Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Chatting and General Stuff > General Discussion

General Discussion Must wear red or OD green socks to participate. I can't see your socks, please be honest.


Reply

A Bore Cleaner Test

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #15  
Old 09-24-2006, 12:40 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 181
Re: A Bore Cleaner Test

Thanks, keep us updated. Good luck on your moose hunt too.

Chris
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-26-2006, 11:36 AM
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 31
Re: A Bore Cleaner Test

Copper Test 2 Post

I did the tests requested on Montana Extreme 50 BMG, Wipe Out, and Bore Tech Eliminator.

I also ran a test to see if Warthog would cut lead. It doesnít cut lead and we donít make that claim. It simply wonít clean lead out a barrel. Iím going to look into that after the hunting season, mostly out of curiosity.

I ordered Montana Extreme 50 BMG, Wipe Out, and Bore Tech Eliminator from Mid South Shooters Supply. I ran the tests the same way I tested in initial solvents, with one exception. I used bullets from the same lot, however I did not have enough 140 grain Barnes X bullets, so I used bullets that weighed 139.7 grains on my RCBS digital. I opened the bottles of Montana Extreme 50 BMG and Bore Tech Eliminator and dropped the bullets into the solvent and left them in for 24 hours. I put the Wipe-Out down a clear plastic tube in something that resembles putting it down a rifle bore.

Frankly, after hearing what I hear about these cleaners, I approached testing these 3 cleaners with apprehension. It was a misplaced apprehension. The tests speak for themselves.

The Results:

Montana Extreme 50 BMG
139.7 Grains Before the test.
139.7 Grains After the test.
000.0 Grains lost.

Wipe-Out
139.7 Grains Before the test.
139.6 Grains After the test.
000.1 Grain Lost.
Biggest problem with Wipe-Out: The foam melts way into a thin liquid and gravity forces that thin liquid to pool at the lowest point. The foam seems like a good idea but I have a feeling that users are only getting half a cleaning because of the pooling noted, and at the rate it cuts copper, not a very good cleaning.

Bore Tech Eliminator
139.7 Grains Before the test.
139.7 Grains After the test.
000.0 Grains lost.

You can go here to have a look at the details of the test. The new test results are near the bottom of the page. Scroll down the page to the new test.

http://warthog1134.com/bullet_test_1.htm

Anyone can do these tests. Get some of the products in these tests, drop the bullet of your choice in a bottle of the stuff, or in the case of Wipe-Out, try to keep the stuff on the bullet, and then compare the weight of the bullet before and after. Am I wrong to believe that a copper cutter ought to cut copper, if the label says it cuts copper? Most of the products I tested donít cut copper, and those that do, cut it poorly and very slowly.
__________________
warthog1134.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-26-2006, 11:52 AM
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 31
Re: A Bore Cleaner Test

[ QUOTE ]
The test is 100% invalid and not very useful. I worked with the most famous ammoniacal chemist on the planet and an laboratory chemist to come up with a valid test. Ammonia facts: <ul type="square">[*]Ammonia quickly evaporates and looses strength[*]Ammonia strength is measured by density (called Baume)[*]Ammonia requires Oxygen to dissolve Cu - immersion tests are invalid and not what happens when you clean your barrel[*]Janitorial grade Ammonia is a waste of money - Baume-ing out about 7-8. 26 Baume industrial Ammonia is only $15/gal and the way to go[*]Ammonia has never been proven safe for gun barrels.[/list]
My tests lead me to believe that ammonium hydroxide solutions are very ineffective against carbon fouling. Butches Bore shine, or GM Top Engine Cleaner part # 1050002 work.

I've talked to several materials engineers who are emphatic that ammonia will attack the iron in gun barrel alloys. The ammoniacal chemists will not conjecture but ask me to do the test we came up with (to determine if Ammonia is safe).

I've got the two ammoniacal experiments on my 2-do list but they haven't made the top 50.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an example of how facts can be used to distort.

Ammonia will attack the iron in a gun barrel. So will water that's in the air as humidity. Yet I don't see, nor have ever seen, any shooter wrapping their shooting irons in water proof material to keep the moisture and hence, rust off the iron. Rust is a combination of water conndensed to the metal and time for the chemical process to work. That's why every ammonia based cleaner has a limit on the label as to the time it's allowed in the barrel. You take away the time needed for the process to work.

Ammonia does need oxygen to dissolve copper. The key is supplying the oxidizer and that's a trade secret.
__________________
warthog1134.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-29-2006, 10:35 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 172
Re: A Bore Cleaner Test

Guys,
I bought some and ran my own experiment. In short, this stuff is worth some followup testing and use by others. I would suggest some others buy some and let's try it out for awhile and then compare notes.

Here is a link with photos.


http://precisionlongrangehunter.com/eve/...3881#9771083881
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-30-2006, 01:31 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Re: A Bore Cleaner Test

[ QUOTE ]

Ammonia does need oxygen to dissolve copper. The key is supplying the oxidizer and that's a trade secret.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now you've got my attention. Now I can see how your product is vastly superior to other ammoniacal agents in <font color="red"> sealed tests.</font> The other agents need oxygen for the ammonia + cu reaction to take place. Without 0xygen, no reaction. Your product - by containing an oxidizer can rapidly dissolve the copper.

But cleaning (coating) a gun barrel in nothing like your sealed test. Once a gun barrel is coated, the ammonia is in an oxygen rich environment. Now the biggest problem is evaporation. I'm guessing your product would have no advantage over the better ammoniacal cleaners (or 26 degree baume aqueous ammonia) and would suffer from the same evaporation problem.

I can see one possible advantage. If you had an exceptionally copper fouled barrel - you could fill the barrel with Warthog 1134 -then seal the barrel and leave it over night.

In that case I can believe you have an advantage.

Your web site reports for Montana Extreme 50 BMG - <font color="red"> 0,000.0 Grains lost.</font>
Does anyone who's used Montana Extreme 50 BMG really believe it doesn't remove copper? It just demonstrates how your test cannot be applied to cleaning guns and how there is zero correlation between the efficacy of a gun barrel copper solvent and your rigged tests.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-30-2006, 02:02 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Re: A Bore Cleaner Test

Montana Extreme 50 BMG


[ QUOTE ]
This is an example of how facts can be used to distort.

[/ QUOTE ] Cliches have no magical power, despite their popularity. Dropping a cliche does not dismiss or reject a statement you disagree with.
[ QUOTE ]

Ammonia will attack the iron in a gun barrel.


[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get that information? I've been working with an eminent ammoniacal chemist (ammoniacal etching of copper is a billion dollar industry) and a very competent laboratory chemist. The literature is silent on this question - thus my proposed experiment to definitively answer the question.

Note phase one of the experiment would only answer the not so useful question, "does (high baume) ammonia attack gun barrel alloys". A much better question is "does ammonia in the strength used to clean guns, and the duration of exposure, cause any measurable deleterious deterioration to the gun barrel. I suspect the answer to that 2nd, much more difficult question is "no". Getting a definitive answer to the first may yield the latter moot.
[ QUOTE ]

So will water that's in the air as humidity. Yet I don't see, nor have ever seen, any shooter wrapping their shooting irons in water proof material to keep the moisture and hence, rust off the iron.


[/ QUOTE ]
Many hunters apply a thin oil coating to their barrels after cleaning (which forms a moisture barrier). Most of my guns are stainless steel which is not reactive to humidity (esp when the gun is cleaned, the barrel oiled). Wrapping steel in a vapor or even moisture barrier expedites oxidation and would be the worst thing you could do you your gun (as far as promoting oxidation). But you do make a valid point - even if minimal/inconsequential damage is done, and a significant improvement is made - you have a very positive transaction.

[ QUOTE ]

Rust is a combination of water [sic]conndensed to the metal and time for the chemical process to work.


[/ QUOTE ]
Iron oxide is formed by the combination of water and iron - water from condensation, sweat or any other source. I don't think any modern firearm is made from pure iron. Gun alloys have differing oxidation reduction potentials. My stainless steel Lilja pipes are far more oxidation resistant than my old blued factory 30-06.

[ QUOTE ]

That's why every ammonia based cleaner has a limit on the label as to the time it's allowed in the barrel. You take away the time needed for the process to work.


[/ QUOTE ]

Labeling in no way establishes the truth. (Just read most of the labels at the store). It's very easy to demonstrate how rapidly ammonia evaporates. My guess is the <font color="purple">Time labeling </font> wives tail is just myth handed down. It's trivial to take a baume meter and measure the strength of ammonia. Now dump the ammonia into an inert (uncovered) container. The ammonia will rapidly evaporate (the rate dependant on the container topology, humidity, temperature and wind. (I do much of my cleaning outdoors or indoors with quad high speed fans)

My main points remain unchallenged. The tests are 100% bogus because
<ul type="square">[*] Ammonia quickly evaporates and looses strength [*]Sealed immersion tests are invalid and not what happens when you clean your barrel.[/list]
I do get your main point, that even if ammonia is not 100% non-reactive to gun barrels, it does far more good than harm. That is likely true, especially when used in moderation and only when necessary (as Daniel Lilja recommends).

My guess is that wipe-out (with the accelerator) works better than I thought possible because the bubbles trap oxygen and seal the barrel (slowing down ammonia evaporation). I have no empirical evidence to support my wipe-out conjecture.

It's impossible to baume test wipe-out so I can't measure it's strength. The other cleaners are too expensive to baume out too.

Here's a free tip for your web pages. When using FP to make a new page, set the pseudo meta-data HTML &lt;title&gt; tag to something appropriate (besides "New Page 1")
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-30-2006, 10:27 AM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 172
Re: A Bore Cleaner Test

Big Bore,
First, please disclose if you have any financial or personal interest in any cleaning product if you don't mind. That's not an attack, just basic protocol for discussion of scientific information with commercial interests. I ask because you have 50BMG on your tag line. Don't know if that is your deer rifle or you run MX. If I read it correctly, your point was that he did an immersion test which puts the bullet in the absence of O2 and for 24 hours at that. I agree that does not best replicate the cleaning process, so I tried to think up something more similar. I just poured it over the bullet and left the surface exposed for 12 minutes. There definitely were differences with all of the products between the top/exposed surface and the bottom which was in the liquid except for the 50BMG and Sweet's which really did not change much. Also, what is your take on the Barnes results from my test? It really chewed the bullet up on the top/exposed surface without turning the patch very blue. I don't have any stake in the debate, just trying to figure out what works. I really don't care how a product works as long as it does. My conclusions and opinions, and they are just that, are the 50BMG and Sweet's are not as effective as the Barnes, Coppermelt and Warthog products. I'm no chemist, that's just what my eyes tell me from looking at the bullets right in front of me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: A Bore Cleaner Test
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kerosene as a bore cleaner. 4ked Horn Equipment Discussions 3 09-14-2010 11:00 PM
GM Top Engine Cleaner #1050002 bore cleaner for sale $8 a can woodshed Reloading Equipment and Components 13 04-12-2010 03:03 PM
New Bore Cleaner ( I Think ) Stugotz Equipment Discussions 4 01-24-2006 12:22 PM
What type of Bore cleaner? TrpD345 Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 8 08-19-2005 08:00 PM
Wipeout Bore Cleaner mbigley Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 4 10-02-2003 03:22 PM

Current Poll
Do you plan to buy a new custom rifle in the next 12 months?
YES - Of course - 72.94%
1,650 Vote
NO - wife/girlfriend won't let me. - 27.06%
612 Votes
Total Votes: 2,262
You may not vote on this poll.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC