AriM
-
Posts
239 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by AriM
-
-
you know what, I just had a thought on all of this....maybe Les is talking about traditional moly powder coated bullets.....not the "black bullets"....if that's the case....then they are 100% correct....moly does (in fact) attract water....man I have to say that I feel a little bit stupid for not thinking of that sooner...someone should call LB and ask if they are talking about moly powder or "black bullets"....big difference...
-
The solid film lubricants used for the “black bullets” only contain around 10% molybdenum disulfide. They are all together different than "moly powder" coated bullets.
yes, that was my exact point.....the moly is engrossed in a wax or other substrate....which causes serious cleaning issues as it layers and builds up....the moly itself seems like a great thing....it's a dry lube....I am all for that....maybe I didn't word my post (2 posts ago) in a way that was clear....I am 100% with you on the "black bullets" and traditional "moly. coating" being 2 VERY different things.....I think that the "b;ack bullet" thing is just a simple way to lube lots of bullets (cheaply) followed by great marketing to sell people on something that is in fact no different, than a traditional wax based lube...well slightly different, but not enough to justify the problems....I think no more "black bullets" for me....too much trouble....nothing wrong with hard cast....just a thought....I will do some more experimenting and see if I can find a happy medium....maybe this is a topic that has been beat to death already.....but it's not a discussion that I have participated in, so I am left with only my own experiences as the judge....love to hear some more thoughts from the forum on this topic...
-
Thats pretty funny...its nice to hear it again
If I could only tell the real Costco story..but the wife wont allow it
Jim
wait a minute....you can't tease us like that.....what if we promise not to tell her....???
-
I guess I shouldn't get involved with this battle of words, but I think about "better" a little differently. In this game what do we care about when related to ammo?
1.) reliability It won't be
2.) accuracy Only in your gun
3.) consistency (doesn't matter much unless it starts to effect power factor, accuracy, or reliability) it doesn't matter because it goes against your theory
There may be a couple more things to consider, but if my loaded ammo is more accurate, equally reliable, but slightly less consistent dimensionally then my ammo is "better" (i used the "b" word oh no) for me than the factory ammo. Who cares about dimensional and powder variance if they don't significantly effect the things that matter.
I get to watch hundreds of thousands of rounds get fired every year. I can't count the last time I saw a normal factory round fail to go off. Sometimes the lead free rounds won't light, but that's a primer compound issue.
I also get to watch lots of reloaded ammo get shot, and it's never as reliable. I've had a totally dead primer before....as in dead, dead, dead. Have you? I've never had one with factory ammo and I shoot a lot of each. When was the last time you saw a squib or double charge from the factory? You ARE more susceptible to doing those things no matter how careful you are. So no, your ammo isn't as reliable, it's not as consistent and it's only more accurate in your gun. None of that makes it "better". It may be a better choice for your gun, but that doesn't make the ammo better. The two are completely independant of each other.
wait a minute....."It may be a better choice for your gun, but that doesn't make the ammo better. ".......that is not a possibility.....if it's "better for your gun" it's better....plain and simple....
on the issue of having primers not go off.....do you check each one of your primers visually before you load them in the tube? I do....it's easy....make sure there is an anvil, and make sure there is red compound in it....very easy to see with just a glance....I have NEVER had a round fail to light.....I will agree though, that getting a consistent powder charge is another issue....factory ammunition is def. more consistent....
having said that I kind of do see where you are going with your statement about "better" being too lose of a term...but i have had factory ammo duds as well....so I dunno....
-
....it's an observation....all science is based on observation (nothing more)....
Your observation is based on a sample size of 1...the single barrel you had issue with And, there may be variables that are unknown.
When you told me that you wore out a barrel in 6k from shooting factory ball...that sparked more questions in my mind than answers.
Around here...that is about where we'd call a gun "broken in".
partially true....not debating the possible variables....but I understand it to be general held opinion, and my own experience (although it may be limited to the one barrel experience)....I still think that we can conclude from the poll results....and from what Bart is saying....that we are all on the same page right?.....for whatever reason, flame cutting or otherwise, shooting jacketed bullets does decrease the life of a barrel?
maybe something else caused my barrel wearing and losing accuracy prematurely.....I can't really say for sure....only speculate, based on what I understand to be common knowledge and my own observation....that I have yet to have the same issues with shooting un-jacketed bullets....
on a similar note....I had another SA barrel do something VERY odd....if I post a picture will you try to diagnose what happened?
I think SA's 2 piece barrels are kind of on the "weak" side?? Won't buy one again, I have had 2 go south on me.....the one lost all accuracy....the other....well you have to see a picture of this....I'll try to get one up in just a bit....
P.S. also, not to be smug, or try to dispute anyone's opinion.....but look at the poll results....are that many people misinformed?
-
Ari,
I have discovered I don't shoot well if I practice with an underpowered load and shoot a full power load in the match. There is something about the increased recoil that has bullets landing where I wasn't aiming, Burkett calls it timing. He discusses it in context of grip pressure, while I think my problem is trying to shoot to a candence (doubletap) without making sure where the sights are. Most of the time I am using a moly practice load on top of Solo 1000, 4.4 gives the same PF as 4.6 with a jacketed bullet. Performance wise I had no problem with American Select other than some smoke with some moly bullets. I am forever trying different powders that people write about, I have an almost full can of Winchester Action Pistol, all the Ramshot pistol powders and several Hodgdon, Alliant, Accurate and Winchester WST, WSF & 231.
LeRoy,
I have often debated the same subject with myself. Should I practice with MAX load so that I am more comfortable with the recoil....well I have investigated by shooting with MAX for a while....and I honestly couldn't feel much difference...the .7gn in AS just didn't seem to make the gun jump enough more to make me want to go that direction. There is another consideration, I am not shooting competition YET....just practice...so I am not sure the extra cost in powder and wear on the firearm can really justify shooting a MAJOR load all the time. with my current load I am about 80fps under major....I know it's noticeable, but I still haven't worked out the details for my training.
Maybe I am just being cheap and pennywise, but pound foolish.....the added cost of shooting 231 at Major PF would honestly only be a few cents more per round....I think my biggest concern though is wear on the firearm.......not to sure about all of this...I really like the American Select, because of performance and cost....but you bring up some really interesting food for though....
I still like AA #7 the best....that is one excellent powder....but it's so expensive....maybe someday when I have the money, I will shoot only JHP through an open gun with AA #7 out of brand new unfired brass....until then I have to figure out how to save a penny here and there, just to be able to keep shooting...
Ari
P.S. can you think of any other options in the $100/8 pounds range that would be a good alternative to AS? I want to keep the load cost under 1 cent....thanks for your advice
-
22 mag is an interesting load.....but i seem to remember another 22mag auto pistol....AMT auto mag 2.....miserable failure of engineering....super accurate, good feel.....no reliability....too bad....I think there is great potential in the 22mag
-
I can buy ammo from Atlanta Arms and know that it will consistently go bang and make PF. That does not mean that I can't produce ammo that is as good or better suited to me and my gun, which is the key.
I can also experiment with power and bullet combination's with reloads. But I always keep some AA on hand for matches if I've had any recent problems with own reloads.
Also, when it comes to practice ammo, reloads beat the cost of factory hands down. That's assuming I can get reloading supplies.
There are trade-offs in everything, and this is no different, that's why there is no one right answer to your question.
as i stated before in this thread....it's an opinion poll....and there is NO right or wrong answer.....just a poll to gather a general consensus from members of this forum....oddly enough this is the premise that manufacturers and salesmen of reloading gear use to sell us on said gear....."build better ammo than factory"
-
all great information.....but I still can't put my finger on how ANY benefit of moly coating outweighs the problems....i think the current range of "black bullets" are coated using a similar process, because that is a fast and efficient way of applying lube to a large quantity of projectiles.....also I am a bit confused by the current "black bullet" range of projectiles....I believe the moly is engrossed or waxed within a substrate, for adhesion....I seem to remember moly being a powder...similar to graphite....my guess is that the wax/substrate is causing a lot of trouble....as wax builds up and hardens and layers itself on mechanical surfaces...it traps the remaining moly powder within it and essentially leaves a deposit on mechanical surfaces that is VERY difficult to remove, without using abrasives and harsh solvents...which cause more wear on parts than the moly seems to save....just a theory of mine
-
9 major only leaves one factory option that I'm aware of. AA 355 super.
and how close to the margin is that ? on a hot day would that not make major?
I've never been able to afford it so I'll never be able to chrono it. ????
same here
-
It all sounds logical Bart, but it's not a 2+2=5 scenario at all....it's an observation....all science is based on observation (nothing more)....
Science isn't simply observation, it's observation combined with understanding the factors that are in play and how they interact. You can watch two items fall the same distance and the heavier one hits first. That doesn't mean that weight caused it to accelerate more, but that might be what someone who doesn't understand all the factors would conclude....which is what's going on in your theory. Knowing the outcome doesn't mean you know what caused it if you don't remove all of the differences (like powder charge, in our situation).
But riddle me this Bartman....don't we have to make major PF in pistols that also shoot lead....by my information, not many jacketed factory loads make major PF....so wouldn't observations showing hotter lead loads, leading to longer barrel life, than factory jacketed loads, put a wrinkle in the over all theory you are presenting?Where are you getting that info? LOTS of factory loads make major in .40, 45, 10mm etc...in fact, most factory ammo for those makes Major.
I think an in depth test should be done of this....I wish I had the $$$ laying around to go run the test....shoot identical loads....only variable is jacket vs. no jacket....through identical barrels....under identical conditions....measure the land/groove depth on each barrel after 10k rounds of each type of projectile....if you know of such a test, and can link me to the results, I would be very much inclined to re-formulate my opinion based on those results....but as it stands....for what ever reason, flame cutting, or otherwise.....jacketed loads wear out a barrel faster right?
if you want to think of that as 2+2=5 then that is your choice.....but it is, as this poll is, nothing more than your opinion...respected and noted....
I do find it interesting though, that rifle cartridges such as the WSSM's have a large powder to projectile ratio....and they aren't reported to have unusually poor wear characteristics...let me dig up some books and do some research on the subject....and I will try to find some quotes that offer arguments for both sides of this debate....
as it stands though, the poll shows that (for whatever reason) the majority of people on this thread believe that jacketed bullets wear barrels faster....
Here, I'll add some info for your testing prep....might save you some time
None of these folks below seem to think any of this is an opinon. In fact, read the first link and you'll see a reference to a test the Navy did with a match gun using jacketed wadcutter ammo (light loads). The gun didn't lose accuracy through the first 25,000 rounds, but then it fell off by 30K....remember, they were jacketed bullets. Their experience with hardball match guns (full 230gr loads) showed that accuracy fell off after 15,000. Both jacketed bullets, but the hardball were loaded with more powder, to higher pressures, and they wore out sooner. That's a pretty scientific test, not an opinion.
http://yarchive.net/gun/barrel/barrel_life.html
http://www.riflebarrels.com/faq_lilja_rifle_barrels.htm#Life
science IS simply observation, recorded and compared....for one to believe that they have ALL of the variables figured out, is foolish right? so all we can do within the scientific method is test, observe, evaluate and re-test....there is no hard fact....there is repeatable outcome, but that is still based on conjecture....
wait, on the navy test, how can that be a scientific test? there is no control group.....it is 2 totally different bullets of different weight right? I am not sure that's what I am looking for....
as far as opinion, EVERYTHING is opinion.....the sky is blue.....no the sky has no color what so ever......no you are both wrong the sky is aqua....no all of you guys are full of it, I say the sky is red.....because I said so
do you see my point? just because you reach a repeatable conclusion, it is still only theory...therefore it is the held opinion of a group of people....it is NOT 100%.....you and I both know that....science, by it's fundamental principles, states that one can only invoke theory and back that theory with testing and objective evaluation....
you still haven't told me what your answer on the poll is.....do you believe that shooting jacketed bullets will wear out a barrel faster than shooting un-jacketed?
not heckling you Bart, I truly do respect your opinion.....but I still see no way for anyone to argue or dispute that shooting jacketed bullets will wear a barrel faster (for whatever reason)....the poll says it.....your evaluation says it, my personal experience says it....it's just a poll, with simple choices.....it shouldn't be a debate....yet it is
interested to hear your thoughts....and as long as you respect my right to hold an opinion....I respect yours....this is not about right or wrong for me....this is about opinion and experience....nothing more....a simple selection on the poll doesn't validate or invalidate what either one of us is saying (because at no point have I said that what you are saying isn't correct).....we're on the same page yet?
EDIT : I read the links.....link one, which is an open debate.....seems to have many folks questioning the authors views...
NONE of the links show a scientific testing routine, just opinions of manufacturers and various people
can you please link me to the Navy test you described....I would like to see the scientific method that their test was conducted with...it's already a bit iffy to me, since they tested 2 totally different weights of projectile.....thanks
-
For me reloading is necessary, as I shoot .45 Colt in IDPA, USPSA, CAS, and soon ICORE. With the exception of CAS, I have not found .45 Colt loaded in a manner for competition shooting.
I took the meaning of "better" to be for the specific needs of the shooter. Factory ammunition is fine for shooting in general, but I think that each shooter can best reload for their specific needs. Thus providing an improvement on the outcome of the ammunition for themselves.
Better for me not only deals with the how the ammunition functions, but what you get for the cost. If I reloaded ammunition that functions no better than factory, but it cost 1/4 as much, I would still consider it to be better.
exactly....better is in the eye of the beholder....not about science or right or wrong, but what your own opinion is.....you can read all the books and listen to all the "experts" and none of that info. is going to beat what you try and verify (or reject) on your own....not saying you have to re-invent the wheel, but experimentation equals progress
just my opinion....not knocking anyone elses
-
Rob....900 rounds!!!!!! what does a round of .408 cost....loaded MATCH? (I know you posted the links, but it's more of a statement)
and what is the ballistic data on that?
very impressive!!
I am not much of a rifle shooter....just don't have the $$$ right now....but I can respect what you guys are doing....!!!!!! *thumbs up*
Yeah that was between the two of us over the 3 days. I believe loaded ammo is about $5 a round. Good thing we weren't paying for it
Here's the specs on the 408 round
http://www.cheytac.com/WhitePapers/408%20a...heet%201-06.pdf
No need to hop into a CheyTac. Get a good .308 factory rifle like a Remington or Savage and you'll be good out to 1000. Or even a used custom if you have the money. Can get into other calibers that way too. Long range rifles are a blast to shoot. Nothing like pulling the trigger and hearing the steel clang at 1000 yards.
that's an impressive little spending spree for 3 days
I def. wouldn't get a CheyTac, at any point....it's just not something I need....it's still awesome what you guys are doing though....
I have a few metric caliber rifles, and other long guns.....but the item high on my list is a rem. 700 in .308....always wanted one of those....seems like the most logical and versatile long gun I could hope to own....excellent pedigree as well....when I find the right one (used) at the right price.....I will take the plunge....I know that would be a fun action to customize....would also love to have a AR-30 in .338 Lapua, but now my head is in the clouds
-
congrats on the new family member....you all look very proud, and should be!!!
-
Also has an Aristocrat rear. Big No No.
Actually, it looks like the PPC model S&W came out with.
Barrel is too long.
yes it is the PPC....def. a no no on that barrel length....but by your observation the 5" would also be out of bounds?
-
American Select can look like a fireworks show late in the evening from flakes burning outside the barrel with lighter bullet weights. Clays gets wimpy in cold weather.
Precision Bullets, recommends American Select with their 200 grain SWC....I have found it to be excellent and clean burning....#12 on the burn rate chart...please explain to me some more about the fireworks....do you feel AS is too fast a burn? I would tend to agree that 231 is a "better" powder.....but it's significantly more expensive....do you feel American Select is inappropriate for a 200gn. SWC...5 gn. is an average-high velocity of 800-820 fps.
I happened to be shooting some leftover loads laying around the house and had American Select with 200gr Precision Moly, WST & Solo 1000 with 230gr Precision Delta & Clays with 230gr Montana Gold. Until I got the the revo I used to practice with 200gr bullets and use 230's in competition but that was a major feel difference with the revo. And they didn't reload the same, round things didn't fit in the butt well (PUN). The molys were shot last because it usually takes 2 or 3 moons for the grouping to return on target. What I could see were random sparks with the American Select that were not there with the other powders. I bought the American Select and WST from the same guy out of the back of his truck and they were only $10 cheaper on average than Clays & 231 from Scheels. 800-820 fps is going to have you shooting minor with a 200gr bullet, ask me how I know. Easier to use a 230gr bullet at 730-740.
\Interesting LeRoy,
I am going to try that same thing....I am going to try and videotape and see what happens....if sparks are flying out of the barrel, and it's not completely burning, then maybe it's a bit too fast of a powder....
Price difference for 231 vs. American Select (for me) is $149 vs. $96....from places that have both in stock....
I know that 5gn. is NOT major....I would need 5.7gn to make major with a 200gn. SWC, but 5gn. is my practice load...it's cheap and seems to perform VERY well in my gun and under my conditions....if you can find me 8 pounds of 231 for under $100 in stock....I will happily order some, as I think it's a better metering powder than American Select......5.7gn. is roughly 180pf btw.....900 fps 200 swc....and there is still room for more before you hit max....you probably know that already, since you have used American Select
-
I'm pretty sure the comment about me being a federal employee was sort of made in jest...that's the way I'd take it, as I get to work around a bunch of federal employees on a regular basis and well, it's not always impressive
I think we're seeing something here that isn't all that complicated, but isn't completely obvious. I'll try my best to be polite
but make it as obvious as I can.We all know how people sometimes take 2+2 and get 5 right? That's what's happening here. The question asked is "do jacketed bullets wear out barrels faster than lead bullets". Let's break that down to what an end user might experience which would give them an opinion of the event.
Shooter A puts 10K rounds of lead bullets through a gun with little or no loss of accuracy (this equals 2).
Shooter A also puts 10K of jacketed rounds through a similar gun, and the accuracy falls off at some point along the way, such that it's enough to be obvious (this equals 2).
Shooter A says "jacketed bullets wore out the barrel faster than the lead bullets did (this equals 5).
How? Well, when we go back and look, the loads weren't identical, from a wear standpoint. Shooter A didn't shoot 10K worth of rounds, of both types, with the identical powder charge. He shot 10K that had maybe 4gr of powder in his lead bullet load. He shot 10K that had maybe 5gr of powder in his jacketed load. That's a 25% increase in powder and an exponential increase in the flame cutting the barrel experienced, so it wore out faster. The bullet, by itself, didn't cause the wear, the required increase in powder necessary to meet the desired velocity caused the increased wear.
Now, the reason I say there really isn't much debate on the topic stems from the folks that study this on a scientific basis, which isn't exactly what we're seeing in a poll here....as experienced as many of the folks are. Just hold on to that for a minute.
While there is a slight increase in friction going from lead to jacketed, it's not a huge factor. Take a look at something like a high power rifle barrel, where pressures and temperatures are typically much higher than what our pistol barrels are subjected to. In other words, they show the problems sooner, and more dramatically than you'll see with a pistol, but the mechanisms are all the same. What part of a high power barrel wears first, and causes a loss of accuracy? I think everyone will agree that it's the barrel throat....right?
So riddle me this Batman
If the throat wears out first, how is it this is the place where the bullet is going it's absolute slowest???? Obviously, it's not the friction of the bullet causing the most wear if it's when the bullet is at it's slowest. If it was the bullet causing the wear, that wear would be at it's worst where the bullet was at it's highest velocity (somewhere beyond 10" from the chamber for typical cartridges....but certainly not at the throat. The hot, expanding gases from the burning gunpowder are at their highest temperature right at the mouth of the cartridge...the barrel throat. That just happens to be the place where the worst wear happens in a barrel! Now we know where the correct answer (4) is found. High power rifle shooters, and bench rest shooters know about this. They've studied it, and figured it out using fully sorted data. I've even seen an exact formula that will predict how long a barrel will last....it's tied to the bore diameter and the powder charge you use in the case. Turns out, they're right on the money using that formula....or close enough for anybody to see it's got to be factual. They'll tell you things like "don't make a match rifle in .243Win. It'll shoot accurately enough, but they wear out barrels fast". That's because of the bore to case volume/powder charge ratio....more powder through a smaller tube. They'll also talk about other cartridges that wear faster or slower and it's always tied to bore to case volume (really powder charge size, but the two tend to coincide in most situations)....not velocity. A typical .243 match load isn't going much faster, if any, than a typical .308Win match load, but I know (and they know) which is going to wear out the barrel faster....the .243. The bullet material isn't causing the wear, it's causing a change in the load, which causes the wear....okay, with a very small percentage attributed to the friction and bullet sealing differences. R,
It all sounds logical Bart, but it's not a 2+2=5 scenario at all....it's an observation....all science is based on observation (nothing more)....so I am not going to sit here and disagree with your opinion about why jacketed loads wear a barrel faster, that may in fact be true....and I can't verify nor deny it. I just don't have the raw data to make a call in either direction.
But riddle me this Bartman....don't we have to make major PF in pistols that also shoot lead....by my information, not many jacketed factory loads make major PF....so wouldn't observations showing hotter lead loads, leading to longer barrel life, than factory jacketed loads, put a wrinkle in the over all theory you are presenting?
I think an in depth test should be done of this....I wish I had the $$$ laying around to go run the test....shoot identical loads....only variable is jacket vs. no jacket....through identical barrels....under identical conditions....measure the land/groove depth on each barrel after 10k rounds of each type of projectile....
if you know of such a test, and can link me to the results, I would be very much inclined to re-formulate my opinion based on those results....but as it stands....for what ever reason, flame cutting, or otherwise.....jacketed loads wear out a barrel faster right?
if you want to think of that as 2+2=5 then that is your choice.....but it is, as this poll is, nothing more than your opinion...respected and noted....
I do find it interesting though, that rifle cartridges such as the WSSM's have a large powder to projectile ratio....and they aren't reported to have unusually poor wear characteristics...let me dig up some books and do some research on the subject....and I will try to find some quotes that offer arguments for both sides of this debate....
as it stands though, the poll shows that (for whatever reason) the majority of people on this thread believe that jacketed bullets wear barrels faster....
-
Hope is a never ending tragedy for the feeble minded and weak spirited....
to seek out hope is to put forth faith that someone else and their miracle cure will solve your woes....
maybe we have no woes to begin with....
The first rule of marketing and salesmanship is to create a void within the potential customer....by god look how sad and pathetic your life is....you are nothing....but here, I have the solution XYZ brand gizmo will save you....you must have this product, you'll wonder how you made due without it.....HURRY up and act, supplies are limited!!!
seek happiness within, it is waiting to be discovered....
-
I was just going to point out that the 5906 in the picture was Single Action only. You can tell by the slide mounted safety. I just saw one of those listed on Gun Broker. I was thrilled till I saw the dang SA only function.
hmmm, maybe the one on GB had just been modded to an SA only action?? I hope this is the case....I would really like one of these for production shooting (when and if I start doing that)....a gun of this quality for under a grand (used)....I love the thought
-
That's a Performance Center gun therefore it is not eligible for Production.
Performance center guns aren't eligible? why not, it's a production model...ALL of the performance center guns are production model guns...please explain....thanks....I mainly ask because I was considering something similar for production shooting
-
Cool! Tomorrow as in Thursday? I'm not too far from there (maybe 15 minutes).
What time?
dang didn't see your post in time....range closes at 7pm....5:30pm now....we wouldn't make it....wish I would have known about the match at ironsights sooner...oh well, next time....
-
oceansidepistol.com
They have a match tonight, 12/17.
You should go and talk to some of the guys there. They'll point you in the right direction as far as matches and gear are concerned.
dang I wish i had known sooner....too late for me to make it there tonight....thanks for the tip....I am going to continue trying to reach my local guy, but I will also try to make it up there next match....
-
Ari, this is from someone who has been here a little bit longer than you, G-ManBart is after all a G-man and his posts are factual answers with very little opinion and very few digs or at least that is my opinion. There are times and places where my posts get close to or are digs but I am trying to clean up my act.
From back in the beginning of this post you were talking about the problem with moly coating, have you considered the problem might be with the brand of bullet or the roughness of the bore. There will probably be howls and people beating down my door but I would clean the bore with Butch's Bore Shine on a patch followed by some Kroil. I am not talking the 5 minute push the patch through the bore and the patch need to be on a jag properly sized to the bore. Once you get the bore clean of the moly spots, I'd try a different bullet as not all moly is the same, after that keep all metal brushes out of the bore. Solvents fit in two categories, so strong your wife chases you out of the house and say use adequate ventilation and the newer brands that have almost no smell. Personally if it is too strong for my nose I don't want it in my gun because I have used nasty stuff for other cleaning purposes that has now been banned.
I voted for jacketed bullets but I have cleaned my share of wheelweights out of a 357 mag.
Why is this thing about someone being here longer than me a constant statement around here? For all you guys know I could be a ballistics expert in a well funded laboratory, or something similar....who just happened to join the forum out of curiosity....why does it matter at all that Bart is a federal employee? For all we know he could have nothing to do with ballistics. Why does someone being a good shooter, or a professional LE or government worker, somehow make them more qualified than anyone else.....there is no evidence of that....that is a bias...."I'm a gunslinger, so I am better than you"....c'mon we are adults here right?
Like I said no animosity towards anyone, I am an honest and loyal individual, and if people would drop their prejudices they would probably see that I make it very clear, in all my posts, that I am doing nothing more than stating my own opinions....instead, it seems like those who feel they have been here longer want to roast me on a spit, for questioning their superior status on this forum....it's the internet guys, c'mon....seriously....it's really easy to stand on a soapbox and preach from behind your keyboard...which is what I am doing now, so I will stop
this is not aimed (pun?) at the quote above, it's just a general statement.....give a "new" guy a chance before you jump on him like a pack of wolves....
Now back to answering this very excellent post that I have quoted....
I have tried various brands of moly coated bullets....as well as my own cast bullets as well as many jacketed brands as well as etc etc etc....just like most folks here...I like to try new things, and hope they will equal some justified benefit...I am going to have to agree with the logic behind the strong solvent/metal brush combo....it always scared the crap out of me to scrub my barrel with a metal brush, and just listening to the sound of it makes me cringe....but I got used to it, because the majority of people (on another forum) told me I was being paranoid, and that "everyone cleans their barrel with a metal brush"....the same is true with the various solvents...I am well aware of the metal etching potential of even vinegar....so how could ammonia be any better
I think I am going to stop shooting the moly coated bullets....I honestly see no benefit and lot's of trouble....I am just going to go back to shooting my own hard cast projectiles (which worked just fine)....
I still have to say, that for whatever reason, I think jacketed bullets will wear a barrel faster than un jacketed....and that I can see no real problem with un jacketed lead in uncompensated guns (under 1700fps)....which is where this whole topic came from to begin with (please see the thread about "wasting 9mm brass" in this same section)....
-
The reason I asked you to start a new and specific thread (which...you were a bit off on) was for the very reasons that Bart brought up.
I wanted to hear some specifics on the pistol barrels that you have worn out...as your conclusions seemed to be drawn from your own personal experience.
Correct me if I have this wrong...
You shared that you wore out a Springfield 1911 barrel in 45acp by shooting 6,000 of Winchester factory 230g FMJ ammo through it?
I think what is closer to what I said, is that I noticed an unacceptable decrease in accuracy after only 6000 rounds of WWB through this specific barrel (and also a lack of definition between lands and grooves)....to the point that I felt it necessary to change the barrel....if that is due to other factors (possible deforming of the barrel bottom lugs) I am willing to entertain that notion....I have, however, NOT had the same issue with un-jacketed bullets, after exponentially more rounds through various guns.....
this all stems from our friendly debate on the other thread, that there is NO benefit that I can see, to jacketed bullets in uncompensated guns (making less than 1700fps)
Custom gun registration
in Miscellaneous BEginners
Posted
ouch, what county are you in?