Right, but are you mixing it with alcohol or applying it dry? I've done moly coating but it's traditionally tumbled on bullets.When I use moly powder, I use a bore mop of the appropriate size for the case mouth.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Right, but are you mixing it with alcohol or applying it dry? I've done moly coating but it's traditionally tumbled on bullets.When I use moly powder, I use a bore mop of the appropriate size for the case mouth.
Right, but are you mixing it with alcohol or applying it dry? I've done moly coating but it's traditionally tumbled on bullets.
I use q-tips with Neo and just swab the necks. That's why I'm asking about Moly. I hate dealing with moly coating bullets and why I went to HBN 15+ years ago. Eventually I just stopped coating bullets. Swabbing necks is much easier in small scale.Ah. For dry moly I use the bore mop. I use q-tips for liquid like neolube. I've also used small paint brushes. But q-tip seems faster.
I'm going to try pouring neolube into a dish with a waterline at the neck/shoulder junction. Dip the case neck down, wipe the outside off with rag and put case into loading tray.
How are you guys applying the Moly?
to stir the pot in this topic too?
I'm going to try pouring neolube into a dish with a waterline at the neck/shoulder junction. Dip the case neck down, wipe the outside off with rag and put case into loading tray.
I'm going out to the hills on Saturday to lob a bunch of lead out to 2k (and shorter). I'm going to load a bunch of 300, 6mm and virgin 308. I might try this on some of my 6mm cases.
Recommendation on dry time for this?
I'm going out to the hills on Saturday to lob a bunch of lead out to 2k (and shorter). I'm going to load a bunch of 300, 6mm and virgin 308. I might try this on some of my 6mm cases.
Recommendation on dry time for this?
I was trying to resist, but...
I said your data is suspect (actually, more like useless) because you're not testing for anything useful so far in how it pertains to making better ammo. You're just testing which lube works best on less-than-ideal cases.
You're going back and forth with ways to apply lube to the inside of the necks of cases... missing the fact that the inside of dirty/fired brass is already coated with a thin layer of graphite (aka carbon, which is what graphite is made from).
Fired cases, unlike a chamber that's seen hundreds of rounds developing a carbon ring, only develop a thin, relatively uniform coating of carbon, the thickness of which has to be measured in microns (with the excess cooking off during combustion, and forming that carbon ring in your chamber I mentioned). Even after multiple firings, it doesn't accumulate enough to even measure it with calipers or common tools one has the average reloading room.
The AMP press measures friction if you distill it down... and unless/until you find a way to apply lube to the inside of case necks as evenly and uniformly as combustion does, you're just wasting your time looking for what is second best.
You have to remember that he also doesn’t believe load development has any effectLOL. There's several in this thread that have already tested this. As well as many others not in this thread. Fired brass with carbon left in the neck on average performs second best to fired brass that is cleaned completely and then lubed with a well performing lube like NeoLube.
But, last week you were telling everyone your experience and data is better than Applied Ballistics. So it lines up pretty well that you're gonna double down on this. Essentially, you're now saying that your ammo is better than the likes of Tony Boyer.
People like you are why people/places such as Cortina, Applied Ballistics and several others all stay behind paywalls and off public forums.
You have to remember that he also doesn’t believe load development has any effect
With this latest revelation, it's very unlikely that either neck preparation, neck tension or neck ID coating could make much if any difference.
Just to be clear, I am not postulating that the primer pushes the projectile into the barrel & clear out of the case. It's been measured with specifically designed equipment.Then why are many of us seeing and measuring differences in performance by varying the above parameters?
Thinking about this, though, if what you postulate is true (I have no information to say one way or the other), then I'd argue that minor differences in effective neck tension (combination of all of the above) would actually have MORE impact on the bullet, because the forces applied against the bullet by the neck are a higher ratio against the forces pushing the bullet.
If X is the effective neck tension, then X/3000psi is far greater than X/60000psi and therefore impacts the bullet dynamics more.
Although none of the testing covered neck tension, I find it difficult to believe that such minor forces could have much if any effect on the outcome.
Where you state that "many people have proven it" is really the crux of the issue here. This presupposes that the testing undertaken was "statistically significant" & so we get back to the old argument of what people think statistical significance is & how to achieve it.I agree, it's difficult to believe, but they do have an effect. Many people have proven it. I've measured how consistency in bullet seating force, which has a correlation to effective neck tension, manifests in SDs.
Regardless, believe it, or not, that's your prerogative. I've proven it to my satisfaction, whether or not it is within your realm of belief is for you to decide.
I have read graduate level mathematical probability and statistics textbooks and understood them better than whatever you're trying to say.Where you state that "many people have proven it" is really the crux of the issue here. This presupposes that the testing undertaken was "statistically significant" & so we get back to the old argument of what people think statistical significance is & how to achieve it.
For example, there have been many commissioned studies on the velocity stability of military ammunition &, although it appears to be represented by a wider, shallower gaussian curve than high quality handloads, the general precepts of statistical analysis still apply whereby, given any particular probability weighting &, utilizing the calculated minimum number of samples to establish a reliable SD, it can be seen that the tails of the curve extend out between 3 SD & 6 SD. Due to the general belief that high level competition loads have a much narrower probability density, there is some controversy that 6SD is a true representation which, does appear to have some Merritt however, even if we ignore a 6SD probability density, we are still left with at least a 3SD two tailed probability density which I have never seen refuted. So, in relevant terms, anyone who claims to have a velocity SD of 5 (for arguments sake) upon continued testing see a two tailed distribution (<>) of 3SD = an SD of at least +/-15ft/sec either side of the established mean velocity. As I've stated before in earlier threads, the whole concept of results of a robust statistical analysis are completely misunderstood by the majority of people in that there is no absolute SD number which represents the reality of any situation, whether that be velocity, group size & etc... A Gaussian curve represents a probability density once a true SD has been established & that probability density is represented by the area under the curve & the left & right tails of the curve. An absolute SD number can only be used to calculate the probable variation or range which can be expected.
Below is the what the statistics tell us the variability will be based on a true SD.
- Around 68% of values are within 1 standard deviation from the mean.
- Around 95% of values are within 2 standard deviations from the mean.
- Around 99.7% of values are within 3 standard deviations from the mean.
The only data in that thread that is of any significance in terms of dispersion is on page two where "No graphite lube, no mandrel" and "Graphite lube, mandrel." Everything else is null.It helps immensely
Examples from earlier 6 BRA plots:
Test with no mandrel, no lube:
View attachment 8371141
Test with mandrel, no lube:
View attachment 8371142
In my Mandrel Musings thread I documented that there is a correlation between seating force SDs and muzzle velocity SDs.
Mandrel Musings
When I first got my K&M arbor press for seating, I was somewhat surprised at the spread of the values of force required to seat bullets. Knowing that neck tension plays a significant role in ES/SD, I started doing various things to try to bring seating force in line. I had been doing most my...www.snipershide.com
Maybe you guys don't realise that the latest research studies are reporting primer pressures of 3KPsi + well before powder ignition & one study reports the primer pressure wave front compressing the powder & pushing the projectile out of the neck up to 20 to 30 mm into the rifling.
With this latest revelation, it's very unlikely that either neck preparation, neck tension or neck ID coating could make much if any difference.
What is the ass is this new witchcraft? (Amp has a press? dear god my pocketbook...)
It's not the statistics I'm trying to explain. It's the application of the results which most don't seem to understand.I have read graduate level mathematical probability and statistics textbooks and understood them better than whatever you're trying to say.
Out of interest, what was the CBTO to the lands or, how far off the lands from the max listed CBTO?
0.02” jam to 0.08” jumpOut of interest, what was the CBTO to the lands or, how far off the lands from the max listed CBTO?
Yeah right. (meaning yes, that's interesting or seems ok)0.02” jam to 0.08” jump
View attachment 8373373
Only loaded 10 so pretty small sample size. 6br
Pretty tight, and interesting full-up linear plot after the initial bit. What are you doing for brass prep?
I want to say that neck turned brass is more apt to have either a rounded spike or no real spike at all. Which would make sense.....thinner wall + consistent wall.
Three new plots to share overlaid on two graphs.
The baseline for both of these is using Neo Lube (dip method) after using a mandrel. The first comparison is the baseline (blue) vs using no lube at all.
View attachment 8389081
This is a pretty pronounced difference. It will be interesting to see how these chrono against each other.
The next one is baseline (orange) vs. applying NeoLube before the mandrel step (green). The purpose of this experiment was to see if there was any meaningful difference, thereby saving me a pre- or post-mandrel lubrication step.
View attachment 8389083
Clearly, the seating force of the pre-mandrel lubed bullets is higher - not a ton higher, but higher nonetheless. This is an expected result, as you'd presume that some of the lube would come off on the mandrel. The thing is, while the average seating force is slightly higher, the spread is very similar (essentially the same at 13lb baseline vs. 12lb for the challenger).
I'll be going out to the hills on Saturday to take these out to a little more than a mile. I'll report back on the chrono data.
Curious to see what, if any, downrange performance can be measured between the different procedures.
The only true measurement is at the muzzle. You could shoot groups, but it introduces the randomness of the shooter. Since most my shooting is ELR, I do care quite a bit about velocity. We'll see how the three groups measure out on Saturday.
I get lower SD's with NeoLube.
I get lower SD's with NeoLube.
How much did your SD's drop with neolube? And did this occur across all cartridges you reload for?
I use foam q-tips from Amazon. The seating pressure difference is noticeable between dry and NeoLube. I don't measure seating force but I can feel the difference in pull. I'm seating with .004" interference.I haven't measured SDs yet using NeoLube vs my previous go-to of dry Moly, but the seating plots came out very similar, which means the SDs would be similar too. However, dipping with Neolube is significantly quicker to apply and actually less messy.