Is lubing the neck really required?
- Thread starter adaptive
- Start date
Must be tough playing armchair shooter on the 100 yard line. Good luck bud. PMs always open when you want to learn about real ballistics
Let’s get back to why my chronographs from last summer are invalid, but your groups from 2020 from a different gun than your chrony data somehow mean something.
you wanted groups - you got groups. I understand you're upset because they're way better than anything you've ever done.
i have the proof, right there for you to cry about. now back to the 100-yard line you go to shoot 1 moa
thats at the target. If you had ever participated in an accuracy-based sport, you would know that. Clearly you have not
Man, this is getting better - I can't wait to constantly dismiss your opinions because you spend all day shooting 100-yard paper groups. I'm glad you asked for proof of groups and then show up with a 1 moa gun.
Have a great local range near me out to 1k. I'd be willing to teach you to shoot and read wind anytime, even if you're a jackass.
I'm not a fucking loser so I don't try to flex my reloading on people.
I never said I agree or disagree with the AMP people. I never said I am an aerospace engineer. All I said is that you don't understand thermal processing of metals as much as you think you do.
The only thing you're good at is creating strawmen.
I'd rather provide proof of my reloading with my advice instead of acting like an asshole and I know more than everyone with zero proof.
all that understanding of thermal expansion and you still can't reload or shoot better than me - shame.
I wasn't talking about thermal expansion. I never even mentioned that.
You're borderline stupid.
So . . .
Is lubing the neck really required?
Is lubing the neck really required?
normal people answer: noSo . . .
Is lubing the neck really required?
elitest assholes with no proof: you'll never hit a target again and probably die
Again, it depends.So . . .
Is lubing the neck really required?
Using lube inside the neck does make using mandrels easier. I have tried no lube dirty, RCBS lube, Imperial sizing wax and NeoLube is the best by far. Not sure there is a measurable difference downrange but at the reloading table it makes my life easier.
Are we still discussing reloading or chicken choking?
If it's chicken stuff, I'm on team lube. You (I) get better results.
If it's still reloading, I use One Shot and don't clean the necks prior to powder or bullet seating.
I'm lazy.
No powder was harmed in the manufacture of my ammunition.
However, it all goes up in smoke once the trigger is pressed (pulled for those who like to yank their triggers).
If it's chicken stuff, I'm on team lube. You (I) get better results.
If it's still reloading, I use One Shot and don't clean the necks prior to powder or bullet seating.
I'm lazy.
No powder was harmed in the manufacture of my ammunition.
However, it all goes up in smoke once the trigger is pressed (pulled for those who like to yank their triggers).
That is my issue right there. So you are saying that you successfully managed storing match ammo using C graphite or neolube and cleaning your brass via wet tumbling? You think getting the inside of the necks clean gets a better result when using a dry lube inside the necks?
I cleaned the necks because it allowed me to get them the same every time
Vs varied amount of carbon/case lube/etc over time
Annealing with an AMP also turns that into a sticky gunk I don’t want in my necks
I just used Redding dry neck lube, I’ve had the same container for 10+ yrs
I didn’t make test batches and wait years to compare them side by side, but I had a recurring issue for a while, made those changes, and it went away. With the problem gone, I didn’t worry about it further.
But yes, I have left match and hunting ammo on the shelf for years now and picked it up later without issue for hitting 1-2moa steel and similar chrono performance as before
If better performance than that, like for f class, is your requirement…i can’t confirm that level. I don’t ever shoot 20 rounds in one spot at paper lol
I think way past that now.
Your estimate is extremely conservative.
Okay, I finally conducted my test of lube (Neo Lube) vs no lube.
For this test, I used my .300NM. Exact same load for each, one had no lube in the neck, the other was lubed with Neo Lube after scrubbing carbon from the necks.
This was my load:
- Berger 220 LRHT
- Norma brass, once fired
- CCI 250 magnum primers
- 83.0 grains N570
Each set had 25 rounds. I would shoot 5 rounds from the no lube set, followed by 5 rounds that were lubed, over the Magnetospeed. I took my time shooting to not let the barrel get too hot, conducting this test (50 rounds total) over ~3.5 hours.
Here are the results:
24 rounds (last shot didn't read over chrono) with the set that wasn't lubed:
Max velocity: 2945
Min velocity: 2894
Average: 2910
SD: 12.0
ES: 51
25 rounds with the set that was lubed with Neo Lube:
Max velocity: 2942
Min velocity: 2899
Average: 2924
SD: 10.5
ES: 43
Throughout most of the test, the Neo Lubed set was a clear winner. SD's were solidly single digit, being almost half of the non-lubed set in some cases. But as the test went on, the non-lubed data set started to "settle in" more on velocities, with a reducing SD. Meanwhile, the lubed set was getting more volatility in the MV, leading to an increase in SD's. I've attached a graph that plots the muzzle velocities and rolling SDs for each data set, its somewhat intriguing and I can't say I've made total sense of it yet.
ETA: New cleaned up graph
In conclusion, the Neo Lube data set was better for MV stability, however I can't explain the phenomena that occurs on the last 10 shots, when there appears to be increased volatility. Especially since the other data set seems to settle in at that stage. Another thing to point out is that the Neo Lube set had consistently higher MV's by about 15 fps.
ETA: after more thought and reflection, the two data sets are so incredibly close that it's hard to draw any strong conclusions in regards to one being better than the other. I was monitoring the SDs after every 5 shots for each set, and there was initially a pronounced difference for the first 15 shots between the two sets. I think that introduced a bias in my perception, but after reflecting on this more it appears that the data sets are in actuality closer in performance than I initially concluded. The "phenomena" is within the statistical variance for each data set.
For this test, I used my .300NM. Exact same load for each, one had no lube in the neck, the other was lubed with Neo Lube after scrubbing carbon from the necks.
This was my load:
- Berger 220 LRHT
- Norma brass, once fired
- CCI 250 magnum primers
- 83.0 grains N570
Each set had 25 rounds. I would shoot 5 rounds from the no lube set, followed by 5 rounds that were lubed, over the Magnetospeed. I took my time shooting to not let the barrel get too hot, conducting this test (50 rounds total) over ~3.5 hours.
Here are the results:
24 rounds (last shot didn't read over chrono) with the set that wasn't lubed:
Max velocity: 2945
Min velocity: 2894
Average: 2910
SD: 12.0
ES: 51
25 rounds with the set that was lubed with Neo Lube:
Max velocity: 2942
Min velocity: 2899
Average: 2924
SD: 10.5
ES: 43
Throughout most of the test, the Neo Lubed set was a clear winner. SD's were solidly single digit, being almost half of the non-lubed set in some cases. But as the test went on, the non-lubed data set started to "settle in" more on velocities, with a reducing SD. Meanwhile, the lubed set was getting more volatility in the MV, leading to an increase in SD's. I've attached a graph that plots the muzzle velocities and rolling SDs for each data set, its somewhat intriguing and I can't say I've made total sense of it yet.
ETA: New cleaned up graph
ETA: after more thought and reflection, the two data sets are so incredibly close that it's hard to draw any strong conclusions in regards to one being better than the other. I was monitoring the SDs after every 5 shots for each set, and there was initially a pronounced difference for the first 15 shots between the two sets. I think that introduced a bias in my perception, but after reflecting on this more it appears that the data sets are in actuality closer in performance than I initially concluded. The "phenomena" is within the statistical variance for each data set.
Attachments
Last edited:
I should also add that two factors that I couldn't really control was the barrel temperature and the temperature of the ammo.
Throughout the session, both would inevitably heat up. Both would be affected by the ambient temperature, which was 95*F, and about 85*F in the shade from where I was shooting from. I took my time shooting these 50 rounds, which occurred over 2.5 hours. The barrel was slowly getting warmer throughout the session, from a combination of ambient air temp and combustion.
These two external factors were pretty much out of my control, and surely had some influence on the outcome of the test. What I can't make sense of is how these two factors may be involved in the phenomena in the last 10 rounds of each set, in which both factors would be in play the most, and how it seemingly benefitted one set(no lube) while adversely affecting the other (lubed).
Throughout the session, both would inevitably heat up. Both would be affected by the ambient temperature, which was 95*F, and about 85*F in the shade from where I was shooting from. I took my time shooting these 50 rounds, which occurred over 2.5 hours. The barrel was slowly getting warmer throughout the session, from a combination of ambient air temp and combustion.
These two external factors were pretty much out of my control, and surely had some influence on the outcome of the test. What I can't make sense of is how these two factors may be involved in the phenomena in the last 10 rounds of each set, in which both factors would be in play the most, and how it seemingly benefitted one set(no lube) while adversely affecting the other (lubed).
Last edited:
There is no statistical difference in SD of both groups
It's pretty much negligible. Any perceived difference just seems to be statistical noise from what I can tell.
I edited my conclusion, as upon further reflection I agree with you. My initial analysis was biased from the smaller data sets that I was looking at that ultimately made up the total data set.
Typical reloaders fallacy.
Last edited:
The F stat is 1.3 and it would need to be around 2 to be significant. Also, if it did turn out to be significant, we would need to ask if a 1.5 difference is worth it for the people not already lubing necks. For ELR, I’d say yes. That being said, I’ve lubed my necks since the days of the KM press, so I’ll keep lubing necks regardless.
Initially as I was shooting the two sets, the Neo Lube set started off with half the SD as the non-lubed.
I was getting pretty excited, as my SDs haven't been great in the .300NM. I thought perhaps this was a step that could really help - and at first it showed a lot of promise. 5 round sets showed SDs of 5-7, compared to the 10-14 of the non-lubed.
But hey, that's the typical folly of reloaders. We shoot 5 rounds, collect the data from that, and we are biased into thinking that's reality.
It's only once fired brass, I may have to repeat the test with twice fired brass to see if there's any difference.
It might be worth letting some reloads (with and without Neo Lube) sit for a year and see if the test results are different a second time around. I am considering using Neo Lube on the theory that it might be a way to combat bullet weld.
Some people in here have commented that it's helped them in that regard.
I'm going to play around with Neo Lube some more, this is only the beginning for me.
Yeah that's my main interest in it, though it would be nice to get a lower SD benefit too. I guess this is why testing with some significant numbers is required. I expected the neolube to pretty much cut the SD in half.
You are not even doing this correctly.
Next time just shoot 5 of each and declare a clear winner.
Or maybe just groups of 3 each.
By going on and on you started to make the information useful. You still don't understand how the internet works yet, do you? You are not supposed to share useful information.
Should have just shared the first 5 shots.
The first 5 shots tell a much different story.
Not lubed had an SD of 14.5 and the lubed data set had an SD of 8.0. Almost half.
See?
Back when I was on the FB precision rifle group pages, I would constantly see people (a lot of jersey shooters specifically), post up 3-5 round chrono shots to brag about their low SDs. The self gratification levels on those group pages were off the charts, and the newbies to the sport would just eat it up.
5 round SDs can be so much more satisfying than 25-30+ round SDs. But they don't necessarily tell the whole story.
I've been trying to get my 300PRC load down into the single digits. At this point I'd be happy with any consistent single digit. I can't tell you how many times the first 5 shot string has given me SDs in the 3.x-5.x range, but by 15 shots I always end back up around 12-13. I never pay attention to anyone's 5 shot numbers, especially my own.
5 shot strings can be pretty misleading.
I did a 34 shot string with my 6BRA, and the SD was around 4. But I can't replicate those results with my 6.5 cm or .300NM.
My SD with my .300NM is pretty high as you can see. I would love to get that down. Perhaps it will settle in when the grass gets another firing. Or not
Last edited:
My testing has shown nothing close to that. Mine was in the range of low 8s to low-to-mid 6s on my 300 PRC over 90+ shots of each lubed and non-.
As others have mentioned, if you're not doing ELR, it's likely not worth it. I primarily shoot ELR, so for me it is.
I've had the same kind of experience with my .308 and 6.5 PRC, where I'm after single digit SD's. I wasn't sure it was attainable after reading very good articles that mentioned how certain calibers and cartridges were "easier" to get single digit SD's than others and a .308 wasn't one of them. But I was determined not to give up on that goal and see just how low I could get.
What I learned during this quest is that a lot depends on the particular powder for a particular cartridge. Some powders just don't work well with one's ignition system (primers being a key factor as well). I was able to find a powder and the right primer that works well with my particular ignition system in my RPR's. For example, with my .308, AR-Comp with CCI primers consistently gives me single digit SD's whether I'm using 168, 169, 175 or 177 SMK's. With IMR-4064 I don't get single digits and it's regularly in the low teens. Varget has also given my good single digit SD's, yet H-4895 does well but hasn't given me consistent single digit SD's. I'm talking about SD's that are 15 shot or more. Because of it's consistency for me, AR-Comp is my go to powder. . . (e.g. 80 consecutive shots chronoed getting 6.2 SD). BTW, it was 5 shot data that actually brought me to AR-Comp.
You honestly think he cleans the lube out after mandrelling? Isn’t a mandrel a step you say no one needs? Why does F-Class John do it? Does that make you punch the air?
90% of people don’t need it. Shooting at the top end of a precision sport changes the argument and doesn’t relate to you.
since you have never shot over shotmarkers (you would have used them instead of 6-month-old chronos if you had them) it's funny that you think you've ever tested something - which you clearly must believe you have since you think yelling at me about the necessity of mandrels, lube, or annealing is justified.
you have no idea what you're doing downrange with any chnages you make (don't talk to me about 200 yard paper). the resolution of shooting over a system like that offers is unbelivable and nearly unparalleled.
All that time actually learning something from my shooting is how I shoot better chronos and targets than you with half the steps.
