I was packing to take my Tikka 223 to the range for some CB development and I tossed a 20 pack of cheap, Russian FMJ rounds in my shooting bag to maybe do some plinking. Then I got to wondering if the copper would affect CB performance. My old reloading book, written by John Wooters says not to mix them.
I could see not shooting copper in a benchrest gun, but do you avoid mixing the two in your other rifles?
Attached Files
Wooters was correct. Copper will definitely affect the accuracy of your cast bullet loads. All traces of the copper should be removed by cleaning before testing your cast bullet loads.
David Reiss - NRA Life Member & PSC Range Member Retired Police Firearms Instructor/Armorer
-Services: Wars Fought, Uprisings Quelled, Bars Emptied, Revolutions Started, Tigers Tamed, Assassinations Plotted, Women Seduced, Governments Run, Gun Appraisals, Lost Treasure Found.
- Also deal in: Land, Banjos, Nails, Firearms, Manure, Fly Swatters, Used Cars, Whisky, Racing Forms, Rare Antiquities, Lead, Used Keyboard Keys, Good Dogs, Pith Helmets & Zulu Headdresses. .
Attached Files
You can prove this by shooting cast from a copper-fouled bore, then clean it, and see the groups improve. Most/many used centerfire rifles will come to you already copper-fouled and ready to do this experiment.
I don't have reams of well-organized data, like an old guy like me really ought to have, but I have seen this several times myself and am convinced that Wooters is correct.
Attached Files
So....I get to the range and get out my bullets and find that I grabbed a box of 44 magnum reloads instead of the 223 45 grain pressure series I had loaded up! Good thing I brought a box of Wolf ammo or else I would have had nothing to shoot. Bad thing is, now I have to clean the copper out of the barrel. By the way, that Wolf metal case ammo is some crappy stuff.
Attached Files
I have always been skeptical of the "no jacketed bullets" rule. Did this rule emerge when barrels were really soft?; when cast alloys were really soft?; with a really rough bore? I am not saying it is wrong. I am just saying I have never seen the data.
Attached Files
This is the sort of question that should have been settled 35 years ago by the time the CBA was 5 years old but like Scearcy I have never seen the results of a well controlled test that gave hard evidence one way or another. Why don't we make it a forum project to gather data and see - does it hurt accuracy of the CBs, if so how much, how much copper fouling does it take to do how much damage to accuracy (there may be a difference for a heavily fouled old military rifle and a CB rifle that has had 20 JB shots through it) bore roughness may, or may not affect the outcome.
We may not be able to pin it down to a simple definitive answer but we should be able to learn something about the issue. It's another excuse to shoot and help keep us out of the bars in the afternoons. This may or may not be as interesting as lobbing CBs and a paper coyote but it won't take a 200 yard range.
Mitch has already done some experimenting and if he can find some of his old notes that would be a start.
Lotech make a good point it may depend on the rifle as well as other factors but pinning it down a bit would be a contribution to what we know about cast bullet shooting beyond old hand-me-down pronouncements.
Wooters was a smart guy so I am betting that he was right if somebody offers the right odds, but let's either support his opinion or cast a bit of doubt on it.
If we get enough data to propose conclusions it would make a good TFS article giving the results a bit of durability instead of vanishing into cyberspace when this thread ends.
How about it? Any skeptical or curious shooters without a winter project?
To kick things off, I will produce the results of a short test -- clean bore -- twenty shots with CBs -- no cleaning -- 20 shots with factory level JB loads -- no cleaning -- 20 shots with CBs (from the same lot as the first 20 CBs.) These will be fired through a modern cold hammer forged barrel that is quite smooth, but not lapped. I won't promise exactly when because it it too darned cold for me to shoot some days here in the high desert.
John
Attached Files
I think it would require the use of several extremely accurate cast bullet rifles to come up with anything worthwhile on the subject. There may be something to this, but at the moment, it appears that much, if not all discussion, is based on "conventional wisdom".
I've never seen any merit to the claim of cast bullet accuracy loss in a copper-fouled bore. I'm speaking here of normal, moderate fouling, not a neglected, heavily fouled bore that would degrade the accuracy of any bullet, cast or jacketed.
Conversely, in defense of what may be a questionable conventional wisdom claim, I may not have any rifles accurate enough to do a definitive evaluation and my scopes may lack the high magnification which might be necessary to prove anything.
Attached Files
In my "modern" caliber rifles, I always use jacketed to establish an accuracy "benchmark" But clean all copper out before shooting cast. However, in my IHMSA days, I was shooting both .357 & .41 Mag. revolvers using cast for chickens & pigs and switching to jacket for turkey and rams. I usually would run a bronze brush thru a few times before shooting jacketed..but a couple of times I forgot & didn't notice any difference in accuracy. Maybe with rifles higher pressures it would make a difference?
Attached Files
Lotech,
You are right our knowledge on the subject is probably based on conventional wisdom which may or may not be true. All the more reason to see if we can't drag it out of that category and some decent experimental backing -- one way ot the other.
I don't believe there is any valid reason to believe that to do a worthwhile study you have to have nearly perfect (extremely accurate rifles) to find valid results. Few research labs in any field have the very finest and most precise equipment. They have budget restraints just like everybody else. Still such labs produce a lot of valid research. If it isn't true in other fields why does the idea keep popping up that to find out anything useful about cast bullet behavior it takes extremely precise equipment.
It is probably true that if you get statistically significant results with a 1 MOA rifle that copper fouling doesn't affect accuracy it might not be assurance that such fouling might not affect accuracy at the .5moa level but people with rifles less accurate than 1moa (95% + of CB rifles) could quit worrying, thus useful information for most shooters.
On the other hand if you got statistically significant results that copper fouling affected accuracy at the 1moa level it surely would be valid for more accurate rifles. Of course you might then wonder if it affects rifles that will only average 2moa. You could even argue that you would need results with a less accurate rifle to find the answer.
There is nothing wrong with either outcome. All research results have limitations on where they can be applied.
John
Attached Files
I did a little test on this back in 1990. I was shooting both jacketed and cast from my Shilen barreled .223 prairie dog gun. I shot 5 rounds with the Hornady 50 gr. SX bullet and 28.0 grs. of T-2208. I then fired two groups with the RCBS 22-055-FN bullet and 13.0 grs. of IMR4227 (2049 fps) which measured 1.58 & 1.51. Cleaned the bore with Sweet's 7.62 Solvent. This was all done at the range of course, and even with Sweet's I find it takes numerous patches over several days to get all the copper out of a barrel. So running a handful of patches thru at the range isn't going to get all the copper out, even from just 5 rounds, but a lot of it came out on the blue patches. Fired another group that went 1.35". Then I cleaned the bore with LBT bore lap, and fired a .78" group. I don't have the patience to do a long, drawn out test, so this was good enough for me. Remember, I did preface this by saying it was "a little test"....
Glenn
Attached Files
Glenn,
I will happily accept your results. Let the statistical nit pickers fight over what is valid and what is not. Personally I don't care. How many times do you have to burn yourself to learn that the stove gets hot?
B.E.Brickey
Attached Files
Aren't them gas checks made out of some copper alloy? Or does the fact that the lead is in front of the gas check negate the copper in the gas check? I will have to shoot some jacketed stuff out of my 223 and then my lead/gas checked load to see if my accuracy goes to pot.
Attached Files
Curious shooters will look forward to your results.
Attached Files
Gas checks are a copper alloy, but they are comparatively short and usually sliding on a very thin layer of lube from the bullet. I would imagine the friction is comparatively very low which should reduce the tendency for it to rub off and/or adhere to the bore.
Attached Files
Does anyone use the old Blue Goop concoction? I've got 12 oz of ammonia, 1-1/2 Tbs of peroxide, and 5 inches of 14ga wire brewing in a lightly capped glass bottle. Not sure of the concentrations of my ammonia and peroxide.
Unless someone stops me I'm going to clean my Tikka 223 with it. I won't leave it in long. Then it will get a good flush with WD-40 and/or soapy water.
All the recommended de-copperers run about $30 with shipping. This is a do-it-yourself sport. I have the ingredients for BG in my bathroom.
I plan to use this gun as a dedicated cast boolit rifle.
Am I running afoul?
Attached Files
Greetings,
max053, thank you for posting the article. I plan on trying it in a week or so after returning from the big city. I will post results of cleaning if I remember it.
TK
Attached Files
Why are we taking about cleaning copper out of gun barrels? Hoppes #9 cleans copper out of gun barrels, and has done so very well since 1842, when it was invented by Jeremiah Hoppe. Put #9 on a patch, push it thru, back and forth about 5 times, throw the patch away. Another #9 patch, another 5 X push, throw it away. Keep on until patch is clean, about 3-5 patches. Leave barrel with #9 in. Come back in 2-24 hrs, do it again. Keep doing it until there's no blue/green on the patch. Done.
This is NOT a secret, hasn't been since 1842. Why are we/you talking about it now?
Attached Files
====
The question being asked isn't how to clean copper out of bores but rather -- is it necessary to clean copper out of bores. Some of us are lazy and don't like to do things unless they are needed. Also sometimes it might be handy to shoot both JBs and CBs during one trip to the range (see the original post) and copper removal with most elixirs requires soaking.
If a few, or many, shots with JBs degrades accuracy, how much does it degrade accuracy? Will I miss a deer or only miss winning a match.
John
Attached Files
Getting the old copper fouling out can be a real chore. Lots of cleaners, some better than others, some you don't leave in the bore for long or you have real problems. Bore Tech makes a product called "Eliminator". After trying it I would not use anything else again. Eliminator has no ammonia, Environmental friendly and can be left in the bore over night. Cleans the fouling out without much effort.
bob
Attached Files
I too use Eliminator, also use KG-12 which is also non-amonia. No odor, no worries, cleans out copper as well as anything I've used. I also never put a rifle away after shooting it without thoroughly cleaning it (that's the way Dad taught me) so, as long as I shoot the cast bullets first, not a problem.
John Carlson. CBA Director of Military Competition.
Attached Files
The ammonia is also important. The ammonia complexes the copper and helps bring it into solution. The copper ammonia complex, called Schweizers Reagent, is well known in the textile industry.
I have used Sweet's 7.62 cleaner for many years. If you leave the cap off the ammonia evaporates and the stuff does not work.
My experience is in pistols and revolvers. If the cast load has good lube and does not lead, shooting cast after jacketed shows no effect. If the cast load is "on the edge" and perhaps leaves some leading, shooting after jacketed makes the leading worse and accuracy falls off.
Ransom Rest testing with 45 ACP target loads showed no difference. Important because I wanted to use a jacketed load on the 50 yard line and there was no time to clean the barrel in the match.
44 magnum loads showed a difference - sometimes.
My answer: It depends on the gun and the load. To be sure remove the copper.
Attached Files
"More barrels have been ruined by cleaning than by shooting." This makes sense to me. Even with a bore guide and a high dollar coated rod I still want to keep strokes to a minimum. That why I'm going to try the Blue Goop. (I just haven't got around to using it yet, but its done brewing.) It won't be in the bore more than a couple of minutes and I won't be abrading the rifling with multiple passes of the rod. If the patches come out blue I'll know it's working.
Anyway, that's what I'm thinking.
Attached Files
Having shot a lot of lead through barrels formerly used for jacketed bullets I have several observations:
1. If you want gilt edge accuracy (ie. match accuracy) clean the barrel first.
2. If you want to shoot high velocity (with cast over 2000 fps) clean the barrel first.
3. If you want to shoot cast occasionally through a copper fouled barrel who cares as long as you aren't shooting no. 1 or 2.
4. I haven't noticed any real degradation in accuracy in my handguns where I have occasionally used jacketed bullets. This may be due to my insufficiency with handguns any more, but I never did notice any real drop in accuracy.
I am not trying to "settle" this discussion only to give my personal observations.
B.E.Brickey
Attached Files
i know nothing about this... but
i have had some very knowledgeable zero-shooters in mj benchrest tell me not to put ammonia in a good barrel ... maybe be worth another review....
***************
further trivia is that i had a friend here in farmerville stick his head in an an agricultural ammonia tank to see how much was in there ... one whiff got him into a hospital and out of the army .... 28% is pretty close to that ...
ken
Attached Files
i know nothing about this... but
i have had some very knowledgeable zero-shooters in mj benchrest tell me not to put ammonia in a good barrel ... maybe be worth another review....
***************
further trivia is that i had a friend here in farmerville stick his head in an an agricultural ammonia tank to see how much was in there ... one whiff got him into a hospital and out of the army .... 28% is pretty close to that ...
ken
++++++++++++++
I haven't tried my Blue Goop yet. I'll probably try a less aggressive product first.
Attached Files
I finally got around to loading and shooting a small test today to see if shooting 20 rounds of jacketed bullets degraded CB accuracy afterward and if so how much.
To minimize labor I scrounged around and found 37 left over sized and lubed bullets from a lot that didn't quite shoot up to snuff. Hate to throw things away that take labor to produce. This was enough for three 5-shot groups before 4-5 shot groups of factory level JB and 4 5 shot groups of CBs after. CB load was 85 grain spitzer bullet of 25:1, Remington 71/2 SR primers, and 5 grains of TiteGroup.
For jacketed I found a box of Herter's 55 gr. Semi Pointed World Famous rifle bullets that were more accurate that any other rifle bullet or your money back. Additionally, these had been seasoning for about 60 years.
Resits:
CBs before: .90, .64, and 1.52 MOA -- Average 1.02 MOA
Jacketed : 1.82, 1.68, 1.64, 1.96 MOA -- Average 1,77 MOA
CBs after: 1.06, 0.78, 1.84, 1.86, MOA -- Average 1.38 MOA
This shows an enlargement in groups of 36%. Using Joe's statistical charts for dummies and extrapolating a bit, indicates a confidence level of maybe 75 -- 80 percent. Not a sure thing but a pretty good chance that if we do more testing it will still show a loss of accuracy tending to confirming the conventional wisdom and remarks by Glenn, Brodie, and others.
John
Attached Files
.... funny thing ... the herters bullets were bad, but consistently bad ... if bullets are randomly bad, shouldn't they give highly varying groups ??
or maybe every herters had a jacket exactly the same amount out of round. if so, the groups should have been donut shaped, and according to Dr. Mann if oriented just right they would have made a very small group ...
meanwhile, our castings seem to get beat up randomly, just as Dr. Newton might predict ...
hey, its the weekend ... don't blame me ... ( g ) ...
ken
Attached Files
Wow, I guess John has proved the point. For field applications like bunny busting I could get away with that but not for match shooting.
Cheers from New Zealand
Attached Files
Ken sez:... funny thing ... the herters bullets were bad, but consistently bad ... if bullets are randomly bad, shouldn't they give highly varying groups ??
Ken,
I think the four similar groups with Herter's bullets is just the way the lottery came out and probably doesn't tell us anything about the bullets except that they don't shoot too well. A month ago or so I had a string of many groups stretching stretching over a couple of days that all measured within a very narrow band. This amazing string of same size groups was shot with the CB load used in this experiment. Yesterday groups with the identical load varied by a factor well over 2.0 in strings of only 3 and 4 groups.
I think we often underestimate how much just flat depends on chance, and Lady Luck sometimes serves up amazing strings of tails without a single head -- especially when I am betting on heads.
John
Attached Files
Hold the conclusions. I'm afraid I have presented the results of a botched test. When I finally got around to cleaning the bore I found it badly leaded. After generous application of steel wool, lead out and elbow grease the bore was clean but what do you do with test reports partially obtained with a leaded bore? Probably do the test again.
I now think that the bullets I dug out of that drawer were probably from a year ago last September when I was bore cleaning after every target card at the 2017 NT to avoiding loss of accuracy. Should have thrown the left over bullets away.
By looking at the group sizes with this new information the two good groups followed by much bigger ones, in both CB strings, take on a different light. Full charge JBs will clean out lead giving the CB string after the JBs a fresh start.
CBs after: 1.06, 0.78, 1.84, 1.86, MOA -- Average 1.38 MOA
If I had only fired two CB groups before the jBs and two CB groups after the results would have looked like this:
CBs before: .90, .64, -- Ave. =.77 MOA
CBs after JBs: 1.06, .78. -- Ave = .92 MOA
Still looks like the JBs didn't improve accuracy, but only 20% worse and based only two 5-shot groups for each condition -- still, a strong hint that accuracy was degraded.
I will find some bullets that fit better and produce strings of groups that don't grow and try again.
John
Attached Files
Question for John
you stated there was lead in the barrel so the first test was invalid. Wondering did the lead get there from your experiment shooting non lubed bullets? Also after shooting 20 rounds of factory ammo shouldn’t that have cleaned the lead out ?
Attached Files
Good questions. So far I haven't detected that the non lubed bullets leave more lead flecks than the lubed bullets and the non lube test was with a different bullet that hasn't leaded (as in bonded lead.) Also before this test I cleaned the bore. You are right the factory level ammo should have removed any lead as I mentioned in my post above.
Also since the first two CB groups in both the before and after strings averaged under one MOA I think that is further evidence that both the before and after strings started with unleaded bores. The dramatic increase in group sizes in both strings and the actual bonded lead found after the second string makes me believe that both strings leaded affecting the groups after the first two. That is only my assumption of course. The experiment is pretty well busted when you have to start making assumptions afterwards and I will try to run a clean test after I do some more casting.
John
Attached Files
You have to love to tinker and try things as cast bullet shooter. Each time I make it to the range if something works well I note the target. Next trip I repeat what worked. Sometimes the results are totally different , image that! But after a while you accumulate a batch of targets that show what worked most often. Then I blame the bad ones on myself. Off day? Most of us have thought many times that we had THE LOAD only to wonder what went wrong. I don’t know. When you figure it out please teach me.
Attached Files
johna ... if there is no difference in the bullet ring ( target ) between no lube and lube bullets ... it must be either fouling or the lead bullet itself leaving the ring. oh golly, maybe moly mj wouldn't screw up cast groups ... geeeze ...sorry i brought that up ... "time! .. time!" said the mad hatter ... must have been a cast bullet shooter ... heh ...
there is an optical limit to seeing 22 bullet holes at 200 yards ... and then add humidity, etc. to the photon splatter ... i think the real answer is a " camera " at the target talking to your bench receiver. these exists, not sure the cost or hassle .. probably have chinese ones on e-bray for $19.99 .... program target camera to send new pic every 10 seconds ... maybe already an app for i-phones ... ?
***********
paul matthews mentioned he had a mold made but the grooves were too shallow to hold enough lube so he deepened them ... maybe they were too shallow to hold all the displaced lead ?? ....
but then there are reports of leading only near the muzzle ... ? running out of lube ? ...cured by adding more lube .... so :: funky testing methods .... or > different barrels are different ....
glad to be of help ....
ken
Attached Files
I've wondered about that camera idea. Maybe a game camera that sends pics to your phone?
Attached Files
https://www.longshotcameras.com/
A shooter in our CBA military match clan has one these. Camera at the 200 yd. line. Then the app is programed into his smart phone where the target image can then be viewed at the bench. Works just as described. Neat affair. This manufacturer also has a device that attaches to your spotting scope that does the same thing without a smart phone.
Especially for us old blind Farts.
R.
Attached Files
I have had a camera suggested several time. I have always assumed that would be an excellent way to draw a protest because my neighbors, all shooting 30 caliber of course, tell me that they also sometimes have trouble seeing the bullet holes at Pioneer when conditions are wrong.
I'm sure that issue is going to rear it's ugly head so the Board should probably get ahead of the issue before a protest and decide how much technology we want to have. Electronic wind gages are not allowed. It seems to me that allowing cameras would be one more hurdle to attracting new shooters, especially for Production and Hunting Rifle classes. But I'm sure there is an argument for allowing cameras.
It would remove one of the real disadvantages of competing against the usual 30 calibers with a 22 so I should be all for it.
This might make a good topic for another thread but hopefully not here.
John
Attached Files
John:
I have had the long time continuing opinion ever since I started shooting competitively in 1966 that any shooting match is and should be a pure test of the competitor's marksmanship skills and not their ability to read conditions or anything else. We are talking about a physical impairment in this case, that likely everyone will be confronted with at some time in their life if they continue shooting long enough. Not a mechanical aid to gain some kind of perceived advantage. Two different things.
Getting kind of off topic here I fear.
R.
Attached Files
Well, you aroused my interest. On 6 Feb, a test of whether metal fouling degrades cast bullet accuracy was attempted. The details of the load are irrelevant except to say that before and after were identical. The bullets were all from the same run, and were Accurate 31-215 LG, their version of 311284. Alloy was COWW + 2% SN. Velocity from a 24" barrelled Rem 700V .308 Win was 1600 to 1640 (1640 previously chronographed at about 28 degrees). Range conditions were adequate. It was cloudy, wind 5 MPH or so, blowing directly towards the target. Range temperature was 13 degrees at the start of the test and didn't go up much, if any. Two ten round groups were fired from a squeaky clean barrel, and two from the post-jacket fouled barrel. Twenty rounds of home swaged 180 grain .308 dia bullets were fired between the test loads. These were in commercial jackets of gilding metal. Don’t know what the velocity was as I didn’t chronograph (hey, it was 13 degrees), but they were a near-maximum load of H 4895, so probably 2400 to 2500 FPS. I did not measure the size of the jacketed groups, but just shot them as quickly as possible without over heating the barrel. (again, 13 degrees.) I wazgonna attach a target, but one side of the target has disappeared from the pictures, and now I can't find the hard copy. I am NOT a techie. Nor, apparently, particularly organized. Group sizes, as measured by On-Target were:
Spread Mean Radius
Before
Group 1 1.654 0.641
Group 2 1.388 0.358
Ave 1.521 0.489
After
Group 3 1.436 0.481
Group 4 1.189 0.371
Ave 1.313 0.426
Difference (ave’s) 0.208 0.063
% (After/Before) 86% 87%
The “After” groups were slightly less than 15% smaller than the “Before” groups. Based on this, it would seem that there might be a slight edge to the “After” condition, but I suspect that it’s a non-result. I don’t think the barrel was particularly fouled. I cleaned the crud out with Ed’s Red and a dry patch, added accelerator and soaked with Wipe-Out for two hours. The first patch came out only very faintly blue. Nothing at all thereafter. I’ll plead ignorance on this. Of the heaven knows (I’ll not take the time to count) how many rounds have gone down this barrel in the last seven + years, these are the first jacketed rounds. Apparently, it takes more than this to thoroughly foul the bore. It looks as though this one is going to be time consuming to test, as it would seem that small amounts of fouling don’t have a major effect on accuracy, at least for 1 to 1.5 inch rifles, at frigid temps. Based on this and comments above, it's beginning to look like small amounts of jacket fouling don't really matter for most shooting. The deer would be dead with either condition. While these would not likely win Production class in a local match, it's as likely that they wouldn't finish last.
Attached Files
dbarron
All information is useful. I understand shooting at 13 degrees. Thank you. It is also nice to see mean radius used. Anything under .4 is a quality group particularly in those conditions.
Jim
Attached Files
My impression after following this thread is that it really doesn't matter, unless maybe you try shooting lead out of something like a semi-auto barrel that has had 100's or 1000's of jacketed bullets shot through it.
For my purposes, anyway, I can probably mix them up.
Attached Files
Nice clean test and well reported.
You should get a hero badge for arctic conditions. I have been waiting out a cold snap (for here) that's been topping out at 30 or so each day I guess my blood has thinned since leaving Maine for the banana belt.
John
Attached Files
i wonder if the criteria for a " mj fouled " barrel .... would be shooting until the mj groups got SIGNIFICANTLY larger ... high power guys might have an idea of when that might occur ....
my own longest mj string experience is with my 222 ... maybe 400 rounds of full loads of no cleaning.... with groups not enlarging ...
an interesting subject ... so far it hints that
mj fouling sometimes makes cast groups worse, but maybe not wildly worse ... maybe.
ken
Attached Files
This thread started with the question by max503 – does JB fouling degrade CB accuracy? It has wandered a bit with detours for cleaning elixirs and target cameras but I think the original question is worth working on. This warning of JB fouling is another conventional wisdom “we all know” that is supported by only anecdotal evidence as far as I can find – a very weak stick. In a 1-29-19 post I reported that my first try to test this old rule was questionable because of bore leading and said I would try again with bullets that fit better to avoid leading.
Our local range opened yesterday after a two-week closure by a 30” snow and today I shot another test. The CB load was a different lot of the 85 grain 25:1 spitzer bullets, Mag Tech SR primers, 6 grains of Blue Dot giving approximately the same MV as the earlier load with the same Tikka 223 rifle and no evidence of leading this time. The twenty rounds of jacket bullets were from the same box of Herter 55 grain wonders with the same load as before.
CB 5 round groups starting with a clean bore. -- .97, .84, 1.26, 1.08 moa -- Average 1.04 moa
Jacketed 5 round groups – 2.20, 2.48, 1.34, 1.76 moa – Average = 1.95 moa
CB 5 round groups after JBs -- .46, .80, 1.50, .92 moa – Average = .91, moa
For a person who believes that small differences in even two groups prove things (Joeb’s statistics be damned) this “proves” that a bit of guilding metal fouling improves accuracy of cast bullet loads by 14%.
But usually such conclusions are jumping the gun. It seems to me that these results give a hint, but not much more than a hint, that a bit of JB fouling may improve accuracy (in complete opposition to what most of us have been told). Consulting Joe’s tables this 14% improvement for eight 5 shot groups has a confidence level of much less than 70% -- far from certain. As usual, more groups need to be shot if we want to be more certain.
It would be interesting to see this experiment replicated with other calibers, alloys, muzzle velocities, increased JB fouling, etc. I hope someone will jump in and try it.
John
Attached Files
John .Odd that in both cases, fouled groups were 14 percent smaller. Probably coincidence, but I don't trust coincidence. Maybe someone else will jump in with a different number and put it to rest.
Attached Files
I think that that this post describes the only reasonable test on the topic, and will put it up on the "CAST BULLET INFORMATION" Yahoo group unless someone has additional info or testing. We can always add info. Let me know if you object.
joe b.
This thread started with the question by max503 – does JB fouling degrade CB accuracy? It has wandered a bit with detours for cleaning elixirs and target cameras but I think the original question is worth working on. This warning of JB fouling is another conventional wisdom “we all know” that is supported by only anecdotal evidence as far as I can find – a very weak stick. In a 1-29-19 post I reported that my first try to test this old rule was questionable because of bore leading and said I would try again with bullets that fit better to avoid leading.
Our local range opened yesterday after a two-week closure by a 30” snow and today I shot another test. The CB load was a different lot of the 85 grain 25:1 spitzer bullets, Mag Tech SR primers, 6 grains of Blue Dot giving approximately the same MV as the earlier load with the same Tikka 223 rifle and no evidence of leading this time. The twenty rounds of jacket bullets were from the same box of Herter 55 grain wonders with the same load as before.
CB 5 round groups starting with a clean bore. -- .97, .84, 1.26, 1.08 moa -- Average 1.04 moa
Jacketed 5 round groups – 2.20, 2.48, 1.34, 1.76 moa – Average = 1.95 moa
CB 5 round groups after JBs -- .46, .80, 1.50, .92 moa – Average = .91, moa
For a person who believes that small differences in even two groups prove things (Joeb’s statistics be damned) this “proves” that a bit of guilding metal fouling improves accuracy of cast bullet loads by 14%.
But usually such conclusions are jumping the gun. It seems to me that these results give a hint, but not much more than a hint, that a bit of JB fouling may improve accuracy (in complete opposition to what most of us have been told). Consulting Joe’s tables this 14% improvement for eight 5 shot groups has a confidence level of much less than 70% -- far from certain. As usual, more groups need to be shot if we want to be more certain.
It would be interesting to see this experiment replicated with other calibers, alloys, muzzle velocities, increased JB fouling, etc. I hope someone will jump in and try it.
John
Attached Files
Some interesting discussions going on but to answer the original post, I only shoot cast in my CB rifles and only jacketed in my jacketed rifles. Some cast rifles get BP only and some smokeless only but never both. Jacketed are smokeless only. Thanks, Squid
"Squid Pro Quo"
Attached Files
dbarron writes: "John .Odd that in both cases, fouled groups were 14 percent smaller. Probably coincidence, but I don't trust coincidence. Maybe someone else will jump in with a different number and put it to rest."
===============
I assume you are talking about your test and my test showing similar improvements after jacketed bullets. It seems we agree that neither test is enough to claim a significant improvement. However, if further testing were to continue to show improved accuracy at some point it would become significant with a high degree of confidence -- who knows?
If enough future testing did show that a bit of guiding metal fouling did improve accuracy we should open minded about it. Who's to say that cast bullets like to slide over steel better than steel coated with guilding metal?
Of course we are only talking about the fouling from 20 rounds so far. At some point JB fouling may become harmful I hope testing will continue.
John
Attached Files
Greetings,
Shot some before and after groups Saturday, interesting. A couple comments first. My Savage 99 shoots the cast left of the jacketed (yes, I do fire both in the rifle), and the first shot out of a cold barrel is quite a bit left, then subsequent bullets strike somewhat right of the first shot but left of the jacketed. So, I have to either move sights or put up a siting target. I elected to move the sights on the scope and re-zeroed for jacketed afterwards. My rifle also shot first round left after sitting a bit while resetting targets. I did not include first shots that were definite outliers into the measurements, if the subsequent shots were out a ways I did include them. I cleaned the barrel a couple times before going to the range to let the solvent soak in for copper removal. I had somewhat limited number of rounds, so did not get 3X5-round sets both before and after with the same load. The best group was non-GC's after my comparison was done. I will have to do a run with those sometime. The mold used was a borrowed Lee 170 grain GC mold, and while I had it I cast about 500 bullets so I hope not to run out before the end of summer, batches are segregated. The load was LC82 case, CCI 200 primer, 17 grains IMR 4227, cast and weighed 170 grain, Hornady gas check, SPG lube, .309 sizer. Rifle Savage 99, .308. Weather overcast, 38-43 degrees as day went along, no wind. Shot off bench.
Before: group 3.12 inch mean radius 1.1 inch
group 2.84 inch mean radius 1.0 inch
group 2.42 inch mean radius 0.8 inch
Average MR 0.95 inch
Jacket mean radius 1.0 inch
After group 2.87 mean radius 0.9 inch
group 1.76 mean radius 0.6 inch
Average MR 0.77
Values are rounded off. Granted, a small population, but interesting and a starting point for me adding to the data base.
Just a couple random thoughts: 1. Does copper provide a bearing surface for smoother flight of lead? 2. Does copper microscopically fill in "potholes" allowing for better consistency? I did not have a chance to use the Chronograph to see if before and after groups had varying velocities.
TK
Attached Files
TK,
Thanks for pitching in with a test of your own. We have had three different experimenters and all three have found somewhat better accuracy after shooting JBs. However, all three have been tests with small numbers of groups so more data is needed.
How many jacketed rounds did you shoot to foul the bore?
John
Attached Files
Greetings,
John, I shot 15 jacketed rounds as I was planning on shooting 15 rounds before and after. I plan on doing more shooting tomorrow if weather permits. Different loads, 22 grains IMR 4227 instead of 16, and different jacketed load (165 speer btsp over 47 grains H414 vs speer 130 grain hp over 47 grains W748. ) If things go well I will use the Chronograph too.
Looking at the above, there was about a 6.8% decrease in group size and 5.4% decrease in MR.
TK
Attached Files
TK,
Unless I don't understand the numbers you reported, I believe your reported percentage decreases in group size and MR are in error.
Decrease in MR = (0.95-0.77)/0.95 = 19%
Decrease in group size = (2.79 (ave. before) - 2.31 (average after))/ 2.79 = 17%.
Please let me know if I have misread something.
Note that these increases in accuracy are similar to the 14% increases in accuracy that both dbarron and I found. It is highly unusual for the results of three independent experimenters using different equipment and different loads to find such consistent results. I plan to shoot another test tomorrow that may give us at least a hint whether this is just a coincidence or something more.
This isn't an exclusive game. Are there others who would like to join in the fun. The more data, the better.
John
Attached Files
Greetings,
My error in arithmetic, I used a different number off my working papers. (Besides, I like your numbers better) No, you did not misread; I miscalculated off wrong data.
Now, on to today's results. I shot 25 rounds cast, 12rounds jacketed, then 19 rounds cast (one case was cracked in the neck, so it went into the scrap pile while prepping cases). 5 rounds cast and 2 rounds jacketed were used to adjust scope. Load was LC82 case, Lee 170 grain GC weighed out as 170, CCI 200, 22 grains IMR 4227. Note different charge. Jacketed was 165 Speer BTSP, ADI case, CCI 200, 48 grains H414. Slightly different parameters, but if jacketed before cast improves cast groups, I think it would prove so generally across the board of variables; hence, some different round preparation. Results in inches. Groups for measurement were 5 round groups except for first group after jacketed, that was only 4 rounds. Extra rounds were shot to bring groups near bullseye but not measured. Some numbers rounded.
Results: Before Jacketed After
Group : 3.30, 2.22, 3.49, 3.72 AVE 3.18 3.79, 3.35 3.28, 3.34, 3.04, 2.68 AVE 3.05
Mean Radius: 1.28, 0.79, 1.51, 1.35 AVE 1.23 1.18, 1.19 1.28, 1.07, 1.12, 0.92 AVE 1.09
Results? After the jacketed the cast did better again. Difference in group size was 3.18-3.05=0.13. .13/3.18=.041; 4%
Difference in MR was 1.23-1.09=0.14. .14/1.23=.114; 11%
Hope I got it right this time John, otherwise I may have to stay after school and clean the blackboards.
I find it interesting looking at the group size averages the mean radius averages; looking at the targets there were a couple outliers in the groups that enlarged them, and some after groups had most rounds much closer to each other than before groups. What this seems to indicate to me is that using jacketed bullets just before cast bullets helps groups. Long term, who knows, but in the short run firing 10-15 rounds jacketed before cast would help my scoring slightly. I did not get the 14% mean radius difference, but at 11% that is still significant to me. I think my new motto should be paralysis by analysis as seen in an earlier report in the forum. I do like to work numbers in spite of my arithmetic.
John, hope your trip to the range was as good as mine, especially weather wise.
TK
Attached Files
Joe,
Thanks for your summary and plot of the data being collected on these before and after JB tests.
However, I think there is good cause to eliminate the data in the first four lines of the table - or at least most of it. After this test the bore was found to be fouled with hard to remove lead that required abrasives. I believe this caused the near doubling in group size of the 1.84 and 1.86 groups. Leading during the before groups may also have caused the 1.52 group. I discussed this in a 1-29-19 post.
Of course the summary is yours and adds to the usefulness of the test -- just my two cents worth.
John
Attached Files
John; what should I take out?
jope b.
Joe,
Thanks for your summary and plot of the data being collected on these before and after JB tests.
However, I think there is good cause to eliminate the data in the first four lines of the table - or at least most of it. After this test the bore was found to be fouled with hard to remove lead that required abrasives. I believe this caused the near doubling in group size of the 1.84 and 1.86 groups. Leading during the before groups may also have caused the 1.52 group. I discussed this in a 1-29-19 post.
Of course the summary is yours and adds to the usefulness of the test -- just my two cents worth.
John
Attached Files
Joe,
It's a judgement call of course. My first thought was to count the first two groups before and first two after. Hard to argue that they are affected by leading because they are about average for this rifle and load.
The other approach is to throw out the whole session because the leading causes second guessing.
I think the first approach is defensible but like the second better.
John
Attached Files
For casual readers that have dropped on on this thread and wonder what is going on -- here is a brief summary of work up to this point.
max503 started the thread wth this question on 04 January 2019:
Attached Files
Will someone delete the 2 pictures way above?
Thanks;
joe b.
Attached Files
I will go with the "Since 1903" for Hoppes No 9.
Why would Jeremiah Hoppe invent it in 1842 when I don't believer people were shooting copper jacketed bullets.....
Seems to me there were ctges- rimfire that had Copper cases, but still plain lead bullets at that time.
?????
beltfed/arnie
Attached Files
INdeed, I will go with the Hoppes No.9 "Since 1909"
First of all, back in 1842 , I do not believe that people were shooting copper jacketed bullets.
Closest thing in mid 1800s was Copper cased rimfire ctges such as the 22s and the Spencer 44 rimfire.
Bullets at that time were LEAD .
Second, Google verified the 1909 date
beltfed/arnie
Attached Files
I have to throw in the possibility that the high pressure loads for the jacketed bullets,
may lay down ( not only?) copper , but hard smokeless powder fouling that may have
slicked up the barrels. This is particularly with the ball powders such as 748 and H 414.
>>??????
beltfed/arnie
Attached Files
Finally got to the range today (March 29)for another try at the accuracy of CB after fouling bore with JB compared to accuracy from clean bore.
Load was the same as before except for a different lot of the same 80 grain spitzer bullets.
Accuracy of four 5-shot groups of CBs starting with a clean copper free bore .84', .70" .88", 1.50" -- Average 0.98"
Accuracy of four 5-shot groups of JBs 1.66, 1.70", 3.00", 1.64" -- Average = 2.0"
Accuracy of four 5-shot groups of CBs .78", 1.24", .42", .96" -- Average = 0.85"
Accuracy of the cast bullet loads were 13% better after fouling the bore with twenty rounds of jacketed bullets.
This result is similar to the previous four similar test results all showing improved accuracy after fouling the bore with 20 jacketed bullet . Groups shrunk by between 13 and 19 percent.
This is of course the exact opposite of what we thought we knew. Every experienced CB shooter knows that jacketed bullet fouling ruins cast accuracy because that's what we have been told. But when five series of groups by three different shooters using five or six different loads all show that 20 rounds of JB fouling improves accuracy an open minded shooter should begin to question the rule that you can't mix cast and jacketed bullets.
Of course these tests so far don't cover all the possibilities. What about the fouling from 50 jacketed bullet loads, 100 loads, 200? Surely gross guilding metal fouling, the kind that we have been told degrades JB accuracy would also degrade CB accuracy. We can guess but at this point we don't know that either.
Anybody have a rifle not cleaned since the last prairie dog shoot that you have a cast bullet load for? Shoot a few groups before cleaning and a few more after cleaning and see what happens.
John
Attached Files
The question that the tests so far are obviously not answering is -- what about the JB fouling from 50 shots. What about 100, 200 shots. What about enough to affect jacket bullet accuracy? There's a lot we don't know.
Brodie is going to provide some data. Who else is curious enough to do some shooting?
John
Attached Files
Cast bullet fouling shots have been mentioned here. Going back to "conventional wisdom" and its inherent flaws, and in opposition to the experience or claims of others, I've seen little need to fire more than one fouling shot in most cast bullet rifles with clean bores. Sometimes, these "clean" bores may even have a little un-removed copper jacket fouling in them.
However, with regard to fouling shots in rifles used primarily for full-velocity jacketed bullet loads, I've seen a real need for fouling shots in at least two of my rifles. A very accurate Cooper in .270 Winchester was cleaned to bare steel. It took about a dozen rounds to get this rifle shooting again. I had not only removed the copper fouling in cleaning, but had also JB'd the carbon fouling after many rounds had been fired in this rifle.
An accurate New Ultra Light Arms in 7x61 Sharpe & Hart will require about four to five rounds to get it shooting accurately after removing just the copper fouling, not carbon.
While visiting his shop thirty or more years ago, Ed Shilen remarked that there was no need to clean out all the copper in a barrel; just clean to the where accuracy isn't affected. I'm sure at the time he has speaking of jacketed bullet use only, but the advice will apply to cast bullet use as well, at least in most situations. Mr. Shilen's suggestion would require some trial and error work, but nothing difficult.
Attached Files
lotech,
Your experience with Jbs in your 270 and 7x61 Sharpe and Hart (haven't thought of that one for awhile) hints that a little bit of copper fouling may improve JB accuracy. This matches what our CB test seem to be showing as well.
A bit of experimenting with fouling and JB would be interesting.
John
Attached Files
joeb, 4/3/19
M10 Savage, M110 308 HV barrel,
314299, .3095, Lyman Super Moly, 15/A#9
Hornady 130 gr sp, 43/IMR4895
100 yard 5 shot group, inches, in order shot;
Clean barrel, 5 314299 sighters, 1.625, .8, 1.3, .925, .85,AVG = 1.1 then
130 Hornady, 1.6, .85, .8, 1.4, 1.825 AVG = 1.283, then
314299, 2.9, 1.8, 1.65, 1.1, 1.15, AVG = 1.72
Attached Files
i am tempted to read something into that :: the first cast load through the mj fouled bore affected the average greatly .... even more interesting if the widest shots were the first, second ...
your next 20 shots were close to margin of error .. the last 10 shots might show an improvement with a little mj fouling ...
such fun !! ... reminds me of my losing poker hands ...
ken
Attached Files
There always IFs.
If the toad didn't have such short legs he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground.
John
Attached Files
wimilkman
30
Tom Acheson
22
pat i.
18
Aaron
12
BRatigan
10
MarkinEllensburg
9
Ed Harris
8
mashburn
6
porthos
5
joeb33050
4
