notice how black your patch came out
after the first cleaning with the Foul Out? That was all the powder
residue trapped under the outer copper layer. Just brush out the bore
with solvent, and repeat with the Foul Out until the "clean" light comes
on almost instantly.
COA is running a national PRO-firearm media
campaign--and YOU can get involved.
http://www.citizensofamerica.org
TheS...@mindspring.com
You one 8 hr run doesn't fit the operating instructions I recall
reading on mine years ago when I got it.
The steps were run the process on a cleaned bore, dump the liquid and
clean the bore and run again at least once more and clean again. The
point being that there is powder residue inbetween layers of
copper/lead and you have to remove the outer layer of metal, clean the
powder residue (which is unaffected by electro de-plating) and run the
process again as repeatedly as necessary to remove the amount of
copper/lead you want out of the barrel.
When all else fails - Read the directions
Is it better to Snipe or be Sniped ?
Steve Watson
yuck after the 1st pass.
Kevin D Horn <kdh...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8jd9rv$q6i$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu...
# I've just used my Outers Foul Out II unit for the first time. I
# followed the directions and after approximately 8 hours the clean light
# came on. About a week later I had a gunsmith inspect the bore with a
# hawkeye bore scope and he said there was still a tiny trace of copper
# fouling left. Even when the Outers Foul Out unit is used properly, will
# there still be minute amounts of copper fouling left?
Kevin D Horn
two patches of Butch's Bore Shine through the bore, and I got no
blue/green color on the patch, after drying the bore out, I put two
patches of Sweet's through the bore. Does this mean that my Foul 0ut
unit worked, and that my rifle's bore is clean? :) The other thing is
that after that, I did polish the bore with Kleen Bore Kleen Brite gun
metal polish. :) BTW, some shooters have told me to run the Foul 0ut
unit for two two hour cycles and check the result with a patch soaked in
copper solvent, and if the patch shows copper fouling, to do another 2
hour cycle with the Foul 0ut and again check with a copper soaked
solvent patch. They tell me that this is a better indicator on to tell
if I'm done than just repeating the cycles and waiting for the "clean"
light to come on, are they right? :)
Thanks
Kevin David Horn
Ken Marsh
Kevin D Horn <kdh...@webtv.net> wrote:
BTW, some shooters have told me to run the Foul 0ut
#unit for two two hour cycles and check the result with a patch soaked in
#copper solvent, and if the patch shows copper fouling, to do another 2
#hour cycle with the Foul 0ut and again check with a copper soaked
#solvent patch. They tell me that this is a better indicator on to tell
#if I'm done than just repeating the cycles and waiting for the "clean"
#light to come on, are they right? :)
Yup, they're right.
A clean light after 15 minutes either means that the rifle barrel is
clean, or there is too much powder fouling and/or oil to continue
the process.
A clean light after 2 or 3 hours means either it is clean or the
fluid is exhausted.
Either way it takes another patch cleaning and FO run to find out. Does
that mean I occasionally waste the fluid on an extra, uneeded run? Sure,
that's why I started a bottle of "mostly unused" copout that I reuse
later. I don't consider it a waste of time, because I don't run foul-out
after every single shooting session, it is more of a post-breakin or
post-season yearly ritual.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Edit a binary .INI file, then tell
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | me that UNIX is too complicated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin D Horn
unit. Too bad that 0uters does not suggets running a patch of copper
solvent through the bore as a double check. :) :) :) :) :)
Kevin David Horn
Putnam City North High School
Could you help me with some confusion that I'm having with my Outers
Foul Out II?
I ran it for two 2 hour cycles and the "cleaning" light was on.
However, after the 2nd cycle, I ran two patches soaked with Sweet's and
I got no blue or green on the patch does this mean the bore is clean?
After Sweet's, I cleaned and degreased the rod and the bore, and tried
another cycle, but this time the "clean" light came on. I cleaned and
degreased the rod and bore several time and tried to start a third cycle
several times but each time I would get a "clean" light, does this mean
my bore is clean?
Any help you can offer on this matter would be appreciated.
Thank You
Andrew T. Still
Michael L. Kuchera
What's your opinion on moly (molybdenum) coated bullets and moly
(molybdenum) bore preps?
Thanks
Michael L. Kuchera
David Steuber
' What's your opinion on moly (molybdenum) coated bullets and moly
' (molybdenum) bore preps?
Do you mind if I enter my opinion for the record?
I think they are a waste of money. Many disagree with me.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
Ken Marsh
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Edit a binary .INI file, then tell
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | me that UNIX is too complicated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find out about rec.guns at http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/rec.guns
Marylanders for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Raffle
==> Win an AR 10A4 rifle w/ Leupold Scope + Premier Reticle <==
See http://www.direct-action.org/Articles/raffle.html
Ken Marsh
Michael L. Kuchera <mlku...@webtv.net> wrote:
#What's your opinion on moly (molybdenum) coated bullets and moly
#(molybdenum) bore preps?
First of all, everyone is pretty much down on the NECO process now,
since it has been realized that the Carnauba wax leaves carbon rings in
the throat which will eventually ruin the barrel. The bullet pushes past
this ring and eventually the barrel is deformed, just like it would be
deformed if you fired bullets over a patch left in the barrel. This
ring happens in about 60 shots.
Benchresters used abrasives to clean out the ring. This eventually
super-polishes the bore and led to massive copper fouling. (There is
such a thing as *too* smooth, a good barrel should have a finish of a
certain grit value).
All these abrasive cleanings after 60 shots sort of calls into question
where the cleaning effort savings is! Also abrasives super-polish the
bore, which leads to more copper fouling. (Good barrels are lapped to a
certain grit value. Anything higher-polish than that produces too much
friction and copper fouling.) See the Shilen and Lilja web sights for
more on this.
So now the benchresters (where this first really caught on) are giving
up on Moly in droves, but there are many die-hards who will continue to
use it. Also it is now hitting the mainstream and gaining popularity
with varminters and even hunters.... (why?)
There are several selling points to Moly
- greater velocity
- less cleaning
- greater accuracy
- longer barrel life
- less copper fouling
Everyone knows that the greater velocity claim (which folks like Midway
USA keep perpetuating) is a lie. Moly DECREASES velocity. It may lower
pressures and may allow more powder. Typically in accurate cartridges
(6PPC, .308) you don't HAVE ANY MORE ROOM TO ADD ANY MORE POWDER ANYWAY.
On other cartridges, if you are already at Max, then you are OUTSIDE THE
SAFETY ZONE if you want to add more powder.
The greater accuracy thing is entirely debatable. Lots of people win
matches with both coated and non-coated barrels. I think that some
barrels like to be shot fouled (not necessarily moly fouled either) and
some clean. (IMHO Good quality custom barrels generally like the
latter.)
The barrel life thing is entirely bogus. Moly does nothing to shield the
burnout of the throat. Actual star-gauged bore wear of a rifle is
typically less than 2/10,000 inch over a lifetime of 1,000-5,000 rounds
and is still plenty accurate at that. Cutting the chamber and last 2-3
inches of barrel off (due to a lot of complex reasons) of any wornout
quality barrel will give you a good, accurate (if short) barrel.
More barrel life due to less cleaning might be a good argument... if you
clean your barrels like a gorilla.
The less copper fouling was also a canard. See Lilja's and Shilen's web
pages about that! Also I was still removing copper with my Outer's FO II
from my two new customer moly-only-ever barrels so I knew all the copper
fouling claims were false.
Some folks claim that pre-fouling with a spray or wipe solves all the
remaining problems of copper fouling and waiting for group size to
settle. I gave up on it just as all the moly prep sprays and tubes came
onto the market. Maybe I gave up too soon. Lately the folks using no-wax
Moly and moly pre-fouling preps are claiming all the group settling,
copper fouling and ring buildup problems have now been solved.
Interestingly these are all the same folks that never admitted there
ever were any problems to begin with!
I have one rifle that likes Berger Moly bullets and several that don't
like any kind of Moly bullet. My '06 has a particular distain for Moly
bullets. It is a Shilen Match that never saw anything but Moly's from
day one. I gave up on Moly for it first because it liked none of them.
The one that likes some Moly's is a cheap ER Shaw barrel. I won't do an
ER Shaw again because of the difficulty in cleaning it- it is twice as
hard to push a patch through than a Shilen or Douglas or Lilja.
I used other barrels in various states of wear, results inconclusive.
I could always duplicate accuracy with a non-Moly load. Why bother
with it, if you can do that?
My take on it is that some rifle barrels like Moly and others down.
Barrels that do like it tend to be factory instead of custom types.
(ER Shaw sometimes makes factory barrels for guess-who- Remington!)
I see the state of Moly fouling as another variable to deal with, and I
try to eliminate variables, not increase them. My hunting rifles are as
accurate clean as fouled, and my varminters only give up a fraction of
an inch for the first (non-Moly) shot before settling anyway.
I pretty much gave up on Moly because I had to get a barrel to a proper
state of fouling before it grouped OK. All my rifles are used for
hunting and therefor I had problems getting the deer to stand still
while I fired 5 foulers and waited for group size to settle down. :)
It's like forend tip tension in a wood stocked rifle. It may shoot great
when the tension is just right, but how do you know if the wood warped
any since last time without checking the group size? How do you know
which way to adjust tension before group size settles down?
I will get flamed for this post and for giving up too soon. IMHO I
wasted two years of shooting, and half the useful life of one particular
barrel on this canard. Moly remains a tool in my toolbox that I might
use if I see a particular problem. Right now, though, it remains a
solution in search of a problem. I can achieve my accuracy goals without
it, and good barrel life has never been a problem for me.
Ken.
David Steuber
' First of all, everyone is pretty much down on the NECO process now,
' since it has been realized that the Carnauba wax leaves carbon rings in
' the throat which will eventually ruin the barrel. The bullet pushes past
' this ring and eventually the barrel is deformed, just like it would be
' deformed if you fired bullets over a patch left in the barrel. This
' ring happens in about 60 shots.
I don't recall if it was Varmint Al or Gentner, a 6mm bullet maker,
who told me about the 'ring of death' caused by moly'd bullets. This
little tid bit kept me from going with Moly on my Remmington 700.
' So now the benchresters (where this first really caught on) are giving
' up on Moly in droves, but there are many die-hards who will continue to
' use it. Also it is now hitting the mainstream and gaining popularity
' with varminters and even hunters.... (why?)
Some of the top benchresters never went to moly. I heard this from a
benchrester.
' There are several selling points to Moly
' - greater velocity
' - less cleaning
' - greater accuracy
' - longer barrel life
' - less copper fouling
'
' Everyone knows that the greater velocity claim (which folks like Midway
' USA keep perpetuating) is a lie. Moly DECREASES velocity. It may lower
' pressures and may allow more powder. Typically in accurate cartridges
' (6PPC, .308) you don't HAVE ANY MORE ROOM TO ADD ANY MORE POWDER ANYWAY.
' On other cartridges, if you are already at Max, then you are OUTSIDE THE
' SAFETY ZONE if you want to add more powder.
Well, mere mortals such as myself don't have the equipment to measure
chamber pressure, but if friction is lowered in the barrel, doesn't
that mean you need more powder to achieve max pressure?
' The greater accuracy thing is entirely debatable. Lots of people win
' matches with both coated and non-coated barrels.
This little fact seems to kill the accuracy claim. It seems that the
winners are really the better shooters, not the ones with magic
bullets.
' More barrel life due to less cleaning might be a good argument... if you
' clean your barrels like a gorilla.
Most of the people who have opinions that I value blame a goodly
amount of barrel wear on CLEANING rather than shooting.
' The less copper fouling was also a canard. See Lilja's and Shilen's web
' pages about that! Also I was still removing copper with my Outer's FO II
' from my two new customer moly-only-ever barrels so I knew all the copper
' fouling claims were false.
Apart from being ugly, and the possibility that nasty stuff lies
between the copper and steel, I'm not so clear on how bad copper
fouling really is.
' I used other barrels in various states of wear, results inconclusive.
' I could always duplicate accuracy with a non-Moly load. Why bother
' with it, if you can do that?
Why indeed.
' I see the state of Moly fouling as another variable to deal with, and I
' try to eliminate variables, not increase them. My hunting rifles are as
' accurate clean as fouled, and my varminters only give up a fraction of
' an inch for the first (non-Moly) shot before settling anyway.
Gentner and other BR shooters I have spoken too say the same thing.
BR is about eliminating variables.
' I pretty much gave up on Moly because I had to get a barrel to a proper
' state of fouling before it grouped OK. All my rifles are used for
' hunting and therefor I had problems getting the deer to stand still
' while I fired 5 foulers and waited for group size to settle down. :)
I tried using moly in my .44 Magnum to put a layer between the bore
and the lead to reduce leading. It didn't work. Or if it did, I
still had too much leading. This was with 240gr LSWC over 8gr of
bullseye which is a light magnum load in the Alliant manual.
' I will get flamed for this post and for giving up too soon. IMHO I
' wasted two years of shooting, and half the useful life of one particular
' barrel on this canard. Moly remains a tool in my toolbox that I might
' use if I see a particular problem. Right now, though, it remains a
' solution in search of a problem. I can achieve my accuracy goals without
' it, and good barrel life has never been a problem for me.
Well, I'm not going to flame you. But only because I agree with you
;-).
So far, my Remington 700 Police DM in .300 Win Mag has only seen
forty rounds, not counting the factory test loads. There is a sort of
interesting story behind those forty shots.
I had ordered 200 220gr Sierra Match Kings for the 700. I also bought
the Midway moly kit because it included a tumbler which I figured I
was over due for. I went and coated all 200 bullets. Why? Well, I
had bought the marketing hype at the time.
Then I started hearing things about moly that disturbed me. I decided
that the 700 was going to go moly free. The problem was, how do I get
the moly off of 200 bullets? Being the cheap sort, I didn't want to
throw them out or even try to sell them. I ended up putting them in
the tumbler. With washed sand. Off came the moly. Now I have
sandblasted bullets.
One thing I read on Varmint Al's web site was a reason why he does not
like nickel plated brass. Apparantly the nickle is in the case as
well as on the outside. The nicke in the case is not polished and
grinds up the seated portion of the bullet, increasing copper
fouling. His comparison was to take sandpaper to the shiny new bullet
before loading it and firing it. Well, I had the equivalent of sanded
bullets. Bullets that I didn't want to waste. I also didn't want to
toss virgin brass or sell it to get rid of it.
I've also heard stories about the vicious recoil of the .300WM. I
wanted to do several things with my first forty loaded rounds. The
rounds had the nickel R-P cases with Federal 215 primers and 65gr of
Hodgdon 4831SC powder. Toping this all off were the de-moly'd, dull
copper colored 220gr Match Kings.
What I wanted to do was fire form the brass, get used to the rifle,
and establish a rough zero for my scope. So I went to a range in New
Castle, DE where I could shoot at only 50 meters, measured, to
accomplish my mission.
I fired eight five round groups at my targets. Each group got tighter
than the previous group. Was this a new barrel setteling in? Was I
just getting used to what turned out to be mild recoil? I have no
idea. I have more variables than equations. The last five rounds
genrated a single hole. At 50 meters, this can't be considered as a
measurment of anything.
When I got my rifle home, I discovered copper fouling of a magnitude I
had never before encountered. I don't think there was one square
millimeter of bore that did not have a nice coating of copper plating
on it.
Hoppe's No. 9 will disolve copper, but only a tiny bit at a time. I
used the Hoppes to get the powder out. I followed up with isopropyl
alcohol to get the petroleum products out. I then plugged the muzzle
and filled the barrel with ammonia. I let that sit for a few hours
and then let out the now blue ammonia. I cleaned a bit more with the
Hoppes. I used patches only. A bunch came out blue-green. When they
started coming out clean, I gave up. I shined a light down the bore.
It still has copper in it. I definitely want to get the Outers
Foulout kit.
I oiled the bore to protect it.
I now have my remaining 60 pieces of virgin R-P brass loaded as
before, except with 70gr of Hodgdon 4831SC. When I fire them, it will
be mostly to get the cases fireformed. I will also be tweaking the
scope settings and just plane getting used to the rifle. It will be
interesting to see how the groups change over 60 rounds vs just 40.
I don't know what my final load will be, so I will just be getting the
top post on the center of the target and zeroing the windage properly
at 50 meters. When I do proper load development, it will have to be
at Atglen where they have a 500 meter range. I want to try several
bullet weights and powders. If people tell me it is worth it, I will
spend the bucks to get say 500 Norma cases from the same lot. I hear
Norma makes the best brass. It certainly seems to top the price
chart.
The ultimate goal is to have a load that gives good accuracy at 1000
meters and will also work well at shorter ranges. My most common
ranges will be 200-500 meters due to range availability. 1000 yards
is only available to me at Camp Perry, and that would be just once per
year. Once I have a good ``pet load'', I will want to work up a
ballistics table for it. I am trying to be serious with this rifle.
It costs a bit much for casual plinking.
Anyway, I have a Marlin .22LR for that now :-).
Did I drift off the topic of moly? Not really. I'm not going to be
using moly in this rifle. I'm going to try and gather empirical
evidence to see just how many rounds can be fired between cleanings
before the groups tend to open up. It will take a while to gather the
data, but when I have it I will publish it.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
The ``From'' address is a valid e-mail address.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hoplite&submit=Look+it+up
WVanhou237
<nos...@david-steuber.com> writes:
#
#' Everyone knows that the greater velocity claim (which folks like Midway
#' USA keep perpetuating) is a lie. Moly DECREASES velocity. It may lower
#' pressures and may allow more powder. Typically in accurate cartridges
#' (6PPC, .308) you don't HAVE ANY MORE ROOM TO ADD ANY MORE POWDER ANYWAY.
#' On other cartridges, if you are already at Max, then you are OUTSIDE THE
#' SAFETY ZONE if you want to add more powder.
#
#Well, mere mortals such as myself don't have the equipment to measure
#chamber pressure, but if friction is lowered in the barrel, doesn't
#that mean you need more powder to achieve max pressure?
#
The NRA reported on a test they ran with moly vs non-moly a couple years
ago. At that time they reported that, for the same load in several rifles, the
moly did lower pressure and velocity. And that the only advantage they found
was that with molly a rifle could go a few more rounds before it needed
cleaning. And that the cleaning was a bit easier.
At about the same time I got one of those bulletins from Sierra that said
essentially the same thing.
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
"No matter how hard you try, you can't throw a potato chip very far."
"Linus"
JOHN GARAND
snip
#I will get flamed for this post and for giving up too soon. IMHO I
#wasted two years of shooting, and half the useful life of one particular
#barrel on this canard. Moly remains a tool in my toolbox that I might
#use if I see a particular problem. Right now, though, it remains a
#solution in search of a problem. I can achieve my accuracy goals without
#it, and good barrel life has never been a problem for me.
#
#Ken.
No flame. The only statement I take strong exception to is the comment
about less cleaning and cleaning like a gorilla.
I think it can be agreed that the accuracy of far more rifle bbls has
been ruined by cleaning than by "shooting out" the bbl. If John Doe
has to clean his rifle less, he runs less chance of ruining the bbl.
Teaching proper cleaning techniques would alleviate this situation,
but what are the odds that the lessons will "take" and be followed?