If moly coating doesn't improve grouping, is it at least not detrimental?

[VaniB]

It seems like whenever I need to order a Lapua bullet, the only thing I often find in stock is their moly coated version. I don't mind paying the extra few bucks, but I was wondering if the moly bullets will actually group differently. (ie; group worse) The same goes for Hornady bullets.

In case you ask, I'm shooting the .308 155 grain Lapua and Hornady 168 BTHP, and the 75 grain .224 Amax.

Have any of you guys noticed that the NON-COATED bullet has actually shot tighter groups for you then the MOLY COATED bullet? I don't mind if garnering any benefits with moly bullets is questionable/debatable and a small waste of money..... as much as I do mind if they might actually not group as well.









EDIT: ps....thanks, but there is no need for anyone to post me links of places that have the non-moly bullets in stock. This is just something I have wondered and need to know for future purchases. Thanks again.

 

[Cheechako]

VaniB

Since moly coated bullets may result in slightly different internal and external ballistics they could affect accuracy in loads that are fine tuned with naked bullets.

Sierra Bullets did a carefully controlled comprehensive series of tests a few years ago, comparing results from moly and naked bullets. It was published in PS magazine and you may want to find a copy and read it. Kevin Thoms was the test manager at the time.

Other than that, most input you'll receive is anecdotal at best.

Ray

 

[VaniB]

I guess I'll proceed with using some "soft-scrub" cleanser on a few of my 155 moly bullets to remove the Lapua "silver" coating.

I cleaned one bullet last night and found the process to be a messy and time consuming PIA. But, I guess I'll get to see first hand with 7 or 8 bullets if there's any noticeable difference with grouping.

 

[Cheechako]

vaniB

If you are going thru all that work, be sure to run your rounds thru a chronograph at the same time. The results may be interesting. And, I think you are supposed to shoot the naked bullets first, thru a very clean barrel, then the moly. Or is it the other way around???

ray

 

[ConRich]

VaniB

Moly coated bullets will yield a slightly lower velocity than a naked bullet that has been loaded to the same specs.

Dick

 

[Cheechako]

Dick

Not always. Sometimes, just the opposite.

Ray

 

[mike in co]

Dick

Not always. Sometimes, just the opposite.

Ray

you will have to explain how REDUCING friction results in a VELOCITY increase.

mike in co

 

[Cheechako]

mike

I'm not in the business of explaining things. I'm simply reporting what I have personally experienced, and what other shooters have likewise. As I said in my first post, most every response that VaniB will get will be anecdotal, including mine. He can do his tests and see what his own results are.

Ray

 

[mike in co]

ok lets get to real facts.

lapua produces moly coated bullets because of one thing and one thing only:
IT ALLOWS ONE TO SHOOT THE SAME LONGER,
nothing else.
(lapua did significant testing to justify adding moly bullets to thier line. they published thier results. i find it strange that kevin t and sierra said there was no benefit, but stiill sell moly coated bullets.)

because the coating reduces friction, the bullet moves initially a little further, a little quicker, results in the an incease in chamber volume...producing a lower shot pressure and lower velocity..which likely affects accuracy.

like any other change in your load, you must start over and work up to a unique load for the moly coated bullet.

mike in co

 

[John Kielly]

ok lets get to real facts.

because the coating reduces friction, the bullet moves initially a little further, a little quicker, results in the an incease in chamber volume...producing a lower shot pressure and lower velocity..which likely affects accuracy.

Mike,

Sounds like you need a language lesson.

You have postulated a theory or hypothesis, albeit one which has proved to be generally correct.

Other posters have quoted imperical results (facts) which point to the commonly held hypothesis being incorrect under one or several experiments. Not that it's of consequence to your adherence to the theory you quote, I will confirm that I have a similar outcome to your gainsayers, but only under a particular circumstance of using heavy projectiles in the .308 Winchester. Those particular barrels (note that the experiment was repeatable) were throated so that projectiles in the 208-210 grain range could be seated with the body shank no lower than the case neck/shoulder junction but allowing for up to .050" jump. At other times, my results have corresponded with your theory.

John

 

[Cheechako]

mike

It's been a long time since I read the Sierra report but I seem to remember that Kevin simply reported what he had found and left it to the readers to make their own decision to buy moly or not to buy moly. As far as continuing to sell moly bullets, Sierra is in business to satisfy their customers. If their customers want moly bullets they will make them and sell them.

Did Lapua report that their tests resulted in the same results with every combination tested?

As for me, here's one example of the "real" facts:

February 28, 2002
Ben Avery Range, Phoenix
280 Ackley
Berger 180 VLD
59.2 grains H4831
naked bullets = 2862 fps
moly bullets = 2884 fps

Ray

 

[mike in co]

mike

It's been a long time since I read the Sierra report but I seem to remember that Kevin simply reported what he had found and left it to the readers to make their own decision to buy moly or not to buy moly. As far as continuing to sell moly bullets, Sierra is in business to satisfy their customers. If their customers want moly bullets they will make them and sell them.

Did Lapua report that their tests resulted in the same results with every combination tested?

As for me, here's one example of the "real" facts:

February 28, 2002
Ben Avery Range, Phoenix
280 Ackley
Berger 180 VLD
59.2 grains H4831
naked bullets = 2862 fps
moly bullets = 2884 fps

Ray

20 fps is nothing if you only used a 0.1 scale......

if you had a 0.02/3 i would consider it significant....
and since you shot only one rifle....the test is invalid as the bore need seasoning/bore treatment..........shooting both loads in one bbl without setting the bbl up correctly for the load is a waste of time and data.

mike in co

 

[mike in co]

Mike,

Sounds like you need a language lesson.

You have postulated a theory or hypothesis, albeit one which has proved to be generally correct.

Other posters have quoted imperical results (facts) which point to the commonly held hypothesis being incorrect under one or several experiments.
John

where ???

 

[Cheechako]

mike

You are now becoming insulting and I'll not feed you any more.

Ray

 

[dpapadimitrio@g]

Sierra Bullets opinion

For reference and clarification purposes, Sierra did have a statement of what they perceived the benefit of moly coating was/is. It is posted on their website under the "Technical Service" tab in their X-Ring series of publications. See Volume 5, Issue 4:

"Sierra "Moly-Coated" Bullets

Sierra has teamed with the National Highpower Rifle Champion David Tubb to offer moly-coated bullets. David Tubb's company, M.C.I., Inc, is utilizing the NECO© moly coating process to coat Sierra Bullets with molybdenum disulfide.

Sierra has researched scores of moly-coatings and has chosen the NECO© process for its reduction of metal fouling in the barrel and the ease of barrel cleaning."

They also have David Tubb's comment on how to clean a moly coated barrel in Volume 6, Issue 1)chill(

 

[virg]

In my experience...

In my experience in attending National, Regional, State, and local Hunter, VFS, and HV/LV short range benchrest matches, about 50 percent of the competitors use Moly coated bullets. Both the Moly and naked bullet guys share the winners circle about the same number of times.

I do believe that if there was any doubt regards the accuracy potential of Moly bullets, they would have disappeared from the line long ago.

Virg

 

[Octopus]

I have been shooting moly bullets in most of my barrels since 2002.

My experience is moly bullets are as precision as naked, but no better.

For the same velocity using the same case in the same barrel moly bullets need a little more powder.

I can shoot more rounds with out cleaning with moly bullets.

In my very high velocity barrels I have not had a problem with moly bullets blowing up before they get to the target. Same barrel same velocity I have had naked bullets blow up. Slicker barrels do work better in this special case.

I do get better barrel life with moly bullets. My barrels get rechambered and down graded to fun and field barrels for their later life. These older barrels will shot a long time when you only expect 3/8" groups.


With moly bullets the detail cleaning at the end of the day is a lot more work than with naked bullets.

I now suspect that some of the newer bullet lubs may be better.

 

[WILDCATER]

More work

I have very little hands on experience with moly coat bullets. I did try a box when Berger first came out with them, the one thing that was obvious to me was the fact that my barrel cleaning time was much increased, and they were filthy, I also noticed that I had to step my powder charge up to get it (the same weight bullet I had been shooting naked) shoot as good. It was not worth the work or the extra cleaning time "TO ME" to continue with them.

 

[mike in co]

mike

You are now becoming insulting and I'll not feed you any more.

Ray

it was not meant to be an insult.
it was meant to show that there are lots of things that can influence bullet velocity. thats all.

when most/all see a decrease in velocity, and you see an increase, there are questions to ask.

shooting moly in a unprepared is not valid data.
shooting naked bullets in a moly'd bbl is not a valid set of numbers for "naked".

mike in co

 

[goodgrouper]

I have very little hands on experience with moly coat bullets. I did try a box when Berger first came out with them, the one thing that was obvious to me was the fact that my barrel cleaning time was much increased, and they were filthy, I also noticed that I had to step my powder charge up to get it (the same weight bullet I had been shooting naked) shoot as good. It was not worth the work or the extra cleaning time "TO ME" to continue with them.

I agree.

This is why competitive benchrest is such a great test bed for things. Back in the mid 90's when moly hit it's peak popularity, many benchresters shot it. Now, as I walk around and look at what's in people's loading boxes at matches, I don't see even a fifth of those people still shooting moly. Those that do are probably just using them now because they have bought so many in the past and don't want to waste them. Over the years, moly's claims to fame have been disproven or at the very least downgraded out of the realm of magic to the point where most people just stopped using them.

Embarrassingly enough, I jumped on that bandwagon too. But after dealing with the mess, the extra cleaning time, the moisture problems, the extra cost, and the added use of powder to maintain velocities, I scrapped them and have never looked back. If I can't get a bare bullet to be as accurate as a moly bullet, there is something else that's wrong.

Mic Mcpherson is probably the biggest proponent of moly to this day, but he isn't a competitive benchrest shooter.