Speaking of testing....

Mike / Tx · January 24, 2015, 06:01 AM

Well like I mentioned the other day I broke down and PC'ed some bullets for my 41. So last night I loaded up a small test batch to run in a side by side against some traditionally lubed ones using Carnuba Red.

I started with the start weight and increased in .5gr increments up to the max load. I figured if I was going to see something I wanted to SEE something.

So we're headed out today and I will post up a report this evening or in the morning on what happens. I'm not taking the chrony, just simply looking for in the barrel results with this bullet and the lube VS the PC.

Oh yea, I WILL be bringing along the Chore Boy as well. The last time I shot some of these particular bullets they were simply tumble lubed in the 45/45/10. I got this, after only 4 rounds....

I loaded up a total of 50 this time.

Wish me luck......

Beagle333 · January 24, 2015, 07:47 AM

That oughta be a good test!

Hunter Customs · January 24, 2015, 08:43 AM

Good luck, waiting for your results.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

Wreck-n-Crew · January 24, 2015, 09:14 AM

Wow! Yeah looks like that 45/45/10 mix didn't blend so well with your barrel! PC should remedy that. Have some before and after Pics like on those commercials.

**Unclenick** · January 24, 2015, 10:09 AM

The other test I would do, just for the sake of completeness, is to see how that 45-45-10 mix compares with just 100% Liquid Alox (or Xlox; same difference)? I've never tried 45-45-10, and I know it's popular, but I've also seen a lot of home lube formulas come and go over time. It is not uncommon with moderate lead bullet handgun loads with good alloy, especially in a smooth bore, to find you get about the same leading levels with no lube at all. I wonder how many home formulations were developed primarily in such conditions. Then, of course, these developments appear to do a great job, even though they were actually doing little. The only qualification for looking good in those circumstances is that a lube not leave additional fouling of its own.

Note that I'm not saying 45-45-10 is one of the above improperly tested developments. I'm just suggesting all testing has to avoid unproven assumptions of efficacy, and testing against a standard commercial lube is probably a good idea to prove it one way or the other. I would particularly be aware that what is better at one load level should not be assumed to better at all load levels. The comparison needs to be made at the load level of interest.

I am also looking forward to seeing how the powder coating does in that same bore with that same load.

Mike / Tx · January 24, 2015, 01:32 PM

Well, right, wrong, or indifferent, I just finished scrubbing the bore out squeaky clean and it has a mirror finish, just like it had before the above pic.

Going to grab a sandwich and head over to the range and see what happens.

The bullets weigh on average 220grs. So I started the loads at 14grs and increased in .5 gr increments up to 16grs. All were loaded in new Starline brass and primed with WIN-WLP primers.

So we shall see what happens...

Mike / Tx · January 24, 2015, 07:09 PM

Well not much to report. Both batches were shot one after the other with the barrel inspected after each shot and scrubbed between plain and PC.

Went right through them all without a hiccup. All 50 rounds went into about 4"ish group at 25yds. Not the loads shooting bad just me. I taped the first target up and pulled the others off it when I was done. I'll post up a pic soon.

Well here is the first target I had taped to the bucket. It is simply one of the 5.5" Caldwell self stick ones.

I had to tape this one on first due to the paint i put on the bucket top not letting it stick. I simply stuck up another target on top of this one as I went through the loads to check for better or worse accuracy. As far as that went, it is looking like the 15gr charge is going to be where I start out with more testing. Not that the 16gr didn't shoot well, but I can tweak up to it in .2gr increments now knowing I won't see any issues with my barrel being leaded.

Oh almost forgot to mention this. The one thing I did note whether it is something to consider or not. After or between each 5 rounds I would inspect the barrel for leftovers. Other than powder residue I didn't visually see anything. This was using a bright white piece of paper across the inside of the frame and holding it so that the sunlight would illuminate it. THis is about as good as a bore light and as far as lead or any residue from the PC it wasn't noticable. However, (you knew there was one of those right,) Each time I ran my brush through there was a notable difference in pressure required to show it through the bore after the PC bullets verses the standard olubed ones. I am sure this was simply due to the residual CR lube in the bore, but as mentioned there wasn't anything visually by eye that I could see with either of them. Just thought I would throw that out there.

The grandson sifted out the bullets while I was grilling up some steaks last night, but I haven't had a chance to clean them all up yet. It was noted however that they did expand rather well, which is what I was hoping for with this 1.75 alloy, and the PC did stay put on the couple I did dust off, at least on the bases. The first test batch I did I was hopeful that the 45/45/10 would work and it probably will only using lighter loads. One thing I have learned is that this is all a balancing act. Just because you WANT it to work doesn't always mean that it will. That is half the fun with casting, figuring out the details in the loads and alloys so that it WILL work out like you want it to.

After this initial test, I will now pour up some of the 175'ish size ones of this same 640 style and see how they fair with some full tilt loads behind them both standard lubed and coated. I'll also be testing more of these over my standard load of 296 to see how they fair as well.

I'm happy that BOTH methods worked out as while piddling around with the PC'ed ones I can see how some of the benifits of not being lubed do help others out. Personally though, unless I am putting up a huge batch simply for future blasting the Carnuba Red will suit my purposes just fine. I usually only load around 50-100 at a time anyway and the standard sizing and lube method isn't bad for that. The CR lube hasn't had any issues with doing weird things in the heat so far. I have purposely left a couple of boxes in the truck, which gets parked in an open parking lot in the sun, for a couple of weeks and these loads show nothing different from ones I brought in the house. I figured temps in the vehicle hitting upwards of around 130 degrees during the summer would kill some of them, but so far it hasn't made a difference at all at least that I can see on target or through my chronograph.

Hmmm more testing, sheesh it never ends....

Beagle333 · January 24, 2015, 08:44 PM

Loaded up, no leading either way. I guess go with the fastest way you can lube/coat them?

Mike / Tx · January 25, 2015, 09:00 AM

Threw in some updates...

Beagle333 · January 25, 2015, 09:33 AM

Great test! Both work, now to just pick the method that works best/fastest for loading.

I wish it were as easy to ladder test alloys as powders. It would be fun to see how soft one could go before either PC or traditional lubes failed with hot loads.

January 24, 2015, 06:01 AM	#1
Mike / Tx Senior Member Join Date: April 8, 2000 Posts: 2,101	Speaking of testing....UPDATED Well like I mentioned the other day I broke down and PC'ed some bullets for my 41. So last night I loaded up a small test batch to run in a side by side against some traditionally lubed ones using Carnuba Red. I started with the start weight and increased in .5gr increments up to the max load. I figured if I was going to see something I wanted to SEE something. So we're headed out today and I will post up a report this evening or in the morning on what happens. I'm not taking the chrony, just simply looking for in the barrel results with this bullet and the lube VS the PC. Oh yea, I WILL be bringing along the Chore Boy as well. The last time I shot some of these particular bullets they were simply tumble lubed in the 45/45/10. I got this, after only 4 rounds.... I loaded up a total of 50 this time. Wish me luck...... __________________ LAter, Mike / TX Last edited by Mike / Tx; January 25, 2015 at 08:59 AM.

January 24, 2015, 07:47 AM	#2
Beagle333 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2012 Location: Auburn, AL. Posts: 2,332	That oughta be a good test! __________________ . . . Have a Colt and a smile.

January 24, 2015, 09:14 AM	#4
Wreck-n-Crew Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2013 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,820	Wow! Yeah looks like that 45/45/10 mix didn't blend so well with your barrel! PC should remedy that. Have some before and after Pics like on those commercials. __________________ If you ever have to use a firearm, *you don't get to pick the scenario!*

January 24, 2015, 10:09 AM	#5
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,060	The other test I would do, just for the sake of completeness, is to see how that 45-45-10 mix compares with just 100% Liquid Alox (or Xlox; same difference)? I've never tried 45-45-10, and I know it's popular, but I've also seen a lot of home lube formulas come and go over time. It is not uncommon with moderate lead bullet handgun loads with good alloy, especially in a smooth bore, to find you get about the same leading levels with no lube at all. I wonder how many home formulations were developed primarily in such conditions. Then, of course, these developments appear to do a great job, even though they were actually doing little. The only qualification for looking good in those circumstances is that a lube not leave additional fouling of its own. Note that I'm not saying 45-45-10 is one of the above improperly tested developments. I'm just suggesting all testing has to avoid unproven assumptions of efficacy, and testing against a standard commercial lube is probably a good idea to prove it one way or the other. I would particularly be aware that what is better at one load level should not be assumed to better at all load levels. The comparison needs to be made at the load level of interest. I am also looking forward to seeing how the powder coating does in that same bore with that same load. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

January 24, 2015, 01:32 PM	#6
Mike / Tx Senior Member Join Date: April 8, 2000 Posts: 2,101	Well, right, wrong, or indifferent, I just finished scrubbing the bore out squeaky clean and it has a mirror finish, just like it had before the above pic. Going to grab a sandwich and head over to the range and see what happens. The bullets weigh on average 220grs. So I started the loads at 14grs and increased in .5 gr increments up to 16grs. All were loaded in new Starline brass and primed with WIN-WLP primers. So we shall see what happens... __________________ LAter, Mike / TX

January 24, 2015, 08:43 AM	#3
Hunter Customs Senior Member Join Date: March 26, 2005 Location: Osborn, Missouri Posts: 2,697	Good luck, waiting for your results. Best Regards Bob Hunter

January 24, 2015, 08:44 PM	#8
Beagle333 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2012 Location: Auburn, AL. Posts: 2,332	Loaded up, no leading either way. I guess go with the fastest way you can lube/coat them? __________________ . . . Have a Colt and a smile.

January 25, 2015, 09:00 AM	#9
Mike / Tx Senior Member Join Date: April 8, 2000 Posts: 2,101	Threw in some updates... __________________ LAter, Mike / TX

January 25, 2015, 09:33 AM	#10
Beagle333 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2012 Location: Auburn, AL. Posts: 2,332	Great test! Both work, now to just pick the method that works best/fastest for loading. I wish it were as easy to ladder test alloys as powders. It would be fun to see how soft one could go before either PC or traditional lubes failed with hot loads. __________________ . . . Have a Colt and a smile.