Anyone have any input on if they are better? Do they shoot cleaner? Also any changes in velocities or a reason to work up another load? Currently running 168gr .308 amax's non coated.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Non coated vs moly
- Thread starter dustinoif3
- Start date
Dont use Moly coated bullets. They leave buld-up in the throat that affects accuracy and life. In addition, many bbl manufactures will void your warranty if you use them.
Oh no kidding? Hell with that then. I thought it was break through technology or some shit
Well it will give you higher muzzle velocity and does 'lubricate' better as it travels through the bore, but that comes at a cost. At the end of a bbl's life, i say F[_]ck it, do whatever, but for a new one or a relatively stable one, stay away. But, doesnt mean you shouldnt have some on hand for when the SHTF or something, a bullet is a bullet when you are fighting for your life.
Or, if you really want to use them, always use them as you will have a zero shift you switch between non-coated and coated.
Also, i just did a quick search and found this...
http://www.shootingsoftware.com/moly.htm
Or, if you really want to use them, always use them as you will have a zero shift you switch between non-coated and coated.
Also, i just did a quick search and found this...
http://www.shootingsoftware.com/moly.htm
Last edited:
Actually, it's old technology that seems to get recycled every 20 years or so. And it reduces velocity, at least when used with the same loads. You may (may) be able to get higher velocities, but only by bumping up the powder charge by some margin. All in all, it's a bit like paying your Visa bill with your Mastercard; you haven't solved any problems, but you may trade some of the old ones for new ones.
M
milo 2.0
Guest
I moly my long range bullets. I've yet to see this in 3 years of doing it. Also, moly is a lubricant, so if there is a throat buildup, along with carbon, it should cleanout easier.
I did read through the link dillhole provided, and the only thing I took from it was barrel imperfections causing moly rings, if there's an imperfection, it's going to collect copper also, and that would be more harmful than moly. One reason we buy custom barrels, no imperfections.
Moly is not for everyone, and I'm not encouraging you to use it. I can usually get close to 400rds through a moly barrel before I clean, I've never taken one to accuracy failure though.
Just wade through the BS before you make a decision.
I do respect Kevin's opinions on stuff, but here, other than the mess associated with molying, I've encountered no problems. Gains?????
Last edited:
The comments about barrel life and warranty are outright fabrications. The build-up might happen, doesn't always happen, and appears to have no effect.
What wears barrels?? Always, always, throat erosion. Using steel ammo. But not moly bullets.
> Long time moly shooter.
Last edited:
Lets clarify this just a bit, as i just got off the phone with Krieger. Using moly coated bullets outright will not void the warranty, however, using them with a Chromolly barrel will as this will lead to moisture trapping and the bbl will literally rust from the inside out and the warranty DOES NOT cover that. Also, they agreed with my position that once you go Moly coated never go away from it as you will never be able to clean it out completely and fire regular copper jacketed bullets the same. it doesnt foul the bbl the same way copper does and leaves patches along the bore which can lead to inconsistencies. Obviously, if anything is cleaned properly much can be minimized, but the coating when heated repeadtedly atually becomes part of the steel structure and can never be completely removed.
so on the truth-o-meter, i give my self a half true and the other half is opinion. do you what you want, but there doesnt seem to be, IMHO, a real tangible benefit to using them.
Milo,
That's actually one of the claims (long strings without cleaning) that I investigated when Sierra started considering offering coated bullets. Everyone talked about how many shots you could run without cleaning, but no one had really done anything to determine just how much of an advantage this may truly be. I decided to give it a try, and loaded up 300 rounds of 308 with our standard QC load to try this out. I shot a series of 30 ten-round groups at 200 yards, from a machine rest in the tunnel. I used two targets for each; a backer target which I only replaced after fifty rounds (five groups) and the top target which I replaced after each ten rounds. So in the end, I had thirty 10-round targets, and six targets that formed 5o round composite groups of the five 10-round targets. I plotted these throughout the test, so I had a total of six of these 50-round composite targets, with rounds number 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, etc., through the final group at 300 rounds. While I didn't see much difference in the individual ten round groups throughout the test, the real shock was the composite targets. The single smallest 50 round groups was the last on, shot numbers 251-300. This was all the time and ammo I had alloted for this, but they may have very well continued to shoot like this for many more rounds. Anyway, I came away convinced that the whole notion of cleaning every 10-15 rounds (or whatever the gunwriters are harping about at that point in time) is pure BS. With modern gilding metal alloys, cleaning isn't nearly the bugaboo that most writers make it out to be. I have some personal theories on this, but you get my drift. In any case, the argumetn about being able to shoot long strings being so much of an advantage over plain, uncoated bullets . . . lost a lot of steam with me after that. I've never tried to dissuade anyone from using these (hey, it's their time and their money!) but never really found the arguments to be very coinvincing after that.
That's actually one of the claims (long strings without cleaning) that I investigated when Sierra started considering offering coated bullets. Everyone talked about how many shots you could run without cleaning, but no one had really done anything to determine just how much of an advantage this may truly be. I decided to give it a try, and loaded up 300 rounds of 308 with our standard QC load to try this out. I shot a series of 30 ten-round groups at 200 yards, from a machine rest in the tunnel. I used two targets for each; a backer target which I only replaced after fifty rounds (five groups) and the top target which I replaced after each ten rounds. So in the end, I had thirty 10-round targets, and six targets that formed 5o round composite groups of the five 10-round targets. I plotted these throughout the test, so I had a total of six of these 50-round composite targets, with rounds number 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, etc., through the final group at 300 rounds. While I didn't see much difference in the individual ten round groups throughout the test, the real shock was the composite targets. The single smallest 50 round groups was the last on, shot numbers 251-300. This was all the time and ammo I had alloted for this, but they may have very well continued to shoot like this for many more rounds. Anyway, I came away convinced that the whole notion of cleaning every 10-15 rounds (or whatever the gunwriters are harping about at that point in time) is pure BS. With modern gilding metal alloys, cleaning isn't nearly the bugaboo that most writers make it out to be. I have some personal theories on this, but you get my drift. In any case, the argumetn about being able to shoot long strings being so much of an advantage over plain, uncoated bullets . . . lost a lot of steam with me after that. I've never tried to dissuade anyone from using these (hey, it's their time and their money!) but never really found the arguments to be very coinvincing after that.
You do understand that all you recieved from Kreiger was an opinion, don't you?? You also understand the major barrel makers disagree on many things?
Just a short list, they don't all agree on barrel break-in, cryo-treating, nitriding, among other subjects.
The moisture trapping fable is a hoot! I wonder how the story goes, maybe something about rain water entering the barrel just before the 1st dreaded moly bullet?
Some of the reasons machinists use to void warranting their work is amusing.
To the OP. Use moly, don't, - experiment as you desire. I personally think it's interesting to get a higher velocity with less pressure. However, with my next .308 barrel, I am going with barrel nitriding, which pretty much negates many of the reasons to use moly anyway.
You do understand that all you recieved from Kreiger was an opinion, don't you?? You also understand the major barrel makers disagree on many things?
Just a short list, they don't all agree on barrel break-in, cryo-treating, nitriding, among other subjects.
The moisture trapping fable is a hoot! I wonder how the story goes, maybe something about rain water entering the barrel just before the 1st dreaded moly bullet?
Some of the reasons machinists use to void warranting their work is amusing.
To the OP. Use moly, don't, - experiment as you desire. I personally think it's interesting to get a higher velocity with less pressure. However, with my next .308 barrel, I am going with barrel nitriding, which pretty much negates many of the reasons to use moly anyway.
Yes I understand, but I thought their opinion may carry a little weight more than mine. In the end though, isn't 90% of what is said here opinion? So let's just take it as that and not the word of god. I don't dispute anything you say.
Anyhow, I agree with you, use it or don't use it. My only advice, is don't switch between coated and coated in the same bbl.
Ill prolly stick with the coated. Just saw a place had some in stock and my "stock" could use some help.
M
milo 2.0
Guest
Kevin.
Like I said, I'm not sure of any gains. With the way barrels are lapped today, I'm relatively sure one could shoot 400 uncoated bullets with the same results. I wasn't making that claim.
If anyone thinks moly, or HBN is going to stop the rifleing from cutting into the copper jacket of a bullet is, well, an idiot.
My belief, one I haven't read about, is that the lube from moly coats the rifleing and helps ward off copper buildup, lets it blow out with subsequent shots, but honestly have no proof whatsoever.
I will say to the rest of the crowd, anyone saying you can't switch from coated to non-coated and back, Bull shit. Clean the gun, moly in the pores of the metal can't change a thing.
Fn browning,
I have a nitrided barrel, still using moly, it's the slowest I've owned, pressured up SOB. I'm not totally sold on pressure, it might be a rough bolt face, but who dares to horse it to find out????
Last edited:
M
milo 2.0
Guest
Before it sounds like I'm preaching the accolades of moly, I've been wanting to give it up for sometime now, it's just when I have a gun built, all I have for a bullet stash is coated bullets, so I continue.
Unless you're buying them coated, it's a messy pain in the ass, to say the least.
Unless you're buying them coated, it's a messy pain in the ass, to say the least.
I have to ask, if you have some moly coated bullets or rounds would you use them in your nitrite barrel?
M
milo 2.0
Guest
I would, and have seen it done with great results. But read my second to last post.
Many of the original proponents of Moly have quit using it and moved on to the newest and greatest fad/advancement, Boron Nitride. It overcomes most of the shortcomings of Moly with no reported issues. It is slicker than Moly, doesn't have the humidity issues, overcomes the outgassing potential and offers a consistent cold bore first shot. It is also clear and not messy. With that said, if you need bullets and moly is all that is available, I'd say go for it especially for the short term. I know several people shooting them competitively that haven't complained and have used them for quite a few years now. I have no desire to use them but come this fall when my stockpile is used up, I may change my mind if that is all that I can find...
I handload for 64 different cartridges.
I use a Copper jacketed bullet if the velocity will be more than 1600 fps.
I moly coat the bullets that will have a velocity of more than 2600 fps.
I do not go over 3600 fps, even with moly coating.
I use a Copper jacketed bullet if the velocity will be more than 1600 fps.
I moly coat the bullets that will have a velocity of more than 2600 fps.
I do not go over 3600 fps, even with moly coating.
Some years ago, I experimented with moly coating my own bullets. I used the NECO system and coated a variety of Nosler ballistic tips, Hornady V-max, Berger and Sierra bullets. In general, I saw a small drop in velocity, and a small drop in accuracy. I did not work up moly specific loads to try to regain the velocity and accuracy. At the time I was loading for some prairie dog shoots and was only interested in reducing the negative impacts of high volume shooting for all day. We would usually shoot for about 30 min until the barrels were too hot and then take a break, cool the barrels and clean them and then shoot some more. Typical day would be five or six hrs of shooting with 250-300rds per day fired. My bbl was well broken in before ever digesting moly and after eating 1200 moly coated rounds, and being detail cleaned, it proceeded to shoot its best 100yd group ever 0.152" at 100yds with un-coated V-max bullets. I switch between the two often, as I still get the best groups from un-coated rounds. The moly never all comes out. And the patches always come out slightly gray no matter how long you spend cleaning the bbl. Did it hurt the bbl? I cannot tell. The gun still shoots well, but is really probably past its prime having digested several thousand near max varmint loads. I shot a sub 1/2" group with it at 200 yds the other day which is not its best but is still pretty respectable. In fact it is still my most accurate rifle. I have not loaded for it in 12 yrs until just recently and am starting to load up a batch of varmint ammo this winter. My opinion is that for a high volume varmint or tgt shooter, the moly might be better for limiting bbl wear, but it does not improve accuracy of each shot. If you want the best groups, and do not plan to shoot tons of ammo, it is probably not necessary and will not help you at all. I do not use moly on any of my other guns since they rarely every get shot more than 50 rds at a time.
Irish
Irish
Just like the rest of the ideas that are spread, from time to time, (pretty much) based on faith and testimonials, moly is one fad I have managed to resist. I have friends that swear by moly, and I can tell that they shoot moly coated bullets because they have those dark smudges on their nose. It's amazing the amount of MOJO that goes into shooting technology.....like my lucky socks. BB
M
milo 2.0
Guest
When you say not as messy, I assume you mean a visible mess, because it's still there. I wouldn't do this process on the little woman's kitchen counter, or not wash my hands before cooking or eating finger food, because you'll be shitting like you've came off a 3 day binge!
I actually think moly has helped in my applications. Today I wet moly, either way it's going to be messy, I just think I can control the mess better by going wet. Transferring moy to whatever you plan to use is always tricky, a bottle of 409 spray and some paper towels whips it up fast.
Moly fell out of favor quickly, as Buzz eluded to, but it was more from the waxing of bullets after molying that caused issues. I mean for Christ sakes you don't put a heavy protective coat of oil in your barrel, then go shoot the thing without patching it out, same principle, burning wax in the barrel, I gotta laugh.
Just for general info, moly is hygroscopic (it absorbs water from the air) and can cause this moisture to be trapped between the moly and the barrel. This is something you will want to be aware of if shooting moly bullets. I'm not sure how people in general deal with this and if current moly uses some chemical magic to avoid this problem (I think moly can form a bonded layer which will not trap moisture in the same way, but don't quote me on that, I'm just remembering the research I did almost a year ago). You can read about what shooters do to avoid this problem. Just figured I'd mention it so that you don't pull the rifle out after a winter of storage and wonder why your barrel is rusted.
While the moisture issue may be real, I do not think that is is as bad as one might think as long as reasonable precautions are taken. I live in KY where the humidity often hits 90+% in the summer. Sweaty fingerprints will cause rust to form on some guns almost before your eyes, lol. My varmint rifle after digesting a bunch of moly coated rounds was detail cleaned and a coating of Sheath rust preventative ran down the barrel with a wet patch prior to storage. It spent 10yrs in comfort conditioned storage and was only taken out about twice to be shot, recleaned and stored again in that time. Then due to changes, was forced to be cased and stored in un-heated, locked storage for two summers and two winters. This placed it in conditions where it would freeze and then warm up outside and is absolutely the worst thing you can do to guns. They have dew form on them and will rust if not protected. When removed from storage this past summer it had suffered zero corrosion inside or out. I think if one cleans and re-lubes with a good rust preventative every now and then and stores the weapon in a manner that keeps the temps above the dew point, then there should not be an issue. Now if you are going to keep it in an un-heated garage or attic, it might be a problem. If you are going to hang it in the rear rack of a pickup truck and leave it there year round, that too might be an issue. Sheath is no longer available for sale. The product that replaced it is called Barricade. I am not yet fully convinced that it is as good as the older Birchwood Casey Sheath. But I do know that other rust preventative treatments are available. Anybody have one that they really like? I still have two cans of Sheath but will need to replace it soon with something else.
Irish
Dillhole what is your basis for not switching from moly'd to non-moly'd bullets? I have heard this before but nobody has ever come up with a real reason not to.
I will soon be able to tell you whether there is any down side to doing so since I am out of moly'd 162gr Amax bullets and I will be going to non coated bullets in that barrel.
I will soon be able to tell you whether there is any down side to doing so since I am out of moly'd 162gr Amax bullets and I will be going to non coated bullets in that barrel.
Have you considered some of the other 'high tech' coatings like HBN and WS2? IIRC, HBN is better, less messy, and not hygroscopic.
the thing that sold me on moly coating was when i was shooting .300win mag, after about 15 rounds the hits would start to wander around. after molying, they basically stayed put. don't know if it just kept fouling down or "whatever" was at play, i just knew that after 40 rounds and a sore shoulder the hits stayed put so everything i have is molyied now.
got some HBN to try, as i thought i was running out of moly soon, but using the BBs in a pill bottle method got me a whole lot more mileage out of the moly i have left.
got some HBN to try, as i thought i was running out of moly soon, but using the BBs in a pill bottle method got me a whole lot more mileage out of the moly i have left.
M
milo 2.0
Guest
I am interested in hearing the results of using HBN, from what I hear it has all the results of moly with non of the draw backs as far as decreased barrel life, I just got a new 300 win mag that I wanted to try HBN to get 208gr. Amax to leave at 3050 f/s or higher
Similar threads
