Gents,

I'm bringing my .300 WSM to the range tomorrow and see if the loads I made last fall provide similar results as they did when I decided to make them my pet load.

My mind got wondering to accuracy. hunting VS target. For hunters who handload and military/police who do the same, how do they anticipate the first shot?

I understand that practicing perfectly makes perfect, but from load to load, from time/temperature/barrel condition etc... How do you know?

Time: How long does it take for powders to break down to noticeable levels? What are noticeable levels?

Temp: Are we talking about 1 or 2 MOA differences if loaded in 60 degrees and shot in 80?

Barrel condition: I have rifles that shoot better when fouled. When I clean them completely, my restults vary.

If I go out and buy more powder, and create the same load, there should be little if any difference, no?

I'm thinking of military/police snipers, when the first shot must count - no fail. Now I'm no expert, but even at a solid rest, I can't really predict what the first shott will do after a cleaning. Consistency is everything, and I try my best but c'mon. Reality is reality and if the first shot needs to be a head shot at 500 yards or lots of good people die, how do they do that?

I'm thinking that the rifles and barrels are so well made that they make up for any minute differences that would otherwise be experienced by average rifles. Even still, 1MOA at 500 yards is still 5 inches.....maybe.....

Your thoughts?

EMC2

Some firearms will shoot to desired POI even with a clean barrel. Most will not. That's why most serious shooters will fire one or several fouling shots before trying to get their desired grouping.

Would imagine military and police snipers do what the majority of hunters do in trying to get the first shot from a cold barrel on target - just don't clean it from the zeroing-in session. Prior to any hunting trip, I'll make a run to the range and fire a five shot group to assure things are still where they should be. Then, the barrel is left fouled until the end of the hunt.

Chances are, the new powder will be of a different lot, even when using the same brand and type of powder. There are slight and sometimes more than slight differences between lots. It is always wise to back off a few grains, especially with centerfire cartridges, using the new lot and work your way back up to the pet load.

ditto what kdub said. Even while working up a new load I'll use a dirty barrel. That's how it's going to be shot anyway. I have a special box of "fowlers" I take along when pdog or sagerat hunting. These are loads that I was too lazy to pull but were pretty close to the final group. After cleaning I'll use up 2-3 to get the barrel dirty again.

The differences in powder lots can be pretty drastic as far as accuracy and pressure go. I went to 8# kegs for most of my powders. You get a bunch of shooting done before you have to switch lots and start over.

Depending on the powder, temperature can have a wide range of effects on the load. I worked up a nice load for the .223 using H335 in January. It was still accurate in July but blew primers!! After switching to Benchmark that problem went away and I can't tell the difference in my groups from winter to summer. I'm not sure what the recommended powder is for the 300 WSM but slower stick powders tend to be less affected by temperature variations than some (not all)of the faster ball powders. In my experience anyway.

Good luck with the 300. I'm sure you'll let us know how you do.

And by the way the Bud Select was pretty tasty :D

RJ

I've been a big game and varmit hunter since the early 60's and a target shooter for about the same time. I'll go with kdub and recoil junky on their advice.

Though target shooters and hunters may reload most folks that have to be in a sniper situation shoot factory loaded ammo because of the litigation situation over shooting handloads just for the same reason law enforcement does.

Most of the guns I own deliver field accuracy from 1/ to 1.5 inch five shot groups. I've not noticed any first shot fliers from any gun I own that is set up right, i.e. bedding correct, trigger set up right, scope screws all tight, action screws all tight and so on.

I have seen this happen to friends guns, but most would still deliver hunting accuracy if not target accuracy. My hunting buddies old Savage in a plastic stock would drop the first two right togather then the third shot would be an inch off almost every time he put it on the bench. He bought a new one with the accu-trigger and plastic stock and it is doing exactly the same thing.

I haven't had a chance to work with this rifle because of some medical problems, but it may take a different stock to cure it or perchance it may be because I'm not a big fan of the lower cost plastic stocks I think that.

bottom line is you need to shoot what you've got to get some kind of an accuracy base before you can fix it.

Though target shooters and hunters may reload most folks that have to be in a sniper situation shoot factory loaded ammo because of the litigation situation over shooting handloads just for the same reason law enforcement does.Believe that military snipers can use handloaded ammunition with new components and per Geneva convention. Suppose it's because their "targets" cannot litigate.

For me the frist couple of shots from a clean bore always land outside the following groups.If you chronograph your loads all componets being the same the frist shot from a clean barrel will always be the slowest.

For me the frist couple of shots from a clean bore always land outside the following groups.If you chronograph your loads all componets being the same the frist shot from a clean barrel will always be the slowest.


I won't say always but have found this to be "mostly" true.
I played around with a .22 rimfire a few years ago. Tried for group starting with a clean barrel and cleaning after every shot. I got a nice round 10 shot group out of the test. I found that I could shoot a smaller group from the fouled bore though. Point of hold and point of impact was the same for both strings in this particular rifle. It would not make much difference snipeing small varmits.
Cheezywan

My experience is, if you start with a clean barrel, and run a couple of dry patches through it before shooting to remove excess oil, you don't see bullets way out of the group.

If it wouldn't shoot clean, I frankly would not want to hunt with it. What happens if you have to clean it in the field?

It is a simple thing to test. Clean at home with your normal procedure. Run a couple of dry patches through the gun, then head to the range. Carefully note your first shot, then compare to the rest of your groups....

I do often hunt with a gun that already has a fouled bore, but ... I want to know that they shoot well clean, too.

Best of luck.

If your barrel is chrome molly, I always run Hoppes bore cleaner down the barrel to help remove the oil, then a few dry patches and have little problem with first shot being out of group.

Well, I'll say for me only, that I certainly don't get to the range enough to proclaim I'm well practiced on any one gun. I do know that if I get a wild hair up my...nose... that I'll go maybe twice a month and work up loads till I get what I want, then concentrate on whatever rifle I intend to hunt with that season.

As it stands, I had too much fun today with my .375 that I never got to shoot my .300WSM. (I was late to a 3 year old neices birthday party, and Mrs. EMC2 was kind enough to look the other way:))

So. I kind of take what I can get. That's not to say I don't expect performance because I do and when my first shot out of a clean cold barrel is not where I left the last group, it's annoying as heck.

I would like to be able to get down there often enough or stay long enough to figure out exactly was was suggested to me here, which is to watch the first shot out of the clean cold barrel and plan on it.

Though, for the last few years I've hunted with a dirty barrel (and it kills me to know it's dirty and I can't clean it)

On the matter of mil/police handloading, according to Eric Haney and his book ( confound my memory, something SOCOM or Delta Force...) anyway, they described in detail how they loaded their own ammo) Whether or not it is an accepted method and rule of engagement, I do not know.

In the end, I would like to think that if I spend $2500+ on a rifle, and shot 500-1000 rounds a week in practice that I would be able to hit what I intended to hit with the first shot.

EMC2

I think most people are probably guilty of cleaning their barrels too much. :rolleyes:

On most of my rifles, I find a brushed (that isn't the same as cleaned) barrel will shoot to a different POI than a fouled barrel.

It doesn't make any difference what gun you shoot, the second shot is always out of a fouled barrel, unless you clean between each shot. Therefore, most of my shooting is done with a fouled barrel, because I don't clean between each shot. :D

My only comment is in relation to the 1inch at 100 yds. equalls 5 inches at 500. No it doesn't, it may be 3 inches, or it may be 10, just have to try it to know. Some bullets dont stabilize imeadiatly and have larger spread at close range, then group at longer ranges, others may shoot great close up then wander at longer ranges. DM

Marshal Kane

Believe that military snipers can use handloaded ammunition with new components and per Geneva convention. Suppose it's because their "targets" cannot litigate.

EMC2

On the matter of mil/police handloading, according to Eric Haney and his book ( confound my memory, something SOCOM or Delta Force...) anyway, they described in detail how they loaded their own ammo) Whether or not it is an accepted method and rule of engagement, I do not know.



For both of you guys, yes military probably could reload with no problems, it's just domestic police use where reloaded ammo can come into question by overly zelous lawyers. Works the same for folks thinking about a weapon for home defense. It's far better to use factory ammo.

Of the time I spent target shooting your never shooting from a clean bore. That may be where the term fowling shots came from. I think that most of the problems come from guns that are not set up right.

Most custom hunting rifles and target rifles capable of shooting extremly tight groups (one inch and under) do not string or throw shots.

If your having this problem it's probably time to look to a gunsmith that is capable of accurizing your rifle.

This accurizing can consist of glass bedding, free floating or putting some pressure on the forend between the barrel and the stock, cleaning up and adjusting a trigger, re-crowning a barrel, piller bedding, truing up an action and a bunch of other things that can aid in accuracy.

Some of the new inexpensive plastic stocked rifles can really suffer from stocks that are either soft or very flexible.

I've got a friend whom has both a new Savage with the accu-trigger and an older one with an after market plastic stock that just won't shoot five shot groups, but will hold three pretty close. These same guns with wood stocks shoot much better.

I had much the same problem with a Remington 700 Muzzle loader with the factory Remington plastic stock. Put a laminated wood on it and groups tightened right up.

This is not saying that plastic stocks are not any good, but when your spending well under a hundred bucks on a stock formed in a press your not going to get the accuracy bench rest folks get from an epoxy fibreglass laminated stock that may well cost four to seven times as much.

Factory rifles usually come with pretty good accuracy for the shooting their designed to do but mostly do not compare to a custom or target rifle that has had a bunch of work along with a custom barrel added to it.

Ruger, Remington and Winchester all considered factory rifles capable of under three minute accuracy at a hundred yards acceptable. I've had pretty good luck with a lot of factory rifles, but have had those that fell into that three inch at a hundred catagory. Luckily I've had a bunch of good sub minute of angle factory rifles.

I sure know that if I do have a rifle that shows problems like shooting one shot differently than the next two for instance I would be looking to solve the problem. One thing that may help this problem is putting some pressure on the forarm between the barrel and the end of the stock.

This is easy to do at the range. Just loosen th barreled action and add a couple of strips of old credit card between the barrel and the stock at the end of the stock. Tighten up the action and shoot. If your rifle starts grouping you will need to bed the stock and action so you have about seven pounds of pressure at the end of the forarm on the barrel. This one simple step can often cure that type of behavior. (works with wood stocks, but can't promise this to help plastic stocks) Piller bedding often helps plastic stocks.

My mind got wondering to accuracy. hunting VS target. For hunters who handload and military/police who do the same, how do they anticipate the first shot?. . .

The military is currently issuing M118 LR to snipers with .308's. This is similar to the old M118 match ammunition except the bullet is no longer the solid point 173 grain boattail, but is now the Sierra 175 grain MatchKing, which was developed in cooperation with the Military after a 1985 JAG opinion (http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html) was issued that the hollow point in MatchKing bullets was not an expanding design (the hollow point is an artifact of having to form a precise solid base to get a good match bullet), and therefore did not violate the portion of the Hague Convention the U.S. had signed off on (http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html). M852, which used the Sierra 168 grain MatchKing and which used to be the preferred match ammunition (and was marked as unsuitable for combat prior to the JAG opinion) was not considered satisfactory for sniping. This is because the 168 grain MK becomes unstable after about 700 yards. (I have personal experience with that.) So the 175 was developed to correct this problem out to about 1200 yards. I have shot military match ammunition that was two decades old without problems.

When I attended the Long Range Firing School at Camp Perry, the Marine's said their shooting team used a special long range load in the M16, based on the 80 grain Sierra bullet. This load had been developed by their armorers, but it isn't published and is only used in match shooting. I'm guessing that inter-service rivalry is why they don't publish it? Ammunition actually issued in the field, however, has to be Hague-compliant, so non-standard loads are not allowed.

About 5 years ago I went through the week-long PR1 class at Gunsite, a small class in which our head instructor was a former Marine Scout Sniper, currently heading a federal agency sniper team, and the assistant instructor was a SWAT team sniper belonging to a California LEA. They exposed us to what they assured us were the same basic training techniques used in law enforcement and military sniper schools. They had us stop and clean every 10 rounds, pretty much no matter what else was going on, so a lot of clean-barrel shots were fired. We followed cleaners with two dry patches.

All guns used the class had fully-floated barrels, as POI walking with heat is often a problem when stocks touch a barrel. If you get a gun that has a floating barrel and that still walks on target as it heats up, getting it cryo-treated for stress relief (http://www.300below.com/site/cryo_barrel.html) is one solution. I had this done to my Savage as a precaution.

I think the reason 3-shot groups became a common test, despite their lack of statistical significance, is to reveal how a first shot and two follow-ups will place themselves on game in the field? The exercise they had us do at the PR1 class was a "box" test to check the rifle-sight-shooter combinations. From bi-pods at 100 yards, they had us fire one shot (clean barrel) at a target, move the sight 2 moa right, fire another at the same sighting point, then 2 moa up, fire another, 2 moa left, fire another, 2 moa down, fire one more. The five shots ideally would draw a 2 inch square at 100 yards, with the lower left corner doubled. They wanted to see that first corner's holes (first and fifth shot) within 1/2" of each other. If they were, repeatability was considered good all around, as shooter, gun, and sight all came around to fire to the same POI.

Some target shooters recommend running a patch wet with acetone or Gun Scrubber or other strong solvent into a chamber and down a bore before shooting. I think a gun that shoots well with the micro-thin oil film left in place by a couple of dry patches is the best thing, just in case you are going out into rain or high humidity. Varmint Al's web site has good proof (http://www.varmintal.com/a243z.htm) that this does not carry risk of excessive bolt thrust developing, even if the thin film is in the chamber.

Nick

Lots of good information in that post unclenick. I was particularly interested in that last parigraph with the link to varmit Al.

I have been leaving a very light trace of oil in the bores of my rifles for the last few years with no ill effect. I have found first shot accuracy to be slightly out of the following shots in the group with some loss of velocty. Cleaning seem to be easier by a as of yet unmeasered amount.

Good post!
Cheezywan

. . . I have been leaving a very light trace of oil in the bores of my rifles for the last few years with no ill effect. I have found first shot accuracy to be slightly out of the following shots in the group with some loss of velocty. . .

Thanks, CW. The Varmint Al analysis is interesting because he had to get the chamber walls down to a coefficient of friction of 0.01 for the bolt thrust to get half-again higher. Molybdenum disulfide's COF is 0.02. I seem to recall that hex form Boron Nitride (white graphite) manages 0.01, but the point is you really have to make an effort to damage the rifle. Besides, I was always suspicious of the idea you had to remove every trace of oil because the old Pederson design actually used cartridge oiler pads in its magazines to keep it functioning. Admittedly not as hot a round as .308, but a troublesome point for the ring-around-the-chamber believer, nonetheless.

I wanted to get some time this summer (may or may not, with other things already planned) to try puting a MolyFusion coating in the bore of the same rifle I took to the PR 1 class. It should be possible to carry a bore thus treated into the field bone dry, since the coating affords some corrosion resistance. I would like to see if I could tighten the first shot performance up? If I get to it, I'll report back.

NECO (http://www.neconos.com/) claims that burnishing a cleaned bore with their Moly-Slide product will cause the first shot to match up to the next 30. Another thing to try. I don't know if you need to be shooting moly-coated bullets for this to work or not?

Nick

Man!! I am enjoying this. Where does that 1st shot go, in the field or on the range? Cold barrel, hot day, hot day, cold barrel, fouled, not fouled? This is the stuff that shooters ponder and may never answer. Vary gun to gun, work up to work up. You find some magic with your set up and never deviate until something goes south and by some fluke, you find out about. It will drive you crazy, man!!!!

Some firearms will shoot to desired POI even with a clean barrel. Most will not. That's why most serious shooters will fire one or several fouling shots before trying to get their desired grouping.

Would imagine military and police snipers do what the majority of hunters do in trying to get the first shot from a cold barrel on target - just don't clean it from the zeroing-in session. Prior to any hunting trip, I'll make a run to the range and fire a five shot group to assure things are still where they should be. Then, the barrel is left fouled until the end of the hunt.

Chances are, the new powder will be of a different lot, even when using the same brand and type of powder. There are slight and sometimes more than slight differences between lots. It is always wise to back off a few grains, especially with centerfire cartridges, using the new lot and work your way back up to the pet load.
Ditto-

Every rifle I have will fire the first shot out of a clean barrel at least 1-1 1/2" from the main group. It varies by rifle.

The evening before I hunt, I clean my rifle throughly and shoot one fouling shot. Then I go hunting and I can tell you where shots 2 through 10 are going to go.

With the same rifle, the first shot out of a clean barrel always, always hits the target in about the same place and distance from the main group.

This varies rifle to rifle but not for the same rifle. Even with different loads, I've noticed the same results on target.

By the time hunting season rolls around, I know exactly where each shot is going to go.
That is if I do my part.
This sounds like we are splitting hairs but one inch difference at 100 yards, means a lot when that buck, pig, coyote or whatever else walks out at 250 yards.
Of course the worse thing that could happen is that you could miss, I've never missed!!

Would have to run at least three tests:

First shot from a fouled barrel.

First shot from a clean/dry barrel (as if we ran a few tight dry patches down a clean bore before starting out)

First shot from a clean, lightly oiled barrel (as if we took it right out of the safe).

(Possible 4th...leaving the barrel fouled for a couple of days rather than shooting from a fouled barrel the same day. AND I'm willing to be what you leave the bore damp with in the 3rd test will make a differnce as well.)

Most of us take a few warm-up shots when we get to the range rather than getting right to the real targets...know I do, if for no other reason than to get myself adjusted right to the bench or to get an idea of the wind's effects.

Maybe what we should do it is post a single target and take the very first shot at it...only that one first shot. Take that target doen and put it in the rifle case until the next range session, where we put it out for ONE shot again. After 5 range sessions, take a look at that 5-shot group (assuming all 5 hit the paper).
-------
Was looking over a different type of shooting site. The presentation was about how a heavily oiled barrel changes the rifling imprint of .22LR bullets, making them apear not to be a ballistic match for that barrel. The gross exam certainly did have the bullets looking different..the width of the land markings was much greater on the oiled bore than on the clean bore, making those .22 bullets look like they couldn' have been fired in the test barrel (other strata lines did match).

IF there was that much visual differnce in bullets, then the point of impact must have been drastically changed as well. While it downing a bore is never a good idea, even a little differnce would be enough for a significant shift in point of impact.

"What you leave the bore damp with...."

A good point. I only use plain, cheap gun oil in the bores of my hunting rifles. Nothing super-slippery like moly, teflon, and whatnot.

It does make a difference. I have had some squirrely first shots from a bore that had an oil with teflon added to it, till the stuff shot out....

I tend to lube very lightly with plain vanella gun oil. Will saturate maybe 1/3 of the patch cut for the bore as the last pass when done cleaning. My thinking is that it gets into the pores of the metal. Not much, if any on the bearing surface. It is most likely vapor after the first or second shot.

I remember when I was a younger cheapskate than I am now, I would grease the threads on muffler clamps when installing a new muff. Despite all that heat, I found that I could reuse them a couple of times. Is a life lesson. I have survived my own stupidity this far. Just as well keep learning by being stupid :D .
Cheezywan

EMC2,Went back and reread your orginal post.You asked how long dose it take for powders to break down to noticeable levels ? Don't really know the answer but I have a couple kegs of powder that have been used off and on for over 15 years,opened many times with no noticeable change in volocity or accuracy.Also have some .223 ammo put together around 15 years back and sold the rifle,tried in a friends rifle last fall with outstanding results.As to how long a powder will last with no noticeable change would think it would depend on exposure to the elements,light moisture,heat,ect. If it dose go bad your nose will let you know for sure.When it comes to temp change affecting pressure levels some of the ball powders can be the worst offenders.for myself in a hunting rifle it works best to try and stay with the Hodgdon extreme temp type powders.Accuracy difference from a clean bore due to less pressure is say 40fps less would only fall maybe 1" outside the normal fouled barrel group in a very accurate rifle at the distance of 100yds but at longer ranges this would show up considerably more where consistant velocity is king.What works for me in my hunting rifels once I have the load,accuracy,and sighted to the desired range I clean fire a couple of foulers and hunt with it the rest of the season unless nessary to clean due to weather or resight,then I follow the same process.Have done this for many years and my groups are the same next day or at the end of hunting season.

Powder doesn't go "bad" very often, either loaded or unloaded. Unique was first manufactured in about 1898 and was one of the first powders Du Pont turned over to Hercules. A jar of Unique powder sits on the shelf at the Alliant Powder plant in Radford, Virginia. The powder in the jar was made in 1899 and still performs to original specifications. source (http://www.gunsandammomag.com/techside/pick_1028/)

How long has it been? Herculese powders in the square metal pop-top cans.

This has something to do with the tpic at hand, so don't give up yet.

Friend gave me four of them (three bullseyes and one 2400)...slighlty flood damaged...unopened. ONE of the Bullseyes had more than stains on the can, had active rust that had penetrated a seam. Stuff had dried out and LOOKED like the undamaged ones (I opend one of the stained but not rusted cans..leaving two, a Bullseye and a 2400, still sealed for some later play time).

So I have three types of Bullseye:
1. Modern
2. Old but has been stored in sealed can
3. Old but in unsealed can

Can't detect any differnce in loads using #1 and #2. Using #3, had some wild velocity variations.

#3 (after all it is the 4th) was used to make an ant-hill volcano. BTW that will toss angy singed ants a lot farther away that you can toss a lit match.

Guess the idea here is that is isn't how old the powder is, it's how it was stored over those years.

Had some experience with first shot accuracy on the 4th shooting pdogs. With both the .223 and the .222 after shooting 25-30 rounds I'd have to clean them then sit in the shade of the Expedition and have a drink of Gatorade. It seemed like it would take 4 to 5 shots for things to get back to normal again and I could hit something out beyond 100 yards. If I tried to go beyond 30 rounds (allowing for the barrels to cool off after 8-10) accuracy would again go south. It seems like the sweet spot was between 5 and 25 rounds. I have in the past shot as many as 50 rounds without cleaning and without loosing accuracy, but that was a slow day with only say 3-5 shots then a 10-15 minute break before resuming.

I've noticed this affects the .222 more than the .223. I can't explain it because the .223 used to be a .222 (both rifles are 788's with a 1:12 twist)

RJ

Well, I'll tell you where I'm at.

On the matter of the short mag:
I made sure the bore was dry of any oils. First shot was in the same place I left it last fall. The following 3 were within the same inch. That rife is a shooter. I had it accurized 6 ways to Sunday. It was going in to be a tomato stake, but I flipped the coin and went for the bedding (glass & pillar), bolt honing and trigger job. It is now my "go-to" hunting rifle.

I did have a change to do some small tests, and I noticed, contrary to what's suggested above, that an oiled barrel (Rem-Oil w/ Teflon) shoots the first shot FASTER than the folling rounds. I recorded vel of 40-60 fps faster than the highest vel in shots 2-10 in my .375 & .308. Maybe it's the teflon? I dunno.

What I do know is that I need to make sure my bore is dry and clean before I take the first shot and record more results.

Thanks all for the great input and discussions on this thread.

EMC2

That last is interesting EMC2. I have some Rem oil. Can try a few different ones in the same rifle to see if the chrony shows a difference.
Was that faster shot out of the group?
Cheezywan

That last is interesting EMC2. I have some Rem oil. Can try a few different ones in the same rifle to see if the chrony shows a difference.
Was that faster shot out of the group?
Cheezywan


Yes, I was using 76.5gr IMR 4350, 270gr Barnes FB. The barrell was cleaned the day before and coated with Rem Oil.

My first shot was 2593fps followed by 2544, 2552, & 2539. I was a bit perplexed, so I cleaned it good, oiled it the same and let it sit in the shade while I played with my AR-15, M-1A and .300 WSM. I came back a bit late and shot with 77.5gr IMR 4350 and my first shot was 2604 followed by 2556, 2562 & 2569.

Maybe the teflon is like a moly that coated the bore and decrease dynamic friction so the vel increased?

Let me know what you come up with.

EMC2

Next time you go shooting, try the same oil, but instead of just drying the barrel with patches, run one patch of bore cleaner, then a few dry patches and see what you get. I always use bore cleaner to cut the oil in the barrel, then run some dry patches through and have never had a problem with my first shots. Give it a try and see.

[QUOTE=EMC2]

Maybe the teflon is like a moly that coated the bore and decrease dynamic friction so the vel increased?



Or is it adding resistance and allowing presure to go higher?
It is odd that others report slower first shots.
Thanks for reply.
Cheezywan

EMC2 I would agree with CHEEZYWAN the oil you are leaving in your bore is createing a higher presure.There are several different scools of thought as to whether you should leave a coate of oil or fire the frist shot from a dry barrel.A good alterative is to completely dry the bore after cleaning and follow with a patch lightly coated with lighter fluid,most will evaporate leaving only a light mist of oil.

Davidson,
I don't know for a fact what is going on here? I have become kind of a proponant of leaving a trace of oil in the bore. Of the times that I have clocked them, I see a lower velocity.
It is why we are scratching our heads here. :confused:
Cheezywan

Would think this would depend on how much oil was left behind in the bore.A thick coate of oil left behind would certantly raise pressure.I think this was compaired somewhere to moly coating,moly reduces friction therefore velocity is most always lower when useing moly.

Okay, Unless I don't understand something (very likely). I am under the assumption that the pressure required to force the entire bearing surface of the bullet into the bore would not be significantly affected by whether or not the bore was dry or treated (moly or otherwise) because the bullet material must be displaced to create the grooves (on the bullet surface) being cut by the lands.

Also, I thought that once the expanding gasses overcome the static friction point of the bullet seated in the case, you've passed the initial and insignificant pressure spike. The second and more significant pressure spike is reached when the expanding gasses overcome the secondary point of static friction (bullet lodged in bore).

If this is true, then:

If the pressure is the same in both a treated and dry barrel when the bullet is seated in the bore , then the bullet under less dynamic friction (treated) should reach a higher max velocity than the untreated (dry) at the muzzle.

Like sliding a hockey puck on ice vs cement...no?

EMC2

Can't argue with your theory, EMC2.

Several years ago when NECO patened thier molycoateing application I orded a kit with 2 tumblers steel balls molycoate,messy stuff to work with,not near as user frendly as it is now,just order a box of coated bullets and go shoot them.Velocity with the molycoated bullets was always 1 to 2% lower than non moly coated bullets with all else loaded the same,however I could increase the powder charge above max charge for non coated and get a velocity increase above non moly coated max loads.I can't explain this but always got the same results out of two different rifles.Still have the two rifles,different barrels,havn't used moly for years but some great benchrest shooters swear by it. Ok EMC2 go figure

Had the same experience, davidson - gave up on the moly several years ago as a bad habit! Durn'd stuff was sure messy to work with. Also, just hated the thought of a "cured" barrel still being gunked up with it. Am perfectly satisfied these days to shoot the jacketed bullets and clean back to clean barrel.

As several have found, if the rifle has a proper bedding and the bullet isn't pushed to ultrasonic speeds, the first shot for a clean, cold barrel on my pet rifles will normally print within the vicinity (minute of gopher) of the following 5 shot groups. Don't mess with 3 shot groups, as my old mentors always shot the 5 shot ones and someone has to carry on the tradition! If they impact much more than 1" outside of the group I always think I didn't do a good job of cleaning the perservative oil out.

My experience has been somewhat the opposite. The night before I head for the range I load up my trunk with 4 or 5 rifles. Before loading them I clean them with dry patches to make sure the bore is dry. I don't want any lubricant left in the barrel. My first shot will then fall pretty much within the group whereas shooting the first shot from an oily barrel will be quite a ways off the mark. Has anyone else had the same experience? Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

As near as I can tell, the only place where my thoughts could be faulted, is in the assumption that the difference in force required to lodge a bullet between a treated barrel and untreated is not as insignificant as I think. Perhaps that force difference allows the pressure spike to move back (in time) and lower (in intensity), which is how you can use a heavier charge weight to produce the same cumulative pressure.

If that is true, then:
The bullet overcomes the secondary static friction point and starts moving down the barrel under less pressure and will ultimately exit the barrel at a slower speed, compared to a larger pressure curve needed to move the bullet down the barrel, and ultimately exiting the barrel under a greater velocity because of higher pressure.

I'll buy that.

Back to the original question of first shot accuracy, I think we've established that consistency is the key. Temperature, barrel and gun condition, load values and components - All must me consistant all the time to have any chance of the first shot being acceptably near the group.

Anyone else?

It would be interesting to be able to push a bullet down a barrel with a calibrated scale. Measure a dry, molyed, oiled, and fouled.
I don't have a means to do it. I guess for now, I will have to let the target and chrono be my guide.

If moly, oil, or whatever builds up in front of the bullet the projectile weight goes up until it exits the muzzle? It would then return to normal. Correct?
Cheezywan

I'm not sure. I think maybe instrat of measureing the phenomenon in weight, it would be measured in terms of resistance. At the point the bullet leaves the muzzle, unless the material is still on the bullet itself, changing the ballistic coefficient, then yes, all other things should be equal...I think.

I was thinking hydrolic or pnewmatic presure at the breech, Increase presure until the bullet moves. Record the presure, etc. Might get some information from it?
Cheezywan

The night before I head out to the range I run dry patches through the barrels of the rifles I'm taking with me. This is usually about 6 or 7 rifles. Then I pack them in the car. I've found that a clean, dry barrel doesn't often throw out flyers. If the first shot goes awry, I simply remember where it went on the target, disregard it and shoot five more for my group. I use loads that aren't all that accurate for first shots so they're not apt to form part of the group anyway. Just one mans opinion. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

What moly-coating a bullet does has caused some confusion over time. The initial theory from its creators was that such a bullet would lose around 50 fps because it swaged onto the rifling so much more easily that it failed to provide enough resistance for the powder to build pressure. An apparent contradiction to this theory is that when a bore is treated with a permanent lubricant, such as MolyFusion or Plate+ or Gun Juice, also making it easier for the bullet to get onto the rifling, velocity typically increases around 50 fps. A second theory came from Harold Vaughn in his book, Rifle Accuracy facts. This idea is that the moly and carnauba wax coatings on the bullets were acting as phase change materials, absorbing heat through melting the moly and sublimating the wax. His evidence was that placing the moly and wax directly on top of a charge of powder, then seating an uncoated bullet would result in the same velocity reduction that using moly-coated bullets did. This idea came into question when Hartmut Broemel, author of the QuickLOAD software, mixed the wax and moly into the powder rather than placing it on top of the charge. The velocity loss then disappeared. If heat absorption through phase change were at play, it should not have mattered where the material was placed in the powder. Broemel theorized that placing the moly and wax on top of the powder allowed it to be blown up into the space created as the neck opens up and past the bullet onto the rifling. This reasoning also appears to be contradicted by the velocity increase in barrels that have been lubricated in a way that survives firing. However, it is possible the contradiction is not really there if the moly coating is lowering coefficient of friction significantly more than the barrel lube products do? It is (or should be) possible to devise experiments to determine the truth of the matter, but to date that has not been done.

To understand the matter a little better, consider that when a bullet is still in the cartridge case there is a fixed amount of space behind it for powder. As the bullet moves forward onto the rifling, the volume of the case neck, freebore, and throat get added to the powder space in that order, and thereafter the passed volume of the barrel keeps adding to it as the bullet moves forward. Chemical reactions, like powder combustion, increase in speed with both temperature and pressure, so if you lack pressure the reaction slows. If the bullet were already most of the way down the barrel when the powder was ignited, the huge powder space behind it would see much lower peak pressure and temperature. Also, the peak pressure it did achieve would be reached much more slowly. These happen because the powder has to generate more gas and release more energy to raise pressure and temperature in that large space. Simply, a bigger powder space needs more powder to create the same pressure and temperature peaks and achieve the same burning rate as a smaller charge in a smaller volume would. We all know that already from the difference in powder required for equal pressure or velocity from loading same-caliber different capacity chamberings, like .308 and 30-06.

Below is a simulated .308 load firing a 175 grain Sierra MatchKing from a Winchester case. The pressure curve for the plain bullet (dark blue) sees its peak at .37 ms, a point at which the bullet has quickly moved 1.2 inches forward from its starting point. Adding moly to the bullet (yellow pressure curve) moves the peak pressure timing to 0.59 ms. Despite accelerating more slowly, the bullet has still managed to move a greater 1.4 inches down the barrel when the peak occurs. The pressure peak and temperature and burning rate are lower, so the end velocity of the bullet is down about 40 fps. If you increase the powder charge (red curve) enough to bring the peak pressure back up to where it was for the plain bullet load, the pressure still doesn’t peak until about 0.57 ms, when the bullet has moved 1.3 inches. But, because there is now more powder, the total gas generated is greater and the pressure drops more slowly as you follow the bullet down the barrel. This added pressure gets the coated bullet up about 40 fps above the original uncoated bullet’s velocity. This is exactly what you would see in an uncoated bullet load with a slightly slower powder that had to be loaded to a higher charge weight to arrive at the same peak pressure.

In my own experience, I found using moly bullets cut down on fouling-caused inaccuracy in rifles being fired near the end of matches in which there was no opportunity to clean for up to 100 rounds. In other words, later round accuracy was better. The rifling would clean up more easily, but the corner of the chamber that steps down from the neck to the freebore would fill in with moly and I had to make a special tool to clean that out. As to claims of longer barrel life or improved accuracy, I don’t have any anecdotal evidence to offer in that area. Clearly the coated bullets change the barrel time. Changed barrel time will affect where in the barrel vibration periods the bullet exits the tube. This can have favorable or unfavorable affects in a particular gun. I have never run into a write-up on moly bullets that included the author adjusting his loads to find a separate moly bullet sweet spot load, so I don’t believe a truly objective accuracy comparison has ever been published.

Nick

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/3474/molybulletpressure5km.gif

Good point. Those bench rest competition shooters need every edge they can get when it comes to accuracy. Us hunters just need to practice more from hunting positions. If we go for extreme accuracy it is because we are just having fun until the hunt begins.

Dang! I need to be at the range in a tree stand right now.

Thanks Nick

That's one of the most interesting things I've read on moly coated bullets. I've read where it takes several to many rounds to get a barrel shooting where it should after cleaning from shooting moly coated.

I've been using a pre-coat from Cabala's to treat a barrel before shooting and it seems to work well to solve that problem.

I guess for my use, hunting and varmit shooting, moly coat seems to work well, but it is a mess doing it.

I use a kit I got from Cabala's that goes into my cartridge tumbler and its bottles need to be full of bullets to work so I've done a bunch.

I did about 400 rounds of 220 grain Seirra boattails for my 8mm Rem mag. have enough to last about three lifetimes.

Pretty well sums it up, Chief -

Pinpoint sniper accuracy is fine as a measure of what a shooter/rifle combo is capable of. The REAL test is putting the meat on the ground. Practicing anticipated shooting stances and qauging accuracy is the most important equation.

. . . I use a kit I got from Cabala's that goes into my cartridge tumbler and its bottles need to be full of bullets to work so I've done a bunch. . .

Thanks. I'm glad if my post cleared anything up? It really raises as many questions as it answers and there are still some other pieces of the puzzle I didn't get into. I hoped to do some experimental work of my own on this question this season, but time is running out and Camp Perry calls. I got a few pistol leg points this week and need to start focusing on rifle. If enough good weather remains this year for tests, then I may be able to say something definitive about the black wonders?

The business of break-in for switching between moly and plain bullets is another of those things that vary from gun-to-gun. Some seem to need the break-in and some don't show any carryover effects at all and swallow both interchangeably. If I had to guess, I would suppose a smooth bore would be more immune to requiring time for a new surface to build up.

I am using the original NECO process with carnauba wax coating over the moly. This is the same process NECO licenses to Norma and Sierra for their factory moly bullet coatings, though my tumbling equipment doesn’t do as clean-looking a job as the commercial vibratory gear does. The wax goes a long way toward keeping fingers and ammo boxes and everything else from smudging up. It may cut down some on build-up at the end of the chamber by keeping loose powder from spreading during loading? You could probably buy the wax and shot from NECO and add it to your already-coated bullets, if you wanted too?

NECO uses an expensive lab grade molybdenum disulfide. I think the main advantage there is guaranteed purity. I have read that some cheap moly got on the market during early moly-bullet fever. The cheap stuff is often recovered from metal stamping operations and can contain free iron that promotes rust. So, be careful what you get hold of? I am unfamiliar with the Cabella product, which may be fine, but I don’t find it searching their current on-line catalog and don’t know if they still have it?

There is some good moly information on Varmint Al’s web site (http://www.varmintal.com/arelo.htm#Moly_Coating). He and Dick Hatfield have write-ups there. Al’s site presents some corrosion producing tests, but he doesn’t state which moly he did them with; NECO or Midway? Note also the Sprinco’s Plate+Silver (http://www.sprinco.com/plateplus.html) is not clearly identified as distinct from their non-moly bearing Plate+Green, and it is not mentioned that Plate+Silver’s “micronized” moly is made with an acid neutralizer so that none of the corrosion effects mentioned apply to it. The table of firing tests done with and without moly-coated bullets with and without Plate+ barrel treatment use the same load. Again, no separate sweet-spot work-up. I simply have to find time to remedy this information gap!

Nick

Evening all,

Went to the range Friday. Took the 270W M70 and the 30-30 336C.

Have always been a little suspicious as to whether the Marlin likes a clean or dirty barrel. The 270W on the other hand "just keeps on drilling them in".

Re the 30-30, reloads:

150gn Winchester PP, 31.5gns H4895, Remington primers, PMC brass.

Barrel normally cleaned with "Ed's Red", then oiled with Birchwood Casey before storing in the safe.

Ran a patch through the barrel before starting to remove the oil, no attempt to remove the copper fouling, shooting at 100yds

All targets shot allowing the barrel to cool between groups

Target 1, 4.375" five shot group, no stringing

Target 2, first shot forgetable, next four 1.875"

Target 3, 2.125" three shot group

Target 4, five shots, 1.625"

Took them home, put them back in the safe.

Am going down the bush Monday for a four day hunt.

I shall clean them when I get back.

Cheers

Mark

. . . no attempt to remove the copper fouling. . .
. . . All targets shot allowing the barrel to cool between groups. . .

Does this mean that you never remove copper on this gun? If you have removed copper, what difference did you see?

How long did you let the barrel cool? Most people run a pattern of 2 minutes between shots or even 5 minutes between shots, or else they will fire a group at the normal rate, then leave 10 minutes to half an hour between groups, etcetera. This latter approach is most reasonalbe for hunters, I think, because their first shot will usually be from a cold gun with possible follow-ups with the gun being warm.

One more experiment for you to try that would separate the cooling rate issue out would be to take some Ed's Red to the range and clean between groups when the gun is nearing the end of its cooling period. See if that opens up subsequent groups up to match the first? If so, it is the lubrication (I don't know how many shots tranny fluid would take to totally burn out) causing the first group to be big.

At Camp Perry last week a vendor had a new product called Gunzilla (http://www.topduckproducts.com). It is a vegetable based material that doesn't penetrate human skin, so it elimenates skin cracking that long exposure to bore cleaners can cause. He had a couple of sectioned dirty barrels where he had cleaned one half with it. He says his chemist designed it to actually break carbon bonds, so people with stainless revolvers say they see the color of the steel on their cylinder faces again for the first time since their guns were new. You can't use it on rust brown muzzle loader barrels because it also removes surface rust, which one of his sectioned barrel showed. I mention the product here because it leaves a dry lubricating film behind. The shotgun barrel section felt very silky, and the vendor claims this promotes first-shot accuracy.

I bought a bottle to try, but e-mailed the vendor who is supposed to get back with information for me from the chemist as to whether the lubrication is high enough that you have to avoid getting it in rifle chambers? I will test the stuff for myself when I have that answer.

Nick

Does this mean that you never remove copper on this gun?
Nick

Evening Nick

I remove the copper twice a year, not after every shooting session, i.e. every 50 shots or so.

That's another piece in the puzzle. From experience with this barrel, after removing the copper, it will again take a couple of groups before it starts to perform.

At my range the targets are changed on the hour. I shoot a five shot group then let the barrel cool for 25 minutes or so then shoot another.

This is the first rifle I have owned where the first shot followed by the next five or so are needed before it will group to my satisfaction.

Thanks

Mark

Not an unusual occurance - MOST rifles require bore fouling before they perform at their best. Five to ten shots are not unheard of. My best target/varmit rifles usually take at least five rounds to settle in for best grouping. I do clean after 20 - 30 rounds, though.

Nick,

I don't see any problem with a supposed inferior grade of MoS2. It isn't magnetic and "free iron" is. Just run a magnet through it.

There should never be a case of bore cleaners drying your hands out. Most solvents are prone to producing cirrhosis of the liver, just like someone that drinks ethyl alcohol (ethanol/booze) too much. Aldehydes, ketones, alcohols and chlorinated hydrocarbons are commonly used as solvents, i.e. Acetaldehyde, Acetone, MEK, Methanol, and Methylene Chloride. Aldehydes and ketones are the main "flavoring" in booze, other than everclear and vodka, which are pretty well flavorless. "Rubber" gloves will solve the problem, even if they are hot.

Paul,

I expect they are referring to really tiny particles of iron, and even though they call it "free", I presume a lot of it is oxide and sulfate by the time it has aged much. I don't know if they use magnets in the recovery process? Since they package it as moly, it is probable that magnetism and settling vibration or other rudimentary cleaning and separating has been done to it. It just won't be perfect. A small enough particle of ferrous oxide buried in the moly mass won't be attracted to a magnet strongly enough to push the surrounding moly aside to reach the magnet. It will still seed a rust bloom, however. If the iron forms a weak bond with the sulfur in the moly, it may attach to a larger enough particle that you can't get it out at all without chelating the moly or some other chemical cleaning process. It would, nonetheless, not be attached firmly enough to prevent it from running off and participating in corrossion. You could try that, I suppose. I'm sure it's too expensive for the recovery people. They will want quick and simple or they can't keep the product cheap enough to be worth reclaiming.

Some polar solvents, like dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (http://www.dmso.org/articles/information/szmant.html) actually do penetrate skin. It is present in turpentine, for example, which is why it makes your skin feel warm. Ed's Red bore solvent (http://www.9mmlargo.com/eds_red.htm) is derived from a recipe that originally used turpentine, but replaced it with Stoddard solvent to avoid the odor. Ed's Red contains two polar and two non-polar solvents, and that is the secret of its effectiveness at getting the different fouling components loose. I suspect other bore cleaners likewise mix polar and non-polar solvents.

The old Hoppe's #9 formula contained nitrobenzene. It is a carcinogen, so it is no longer in Hoppe's. Archers used to buy it as a shortcut for creating calluses on their bowstring fingers. Why karate practitioners never discovered it for their knuckles, I don't know? But in any event, it is another example of a bore solvent that would also affect the skin.

All the solvents you mention that are capable of dissolving oils are going to tend to dry skin. I have had my fingers crack when I was using MEK regularly for several days. I don't think this was penetration so much as drying out the top dead cell layers so they separated too early and left raw, more delicate tissue exposed. A case where gloves would have been appropriate, but I was too young and invulnerable at the time.

The fellow selling Gunzilla referenced preventing skin problems among people who clean guns a lot; armorers and gunsmiths. He wasn't figuring the average gun owner ran into this problem much. Nonetheless, when I consider that G. Gordon Liddy has mentioned DMSO as a poison carrier for assassination, I am inclined to think conversion to water-based, non-toxic degreasers and solvents where they are effective and practical and more than just second-rate substitutes, is a good thing. Even if you keep and use disposable nitrile gloves (I do), you still have vapor inhalation (I hate trying to see through the one breather I have that also stops organics) and safe disposal to consider with them.

By the way, for anyone reading this who is not familiar with the different kinds of disposable gloves, you will find latex and vinyl gloves do not withstand some solvents. The blue nitrile chemically resistant rubber gloves will. This rubber is less elastic than latex. The gloves are sold in sizes for this reason, and not the latex one-size-fits-all format. They are easier to put on or take off. They also cost more. Some sizes of single-ply are currently on sale at Harbor Freight (http://da.harborfreight.com/cpisearch/web/search.do?keyword=Nitrile+Gloves&Submit=Go). This is the least expensive source of them in boxes of 100 ($5 for the sale) that I have run into. I recommend you give them a try if you have been using something else that falls apart?

Nick

Nick,

I never have analyzied it, but iron ore gravel (pretty common around here) is attracted to a magnet, just like rust is. Common rust is an iron oxide.

It should be easy enough to chelate iron with EDTA (versene/ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid) or sodium versenate (disodium EDTA), since it has a pretty good affinity for iron. Ammonia is used to stop iron interference in EDTA determinations of calcium carbonate (hardness), because EDTA has a greater affinity for iron than calcium at the normal pH for water. Versene added to boiler feed water to help control boiler scale will perforate boiler tubes if it isn't monitored closely.

DMSO is actually a Dipolar Aprotic Solvent (http://www.usm.maine.edu/~newton/Chy251_253/Lectures/Solvents/Solvents.html) and isn't readily absorbed through the skin. I use it to carry cortizone to areas where I have been stung by insects to reduce swelling. Probably the warm feeling is the heat of hydration.

Drying skin comes from the evaporation of low BP solvents that have dissolved skin oils, which is evaporated with the solvent. A reason for DMSO not drying skin, since it has a BP similar to ethylene glycol which is much too high to evaporate readily. Ethylene glycol (common atifreeze) and propylene glycol (ingredient in Sierra antifreeze and used to be in Dr. Pepper) will both cause a warming of skin due to the heat of hydration, but don't dry skin either. Gylcerin, trihydroxy propane, is closely related to proplyene glycol, 1,2 dihydroxy propane or 1,3 dihydroxy propane, and is used as a skin moisturizer.

Hello, Just To Pass On An Enlightening Experience. Last Month I Found A Box Of 7mm Rem Mag Shells That My Dad Had Loaded For Me Before He Passed Away. Loaded In Oct 1980. Same Load I Shoot Still In My Sako. Over The Crony 5 Shots Averaged 30fps Slower Than Fresh Reloads. (65.5gr -imr4350, Rem Case, 9 1/2 Rem Primer,140gr Sierra Flat Base) Poi Was Exactly The Same As Fresh Loads. Back In 80 The Rifle Shot 3/4 In Groups. Today It Shoots 1 3/8 In.( Older Shooter Or 3000 More Rounds, Go Figure). Old Loads Shot Same Group Size As Fresh.
You Had Asked About The Effect Of Time On Powder. In My Opinion, If Kept Away From Extreme Temp Changes, As These Loads Were, 25 Yrs Doesn't Give A Problem. See Ya, Bill

. . . iron ore gravel (pretty common around here) is attracted to a magnet, just like rust is. Common rust is an iron oxide. . .

Yup. Not as strongly as pure iron, since it doesn't have the same permeability, but does have enough coersivity and to stubbornly retain an impressed field. Magnetic metal oxides, which used to be mostly refined from ores, are what recording tape and disc surfaces are based on.

It should be easy enough to chelate iron with EDTA (versene/ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid) or sodium versenate (disodium EDTA), since it has a pretty good affinity for iron. . .

You might be interested in Rust Release and Evapo Rust? These two products are rust removers that work by chelation. The latter was the first out, I believe. They are touted as non-toxic and biodegradable and safe on skin. I have been experimenting with them to see whether any surface activation is residual at the removal site? Some appears to be, but it isn’t as extreme as acid-based pickles leave.

DMSO is actually a Dipolar Aprotic Solvent (http://www.usm.maine.edu/~newton/Chy251_253/Lectures/Solvents/Solvents.html) and isn't readily absorbed through the skin. I use it to carry cortizone to areas where I have been stung by insects to reduce swelling. Probably the warm feeling is the heat of hydration.

I was told the heat was blood flow into the area, and I certainly see some redness from its topical application; it is accompanied by a prickly and slightly stinging sensation. There may be a terminology issue here? I don’t know that either skin absorption or adsorption occurs, but only some degree of permeation. DMSO is known to cross membranes and can help carry with it a number of compounds, like your cortisone, as well as penicillin and morphine and other odds and ends (see the middle of the document I linked to earlier). Topical application of DMSO causes bad breath, as either oral or intravenous introduction will, so some amount of it is passing through skin and into the bloodstream. The percentage need not be all that high.

The source of my concern about skin permeation mainly comes from Liddy’s assassination approach, which was simply to paint poisoned DMSO on an automobile steering wheel. He claimed that would deliver enough toxin into the bloodstream to kill the target. I recollect they tested these ideas on cats, which are notoriously difficult to poison, but my memory of it is decades old, now. In any event, it seems prudent to be cautious using something capable of carrying certain compounds into the body if you don’t know what else it is mixed with? Between evaporative solvent drying and cracking skin and potential toxin delivery from older bore cleaning compounds, gloves and non-drying bio-hazardless solvents seem increasingly attractive.

Nick

. . . 5 Shots Averaged 30fps Slower Than Fresh Reloads. (65.5gr -imr4350, Rem Case, 9 1/2 Rem Primer,140gr Sierra Flat Base). . .

. . . 3000 More Rounds. . .

30 fps is within tolerances for powder lot variation. It may not have deteriorated at all.

For a chrome-moly steel barrel in that chambering, 3000 rounds is beyond normal barrel life. You usually see a barrel quit by first presenting an occasional flier, then the fliers just get more and more frequent. If you get the barrel set back an inch and rechambered and have the muzzle checked for funneling by gas backflow (it might need shortening by that same amount) you could probably have a shooter again.

Nick

Nick,

I didn't say DMSO doesn't absorb absorption

n 1: (chemistry) a process in which one substance permeates another; a fluid permeates or is dissolved by a liquid or solid [syn: soaking up] I said it doesn't readily absorb. That means it takes a while to accomplish the absorption. That leads me to believe Liddy was pulling someone's leg.

. . . leads me to believe Liddy was pulling someone's leg. . .

n 1: (chemistry) a process in which one substance permeates another; a fluid permeates or is dissolved by a liquid or solid [syn: soaking up]


Well, I was right: this is terminology problem. The word "absorb" is used differently in different fields. The Encyclopedia Britannica’s web site has quite a number of them listed.

In response to the moderator's next note, I've moved the rest of this note to PM. There seems to be some real disagreement about how readily this stuff carries toxins in through skin, and you can read the details there. It is probably best to err on the side of caution, from what I can see.

Nick

Fellas - we seem to be drifting from the main object of this thread.

Let's concentrate on first shot accuracy and not take up excessive bandwidth on discussions of chemistry. Thanks for understanding.

Yeah, I have moved that last one to PM's. No one else but Paul and I are likely paying attention to it at this point, anyway.

Back on topic, it seems that after floating a barrel and checking for POI shift with heat, there are several lubricants that claim to get first-shots to stay in a group if they are in the barrel at first round. I have a lengthy test project going with two rifles, taking their bores from factory, to firelapped, to permenant lube coating, alternating between bullets with and without moly coating. I will see if I can identify any first-shot POI change in any combination? I can try additional lubes, as well. If it anything proves useful, I'll pass it on.

Nick

Tried the Gun Juice route myself several years ago. The one where you start with a pristine clean barrel, run a wet patch with Gun Juice through it, let dry and then shoot a round. Run dry patches through to clean carbon/fouling, another wet patch and another fired round. Supposed to continue this and watch the bullet's POI climb until they start grouping. When they group, then the process is complete. Afterwards, clean the rifle as usual with solvents/brushes and treat the bore with a wet patch of Gun Juice and let dry at the finish.

Seemed to work OK with a couple of 6.5 Swedes. Then, got to shooting other rifles and forgot to do the treatment. Can't say the rifles were adversely affected by the stuff, but it sure was expensive, so have gone back to normal shooting and cleaning processes.

Tried the Gun Juice route myself. . .

I've got a bottle of that I bought at a show and still haven't tried. Supposed to work wonders in .22 LR, but was invented for highpower. I may have to work it into the test schedule.

Nick

I think most people are probably guilty of cleaning their barrels too much. :rolleyes:

On most of my rifles, I find a brushed (that isn't the same as cleaned) barrel will shoot to a different POI than a fouled barrel.

It doesn't make any difference what gun you shoot, the second shot is always out of a fouled barrel, unless you clean between each shot. Therefore, most of my shooting is done with a fouled barrel, because I don't clean between each shot. :D

I agree with you about 'over cleaning'.We are talking about hunting rifles here, not target rifles. After I clean(wipe-out) my rifles I fire a couple of fouling shots. I then shoot my pet/hunting load to make sure it is on. Most of my guns shoot around 1.25".I then practice with practice loads, usually mil/surp. I'll practice until it seems the group, of practice rounds is opening up. This is usually around 100-150 rds.Then, I'll shoot a test group using my P/L. If it is 1.5" or better, it's ready to clean, If not I'll shoot some more, 50 maybe, and clean. About a month or so, before season, I'll clean, foul, and won't clean until after season. BTW, John Barnsness agrees with me, or I him. Don't worry until accuracy suffers.capt david

. . . Don't worry until accuracy suffers. . .

I think that applies to all guns and all shooting, doesn't it? Including benchrest? How accurate is accurate and how long you can shoot without deteriorating accuracy will vary with the guns and the demands of the purpose they are put to, and how often you clean will go along with that.

What constitutes hunting accuracy is going to be vary. A varmint hunter needs a sub-half M.O.A. gun for longer range shots to work out. A woods deer hunter who can hold and shoot well and who rarely sees shots over 75 yards would be do good work with a 3 m.o.a gun. Howard Vaughn argues for the ability to stay inside 3.5" at 300 yards for antelope size game, but he hunts out west where shots on medium to large game at those ranges come up.

Boys, I think any discussion of what a gun needs will come down to the individual gun and how you keep and use it? As to any deep cleaning in this thread, that is part of finding out what a gun needs to do its best and to meet your expectations? A guy living in Arizona may get away with occasional cleaning. A guy living near a swamp may have to clean right after shooting to keep rust out and will always shoot first shots from a clean bore. Whatever your situation, once you learn what is and isn't required for your gun, you can sit back, relax, pop the cap off a home brew.

Nick

Boys, I think any discussion of what a gun needs will come down to the individual gun and how you keep and use it? As to any deep cleaning in this thread, that is part of finding out what a gun needs to do its best and to meet your expectations? A guy living in Arizona may get away with occasional cleaning. A guy living near a swamp may have to clean right after shooting to keep rust out and will always shoot first shots from a clean bore. Whatever your situation, once you learn what is and isn't required for your gun, you can sit back, relax, pop the cap off a home brew.

Nick


Well put in a nutshell Nick. Everyone has their own idea of what clean is. Do what works for you. For the original poster, this will give him all he needs to try everyones ideas and see what works best for him.

... For the original poster, this will give him all he needs to try everyones ideas and see what works best for him.
Yes, Gismo. It will take me another 3 seasons of hunting and shooting to try all the things put forth here.:eek: However, this is one of the innumerable benefits of BB discussions and acquaintences.

Thank you all

EMC2