Mike M. <DMMDNLN@AOL.COM>
Calif USA - Thursday, October 29, 1998 at 20:13:11 (EST)
Mike . <DMMDNLN@AOL.COM>
USA - Friday, November 20, 1998 at 13:53:03 (EST)
USA - Friday, November 20, 1998 at 16:35:36 (EST)
Bach Melick <email@example.com>
New Orleans, LA USA - Friday, November 20, 1998 at 16:55:06 (EST)
But given what moly does for my cleaning time and the fact that my barrell is going to wear out in 5 years or so(yes I'm a weenie and don't shoot cases a week, I say forget this maligning of the poor moly .
Next moly disulfide, again I don't care. Yes it is possible, yet I've not seen anyone report conclusive evidence. But hey my gun gets cleaned 1hr after I shoot. Not 6 months in a high humidity environment where the sulfuric contents eat into the metal. I am not a pro but listen to a bit of advice from people who pay the big money. If you see a bench rest shooter using moly on his $1000 barrell job and he gets great results. Then me and my piddly Savage that cost $550 with a great stock, and 0.25" holes at 100yds with 5 minute cleanings and 40 shots through the barrell will continue on in ignorance of the barrel gnawing moly.
I hope this won't spark the old moly debate again.
here & , there USA - Friday, November 20, 1998 at 17:07:23 (EST)
Jeff A. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Smyrna, Ga USA - Friday, November 20, 1998 at 20:55:46 (EST)
Marius Ferreira <email@example.com>
Pretoria, Gauteng, RSA - Monday, November 23, 1998 at 11:02:02 (EST)
Anywho, noticed that I had a considerable amount of moly dust (hadn't wiped the bullets down) that had spread from the bullets to coat small areas of the rest of some of the cartridges. Since the stuff is a lube, wouldn't it be just as hazardous as firing a lubed case? I.e., the case and neck don't "catch" in the chamber from the pressure, and the case is propelled back full force into the bolt?
So now I make sure I wipe the bullets, etc.
STL, Misery USA - Wednesday, December 02, 1998 at 23:01:11 (EST)
Mike M <DMMDNLN@AOL.com>
ca USA - Monday, December 14, 1998 at 13:46:23 (EST)
Mike M. <DMMDNLN@AOL.COM>
Calif USA - Thursday, January 07, 1999 at 11:33:52 (EST)
My first serious attempt to use moly was in 1997. Just prior to heading for the Canadian Nationals, I spent an afternoon playing with bullets dry coated with moly, and bullets that were greased with moly enhanced grease. A very interesting test at 200 yards with chronograph running.
With a clean and dry barrel the velocities climbed slowly for 5-7 shots with dry moly. Reversing the operation to clean bullets after moly didn't indicate any appreciable difference in velocities. With pre-greasing the bore lightly, with moly enhanced grease, the velocities were right there from the git-go.
I confirmed this to my satisfaction this past Labor Day at Cedar Springs, Ont. We were shooting at 900M in individual competition and switched to a team match for the final shoot of the day. I made the switch to moly-coated bullets from shooting clean ones. Elevations were horrible for at least the first five rounds!
Since that first bench test I've kept all my barrels greased and
waiting. Not only for that first good shot, but to also preserve
the several CM barrels that require ongoing protection.
I would sure be interested in hearing from others that have done such playing.
The moly-enhanced grease refered to is nothing other than readily available moly-grease that has been mixed with powdered moly to the point that it is quite dry, but still may be applied to a patch.
Bill Wylde <firstname.lastname@example.org>
FROZEN - SE, IL USA - Sunday, January 10, 1999 at 13:40:28 (EST)
Pat II <email@example.com>
still shoveling snow, in UT, USA - Thursday, January 28, 1999 at 03:59:07 (ZULU)
RE: Moly. First I'll admit that I do not use it myself. You might want to read the Kevin Thomas article in the Jan. 99 Precision Shooting. If you don't subscribe, then you should (as a handloader into long ranged shooting accuracy).
In a word, Kevin arrives at the conclusion that Moly does little real good other than maybe making cleaning easier. So unless there is some good reason that you would WANT to fire 300 rounds between cleanings, all the time and trouble of moly coating essentially comes doen to saving you a few minutes in cleaning time. The article is much more specific, but that's the gist, I think. Note that the author works for Sierra and apparently conducted his tests while Sierra was developing their new Moly bullets.
I think the lack of definative evidence on the subject (some people say it increases accuracy, some say it does not. Some people say it extends bbl life, some say it does not), should be enough to give pause. You might find that the many dollars and hours spent moly coating would be better spent at the range shooting.
Remember, just because Sierra (et al) sells it, does not mean that it actually DOES anything meaningful. My mind is open on moly, but I have zero real evidence that it does anything, and all of the comparison tests that I've seen have not shown any advantage other than easier cleaning.
The jury's still out, but I'd hold my money for now. (if you do the
math, you might find that all the money and special gear for moly coating
might be greater than the cost of a new bbl every 3000 rounds?)
Andre Peterson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Minneapolis, MN, USA - Friday, February 12, 1999 at 15:47:53 (ZULU)
Velocity. No matter what I tried, I could not match accuracy to velocity. In other words, if my best uncoated round shot .5" five shot groups at 2650 fps, the moly rounds could only shoot this group at 2430 fps. As I tried to increase the charge to get the velocity back, accuracy degraded. I never could match that 2650/.5" group with moly, no matter what the charge. Then of course there is consistency of velocity. Moly is claimed to provide this. Nope. Not in my reality. It was no more and SOMETIMES less consistent than uncoated. We'll call that indictment ONE.
Increase in accuracy with moly? Not at the ranges I tried. There was no difference noticeable. Period. I shot very good groups with and with out moly. But moly was more a hassle than cleaning the rifle - which I do anyway, regardless of coatings. For all the hype, moly did not seem to help accuracy what so ever. Will it at long range? Beats me. I couldnít get enough ACCURATE velocity to find out. Indictment Two.
Cold Barrel Shot. Forget it. With moly I could never see a consistent CBS on a clean rifle. It took about 10 rounds to get back on track. This so-called seasoning is totally unacceptable. The groups would be fine mind you, but they would not be where I wanted them! When I first started testing this particular rifle with uncoated rounds, the groups were always on zero. Indictment Three.
Barrel Heat. Here is one that seems for real. I could shoot more with less heat build up. Iíll give Moly a go on that one. The down side to that is (I think) that all that missing friction only served to lower my velocity. Also, as this rifle exhibited little tendency to open up with uncoated rounds, any advantage the cooler barrel would provide over the long run seems meaningless. Indictment 3.5.
Getting on target: At long ranges you might waste a few round finding your zero - especially from a clean bore. Ok (barely) for High Power, but not for tactical shooting (games or otherwise) where you might only get one shot. If you can not place that first round consistently where you expect it to go, you have a big NO GO. Indictment Four.
Cleaning. To me, this has been a non-issue. If you have a good bore, broken in properly, you should not be having major problems with cleaning anyway! I have fired well over 200 rounds in a day with uncoated bullets just to see what would happen and have seen NO difference with moly in terms of retained accuracy. Also with moly you might clean less, but you are still getting a build up in the barrel even if it is not copper. Worse, if you allow yourself to become habituated in NOT cleaning the rifle, you will miss things that might be important. Indictment Five.
Barrel longevity: Read Kevinís article. On his extensive tests, there was NO appreciable increase in barrel life. Period. This guy ought to know. He shoots a lot more than any of us in a controlled lab environment. I can not attest to whether the erosion process is slowed down with moly, but it would seem that once you get to that magic 2500 to 3000 rounds, the barrel goes south regardless of coatings. So why Bother? Indictment Six.
Moly is a hassle. It adds unnecessary steps to your reloading process and requires more equipment. Expensive equipement. Great for the retailer, but not so good for you. Just shoot the bullets clean, save the Moly start-up fees and shoot enough that the bore gets broken in the right way. Cleaning gets easier as you go. Short cuts and miracle compounds are attractive to us shooters. We love gadgets, gizmos, and hype. But sometimes you just have to stand back and say "what the F**K OVER?" I know there are guys aplenty who will swear by moly. Heck, I was even willing to do so up to a point, but for the kind of shooting you want to do HERE, on SC, it just ainít worth it. This ainít Bench Rest Country with sighters unlimited. Or Coyote Country where is simply doesnít matter. For true consistency, stick with uncoated. One note to think about. You saw moly touted a lot in 1997 and 1998 in Precision Shooting Magazine. Well kiddies, think on this: Who is a major advertiser in that magazine? Do I need to spell it out?
I feel youíd be better served getting a good bore polish by a custom smith than using moly. I got more from the Accumax polish process than I ever did from moly.
Let the ARGUMENTS begin!!! ;-)
USA - Friday, February 12, 1999 at 18:30:01 (ZULU)
Mike M. <DMMDNLN@AOL.COM>
Calif., USA - Friday, February 12, 1999 at 21:24:26 (ZULU)
Sweet Home, ALABAMA, USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 00:21:57 (ZULU)
o It's no added trouble, I buy the bullets pre-coated from Berger.
o I've developed a 168gn load that can stay supersonic at 1K yards, something I haven't been able to do with non-coated bullets so far.
o I have a SR-25 semi-auto with a 20rd capacity, so something that can cut barrel heating and allow me to rapid-fire without ruining the accuracy is a big plus. (Why else would I put up with the disadvantages of a gas gun?)
o Cold-barrel shots haven't been a problem since I went to Berger's recommended cleaning method using JB and Kroil. To Scott: Are you using a copper-solvent cleaner with molly? That *did* move my cold barrel shots as you described.
The majority of guys in our match are using molly-coated, but I admit
that it could just be a matter of everybody reinforcing each other's popular
Richmond, CA, USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 00:38:07 (ZULU)
I have not taken the time to try it myself. But I Did call the Tech
Folks at Sierra. The person I talked to told me. That they did not see
any benefit in moly coating at least not in a mach barrel.
He did say that it did show some improvemnt. In barrels with bad
bores. But most of the time it showed a loss in accuracy.
He then told me the reason for Sierra selling Moly-coated bullets.
Is that there is a good market for them and that is the only reason.
*****BUT PLEASE DO NOT THINK I AM KNOCKING MOLY BULLETS**********
like I said before I have not taken the time to find out
for myself.( This is gust what I was told by one of Sierra's
Tech Guys. )
Chandler, Okla., USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 01:37:52 (ZULU)
When I refer to hassle factor I mean it. Sure, it ain't all THAT hard to do, but it is an added step that in my experience has shown little value FOR THE COST of start up. Even the simple BBs in a kids tumbler method cost you more than plain outta the box uncoated. So why would I want to keep doing it? Because someone promised me it will do wonders? I had hoped it would too. It just didn't work out that way. Not for a tactical rifle anyway. Varmint shooting? I might still keep at it just to play. Not sure yet. Maybe this is a little purist on my part. Kind of a tactical rifles should use factory match ammo and hunting rigs can shoot for the moon with pie in the sky type thing.
If Moly takes over competition, so be it. But this perpetual "jump on the band wagon" attitude makes little sense to me. I do not care who uses it if it doesn't work for me personally. I can not recommend it. You on the other hand can. Feel free. People get too wrapped up in their ideas where shooting is concerned. They take it personal. Leupold scopes are a good example. Everyone raves about them but forgets to mention some really crappy issues that come up now and then. Why? It goes against the accepted norm. Right now, Moly is the accepted norm. Saying negative things about it gets people worked up and that makes no sense to me either. Unless you got stock in NECO or Dow Corning, it just shouldnít matter all that much!
As far as Sierra goes...to use your words, well, DUH...they'd be dumb not to sell it as everyone thinks it is the next best thing to a night in the sack with Paulina Porizkova. They are in a competitive business and would be foolish not to offer it as every one of their competitors does also. Note though that every one of them still offers uncoated. If moly was all it was cracked up to be there'd be no reason to stick with the traditional uncoated jacket at all. They'd go the way of the dinosaur. Until there is unequivocal proof to the contrary, uncoated is here to stay.
BR? Heck, those folks will be shooting tiny little holes no matter what they use. In short, moly might work, or it might not. It all depends on a lot of variables. Based on that ambiguity, when someone asks what I think of it I can not stand tall and say BY ALL MEANS, do it! All I can say is try it and see if it works for you. If you got something that works now and are limited on experimentation time, donít bother with it.
If you have good luck with it, stick with it. But don't expect everyone to see the light. We can not please every one all the time here. Half the fun of this site is the debate that goes on. Still, lets not take the moly issue to a new level. It has been beat to death and like in the real world, there is little to show for it beyond anecdotal evidence. My best and last advice on it is this: Donít expect miracles just cause some one says it is so. Test it out for yourselves. If you ainít a cop doing this for real, use it to your hearts content. It just doesnít matter.
Jeeze I wish I could have shortened that up. What a waste of space! Sorry all.
scott <long winded tonight.>
USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 05:10:13 (ZULU)
Anyway, I still clean my rifles like I always have...may not take as long as it once did....some days I seem to be shooting a laser and other days I could be shooting a blunderbuss !! Maybe its the JERK behind the trigger ??!! The current rifle has almost 500 rounds thru it...all moly. The Ruger with Douglas barrel has over 3,000 + and not all moly. Now they are but in the beginning I shot straight Sierra 168's. last year I loaded over 4,000 rounds, not all for me. One shooter swears by the moly, previously he shot only Fed Match factory and then reloaded it ONCE !!!! He could afford that, I can't. Now he only shoots moly.
Home of 2nd secession, Just Kidding , USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 06:44:13 (ZULU)
WINDY-WINDY-CITY, bY-GaWd, USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 15:52:47 (ZULU)
USA - Sunday, February 14, 1999 at 07:48:31 (ZULU)
Did I mention lots & lots of trigger time?
Jim Liles <email@example.com>
portland, Ken Keseygon, USA - Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 00:58:22 (ZULU)
USA - Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 14:22:59 (ZULU)
I appreciate all your moly hate mail (he he) but try to keep in mind when someone asks a question on this site, it usually gets answered from the perspective of the website as opposed to the perspective of civilian plinking. In other words, reloading is a no-go for sniping. Moly is a no-go. Self made gun mods is a no-go. Why? Everyone of the above can NOT be done due to liability or department policy. Most real snipers can only use factory ammo and factory or factory Custom rifles - or if they are really lucky, gunsmith modified and department approved rifles. They are stuck with factory performance and have to wait till the high tech filters down through the factories before they can use it on the job. Also, the elimination of variables is paramount. These guys can not really experiment beyond seeing what shoots the best in their duty rifle.
We at Sniper Country have to balance the reality that many readers are just doing this for fun and education - Not for real. In that light, experimentation can abound as nothing hurtful rides on the results. Moly might be the next great leap in the shooting world. It really might be. But when viewed from a sniper/tactical shooter/military/law enforcement perspective, it really has to be harshly considered until the final results are in. And until it is produced by a major ammunition factory, it will not be standard issue for any departments. Liability, liability, liability.
Please keep this in mind when you read a negative comment on your favorite method. If somebody asks about moly or loading methods on Sniper Country, the staff might say "be wary" but they are saying so from a very specific perspective. For instance, I plan on still carrying on moly experimentation in my varmint rifle. But not my tactical rifle. The PSS does wonders with Fed GM2. To keep it honest and be able to evaluate related gear, I have to use factory fodder in it as this is what a duty slotted person will have to use. He might shoot better with handloads, but he can not use them! That is our perspective. The civilian competitor is especially lucky as he can try ANYTHING to see if it works. In the military you ainít even allowed to break your rifle down beyond a certain point!
Anyway, Thanks for all the interesting comments. Just try to remember what this web site is about.
USA - Wednesday, February 17, 1999 at 14:43:46 (ZULU)
Germany - Wednesday, February 17, 1999 at 16:22:02 (ZULU)
This is probably the best reason to use moly. The obvious advantages would be a slight increase is BC and therefore a slightly flatter trajectory for the same given velocity. The downside, if you can call it that, is that you sort of have to recalculate all your ballistic tables as they will not exactly match your real world flight characteristics. If you have gone to a great length to develop data on your current load, it means revamping and reproving it all again. You just have to shoot at the normal ranges you expect to compete at and find out what the new trajectory will be.
Here is a question then: if you thoroughly clean the rifle, how many
rounds will it take to lay down enough moly to stabilize this non-etching
effect on the jacket? Will the first few rounds shoot lower then the following?
Or as velocity drops as moly builds, does THAT offset the difference? Variances,
At 100 and 200 yards (BR distances) you probably wouldnít notice. How about 1000 yards?
USA - Wednesday, February 17, 1999 at 17:22:04 (ZULU)
S.C.D.H., Ohio, USA - Wednesday, February 17, 1999 at 21:42:42 (ZULU)
Berger makes, lives, dies, breathes, and sleep "moly bullets." Enough said on that. Kevin Thomas' article addressed the enhanced B.C. of using molyed bullets. It's not worth the fuss, at any distance. And until a "cleaning and curing" standard can be established, moly is a variable that isn't worth it. I've got as much moly experience as most of you here, if not more, and I'm telling you that after reading, and re-reading Kevin's article in the July issue of Precision Shooting magazine, I stripped the moly from the bullets I'd already coated. The article should be mandatory reading for moly and non-moly users alike. I still moly-coat bullets for some of my guns -- but never again for anything "tactical," in any sense of the word.
Russell E. Taylor <Sniper308@qconline.com>
Silvis, IL, U.S.A. -- and damn proud of it! - Thursday, February 18, 1999 at 11:19:39 (ZULU)
Back to Hot Tips & Cold Shots