Moly for inside neck lube?

[338 dude]

I dont use bullet coatings, after studing the subject.

https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA568594

That article did not say which ones reduced friction by 15% and which ones raise friction by 19% I will take a reduction 15% it may not be worth them doing it being cost-efficient it takes me a little time 2 hours and very little money I think it’s a benefit . With Molly coated bullets I saw an immediate loss of velocity which means less friction because the bullet was pushed down the barrel with less pressure I still say it’s a benefit I have little to no copper fouling and rarely clean my rifle

 

[Baer45]

I dont use bullet coatings, after studing the subject.

https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA568594

Thanks for showing us the article;however, I don’t think that addresses the concerns of most of us:”he reduction in friction is not cost effective for most applications”... for precision shooters I would say it is. I know of very few top level competitors who don't coat bullets. Tubb, Zediker, etc etc... older shooters at my range use Molly and the younger ones have all gone over to BN. That is where I am going next with my reloading. Too many proven benefits to doing it now that BN is so easy to apply...absolute 1st round hit with cold or hot Barrel is just one....

 

[Al Lu]

Sorry, what is "BN" ?

 

[rjs1230]

Sorry, what is "BN" ?

Hexagonal boron nitride

 

[RegionRat]

That article did not say which ones reduced friction by 15% and which ones raise friction by 19% I will take a reduction 15% it may not be worth them doing it being cost-efficient it takes me a little time 2 hours and very little money I think it’s a benefit . With Molly coated bullets I saw an immediate loss of velocity which means less friction because the bullet was pushed down the barrel with less pressure I still say it’s a benefit I have little to no copper fouling and rarely clean my rifle

The table shows the results. The authors claim that since they back out the work in Joules, the table shows the ones that increase versus decrease based on their velocity measurements.

In my own opinion, the observations and calculations can be viewed at face value in terms of the accuracy of their measurements and math, however I don’t agree the assumptions on the direct correlation between charge weights, velocities, work energy, and friction have been accepted or proven to be due to a change in composite friction alone.

Even when the work to engrave the bullet is considered, there are some theories about the participation of the dry lubricants in the combustion process that are not yet settled. If the energy release of the charges were constant and always linear, and the jacket fouling and soot were not also variables, this work would be less complicated, but Mother Nature is cruel.

The effects on the velocity versus the plain control sample were consistent across all three bullets for the MoS2 and the HBN in terms of the trend of the velocity change. That’s about all we can really say, which amounts to a cause and effect level experiment. If we just take the results at face value, we don’t have to agree on the mechanics of the cause.

In the end, if the additional resources spent on the treatment help increase accuracy, competition and better lab work will find the answers. Sometimes we can explain the reasons in the lab, and sometimes we can’t. Until someone can create an experiment where the pressure pulse is controlled to some reasonable amount, and then the different lubricants are tested, I don’t think we will know if these effects are due to the complexities of internal ballistics or if the materials are really reducing friction. Does that matter if there is a benefit to performance, cleaning, or bbl life?

 

[243winxb]

The test/link was with .224" 5.56 bullet.
Larger caliber bullets have to have more bearing surface contacting the barrel?
I would guess (again), giving different results?

 

[RegionRat]

Only more disciplined testing with an inter lab round robin would tell...

I’m not surprised we don’t have the answers yet. Think of the resources it would take to have confidence in the results. Then, to get those same experiments run again independently and have the results peer reviewed?

The authors in that linked paper made statements that were not proven, such as cost effectiveness, but didn’t make any attempt to quantify that statement. For example, how much improvement in cleaning labor, bbl life, or performance accuracy does it take to declare the cost of the process ineffective? You don’t always have to finish your work to make a follow up hypothesis in some forums, but in a peer reviewed forum you don’t get away with unchallenged statements like that. You either withdraw the statement, prove the statement, or change the language to a hypothetical that need more work to answer. If I had made a statement like that, I would have to “show the math...”. Money and time can be measured just like inches and volts.

We would all benefit from answers on dry lubricants and their actual contributions to shooting, but I’m afraid it will take government or military sized resources to get those answers. Lately, I’m not seeing the DoD spending money on small arms research in an effective way when it comes to unbiased lab work. The money and politics of procurement seem to pollute the answers all to often.

 

[Baer45]

The table shows the results. The authors claim that since they back out the work in Joules, the table shows the ones that increase versus decrease based on their velocity measurements.

In my own opinion, the observations and calculations can be viewed at face value in terms of the accuracy of their measurements and math, however I don’t agree the assumptions on the direct correlation between charge weights, velocities, work energy, and friction have been accepted or proven to be due to a change in composite friction alone.

Even when the work to engrave the bullet is considered, there are some theories about the participation of the dry lubricants in the combustion process that are not yet settled. If the energy release of the charges were constant and always linear, and the jacket fouling and soot were not also variables, this work would be less complicated, but Mother Nature is cruel.

The effects on the velocity versus the plain control sample were consistent across all three bullets for the MoS2 and the HBN in terms of the trend of the velocity change. That’s about all we can really say, which amounts to a cause and effect level experiment. If we just take the results at face value, we don’t have to agree on the mechanics of the cause.

In the end, if the additional resources spent on the treatment help increase accuracy, competition and better lab work will find the answers. Sometimes we can explain the reasons in the lab, and sometimes we can’t. Until someone can create an experiment where the pressure pulse is controlled to some reasonable amount, and then the different lubricants are tested, I don’t think we will know if these effects are due to the complexities of internal ballistics or if the materials are really reducing friction. Does that matter if there is a benefit to performance, cleaning, or bbl life?

What missing is the degassing temperature of boron nitrate is way higher the Moly. Moly degasses at a low temperature and turns into Ayron (sp) gas which is highly corrosive on steel and can eat up a barrel if not cleaned out in an extreme regimen...