Witch Doctor: Effects of Annealing and Moly Lubricating Inside the Case Neck

The purpose of this video is to exhibit the effects of annealing and lubricating the inside of the case neck with MicroLubrol molybdenum disulfide 1-2 micron. Lou Murdica has established the beneficial effects of utilizing annealing and moly coating the inside of case necks prior to bullet seating within his tunnel environment but this test is conducted in the "real-world" at the Tacoma Rifle and Revolver Club shooting range in University Place, WA, USA. The results show that annealing reduced the amount of error in headspace sizing and moly coating reduces the amount of base-to-ogive error. Collectively, annealing and moly coating produced the smallest groups (statistically significant result) and lower velocity standard deviations (nearing statistical significance) relative to annealing without moly coating, not annealing with moly coating, and not annealing nor moly coating. In conclusion, it is recommended that shooters who wish to optimize precision utilize the annealing procedure and moly coat the interior of their case neck just prior to seating the bullet. If you do not have access to an annealing device, then it is recommended to check the case's headspace regularly and, if the case is not being sized to spec, use a tool that quickly and precisely adjusts your seating die. The smallest group shot in this entire test was a .080 and that group was shot with annealed brass and moly coated necks.
Annealing Machine:
www.ampannealing.com/
MicroLubrol:
www.amazon.com/Bullet-Reloadi...
PMA Die Adjuster:
www.pmatool.com/die-accessories/

[@planeurable]

very interesting video Bryan . being a competition Benchrester , i also AMP anneal and have started experimenting with the AMP press . curious to see a detailed video about your moly application procedure : i use eyelashes conical brushes that i lightly charge then tap to remove excess : i have a feeling more or less moly in the neck affects the bullet seating effort curve - and release for that matter- ( although final depth is the same ) .

[@javiersp01]

Thank you Bryan !

[@MMBRM]

Hey Bryan! Really appreciate the testing. It's very refreshing to see someone who actually tests enough ammo to achieve statistical relevance. Drives me a bit crazy when someone will shoot two five shot groups with different variables and then claim it's a significant result. Question for you. What state were the necks in before the process was started? Do you wet tumble with stainless media resulting in a completely clean neck? Or was the base test with a dirty neck with existing carbon in it. I've heard stated many times that leaving carbon in the neck negates the need for additional lube so I'm curious if your testing can shed some light on this issue.

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

Thanks for checking out the video. I am glad that some people can see the value in isolating a variable and firing enough rounds down range to be able to detect a statistically significant result. The necks were already carbon fouled. I used brass that I have used in previous testing. All I do for the inside of the necks is brush them with a nylon brush. I never completely clean out the carbon. After chatting with Lou Murdica in the tunnel, he indicated that you would have to moly even with the carbon. It looks like my findings merge with his on this particular topic since the moly coated necks did much better than those that were not coated despite all brass still having the carbon inside the necks.

[@MMBRM]

@@WitchDoctorPrecision Thanks for the quick reply and additional info. I just discovered your channel today and am making my way through the videos. I definitely understand why more people don't use statistically significant tests...it's a lot more work! If you wanted to test all the relevant data points you could easily wear out a barrel before it was finished. I appreciate your work as so far it's much more definitive than most of the testing I've seen on youtube. I'm going to try lubing the neck on my 6PPC BR gun now based on your data.

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

@@MMBRM thanks! That is my goal to produce and exhibit tests that represent substantial contributions to the knowledge base. I realize that some of the tests are not necessarily generalizable to all circumstances but at least the methodology I demonstrate can be used by others to test their circumstance.

[@bartoszwilk1382]

Thanks Bryan

[@tqbcpc]

Thank you for this knowledge. I have been using Moly since Lou Murdica gave AMP an interview. I found that with the bore mop method was, it was difficult to see if I had applied enough Moly or any at all. So, I made a solution of isopropyl alcohol and moly powder and I’m applying it with a cotton swab. A thin visible layer od Moly is now present.

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

Cool! Please describe the method for how to make the solution and it’s application so I can try it out. Thanks in advance!

[@br4713]

@@WitchDoctorPrecision Hello Bryan, how did you apply the moly powder when you made this test ?

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

@@br4713 a bore mop. Simply dipped it into the moly and then ran the mop down inside the neck. The seating pressure on the moly necks was notable lighter but I don’t have an AMP press to quantify that. Hopefully I will get one soon.

[@Eric-qu3ht]

@@WitchDoctorPrecision There is Neolube No. 2 available on Amazon. It is used by Keith Glasscock in F Class / see kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmWvnJJ6j8-oi6s at about 5:30 minute in the video. Looks less messy than Moly... MIght be cheaper to make your own like TQB is doing.

[@dinoc.5537]

Nice talk. BTW... "Ogive" is pronounced ˈō-ˌjīv where the G sounds like a J.

[@elvisjerrylee]

I've heard it pronounced both ways and from some very experienced shooters, I knew exactly what Brian meant.

[@wvlongshooter3912]

I absolutely appreciate this content!!!!! Very interesting!!! I appreciate the scientific method process that you’ve implied!!’ Im testing with rice and the use of imperial sizing wax in the necks in the tumbler for the past two months. I’m getting great bullet seating pressure and very consistent seating. I found out about this on primal rights website. I’m getting a little better results compared to using moly in the necks. After tumbling, the rice absorbs the sizing wax and it leaves a very smooth finish with lubricity characteristics inside of the necks. Since doing this I have seen Erik Cortana’s KZbin video on this subject with Greg of Primal Rights.

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

Cool! Please post info about this method so we can take a look. Always great to continue advancing our methods to gain greater precision!

[@sf2189]

Bryan - love your videos and analysis as always. WV Long Shooter - I just ordered the bag of rice Greg from Primal Rights recommended on his blog post. Im going to try that method as well. I am on the list to get an AMP press and hope to be able to measure the entire seating force curve, vs just the final force like I do on my K&M. Spoke to Greg for a bit on the phone on the primer depth testing and ignition system timing. I think that video is making a lot of waves - curious as to the BR perspective on using primer crush vs shims on the firing spring to alter timing and harmonics - on the rice vs moly - I do suppose that one of the advantages of moly as well as NeoLube (graphite) is that you can seat bullets long and then do a final seating at the range or right before.

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

@@sf2189 thanks for checking the video and posting constructive info. Please post the Primal Rights info you refer to because my search showed a video that was just about cleaning with rice without a test of rice vs moly. I would love to see the data or at least the rice lubricating method so I can try it myself if need be. I look forward to seeing your results with the AMP press. It’s definitely a great advancement to our study of the various effects of loading methods. As for the BR perspective on primer seating, I am in the middle of testing primer seating depth. If data has already been shared in this topic, please post here. The more we can make this a “knowledge repository” the better! Shoot small y’all!

[@sf2189]

@@WitchDoctorPrecision So there is a video that Erik Cortina just put out interviewing Greg from Primal rights. Its worth a watch, lots of good info - especially on primer seating depth and tuning. No test vs moly but Greg has gotten some amazing results (as measured by his amp using rice and imperial lube - there seems to be some sort of residual coating). I like to test things for myself so going to do same thing you did - but all annealed but no cleaning, cleaned in rice as per Greg’s method and then moly’d as per yours. I would look at seating force, pressure curves (PT-II) and obviously velocity and group size. I think the AMP Press is necessary for a fair comparison.

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

@@sf2189 cool, I’ll look up the vid. I look forward to checking your results. As for how to interpret your findings, if the outcome in each condition is the same then fairness in the method of measuring seating pressure will not explain the results when all or most other variables are accounted for. If the outcome differs by lube method then perhaps seating pressure curve and force differences can account for the difference. Alright, enough of my science mumbo jumbo…let’s get to some testing!

[@elvisjerrylee]

Quite a while ago I tried moly bullets for the first time. I did not see enough of an improvement to continue using them. I was not able to totally remove the moly from my barrel during the cleaning process . I see your results, but was wondering if molying the inside of the necks would deposit enough moly over time to possibly cause the same type of issue I had before.

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

I don’t think it would. The moly would evaporate once the powder is ignited. In this application of the moly, it’s simply for uniform seating pressure and BTO. I doubt there is any moly sticking to the small portion of the bullets bearing surface as it rides the lands.

[@ralphproudfoot620]

I have seen so many tests on everything but the bushing being used By this I am talking about how far down the neck you are pushing it The norm is what ever the caliber is is the distance but I have never seen an actual test on it

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

I do plan to do a test looking at various neck sizing depths using a bushing. Coming soon to a theatre near you!

[@Eric-qu3ht]

Thanks Bryan - very interesting results on a debated topic, which has lacked published data until now! Looking at your data, I find 0.009" in BTO error for the Annealing/No Molly group a bit high in my experience - I fall in this group of reloader who anneal each time and do not molly. I will check what I get in my next reload, as I've been only spot checking for now. FYI - I have the AMP Press and tested seating pressure with and without lubing: I found absolute differences but no difference in spread between groups. However, I believe that maximum seating pressure should affect mostly neck tension depending on how the brass deforms and springs back. I am not sure how seating pressure would affect BTO unless perhaps of extreme cases of low or high frictions, i.e., near zero neck tension (bullet would fall without much push from the ram) or inside neck scrubbed with alcohol (jerky ram movement). I cannot explain the correlation between lubing the neck and BTO, considering how harbor press works with the seating die.. The curve on the AMP Press does not show any jerky movement of the ram at its final point when the bullets sits. Do you have any theory? Out of curiosity, how much cleaning of the inside of the neck did you after each firing in this test? Also, and I do not shoot BR matches, I am curious of the need to resize during the match: would not you get better consistency by bringing enough consistently prepped brass for the entire duration of a match? Thanks again for all your tests Bryan. They are great.

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

Thanks for checking out the video. The amount of error was total error among 5 pieces of brass fired 5 times each because I measured every single piece of brass prior to all 5 sets of firings. I did not report on the details because the video would be very long but I am glad that people like you comment so that we can get into some level of detail. The total headspace error for all annealed brass (50) was .0095 and for pieces not annealed it was .024. My conclusion there is that annealing essentially cuts the potential error in half. Also, the range of error in annealed brass was very low (maximum .001) whereas in those not annealed it was much higher (.003). So even though there was .0095 error in 50 annealing episodes, the typical error was .0005. The BTO error in annealed brass was .014 and in not annealed brass was .0215. In the moly coted it was .016 and without the moly it was .0195. This tells me that annealing has more of an impact on BTO than moly coating. In terms of error in BTO, one thing that I did not measure was the bullet BTO but I used hand swaged bullets that tend to be very consistent so if there was error from them, it would be negligible and spread across the various conditions of the test. Anyway, I do look forward to utilizing the AMP press and it would have been great to incorporate into this test but I will just have to wait. Thanks for the information you have found. I do scrub the inside of the necks after each firing with a nylon brush just prior to annealing. For short-range bench rest matches, I do know of a couple people who do bring pre-prepped brass in enough volume to not have to resize them during the match. I am considering this strategy for sure. It also enables you to observe wind conditions more often so I know there are more than a few pros to that method.

[@Eric-qu3ht]

@@WitchDoctorPrecision Thanks Bryan for the details. I had misunderstood the definition of the BTO error and it is actually pretty small.

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

@@Eric-qu3ht yes, it was definitely a smaller factor compared to the larger error in headspace. If I didn’t have time to check both and had to pick one to monitor, I would easily choose headspace.

[@elvisjerrylee]

Brian, Is the MicroLubrol molybdenum disulfide 1-2 micron a powder or paste ? Thanks

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

Powder but others who posted here mentioned a paste. I ordered some of the paste and plan to try it.

[@elvisjerrylee]

@@WitchDoctorPrecision Thanks, I am only able to find it in powder form but not in paste, can you tell me where you got the paste please and do you have a preferred brand in powder. Thanks

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

@@elvisjerrylee paste www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07G2SK8VN?ref=ppx_pt2_mob_b_prod_image

[@WitchDoctorPrecision]

@@elvisjerrylee powder www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00WP082IU?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_mob_b_asin_title

[@elvisjerrylee]

@@WitchDoctorPrecision Thanks for taking the time to give me the information. When I pre load my rounds and there is a possibility I will not be shooting them right away, I purposely seat them long and reseat them to the correct seating depth, to break the potential seal, just prior to firing. By using this method of lubing the inside of the necks with moly, I may not have to seat them this way. Thanks for putting the effort into testing and collecting all of this information, I for one really appreciate it.