The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading MolybdeniumSulfide coated bullets,"substance from hell"?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| MolybdeniumSulfide coated bullets,"substance from hell"? | Login/Join |
| one of us |
gents, I shall try to clarify an old problem here.Benchrest Central has a large thread on the subject with opinions at opposite sides,some claiming that they have experienced barrel destruction from using MoS coated bullets,others using it without ill effects .I obtained e-mail from Gerard re his coated bullets, he is apparently 100% behind the process,blaming admixed fatbased materials for possible ill effects.I buy the argument of problems arising from grease in the barrel.Allow me to summarize my thoughts after a thorough review: 1:the sole benefit from MoS coated bullets is barrel life and easier cleaning,no accuracy or speed improvenments are claimed 2 the possible adverse side effect:Some call MoS the "substance from hell" making the barrel useless and impossible to clean,corrosion from sulfuric acid particularily for stainless ,etc. I am a chemist myself and remember MoS to be a very stable compound ,do not see how we can get sulfuric acid out of it,but hey I never tested it under pressure of a rifle shot. In any event when theory is contradicting :go to the facts.It is possible that the various divergent results are solely due to the type of MoS as well as the admixed fat/grease. 3 a while back I read from many that problems arise in accuracy when one uses plain Cu bullets again after the barrel had been conditioned/ coated with MoS:an unstable nonrepeating situation as the MoS is not replenished? So as usual,I see things clearer after writing this note.Weighing plus and minuses:no accuracy improvement,sole benefit less barrel cleaning ,possible longer barrel life ,versus possible difficult to impossibility to get the stuff ever out of the barrel.Inadvisability to switch between MoS coated and plain Cu bullets I must conclude that he "safest" route to go is stay c non coated material.But again,it is always prudent to listen to actual experiences. Does anyone have it,could he switch back to Cu bullets? thanks sheephunter | ||
|
| one of us |
Sheepherder, I was indirectly involved in a problem ( non gun ) with MoS2 which turned out to be caused by breakdown to acid. It was a rare case but it can happen. It's too long ago to remember the details. | |||
|
one of us |
My experiences are exactly the same as VarmintHunter's. For such a relatively new idea, there sure seems to be a ton of bad dope floating around about moly. I've read that some folks were able to initiate corrosion under certain circumstances involving moly, but those circumstances never occur in my routines. Using moly in a barrel doesn't spoil it for other uses, in my experience. I'll continue to use moly, and switch back and forth as it suits me. It's not as skeery as it's made out to be. Redial | |||
|
| one of us |
I think the problem comes from home coating with moly. A friend of mine used only home moly coated bullets after his inital barrel break in and after less than 1500 rounds the barrel is pitted (used bore scope can't see with naked eye) he looked because accuracy had dropped off. Factory coated bullets are meant to be fine, I think there used to be something on Sinclairs web site about it but I just had a look and couldn't find it | |||
|
| <green 788> |
Regarding barrel life... Check the September '98 edition of Precision Shooting and you'll see a synopsis of the most comprehensive study to date on the "ifs and whethers" of increased barrel life accredited to moly coated bullets. The conclusion was that there was no difference whatsoever between barrel life when comparing moly and non-moly bullets. Different caliber rifles were shot, and different types of moly coated bullets were used--all factory coated by their respective moly manufacturers. For my part, I believe it is a trend that will "peter out" over time. But that's just a guess  ...Dan | ||
|
| <Tomjones> |
quote:I disagree with that. Moly does lower pressures. It also lowers velocity for a given powder charge. But it lowers pressure more than velocity. I think you can get higher velocities than naked bullets. Just add more powder. I shoot loads I don't think are possible with naked bullets. quote:Yes, it is a bad idea to mix moly and plain. Neither one shoots well when you do that. quote:I disagree here too. I think it definetly makes rough (factory) barrels shoot better. I have a .223 that is about a 1 1/4 MOA rifle. Coat everything, suddenly it shoots 5/8 MOA. To get rid of Moly, just clean with Brake cleaner. Strips it right out. The problem with rifles that have been fed a steady diet of plain bullets is that they won't shoot Moly well. ![[Razz]](images/icons/tongue.gif){kind=icon} | ||
|
one of us |
I too would be interested in how sulphuric acid forms from using MoS2. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Hey sheephunter, Edit Begin There was an excellent article about the benefits of Moly in the Aug98 Precision Shooting Magazine. It used to be accessable via the net, but has now expired. It was a long read, but Precision Shooting covered it very well. They placed special emphasis on how many shots Norma got through a particular "hot loaded 6.5mm" without any accuracy degradation. I believe it was slightly over 10,000 shots through the single barrel. It has been too long for me to remember exactly, but that is close to the number.Edit End I've managed to select and retain some fairly accurate rifles over the years. One thing that concerned me a lot was having to replace their barrels, not because of the cost, but simply because they shoot so well now. By using Moly, I'm convinced their useful life has been greatly extended. Just like Varmint Hunter, I've had no corrosion problems due to Moly. I believe he is correct that properly cleaning the bore after shooting the firearm is what prevents the problem, just like it does if you don't use Moly. I always finish the cleaning by putting a "light coating" of grease on the Bore. That prevents the moisture in our highly humid Southeastern USA from being able to reach the surface of the bore, thus avoiding the pitting. Back when Moly first became popular, some people "incorrectly rationalized" that since some shooters were going hundreds of shots between cleanings, that the need to clean the barrel no longer existed. Of course, that was wrong and has lead to the problems of pitting you mentioned. It just gets back to proper cleaning. Excellent stuff for someone who shoots a good bit, but it is a bit aggravating to peen into the bullet's jackets. Once you get a system set-up and follow a proper sequence, it works well. I'll continue to use it until something "better" comes along. ... That said, I do have some firearms that get both Lead and Jacketed bullets. In those, I don't use Moly, ...yet. [ 02-16-2003, 03:50: Message edited by: Hot Core ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Moly has been used extensivley as a friction modifier both alone and mixed with oil products. For instance moly is recommended by the Catipillar Co. in general purpose grease. However it's success in engine oil is not as certain. Only one company makes it with success in API approved engine oil and the ammount in the oil while prorietory is small and in micron form. I has proven in hydraulic oils to reduce pump temperature for instance. But in engines the Cummins Engine Co. found that large amounts of Moly caused the copper in bearings to be attacked. This same moly was not in micron form so it also plugged oil galleys. Like many things it must be done right to work. None of the above comments apply directly to bullets as I have not tried moly on bullets. However solid lubricants do work in general and work when the impact is too great for an oil film. | |||
|
| one of us |
Thanks everyone for sharing their knowledge, Hot Core I could not link to the listed site,seems disconnected? The ideas shared here seem to mostly support the use of moly with some remaining caveats that will have to be considered: Varmint Hunter you seem to have used the stuff < but ultimately reverted to naked bullets> wonder whether you would share with us why,given your good experience and lack of adverse side effects. green 788 shared c us and summarised an article in Sept '98 of Precision shooting where according to him the end result was that moly has no effect on barrel life either way wonder whether its the same article that Hot Core is citing? For the sake of possible reaching a cosensus on this forum ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon} ? on this subject ,I shall summarize from contributions here and elsewhere:1 "self coating bullets f.i. c the NECO process by tumbling in Moly is iffy,compared to factory coated bullets reason being that the type of moly used as well as the tumbling time seems to yield different end results.For inst somebody on the Benchrest forum found that prolonged tumbling causes "clumping" of the moly with ruining of the barrel. 2 Moly apparently should not be admixed with any grease whatsoever,as the mixture leaves a "ceramic" type coating in the barrel that is impossible to remove,this may include fat from our hands ! , consequently ,proper application includes degreasing the bullets before moly application,and ? not ever touching them with our sweat ? Timken Steel did a study showing that moly within grease is useless and has adverse effects-so my understanding. So there is the fact that we are possibly comparing different preperations of moly coated bullets which might or indeed do,lead to different barrel effects. There are than also apparently considerations of different effects on the barrel as well as accuracy ,when comparing "factory barrels" with lets say" precision barrels",assuming the latter are having a smoother inside finish. It is possible that the latter would not benefit from filling unevenness with moly as much as the rougher factory barrels do,or even accept the moly the same way.So again experiences would have to be subcategorized? So why are we continuing to beat on this mule? I think the promise of less heat,less friction .possible less cleaning between shots is very appealing. Question is ,can we revert to Cu bullets and get the stuff out again.Varmint Hunter among others seem to have no problems neither does TomJones with Brake cleaner (?)a potion I heard elsewhere to be used for moly. There remains the difficulty of shooting coated and plain bullets thru the same barrel in sequence.For a hunting rifle almost a must as a good many moly coated bullets on the market are not that good and naked bullets are still used extensively. Am I willing to dedicate a rifle to just coated bullets?,I think I cannot ,for above reasons. So what would it take for me to use moly coated bullets ,as I believe that they do reduce pressure and temps , ? increase accuracy, but in which type barrel.I am mostly using aftermarket precision barrels. I definitly want to shoot plain Cu bullets thru the same barrel without stripping the barrel,seems like unachievable.I cannot dedicate a rifle to just moly bullets. I want an explanation why some users reported destruction of their barrels,either from coatings that could not be removed or corrosion.Once the conditions are identified one can possibly avoid them. thanks again for helping to make up our minds sheephunter | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:This is not right. Either Timken is misquoted or the "study" was done before 1944. The use of moly grease is required by the operators manuals for many pieces of equipment! Don't use it and you will be out of warrantee! Check the major companies and custom blenders. They all sell and suggest moly grease for many applications. Moly works by each tiny plate of the substance slipping off of each other. It can take up to 500,000 psi. | |||
|
| one of us |
Savage , thanks for disagreeing, just shows how difficult it is to form an opinion based on "trusted sources" I shall just copy a contribution from a kvery knowledgable Benchrest member( without asking his permission,think he wont mind ) QUOTE: --------------------------------------------- Greg Walley Member Registered: Feb 2003 Location: Posts: 5 I've seen more barrels ruined with moly than not, and I've looked at a lot of them. It was certainly moly that ruined these barrels, since I've never seen such extensive damage in non-moly barrels that were also abused by a lack of cleaning. In fact, I've only seen one barrel THAT SHOT COMPETITIVELY over a long period of time (2500+ rounds) that had moly bullets shot through it...and it was cleaned on what is considered to be a regular basis, rather than the "accepted method" of cleaning for moly coated bullet shooting. It is not made for extreme pressure applications. It tends to form a ceramic like material in the bore if not cleaned out at regular intervals. It breaks down to a low melting sulfide eutetic at the grain boundries in steel under high temperature and pressure, and is especially aggressive on stainless steels. This is a proven fact, and when I find the literature reference where this information came from, I'll gladly post it on this board. A few years ago, an engineer at Timken told me that moly failed in high pressure-temperature applications, and made lubrication matters worse, since it formed the "ceramic-like material" that I've seen in barrels and muzzle brakes. The only high presssure-temperature lubricant that worked for him was micronized hexagonal boron nitride. (By the way, a benchrest shooter used this substance on his bullets several years ago, and the gun shot all over the paper.) Call the top benchrest barrel manafactures and ask them what they think about moly. Leave moly where it belongs...and it's not on your bullets or in rifle barrels. Ask the TOP shooters and gunsmiths in benchrest and see what they tell you. This includes the top shooters that supposedly use moly after the hype started to die out a few years ago. ---------------------------------------------- sheephunter | |||
|
| one of us |
While this doesn't answer the initial question about the supposed corrosive effects of Moly, I thought I'd share my thoughts and observations on Moly in general; There have been many claims attached to Moly, often times without substantiation...better barrel life, lower pressures, better velocities, better accuracy, better downrange BC, easier cleaning. Of these benefits, I feel comfortable saying that only lower pressure, and easier cleaning (with some caveats) have been proven. Better Barrel Life: There is conflicting data here. Kevin Thomas of Sierra did some careful testing and documentation with their test barrels and found no such benefit. Crister Larsen of Norma, Sweden on the other hand has written of substantially longer accurate barrel life in their testing with their 6.5x55 barrels. Similarly, Svein Olav Olsen of Raufoss Technology Ltd has written of their research showing a substantially longer accurate life in their controlled testing. Lower Pressures; This effect has been shown several times over. I've seen it myself. The "why's" are not so clear. Most will simplistically theorize that the friction reducing properties of Moly are what leads to the reduction. Vaughn feels it's the energy absorbed by sublimation of moly and carnauba that lowers temperature and thus pressures (he documented the same reduction by putting the moly/carnauba in with the powder charge). Better Velocities; While pressure and velocities with similar charges go down. Many find they can bump up the charge and velocity to a higher point than was previously attained without moly. I have many anecdotal reports, but no controlled testing. Better Accuracy; No one has shown this to be the case conclusively. At best it's another variable to play with. Some shoot better and some actually shoot worse. In their testing, Raufoss experienced better accuracy with uncoated bullets. Better BC; Early on, folk shooting moly claimed BC's must be better because impacts at long range were higher (on the order of 1 to 2 minutes). They also pointed to recovered bullets showing less engraving distortion (that must be better for BC right?). In long range testing by Larry Bartholome (accompanied by Ken Oehler), the difference was statistically insignificant. When you look at the difference in BC required to cause a 1-2MOA elevation improvement, it is so large as to be improbable. A better explaination of a higher impact would be that moly is altering the harmonics of the load causing a higher release point in the barrel whip. Easier Cleaning; This is the only claim that Sierra will make for the Moly Coated Bullets that they sell (incidentally done by David Tubb using a licensed original NECO process). In their testing none of the other benefits claimed were able to be substantiated. The caveat to the easier cleaning is that cleaning can be more complicated. Some find (myself included) that a thorough cleaning of a moly barrel requires moly fouling to return to zero. As a shooter that's been trained to clean after every session and start a Match with a clan barrel, tracking the state of barrel fouling can be a hassle. There are more than a few top level shooters that have experienced similar and have given up on Moly. On the negative side, I've read the reports of Sinclair's discontinuation of Moly coated products because of reports coming back (with bore scope verification) of undue corrosion being attributed to Moly. I'm cautious on drawing any cause an effect relationship between the corrosion and Moly without controlled testing. There are many other possible causes for accelerated corrosion including a lack of cleaning (due to a false sense of security that Moly doesn't require normal barrel care). One of the theories floated has been that Moly forms Molybdenum Trioxide in the presence of extreme heat and pressure and this is a supposed corrosive agent. I'm no chemist, so I don't have any thoughts there. I currently shoot moly in Highpower Competition. But I'm not attached to using it. My load happened to be worked up with Moly and I have a fair quantity of Coated bullets. But when my barrel stops shooting, I'll start over and will probably shoot bare this time. [ 02-16-2003, 00:30: Message edited by: Chris F ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Moly is a complicated and controversial subject, and I have had to simplify it for my own pea brain: 1) 30-06 steel barrel firing 5 rounds a year in the rain forrest, NO MOLY 2) 22-250 Stainless barrel firing 200 rounds a day in the desert, GOOD MOLY APPLICATION 3) If moly is fired in a steel barrel, flush with baking soda and water. | |||
|
| one of us |
LOL! | |||
|
One of Us |
Ahhh, The Myths of MoS2.... A lot of naysayers in the late 90's have today reversed their position regarding the benefits and safety of using moly. You see many competition shooters from every shooting discipline still using moly. Millions of rounds have been fired in ten of thousands of bores over many years now. In short, MoS2 is well researched and documented. What I have found is most folks simply do not know how to properly use moly or how to properly care for moly�ed bores. The same people who ruin their non-coated bores are ruining moly coated bores and want to blame the moly for it. I don�t use moly in every rifle because there is no need to. My target and varmint high volume guns are all moly�ed, and my field and hunting guns are not. I religiously bore scope all my high volume bores and I can attest to the benefits and safety of moly. I don�t take anyone�s word for its benefits, I see it for myself. You cannot halfass moly as so many do. It takes a little work to do it properly and you need to adjust your cleaning routine for moly�ed bores. Like anything else on the Planet, you must use it properly to maximize its benefits. And like anything else, if you misuse it you can wind up with problems. It�s not magic, nor is it a curse. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I agree wholeheartedly. But what benefits have you been able to document? quote:In my readings, correspondence and experiences, moly is still spotty in benefits. Many of the Competitive Shooters (in Highpower at least) are as I am; ambivalent on moly - and this would include many of the top Service Rifle Shooters and two of the top teams well equipped to research the benefits (or lack thereof) in controlled testing. Can you point me toward any further shooting research and documentation that I might seek out (that I haven't already cited)? [ 02-16-2003, 01:25: Message edited by: Chris F ] | |||
|
Moderator |
Zero Drift Could you detail your cleaning routine for me? I was thinking of coating some 6.5 bullets as my barrel gets badly copper fouled, mainly at the muzzel. Bakes | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Hey sheephunter, I couldn't get to that Precision Shooting Link either. So, I went back and "Edited" the first paragraph of that post. Thanks for alerting me. Concerning #2. I've not had any problem in this regard. In fact, the grease I use to "Lightly Coat" my bores with contains Moly. It was bought at Western Auto when they were in business and is made by: Sta-Lube No. 3141 Extreme Pressure Moly-Graph Multi-Purpose Grease Part of the marketing jargon on the container says: blah, blah...to provide an adhesive metallic plating with extreme pressure and anti-wear properties. Rust & Oxidation additives assure long life lubrication. Works for me quite well in both Carbon and Stainless barrels. I see "ZERO INDICATION" of, "a "ceramic" type coating in the barrel that is impossible to remove". Where ever that came from, someone is doing something different than I am. ... Yes, if the bullets are not soaked in "hot water and Dawn"(haven't tried anything else), to remove the residual Forming Die oil on the bullet jackets, the Moly won't peen in. It used to be that Sierra was the only manufacturer to "wash" their bullets prior to shipment. Don't know if anyone else does now days or not. Doesn't matter to me, cause I wash them all prior to peening - even the Sierras. [ 02-16-2003, 04:19: Message edited by: Hot Core ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I don't disagree with this statement without more information. You said earlier that moly was no good in grease! Now you quote a high temperature application. I know moly works in grease and even those with no dropping point to perhaps 500F or higher. In engines however where temperatures can be higher in the combustion chamber moly is used only in small qualtities in micron form. All I did was point out this. I wish I could add more to the moly/bullet debate. | |||
|
| <Varmint Hunter> |
Sheephunter, To answer your question as to why I have abandoned moly despite my positive results - I haven't. Moly had worked so well for me that I went over-board and started to moly every bullet in inventory regarless of the intended use. After considerable use it became obvious that moly just was NOT beneficial in every rifle. Large bore magnum rifles that are shot infrequently just don't need moly. It normally doesn't hurt but it just doesn't help either. Additionally, in some hard kicking rifles the moly can cause enough reduction in neck tension that recoil can cause the bullets to creep foward while they are in the magazine. This could be VERY dangerous if unnoticed and a too long cartridge was chambered and fired. And while I have to admit that I moly coated a few whitetails with my 7STW, they probably would have died just as quick if hit with naked bullets. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon} As far as moly building up on tumbled bullets goes - I really have not noticed this effect. Normally, once a bullet has achieved a complete impact plating of moly you could tumble for another hour or two and get no increase in attached moly. IMO moly doesn't stick to moly. Ocassionally I see a clumping appearance when applying the wax coat. This has no ill effect on accuracy, but can be easily removed by a brief tumble in corn cob media. It is a cosmetic thing. Lastly, I am told that only laboratory grade (pure & fine)moly should be used for moly plating bullets. Discount moly from mass suppliers may have minute quantities of other substances mixed with the moly. These substances may have adverse effects on the bore when under the extreme pressure and temperature conditions generated by firing. The science of this idea is over my head but I have only used the moly which is sold by NECO and I have never had a problem. And the controversy continues........... ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon} VH [ 02-16-2003, 06:02: Message edited by: Varmint Hunter ] | ||
|
| one of us |
Shooting Times, December 2000 Kevin Tomas, Chief Ballistician, Sierra Bullets : "I can tell you this. I do not use moly. I think there are as many drawbacks to it as there are positives. I think there could be something to coated bullets, but whatever it is, moly is not it. However, I think that moly could be a first step in a long development road." Allen Jones, Manager of Technical Publications, CCI/Speer : "Our lab tests on industry pressure/velocity equipment with .223 Remington and the .30-06 cartridges indicates that adjustments to propellant charges are neither indicated nor required when switching from standard to moly-coated bullets. Test results comparing the two bullet types in extended pressure runs of 60 rounds show there is not enough difference in pressure to warrant increasing the propellant charge when using moly bullets. We noted no differences in fouling between standard and moly bullets in the high-grade Krieger pressure barrels we use. However, in the absence of further tests, I feel that the typical shooter using productuon barrels instead of quality custom barrels will likely see a reduction in fouling--and therefore increase the number of rounds fired between cleaning--by using moly-coated bullets. Any conditioning of the bore shooting moly bullets should benefit the production [standard] barrel more than a custom barrel. With a fine custom barrel, we see little fouling with standard bullets, so we would expect to see little if any improvement in such barrels by changing to moly-coated bullets." | |||
|
| one of us |
Green 788, quote:I pulled out my Sept 98 Issue of Precision Shooting and found no such article. There is however an article by Kevin Thomas on his testing of Cryo-treated barrels. Are you actually reading these articles you're quoting? | |||
|
| one of us |
When you get through cleaning that stuff out of your barrels, don't forget to clean your reloading dies ![[Mad]](images/icons/mad.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
In addition to my earlier post my friends barrel was stainless 7mm Rem and he is fanatical about cleaning, the moly was from a bearing suppler. | |||
|
| one of us |
Is the coating that Combined Technology's uses on the Ballistic Tips (they call it Lubolox) moly based? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Most of the hype about moly has significantly dropped off the past four years or so. When moly shooters were not turning in their ruined barrels by the truckload as so many predicted, when barrels were not cracking open as so many predicted, when barrels were not etched by moly acid as so many predicted, when there was no fouling which got so bad that bullets would no longer travel down the bore as so many predicted, etc, etc - when none of these terrible things happened to users of moly, ALL the gun magazine �experts� quit writing about it. When there was no fire, they all left very, very quietly. The fact is, moly is safe and it does have several benefits - when used properly. More people are purchasing factory moly coated bullets today than just two years ago. Barrels are lasting significantly longer and more accurate shots can be gained between cleaning. These are the primary benefits to moly. It is not designed to magically turn a 3 MOA POS into a 1/4 MOA wonder gun, it will not make your teeth brighter, and it will not make you more popular with the girls. However, IF you take care of your firearm, and use moly properly, and clean your bore properly, THEN you will see significant benefits. Otherwise, all the voodoo in your mojo sack will not help. A lot of folks have halfassed used moly with very poor results and they tell everyone - �Oh that moly is bad stuff, I would never use it again�, or they use industrial grade moly found in industrial grease, ruin their bore, and then come to the same conclusion. No one that I know has ruined a bore by properly using MoS2. No one has ever produced evidence of stress cracks, acid etching, ring cracks, or other physical proof that moly is dangerous or damaging to firearms. As I have stated several times in the past - moly is not the best thing for every bore. As Varmint Hunter stated, it is not right for every rifle. Misconception is the biggest problem that I have seen with most moly users. Folks who don�t start out correctly or they don�t care for their bore correctly will be disappointed with the process. However, if you do it correctly, you can gain some very beneficial results. Bakes, you have several extensive PMs.... | |||
|
| One of Us |
Here are some typical moly users: Jethro goes down to his favorite gun shop and picks up a box of Federal Premium ammo with Nosler Partition Golds in moly. He runs out to the range and test these new magic bullets. He knows his gun is sighted in and the bore is clean because he only uses Hoppe�s as he has for 40 years. His first string of 5 shots are all over the place. His next string of 5 is all over the place. His next string of 5 are about an MOA but he attributes this to his expert marksmanship. His last 5 show a little more improvement but again not his usual 1/4 MOA. So his conclusion is - This moly stuff is crap. Problem - gun was not clean to begin with, gun was not burnished (broken-in) properly, and 20 shots is not enough to begin to see moly work. I have heard guys going down to their local auto parts shop to buy a tub of dry moly lubricant because that laboratory grade stuff is just too dang expensive and you only git a little. After all, moly is moly right? Three months later, his bore is ruined. Of course moly is to blame. Then there are the guys who pick up a moly coating kit or worse, they use moly spray. They throw their bullets in a jar, give them a good shake and load them. By the time they arrive at the range, most of the moly has warn off their bullets and on their hands. The more lazy types just spray their already loaded ammo with the moly spray. The more creative types simply use the spray down the bore before shooting each shot. After all, it don�t matter how the moly gits there as long as it�s in there right. Then there is Jethro�s cousin Billy-Bob who actually got his GED and figured out how to correctly use moly. He started with a clean bore. He used factory coated bullets. He cleaned between every shot for the first 15-20 shots. He actually shot across a chrono and worked his load development. He pushed a few solvent patches through the bore every 10 to 20 shots to control throat fouling. He cleaned his gun after each use and stored his gun properly. Billy-Bob is just tickled with moly in his favorite varmint rig and can accurately shoot 100 rounds or more when the prairie rats are in bloom. All the while Jethro is cleaning his bore with more Hoppe's. | |||
|
| <Varmint Hunter> |
ZERO, I've got 1 question; what is your issue with sprayed moly (Ms Moly, I presume)? My shooting buddy uses Ms Moly in a heavily fired 22-250 and is very happy with the results. He calls it the "shake & bake" method. He cleans - sprays - bakes. The finished bullet has an unbelievably durable moly coated finish. I tried it myself and determined that this method was capable of KEEPING more moly on the bullet as it traveled down the bore, as was determined by retrieving fired bullets from a sand embankment. I prefer the NECO method but was impressed with the other process. Only thing was that it pissed the little lady off when I slide a tray of freshly mollied bullets into the oven next to the turkey. Have you experienced a problem with the spray moly - just curious. VH [ 02-16-2003, 21:53: Message edited by: Varmint Hunter ] | ||
|
| one of us |
Zero Drift, I've followed the Moly controversy from back when Merrill Martin (the Neco Process Patent Holder) first wrote about it. I've seen the claims, and I've seen the articles crowing the benefits. Precision Shooting and Shooters News gave Moly a fair amount of coverage with an even hand. In the late 90's and 2000, I then saw some detailed testing of moly written about including articles by Kevin Thomas (PS 1999) and Rick Jamison (Shooting Times 2000 - same article that onefunzr2 pulled the quotes from) - both showed little benefit in "controlled" testing. It was about then that the popular press started writing less and less about moly. If anything, prior to that, the wild claims were being made FOR moly. You're right in that writers have written less about moly, but it's rather because they've found it's NOT all that was claimed. Here's a few choice claims; quote: quote: quote:...and my favorite... quote: | |||
|
| One of Us |
VH - No real problem with the Ms Molly, however, it is difficult to obtain an even and consistent coat with the sprays. The early sprays did not adhere well at all. I am not sure what they use to glue the moly to the jacket, but it is not just moly and wax. Not sure what this does to fouling considerations. In my opinion, Berger has the best coating process that I have found. Sierra (who uses MCI - aka David Tubb) and Nosler are a close second. The NECO kit is probably the best do-it-yourself kit on the market. I am only using moly in my varmint and target guns so I am a Walt Berger bullet user and believer. Walt knows more about moly than most anyone. I don�t have the time to invest coating my own bullets. Fortunately, it only costs a few cents a bullet to have the factory do it for me. This is money well invested in my opinion. [ 02-16-2003, 23:17: Message edited by: Zero Drift ] | |||
|
| One of Us |
Chris - I am not here to convince anyone to use or not to use moly. However, IF you are going to use it, you need to know how to do it properly in order to achieve any desirable results. I have also read a lot about the pluses and minuses of moly. I don�t agree with most of what I read about moly, but then again I don�t agree with a lot of the crap I see in gun magazines. I will say Precision Shooting and Varmint Hunter are better than most - generally . All that I can tell anyone is I have been very lucky with the process and I am very pleased with the results. I have a bore scope and I have not found anything detrimental about moly and I have been shooting the stuff for 10+ years now. I have probably scope�ed another 40 moly'ed bores and have never found any problems. however, I have found a few bores that did not like coated bullets. I do not believe it can be universally applied. It's pretty simple, if you don't believe in the benefits, or you think it will hurt your bore - don't use it. If you are not going to invest the time and energy to use it properly - don't use it. If you think it is a miracle cure - you will be disappointed. If you think it will make your life easier - it depends upon the type of shooting you do. For the average �I only shoot 40 rounds a year� sorta guy, it IS a waste of time. | |||
|
| one of us |
Zero Drift, I think we're for the most part in agreement on Moly. It may help in some cases. Detriments fall under the same category as the more extravagant claims - unproven. Published bore scoping reports have demonstrated little detriment (just some hard to remove baked on residue) but conversely, little benefit (throats had similar appearance to parallel barrels shot with uncoated bullets). I just have two questions; 1) You've mentioned two benefits to moly in your posts. Longer barrel life and longer accurate stretches between cleanings. Would you care to elaborate on how you documented longer barrel life? 2) When you said; " I have also read a lot about the pluses and minuses of moly. I don�t agree with most of what I read about moly, but then again I don�t agree with a lot of the crap I see in gun magazines." What in specific didn't you agree with written about moly? Would any of those happen to be the Kevin Thomas or Rick Jamison articles which were based on careful comparisons? I will say again that I am ambivalent on Moly. It's just another variable to play with in my loads. I am interested in information in areas that I don't have the easy ability to readily observe or test for ie. longer barrel life, so please pardon my repeat of my request for information. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Chris - this is really beginning to "bore" me, however, for tickles I will reply one last time... 1. In regards to barrel life - I shot a .30-.378 target rifle for several years. I went through 3 Krieger barrels with it - all were the same specification. The first two barrels were not moly coated, the last was. The first two barrels were pretty well shot out at 1,000 rounds. The third moly coated barrel had a little over 1,500 rounds through it when it was sold. The purchaser had his smith bore scope the bore and deemed the barrel and throat in �excellent� condition. I have a very hot 6mm Rem varmint rig on its second barrel with 2,500 rounds through it. It�s still sub MOA. Throat is good but showing some early wear. The first barrel was finished at 1,200+/- rounds. I have another 6mm Rem target gun with 1,000 moly rounds - no throat wear. I have a 6.5-.284 target with 1,200 moly rounds - still in great shape. At our club, most of our LR target and competition guys are shooting moly bores. Across the board, most are seeing anywhere from a 50 to 100% improvement in barrel life. Of the folks that I varmint shoot with, all are shooting moly bores. Barrel life is twice to three times that of naked bores. Most varmint folks shoot their bores very hot with pushed loads. I can go on and on about barrel life improvements - but I won�t. This is a well documented benefit with moly and reported by many competition class shooters. As far as accuracy between shots, I can generally achieve accuracy to 100 rounds without undergoing a full-blown barrel cleaning. Having shot both non-coated and coated bores, I can easy validate that accuracy between cleaning is three to four times greater with moly. Again, this is a very well documented fact. 2. I will not begin to critique anyone else�s writings. I will say that I do not find many of the testing methods worth a flip. Most of these comparisons are done to simply fill blank pages and are not conducted with much regard for the scientific method. In any event, I know what works for me and I could give a rat�s ass if some magazine contradicts what I am successfully accomplishing. The gains that I am enjoying are worth the investment. If you want more information, call Walt Berger, David Tubb, or Sierra and speak to them about their findings. [ 02-17-2003, 03:46: Message edited by: Zero Drift ] | |||
|
| Moderator |
Zero Drift Thanks for taking the time to send those emails. Much appreciated. Bakes | |||
|
| <Gerard Schultz> |
We have been moly coating our bullets for the last 5 years. Before making the change to moly, I did some extensive testing with moly and plain bullets and also tried several different processes. Testing involved several thousand rounds, through a variety of calibers, two of each for comparison, and took almost four months to complete. We eventually settled on a process developed in conjunction with a local industrial chemist and ourselves. The process uses no waxes, additional coatings, sealers or baking cycles. The bullets are properly pretreated and the highest grade moly is applied mechanically. The disadvantages of moly compared to plain? There are none. Cleaning is done as usual, there is no build up of moly anywhere that needs special techniques or goop. Buildup happens when the coating is too thick on the bullets or other junk is used to seal the moly. The advantages? Bullets have a better shelf life through not tarnishing. Barrels run cooler and therefore lasts longer. Flame erosion is reduced. (I have a 22-250 Shilen barrel with no rifling for about 9 cm. All it took was around 800 rounds, culling for the venison market with uncoated jacketed bullets.) Barrels are easier to clean on similar length shot strings compared to plain bullets. So if there are no disadvantages and only two and a half advantages, what is there to discuss? Moly is better than uncoated when done properly. Same as many other things in life. Some bullets are better than others because they are done properly. Same with rifles, cars, clothes, hamburgers and milkshakes - done properly. | ||
|
| one of us |
I just got off the phone with Sierra. The tech said that the only advantage to moly was extended cleaning intervals. Thus a target shooter could benefit during long strings. My specific question was what bullet to shoot in my 220 Swift varmint rifle and I brought up moly. I was told to stay with no moly due to the need for bore prep and fouling shots. The tech went on to say that there is no advantage in wear or accuracy at all. That the velocity will be less and therefore the powder charge must be increased. As you know Sierra does sell moly coated bullets done by the Necco process. I agree that for something to work it must be done right. | |||
|
| one of us |
QUOTE: --------------------------------------- I was told to stay with no moly due to the need for bore prep and fouling shots. --------------------------------------------- Thanks all for contributing,unfortunately peoples experience differ.BUT even if we believe all,it appears 1 piece of advice maybe: dont use moly coating in a hunting rifle as the next naked Cu bullet will be unpredictable due to altered barrel conditioning.Once you commit to moly you have to stay with it.That is doable in a target or varmint rifle.Not so for a hunting rifle-IMHO. thanks sheephunter | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I have to strongly disagree with this. In fact, I think it is flat out WRONG! The only "bore prep" you have to do with moly is shoot 25-30 shots through it. Done. Then clean it with 1 patch of JB and a couple patches with Kroil every approx. 100 rounds. This is far easier than cleaning a plain bore. Plus your first shots will be closer to POA than a clean, non-moly bore. But you say "You don't have to fire that many shots to season a plain bore". Well, that's just not true. If you use Wipe-out or an Outer's Foul-out and get your bore spotlessly clean (like it is when you are starting to season one with moly), you will find that it takes you...25-30 shots for it to settle in! Then after you give the normal bore a normal cleaning, you find that it still takes a few shots to settle in. Moly shoots closer from a cold, clean bore. As an aside, when I shoot fewer than 100 shots, I usually run one Kroil patch through the bore. After that, It's ready to go another 100 rounds. No need to use JB every time. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading MolybdeniumSulfide coated bullets,"substance from hell"?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |