Randy Robinette (Where did we buy boron?)

K

Kirk Ethridge

New member
a Guy down in another thread asked about it, I for the life of me can't find the invoice for my Boron...

I know i bought a pound of it, white fluffy more than 1/2 gallon volume.


he would be interested i think! This stuff has officially saved my 8 twist barrel...ie i don't wreck jackets now,, though my next barrel will be a 10 for the XC (David's is an absolute hummer)

Thanks Randy,,

Kirk
 
Does anyone have enough to sell me about 2-3 oz to try. At one time I found a place that would sell one pound as the smallest amount. That much would probably last me and all my shooting friends a lifetime. Thanks, Donald
 
At the risk of

hijacking this post . A question or two .....allright three ! please .

What is a good method of applying the B/N to bullets ? Why B/N instead of tungsten disulfide ? When properly coated what is the appearance of the bullets ?

Thanks , I think :D

Jim Brown

P.S. there is another member here that has the screen name that I would have used if it wasnt taken ( Jim B ) and he has asked about B/N also .. I just wanted to be responsible for my own messes not someone elses , hence the p.s. And that is not meant to imply that he has made any messes .
 
BN Powder

We have been working with a division of GE concerning various grades (micron size) BN powder for impact coating bullets. BN powder is white in color, highly refined and rather expensive....$100+ per lb. However, approx. 1 oz. (by weight) will easily coat over 1000 bullets.
Tumbling or vibrating are acceptable methods of coating....we prefer vibrating. The coated bullet has a very slight whitish, almost transparent appearance...and is extremely "slick" feeling.
BN does not attract moisture and from our tests there is no measurable build-up in the barrel. Also, the T.B.C. (time between cleaning) is increased significantly. In match grade barrels it is not uncommon to exceed 120+ rounds with no noticeable decrease in accuracy.
ANOTHER APPLICATION...this stuff is "outstanding" when used on your bags to reduce friction! Again, BN does not attract or contain moisture.
We do have a very limited quantity in stock (do plan on inventorying this product), bottled (net weight just over 1 oz.), Price: $10.25 includes shipping- U.S. lower 48 states.
If you wish to purchase, I will provide details by return email. Additional questions...please email me.
MikeB@21stCenturyBallisticSolution.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One question still

unanswered please . Why B/N instead of tungsten disulfide ? My understanding was that the T/D was more " slippery " and had a heavier temp/ load factor .

Not unusual for my understanding to be wrong so dont worry bout that !

Thanks for your response . Did notice that you have not posted here before now . Have you been involved in bullet application questions before or did my query to your website bring this application to your attention .

Jim Brown
 
Kirk

A little note on the Boron.
Eric Klemetich, before his untimely death a few years back, showed up with some of that on bullets at a Club Match. It was white.
The problem was, you could hardly measure the group, because the usual black border that we all use when measuring the bullet spread simply was not there. We all got a good laugh out of it, simply because it looked so strange.
Just thought I would add that. I really miss ole Eric......jackie
 
Last edited:
Which brings up a good point Jackie... Does the black ring around a Moly group make the group measure,... more correctly, yet maybe larger than the same group fired with naked or boron bullets?


Things to think about, like when the edge of your group lands on the thick ten ring...

or if a portion of your group is inside the black sighting square...

Paul

I got my Boron from John Leist at "Momentive Performance Materials"... It's 3m Boron Grade HCPL 8 to 11 microns size, and I got this information from Mike Bigelow before I ordered any.
 
Last edited:
boron nitride (continued...)

Hi, Jim Brown (JIMM). Looks like there are two of us with similar names. My last name is Brewer.

Just another question about the application of boron nitride:

I began to coat bullets with molybdenum disulfide (moly) way back when it was officially started by NECO's Roger Johnston, and no one else in my area was doing it (as far as I know, anyway). At that time, while I was trying to learn how to do the coating, I had several good phone conversations with Roger, in which we did some mutual problem solving to "perfect" the process, as I was using my equipment in my home. He was a great help.

Now, prior to starting my boron nitride bullet coating, is it necessary to thorougly clean out the bullet-tumbling containers that I've been using for coating bullets with molybdenum disulfide, or can I simply toss the bullets in the same containers, and just add the boron nitride powder?

I would like to think that the remaining moly dust on the interior surfaces in the old containers would not contaminate the boron, and that it would be a smooth transition from the moly to the boron. Thanks for the continued help.

Jim B.
 
jim b. said:
Hi, Jim Brown (JIMM). Looks like there are two of us with similar names. My last name is Brewer.

Just another question about the application of boron nitride:

I began to coat bullets with molybdenum disulfide (moly) way back when it was officially started by NECO's Roger Johnston, and no one else in my area was doing it (as far as I know, anyway). At that time, while I was trying to learn how to do the coating, I had several good phone conversations with Roger, in which we did some mutual problem solving to "perfect" the process, as I was using my equipment in my home. He was a great help.

Now, prior to starting my boron nitride bullet coating, is it necessary to thorougly clean out the bullet-tumbling containers that I've been using for coating bullets with molybdenum disulfide, or can I simply toss the bullets in the same containers, and just add the boron nitride powder?

I would like to think that the remaining moly dust on the interior surfaces in the old containers would not contaminate the boron, and that it would be a smooth transition from the moly to the boron. Thanks for the continued help.

Jim B.
Click to expand...

Unless you can completely remove the "moly",new containers will save you from a LOT of frustration. RG
 
tungsten disulfide vs boron nitride

thanks to all for the info on this thread .

Isn't the t/d more slippery than B/N , or do I , like so often , have it backwards . What is the appearance of the tungsten disulfide coated bullets ( color , etc ) .

Also , about the steel shot that was mentioned . Shouldnt the steel balls used in the coating process be harder than shotgun steel shot ? Seem that I've read somewhere that they should be fairly hard so as to to avoid contaminating the final product .

As always I really appreciate the help found here .

p.s. Jim B. Please keep us informed on your test results with the B/N bullets . I have a Hawkeye scope and plan a comparison of two new bbls with and without .
 
why ?

FBecigneul said:
We were tumbling bullets in WS2, Tungten Disulfide, in a Lyman Turbo 1200. When we decided to go the Boron Nitride route we just bought another tub for the Lyman. Should we wish to do the WS2, we have the old tub and we still have WS2. Don't know if one can complertely get that stuff out of a tub. Certainly not for less than the price of another tub and five pounds of #5 steel shot..
Do you know what my time is worth by the hour???????
Click to expand...

Did you go the B/N way vs the tungsten disulfide ? Thanks , Jim Brown
 
FBecigneul said:
We have gone from Tungsten Disulphide to Boron Nitride.
Although the saw no downside to WS2 we wanted to try the Boron just to see if it would work as well. The WS2 is a bit dirty to work with and we thought the BN might be a little cleaner. What is worse white dirt or black dirt I guess is the question.
Click to expand...

Francis, this is a good question!:eek:
Now, regarding how comparatively "slippery" they are: Moly/Tungsten/Boron - Mike B. applied some of the "boron" powder to some bullets, then placed the bullets - nose up- in his loading block, next to some bullets coated with the other two: Not even BIG MIKE was able to get a grip on the boron caoted bullets, while everyone could grasp and lift the bullets coated with the other two . . . ok, it's wasn't a barrel and we're just hillbillies, living along the DesMoines River breaks . . . but it was sure an interesting challenge!:D

Oh, in this statement - "However, approx. 1 oz. (by weight) will easily coat over 1000 bullets." - I think Mike Burton is way off - if it goes anywhere near as far as moly, I'd guess 10,000+ to the Oz.!:eek: RG
 
Quantity of BN

Randy is more correct that I am!
To clarify the weight issue, the product we are offering for $10.25 (shipped) comes in a 1 oz. (net weight bottle).
The actual weight of the BN powder is 220 grains, which I have stated will effectively coat 1000+ bullets. This is based on 30 cal. medium weight bullets, and I am being ultra conservative with the 1000+ number. Wanted to make sure anyone who purchased our product was more than satisfied with the number of bullets coated.
Also, I assumed the initial tumbling/vibrating process could involve coating steel spheres....although we feel the bullets can be affectively impact coated without the use of steel balls, additional BN would be used.
The instructions included with each order give suggested starting points for bullets ranging in size from 17-50 cal.
Sorry for the delay in my reply....just don't have the time to spend in the forums I would like. Hopefully that will change in the near future!
Please email me direct if is wish...
MikeB@21stCenturyBallisticSolution.com
F.Y.I....have attached a photo of two BIB 95 gr. 6mm bullets...left is BN coated. Very clean process, only slight "dulling" of the copper color.
Mike B.
 

Attachments

  • BN coated vs uncoated-BIB 95 gr. 6mm-3-24-08.jpg
    BN coated vs uncoated-BIB 95 gr. 6mm-3-24-08.jpg
    91.6 KB · Views: 359
boron nitride, tungsten disulfide, or molybdenum disulfide?

Jimm, I’m glad that you asked about boron nitride and tungsten disulfide. I think that maybe we’re getting somewhere now! In this message, for brevity sake, I’ll just type COF instead of coefficient of friction. Let’s consider 2 variables – COF and “slipperiness”. This is, of course, between 2 surfaces of different materials (the steel of the bore, and the jacket of the bullet). After studying COF a bit, I think that I’m correct in thinking that there is an INVERSE relationship between COF and slipperiness, i.e., a LOWER COF denotes a MORE slippery substance. A DIRECT relationship would mean a lower COF denotes a LESS slippery substance. Hopefully, an engineer, or someone with the proper technical knowledge, will tell me if I’m correct about a lower COF denoting a more slippery substance.

So, if I’m correct about the inverse relationship, we would want the substance with the lowest COF, which would be the slipperiest. If we didn’t care about other real-world things such as cost, availability, “dirtiness”, hygroscopic property (absorbs moisture from the air), etc., then we would just want to get the substance with the lowest COF.

If boron nitride is the slipperiest substance, we must choose the proper type. I’m guessing that the proper type is the hexagonal boron nitride (hBN). And, I assume that the smaller the particle, the better. If that’s true, we would want the Nano hBN (particle size .070 micron). It appears that as the particle size decreases, cost increases (another example of an inverse relationship, this time between the 2 variables particle size, and cost).

Now, it’s possible that the effectiveness of the substance does not increase once you go smaller than a certain particle size. In other words, perhaps the nano stuff is no more effective than the .5 micron stuff, for example. I don’t know. I would want to use the substance that is the most effective, at the least cost, but I don’t know which is the best particle size for effective bullet coating.

So, several questions remain: (1) which is the best substance (boron nitride, tungsten disulfide, molybdenum disulfide)? (2) which is the best boron nitride (hexagonal or other, Nano, 150 nm, .5 micron, 1.5 micron, 5 microns…)? (3) Is the relationship between COF and slipperiness an inverse one?

Jim B.
 
"Who cares?"

uuuummm.... me:eek: I mean really , why would someone use any product at all on his bullets if he didnt " care " .

The coefficient of friction for each of the products under discussion are listed , known , calculated , part of published tables that show ranking and so on . One needs not be a "expert " in this area to see which is listed higher on the charts .

The tungsten disulfide is ( how to say it ? ) only 1/3 the value that B/N has re: its slipperiness . That is to say it is more than twice as slick as the B/N .

I read here where someone tried to grip the b/n coated bullet vs the tungsten disulfide coated bullet and their experience in doing this led them to give the B/N the nod for best . Dunno ! , bad testing procedures maybe, clammy hands with one and dry with another .

Just wondering why the " science " of this is largely ignored when other areas receive intense scrutiny . Could it be that the users are seeing no definitive difference using one or the other or even none at all ? How many folks trying coatings on their bullets in order to avoid the " dissappearing Bullet syndrome " are modifying their technique to help prevent this in other ways . Such as slowing down the rate of fire , cleaning more often or differently and so on ...... Jim Brown
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the backup, Jimm, and I agree with you. In order for us to make the correct decision regarding which material to use for bullet coating, we must know how to interpret the COF data. In other words, does a low COF mean a MORE slippery substance, or a LESS slippery substance? That was the purpose of my question about the inverse or direct relationship between the COF value and that substance's slipperiness.

I'm not getting all twisted up about this subject, but if I'm going to expend my time on this subject, I want to examine the data correctly, and arrive at a correct decision on which bullet coating substance is the best. Otherwise, it's all a waste of time.

Jimm, where exactly did you find the chart listing the COF of various substances? Thanks much.

Jim B.
 
Just a thought, but the real acid test would be how much force it takes to push a bullet thru a section or rifle barrel ??

Cubic Boron Nitride is an abrasive used in grinding wheels ?? And in cutting tools for ferrous metals ?

Bill
 
CoF

The lower the Coefficient of Friction the more slippery(er) the surface. For example, a sidewalk surface that has a CoF less than .5 is generally consider unsafe because of the liklihood of "slipping and falling." While a surface with a CoF greater than .5 is generally considered safe.

Ryan
 
Reckon thats why

WillBird said:
Just a thought, but the real acid test would be how much force it takes to push a bullet thru a section or rifle barrel ??

Cubic Boron Nitride is an abrasive used in grinding wheels ?? And in cutting tools for ferrous metals ?

Bill
Click to expand...

they are using hexagonal B/N :cool:

Jim Brewer, ditto here , my knickers are not in a twist about this either .
I just want to understand what is going on with others best I can before I " reinvent the wheel " as the saying goes .

With no intent to ruffle any feathers . My current observation about the switch from one substance to the other that some here have made is that their was no actual testing done to compare the two , hence the lack of interest in weighing in on this by those that have used both .

The other possibility is that there are magnificient gains to be had and that we are being steered away from the truth !! :eek::D:p Sorry , couldnt resist that , conspiracy theories are always fun ;)

Finally the link I used to see what rank and file was a twisted route starting with the lower friction.com site .

Mike at 21st Century ballistic solutions was candid about why he wasnt pushing the tungsten disulfide . He stated that they hadnt done any testing with it and that although the T/D was a large order more slippery than the B/n both were viable soultions . That is all very well but I continue to see the lack of testing regarding this issue .

Not suggesting that anyone is at fault or otherwise being negative , if I want to know so bad I should get my but in gear and see what I can find . Want to and plan to , but was looking to avoid duplicating efforts already applied . At this point I dont think I have to worry bout tha t any more . Either there was not any testing done that I can access or there is a ....................conspiracy :D Just kiddin' . I have only just begun to tinker in the field of accuracy , both long and short range . My retirement days are just around the corner and I want to have something to do that I enjoy .

Although I am at the retirement stage of life I want to continue to be involved in things I enjoy . One of those things is pulling the trigger on a rifle and having it go where I want it to . All the folks here are my teachers and I appreciate them a lot.

Jim Brown
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top