tcoz
Member
I tumble my sized and decapped bottleneck cases for one hour as much to clean the primer pockets as to clean off the lube but I don't think it hurts to remove excess lube so it doesn't accumulate in the chamber over time.
How critical is it to remove lube from reloads?
- Thread starter berettaprofessor
- Start date
- Status
OilyPablo,
It is not a chemical reaction directly from the tumbling but how a physical breakdown of the powder's form and size occurs--smokeless powders come in various types--stick, flake, and ball. Most if not all today also have various coatings on the surface that are designed for different purposes.
Tumbling mechanically abrades these coatings and causes the form of the powder to break down into a finer powder--given that powders have carefully optimized surface areas to promote even combustion at a known rate, changing part of the load into small particles changes the burn rate unpredictably which affects the pressure generated as well. Now, that effect probably varies per powder, per form of powder, how long the round was tumbled, the strength of the motor powering the tumbler, whether the powder was single or double based, etc. To my knowledge, I haven't seen any empirical test of what happens and whatever tests that were conducted wouldn't necessarily be something that you could extrapolate to other powders and would require expensive testing barrel type research with a wide variety of powders. There is no economic reason for powder companies to conduct such research and most amateurs lack the ability and/or the equipment to do so. Thus, it is one of those questions where we do not know the answer--my best guess is that you would probably see more variability in accuracy and chrony speed but how much chamber pressure would change is up for question.
Probably the closest analogue is the differing grades of blackpowder by size but that also leaves off the coating which the size of the powder kernels affects the burn rate. Ask someone who reloads black powder cartridges whether they tumble their loads.
It is not a chemical reaction directly from the tumbling but how a physical breakdown of the powder's form and size occurs--smokeless powders come in various types--stick, flake, and ball. Most if not all today also have various coatings on the surface that are designed for different purposes.
Tumbling mechanically abrades these coatings and causes the form of the powder to break down into a finer powder--given that powders have carefully optimized surface areas to promote even combustion at a known rate, changing part of the load into small particles changes the burn rate unpredictably which affects the pressure generated as well. Now, that effect probably varies per powder, per form of powder, how long the round was tumbled, the strength of the motor powering the tumbler, whether the powder was single or double based, etc. To my knowledge, I haven't seen any empirical test of what happens and whatever tests that were conducted wouldn't necessarily be something that you could extrapolate to other powders and would require expensive testing barrel type research with a wide variety of powders. There is no economic reason for powder companies to conduct such research and most amateurs lack the ability and/or the equipment to do so. Thus, it is one of those questions where we do not know the answer--my best guess is that you would probably see more variability in accuracy and chrony speed but how much chamber pressure would change is up for question.
Probably the closest analogue is the differing grades of blackpowder by size but that also leaves off the coating which the size of the powder kernels affects the burn rate. Ask someone who reloads black powder cartridges whether they tumble their loads.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
It isn't. This becomes an age old argument with tumbling loaded ammunition. One school of thought is that tumbling loaded ammunition will cause the powder to break down and thus increase the burn rate to unsafe levels resulting in high pressure and all of thet will culminate in this:
Several members have conducted studies on this and never got the results pictured above. Matter of fact, try as they did they could not get any ill effects from tumbling loaded ammunition in controlled experiments.
However, the powder companies advise against the practice. So do tumbler manufacturers.
Hodgon Powders:
That is why you see some of the comments you see, I believe Bart also mentioned it quite a few post back. You will find the general consensus here is the majority tumble loaded ammunition and nobody has blown up. These forums are loaded with threads on the subject like this one of many. Using a forum search of Tumbling Loaded Ammo should bring up a dozen threads.
Ron
Devilfrog
Member
I generally deprime/inspect, tumble, lube/resize, tumble/polish, prime, charge and load all my rifle brass. I use a single stage press for loading rifle brass so its an easy process.
Never have any messy residual lube issues.
Never have any messy residual lube issues.
In my experience there was only one instance where slick ammo presented a "problem". My 629 would flatten primers with all loads and I tracked it sown to "set back" from slick ammo. I cleaned some ammo to remove all the lube and set back stopped.
I don't think the "to tumble or not to tumble live ammo" discussion is worth opening up again (been reading about this for mebbe 12 years on forums, never a definitive "solution" to the question). I haven't read any reason not to, but my brass is cleaned and I don't over lube them, I have no need to tumble live ammo. Mebbe I'll tumble a box of my .44 Magnum reloads for a couple weeks and see what happens...
I don't think the "to tumble or not to tumble live ammo" discussion is worth opening up again (been reading about this for mebbe 12 years on forums, never a definitive "solution" to the question). I haven't read any reason not to, but my brass is cleaned and I don't over lube them, I have no need to tumble live ammo. Mebbe I'll tumble a box of my .44 Magnum reloads for a couple weeks and see what happens...
Not all tumble lubing is done with alox; I use lanolin thinned with alcohol in a plastic bag and tumble lube my brass that way. Quick, easy, no mess...
Bill asks: Should I wear a seat belt riding in a car?
John answers: I don't think you need to. Never worn one driving over a million miles using 7 different cars. No problems at all. No accidents, either.
Bill says: Thanks for the info. Guess I don't need to wear one either.
John answers: I don't think you need to. Never worn one driving over a million miles using 7 different cars. No problems at all. No accidents, either.
Bill says: Thanks for the info. Guess I don't need to wear one either.
snuffy
Member
Oh no, not again!
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=498890&highlight=tumble+loaded+ammo
Walkalong and I corroborated on the above test back in 2010. Whether we changed anybodies minds or not, we'll never know.
As for Jay at Hodgdon, what do you expect him to say, while the corporate lawyer looked over his shoulder? Powder break down just doesn't happen. There's very little force inside a shell casing, and the powder is slick with graphite to lubricate it and control static. The powder itself is like a piece of plastic, tough stuff. Grab a chunk/granule with a pliers, try to crush it.
It might be time for another test. Somebody come up with a different caliber other than 40 S&W, or 45 ACP. And something other than 700-X and WW-231. 9MM? Um, poor choice, most 9's are pretty much 95% load density, not much room for powder to move around, and not much of it .
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=498890&highlight=tumble+loaded+ammo
Walkalong and I corroborated on the above test back in 2010. Whether we changed anybodies minds or not, we'll never know.
As for Jay at Hodgdon, what do you expect him to say, while the corporate lawyer looked over his shoulder? Powder break down just doesn't happen. There's very little force inside a shell casing, and the powder is slick with graphite to lubricate it and control static. The powder itself is like a piece of plastic, tough stuff. Grab a chunk/granule with a pliers, try to crush it.
It might be time for another test. Somebody come up with a different caliber other than 40 S&W, or 45 ACP. And something other than 700-X and WW-231. 9MM? Um, poor choice, most 9's are pretty much 95% load density, not much room for powder to move around, and not much of it .
Paddy
member
So, why would person choose to tumble loaded rounds rather than tumble sized empty brass? Seems like the same amount of time and work but in a different order.
I like loading clean sized brass with clean sized components.
I like loading clean sized brass with clean sized components.
Tumbling sized and deprimed brass results in media getting stuck in the flash hole. l learned the hard way by sitting down with 500 cases and a tooth pick.
I just wipe the lube off the size brass with a paper towel and then use a q tip to wipe inside the neck. It adds about an hour to the whole process for a 500 batch.
I just wipe the lube off the size brass with a paper towel and then use a q tip to wipe inside the neck. It adds about an hour to the whole process for a 500 batch.
LiveLife
Member
I have heard/read some commercial ammunition manufacturers tumble loaded rounds to clean up the brass/bullet surface.
Military units around the world transporting loaded ammunition over rough terrain in trucks with stiff suspension for hours and days will put more vibration/shock to loaded ammunition than reloaders tumbling finished rounds for a few hours.
I would not tumble finished rounds if old/questionable powders were used as old surplus rounds with corrosion/tarnished brass in different threads have shown fine powder breakdown after the rounds were pulled after being tumbled.
But if fresh/good powders were used for my reloads, I would not worry about powder breakdown thanks to snuffy & Walkalong's tests in 2010. Since then, tumbling of loaded rounds were done in multiple threads by different members for days and each time, there was no signs of powder breakdown.
But if you like, I can volunteer and load some rounds with higher density/different type powders with a lot of free space inside the loaded rounds and tumble them for several days with close up photos to see any difference.
Military units around the world transporting loaded ammunition over rough terrain in trucks with stiff suspension for hours and days will put more vibration/shock to loaded ammunition than reloaders tumbling finished rounds for a few hours.
I would not tumble finished rounds if old/questionable powders were used as old surplus rounds with corrosion/tarnished brass in different threads have shown fine powder breakdown after the rounds were pulled after being tumbled.
But if fresh/good powders were used for my reloads, I would not worry about powder breakdown thanks to snuffy & Walkalong's tests in 2010. Since then, tumbling of loaded rounds were done in multiple threads by different members for days and each time, there was no signs of powder breakdown.
For me, I am beyond convinced and no further test is needed.snuffy said:
But if you like, I can volunteer and load some rounds with higher density/different type powders with a lot of free space inside the loaded rounds and tumble them for several days with close up photos to see any difference.
Last edited:
Commercial ammunition manufacturers tumble loaded rounds to clean up the brass/bullet surface?
Any proof of that on the web from the companies making ammo?
All the commercial ammo plants I've toured have machines making everything except powder. It's all untouched by human hands after its made and cleaned as components and is not tumbled after assembly but just packaged automatically. Anyone handling it does so with gloved hands so skin oils won't tarnish cases or bullets.
Any proof of that on the web from the companies making ammo?
All the commercial ammo plants I've toured have machines making everything except powder. It's all untouched by human hands after its made and cleaned as components and is not tumbled after assembly but just packaged automatically. Anyone handling it does so with gloved hands so skin oils won't tarnish cases or bullets.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
I know bds loves testing thngs.Oh no, not again!
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=498890&highlight=tumble+loaded+ammo
Walkalong and I corroborated on the above test back in 2010. Whether we changed anybodies minds or not, we'll never know.
As for Jay at Hodgdon, what do you expect him to say, while the corporate lawyer looked over his shoulder? Powder break down just doesn't happen. There's very little force inside a shell casing, and the powder is slick with graphite to lubricate it and control static. The powder itself is like a piece of plastic, tough stuff. Grab a chunk/granule with a pliers, try to crush it.
It might be time for another test. Somebody come up with a different caliber other than 40 S&W, or 45 ACP. And something other than 700-X and WW-231. 9MM? Um, poor choice, most 9's are pretty much 95% load density, not much room for powder to move around, and not much of it .
Seriously, I see no reason to do it all again. I see no reason why the results of the last time would be any different? The guys making the powder or the tumblers have their liability concerns and both camps are pretty firmly entrenched. Thus I can see no reason to do it all again. This is a question new reloaders will always ask. I always give the same response and leave it for an individual to decide. Do I tumble loaded ammunition? No, not on a regular basis because I have no need to in how I go about things. Have I ever? Yes, and I would do it again if the need arose. I figure we present the facts and let people decide how they want to go about things.
Just My Take....
Ron
OilyPablo
Member
I always assumed lube left in the case would be bad when or before the powder is set off. I don't tumble finished ammo only because no need.
LiveLife
Member
Sorry. No, I do not have direct proof that I can post but different commercial reloaders I have talked to have said they will tumble loaded rounds to clean up the brass/bullet surfaces for better presentation and have read the same on several THR threads.Bart B. said:
I changed my previous post to now read, "I have heard/read some commercial ammunition manufacturers tumble loaded rounds to clean up the brass/bullet surface."
Greg Mercurio
Member
So basically the bullet is moving forward and the case is moving backwards, but it's stopped by the surface friction between the cartridge case and the chamber wall? I'd sure hate to be a gun designer with input parameters like that. How do you size locking lugs with so many unknowns!
Just to stop kidding around, in my silly world, the cartridge creates X pressure in PSI. The cartridge case head has N inches of surface area. N = Pie are squared. So a cartridge like a .50 BMG will have a much lower "thrust" on it's bolt face than say a .223, assuming pressures are equivalent, because the area on which the pressure is acting is significantly smaller.
When you do the arithmetic, the inches cancel and you're left with pounds force. It's shared within the pressure vessel created by the chamber walls and the bolt face. Are you assuming the chamber walls are no longer providing resistance to the pressure because there's a film of lubricant there? Does that mean the entire pressure spike is taken by the bolt lugs?
I don't think so. But I'm willing to listen to the explanation.
Just to stop kidding around, in my silly world, the cartridge creates X pressure in PSI. The cartridge case head has N inches of surface area. N = Pie are squared. So a cartridge like a .50 BMG will have a much lower "thrust" on it's bolt face than say a .223, assuming pressures are equivalent, because the area on which the pressure is acting is significantly smaller.
When you do the arithmetic, the inches cancel and you're left with pounds force. It's shared within the pressure vessel created by the chamber walls and the bolt face. Are you assuming the chamber walls are no longer providing resistance to the pressure because there's a film of lubricant there? Does that mean the entire pressure spike is taken by the bolt lugs?
I don't think so. But I'm willing to listen to the explanation.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
Alas, another of those subjects of unending discussion. We have several members who claim the myth of slippery chambers and ammunition has been debunked while others argue a case need be free of lube and a chamber should never be polished shinny. I really have no opinion as I never saw a difference in my groups. I like a case free of lube simply because I like clean cases. I do not want a case that crud or foreign matter can adhere to and get transferred into my chamber.
Ron
Greg, I think you got the numbers reversed.
The .223 case head has a much smaller area than the .50 BMG one.
Yes, force equals psi times area it's against.
If chamber pressure in both is 60,000 psi, the .332" diameter on the .223 case head has .039 square inch of area. The 50's head diameter touching the bolt face is about .750 inch with an area of .442 square inch.
The 50 caliber has about 26,500 pounds of force on its bolt face and the .223's got about 6600 pounds on its bolt face.
Both bolts take their respective forces on their bolt faces.
Remember a vehicle tire with 30 psi having a 40 square inch foot print has 1200 pounds of force pushing up on the vehicle. Four of those tires easily support a 4800 pound pickup truck.
The .223 case head has a much smaller area than the .50 BMG one.
Yes, force equals psi times area it's against.
If chamber pressure in both is 60,000 psi, the .332" diameter on the .223 case head has .039 square inch of area. The 50's head diameter touching the bolt face is about .750 inch with an area of .442 square inch.
The 50 caliber has about 26,500 pounds of force on its bolt face and the .223's got about 6600 pounds on its bolt face.
Both bolts take their respective forces on their bolt faces.
Remember a vehicle tire with 30 psi having a 40 square inch foot print has 1200 pounds of force pushing up on the vehicle. Four of those tires easily support a 4800 pound pickup truck.
Bolt face pressure comes from the pressure on the inside of the case head, it's far more accurate to use the area of the inside of the case rather than the outside area of the case head.
Most bolt pressures are actually in the range of 6 or 7000 pounds.
Yes, a lubed case will produce the highest bolt face pressure, it's equivalent to having no headspace or slightly worse (depending on how you theorize the forces involved). The reason a case that sticks to the chamber walls produces less bolt face pressure is that some of the energy that would be applied to the bolt face is used to stretch the case (if you have the proper cartridge headspace dimension). By the time the case is stretched enough to contact the bolt face there is far less energy left.
Most bolt pressures are actually in the range of 6 or 7000 pounds.
Yes, a lubed case will produce the highest bolt face pressure, it's equivalent to having no headspace or slightly worse (depending on how you theorize the forces involved). The reason a case that sticks to the chamber walls produces less bolt face pressure is that some of the energy that would be applied to the bolt face is used to stretch the case (if you have the proper cartridge headspace dimension). By the time the case is stretched enough to contact the bolt face there is far less energy left.
Since this is a hobby for me, time is not critical. Hence, I decap and then tumble (2/3 cob + 1/3 walnut & dryer sheets) less than 1 hour for my used brass. After all case prep (sizing, trimming, etc.) I batch wash in a hand shaker container with soapy water to remove case lube (sizing wax), brass bits, cob media, etc.). I inspect, prime, & load - simple. The real key to the process is use dryer sheets in the tumbler - picks up all the crud and the media actually stays clean. I have nice shiny brass and my tumble media lasts many thousands of rounds.
Leaving lube on a cartridge case does nothing bad to the mechanism as long as the cartridge pressure is within specs.
All of the nonsense about the dangers of lubricated cases ignore some very basic parameters, first and foremost, just what loads are used in designing these structures?
Firearms are designed to carry a load. You can calculate load by multiplying pounds per square inch times the cartridge surface area in square inches. What falls out is pounds of force. Based on my calculations, bolt thrust for the 223 Remington should be around 6,833 lbf. It is very easy to do, measure the maximum OD of the case, multiply that by the Maximum Acceptable Pressure, and that is your bolt thrust. It is a maximum number as it does not assume any reduction in load due to case and chamber friction. A properly designed firearm will carry the complete load of a cartridge through its service life. If you notice, there are all sorts of pressure limits for firearms, and these pressure limits directly translate into load limits if you calculate the surface area of the cartridge. This is why pressure limits are in these load manuals, pressures must be tailored to the load limits of the firearms that use those cartridges. Exceed pressures and you are exceeding the loads at which these firearms were designed to carry. This is very, very important. If you are really, pathological concerned about bolt thrust, cut your loads.
Incidentally, rifle chambers carry more load than the bolt or the receiver seats as the surface area of the cartridge is greater in the chamber than the portion against the bolt. Hatcherities and Ackleyites ignore this fact. Hoop stress loads are going to be the same regardless of whether the case is lubed or dry. I can go into great and nauseating depth on this, but this all started because the US Army built 1,000,000 defective M1903 rifles which had brittle bolts and receivers. Their barrels were generally fine because they did not go through the forge shop. The forge shop workers were not given temperature gages and temperatures were judged by eyeball. A huge number of parts were therefore overheated in the forging process. This is why Hatcherism ignores the load on the barrel, brittle receivers and bolts broke. P. O. Ackley took the fiction a little further. His mini nuke cartridges developed insanely high pressures, but he claimed it was OK. Ackley created pseudo science theories that his case design took the load off the bolt face. P.O. Ackley ignored chamber load and chamber pressures, barrel/chamber load sort of went away in his world. No conservation of energy in the Wildcat world, just change the taper of your case, and all that bad overpressure goes into the ether! Well his mini nuke wildcat cartridges did not take the load off the bolt and incidentally, were overpressure for standard barrels. P.O Ackley probably made a good profit selling chamber reamers. I am quite certain a number of people bought his reamers and reamed out their chambers and when they used his load data, they were overstressing their actions and barrels!
I am firing lubed rifle cases and pistol cases for a couple of reasons. Firstly, in my gas guns, dry cases are stretched on extraction. Gas guns open up when there is pressure in the barrel, a dry case is clinging to the chamber, it gets stretched as the bolt retracts, case life is awful in the Garand mechanism. When the case is lubricated, case sidewalls don't get stretched. I took one set of LC 308 23 firings without a case head separation.
R stands for number of times reloaded.
The FAL cases were fired dry and they came apart in a couple of firings. Cases cost money, are expensive. It is a matter of economy to be able to reload my cases orders of magnitude longer than the old "five times and toss" advice that is given. I can load my lubed cases until they get brass splits, case neck cracks, or opened primer pockets.
As for bolt thrust, I am on the third barrel of my M1a. This is a picture of the bolt lug. Neither the receiver seats of the lug surfaces show any extreme wear.
New cartridges, I tend to slather them with lube because I don't want excessive case stretch on the first firing. Factory cases come with the headspace they have. My rifle chamber may be a bit long. Why ruin new cases on the first firing? When these cases are lubed, they slide to the bolt face, the shoulders fold out, and there is no sidewall stretch. I did that for all my 300 H&H Magnum cases. The shoulder to base distance is not controlled in belted magnums and those cases were about $2.00 a pop. I lubed them up and they came out perfectly fire formed.
Shot well too.
I have a theory that lubricated cases shoot more accurately than dry because the bolt is fully loaded each shot. Is loaded consistently each shot, and there is no case binding as probably occurs with dry cases and dry chambers. And my cases don't look like this after a couple of firings.
I am currently shooting NRA Bullseye and I want absolute positive function of my 45 ACP. It was an old Bullseye shooter trick to lube the cartridges. By breaking the friction between case and chamber I am increasing bolt thrust. Which in my 45 ACP is all to the good with the ultra light loads I am shooting. If you ever shoot Bullseye pistol, you want the absolute least recoiling round you can develop, but, light loads don't always cycle the action. My light loads are 100% reliable as long as I lube them. I dribble motor oil over my cases. I will put a drop of oil on them as I put them in the magazine, or just let the oil dribble down in the magazine. This is messy, oil is in the air, but you know, it works.
It is interesting how people ignore the world around them. Bart B is proud of his accomplishments shooting small bore prone, and yet while proclaiming that lube increases bolt thrust, and in his opinion that is a bad thing, match 22LR rounds are greasy as heck. I wash up after a small bore prone match as my fingers are sticky from handling the cases. If the increased bolt thrust due to lubricated cases was bad, you would think Bart B should have noticed his 22 LR rifles increasing in headspace. If Bart B is really worried about increased bolt thrust, he should soak all his Eley ammunition in solvent and remove all that evil grease.
Do that and Bart B won't be setting anymore National Records with his rimfire rifle.
As long as the powder charges, and thus, pressures are in spec, nothing bad will happen to your firearm if you fire lubed cases. Your extraction and thus function will be more reliable in automatic mechanisms. Your case life will be longer in all mechanisms. The primary disadvantage of leaving lube on cases is that grease and oil attract dirt. Lubing ammunition is messy, handling lubed ammunition is messy. Firing heavily lubed ammunition is messy too.
When I fired these grease bombs in my bolt rifle
Grease was squeezed back into the action and plumes of grease were blown out of the muzzle.
But the groups were fine
All of the nonsense about the dangers of lubricated cases ignore some very basic parameters, first and foremost, just what loads are used in designing these structures?
Firearms are designed to carry a load. You can calculate load by multiplying pounds per square inch times the cartridge surface area in square inches. What falls out is pounds of force. Based on my calculations, bolt thrust for the 223 Remington should be around 6,833 lbf. It is very easy to do, measure the maximum OD of the case, multiply that by the Maximum Acceptable Pressure, and that is your bolt thrust. It is a maximum number as it does not assume any reduction in load due to case and chamber friction. A properly designed firearm will carry the complete load of a cartridge through its service life. If you notice, there are all sorts of pressure limits for firearms, and these pressure limits directly translate into load limits if you calculate the surface area of the cartridge. This is why pressure limits are in these load manuals, pressures must be tailored to the load limits of the firearms that use those cartridges. Exceed pressures and you are exceeding the loads at which these firearms were designed to carry. This is very, very important. If you are really, pathological concerned about bolt thrust, cut your loads.
Incidentally, rifle chambers carry more load than the bolt or the receiver seats as the surface area of the cartridge is greater in the chamber than the portion against the bolt. Hatcherities and Ackleyites ignore this fact. Hoop stress loads are going to be the same regardless of whether the case is lubed or dry. I can go into great and nauseating depth on this, but this all started because the US Army built 1,000,000 defective M1903 rifles which had brittle bolts and receivers. Their barrels were generally fine because they did not go through the forge shop. The forge shop workers were not given temperature gages and temperatures were judged by eyeball. A huge number of parts were therefore overheated in the forging process. This is why Hatcherism ignores the load on the barrel, brittle receivers and bolts broke. P. O. Ackley took the fiction a little further. His mini nuke cartridges developed insanely high pressures, but he claimed it was OK. Ackley created pseudo science theories that his case design took the load off the bolt face. P.O. Ackley ignored chamber load and chamber pressures, barrel/chamber load sort of went away in his world. No conservation of energy in the Wildcat world, just change the taper of your case, and all that bad overpressure goes into the ether! Well his mini nuke wildcat cartridges did not take the load off the bolt and incidentally, were overpressure for standard barrels. P.O Ackley probably made a good profit selling chamber reamers. I am quite certain a number of people bought his reamers and reamed out their chambers and when they used his load data, they were overstressing their actions and barrels!
I am firing lubed rifle cases and pistol cases for a couple of reasons. Firstly, in my gas guns, dry cases are stretched on extraction. Gas guns open up when there is pressure in the barrel, a dry case is clinging to the chamber, it gets stretched as the bolt retracts, case life is awful in the Garand mechanism. When the case is lubricated, case sidewalls don't get stretched. I took one set of LC 308 23 firings without a case head separation.
R stands for number of times reloaded.
The FAL cases were fired dry and they came apart in a couple of firings. Cases cost money, are expensive. It is a matter of economy to be able to reload my cases orders of magnitude longer than the old "five times and toss" advice that is given. I can load my lubed cases until they get brass splits, case neck cracks, or opened primer pockets.
As for bolt thrust, I am on the third barrel of my M1a. This is a picture of the bolt lug. Neither the receiver seats of the lug surfaces show any extreme wear.
New cartridges, I tend to slather them with lube because I don't want excessive case stretch on the first firing. Factory cases come with the headspace they have. My rifle chamber may be a bit long. Why ruin new cases on the first firing? When these cases are lubed, they slide to the bolt face, the shoulders fold out, and there is no sidewall stretch. I did that for all my 300 H&H Magnum cases. The shoulder to base distance is not controlled in belted magnums and those cases were about $2.00 a pop. I lubed them up and they came out perfectly fire formed.
Shot well too.
I have a theory that lubricated cases shoot more accurately than dry because the bolt is fully loaded each shot. Is loaded consistently each shot, and there is no case binding as probably occurs with dry cases and dry chambers. And my cases don't look like this after a couple of firings.
I am currently shooting NRA Bullseye and I want absolute positive function of my 45 ACP. It was an old Bullseye shooter trick to lube the cartridges. By breaking the friction between case and chamber I am increasing bolt thrust. Which in my 45 ACP is all to the good with the ultra light loads I am shooting. If you ever shoot Bullseye pistol, you want the absolute least recoiling round you can develop, but, light loads don't always cycle the action. My light loads are 100% reliable as long as I lube them. I dribble motor oil over my cases. I will put a drop of oil on them as I put them in the magazine, or just let the oil dribble down in the magazine. This is messy, oil is in the air, but you know, it works.
It is interesting how people ignore the world around them. Bart B is proud of his accomplishments shooting small bore prone, and yet while proclaiming that lube increases bolt thrust, and in his opinion that is a bad thing, match 22LR rounds are greasy as heck. I wash up after a small bore prone match as my fingers are sticky from handling the cases. If the increased bolt thrust due to lubricated cases was bad, you would think Bart B should have noticed his 22 LR rifles increasing in headspace. If Bart B is really worried about increased bolt thrust, he should soak all his Eley ammunition in solvent and remove all that evil grease.
Do that and Bart B won't be setting anymore National Records with his rimfire rifle.
As long as the powder charges, and thus, pressures are in spec, nothing bad will happen to your firearm if you fire lubed cases. Your extraction and thus function will be more reliable in automatic mechanisms. Your case life will be longer in all mechanisms. The primary disadvantage of leaving lube on cases is that grease and oil attract dirt. Lubing ammunition is messy, handling lubed ammunition is messy. Firing heavily lubed ammunition is messy too.
When I fired these grease bombs in my bolt rifle
Grease was squeezed back into the action and plumes of grease were blown out of the muzzle.
But the groups were fine
Last edited:
This is so oblique that I don't understand if this is a criticism or whether you agree with me.
If the data you are perhaps referring to are the 1920 results that Hatcher refers to in his book Hatcher's Notebook than with almost 100 years of actual field results and tests, it ought to be obvious that that data was fallacious and the conclusions were fantasies. Results, thus data, need to be replicable. Hatcher's data has a serious non replicable problem. If the 1920 studies were true, then what was true then is true today. We ought to be seeing the same physical phenomena those tests predicted. We do not. And never have, and never will.
OilyPablo
Member
I think he vas kiddink.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
