Sniper Country Duty Roster collective wisdom


Moly-coating bullets:


To all you that want to start Molly Coating. Here is the cheap way to gwt started. Purchase Molly from MidWay. It comes in Plastic bag in a heavy duty plastic container. Take the plastic bad of molly out of the tub and store the plastic bag seperately. Clean your bullets in Alcohol, dry and place about one pound of bullets in the Molly Container, puy one eighth a teaspoon of molly in with the bullets, screw the lid down and place into tumbler/vibrator cleaner. Run for about one hour. Take the bullets out and shake out excess either in a towel or on a plastic screen. You are ready to go. This works great and sure beats the cost of Molly Coated Bullets from the factories.

Mike M. <DMMDNLN@AOL.COM>
Calif USA - Thursday, October 29, 1998 at 20:13:11 (EST) 


Hey Tom if your a Scientist please answer this old question. Did you walk to school or bring your lunch? Just kidding, What do you think about the use of Molly as a bullet lube. A Nuclear Engineer I know thinks it gets into the steel with tempature and degrades its strength overtime. What do you think?

Mike . <DMMDNLN@AOL.COM>
USA - Friday, November 20, 1998 at 13:53:03 (EST) 


Mike,
I haven't heard about moly weaking the barrel but Ive been told by several gunsmith's that the heat turn's the moly into molydisulfide and that it starts to foul real bad. This could be the reason why the bench rest crowd is going to Danzac instead of moly. I would also think that they like the Danzac because it's easier to use than the moly.

Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Friday, November 20, 1998 at 16:35:36 (EST) 


Moly question: (I don't know much about Moly-coating, so please excuse me if this is a stupid question) Instead of coating each and every bullet, why wouldn't you want to coat the inside of the barrel with Moly? Is that impractical, detrimental to barrel life or accuracy, unfeasible, or what?

Bach Melick <tmelick@monbar.com>
New Orleans, LA USA - Friday, November 20, 1998 at 16:55:06 (EST) 


Nuclear scientist? Me too, and semiconductor physics plus all round nice guy. Past giving myself excessive acalades. The moly issue has been beat to death. Weakening the barrell, he is absolutely right. If I left it sit for 1000 years the entropy would have it's way and chaos would reign supreme. All the energy stored in having the ordered hard barrell would be ruined by particles of moly randomly inserting themeselves into every crack and crevice eventually creating rifts. Especially if you cycled the barrell through exterme temperatures.

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.

tom <tom.scott@lmco.com>
here & , there USA - Friday, November 20, 1998 at 17:07:23 (EST) 


About Danzac: I've read and seen adds in Sinclair's catalog about the Danzac. And, of course, I've been tempted to try it. However, thus far, the moly coated bullets I've shot have performed beautifully. I'm sort of an anal retentive, neurotic about barrell cleaning and general care of the rifle anyway. I hope that any possible detrimental effects that moly may have on barrels are not true. I plan to continue using it.

Jeff A. <d1k2l3@aol.com>
Smyrna, Ga USA - Friday, November 20, 1998 at 20:55:46 (EST) 


On moly,
just remember one thing, as was posted before during previous discussions on moly, please do not post proprietary methods here. There was a press statement posted here from the originators of the moly process, stating that some people were using and selling their proprietary process. We donít want troubles like that here. For the rest, feel free to discuss, as long as it is good info.

Marius Ferreira <mferreira@lantic.co.za>
Pretoria, Gauteng, RSA - Monday, November 23, 1998 at 11:02:02 (EST) 


2) Possible safety concern - I have a habit, during load development, of loading a couple of dozen rounds of each type and tossing 'em into a baggie with the load data for the trip to the range. Yeah, boxes would be nice, but since some days are 20+ baggie days, well, the baggies are convenient.

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.

bogie <bogie@inlink.com>
STL, Misery USA - Wednesday, December 02, 1998 at 23:01:11 (EST) 


Just one comment and a question. Thanks to Mike M. onthe tip on moly-
coated bullets. His little system works great. One thin I noticed was, It really changed my poin of impact, and took about 7 shots before the accuracy came back. Now with the question, What is acceptable tactile accuarcy? I mostly shoot at the range and do a little bit of big game hunting, wild hogs and antelope. I am getting about .75" at 200yds with my savage tactile. My load is 168 serria match bullets over 45.5grs. of ww748. Brass is all comercial r-p necksized. function is flawless. Stock is a choat varment and optics ,
luepold 4.5x14 trigger is set at about 4lbs. Any hints on ways to increase accuracy. I have appox 800 rds thru this weapon. thanks for the help.
Larry
larry <tmhorn@hotmail.com>
wwd, okla USA - Monday, December 14, 1998 at 00:28:26 (EST) 
Larry thank you, I am glad the molly worked for you. I have been using it for competition rifles with good results. I HAVE NOT BEEN HAPPY WITH IT FOR MY WORK RIFLE. It has shown inconsistent first shot from a clean bbl and that is the only one I care about with that rifle. I have heard and I don't remember who from that if you clean and fire two rounds into the clean bore it will then be consistent. Either way I am going to stick to none molly for my work rifle.

Mike M <DMMDNLN@AOL.com>
ca USA - Monday, December 14, 1998 at 13:46:23 (EST) 


I'm back to using non Molly in my sniper rifle. First round from a clean bbl is to erratic for me. I have heard about leaving a fouling shot but that just rubs the grain the wrong way to leave a rifle dirty.

Mike M. <DMMDNLN@AOL.COM>
Calif USA - Thursday, January 07, 1999 at 11:33:52 (EST) 



This may be old hat to some of you, but in scrolling through old posts to this list, I came across an interesting topic....first shots in a clean barrel, with moly-coated bullets.

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 <k9wxr@rr1.net>
FROZEN - SE, IL USA - Sunday, January 10, 1999 at 13:40:28 (EST) 


If you are having thoughts about moly and freezing your barrel, read Kevin Thomas in the September 98 and January 99 Precision Shooting.

Pat II
Pat II <nrdwr.plakin@state.ut.us>
still shoveling snow, in UT, USA - Thursday, January 28, 1999 at 03:59:07 (ZULU) 


To All,
I find myself at a crossroads, to moly or not to moly, this is the question. What is to be gained by it, other than less cleaning time?? It will increase barrel life but if the rifle is shooting good now and easy to clean could it adversly effect my accuracy?? If so, will I be able to get it out and the gun to go back to shooting the way it was before moly? Any thoughts on the subject, both pro and con, would be appreciated.
Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Thursday, February 11, 1999 at 20:32:15 (ZULU) 
Pat,

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 <akpeters@isd.net>
Minneapolis, MN, USA - Friday, February 12, 1999 at 15:47:53 (ZULU) 


PAT: Don't bother with moly! I came to this conclusion well before reading Kevin's article. If you can get a copy of his piece, he sums it all up way better than I can. Here is what I found personally. Keep in mind that all of this is presented in view of this sites relevance to sniping - not so much target shooting, although it applies too. Testing is subjective to my personal rifle. Yours WILL be different!!!

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!!! ;-)

Scott <xring@voicenet.com>
USA - Friday, February 12, 1999 at 18:30:01 (ZULU) 


Scott,
Thank you for the info and to all the rest who added to it. That is what I needed to know. I have heard so much about moly both ways and I did intend on shooting moly in the 260 but I have held off, in fact its all cleaned waiting to go with the coating process. I think I will hold off as you said, I am a tactical shooter and the first shot is important to me, I need to know where its going. This gun can shoot 50 rounds and have hardly any copper at all in the barrel, its glass smooth, so I will leave it alone!!!
Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Friday, February 12, 1999 at 20:31:18 (ZULU) 
Scott: Molly you are completely right about. Bottom line is works great for Competition not good for sniper use.

Mike
Mike M. <DMMDNLN@AOL.COM>
Calif., USA - Friday, February 12, 1999 at 21:24:26 (ZULU) 


On the Moly ?? If moly is such a "BAD" thing then WHY is Sierra SELLING moly BULLETS ???? Duh !!! Could it be that the dude doing the testing is "slightly" PO'd and didn't "season" the bore ???Lots of variables to using moly as with anything. Like should you use "JB paste" or "Sweets". Both IF NOT USED CORRECTLY can ruin a bore !! If moly doesn't work then why are SO MANY top benchresters using it ?? Believing all you read can get you in serious trouble.
I use moly and taking my best loads and shooting moly and non-moly'd bullets side by side showed that I got tighter groups and it did clean easier. There was an earlier article claiming that cryoing barrels didn't do CRAP either. Again, cryoing worked for me, can't complain and I KNOW I didn't waste the money. Sure, on moly bullets you have to add a little powder but the darn things "go to sleep" at a closer range and the "so-called" extra time/effort, really isn't. In fact, you can moly w/o shot and w/o carnuba wax !!! One of the other writers in the "real world", Chuck Olson, told me about that trick just the other weekend and IT WORKS !!!

Will <willadams@mindspring.com>
Sweet Home, ALABAMA, USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 00:21:57 (ZULU) 


To molly, or not to molly. Kevin's PS article was indeed an eye-opener, but I'm sticking with my molly for now. A few reasons:

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 misconceptions.
Grasshopper <wd6cmu@netcom.com>
Richmond, CA, USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 00:38:07 (ZULU) 


ABOUT MOLY COATING

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. )

S.Barrier <Sbarr25@aol.com>
Chandler, Okla., USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 01:37:52 (ZULU) 



As an aside, has anyone heard of this theory, unproven but interesting? With each sucessive shot moly lays a new coat over the fouling that does stay in the bore, thereby trapping the crud in between layers. I am NOT saying this is so, but I have read about it. Comments?
Scott <xring@voicenet.com>
USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 04:47:49 (ZULU) 
Will: Let me make it clear again. Moly is not doing obvious HARM to my rifle. It is just not as acceptable or consistent - in MY RIFLE - for tactical type shooting. You can use it or not, I could care less. For me, it sadly did not pan out as promised. I listened to everyone in the debate, including some pretty well known folks. Olson included. I tried several methods of coating and tested the loads out for a year. All I can show for it is uncertain results. It showed no real improvement over un-coated and in some cases it did some odd things that were worse. Still good groups, but not consistent. By way of comparison I still have some incredible groups from my uncoated loads prior to moly. I never could approach them with moly. Why? Beats the heck outta me!

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) 


Moly; best you can hope for is introducing another variable into your shooting. Took me 2 weeks to get that stuff out of my barrel.
Bullet makers would sell green beer if it made them a buck!
I'll be at a Clinton/Shumer Gun show near you this week end!
Bend of and grab it boys! Willie is on a roll.
B.Rogers <brogers@elkhart.com>
USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 05:53:05 (ZULU) 
To each their own...Misters Powers and Rodgers, I understand and respect your viewpoints thats what makes this site so interesting. I spent 18 months at an engineering lab at the university here as a lab technician. We had a test machine that created I don't know how many tons per sq.INCH in compaction studies. While I don't claim to be that educated and certainly not an engineer I did have the opportunity to discuss streses to metals while under abrasion and high heat with professors who understood these things in more detail than I. One of these learned fellows put it quite simply, "Ever had your car engine seize-up due to lack of lubrication ?" Well, thats ABOUT the same with a rifle barrel and a bullet travelling down it. You don't want alot of lubrication, cause it will cause blockage OR WORSE !! Yet not having any lubrication seems to me that some of the softer metal( bullet) will be left in barrel. Moly is one of the purest and slickest lubricants known... I don't think the test machine manufacturers(ms) would use something harmful to that test equipment, not when it runs about 1 million per unit !!!

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.

Will <willadams@mindspring.com>
Home of 2nd secession, Just Kidding , USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 06:44:13 (ZULU) 


Moly,
Its Yes/No, Black/White no gray semi sticky slick willy areas. It works or it don't. I have been playing with spray applied Moly since 1986 on everything from airgun pellets to our favorite little BTHP's.
My last field experiment at an airgun Field Target with a 5mm rifle (yep an oddball fer sure) netted a 56/56 score. Thats targets from 1/4" to 1 1/2" diameter out to 50 yards UKD-free style. Lost about 20 fps but grouped like a house on fire. Its the first cleaned course I know of in the U.S. Not bragging, just luck, the shooting gods looking over my shoulder and a well setup rig.
Tactical/Hipower rifle, Nope just one more thing to me to worry about while loading and cleaning. I think the key is consistency from CBS until the last round is fired without "seasoning or pampering".
Reality check, Your rifle needs to be able to make M.O.T. (Minute of Torso) past 300 yards and everything is fine.

peteR
peteR <PNGREIFF@AOL.COM>
WINDY-WINDY-CITY, bY-GaWd, USA - Saturday, February 13, 1999 at 15:52:47 (ZULU) 


Molymiesters: Moly is probably about the only thing you can slick up the barrel with that won't cause real trouble by building up ahead of the bullet. You could use wd 40 if it didn't break down so bad. It may even have the same affect as a fine smoothly polished barrel up to a point. It may smooth up a bullet's trip down the barrel but I think maybe a barrel is like a light bulb. It does it's job by burning out. Not quite like a motor. I've not had a bullet sieze up for lack of Slick 50. Of course in the end the barrel,bulb and the motor will all be ruined by heat. I don't see any problem for me it it is in your barrel. But it seems like it's hard to predict what will happen on the first shot. Did I hear something about One Shot one Kill! Target shooters may be ok but I can't belive I can trust the first shot down a slimmy barrel of unknown slikieness!
B.Rogers <brogers@elkhart.com>
USA - Sunday, February 14, 1999 at 05:42:02 (ZULU) 
Setting up a Cold Bore First Shot with moly is no different than working with nonmoly bullets. If I change any variables with my loads then I have to go out and re-zero the rifle. The other week before the match was at English range and where my partner didn't have a 500 zero and "walked" his out from 200, all I did was put on my "comeups" and nailed the 500 metal target FIRST HIT. Same method , same drill, same results.

Will <willadams@mindspring.com>
USA - Sunday, February 14, 1999 at 07:48:31 (ZULU) 


To moly or not: I have been loading and using moly and non-moly bullets in various cals. since they were available. My conclusion after reviewing and putting to use all the info I have found here and elsewere is to get back to basics. If you work up a load and can reproduce it consistently, moly or not moly, it will preform the same over and over. I base this on reviewing my reloading and shooting logs. I have read here about the floater cold bore shot with moly bullets so I went to my log books. Always wondered why first round was about 1.5" high and right and why second was low and left after adjusting my scope, so I decieded not to make a second shot adjustment and fire a five shoot group from cold bore. In my last 9 - 10 range outings I found at 100 yds every shot basically went through the same hole, at 300 I was able to get a 1" 5 shot group from cold bore. My conclusion is that it is my mistake in making inproper adjustments for temp, wind or light and that if I use the same consistent round it will preform the same.
I appolagize if I am incorrect if you shoot 1000 yds, but I can only base this on my experience out to 300 yds. Markmanship, consistent ammo and practice seem to be the key. And log books are golden.
Tony Y
Iselin, NJ, USA - Monday, February 15, 1999 at 04:22:05 (ZULU) 
On First shot; It is true that basics are neccessary all the time but I do believe cleaning releases some of the moly and from first to second or third shots there is a impact change at longer ranges but that would have to vary from gun to gun. I'm not rejecting Moly just because I don't use it but it is a target man's tool in my book. And I would bet that the bore and it's condition has everything to do with the success of it's use. Not something that can be predicted by the avg shooter's equipment. I just prefer not to inject another variable on Cold mornings. It is quite common to have first round problems with any gun if any cleaning materials are left in the bore. And it takes a real good gun to even come close to being immune to first shot blues.
B.rogers <brogers@elkhart.com>
USA - Monday, February 15, 1999 at 14:00:47 (ZULU) 
Jeezum crow, guys. If moly is so evil, I'm gonna have a conniption over this one. Okay, I'm coherent now. Properly used, moly (by coincedence, the misspelled name of the best niece ever) is a Godsend. For the marmot whapper 220 swooooft on its 300th shot in one day, I have found it to be hard to beat. While everyone is trying to find water to wash off the CR-10 or Sweet's, I'm having a ham sandwich and looking for more ill-willed creatures or rocks to spork.
(I checked, spork is a verb. The afore mentioned best niece ever says so.) Pet load is 41.8 gr o' IMR 4064 & a moly coated 40 gr. Sierra BTHP. Still working on the windy day load. Cold barrel? never happen.
On the other hand, for the .308 & .300 Mag, where the shots could conceivably be of incredible import; pedantic, surgical break-in and cold barrel shot research is paramount. I use mine for rocks, paper, scissors, and elk. The elimination of yet another variable is probably offset by anal-retentive cleaning & record keeping. Oh yes, lots & lots of trigger time.
So anyway, do your homework. That's my final word on this matter.

Did I mention lots & lots of trigger time?

Jim Liles <youngestliles@hotmail.com>
portland, Ken Keseygon, USA - Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 00:58:22 (ZULU) 


Jim,
I would agree with you on the moly for the "Hot Rod" calibers. I think it would have a great advantage in the cleaning dept. I have a friend who has a 243 Imp and at 3850 it puts some copper down the barrel. He uses it and likes it, but this is a varmint rifle and if I still had my improved I would try it in a minute. I just don't see any real advantage to it with a 2800fps rifle that cleaned real easy to start off with and as Scott or someone said its just another variable to contend with, But thanks for your thought on my question.

Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 14:22:59 (ZULU) 


On more comment on moly. Guys and gals, when I refer to it as a no-go, please keep in mind I am talking about tactical shooting. Real tactical shooting. Not Sport hunting or competition. The difference? Well, you can't get sued if you botch a killing shot on a deer.

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.

Scott <xring@voicenet.com>
USA - Wednesday, February 17, 1999 at 14:43:46 (ZULU) 


Moly:
just read in a catalog of one of Germany´s more respectable Benchrest supplieres the following reason why moly is s´posed to be better.
"since the bullet is being formed with force into the rifeling some minute portions of the jacket material are being formed into little fins that potrude into the area were the boattail begins and act as little air vanes. With a molyed bullet the jacket material forms better into the lands and grooves and is not forced into the little fins " Could be possible, has anyone heard the same ? This is from the importer of berger Bullets and maybee Walt´s reasoning behind it other than making a buck. I think it comes down to another "headspace problem" between our ears.

Torsten <lasercon@dialup.globe.de>
Germany - Wednesday, February 17, 1999 at 16:22:02 (ZULU) 


Torsten: I have heard of this effect. With moly, it is said that the lands and groves leave less of an impression on the bullet jacket and the small drag producing "tails" of copper are all but eliminated from the base of the bullet. In short, using moly is said to produce a sleeker bullet in flight since there are less surface imperfections to be affected by drag.

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, variancesÖ
At 100 and 200 yards (BR distances) you probably wouldnít notice. How about 1000 yards?

Scott <xring@voicenet.com>
USA - Wednesday, February 17, 1999 at 17:22:04 (ZULU) 


Scot: Moly question
I get to talk to serious benchrest boys on a regular basis. Some of them are having second thoughts about this moly business. Their chief complaint is that it is so difficult to coat a barrel. When a moly coated bullet is fired in a barrel it does not coat the barrel evenly from breach to muzzle. the barrel is seasoned a small amount with each shot and after the moly wears off of the bullet, the bullet coats the barrel with copper for the rest of the length ride down the barrel. This copper fouling has to be removed from the barrel without removing the good moly coating that is starting to form at the chamber end. That is their biggest problem and one which no satisfactory solution has been found that I know of. Some claim that the best way to coat the barrel is with a cleaning mop sprayed with moly run thru a perfectly clean barrel.

Steve <nato@bright.net>
S.C.D.H., Ohio, USA - Wednesday, February 17, 1999 at 21:42:42 (ZULU) 


Moly:

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) 


I also had an interesting chat with one of my gunsmiths and he said a lot of the "Big Boys" are also droping the moly thing too.
Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Wednesday, February 24, 1999 at 14:22:13 (ZULU) 

Back to Hot Tips & Cold Shots