Actual testing for carbon in the necks vs clean necks for low ES

[cw308]

I cleaned with dry media for 25+ years and switched to wet with SS pins , cases come out every time like new , read articles on bullet weld with clean necks then tried dry lube inside the neck . What I tried in dry & wet cleaning . My groupings are good just didn't like the idea of carbon build up inside the case , wanted to start out exactly the same as possible . After all the changes nothing really changed only my cases starting out look like brand new is the only thing I can say is better , groups are still good for me three 1/2" 10 shot groups on the average at 200 yards .

 

[mikecr]

Yeah whether squeaky clean or normally carbon fouled, this has nothing at all to do with neck tension.
Tension and friction can be changed independently from each other. They are different things.
The advantage of carbon fouled necks over squeaky clean is NORMAL seating forces. This provides consistent seating depths from the die -without fighting to reach it case to case. High seating forces (from high friction) leads to variance in wedging of the seater plug onto bullet noses -varying resultant seating depths.

 

[chop house]

High seating forces (from high friction) leads to variance in wedging of the seater plug onto bullet noses -varying resultant seating depths.

in extreme instances i have seen deformation of the jacket.

 

[Mad_Charlie]

And/or jacket galling and shaving.

 

[denobravo]

I believe you said there were 7 pages of discussion on this topic, did you not find the answers you were looking for ?
I didn't see where Richard says that no one would benefit.
Richard is an Engineer and a long time member in good standings that has contributed financially also by sharing his experiences and findings several times. Richard has been very helpful to me throughout my journey.
Perhaps you should consider that as well as contributions to AS before you judge him.

Just a thought not a judgement.

Best Regards
SPJ

defending a friend is a great quality
he said it wouldnt change anyones mind...hence he said no one would benefit
does that help?
He also indicated it had been beaten to death...I asked for test results, for a source.
he didnt give any
Haveing never met him or talked with him
Why would I respect someone who didnt answer my question, said no one would change with emperical data
and then showed me pictures instead of test results?
Thank you for being his friend
Maybe he was having and off day or maybe he doesnt trust science or testing
Judge him?? no ...his words, yes

 

[denobravo]

Ah, but the bullet is under pressure too - so while the neck will be pressed to expand and reduce it's grip on the bullet, the back of the bullet is being pressed to break loose from the neck and start moving forward. When there's less dry friction the bullet will start moving sooner.

Naturally what really matters is which friction situation releases most consistently.

you nailed it...which gives the most consistent release ! thnk you

 

[denobravo]

well like i said. whatever works for you. you will have to do your own testing. i have done mine and know what works for me. i chose not to argue about it. i am quite sure if i posted my findings many would chime in about how wrong i am.

now i also do things differently with rifles with different purposes. many reloading procedures are a complete waste of effort if the rifle isn't capable of showing the difference on target.

but i well know what it takes for me to get from here with load.development.

to here after load development complete

thank you for the pictures
You say you choose not to argue about it
Sharing data is not an argument
telling someone testing is a waste of time is the start of an argument
you have beautiful groups and no information on clean or fouled necks
I did not force you to make a first comment, that was you free will to minimize a topic I am working on.
A very negative one at that
so maybe you are unaware that this is how you argue...seeing as how you never addressed the OP

so what rifle, what cartridge, primer, bullet coal etc etc are the pictures from
Off topic yes, but it seems that is what you want to talk about

 

[cw308]

I never used a chronograph , shot through one once to see velocity. Can see how it will show you how accurate your powder measuring is , I just see how it looks on target . Carbon or squeeky clean , like I listed before I didn't see any difference on target . I use a RCBS Standard FL die with .001 - 2 headspace no more or less , tried busting dies for neck tension , runout poor went back to FL die . Neck tension is .003 - 4 depending on brass , seating is smooth with or without dry lube . May see a difference with a chronograph but does it show on target . I didn't see it , I now only shoot the same exact load until this barrel needs replacing .

 

[denobravo]

IIRC
Lefty Trigger recently performed a test of cleaned vs Carbon brushed necks with the results on paper target. (He posted pictures)
His findings were that the Clean necks produced a slightly tighter group on that day,
he also phrased his post as FWIW
most members thanked him for taking his time and resources and sharing . I know I did.
Y'all have a good day and thanks for testing

thank you ..how do I access his post ??

 

[BoydAllen]

Although testing for a given powder and neck tension my yield a definite result, one cannot generalize from that. This is why. Some powders give better results with higher bullet start pressures, which we can create by increasing neck friction. Annealing reduces the amount of grip at a given neck tension, and if it puts you below the start pressure that your powder bullet combination prefers, then an increase in sliding friction could improve your load. On the other hand if that is not an issue, it might not. At in the short range game, I have found that some powders do better with more neck tension, while others prefer less. Bullet pull also varies with how much bullet shank is in the neck. If you work up a load with one condition of neck friction and change that, without doing some charge weight exploration you may have simply taken your load out of tune based on start condition, and an adjustment of charge weight or seating depth may bring tune back. The classic examples of this are all of the primer testing that most do. They only change the primer and solemnly report that one is better than the other when they have changed velocity with the primer change and with that changed tune. To do this sort of thing correctly, one needs to find the best load possible with each primer or in this case neck interior condition.

 

[denobravo]

Although testing for a given powder and neck tension my yield a definite result, one cannot generalize from that. This is why. Some powders give better results with higher bullet start pressures, which we can create by increasing neck friction. Annealing reduces the amount of grip at a given neck tension, and if it puts you below the start pressure that your powder bullet combination prefers, then an increase in sliding friction could improve your load. On the other hand if that is not an issue, it might not. At in the short range game, I have found that some powders do better with more neck tension, while others prefer less. Bullet pull also varies with how much bullet shank is in the neck. If you work up a load with one condition of neck friction and change that, without doing some charge weight exploration you may have simply taken your load out of tune based on start condition, and an adjustment of charge weight or seating depth may bring tune back. The classic examples of this are all of the primer testing that most do. They only change the primer and solemnly report that one is better than the other when they have changed velocity with the primer change and with that changed tune. To do this sort of thing correctly, one needs to find the best load possible with each primer or in this case neck interior condition.

yes true testing changes only one variable at a time. the only thing I am looking for is a test that does that ...but from a reputable source
say for instance an article in Accurate shooter or Applied ballistics and ANYONE who did a controlled group.

 

[BoydAllen]

If you only change one thing, you will have proven that that change either improved or degraded accuracy, but you have not properly evaluated the potential of the alternate procedure or component because that may only be seen by making other changes. I think what people really want to know is if a given component or procedure will produce smaller groups with some load. As a general statement, tune is strongly related to velocity. If you make a change that changes velocity, it is likely that you have changed tune, and in order to make a better comparison you need to make an adjustment so that both loads produce the same velocity. Not doing this is a very common mistake.

 

[Laurie]

If you make a change that changes velocity, it is likely that you have changed tune, and in order to make a better comparison you need to make an adjustment so that both loads produce the same velocity. Not doing this is a very common mistake.

100% agreement. My interest with my proposed test is more in whether it changes velocity and also its ES/SD characteristics. I'd be surprised to see a meaningful change to grouping especially in a short distance test.

 

[chop house]

so, would cold welding show up on the chrono as unexplained higher velocity on some rounds and higher ES?

Are there any practical (non-comp) issues with cold welded rounds? (like dangerous pressures)

 

[denobravo]

If you only change one thing, you will have proven that that change either improved or degraded accuracy, but you have not properly evaluated the potential of the alternate procedure or component because that may only be seen by making other changes. I think what people really want to know is if a given component or procedure will produce smaller groups with some load. As a general statement, tune is strongly related to velocity. If you make a change that changes velocity, it is likely that you have changed tune, and in order to make a better comparison you need to make an adjustment so that both loads produce the same velocity. Not doing this is a very common mistake.

Sorry Boyd...you do not understand my quest
There is only one thing I am looking for...LOW ES
not accuracy
I know how to find a harmonic
I only want to know if the es is lower or higher with clean vs dirty necks
You are not the only one to read into my post that which I did not imply
Funny thing is, my degree work was in communication and I seem to be failing at it LOL
I said primers and powder are irrelevant
I only want carbon testing results
So NO you are wrong

 

[denobravo]

100% agreement. My interest with my proposed test is more in whether it changes velocity and also its ES/SD characteristics. I'd be surprised to see a meaningful change to grouping especially in a short distance test.

you also missed my question and the point...
I never said anything about changing groups
Only ES

 

[Laurie]

you also missed my question and the point...
I never said anything about changing groups
Only ES

Pardon? As my response is direct to Boyd (quoting his accuracy orientated post) it wasn't directed to you or your point. I can hardly therefore have missed it as this wasn't the 'target' I was aiming at.

 

[BoydAllen]

Sorry Boyd...you do not understand my quest
There is only one thing I am looking for...LOW ES
not accuracy
I know how to find a harmonic
I only want to know if the es is lower or higher with clean vs dirty necks
You are not the only one to read into my post that which I did not imply
Funny thing is, my degree work was in communication and I seem to be failing at it LOL
I said primers and powder are irrelevant
I only want carbon testing results
So NO you are wrong

Because the discussions are so commonly about accuracy I slipped up, but if you substitute ES the rest works just as well. I am not saying that you did not do something useful, or improve your ES by making that change, but that the change may not apply to all powders or neck tensions (meaning difference in sized and loaded neck diameter) My point was that test results can, and often are used to make sweeping inferences about what works best, when the only thing that has been determined it that the thing that was tested improved the result for that particular situation. You probably noticed that other posters reported that they get excellent results with different methods. Many times when I post it if for those who read but do not post. My assumption is that many are in the early learning stages of shooting and reloading. I posted to point out that what works for you in your specific situation may not be universal, for various reasons. Of course all one has to do is to do one's own testing to learn what works best for your set of variables but in recent years, I have seen a trend away from that, and toward trying to do the whole thing by reading various posts. Obviously you are one of the testers. Thank you for sharing your results.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

A brushed carbon layer has produced ES good enough for many small group and aggregate world records at 1000 yards. However ES and small groups do not directly correlate even at 1k.

 

[denobravo]

A brushed carbon layer has produced ES good enough for many small group and aggregate world records at 1000 yards. However ES and small groups do not directly correlate even at 1k.

thank you and yes...I am not after groups..3 inches is fine
My question is about the repeated speed of the projectile and if carbon aids or diiminishes the results
12 inch group ...I dont care ..
I am only looking for consistent bullet speed at the muzzle,
greater or lesser with carbon

NOTHING ELSE