The real truth about Moly coated bullets.
browningh...@yahoo.com
shooter I can attest that moly coating will and will not do the
following.
Moly does cut down on copper fouling substantially in barrels that
are have rough "factory bores" or that have rough throats or bores
that have the "typical corrosive ammo damaged military bore". This
enables the shooter to shoot a higher round count out of his gun
before copper foul out opens up groups.
Moly is not hard to remove as regular cleaning with a good solvent
will take it all out but this is not desirable as leaving it in is
what will cut down on copper foul out. I clean all the moly out of my
bores at the end of the summers shooting. This does not mean I do not
clean as normal every time I shoot.
Moly does not cause barrels to rust. It draws moisture no more than
ordinary burnt powder does, perhaps even less. Simply clean and oil
your barrel after shooting.
Moly does not cause rifles to get premature excess headspace.
Moly may not be all that necessary when using a "hand lapped custom
made Match Grade Barrel" until the barrel throat starts to become
rough from high round counts.
I think the verdict is still out as to whether or not Moly prolongs
barrel life but I did get 10,000 rounds out of my last AR15 barrel
when using moly but the throat looked washed out just as other barrels
did that did not have Moly shot through them. The barrel by the way
was still shooting into ½ minute of angle at 100 yards even with
10,000 round shot out of it. I still reserve judgment as to whether
moly helped the barrel last so long.
Why do some people not like Moly? Here are a few of the reasons:
1. Afraid to try something new (much too conservative).
2. Too cheap to spend a little more on quality ammo. (The corrosive
ammo crowd) so to justify their own cheapness they damn moly at every
opportunity.
3. Much to lazy to get into Hand-loading which requires the effort to
either moly coat your own bullets or buy factory moly coated bullets
to hand load with.
4. Easily seduced into believing "urban legends" put forth by people
that never used Moly coated bullets. They also tend to believe in
fairies and the good luck charms of the rabbit foot.
As I told one fellow at the range that was "astonished" that such a
thing even existed, I simply said, "My friend you are still living in
the stone age", come forth into the future and at least give Moly a
fair try and see for yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win a one-of-a-kind Fulton Armory AR-15 tactical rifle while defending
liberty in a front-line state. MPFO raffle details at http://www.myguns.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
chasw
favorites come from the factory plain vanilla, I do use moly on my cast
bullets, i.e., Lyman's moly-based bullet lube in my RCBS lubrisizer. Other
than being black, it works like any other room-temp lube. The main purpose
of a cast bullet lube is to vaporize during its short trip down the barrel
and protect the exposed lead surfaces from melting. At least that's the
theory, since like all interior ballistics, it happens so fast and in an
enclosed space that direct observation is not practical.
One side effect of moly lube that I notice, and you touched on, is that some
of the moly gets embedded in the microscopic crevices of the lands and
grooves. So, when I am cleaning up after shooting cast bullets, I don't try
to get every last bit of black color out of the bore. I clean only to a
certain extent then leave the rest as "conditioning" for the next trip to
the range. A final coat of Ezoxx to inhibit corrosion and I'm good to go. -
CW
<browningh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:et0r6a$a32$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# Being a National Match competitor and military rifle collector and
# shooter I can attest that moly coating will and will not do the
# following.
#
snip
Clark Magnuson
It gets to be something like Ford vs Chevy, Republican vs Democrat.
What you believe affects what you see.
There are more important things than moly vs non Moly:
1) Do you believe moly will help?
2) How well lapped is the bore?
3) Do you prefer fighting Copper or fighting Moly?
4) Do you have the discipline to follow a Moly regime?
These questions are more important than the subtle advantages and
disadvantages of moly vs non moly, so discussion is difficult.
I am a moly believer, using only moly coated bullets, I prefer to get an
unfired, factory lapped barrel, and burnish it with Lyman Moly Bore
Cream before first firing. That way I don't get any Copper under the
Moly. I clean with Kroil and Flitz on a patch on a jag. Then alcohol
patches, then dry patches, and then re burnish. I can get 100 to 1000
shots at 3500 fps between cleanings and maintain varmint accuracy. Low
velocity cartridges like 17HMR seem to do just fine at 2600 fps with no
moly.
MadD...@yahoo.com
# Being a National Match competitor and military rifle collector and
# shooter I can attest that moly coating will and will not do the
# following.
#
..................................................................................................................
Hey BHP,
Whats your take on Teflon treatments.
- They claim to do the same things with a bore treatment.
MadDog
tpg comcntr
like at www.sprinco.com. Moly coated bullets cause caking and stating
that it is easy to remove is completely false. Once it plates, you
get if off only by wearing it off or grinding it out with an abrasive.
And how do we know? We wrote the book on Moly lubrication
www.theparsecgroup.com
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:03:22 +0000 (UTC), browningh...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> ...
John Kepler
I resent and ignore "Infomercials" when they invade my home via
video....it's doubly so on a newsgroup I enjoy! Just based on your
"marketing strategy", I'd ignore your product and your firm if it were the
greatest thing since sliced bread!
John
browningh...@yahoo.com
# And you are much, much better off to use a moly suspension weapons oil
# like atwww.sprinco.com. Moly coated bullets cause caking and stating
# that it is easy to remove is completely false. Once it plates, you
# get if off only by wearing it off or grinding it out with an abrasive.
# And how do we know? We wrote the book on Moly lubricationwww.theparsecgroup.com
#
# On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:03:22 +0000 (UTC), browninghighpow...@yahoo.com
# wrote:
#
# > ...
Ho, Hum, another Jay Hawker selling another very expensive miracle
lube.
Having used moly I can attest it does not cake nor is it hard to
remove. Pitch your sales baloney to someone else who has no
experience with moly.
Due to the fact your lube destroys plastic, wood and rubber I vote
thumbs down. It would be real mess to try and use.
Due to the expense of the stuff, again thumbs down.
Due to the 72 hour wait before you can even shoot the gun, I vote
thumbs down.
Moly works, is not expensive considering I have been using the same
small bottle for almost 10 years as it takes very little to coat
thousands and thousands of bullets.
Moly is convenient to use and can be used instantly ,no 72 hour wait.
I have never had a caking problem, never. Lets face it after
shooting 10,000 rounds through the same gun with moly, if it would
have caked believe me I would have been blown up into a red puff of
mist long ago.
browningh...@yahoo.com
# On Mar 11, 7:03 am, browninghighpow...@yahoo.com wrote:
# # Being a National Match competitor and military rifle collector and
# # shooter I can attest that moly coating will and will not do the
# # following.
# #
# ..................................................................................................................
#
# Hey BHP,
# Whats your take on Teflon treatments.
# - They claim to do the same things with a bore treatment.
# MadDog
#
I have not used them except to use Break Free for lubrication and bore
preservation. Break Free has teflon in it and Break free is one of
the very best of lubes out there. This does not mean you should not
use grease on heavy pressure points even if you are using Break Free
for a lube.
I would say take a look at the cost of the Teflon treatment and the
convenience of using it. If Teflon compares favorably with the cost
and convenience of Moly then go ahead and give it a try to see if it
cuts down on copper fouling. So far I have been very happy with Moly
both in cost and the convenience of using the stuff.
browningh...@yahoo.com
# On Mar 11, 7:03 am, browninghighpow...@yahoo.com wrote:
# # Being a National Match competitor and military rifle collector and
# # shooter I can attest that moly coating will and will not do the
# # following.
# #
# ..................................................................................................................
#
# Hey BHP,
# Whats your take on Teflon treatments.
# - They claim to do the same things with a bore treatment.
# MadDog
#
I have not used them except to use Break Free for lubrication and bore
preservation. Break Free has teflon in it and Break free is one of
the very best of lubes out there. This does not mean you should not
use grease on heavy pressure points even if you are using Break Free
for a lube.
I would say take a look at the cost of the Teflon treatment and the
convenience of using it. If it compares favorably with the cost and
convenience of Moly then go ahead and give it a try to see if it cuts
down on copper fouling. So far I have been very happy with Moly both
in cost and the convenience of using the stuff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
buc eye
> ...
I use only moly coated bullets in rifles that were started with moly
when clean...It does make cleaning easier...
I did notice a caking issue when I tried moly lube from a spray can
onto 22 lr ammo...the spray was uneven and would build up if I wasnt
very careful...this caking tended to interfere with the function of
semi auto fire...I switched to liquid moly swabbed thru the bore
before firing...same ease of cleaning and no caking issue...I do
notice I need a fouling shot after swabbing the bore with liquid moly,
as the 1st shot always goes high right to a 1 o'clock
position...However, it is very consistent and by holding at 7 o'clock
solves the flyer...
moly-coating my own bullets does tend to get messy, unless I add some
wax over the moly...I stopped using the wax and deal with the mess
after shooting with a hand cleaning product...
I too have noticed the "fill-in effect" with moly on rough bores, and
it seems to improve accuracy in some of the factory barrels out of the
box, similar to a good break in period...removing moly from a barrel
is no more difficult than removing copper or lead fouling...
I like moly...
200...@gmail.com
allows you to fire 1,000,000 rounds between cleanings
makes discharge quieter so no hearing protection is required
instantly kills deers even if you miss the shockwave will blow their
legs off leaving you a twitching torso to gather up
increases accuracy so you dont even have to aim the bullet will hit
the bullseye as long as you point the dangerous end in the general
direction of the target
increases velocity by double
the slick coating makes feed jams impossible even using the worst usa
brand or generic magazines
decreases barrel wear so much that it will actually rebuild a worn
barrel eventually leaving it in new condition
reduced felt recoil
after firing the vapors will actually remove dents and scratches also
refinishes your stock as you use them
ubermutant
# shooter I can attest that moly coating will and will not do the
# following.
Used it for years, went back to nekkid. My take on moly, or any of these
other wonder-addons (moly-slide, teflon-whatzit, etc) is that there is no
real VALUE to it. Everyone knows what moly DOES, but how it HELPS is
another question entirely. After five years of using it I still wasn't sure
why so I tossed it.
Know what? I'm shooting a service rifle barrel that has about 8k rounds
through it and for all that it's still minute of tennis ball at 200 yards,
and that's with me shooting bare bullets through it. It holds the x ring at
600, leaks the occasional 10 when I do my job. I dont have to bother
coating the darned things, listening to all that racket or dealing with the
mess. I don't have to fret about inconsistency from batch to batch, or what
moly may or may not be doing to the bore. And life is better.
Btw, I have some midway moly for sale if anyone wants it. Cheap.
b.
steve podleski
"ubermutant" <webm...@whatsamattayou.edu> wrote in message
.... I'm shooting a service rifle barrel that has about 8k rounds
# through it and for all that it's still minute of tennis ball at 200 yards,
# and that's with me shooting bare bullets through it. It holds the x ring
at
# 600, leaks the occasional 10 when I do my job.
You would win most of the 600yd matches at Camp Perry with that rifle :-)
ubermutant
I missed getting a P100 flash with that rifle by a single point a few years
ago. Shot #6 at 600, Rodriguez range, as I broke the shot I saw the right
flag sit down. Sure enough, a perfect close '7' at three oclock.
All I needed was a stinking '8'. As I said in OP, '.. when I do my job'.
Heartbreaker.
Best regards,
B.
Clark Magnuson
Q: Should I shoot Moly Coated bullets?
A:
Any shooter who goes through a lot of rounds during a shooting session
should use Moly Coated bullets. Moly is a dry lubricant that allows you
to shoot more rounds before you have to clean. Since you get less
fouling using Moly Coated bullets the accuracy level of your load will
last longer within a shooting session. If your load did not shoot
without Moly, adding Moly will not make your load shoot. Moly does not
eliminate the need to clean your barrel. You just don't have to clean as
often. Moly will reduce the pressure of your load, which will result in
a slight loss of velocity. In most situations a little more powder can
be added to get you right back to the velocity you want to shoot. If you
are shooting a compressed load with non-Moly bullets you may not be able
to add more powder. It has not been conclusively proven that premium
accuracy life of a barrel will be extended using Moly. However, since
you don't have to clean as often due to reduced fouling premium accuracy
during a particular shooting session does last longer.
Q: If I use Moly Coated bullets how should I clean my barrel?
A:
The following is one way to clean when using Moly Coated bullets. It is
not likely the only way you can clean if you are using Moly Coated bullets.
1. Push one patch wet with Kroil Oil through the barrel
2. Repeat step 1.
3. Push one dry patch through the barrel.
4. Repeat step 3.
5. Push one patch wet with Butch's Bore Shine through the barrel.
6. Repeat step 5.
7. Let the barrel soak for 5 to 10 minutes.
8. Push one dry patch through the barrel.
9. Repeat step 8.
10. Using short strokes back and forth push one patch wet with USP or JB
Bore Paste through the barrel.
11. Push one patch wet with Kroil through the barrel.
12. Repeat step 11 twice.
13. Push one dry patch through the barrel.
14. Repeat step 13 three times.
15. Use bore scope or visually inspect muzzle for copper fouling.
16. If copper is present repeat steps 10 through 15.
17. If you are storing the rifle push one patch wet with quality gun oil
through the barrel.
Q: How do I break in a barrel using Moly Coated bullets?
A: Moly Coated bullets will not shoot consistently until a barrel is
properly broken in with Moly Coated bullets. Walt Berger has found the
following procedure to work best in his barrels.
For a new barrel:
1. Shoot one Moly Coated bullet then clean using the Moly Coated
cleaning procedure listed above.
2. Repeat step 1 five times.
3. Shoot three Moly Coated bullets then clean using the Moly Coated
cleaning procedure listed above.
4. Repeat step 3 five times.
For a broken in barrel:
1. Thoroughly clean the barrel.
2. Shoot ten Moly Coated bullets then clean using the Moly Coated
cleaning procedure listed above.
Your barrel is now ready to shoot Moly Coated bullets.
David Steuber
temperatures will definitely break down molybdenum disulphide, leaving
behind sulfer which can be further oxidized and turned into sulfuric
or sulfurous acid. I don't know if this will actually lead to barrel
harm or not.
In old military rifles that have had their bores frosted from
corrosive primers, I don't think it matters.
I won't go so far as to call molly snake oil. But it is a bit
slippery.
--
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels.
--- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling
browningh...@yahoo.com
# I'm still not convinced that molly is non-corrosive. High
# temperatures will definitely break down molybdenum disulphide, leaving
# behind sulfer which can be further oxidized and turned into sulfuric
# or sulfurous acid. I don't know if this will actually lead to barrel
# harm or not.
#
# In old military rifles that have had their bores frosted from
# corrosive primers, I don't think it matters.
#
# I won't go so far as to call molly snake oil. But it is a bit
# slippery.
#
# --
# This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
#
# At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
# --- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
#
# I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels.
# --- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling
#
Actually quite the opposite is true.
Military rifles with the "typical corrosive ammo damaged bore" need
moly coated bullets shot through them. In my own testing moly coated
bullets reduced copper foul out substantially and enabled me to shoot
longer before the corroded bore started to pick up copper fouling and
open up group size.
Bluehawk99
others do not.
Nearly thirty years ago the NRA did exhaustive testing with all types
of lubricants for cast bullets including metallics such as moly and
found it of almost no practical value in fine target barrels but of
use in lesser barrels such as those in factory bought rifles and only
then as a lubricant. Accuracy suffered when used!
The tests found that the superior substance for lubrication and
accuracy for cast bullets was lithium grease...the kind you can buy at
any garage or auto parts store but because it was soft and wouldn't
meter well in sizer/lubricators they continued testing. (it's still a
great cast rifle bullet lube and has a very high melting point)
Their results found that one of the Alox formulations (there are over
2,000) mixed with beeswax, though not quite as good as lithium, would
serve very well and so that has been used now as the standard for many
years.
Why anyone wants to lubricate metallic bullets is beyond me! Seems
you're substituting one metal (copper jacket) for the other
(moly)...of what value is that??
Louis Boyd
# Why anyone wants to lubricate metallic bullets is beyond me! Seems
# you're substituting one metal (copper jacket) for the other
# (moly)...of what value is that??
You should try lubricating bullets with molybdenum disulfide instead of
metallic molybdenum. Using metallic molybdenum as a lubricant would
make as much sense as making bullet jackets out of copper sulfate.
Your French fries will taste much better if you sprinkle them with
sodium chloride instead of metallic sodium.
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
# Why anyone wants to lubricate metallic bullets is beyond me! Seems
# you're substituting one metal (copper jacket) for the other
# (moly)...of what value is that??
The lubricant referred to as "Moly" is not just plain molybdenum - it
is molybdenum disulfide. The structure, appearance, and feel of
molybdenum disulfide is similar to graphite - a sandwich of layers of
molybdenum atoms between the layers of sulfur atoms. Due to the weak
interactions between the sheets of sulfide atoms, MoS2 has a
lubricating effect. Finely powdered MoS2 with particle sizes in the
range of 1-100 µm is a common dry lubricant.
John Cowart
Bluehawk99
of
metallic molybdenum. Using metallic molybdenum as a lubricant would
make as much sense as making bullet jackets out of copper sulfate."
The NRA testing was referring to molybdenum disulfide, not plain
molybdenum and they considered it a "metallic-type".
Louis Boyd
# "You should try lubricating bullets with molybdenum disulfide instead
# of
# metallic molybdenum. Using metallic molybdenum as a lubricant would
# make as much sense as making bullet jackets out of copper sulfate."
#
# The NRA testing was referring to molybdenum disulfide, not plain
# molybdenum and they considered it a "metallic-type".
#
Can you give a reference to where and when the NRA test was published?
Is the text of the test available on the Internet?
Tom S,
"Louis Boyd" <bo...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:etv9ou$ieu$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# Bluehawk99 wrote:
#
# # Why anyone wants to lubricate metallic bullets is beyond me! Seems
# # you're substituting one metal (copper jacket) for the other
# # (moly)...of what value is that??
#
# You should try lubricating bullets with molybdenum disulfide instead of
# metallic molybdenum. Using metallic molybdenum as a lubricant would
# make as much sense as making bullet jackets out of copper sulfate.
#
# Your French fries will taste much better if you sprinkle them with
# sodium chloride instead of metallic sodium.
#
Ahem!! Freedom Fries.
browningh...@yahoo.com
# I find the Moly discussion interesting as some feel it's great while
# others do not.
# Nearly thirty years ago the NRA did exhaustive testing with all types
# of lubricants for cast bullets including metallics such as moly and
# found it of almost no practical value in fine target barrels but of
# use in lesser barrels such as those in factory bought rifles and only
# then as a lubricant. Accuracy suffered when used!
# The tests found that the superior substance for lubrication and
# accuracy for cast bullets was lithium grease...the kind you can buy at
# any garage or auto parts store but because it was soft and wouldn't
# meter well in sizer/lubricators they continued testing. (it's still a
# great cast rifle bullet lube and has a very high melting point)
# Their results found that one of the Alox formulations (there are over
# 2,000) mixed with beeswax, though not quite as good as lithium, would
# serve very well and so that has been used now as the standard for many
# years.
# Why anyone wants to lubricate metallic bullets is beyond me! Seems
# you're substituting one metal (copper jacket) for the other
# (moly)...of what value is that??
#
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading that report and accuracy did not suffer , quite the
opposite as it cut way down on copper fouling which by the way mirrors
my own tests i.e. much longer accuracy before barrel foul out opens up
groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluehawk99
# I remember reading that report and accuracy did not suffer , quite the
# opposite as it cut way down on copper fouling which by the way mirrors
# my own tests i.e. much longer accuracy before barrel foul out opens up
# groups.
You read the wrong report as it was reporting on cast bullets...not
copper jacketed.
Bluehawk99
The article originally was printed in the National Rifleman...my copy
comes from the book which is a compilation of these reports called:
Cast Bullets by Col. E.H. Harrison, USA, (Retired)
Here is an excerpt: Solid Lubricants Tested
Solid lubricants (more accurately dry lubricants) are flakes or
powders. The common ones are graphite, molybdenum disulphide, (MoS2),
and mica. They are used industrially to improve lubrication of non-
rotating bearings which cannot build up a liquid lubricating film
between rubbing surfaces. This seems to correspond to the situation of
the bullet in the gun bore, and solid lubricants have been added
bullet lubricants for severe conditions. While many NRA tests have
shown that they usually (not always) do improve the lubrication, the
remarkable fact is that they almost always degrade the shooting
accuracy. This happens both by group enlargement and by shifting the
point of impact as firing continues. Smooth high quality bores are
less subject to this effect, but such bores least need the lubrication
improvement. It seems evident that the trouble is from variable
conditioning of the bore surface by the solid lubricant. Many repeated
tests forced the conclusion that solids are a liability in bullet
lubricants.
That's it word for word and it goes on to say a possible exception is
DuPont Teflon 7 giving excellent results in some NRA testing but is
difficult if not nearly impossible to incorporate the fine fluffy
material smoothly into a bullet lubricant!
Jim Bianchi
# # I remember reading that report and accuracy did not suffer, quite the
# # my own tests i.e. much longer accuracy before barrel foul out opens up
# # groups.
#
# You read the wrong report as it was reporting on cast bullets ...not
# copper jacketed.
"..cut way down on copper fouling.." "..it was reporting on cast
bullets.."
Hmmmmm, cast copper bullets? 's a new one on me!
"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary, and those who don't."
Bluehawk99
To clarify that...the NRA American Rifleman article (July 1965) I
quoted was referring to cast bullets and the use of solid
lubricants...one of which was molybdenum disulphide. The gentleman who
said he read that same article was referring to jacketed bullets but
jacketed bullets were not covered in that article therefore he could
not be referring to the same article as I am.
Of futher concern is the fact MOS2 oxidizes at 350 degrees Celcius so
I'm curious as to what happens to the film of it left in the bore
after repeated firings when heat from smokeless powders certainly
exceeds that temperature?
Tony Belding
#From the research I have done, moly offers real -- but quite small --
benefits. Some people talk about dramatic reductions in barrel wear,
or being able to shoot far more rounds between cleaning. The most
careful studies I've seen so far haven't found that, they've found only
very modest improvements.
#From what I understand, the barrel has to develop a smooth coating of
moly in order to get consistent accuracy. It's no problem as long as
you shoot only moly bullets. Going back and forth between moly and
no-moly bullets is a problem, because you end up with a
partially-molyed barrel. So basically, once you put a few through your
rifle you are committed to the stuff.
I have also heard greatly conflicting stories about moly "buildup" or
fouling that some say is extremely difficult to remove. So, how do you
clean it? How often? If you over-clean it, do you then have to
re-season the barrel with a fresh coating of moly?
It seems to me like a needless complication. I already have a lot of
factors to tinker with when I'm working up loads (powder charge,
seating depth, annealing, neck turning, etc). Moly would appear to add
several new ones, which I really don't need. It's easier to simply
never let moly touch the bore, and then not have to worry about it.
--
Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas
steve podleski
"Bluehawk99" <Blueh...@aol.com> wrote in message
....> Of futher concern is the fact MOS2 oxidizes at 350 degrees Celcius so
# I'm curious as to what happens to the film of it left in the bore
# after repeated firings when heat from smokeless powders certainly
# exceeds that temperature?
It makes cleaning a barrel easier :-) I've used moly in ten of thousands of
rounds for the past 11 years in 223, 308, 6.5-284 and 6BR.
Bluehawk99
thousands of
rounds for the past 11 years in 223, 308, 6.5-284 and 6BR.
How can you tell it's really clean...do you use a borescope down the
barrel to check??
For me I'll go with the NRA's exhaustive testing on this matter and
believe what their results came up with rather than those who think
they are "benefitting" from their onesided home testing!
John Kepler
Yeah....."exhaustive" 40+ years ago! That was then, this is now (and they
didn't HAVE bore-scopes when that "exhaustive testing" was done!).
John
ubermutant
"Tony Belding" <zob...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:eu6ude$d2p$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# I have what I think are good resons for not using moly.
#
# #From the research I have done, moly offers real -- but quite small --
# benefits. Some people talk about dramatic reductions in barrel wear,
# or being able to shoot far more rounds between cleaning. The most
# careful studies I've seen so far haven't found that, they've found only
# very modest improvements.
#
# #From what I understand, the barrel has to develop a smooth coating of
# moly in order to get consistent accuracy. It's no problem as long as
# you shoot only moly bullets. Going back and forth between moly and
# no-moly bullets is a problem, because you end up with a
# partially-molyed barrel. So basically, once you put a few through your
# rifle you are committed to the stuff.
#
# I have also heard greatly conflicting stories about moly "buildup" or
# fouling that some say is extremely difficult to remove. So, how do you
# clean it? How often? If you over-clean it, do you then have to
# re-season the barrel with a fresh coating of moly?
#
# It seems to me like a needless complication. I already have a lot of
# factors to tinker with when I'm working up loads (powder charge,
# seating depth, annealing, neck turning, etc). Moly would appear to add
# several new ones, which I really don't need. It's easier to simply
# never let moly touch the bore, and then not have to worry about it.
#
It is indeed a needless complication. The claims made about increasing
barrel life are, as nearly as I can determine, 100% unsubstantiated, indeed
it can be equally well argued that it increases the risk of certain types of
stress corrosion cracking, induced by the presence of decomposition
products.
It does reduce, but not eliminate copper fouling. That said, you can indeed
shoot more rounds and get less fouling but this is of no use to me
personally. A practice session or match generally consists of less that 100
rounds anyway and I always clean afterwords.
Removing it from a barrel is no problem, all it takes is a little JB and
elbow grease. In fact, a person would be hard put to really clean a barrel
and NOT remove it.
There is also reason to believe it can have a negative effect on accuracy,
which is the real reason I quit using it. There is, as far as I know, no
convincing argument for saying it has a positive effect in this regard other
than the already-mentioned fouling-reducing properties.
Steve & Leslie Swartz
is a common interpretation of the results of the Precision Shooting magazine
tests several years back.
The tests found no support whatsoever (zero, zip, zilch, nada) for *any* of
the claims of moly with respect to accuracy, muzzle velocity, or throat
erosion.
They did find, however, that the force required to pull cleaning patches
through the bore was reduced.
This means, to many people, that it "Makes Cleaning Easier."
--
*********************************
Steve & Leslie Swartz
Abolish the Police State
and
the Welfare State
VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
********************************
"Bluehawk99" <Blueh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eu8bn1$7bi$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
browningh...@yahoo.com
# I have what I think are good resons for not using moly.
#
# #From the research I have done, moly offers real -- but quite small --
# benefits. Some people talk about dramatic reductions in barrel wear,
# or being able to shoot far more rounds between cleaning. The most
# careful studies I've seen so far haven't found that, they've found only
# very modest improvements.
You have not done any real research, you need to use this stuff and
see for yourself. On rough bores the benefits are quite dramatic
cutting down on copper fouling as much as 95 per cent or more. One
match grade barrels in new condition the advantages are slight but as
the barrel wears through thoat errosion moly is again needed.
# #From what I understand, the barrel has to develop a smooth coating of
# moly in order to get consistent accuracy. It's no problem as long as
# you shoot only moly bullets. Going back and forth between moly and
# no-moly bullets is a problem, because you end up with a
# partially-molyed barrel. So basically, once you put a few through your
# rifle you are committed to the stuff.
Why would you want to shoot naked bore fouling copper jackted bullets
through the gun, as it makes no sense if you are using moly coated
bullets. If you do its simply a matter of cleaning out the copper and
then shooting more moly bullets through it, no big deal. Your making
a mountain out of mole hill.
# I have also heard greatly conflicting stories about moly "buildup" or
# fouling that some say is extremely difficult to remove. So, how do you
# clean it? How often? If you over-clean it, do you then have to
# re-season the barrel with a fresh coating of moly?
Clean as normal, you are only wanting to remove the burnt powder
anyway (there will be no large amount of hard to remove copper
fouling), of course some of the moly will come out but it will not
hurt anything. Do not use harsh cleaners like Sweets, they are not
necessary with moly protected barrels. After normal cleaning shoot
more moly bullets through the barrel.
# It seems to me like a needless complication. I already have a lot of
# factors to tinker with when I'm working up loads (powder charge,
# seating depth, annealing, neck turning, etc). Moly would appear to add
# several new ones, which I really don't need. It's easier to simply
# never let moly touch the bore, and then not have to worry about it.
If you are not shooting a custom made bench rest gun with a custom
made super tight match chamber and matching custom made dies made with
the same reamer you are wasting your time turning necks as standard
chambers are too large to receive any benefit from neck turning as the
cartridge is laying in the bottom of the oversize chamber anyway.
Tests conducted over the years have proven this.
ubermutant
Agree all the way with that except for muzzle velocity, or perhaps it's
better expressed in terms of pressure. In my five years of using it, moly
always reduced muzzle velocity for the same loading over what would be
achived with nekkid bullets. In .223 it requires about two tenths extra
grains of powder to achieve the same velocity, in .30 cal its nearer half a
grain.
b.
steve podleski
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: The real truth about Moly coated bullets.
# It makes cleaning a barrel easier :-) I've used moly in ten of
# thousands of
# rounds for the past 11 years in 223, 308, 6.5-284 and 6BR.
#
#
# How can you tell it's really clean...do you use a borescope down the
# barrel to check??
Yes.
# For me I'll go with the NRA's exhaustive testing on this matter and
# believe what their results came up with rather than those who think
# they are "benefitting" from their onesided home testing!
I have never seen ANY exhaustive formal testing except from fellow
competitors who test on the range during matches and practices for thousands
or rounds and years of testing.
Steve & Leslie Swartz
studies on occasion.
They are all pretty consistent on:
- No increases in accuracy
- No decreases in throat erosion
- No reduction in amount of time, patches, etc. to clean
- Some reduction in force needed to pull patches through
--
*********************************
Steve & Leslie Swartz
Abolish the Police State
and
the Welfare State
VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
********************************
"steve podleski" <steve.d....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eudlqk$dvm$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
Steve & Leslie Swartz
velocities were *higher* with moly. They found no support at all for that
claim.
They didn't test the proposition that velocities would be *lower* of course-
because at the time, the moly-ites were only claiming higher velocities.
--
*********************************
Steve & Leslie Swartz
Abolish the Police State
and
the Welfare State
VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
********************************
"ubermutant" <webm...@whatsamattayou.edu> wrote in message
news:eubjsk$8u8$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
ubermutant
"Steve & Leslie Swartz" <leslie...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:eufote$l8u$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# The study did a "one tailed test" ie they were evaluating the claim that
# velocities were *higher* with moly. They found no support at all for that
# claim.
#
# They didn't test the proposition that velocities would be *lower* of
course-
# because at the time, the moly-ites were only claiming higher velocities.
#
I don't know anyone who even claims velocities are higher with moly. In
theory, with less resistance you might be able to achieve some marginally
higher velocity with the same pressure profile. The rub is, of course, that
the moly measureably reduces pressure and the net effect is a reduction in
velocity, not an increase, grain for grain.
The whole thing very quickly degenerates into an apples-for-peaches kind of
comparison, as I'm sure you appreciate.
For me it's about accuracy, which is to say consistency. There's simply no
reason for me to add yet another variable into the consistency equation.
b.
Bluehawk99
competitors who test on the range during matches and practices for
thousands
or rounds and years of testing."
Obviously Steve you haven't been paying attention as I posted the name
of the book that was a compilation of articles from the American
Rifleman published by the NRA that had several articles on cast bullet
lubrication and the use of molybdenum disulphide as well as others in
their exhaustive testing.
For the other gentleman who stated the articles were written 40+ years
ago it matters not as moly hasn't changed since then. As far as
borescopes are concerned I was asking you if YOU used a borescope
irregardless of whether or not they existed back then but I know
optics of that sort did because they were not invented originally to
inspect gun barrels but the internals of machinery such as automotive
and aircraft engines among a host of other things.
Bluehawk99
in the development of borescopes for a host of applications throughout
the world.
He invented the first borescope for Westinghouse in 1920-1921!
(Just thought I would let you know)
steve podleski
# studies on occasion.
#
# They are all pretty consistent on:
#
# - No increases in accuracy
# - No decreases in throat erosion
# - No reduction in amount of time, patches, etc. to clean
# - Some reduction in force needed to pull patches through
The articles in PS are not rigorous tests but the experience of the author.
Also benchresters clean after every match were they may shoot only a few
rounds compared to a highpower match were 66 or more rounds are shot before
barrel cleaning.
Bluehawk99
in a shorter version:
Firstly borescopes were invented in 1920-1921 by George S. Crampton,
founder of Lenox Instrument Company and was a pioneer in the
development of borescopes for a host of applications throughout the
shop where he could experiment with, and advance borescope and other
optical technologies. He invented a practical borescope under contract
for Westinghouse to their specifications in 1921 for the inspection of
turbine blades. So obviously they were around when the NRA did their
testing in 1965 although no mention was made of them in the article. I
was simply asking you if YOU used one to be sure your rifle bore was
truly clean!
Secondly; molybdenum disulphide doubtly has changed much in the past
40 years so why you might insist the NRA's testing is invalid seems
unreasonable.
To the gentleman who stated he has never seen or read about any
exhaustive testing except by shooters might want to scroll back and
reread the excerpt from the article I posted or better yet get a copy
of the book published by the NRA.
ubermutant
#
# "Steve & Leslie Swartz" <leslie...@verizon.net> wrote in
# # Precision Shooting and other "benchrest" type mags have done fairly
decent
# # studies on occasion.
# #
# # They are all pretty consistent on:
# #
# # - No increases in accuracy
# # - No reduction in amount of time, patches, etc. to clean
# # - Some reduction in force needed to pull patches through
#
# The articles in PS are not rigorous tests but the experience of the
author.
# Also benchresters clean after every match were they may shoot only a few
# rounds compared to a highpower match were 66 or more rounds are shot
before
# barrel cleaning.
88 rounds for the NRA course, and thats without any refires. Still, I've
never had a match grade barrel get copper-fouled to the point of diminishing
accuracy after a measly 150 rounds, nor do I know of anyone that has had
this experience. A rough barrel might though.
b.
steve podleski
Yes I do own a borescope.
----- Original Message -----
"Bluehawk99" <Blueh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:euisg0$d20$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# "I have never seen ANY exhaustive formal testing except from fellow
# competitors who test on the range during matches and practices for
# thousands
# or rounds and years of testing."
#
# Obviously Steve you haven't been paying attention as I posted the name
# of the book that was a compilation of articles from the American
# Rifleman published by the NRA that had several articles on cast bullet
# lubrication and the use of molybdenum disulphide as well as others in
# their exhaustive testing. For the other gentleman who stated the articles
were written 40+ years ago it matters not as moly hasn't changed since
then.
Testing with low velocity cast bullets is not relevant to shooting with high
velocity jacketed bullets.
As far as
# borescopes are concerned I was asking you if YOU used a borescope
Yes.
Bluehawk99
The borescope question was directed at John Kepler...not you. He's the
guy that insisted borescopes didn't exist back in the 1960s.