What happens to the Lube

[S&WIowegan]

I am an active USPSA and IDPA shooter and handloader. It is quite common to find pieces of hard lube stuck to cardboard targets when scoring. Happens primarily with subsonic ammo like 45 ACP.

 

[Forrest r]

I read the article. It is very interesting indeed !

It does a great job of presenting a logical theory. He backs up his theory with presentation of what went into the barrel, what came out of the barrel, and what was left behind in the barrel.

It makes great sense. And, it may be what is happening in the barrel. But we don't know.

We don't know, because he presents no proof. There is no way we can "see" what is going on in the barrel as it is being fired. The pressure and heat is too much for present technology.

As for the lube-grooves being compressed - were the grooves compressed by the force pushing the bullet from the rear as it was fired?

Or, were the grooves compressed from the bullet stopping suddenly, and the rear of the bullet piling into the stationary front, when it hit whatever it hit ?

It looks very much like those bullets hit something, as evidenced by the distorted noses.

Ballistics is a very difficult "science", because Ballisticians really cannot prove what has happened. They can theorize, and use that theory until something comes along to disprove it (as all science is supposed to be done), but proof is very difficult.

If you ever are around long enough to test your own lubes & alloys for a specific bullet/powder/firearm combo. You would have a very different real world take on what you read.

I'm not talking 50 or 100 test rounds. I'm talking 1000's of the same bullet/powder/firearm combo over decades of testing/shooting.

Some see theory because they don't have enough knowledge/experience to know any difference.

 

[Nemo288]

The only thing I know for SURE is that some of it is vaporized.
I have loaded the exact same load with a jacketed and a cast bullet and the cast/lubed bullet produced at least 3 times as much smoke.
This was to test the supposed "smokiness" of Unique powder and they were shot in the same gun.
The jacketed load produced very little smoke.
If I recall they were 240 grain bullets, 7 grains Unique in a 44 special.
Lube was more than likely a hard one as the cast bullets were commercial, either Oregon Trail or Beartooth.

 

[silentflyer]

"what is she thinking" ????????

NO Man has ever figured out that one.........

 

[DumpStick]

If you ever are around long enough to test your own lubes & alloys for a specific bullet/powder/firearm combo. You would have a very different real world take on what you read.

I'm not talking 50 or 100 test rounds. I'm talking 1000's of the same bullet/powder/firearm combo over decades of testing/shooting.

Some see theory because they don't have enough knowledge/experience to know any difference.

And some see evidence in support of a theory for exactly what it is : evidence in support of a theory.

Face it, if anybody had proof of what was happening, they would say something like this -
" Here is my video/photo showing the lube inside the barrel doing 'X' "

or-

"Here is my pressure graph from inside the barrel, showing the instant that the lube does 'Y' inside the barrel."

That proof simply does not exist.

Just because the proof doesn't exist does not mean that your favorite theory isn't true, it just means you can't prove it. As I stated about the LASC article, it is a very logical theory. He does show evidence to support it. It sounds good, and may very well be what is happening.

It's just that proof is lacking. Which is why it's a theory.

And, notice I did that without calling into question anyone's knowledge, or experience.

 

[SMSgt]

I'm dropping out of this science class.

 

[rockquarry]

In support of DumpStick... much cast bullet lore is based on "conventional wisdom" that some consider to be fact. Sometimes, maybe more often than we'd like to admit, the "conventional wisdom" even as it becomes "fact" is flawed because it has never been proven.

We still can't agree as to the complete function of bullet lubricant.

 

[Forrest r]

And some see evidence in support of a theory for exactly what it is : evidence in support of a theory.

Face it, if anybody had proof of what was happening, they would say something like this -
" Here is my video/photo showing the lube inside the barrel doing 'X' "

or-

"Here is my pressure graph from inside the barrel, showing the instant that the lube does 'Y' inside the barrel."

That proof simply does not exist.

Just because the proof doesn't exist does not mean that your favorite theory isn't true, it just means you can't prove it. As I stated about the LASC article, it is a very logical theory. He does show evidence to support it. It sounds good, and may very well be what is happening.

It's just that proof is lacking. Which is why it's a theory.

And, notice I did that without calling into question anyone's knowledge, or experience.

If you say so. I'm not going to banter about any article on lubes. It isn't my favorite article by any means. And as far as I can tell it's put bullet lube into a perspective that no one else as come close to in this thread.

I've found that people tend to take the easiest path when trying to understand something. This thread is no different. I'm glad to see you want what you consider proof, hence someone else has to do the leg work and provide you with a video.

I got an idear, why don't try to prove/dis-prove something yourself????

It don't take no Bodie rocket science, but it does take someone that has the ability to not only test bullets/lubes/loads. They have to have the ability to understand not only what they are actually testing. They need to understand the results they have from their testing.

Some people play checkers, others play chess. The people that play checkers tend to use google & the people that play chess tend to use the actual tools, parts & do actual testing.

 

[DumpStick]

With respect Forrest r, it seems that you and I are not communicating along the same lines.

Good day, sir.

 

[Nemo288]

Well the air in here seems to be getting a little thick.
I am moving over to using powder coated and plated bullets!

As our preferred system to investigate and hopefully explain the unknown, science many times generates as many or more questions than it answers.
I am of the opinion that this is for the best.
How bored would we be if there were no questions?
Only tyranny prefers such a state of affairs.
Long live confusion!