barne's bullets, heavy copper fouling

[Shadow9mm]

So I tried some .429 Barnes Tac-XP bullets for 44spl in my Henry 44mag/44spl rifle. I pushed a bit and velocities were in the 1500fps range.

Went to clean my rifle today and my patches were coming out the darkest blue I have ever seen them. I ran 2 patches, let it sit for 20min, 2 more, let it sit for 20min, still super dark blue. Put the bore scope in and the lands were covered in copper for about half the barrel. And that is after 2 soaks. I pulled out my dedicated copper remover, which is bore safe, its soaking now.

I have had some copper buildup here and there. Its generally minimal to nothing. And I have fired this gun primarily with JHP, and using the same bore cleaner it generally is light blue, which goes away after a 10min soak.

I have heard Barnes are bad about copper fouling, but this seems to be a bit much.

[gwpercle]

I guess that's why Barnes came out with Barnes CR-10 Copper Bore Cleaning Solvent ...
to clean up all the copper fouling left by their copper jacket bullets .
$10.00 for 2 ozs. and the lable says ... "For Removing All Copper Fouling " and they should know !
Gary

[TJB101]

I know heavy plate should handle 1500fps but I’m leery of that. I try to keep my rifle loads in the 1350 range for plated. Are you sure you didn’t exceed that velocity being shot out of a rifle vs pistol?

[Shadow9mm]

These are Barnes, solid copper, not Berrys plated.....

[Scorch]

Back a couple of decades, Barnes X-Bullets were famous for extremely heavy copper fouling. I thought they had gotten it a little better, maybe I was wrong.

[Unclenick]

I don't know what your soaking cleaner is, but since you have a borescope you don't need to rely on color indicators, so you can take advantage of KG-12, which doesn't change color much (gets a little bit darker orange) but eats more copper faster than anything else I've experimented with, Boretech's Cu++ coming in second. Both beat the pants off the ammonia-based copper removers.

As to prevention, the bore can be firelapped. Even doing this very lightly just to dull the worst grabby edges of the tool marks in the bore can help. However, another possibility is adding Tubb Dust to your powder. It is hBN that coats the bore to make the surface unable to hold onto copper well. It's a little messy, but it works. I've had success with other bore treatments, but this one is self-renewing with every shot and tends to eliminate first-shot POI change, as well as reducing copper fouling. You add about 12 grains of it to a pound of powder and mix thoroughly.

[Shadow9mm]

Used Bore tech's elimintor. After the first 2 rounds I switched over to the CU+2 as it was too much for the eliminator to handle. Took 2 rounds of that with about a 1hr soak each time to get things cleaned up. then a lightly oiled patch of slip 2000 EWL.

[SHR970]

scorch wrote Back a couple of decades, Barnes X-Bullets were famous for extremely heavy copper fouling. I thought they had gotten it a little better, maybe I was wrong.

No you didn't get it wrong, that's why the X-Bullet became the TSX. The three relief grooves helped ameliorate those rifle bullets tendancies to over foul.

Too many people forget or don't know that pureish copper has a much higher coefficient of friction with steel than gilding metal (aka brass alloy). There is a reason that ~95-5 to 90-10 has been used since circa 1895.

There is a way to lessen the issue with or without lapping the barrel using Moly but it is done in a way that most do not use Moly. Moly being MoS2

[BobCat45]

Will you expand on the way one uses moly to lessen the issue?

I used to moly coat bullets for XC matches and seemed to have much less copper fouling and longer barrel life than without the moly. But those were jacketed bullets, Sierra Matchkings.

I'd be interested to read how one uses moly to lessen leading with the Barnes copper bullets if it is different than just coating them in the tumbler.

Thanks!

[Shadow9mm]

I'm toying with the idea of powder coating them. Then resizing... not sure how that would play out, but may test it with a couple.

[Unclenick]

Some people have used a cleaning patch coated with moly to burnish it into a bore. Others have made up a suspension of it in alcohol to coat things (bores included). Sprinco makes a coloidal suspension of micronized and acid-neutralized moly in a NASA patent lubricant (probably a polyester ring oil) that bonds electrostatically with steel. You keep the surface wet with it for 72 hours and you get the bonding and it can then last a thousand rounds or so in a rifle. If you renew it after each cleaning, it is maintained and all bullet's shoot in the gun as if it were shooting moly-coated bullets. This is another effective way to minimize copper fouling.

[SHR970]

BobCat45 wroteI used to moly coat bullets for XC matches and seemed to have much less copper fouling and longer barrel life than without the moly.

That is the traditional way people used it and the traditional complaint was that there would be all of this build up near the chamber that was a PIA to clean up. That was due to the Moly being scrubbed off in the first few inches of many barrels and left behind as well as the fact that many cleaning solvents didn't contain the correct ingredients to break the material.

Unclenick wrote:Some people have used a cleaning patch coated with moly to burnish it into a bore. Others have made up a suspension of it in alcohol to coat things (bores included).

And that leads us to the nontraditional methods. The patch burnish takes too much work to get a good distribution of the product and the alcohol or other carriers can have their own issues. Alcohol and most oils won't hold Moly in suspension for very long at all. Most PolyAlphaOlefin (PAO) oils are too thin and won't hold it in suspension. PolyAlkeneGlycol is also thin AND attacks many materials such as varnish, rubber, Buna-N, etc.

OTOH using a thin grease holds it in suspension but we have to consider what additional ingredients there may be. Years ago I have found two ways to go about it; commercial cam lifter Moly break in lube (expensive) or a Mineral Oil Base grease without additives (not as expensive). I still have the former but have taken to mixing the latter as needed since I still have most of a pound of super fine Moly powder.

50/50 to 75/25 Moly to Base works and you patch it into your barrel until you have a coating from chaber to muzzle. You then dry patch your barrel to remove excess grease as all you need is a thin coating. In close to 20 years doing this I have not had a problem with copper fouling using plated or jacketed bullets in my rifles or hand guns. And I have shot thousands of plated rounds through my handguns and plenty of the Pre-TSX Barnes bullets in my rifles.

FWIW: My base grease is something you probably have in your medicine cabinet. YMMV

[BobCat45]

Unclenick, SHR970, thank you both for illuminating the subject!

I will re-read and consider how to proceed. I never experienced moly buildup near the chamber - that I was smart enough to recognize as such! - but it is clear how it should occur.

Will do some thinking and examination of my medicine cabinet to figure out the grease of which you speak. First thought is the "mineral oil" my parents' generation considered useful, but I don't have any of that. When I think of grease I think Lubriplate...

Anyway thanks again for the information!

[BobCat45]

Oh.... Mineral Oil Base grease = petroleum jelly = Vaseline. May even have some of that... Thanks!

[zeke]

KG12 works very well, BUT WEAR GLOVES. The Henry bore is likely a little rough, and might do to bore slug it and compare to the bullet's dia. Some bores do break in with jacketed bullets, but this may take awhile.

[SHR970]

zeke said:KG12 works very well, BUT WEAR GLOVES.

Considering it is a CYANIDE based solvent I would agree whole heartedly.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by SHR970

Considering it is a CYANIDE based solvent I would agree whole heartedly.

Yeah, I will stick with my bore tech CU+2

[SHR970]

You do know that you should be wearing gloves and eye protection when using your Bore Tech Cu+2 due to the Aminoethylphosphonic Acid that is the prime ingredient don't you? It's not exactly healthy for you either.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by SHR970

You do know that you should be wearing gloves and eye protection when using your Bore Tech Cu+2 due to the Aminoethylphosphonic Acid that is the prime ingredient don't you? It's not exactly healthy for you either.

Yeah, but an irritant is much better than poison.....

I generally don't wear gloves, but I generally don't get it on my hands either. And I wash up if I do, never had any issues.

[zeke]

After years of exposure to various solvents/cleaners, am ALWAYS wearing disposable latex gloves when cleaning firearms with any solvent. Hard not to get some on your hands when using a bore brush.

[SHR970]

Yeah, but an irritant is much better than poison.....

Quit while you are still behind.... you most likely don't know squat about what the exposure limits are vs. TWA vs. IDLH.

Don't even try me..... they wouldn't even be allowed to market for the last 40 years on the consumer market if it was likely to be a long term hazard without warnings about the PPE necessary for safe use.

FWIW.... Cyanide soultions can be Acute OR Chronic poisons. Irritants can ALSO be Chronic Poisons. Your answer points to a lack of knowledge of the subject.

[Shadow9mm]

SHR970

Hey I'm always willing to lean. Why is a poison better than an irritant?

Bore tech msds lists https://www.shootingequipment.de/out...urity_data.pdf
Skin Irrit. 3; H316 Causes mild skin irritation. (Not Adopted by US OSHA)
Eye Irrit. 2B; H320 Causes eye irritation.

KG12 MSDS lists https://www.sinclairintl.com/userdoc...65_default.pdf
H301 Toxic if swallowed.
H311 Toxic in contact with skin.
H373 May cause damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure

What am I missing? After after finding out about the Hornady 1 shot aerosol case lube side effects I try and read the MSDS sheets before I buy products. But as an average joe that's about the best I can do.

[SHR970]

Shadow9mm said Hey I'm always willing to lean. Why is an irritant at less than better than a poison.

Quit while you are still behind.... you most likely don't know squat about what the exposure limits are vs. TWA vs. IDLH.

You just proved my point; you know buzz words and not what the words actually mean. In my job there is a reason that I wear glasses and NOT contact lenses...especially soft / permeable contact lenses.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by SHR970

You just proved my point; you know buzz words and not what the words actually mean. In my job there is a reason that I wear glasses and NOT contact lenses...especially soft / permeable contact lenses.

And I get to educate myself again, could at least point me in the right direction. Lack of knowledge is not a bad thing, that can generally easily be fixed. Just cause you deal with chemicals on a daily basis in your job does not mean everyone else does.

I understand what TWA and ILDA are after a bit of reading, along with STEL, PEL, and WEEL. Now where do I find those stats in the MSDS, cause I read through both and did not see it listed for either.

[SHR970]

You don't find them in the MSDS / SDS / GHS. You find them in nationally authoritative sources such as NIOSH, Hawleys Chemical Dictionary, Hazop, et. al. Thank you for proving my point.