Should I Moly my bullets ?
- Thread starter Remington243
- Start date
snert
Silver $$ Contributor
I have a 22Khornet barrel, Bullberry, on which the previous owner used moly, lived in the south. I cannot say for certain, but I suspect that the pits in this barrel that in some cases obliterate rifling, and go from chamber to muzzle were caused by humidity and moly. They are so bad they look in the borescope like some kind of giant booger in the metal. None in the chamber, and on the borescope this barrel actually looks worse than my 1884 trapdoor. All that said I was killing PD's at 225 yards with naked bullets out of it, no real issues. I thought of selling the barrel, but can't in good conscience. I will avoid moly, but your mileage may vary
I've used moly for years in several rifles and chamberings, and the results have varied from rifle to rifle.
In a factory .223 bolt rifle, the first cold bore shot was a little tighter to subsequent shots, and I could get about 10 more shots in before things started to open up. This using 40 gr bullets loaded to max.
In a custom 22-250, the first cold bore shot was much tighter to subsequent shots and the groups tightened up quite a bit. This with 50 gr bullets (most accurate in this rifle) loaded 1.5 gr down from max.
.308 custom match rifle. No real difference aside from POI. Wouldn't really expect any given the rifle.
Several other rifles, works better in factory barrels than match grade barrels.
I don't have a problem with pitting because I would NEVER put a rifle up without a thorough cleaning and wet patching the bore with a good oil. I precoat the bore prior to shooting with a moly-oil mix with a tight fitting patch and then clean dry patch the barrel. Haven't had any of the problems others seem to have. I've also switched back and forth between uncoated and coated bullets with no issues, just a good cleaning between switching.
That said, I've pretty much gotten away from moly excepting two rifles where the results were quite good. Minimal gain for the effort in all the rest and for my match rifles I just run bare bullets. But with proper care, moly isn't the horror story some make it out to be.
In a factory .223 bolt rifle, the first cold bore shot was a little tighter to subsequent shots, and I could get about 10 more shots in before things started to open up. This using 40 gr bullets loaded to max.
In a custom 22-250, the first cold bore shot was much tighter to subsequent shots and the groups tightened up quite a bit. This with 50 gr bullets (most accurate in this rifle) loaded 1.5 gr down from max.
.308 custom match rifle. No real difference aside from POI. Wouldn't really expect any given the rifle.
Several other rifles, works better in factory barrels than match grade barrels.
I don't have a problem with pitting because I would NEVER put a rifle up without a thorough cleaning and wet patching the bore with a good oil. I precoat the bore prior to shooting with a moly-oil mix with a tight fitting patch and then clean dry patch the barrel. Haven't had any of the problems others seem to have. I've also switched back and forth between uncoated and coated bullets with no issues, just a good cleaning between switching.
That said, I've pretty much gotten away from moly excepting two rifles where the results were quite good. Minimal gain for the effort in all the rest and for my match rifles I just run bare bullets. But with proper care, moly isn't the horror story some make it out to be.
billlarson
"Hold Into The Wind"
So........... what do you base your ideas/practices on..........????????????........
your own personal background with each subject...............????
that would lead to a very small evaluation of subject at hand.......
bill
If you can't get hBN to "stick", you aren't applying it correctly.
Shynloco
You can lead a horse to water, but ........
Use of coatings was never about friction, and they didn't test DANZAC, because there is no such thing.
Tungsten Disulfide, WS2, was merchandised as 'danzac' for a short time, a long time ago. DANZAC is never more than misnomer.
As far as actual intent(prefouling, reduce copper fouling rate), coatings were never a waste of time.
The USAF was wrong
Don't bother with the moly. I used it a few times when shooting prairie dogs and there were no benefits. The barrels were no easier to clean, I couldn't shoot any more between cleanings and there was definitely no improvement in accuracy. Of course my 2 cents isn't scientifically proven....just my own experiences.
Shynloco
You can lead a horse to water, but ........
Let me guess, you are going to TRY and attribute Jim's fantastic group to Moly Coated bullets?????? Really???
Yup I'm sure your more of an expert than all the people at the USAF who conducted the tests. Do all of us a favor, post all your scientific data and research on there so we can be enlightened by your vast knowledge of what each bullet coating can or can't do.
Last edited:
billlarson
"Hold Into The Wind"
Well.... you wanted examples of people who compete...who use moly..... I gave 2....
You must be right......... all others are wrong....you`ve done all your own testing.........with what results...............???? correct..........?????.........
your kind of thinking coincides with your home states new gun laws........
This is what I was saying about urban myths and not cleaning for ages, Moly contains sulphur, now my research revealed ( and I asked one of the chemists at work ) that there is a chance that in high humidity that moisture in the air can effect barrels that have not been cleaned and possibly stored uncleaned for long periods.
Sulphur + water in air = sulphuric acid.
Personally I doubt there is much likely hood of this happening BUT if you use Moly and live in high humidity, as I do, why take the risk.
Mike.
Last edited:
Did they really?
I've read the Norma article, and while they claim a 3-5% reduction in peak pressure, they did not present the pressure data, so I remain somewhat skeptical regarding whether and how they accurately determined the peak pressures.
Did you read the report? Got a link?
How could you know it was wrong if you did not read it?
That's what I wanted to know. I'm still waiting for his results of his scientific data. Better not hold my breath.
He's also dead wrong with the claim:
Use of coatings was never about friction
The Norma article cited earlier in the thread claimed moly reduces friction, and the original Martin patents on MS2 and WS2 also claimed significant reductions in friction. If I recall, there were also early claims that lubalox reduced friction.
Only after these claims began to be doubted and debunked did the proponents stop claiming reduced friction and emphasize extended barrel life, more time between cleaning, improved accuracy, cold bore shots, etc.
When I bought moly coated bullets from Berger in the 1990s, they were claiming reduced friction also. It is something of a revisionist history to claim that coatings were never about reducing friction.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.