Brent, the moly system I use comes from Midway USA. You add clean bullets (I use brake cleaner in a spray can) to a tumbler, throw some moly powder over them, turn on and leave the room for 20 mins. Wipe off the excess and voila, moly coated bullets.
I do not use any wax as I believe that this will cause excessive fouling and has lead to the bad rep of moly. Carnuba wax has a very high flash point (I doubt it burns completely in the barrel). It is also very tough to remove - why it works so well on cars. I prefer to get my hands a little dirty and not have any issue with wax buildup.
I do not coat the bore with any of the preps. The one I tried was more of a pain then it helped. I just shoot the coated bullets. Will take 4 to 12 bullets to get the barrel to settle down. Every barrel is different.
From there, I just shoot until I get feel really guilty and clean the barrel. Usually well over 100rds, sometimes before I store for the winter.
For WWII and production barrels, moly can reduce bore friction and maintain a "consistent" bore so that accuracy stays for a lot longer. Also, I am able to reach published vel. where without moly, pressures were too high. Moly does not stop copper fouling but reduces its affect on accuracy.
Not sure if there is any benefit in BR barrels. Internal friction and fouling are very low already. For tight barrels, it can help with pressures.
I moly coat every bullet simply because it is easy, cheap and has never hurt performance. In rougher barrels, I have seen some really big gains.
As to getting super velocities, I am not sure. What happens is I get the vel that the case/bullet weight/barrel length should allow. Vel and pressure are still directly related. More vel, more pressure - no free lunch. Without pressure measuring gear, I will never know for sure.
When I clean, I use the GM stuff to take out the carbon, the ammonia to remove the copper. When the patches go from blue to grey, I stop. I feel this is the moly layer and do not need to clean further.
I find that my barrels don't need many rds to settle down. A couple shoot right away.
However, if your barrel needs a bunch of rounds to settle down, why clean it in the first place???
My dad uses the pill bottle in the tumbler method too, no wax. We never noticed a difference in any of them that were coated so they don't get used much anymore, he still does, just not as much.
Thanks, I appreciate you explaning your method, reasons and results. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Might try the coated A-Max's in the 300 Ultra sometime. I know exactly how much it takes to clean it and how many rounds it'll take before accuracy falls off, might be a good canidate.
I would not moly coat the 178gr Amax bullets for the ultra. I did this before and had problems with lack of expansion. I do moly coat for target loads and my 223 which has no expansion problems. The advantage of moly on target bullets causes a severe disadvantage on bullets meant for game. The moly causes the bullets to have less rifling marks etched into the bullets which for target shooting is better because of wind effects and lack or reduction of fouling. On rounds meant for hunting this lack of etching will cause less or no expansion. I have seen this on all my rifles from 25-06to my 300ultra. Like I said I have not had problems with any 22cal bullets and that is probably because of their thin skin. I have put pin holes through woodchucks with my ultra and the moly coated 178gr Amax. Post mortems show no signs of expansion inside the animal just a tiny pin hole right on through. I thought this incredible from a 178gr polymer tipped bullet traveling at 3250fps. I get 3296 fps from the non coated amaxs and they expand much better.
Any bullet of the same diameter will have the same grooves in it on exit, moly or not... they may be coated grooves but, they have no choice in the matter, they wouldn't make it out the bore without them. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
I don't doubt your experiences with moly vs. non-moly, just what you attribute the lack of expansion part to. I've never heard of a geliten test that ever talked of higher penitration with moly or anyone claim such an event. I doubt moly affects initial expantion and thus any further expantion, especially with a polymer tip type bullet or a HP. The bullets integrity is simply comprimised when it hits something at speed, what it hits determines how quick that happens, when this happens it starts slowing down because of the increase in diameter and reduced weight reduce the sectional density... not much to it really. I think the 223 has a thinner jacket than the 30 cal, that would explain the lack of expansion in them small critters when using the Ultra sometimes.
That said, I could be wrong too, I'm only speculating on the moly/penitration thing but, I'm of the mind that a pass through shot isn't as bad as most people would like to make it out to be, the more damage done on the way through the better... hit em in the right spot, either way and they're goin down fast. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
Hbar, I think what you are saying is that moly bullets engrave less thus the jacket is not as compromised - "cut". Unfortunately, I disagree. The bullet has to make it down that barrel and the dimension of the grooves don't change.
The only thing is that the moly acts as a high pressure lubricant and reduces bore friction. As to increasing jacket integrity, forget it. Moly will wipe off on your fingers. It just fills in the pores of the jacket. Paint would be stronger as it actually adheres to the jacket.
The lack of bullet expansion is probably a situation where tough bullet met very soft target. The 30 cal AMax are quite strongly built (compared to varmint bullets) so may not expand when hitting light targets, especially at extended range.
In my comparisons, the amax 168gr are "weaker" then the 165gr Nosler BT at high impact vel. This makes the amax suitable for LR hunting or high impact vel varminting.
First off the idea behind moly is that it is a lubricant and thus the less fouling in the barrel. Anyone that has spent time reading about machining theory has learned about deformation and deposits left behind when machining something. These are the very same principles that happen when the bullet is swedged down the barrel. Just the idea of more fouling being left behind by a non coated bullet is a hint that the integrity of the jacket has been compromised to a higher degree than a coated bullet. There is a reason that you get less velocity from a coated bullet versus a noncoated bullet and using the same powder charge. This reason is in part because the bullet does not compress as much longitudinally which causes the barrel to not seal the gas behind the bullet as well. A noncoated bullet will seal the barrel better because when it gets hit in the butt by 60,000 plus pounds and having a higher level of resistance will compress and fill the barrel to a higher degree. Has anyone here seen the add that Berger had out showing the coated and noncoated bullets side by side. The coated bullet shows less etching hence a higher level of bullet integrity hence less expansion. Correct me if I am wrong but a bullet expands because it loses integrity and deforms. Remember I did not say the rifling does not etch the bullet but I did say it will etch it to a lesser degree. I in my experiences with the 178gr Amax with coated and non coated bullets shows that the coated bullets pin hole through achuck and the noncoated ones well make ground chuck out of chucks. I like the DRT theory and seeing some red mist when I smoke a chuck and the same goes for larger critters. I agree whole heartedly with the difference between the jacket thickness and that is why I said what I said about the 30cal bullet and moly coating. You will get a more dramatic effect without moly. Hey does anyone have access to a water recovery tank? If so shoot some coated and non coated rounds into it and then let me know what you think. I actually had a gunsmith point that add from Berger out when discussing the moly thing and lack of in my mind good expansion. If I wanted to chase something through the woods after I shot it I would use an Xbullet. I figure on a deer size critter if the bullet makes it out the other side I want at least a fist size hole out the other side. I don't think I will ever convince a critter to run to the truck so I like the DEAD RIGHT THERE idea. Besides I am a lousy tracker(I haven't had much experience in it).