I know the whole moly subject has been beaten to death but I am unclear on one aspect. Cruising through the forum reading articles on moly have brought me to the conclusion that moly has no noticeable affect on accuracy and decreases fps slightly but allows higher pressure for better velocity. My question is about moly extending barrel life. I saw a video tiborosaurous Rex did on moly and made quite the argument against moly with inconsistent barrel wear and micro pitting. Would this affect accuracy negatively in a short range br environment. Would it even increase barrel life in this environment. I am willing to take the extra steps if it can substantualy extend the life of my barrels. I read an article that a company put 10000 rounds down a 6.5x55 barrel and it had considerably less wear than the non coated barrel. Barrel experts leave your opinions.
Moly in barrels
- Thread starter .22 ppc
- Start date
C
CMaier
Guest
that "company" was either lapua or norma..i do not remember which one, but i consider it THE DEFINITIVE answer on what moly does and does not do. two things. it allows one to shoot the SAME consistency longer between cleanings, and it will increase bbl life.
moly does not 'REDUCE' velocity, nor does it ALLOW higher velocity. as with anything in reloading when you change a part, you need to start over and work up. if you start at the same spot pre moly, you will typically see a reduction in velocity. this is simple the moly bullet moves quicker(slicker) to a stop point in the throat( not really a stop but a big slow down) this increases the combustion chamber volume, reducing pressure, a slower velocity and probably different group size. this is not moly's fault, but the shooters, for failing to do basic reloading steps...change a component , start over.
part of the moly system is coating the bbl. if you use a metallic brush to clean with you kill the system. you have to learn to clean with chemicals. the moly coating on the bbl seems to allow a carbon build up and so a carbon clean must be added to the cleaning process.
does it work..yes; is it messy yes; are there other systems yes;is there documentation on the other systems "proving" their benefits' very little. HBN is one. cleaner, neater easier to apply to both bbl and bullet. but i have seen no "data" only opinions .
Boyd Allen
Active member
Some years ago, I was at a short range match, and spoke to a competitor who had been putting moly and carnuba wax on his bullets since the process was published (using a RCBS tumbler and the method that Merril Martin patented). He cleaned his barrel after every match using Butch's, patches, and a bronze brush. He had been coating bullets and cleaning that way for a number of years. He told me that based on that experience, which involved several barrels, that he was of the opinion that he was getting significantly longer barrel life. He said that the barrel that he was shooting that day had (I believe) 2,600 rounds on it. Later during the weekend he shot a tiny group at 200 yards while the mirage was so bad that seeing the mothball and bullet holes was impossible a good deal of the time. In the short range benchrest game being able to shoot long strings without cleaning is not a requirement. On the other hand, various bullet coating materials have found favor in other kinds of competition where it is. Currently, I am not sure that coated bullets are seeing wide use in any type of competition, probably because shooters do not want to have to deal with an additional process and variable.
https://www.google.com/patents/US4454175
https://www.google.com/patents/US4454175
C
CMaier
Guest
would love to see the ten br match data.
i believe that is gun and shooter over moly.
maybe if your friend had not scrubbed the moly
out of the bbl he would have got 3000...we will
never know. i agree is it better used outside the
short range br game.
i believe that is gun and shooter over moly.
maybe if your friend had not scrubbed the moly
out of the bbl he would have got 3000...we will
never know. i agree is it better used outside the
short range br game.
Butch Lambert
Active member
I have a Schutzenfritzer barrel with 150,000 through it. The bore has worn almost to the OD, but it still shoots 2.0"MOA. I just love moly!
jackie schmidt
New member
When short range Benchrest Shooters speak of 'wear". What they are referring to is the throat area and that first inch or just past the chamber.
What eats this away is not bullet friction, but the heat and pressure of the initial ignition.
I have never seen any data that says any bullet coating protects the throat from those perils.
Years ago, a barrel manufacture, it might have been Krieger, took a barrel and ran something like 50,000 rounds down it. Once they got past that portion that was affected by the hat and pressure of the initial ignition, they could detect no appreciable wear in the lands and grooves.
But like Wilbur said, some shooters coat bullets, some don't. It's just might be that simple.
What eats this away is not bullet friction, but the heat and pressure of the initial ignition.
I have never seen any data that says any bullet coating protects the throat from those perils.
Years ago, a barrel manufacture, it might have been Krieger, took a barrel and ran something like 50,000 rounds down it. Once they got past that portion that was affected by the hat and pressure of the initial ignition, they could detect no appreciable wear in the lands and grooves.
But like Wilbur said, some shooters coat bullets, some don't. It's just might be that simple.
Last edited:
Tubb Experiment - Moly in Powder
David Tubb did an experiment in which he added moly to the powder rather than plating the bullets. He did that to test the hypothesis that the primary benefit of moly is by reducing flame temperature. Adding moly to the powder worked, but the results were muddled because the moly coated the bore when mixed with powder; a rigorous experiment would have required cleaning the bore after every shot.
David Tubb did an experiment in which he added moly to the powder rather than plating the bullets. He did that to test the hypothesis that the primary benefit of moly is by reducing flame temperature. Adding moly to the powder worked, but the results were muddled because the moly coated the bore when mixed with powder; a rigorous experiment would have required cleaning the bore after every shot.
Boyd Allen
Active member
I am not saying that David did not do what what you described, but I do believe that Arnold Jewel holds a patent for adding moly to powder. There was some thought that this might have a military application. I believe that some exploratory conversations took place.
As far as the 2,600 rounds goes, I did not say that his barrel was worn out at that round count, but that he was shooting one with that count, in the match, and that he shot an outstanding group with it, under very difficult conditions. This was taken at the Visalia range. The photo data says June of 05. Personally I would guess that his barrel was not worn out.
As far as the 2,600 rounds goes, I did not say that his barrel was worn out at that round count, but that he was shooting one with that count, in the match, and that he shot an outstanding group with it, under very difficult conditions. This was taken at the Visalia range. The photo data says June of 05. Personally I would guess that his barrel was not worn out.
M
Mozella
Guest
I Moly coat all my bullets 250 or so at a time using the wet method. It eliminates all the mess. More correctly, it lets you wash the mess down the drain and that makes the process clean and easy. I tumble bullets in an empty plastic apple sauce bottle along with a little Moly and water to cover. Ninety minutes does the job, then a rinse followed by shaking the bullets around in a paper towel lined tray.
I hit them with a heat gun for one minute while shaking them in order to drive water out of the hollow part of the meplat. This is clean and easy and when I'm done the bullets look like they are black chrome plated; shiny, smooth, and the coating won't rub off in your fingers.
I do all this to provide seating lubrication without handling each piece of brass individually while fiddling around with brushes or Q-tips and some sort of expensive wax.
I'm not sure it does anything good or bad for my barrels, but they do seem to last a long time. I don't try to coat my barrels and I clean them after each range session with patches and a nylon brush. Once in a while I use some copper cleaner, but I never see any indication of copper fouling. Neither do see any evidence of Moly build up or Moly induced corrosion.
I hit them with a heat gun for one minute while shaking them in order to drive water out of the hollow part of the meplat. This is clean and easy and when I'm done the bullets look like they are black chrome plated; shiny, smooth, and the coating won't rub off in your fingers.
I do all this to provide seating lubrication without handling each piece of brass individually while fiddling around with brushes or Q-tips and some sort of expensive wax.
I'm not sure it does anything good or bad for my barrels, but they do seem to last a long time. I don't try to coat my barrels and I clean them after each range session with patches and a nylon brush. Once in a while I use some copper cleaner, but I never see any indication of copper fouling. Neither do see any evidence of Moly build up or Moly induced corrosion.
C
CMaier
Guest
from Glen Zediker, in "Top-Grade Ammo", from ZedikerPublishing.com
"First, here’s how and why bullet coating works: Fire a coated bullet and a bare bullet using the same propellant charge. The coated bullet will go slower. However. The pressure will be lower. The reason is easy to figure: the increased lubrication reduces friction, resistance to movement, especially upon entry into the bore. It gets kind of a head start. The deal is that the pressure drops relatively more than the bullet speed, so, the bullet speed can be increased by adding more propellant and still have the same level of pressure. Win. Win. And, since there’s what amounts to a barrier between the bullet jacket and the barrel steel, the promise of more accurate rounds between cleanings is all true too. The bullet jacket isn’t leaving much of itself behind on the bore."
"I don’t use moly any more, though. I’ve switched to Boron Nitride (BN) because it has all the advantages with none of the drawbacks, so far. BN is virtually the same in its effects as moly, based on my notes (same level of velocity drop and subsequent future increase). It’s easy to apply using a vibratory-style case cleaner."
"First, here’s how and why bullet coating works: Fire a coated bullet and a bare bullet using the same propellant charge. The coated bullet will go slower. However. The pressure will be lower. The reason is easy to figure: the increased lubrication reduces friction, resistance to movement, especially upon entry into the bore. It gets kind of a head start. The deal is that the pressure drops relatively more than the bullet speed, so, the bullet speed can be increased by adding more propellant and still have the same level of pressure. Win. Win. And, since there’s what amounts to a barrier between the bullet jacket and the barrel steel, the promise of more accurate rounds between cleanings is all true too. The bullet jacket isn’t leaving much of itself behind on the bore."
"I don’t use moly any more, though. I’ve switched to Boron Nitride (BN) because it has all the advantages with none of the drawbacks, so far. BN is virtually the same in its effects as moly, based on my notes (same level of velocity drop and subsequent future increase). It’s easy to apply using a vibratory-style case cleaner."
Last edited by a moderator:
Butch Lambert
Active member
Hum? More powder to get the same velocity? Why would you do that? Check Jackie's thread above. Moly does not affect throat erosion.
C
CMaier
Guest
butch.
it is simple physics.
lower friction on the bullet, it moves sooner,
creating a larger combustion chamber,
larger chamber, lower pressure,
lower pressure, lower velocity.
why do that,,,no reason in short range br,
but in matches with high shot count and no
cleaning time, a bbl that will shoot consistent is
a big plus.
it is simple physics.
lower friction on the bullet, it moves sooner,
creating a larger combustion chamber,
larger chamber, lower pressure,
lower pressure, lower velocity.
why do that,,,no reason in short range br,
but in matches with high shot count and no
cleaning time, a bbl that will shoot consistent is
a big plus.
Butch Lambert
Active member
You didn't comprehend my post. Let's try it this way. I will have to spend more money on powder with moly bullets. That ain't rocket science is it.
C
CMaier
Guest
yes that is true,
BUT
IF YOU SHOOT LONG STRINGS WITHOUT CLEANING
IT IS A CLEAR ADVANTAGE TO SPEND THE MONEY ON
BOTH THE MOLY AND THE POWDER.
i do not know if hbn gives the same long term
no cleaning advantage. it does shoot well,
but i have never done/needed a long string
lately. that may change with the 800-2000 yd
matches.
BUT
IF YOU SHOOT LONG STRINGS WITHOUT CLEANING
IT IS A CLEAR ADVANTAGE TO SPEND THE MONEY ON
BOTH THE MOLY AND THE POWDER.
i do not know if hbn gives the same long term
no cleaning advantage. it does shoot well,
but i have never done/needed a long string
lately. that may change with the 800-2000 yd
matches.
Harold Vaughn (Who IS (was) a Rocket Scientist) and an actual factual Big Letter Engineer knows all of the "simple physics" and "conventional wisdom" to be WRONG........
In simple FACT, provable mathematically and testable empirically, reducing friction increases velocity all things being equal.
period
Harold posted here 3 times that I know of. Henry Childs (Engineer) quit this board because he got tired of arguing with folks whose only credential was "common sense" and who simply could not accept the fact that there are no mysteries in the world of ballistics. I'm no engineer but I spend an inordinate amount of cash money testing "theories"......if anyone wants to join me in testing this "lower friction" thing, let's play
(the last time I did it I pushed bullets through the bore manually to eliminate engraving force, got them sliding then fired them. Maybe there's a better way?)
In simple FACT, provable mathematically and testable empirically, reducing friction increases velocity all things being equal.
period
Harold posted here 3 times that I know of. Henry Childs (Engineer) quit this board because he got tired of arguing with folks whose only credential was "common sense" and who simply could not accept the fact that there are no mysteries in the world of ballistics. I'm no engineer but I spend an inordinate amount of cash money testing "theories"......if anyone wants to join me in testing this "lower friction" thing, let's play
(the last time I did it I pushed bullets through the bore manually to eliminate engraving force, got them sliding then fired them. Maybe there's a better way?)
C
CMaier
Guest
sorry you are wrong...you are not looking at the whole system.
reducing friction ALONE would increase velocity if NOTHING ELSE CHANGED.
but in this case things do change...partially because of the reduced friction.
the bullet moves forward, easier intially. this increases the volume of the combustion chamber( volume behind the bullet).
larger volume, less pressure,
less pressure slower velocity..
the " all things being equal" is what gets you...all things are not equal.
reducing friction ALONE would increase velocity if NOTHING ELSE CHANGED.
but in this case things do change...partially because of the reduced friction.
the bullet moves forward, easier intially. this increases the volume of the combustion chamber( volume behind the bullet).
larger volume, less pressure,
less pressure slower velocity..
the " all things being equal" is what gets you...all things are not equal.
Harold Vaughn (Who IS (was) a Rocket Scientist) and an actual factual Big Letter Engineer knows all of the "simple physics" and "conventional wisdom" to be WRONG........
In simple FACT, provable mathematically and testable empirically, reducing friction increases velocity all things being equal.
period
Harold posted here 3 times that I know of. Henry Childs (Engineer) quit this board because he got tired of arguing with folks whose only credential was "common sense" and who simply could not accept the fact that there are no mysteries in the world of ballistics. I'm no engineer but I spend an inordinate amount of cash money testing "theories"......if anyone wants to join me in testing this "lower friction" thing, let's play
(the last time I did it I pushed bullets through the bore manually to eliminate engraving force, got them sliding then fired them. Maybe there's a better way?)