22lr Bullet Lubrication and Accuracy

[justin amateur]

Okay, finally, a no wind morning after 4 months of fronts, squalls and nor'easters.

Lapua Long Range, with and without lube, at 100 yards.

Those of y'all that think lubricant is important and those that don't,
are going to have to explain to me what just happened.
I am so confused.


CZ 455 Lilja, Sinclair bipod, rear bag
100 yards, wind variable 1 to 3 mph

Using turpentine and a clean cotton rag,
scrubbed the lube off the bullets of a box of Lapua Long Range.
Blue marker on the headstamp to identify no lube cartridges.

Set up at 8 am, minimal wind, sent 15 rounds of SK to prime the barrel.
Then sent the box of factory issued Lapua Long Range. Top left.

Next sent the box of factory issued Lapua Super Long Range. Top right.

Stopped, cleaned the bore completely with a 204 boresnake and Hoppes 9.
Then 3 passes with new cotton patches and trimmer string to check.
Patches exited clean, no lube, no carbon.

Cold bore to last shot of no lube Lapua Long Range took 20 minutes.

All 3 results, 50 shots each time all one one backer.

8 am to 9:30 am, 150 shots.

If lube is important to accuracy with the 22lr, explain those results, please?

I always thought the lube was important, Eley said "not" they may be right??????

 

[grauhanen]

In the webpage that inspired j.a.'s comparison, Eley indicated that the primary purpose of lube "is to ease repeated chambering". It's not to improve or assist accuracy. https://eley.co.uk/waxing-lyrical-about-22lr-lubricants-beeswax-or-paraffin-wax/

Did you find a noteworthy difference in chambering the unlubed ammo?

What does the bore look like after 50 unlubed rounds?

 

[Simonsza1]

My rifle likes lube for easy extraction, nothing to do with accuracy. Cci with waxy lube has issues where Sk with slick wet lube works awesome. Btw how long till this thread gets a “lube” joke?

 

[justin amateur]

I single feed each cartridge, no magazine, no problem chambering, G.
I can see if mag fed from a SemiAuto it'd be a different story.
With no lube, scraping would damage the nose and drive bands.

Link to folder with images of the Lilja bore after no lube 50 shots...

No Lube 22lr Lilja Bore

44 new items · Album by just another interested amateur

photos.app.goo.gl

 

[grauhanen]

Regarding the bore after 50 rounds without lube, it may appear that there's some leading closer to the breech end but further away from the chamber there isn't anything to be concerned about -- at least with only 50 rounds.

If the rifle chambers non-lubricated rounds easily and without problem, there doesn't seem to be a strong argument for lube's primary purpose to facilitate repeated chambering, especially with the single shot rifles that use up most of Eley's top tier ammos.

 

[littlesister]

Okay, finally, a no wind morning after 4 months of fronts, squalls and nor'easters.

Lapua Long Range, with and without lube, at 100 yards.

Those of y'all that think lubricant is important and those that don't,
are going to have to explain to me what just happened.
I am so confused.


CZ 455 Lilja, Sinclair bipod, rear bag
100 yards, wind variable 1 to 3 mph

Using turpentine and a clean cotton rag,
scrubbed the lube off the bullets of a box of Lapua Long Range.
Blue marker on the headstamp to identify no lube cartridges.

Set up at 8 am, minimal wind, sent 15 rounds of SK to prime the barrel.
Then sent the box of factory issued Lapua Long Range. Top left.

Next sent the box of factory issued Lapua Super Long Range. Top right.

Stopped, cleaned the bore completely with a 204 boresnake and Hoppes 9.
Then 3 passes with new cotton patches and trimmer string to check.
Patches exited clean, no lube, no carbon.

Cold bore to last shot of no lube Lapua Long Range took 20 minutes.

All 3 results, 50 shots each time all one one backer.

8 am to 9:30 am, 150 shots.

ho ho

If lube is important to accuracy with the 22lr, explain those results, please?

I always thought the lube was important, Eley said "not" they may be right??????

Interesting experiment JA, but I don't think 50 rounds is enough to draw any absolute conclusions. Even though lube may or may not increase accuracy it is important to accuracy if you shoot lubed bullets which shooters who are serious about accuracy do. Competition grade remfire barrels hardly ever lead up even after thousands of rounds of shooting extremely soft lead bullets. My steel challenge mod 41 S&W shooting non lubed bullets will start to lead up after 500 rds. I'm certainly not going to. but you might try shooting a 1000rnds of non lubed bullets using your current cleaning techniques "no lead solvents or brass brushes" and look at what happens to accuracy.

 

[justin amateur]

My Buckmark Varmint will lead up also LS.
Even with lubricated bullets.
The reason being the rate of fire and the amount of vaporized lead generated.

I fully expected to see loss of accuracy with no lubricant on the bullets.
It didn't happen. My question is why?
Discussion points to the wet burn residue deposited in the bore with each shot.
That wet residue is the lubrication that kept the lead from building up.
Not the lubricant normally found on rimfire bullets.
Slow rate of fire, one shot every 25 to 30 seconds,
no heat build up, bore remains wet for each shot.
No lead deposited.

My Lilja requires the chamber to be cleaned after 200 to 250 shots.
Carbon ring in the chamber blocks extraction.
The bore only requires a couple patches pulled through after each session to clear the wet residue.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Not much love on RFC concerning this, I find it interesting. I am with others who say shoot more non lubed, not saying your sample size is too small, but your ES for the non lubed 50 is sky high for a Lapua ammo. Did you track exactly where the highs and lows occurred during testing? Was there a steady rise in velocity as you went along.
I know nothing about lube on 22LR ammo, other than Eley is more pleasant to load mags with. I do feel the lube is the biggest catalyst for forming a carbon ring though.

 

[justin amateur]

Yeah Milo, folks get anxious when you rock the boat.

The results weren't what I expected and it has ruffled some feathers.
Saw no pattern in the chrony numbers, normal variations for a CenterX assembly line clone.
Some boxes will be sub 40 fps ES, others show a couple hot or weak shots.

The old coots I shoot with have tossed me under the bus.
Since I started it, they figure I have to see it through.
A full morning with no lube 22lr and then scope the bore.
They expect serious lead streaks in the rifling.
It'll have to be done, might as well get to it.
I have some SK SemiAuto, spend a couple evenings de-lubing 4 boxes,
then enjoy a morning pinging steel at 200 yards.

 

[6.5SH]

Yeah Milo, folks get anxious when you rock the boat.

The results weren't what I expected and it has ruffled some feathers.
Saw no pattern in the chrony numbers, normal variations for a CenterX assembly line clone.
Some boxes will be sub 40 fps ES, others show a couple hot or weak shots.

The old coots I shoot with have tossed me under the bus.
Since I started it, they figure I have to see it through.
A full morning with no lube 22lr and then scope the bore.
They expect serious lead streaks in the rifling.
It'll have to be done, might as well get to it.
I have some SK SemiAuto, spend a couple evenings de-lubing 4 boxes,
then enjoy a morning pinging steel at 200 yards.

I think it is worth pursuing. Here is what Eley says about their lube:

The presence and effect of it as fouling is a separate matter from its intended purpose IMO. You aren't the heretic researching the topic

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Okay, finally, a no wind morning after 4 months of fronts, squalls and nor'easters.

Lapua Long Range, with and without lube, at 100 yards.

Those of y'all that think lubricant is important and those that don't,
are going to have to explain to me what just happened.
I am so confused.


CZ 455 Lilja, Sinclair bipod, rear bag
100 yards, wind variable 1 to 3 mph

Using turpentine and a clean cotton rag,
scrubbed the lube off the bullets of a box of Lapua Long Range.
Blue marker on the headstamp to identify no lube cartridges.

Set up at 8 am, minimal wind, sent 15 rounds of SK to prime the barrel.
Then sent the box of factory issued Lapua Long Range. Top left.

Next sent the box of factory issued Lapua Super Long Range. Top right.

Stopped, cleaned the bore completely with a 204 boresnake and Hoppes 9.
Then 3 passes with new cotton patches and trimmer string to check.
Patches exited clean, no lube, no carbon.

Cold bore to last shot of no lube Lapua Long Range took 20 minutes.

All 3 results, 50 shots each time all one one backer.

8 am to 9:30 am, 150 shots.

If lube is important to accuracy with the 22lr, explain those results, please?

I always thought the lube was important, Eley said "not" they may be right??????

The difference is that you shot the lubed then cleaned then shot the no lubed. not the same, next time shoot something else first then clean then do your testing.
my rifles tend to always shoot better after initial rounds are shot then I clean. this is the same reason I don't lot test without shooting some other lot then clean then do my testing.

Lee

 

[grauhanen]

Eley says the lubricant is primarily for easy chambering, not lubricating the bore.

Does any other match ammo manufacturer -- or anyone else for that matter -- make a similar assertion, that bullet lubrication is primarily for easy chambering rather than lubricating the bore?

There is information that runs contrary to what Eley would have us believe.

George E. Frost is the author of Ammunition Making, one of the few books on ammunition making which includes considerable information on .22LR in general and includes a chapter devoted soley to .22LR match ammo. He says "22 Rimfire cartridges, whether with plain lead or plated bullets, must have some lubrication to prevent leading in rifle or pistol barrels." (p.84)

If lubricant served primarily to ease chambering, then it would seem that the nature of the lubricant would not matter greatly. For those wondering why match ammo tend to be more lubricious, Frost notes that .22LR match ammunition "seems to achieve maximum accuracy with a greasier lubricant." (p.84)

Furthermore, if lubricant served primarily to ease chambering, It doens't seem to be necessary that the manufacturer should be especially concerned about its cleanliness or freshness.

Frost says in the chapter on .22 match ammo that during the lubrication process, "only enough [lubricant] should be used to prevent leading." He specifically notes that "the lubricant itself must be kept clean and fresh, and should be changed at least once a day." He goes on to note that "discarded lubricant may be used, where called for, in regular [that is, non-match ammo] production." (p.137) Why should the manufacturer be concerned about lubricant cleanliness and freshness if it served primarily to ease chambering?

This brings it back to this question: Is there any other reliable source that supports the contention on Eley webpages that .22LR bullet lube is primarily for easy chambering?

 

[justin amateur]

I didn't follow that Lee.
The bore was cleaned back to bare metal again, before shooting the unlubed ammo.
Shouldn't matter what brand was fired before cleaning, right?
50 shots, from cold clean bore to last squeeze, through 49 layers of burn residue.
After cleaning, I've read it takes 5 to 20 shots to re-season the bore before accuracy returns.
In this instance the bare metal and no-lube stayed fairly tight, compared to the lubed results.

G, this is the reason I raise questions.
I don't know the answers. I've read other's opinions,
in this case there are contradicting lines of thought.
Thanks for adding to the discussion.
Especially the references to prior publications.

 

[Milo 2.5]

The presence and effect of it as fouling is a separate matter from its intended purpose IMO. You aren't the heretic researching the topic

Lol, and you are not controlling the narrative. I applaud Justin for trying something different! It is interesting, but in my case, moot, I and most people in the rimfire section of SH probably don't top load rds, and won't be wiping off any lube.
I guess I could see myself tumbling the grease off shitty tac 22 ammo that really should just hit the trash can.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

I didn't follow that Lee.
The bore was cleaned back to bare metal again, before shooting the unlubed ammo.
Shouldn't matter what brand was fired before cleaning, right?
50 shots, from cold clean bore to last squeeze, through 49 layers of burn residue.
After cleaning, I've read it takes 5 to 20 shots to re-season the bore before accuracy returns.
In this instance the bare metal and no-lube stayed fairly tight, compared to the lubed results.

Simple, the first box of lubed you shot what 15 foulers. you didn't do that with the no lube. if the lubed ammo was shot fresh out of the rifle case the bores was in a different condition.
when I lot test to try and make it the same, I shoot 15-20 foulers out of a rifle fresh out of the rifle case. then run a wet pellet and then dry the bore and begin testing. this way every lot after has the same bore condition.

Lee

 

[justin amateur]

Understood, Lee.

I was attempting to find out if there was a difference in results between lubed and un-lubed.
In my mind that meant starting from a seasoned bore with the lubed cartridges,
same as I do when testing at 50, 100 and 200 yards, to produce optimum results.
The un-lubed I shot, starting from a pristine cold bore, to determine worst case scenario.
I was thinking that starting with no lubricant in the bore, leading would occur starting with the first shot.
Accuracy would immediately start to degrade and muzzle velocities would decline incrementally with each shot.
Imagine my surprise when that didn't happen. Now I'm hunting explanations.
According to my understanding, it shouldn't have happened.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Understood, Lee.

I was attempting to find out if there was a difference in results between lubed and un-lubed.
In my mind that meant starting from a seasoned bore with the lubed cartridges,
same as I do when testing at 50, 100 and 200 yards, to produce optimum results.
The un-lubed I shot, starting from a pristine cold bore, to determine worst case scenario.
I was thinking that starting with no lubricant in the bore, leading would occur starting with the first shot.
Accuracy would immediately start to degrade and muzzle velocities would decline incrementally with each shot.
Imagine my surprise when that didn't happen. Now I'm hunting explanations.
According to my understanding, it shouldn't have happened.

oh, the mysteries of rimfire

Lee

 

[acudaowner]

wax is great for a bikini lines , other wise I like a eel snot from sk man . get them even the tiniest bit wet and one of those a Hag fishes would be envious
the results of putting live hag fish in your car

man now that's a boat load of snot .

 

[grapedefender]

Your experimentation is awesome. I can't imagine your research budget, freely given to the shooting public. I dont want to waste electrons if i have nothing to add to the discussion, but your acknowledgement of past source material got me thinking. In the NRA cast bullet handbook, by the incomparable E.H. Harrison, if i may presume to paraphrase, the goopier the lube the better it worked. Down to and including oils and greases that were too runny to go through a lubrisizer. I personally verified this with my own "tests" as a dewy cheeked apprentice. The hard, clean, convenient lubes be they orange, blue, or green, shot like crap. Harrisons tests were breathtakingly comprehensive. He tried gunk and combinations of weird stuff that try the imagination. No hagfish slime though! Course he had a .gov military research facility at his disposal, but lots of the contributions in this book were from Interested Amateurs. Rereading the book as a grown man, after i read Zediker, i was amazed to see bunches of his stuff in there. The 10 throw scale setting method for example. How had i missed this? Anyhow powder coating now rules for all but the most exacting lead bullet shooting, probably why eley, nor lapua, or any premium bullet will never use it. Remarkable though. No leading up to magnum pistol velocities. Capable of 24-2600 fps with a gascheck and no leadin

 

[Cody S]

the best ammo I ever shot was RWS and I'm almost positive it didn't have any lube. if it did it had dried on the ones I tested and it shot PHENOMENAL.
I will say I get easier extraction and chambering with lubed ammo in my factory gun.
don't believe the fudd hype, find out what shoots best for you and do that.