Lube Testing

[coloradoclyde]

Only negativity never any help

Negativity propelled Einstein... :hmm:

 

[hanshi]

I'm not up on slick vs not slick lubes but it would seem to me (now) that Hoppes is a slick lube. Hoppes is always easy to load, accuracy great and velocities generally, but not always, lower than mink oil. This is what I wanted to know; take my usual load and see what affect, if any, my usual hunting lube had on velocity. I had not anticipated the results I got.

The only theory I came up with that included all the information I had gained was that: powder vs velocity is not a straight rising line. There are always peaks and dips. This has been tested numerous times. Changing the lube moved those peaks and dips around causing some charges to give less, or more speed.

IMHO it isn't a major thing - same accurate load with the same, hunting only, lube and not the range lube - but was unanticipated and surprising.

Everything that can be said has, I think, been said. Using the word "snobbery" was probably an unnecessary, unfortunate and inaccurate choice of words and did NOT apply to everybody. "Venom" might have been substituted describing a few of the posts. No need to keep this thread going; best to stop right here before some relationships become too strained to be repaired.

 

[coloradoclyde]

To those who have boarded the flog the dissenters train:
Questioning leads to additional work which may lead to actual answers. As it stands, the information is interesting but anecdotal and lacks sufficient context. The actual outcomes may/will vary from person to person and gun to gun, and a single set of observations are not as significant as most here believe (an N of 1 means NOTHING). The best you can do for yourself is question everything rather than just following along blindly... :idunno:

:thumbsup:

 

[Black Hand]

I feel sorry for those who feel they are being personally attacked when their work is questioned. Glad they didn't go into science where the questioning of ones work is a common, everyday occurrence.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Nobody questioned or gave possible answers to the post. What am I to think; that all is known and nothing interesting enough to base theories on?

Read my first post.

 

[Black Hand]

"Venom" might have been substituted describing a few of the posts.

Terribly sorry I dared question your work... :bow:

 

[coloradoclyde]

Ok guys.....Let's dial back the emotions... :haha:

 

[Black Hand]

Agreed.
However, I don't appreciate being attacked for pointing out inconsistencies and that the observations were anecdotal (at best).

 

[coloradoclyde]

Woops!...RED LINE.. quick turn the dial the other way.... :wink:

 

[Black Hand]

Let's get back to the regularly scheduled discussion....

 

[Billnpatti]

A long time ago, I did a study of the slickness of various lubes VS the muzzle velocity. It did take some time to find lubricity values for only non-petrolium lubes but I did find aboout three. I can't find the data right now, I have several notebooks filled with research data but I can't find the one with that particular data. I do remember that there was a relationship between the slickness of the lube and the resultant velocities for the same patch and charge of powder. As it turned out, the velocities from the slicker lubes were lower and the std. dev. for them was greater than with the less slick lubes. My conclusion was that the slicker lubes allowed the ball to start moving sooner causing the pressures to be lower and less consistant than with the less slick lubes. This is consistant with what Dutch Schultz has found with his dry patch research.

 

[Black Hand]

Bill,
Thank you - valuable information and insights. I'd be interested in seeing your data if the notebooks turn up...

 

[Tom Compton]

Hmmmm. Pointing to nothing in particular but I noticed Fish is from Weird as Austin is known in this area. :haha:

 

[Dr5x]

Billinpatti is correct. The slicker the lube the sooner the ball is gone the less of the powder power is exerted on your projectile
To my surprise some years ago I found that minimal slickness cause some slight resistance allowing the power to build and give its fuller benefit on propelling the ball down range.
The effect of the too slick lube is identical with too little a powder charge.

For what it's Worth.
When you are getting the groups you desire, hot after shot. Sit down and write everything you are doing that has given you such success. Powder used brand and amount, ball size, shooting patch thickness using a compressed measurement, Wiping patch thickness using the compressed measurement. Type of lubrication and how much. Everything you can think of that you are doing. Make several copies and store them in several safe places.
I have some knowledge about muzzle loading but I am becoming an expert on old age and aging and have learned over the years that bits and pies of memory disappear when you are not looking and when for no known reason you shooting goes weird it will mean you have changed something and your memory will be no help at all. that's when you'll want to consult your detailed description of your procedure to identify what you have done to change your results.

I have described my late 1983 wiping patch disaste too often to repeat it here but that's when I began to become suspicious of my "trusty" memory.

Dutch Schoultz

 

[Vaino]

To generate pressure, resistance is req'd and it's surprising that the lubricity of the patch lube would make that much difference in pressure vs the lead ball inertia.....the lubricity would probably have a greater effect on pressure w/ the smaller cals. because of lessened inertia.

Would be worthwhile to do a pressure test {velocity measurement} between a .36 and a .58 when various lubes are used. My opinion is that the pressure variance measured by velocity and using the same lubes for both, would be much more insignificant w/ the .58 than w/ the .36...all due to different inertia of the lead balls.......Fred

 

[Stumpkiller]

Thank you for settling down on your own.

Let me just point out that there is a relevance in checking velocity - as I would say if you have a load that is consistently producing velocities close to each other with every round it will almost assuredly be more accurate than one with wider variations in shot-to-shot velocity.

That said - I don't own a chronograph and judge my loads by their accuracy followed by ease of loading and clean-up. But that's just what I care about.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

some lubrication substances are much thinner and more slippery under normal conditions, but not necessarily so under weight, temperature and pressure. Light weight machine oils are good for some applications and others require 90 weight gear oil and still others require some of the stiffest greases ever made. for instance Alox.

 

[Vaino]

To both of the previous responders....I'm just responding to Billinpatti's post and the test I propose would render some important info. As to those who say accuracy is most important, I agree, but on the way to achieving the best accuracy, the effects of different lubes can either add or detract from the consistency and therefore the accuracy.

We seem to "wander" according to personal whims and don't really analyze what the poster is actually saying.....substituting our mindset in lieu of the poster's thoughts. Makes for a very confused, unkempt discussion.

But for what it's worth....evidently nothing will change and at times. I'm as guilty as anyone....but not this time.....Fred

 

[hanshi]

The slick lube vs the not so slick lube and the way they affect velocity were also my thoughts, among others, as well.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Such a test, to be fair, should rule out other variables. For instance, does the manner of lubing patches result in inconsistent weights of patching. The fellows I competed with hated to wait more than about a minute to fire their shots, because the barrel was not the same relative temperature and mostly because the lube (almost universally spit) would have a chance to soak into the powder and foul some of the charge. For instance up at Blue Ridge, the slug gun shooters use ATF to lube their paper cross patching, but use a press to sqeeze out excess before loading. (They will lube 20 pieces of cross patch at a time and put it all in the press at the same time to squeeze the excess lube out.) So to be done scientifically, the lubed patches should be weighed to make sure they are the same, powder charges should be weighed, and some measure taken to prevent the lube from fouling the charge between loading and shooting. The bore should be swabbed between shots to make sure their is no extra fouling to slow down the PRB and to make sure their is no deviation in weight being pushed by the powder.