Brushing lube into rifle necks

[JFrank]

When in doubt ? Brush it out….

 

[blue32]

Is there a reason to vibrate in walnut once fired? Are you jacking the out case onto the ground or is the carbon so thick it requires management?

I tumble to remove most of the carbon on the outside. Thumbs get tired doing it by hand.

 

[GW Staar]

It would be interesting to run a test of lubed vs not lubed and see what it does to es & sd

I haven't run such a test on es & sd, but I did run a test trying to find the best way to get bullets and necks to expand and load with the best concentricity. And you also have variables with which sizing dies you use.....expander plug or bushing sizer dies. I use bushing dies now

Isn't it well known that not lubing necks and pushing in and pulling out an expander plug can warp necks out of concentricity? Sure does in my experience. That's why I was taught to lube necks many years ago with a inside neck brush and some lube from the ole lube pad. But since I bought a Trim Mate I use the white mica powder that came with it. I think powdered graphite would be even better...but dirtier. The mica works so that's what I use, and from my testing it works as good as a wet lube.....but that's with a single stage press.....with a progressive, I'm not convinced anything can work that well, so for rifle I tend to size first with the bushing die before loading a case feeder for the progressives. Station one now gets a "M" neck expander for ease in bullet feeding. I know somes don't like the idea of sizing separately, but i do because I get more accurate ammo that way. It is still way faster than using just the single.

Now as for lubing necks for bullet seating......I never even thought of doing that. I thought the idea is to seat bullets that will hold the seating position and not push in too easy. That seems a bit risky. ( or is that old school too?)

 

[JFrank]

Quote: Now as for lubing necks for bullet seating......I never even thought of doing that. I thought the idea is to seat bullets that will hold the seating position and not push in too easy. That seems a bit risky. ( or is that old school too?

Don’t confuse dimensional bullet hold with friction.

 

[BushMaster-15]

Old school here, don’t want squeaky clean necks, or lube left in necks.

BN dry lube ?. One can also smooth inside the neck using a lathe or a drill press and fixture jig .

 

[GW Staar]

Quote: Now as for lubing necks for bullet seating......I never even thought of doing that. I thought the idea is to seat bullets that will hold the seating position and not push in too easy. That seems a bit risky. ( or is that old school too?

Don’t confuse dimensional bullet hold with friction.

Whatever name you give it.....the hold is from friction. Even a vice turned in tighter just makes more friction, until ridges cut into the part and hold it mechanically.

 

[JFrank]

Whatever name you give it.....the hold is from friction. Even a vice turned in tighter just makes more friction, until ridges cut into the part and hold it mechanically.

You can test this for yourself with a bushing die and a brush or dry lube.
Friction won’t change the size of the bushing but it will change seating force.

 

[JFrank]

@GW Staar
My apologies for using your post to make a point. This subject came up recently while discussing force packs connected to Arbor presses.
Jim

 

[GW Staar]

None necessary, Jim, but I'm too dumb to see the point. I thought I picked a bushing size based on the resulting inside diameter of the neck that when expanded by the "M" die,might still apply the necessary friction against the bullet to hold it in place , yet not so small that the edge of the case would relieve the bullet of some of its starting diameter. Of course using the "M" die does require a little taper crimp to deal with that "M" shelf. Maybe the fact that me and an arbor press have never been in the same room, has something to do with the lack of understanding on my part?

One thing I know: in 50 years I have never lubed during bullet seating, and somehow I got away with it. On the other hand, I have been guilty of under lubricating a case neck while sizing, and regretted that most every time.

My apologies to the OP for this exchange....we all still have things to learn....that's why we are here.

 

[Nature Boy]

I haven't run such a test on es & sd, but I did run a test trying to find the best way to get bullets and necks to expand and load with the best concentricity

I deal with concentricity 2 ways.

When it matters the most, I’ll purchase custom dies honed to the chamber specs of the rifle I’m loading for.

For off the shelf dies I use the old trick of putting a rubber O ring between the locking ring and the tool head, which helps the die center itself with the case.

 

[Walkalong]

I deal with concentricity 2 ways.

When it matters the most, I’ll purchase custom dies honed to the chamber specs of the rifle I’m loading for.

For off the shelf dies I use the old trick of putting a rubber O ring between the locking ring and the tool head, which helps the die center itself with the case.

View attachment 1146956

The LNL bushings do that for you.

 

[Varminterror]

Whatever name you give it.....the hold is from friction.

"Friction" is dependent upon multiple variables, and we don't control all of these variables, and creating the same friction by one variable vs. the other is NOT always the same. As I said earlier, there IS a difference between grip, grab, and stick when it comes to friction.

"Friction" as a force is quanitifed: f = µ * N

Where µ is the coefficient of friction, and N is the "Normal force," meaning the force being applied 90 degrees relative to the surface and/or direction of movement. The coefficient of friction, µ , is dependent upon multiple factors.

AND... The coefficient of friction actually changes whether an object is moving or not. For example - if you push a heavy box across carpet, you push hard until the box moves, but once it starts, it feels like it moves easier than it took to get started; because it IS easier to move once it is moving, because the coefficient of STATIC friction is greater than the coefficient of Kinetic Friction (or sometimes called "coefficient of dynamic friction"). Lubricants reduce the coefficient of friction and also typically reduce the difference between static and dynamic coefficients.

So there IS a big difference between creating "bullet hold" by increased tension - increased normal force - which we manipulate by changing neck tension, and creating "bullet hold" by increased coefficient of friction. The transition during preliminary movement and corresponding pressure curve is more stable (or less destabilized) if our primary ignition doesn't include the pressure curve "tripping" over the edge of static friction. Kind of like pushing that heavy box, if it suddenly moves and you're pushing very hard, you might fall down when the resistance suddenly and dramatically changes.

Equally, we don't really have control over consistency of coefficient of friction if we don't do SOMETHING to control it. If we have more carbon serving as lube on one side of the case than another, or we have brass-on-copper stiction on one side but not the other, then we don't have consistent bullet hold, and don't have consistent bullet release. The bullet slides in the neck before the case pressure has increased enough to open the neck from the bullet (which is what we want), so we don't want uneven hold between the neck and the bullet. Doing almost ANYTHING to the necks will cause more uniformity than the arbitrary and random powder residual left from firing. Dry tumbling, spraying, brushing, whatever - as long as the action isn't selective/biased for angular position (i.e brushing necks with something looking like a tiny toothbrush rather than a round brush).

THAT is why it's favorable to create bullet hold - friction - by holding force rather than by coefficient of friction, static or otherwise.

Cold weld takes time, a lot of it

Correcting my own vernacular here, true "cold weld," aka "stiction" happens immediately. But it's also much more rare than folks realize - a lot of folks, myself included, use the term "cold weld" to describe the increased coefficient of static friction between case necks and bullets which largely happens due to slight oxidation of the metals over time, which isn't really "cold weld" - true "cold welds" happen when a surface is sufficiently cleaned and sufficiently polished (and machined) that the atoms at the surface of separate parts are uniquely able to get close enough together that - in a matter of speaking - they don't recognize that they're not actually connected within the same part. That only happens when there is no surface oxidation, but this bonding happens instantly as soon as the atoms get close enough together to "forget" they're not actually together. Molecular level cold welds - stiction - effectively promotes a dramatic increase in coefficient of static coefficient. So when we have REALLY clean brass and REALLY clean bullets, we can have varying degrees of cold weld between cases and bullets, making our friction inconsistent, which, in principle, can (and does) make our primary ignition also inconsistent, hence the difference we see in velocity variability in those side by side tests.

 

[AJC1]

"Friction" is dependent upon multiple variables, and we don't control all of these variables, and creating the same friction by one variable vs. the other is NOT always the same. As I said earlier, there IS a difference between grip, grab, and stick when it comes to friction.

"Friction" as a force is quanitifed: f = µ * N

Where µ is the coefficient of friction, and N is the "Normal force," meaning the force being applied 90 degrees relative to the surface and/or direction of movement. The coefficient of friction, µ , is dependent upon multiple factors.

AND... The coefficient of friction actually changes whether an object is moving or not. For example - if you push a heavy box across carpet, you push hard until the box moves, but once it starts, it feels like it moves easier than it took to get started; because it IS easier to move once it is moving, because the coefficient of STATIC friction is greater than the coefficient of Kinetic Friction (or sometimes called "coefficient of dynamic friction"). Lubricants reduce the coefficient of friction and also typically reduce the difference between static and dynamic coefficients.

So there IS a big difference between creating "bullet hold" by increased tension - increased normal force - which we manipulate by changing neck tension, and creating "bullet hold" by increased coefficient of friction. The transition during preliminary movement and corresponding pressure curve is more stable (or less destabilized) if our primary ignition doesn't include the pressure curve "tripping" over the edge of static friction. Kind of like pushing that heavy box, if it suddenly moves and you're pushing very hard, you might fall down when the resistance suddenly and dramatically changes.

Equally, we don't really have control over consistency of coefficient of friction if we don't do SOMETHING to control it. If we have more carbon serving as lube on one side of the case than another, or we have brass-on-copper stiction on one side but not the other, then we don't have consistent bullet hold, and don't have consistent bullet release. The bullet slides in the neck before the case pressure has increased enough to open the neck from the bullet (which is what we want), so we don't want uneven hold between the neck and the bullet. Doing almost ANYTHING to the necks will cause more uniformity than the arbitrary and random powder residual left from firing. Dry tumbling, spraying, brushing, whatever - as long as the action isn't selective/biased for angular position (i.e brushing necks with something looking like a tiny toothbrush rather than a round brush).

THAT is why it's favorable to create bullet hold - friction - by holding force rather than by coefficient of friction, static or otherwise.



Correcting my own vernacular here, true "cold weld," aka "stiction" happens immediately. But it's also much more rare than folks realize - a lot of folks, myself included, use the term "cold weld" to describe the increased coefficient of static friction between case necks and bullets which largely happens due to slight oxidation of the metals over time, which isn't really "cold weld" - true "cold welds" happen when a surface is sufficiently cleaned and sufficiently polished (and machined) that the atoms at the surface of separate parts are uniquely able to get close enough together that - in a matter of speaking - they don't recognize that they're not actually connected within the same part. That only happens when there is no surface oxidation, but this bonding happens instantly as soon as the atoms get close enough together to "forget" they're not actually together. Molecular level cold welds - stiction - effectively promotes a dramatic increase in coefficient of static coefficient. So when we have REALLY clean brass and REALLY clean bullets, we can have varying degrees of cold weld between cases and bullets, making our friction inconsistent, which, in principle, can (and does) make our primary ignition also inconsistent, hence the difference we see in velocity variability in those side by side tests.

The cold weld aka ionic bond seems different in very old cases with powder breaking down. I mention it to ask if there is a different and more correct nomenclature for that process or if it's the same thing with a chemical/gas oxidizer.

 

[Varminterror]

The cold weld aka ionic bond seems different in very old cases with powder breaking down. I mention it to ask if there is a different and more correct nomenclature for that process or if it's the same thing with a chemical/gas oxidizer.

Yeah, the colloquial vernacular of "cold weld" is misused pretty heavily and pretty broadly, especially by reloaders. As I mentioned in my last, I even use the term "cold weld" when talking about oxidation "bonding" of bullets in brass, which isn't really bonding, but rather the oxidation expands the materials and we get greater interference fit as well as the physical interlocking of the oxidation. Whether that oxidation is caused by internal humidity in the case or by decomposition products of degrading powder, or by external environmental exposure, it's still just oxidation, no different than a bolt rusting into a nut and seizing from that physical expansion and interference fit. But when a bolt rusts and seizes in a nut, we just say "it's rusted" or "it's seized," but for whatever reason when we talk about bullets oxidizing into case necks, we say "cold weld," even though it isn't, but we all say it wrong, so we all get it... "accuracy" and "precision," "mags" and "clips."

 

[AJC1]

Seems like I've seen substances listed as brass oxides under #2 present in the breakdown of gun powders aka nitro cellulose...


Brasses containing less than 15% zinc can be used to handle many acid, alkaline and salt solutions, provided:

1. There is a minimum of aeration
   
   
2. Oxidizing materials, such as nitric acid and dichromates, and complexing agents, such as ammonia and cyanides, are absent
   
   
3. There are no elements or compounds that react directly with copper such as sulfur, hydrogen sulfide, mercury, silver salts, and acetylene.

 

[jaguarxk120]

I will use a brush that has oil on it to lube case necks when resizing. That small amount of oil
ease's the passing of the expander ball when pulling the case out of the resizing die.
BUT my cases are washed to remove any oil or resizing lube from them.
Using oil/lube when seating bullets, that is a big no-no, why would you want to mix oil and gun powder or
having a film of oil coating a primer?

Do the Factory's use oil when making loaded shells?

 

[GW Staar]

THAT is why it's favorable to create bullet hold - friction - by holding force rather than by coefficient of friction, static or otherwise.

Friction is still friction....everybody knows there's more force needed to start a body at rest than keeping it moving, unless there is no friction. But most reading this thread aren't scientists or engineers, and probably don't care about the coefficent, static, or friction in motion. I do know that the friction needed to hold a bullet where it needs to be in a stretched case when chambered, is way less than that required to turn cartridge into a bomb.....thankfully.

 

[Varminterror]

Friction is still friction.

I very specifically spelled out for you that, indeed, "friction isn't still friction," and why. There are two contributors to friction, and in the context of case neck lubrication, or not, and especially in the context of wet tumbled or ultrasonically cleaned brass (chemically cleaned brass), the differentiation between the influence of increased coefficient of static friction as differentiated from coefficient of kinetic friction, are both important distinctions to be made from influence of Normal Force resulting from neck tension. 3x4 = 12, but also 1x12 = 12, and when we can control ONE of the numbers easily and NOT control the other very easily, AND when one number inherently changes MORE between 0fps and 1fps if we don't do anything to control it, yes, there IS a difference in how we get to the friction force number, and getting to the same number by changing coefficient value vs. changing normal force value is NOT the same thing... Friction isn't just friction...

Friction is a function of coefficient of friction AND normal force, and the consequences of inconsistency and our ability to create the same friction via either independent variable are important in the context of reloading.

 

[Varminterror]

Brasses containing less than 15% zinc can be used to handle many acid, alkaline and salt solutions, provided:

Cartridge brass, as a material class, typically contains ~30% Zn.

 

[AJC1]

Cartridge brass, as a material class, typically contains ~30% Zn.

Which could possibly mean that in the case I presented it could be more vulnerable to the degradation I proposed..... why does interaction result in combat.... not arguing

 

[Varminterror]

Which could possibly mean that in the case I presented it could be more vulnerable to the degradation I proposed..... why does interaction result in combat.... not arguing

Who's arguing about brass oxidation...? I must have missed something.

We know cartridge brass oxidizes - the 3 conditions for oxidation of <15% Zn brass alloys might not apply to ~30% Zn cartridge brass, but we know cartridge brass does oxidize. I wouldn't have thought that was up for debate. I wasn't quite sure why you mentioned specific conditions for oxidation of a non-cartridge brass alloy, but info is info, but I'm not interested in arguing that cartridge brass oxidizes, wasn't, and still am not.

Yes, I argued against the incorrect claim made that "friction is friction" above, for the reasons doubly stated in that post.

 

[AJC1]

Who's arguing about brass oxidation...? I must have missed something.

We know cartridge brass oxidizes - the 3 conditions for oxidation of <15% Zn brass alloys might not apply to ~30% Zn cartridge brass, but we know cartridge brass does oxidize. I wouldn't have thought that was up for debate. I wasn't quite sure why you mentioned specific conditions for oxidation of a non-cartridge brass alloy, but info is info, but I'm not interested in arguing that cartridge brass oxidizes, wasn't, and still am not.

Yes, I argued against the incorrect claim made that "friction is friction" above, for the reasons doubly stated in that post.

My position was longterm storage could result in an abnormal oxidation condition as a result of the gasses and chemicals presented in #2 of the list provided. This may be the case often presented by slamfire.

 

[Varminterror]

My position was longterm storage could result in an abnormal oxidation condition as a result of the gasses and chemicals presented in #2 of the list provided. This may be the case often presented by slamfire.

If a case was presented by Slamfire, that certainly explains why I missed it.

But yes, it is well known that products of powder degradation can cause oxidation of cartridge brass. I'm not certain the point exploring causes for cartridge oxidation in the context of this thread, I brought up oxidation as a mis-used name for stiction, cold-welding, to point out the difference between the immediate occurrence of cold-welding, stiction, as opposed to oxidation which takes a long time, which we mistakenly colloquially call "cold weld." There used to be a sub-set of shooters which believed ammo loaded more than a few days before matches needed to be seated long, then re-seated before matches to "break cold welds." Which in the case of stiction, true molecular cold welding, it didn't, because it would simply re-stick, and in the case of oxidation - well, it didn't really happen for any ammo which was well kept and not very, very old. But shooters have chased sillier voodoo in the past.

 

[Walkalong]

Yeah, the colloquial vernacular of "cold weld" is misused pretty heavily and pretty broadly, especially by reloaders. As I mentioned in my last, I even use the term "cold weld" when talking about oxidation "bonding" of bullets in brass, which isn't really bonding, but rather the oxidation expands the materials and we get greater interference fit as well as the physical interlocking of the oxidation. Whether that oxidation is caused by internal humidity in the case or by decomposition products of degrading powder, or by external environmental exposure, it's still just oxidation,

Well, ever since I was a wee lad the old shooters called it "cold weld", so I figure it's kind of grandfathered in. Many terms come to be accepted that way..

 

[JFrank]

I’m speechless.