User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/25/2010 4:57:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Originally Posted By Mugbug: That being said I think it would be wise to limit the process to the minimum needed to remove the lube. Why? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2010 5:18:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Very interesting experiment, many thanks to the OP for doing this.
That said, I've never needed to tumble loaded ammo for any reason, I dump all my brass into lemishine for a day after I resize, then tumble for a few hours, which has the added benefit of cleaning out the primer pockets very well, and no lube to worry about after they're all loaded. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2010 5:25:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Mugbug]
[#3]
Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle:
Originally Posted By Mugbug:
That being said I think it would be wise to limit the process to the minimum needed to remove the lube. Why? Why not??? If you tumbled your brass before you loaded it you should not need to tumble it longer. Do I think tumbling it longer is going to have any great affect? No, but at same time why would you want to? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2010 5:59:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Hebrew_Battle_Rifle]
[#4]
Originally Posted By Mugbug: To get the case lube off of it.Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle: Originally Posted By Mugbug: That being said I think it would be wise to limit the process to the minimum needed to remove the lube. Why? No, but at same time why would you want to? The question was why do you think it wise to limit the process? The OP ha PROVEN that tumbling loaded ammo is NOT harmful. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/25/2010 6:05:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Originally Posted By Zoomer302:
What kind of microscope? We run Olympus BH-2 with trinoc. heads for polarizing, CH-2 for phase contrast. We also have Nikons, Zeiss and a few others but the BH-2's get most of the work done. We also run scanning and transmission electron scopes. I would love to SEM the 300 hour powder. Here is the microscope some old Japanese student scope I got off ebay for $45 
It says this on the tag( this pic is from the ebay add that is why it is DSCN rather than CIMG) 
This is how I take the picture, luckily for picture taken the eye relief of the ocular is very close so I can just set the lens of the camera directly on the ocular I set the casio exilim EX-Z750 to manual focus, zoom to 20cm-Infinity to get the black ring for reference, manually focus, and set the self timer at 2 seconds. The most difficult part is getting light from the top I used my Fenix flash light(to the left). As my battery wore out I would loose lighting and have to turn up the exposure, some powders also required more light. A stereo microscope would be much better for "large" things like the powder. As I said, 45x was too much magnification for focusing on the larger media granules. The greater the mag level also means the objective lens is closer the the item which means I cannot light the item from the top. Here I am taking a pic of the rifling on a fired .223 bullet. I am taking this blurry(a lot to hold) picture with anther Casio Exilim EX-Z750( I thought it was so good I bought 2) 
Here is the actual photo 
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/25/2010 6:11:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Thanks for the article. I couldn't get the thread to load over the weekend and just now got to see what you found. I wish your lighting had been more diffuse and whiter and identical for both sets of photos, but you're not a lab and what we see is pretty damn good. Thanks for the link to the Box O' Silence, too, I lost track of that project. Please add a link to your thread in the tacked Gateway thread at the top of the forum. The lighting was the hardest part this is a biological microscope designed for lighting through the bottom through transparent slides, for opaque items you have to light from the top, I used a flash light balancing on a tripod. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2010 6:25:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Mugbug]
[#7]
Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle:
Originally Posted By Mugbug:
To get the case lube off of it.
Originally Posted By Hebrew_Battle_Rifle:
Originally Posted By Mugbug:
That being said I think it would be wise to limit the process to the minimum needed to remove the lube. Why? No, but at same time why would you want to? The question was why do you think it wise to limit the process? The OP ha PROVEN that tumbling loaded ammo is NOT harmful. Wasting power, wasting time and why tempt fate? Edited for clarity...Reread my first post I tumble my brass to remove the lube...I see no point however in doing so longer the needed to accomplish that task. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2010 10:15:12 PM EDT
[#8]
BRAVO
Great post |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 1/25/2010 10:16:12 PM EDT
[#9]
OP - nice work with minimalist equipment!
THe rifling pic looks like something right off CSI. Impressive! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 9:56:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#10]
.....
|
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 12:50:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#11]
.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 1:09:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#12]
Keep the thread on track. |
|
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 1:46:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Originally Posted By MOS2111:
I would be interested in an average chrony of velocity before and after tumble. This! Although the OP has produced some great pics and I would love to see more done with "minimum" equipment, especially bore pics, "THIS SET" of pics has nothing to establish PROOF of anything!! There is a definite deformation of the powder. Whether or not this has any effect on performance is yet to be discovered. However, I suggest, for safety sakes, that one does not overdo the polishing of loaded ammo. If one is bound and determined to polish the living shit out of HIS ammo, well........go for it !!!!!!! And yes, the BIG BOYS, polish their ammo for sales and general cosmetics. THEY have a lab with trained and certified personnel AND equipment. They also know how to extract and read the data!!! This argument is not the same as BEANS WITH CHILE, or not. I believe Precision Shooting Magazine has had more than one article on this subject. Some people just want to believe. Me too. I just don't get the desire to polish loaded ammo, unless you're trying to sell it off as better ammo!! Very intense argument on this subject!! WHY? Lets get some data. OH! And thanks to the OP for showing us great pics, Please keep it up. We need more. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 2:29:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Originally Posted By MyAliyah:
Originally Posted By MOS2111:
I would be interested in an average chrony of velocity before and after tumble. This! Although the OP has produced some great pics and I would love to see more done with "minimum" equipment, especially bore pics, "THIS SET" of pics has nothing to establish PROOF of anything!! There is a definite deformation of the powder. Whether or not this has any effect on performance is yet to be discovered. However, I suggest, for safety sakes, that one does not overdo the polishing of loaded ammo. If one is bound and determined to polish the living shit out of HIS ammo, well........go for it !!!!!!! And yes, the BIG BOYS, polish their ammo for sales and general cosmetics. THEY have a lab with trained and certified personnel AND equipment. They also know how to extract and read the data!!! This argument is not the same as BEANS WITH CHILE, or not. I believe Precision Shooting Magazine has had more than one article on this subject. Some people just want to believe. Me too. I just don't get the desire to polish loaded ammo, unless you're trying to sell it off as better ammo!! Very intense argument on this subject!! WHY? Lets get some data. OH! And thanks to the OP for showing us great pics, Please keep it up. We need more. Sell it off as "better" ammo? What does that mean? Plain fact of the matter is that customers want their ammo to look nice when they get it. If it looks like crap, then it certainly reflects on the loaders practices. A high luster will bring more curb appeal to the average buyer when making a choice on who's ammo to purchase. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 4:37:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: popnfresh]
[#15]
Originally Posted By MyAliyah:
Originally Posted By MOS2111:
I would be interested in an average chrony of velocity before and after tumble. This! Although the OP has produced some great pics and I would love to see more done with "minimum" equipment, especially bore pics, "THIS SET" of pics has nothing to establish PROOF of anything!! There is a definite deformation of the powder. Whether or not this has any effect on performance is yet to be discovered. However, I suggest, for safety sakes, that one does not overdo the polishing of loaded ammo. If one is bound and determined to polish the living shit out of HIS ammo, well........go for it !!!!!!! And yes, the BIG BOYS, polish their ammo for sales and general cosmetics. THEY have a lab with trained and certified personnel AND equipment. They also know how to extract and read the data!!! This argument is not the same as BEANS WITH CHILE, or not. I believe Precision Shooting Magazine has had more than one article on this subject. Some people just want to believe. Me too. I just don't get the desire to polish loaded ammo, unless you're trying to sell it off as better ammo!! Very intense argument on this subject!! WHY? Lets get some data. OH! And thanks to the OP for showing us great pics, Please keep it up. We need more. What !? there is no deformation of the powder. You do realize these are not the exact same granules don't you? It establishes proof that the powders tested were not physically changed by extreme amounts of time in the tumbler. What are bore pictures going to show? The soft primers will deform long before the bore. The point of this test was to see if the powder I use is effected by my hour in the tumbler after the round is assembled. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 4:54:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#16]
....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 6:06:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#17]
....
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 6:09:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Originally Posted By ma96782:
Originally Posted By popnfresh:
And gun manufacturers specifically request you use quality factory manufactured ammunition to SAAMI specs and yet here we are in a reloading forum. This whole forum is advocating going against a published WARNING put out by a manufacturer. One warning must be crap and the other is gospel huh? No. "Ask a smart lawyer about liability and WHY it's probably not a good idea to advocate against a published WARNING put out by a manufacturer." Aloha, Mark And this forum is doing just that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 6:21:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#19]
.....
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 6:30:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#20]
.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 6:36:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#21]
....
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 6:43:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#22]
....
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 6:56:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#23]
....
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 6:58:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#24]
The next person that makes an off topic post, and that includes re-editing a post I already cleaned up, will get a nomination to be locked out of the forum for a while.
I've cleaned out the unnecessary commentary because I want to preserve this thread in a useful format. Keep it that way. Mark, I suggest you read this post. If you want to continue the discussion, start a new thread. Your comments are related to reloading, hence valid, but you're not going to add any more to this thread. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 8:00:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Good Information...
I have one question! When do you get the "shiniest" brass on the average? 8, 4.2, 30 hours. Seems like you would be checking it as you test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 8:27:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Originally Posted By Crittle:
Good Information... I have one question! When do you get the "shiniest" brass on the average? 8, 4.2, 30 hours. Seems like you would be checking it as you test. There are many vairables to this. Such as; How old is the media? What addative are you using? How clean was the brass when you started. etc. I tuble brass to clean it enough that my dies won't get messed up. I trim all of my rifle brass them tumble again to a good polish. Then when I load I don't have to worry about tubling again, because during the loading process. no dies really touch the brass enough to cause any significant imperfections that would warrant me to polish again. Pistol ammo is different. I tumble to clean, load then tumble to polish after loaded ammo. If I run it in my mixers then they get an hour. If it's in the vibratory tumblers its 30 or so minutes. But this varies on media condition and addatives as stated before. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2010 11:02:40 PM EDT
[#27]
Something intresting here for everyone. I saw this thread and it is very intresting about ammunition manufacturing. here is a small quote.
XM193 is really military rejects, packaged many different ways. It comes from Lake City in 35 gallon steel cannisters, packed loose, by semi. LC has already rejected it for military, and we go through and QC it again and put it into...whatever packaging it gets that day. We also put it on clips in 30 round boxes by the case. It gets dumped and re-dumped several times in 30.000 round lots and trucked around the floor and dropped into and out of steel hoppers, thus explaining some of the dings. Intresting thread |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2010 11:34:38 AM EDT
[#28]
Originally Posted By Crittle:
Good Information... I have one question! When do you get the "shiniest" brass on the average? 8, 4.2, 30 hours. Seems like you would be checking it as you test. This lot of media had over 100 hours on it before I started, I know this because I was keeping track for the .223s which had 95 hours already. So the media was wore already maybe. I honestly have no idea how many hours I go before I throw media. All my fired brass goes in the tumbler for 3-6 before sizing so this brass was already cleaned and primed. The other fired brass that tumbled with these looked clean and as shiney the first 6 hour period and the next day it all looked as shiney as the .223s which already had 100 hours. So in this particular case it didn't seem to get much brighter after the first 20 hours or so. I was not constantly checking it because that was not a big concern. I was using plain bulk walnut not treated. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/28/2010 11:30:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2336USMC]
[#29]
––––––––––––-
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2010 9:59:23 AM EDT
[#30]
Fantastic thread. This weekend I made 200 rds of 5.56 with BL-(C)2. Then I tumbled them for 30 minutes to remove the lube. I used to actually wipe them off.
|
|
|
|
NM, USA
|
Posted: 3/9/2010 1:35:03 PM EDT
[#31]
Interesting test. Was not terribly surprised.
 The most interesting part to me was that the LYMAN TUMBLER came through all those hours without a hitch.
Now fill your tumbler with brass, turn it on, and see how many hours, months it'll LAST!!! (of course the least we should do is all take up a collection to replace it for you.  )
Why do that? In the interest of science of course...uh....and the fact that I use a Lyman.  Oh, I know, do it yourself, you say. But I'm a mechanical slam bang, in the trenches worker, not the inquisitive scientific type like you.
Seriously............good post. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2010 10:35:10 PM EDT
[#32]
OP, thanks for taking the time and effort on this project. I started tumbling loaded ammo back in the 70's, all types of rifle and pistol ammo. Never ever experienced any issues of any kind, including accuracy difference. I didn't know it was dangerous until I read it on the internet a couple years ago.
 Wow!! Didn't know I was taking my life in my hands for all these years and 300,000 to 500,000 rounds. Guess Internet Experts know more than people with actual, hands-on experience. FWIW I tumble for about 2 hours but there's been a few times when I forgot the tumber was running and went a couple days. The Thumler Tumber is pretty gentle on the ammo.
So, in spite of the Henny Penny crowd's handwringing I'll continue to tumble and save myself a lot of time and work cleaning the lube off cases.
|
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 7/2/2010 12:45:29 AM EDT
[#33]
Several reloading manuals and powder manufacturer's themselves have warned against tumbling loaded ammo. So it's not just the "internet commando's" that have raised this warning.
Unless we get some velocities fired prior to tumbling to compare to velocities after tumbling we really don't no that nothing has changed. Sometimes visual proof is the weakest proof. |
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 7/2/2010 12:57:48 AM EDT
[#34]
Great job on photos, Thank you for taking the time to share your info!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2010 1:12:06 AM EDT
[#35]
Does it appear to anyone else that the winchester 748 was 'damaged" during the tumbling. It looks like there is pieces missing off of the grains of powder.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2010 1:21:17 AM EDT
[#36]
I have no idea what I just looked at.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 7/2/2010 11:09:12 AM EDT
[#37]
Let's go one step further:
What does powder look like after ammo has been riding around in the trunk of a car for 6 months? Or carried in a spare magazine on a police duty belt? It's a slower tumble, but it's moving, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2010 2:35:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Originally Posted By borderpatrol:
Several reloading manuals and powder manufacturer's themselves have warned against tumbling loaded ammo. So it's not just the "internet commando's" that have raised this warning. Unless we get some velocities fired prior to tumbling to compare to velocities after tumbling we really don't no that nothing has changed. Sometimes visual proof is the weakest proof. If you follow manufacturers published instructions none of us would be reloading....period. It's too dangerous, you know. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2010 11:21:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Intresting report, I will admit that the results look pretty impressive so far. I think someone mentioned that the next step would be to repeat the tumbling expierment and then run the rounds over a chrono.
With control rounds and the test rounds. To make it even more intresting you could do the test with factory ammo and reloads and put some myths down for good. Example with the factory rounds, buy one box of 40 and one of 223 out of the box you can pull down 2 rounds one before and one after like you did already, and then have the control group set aside and the test group. Dang sorry for rambling, I am sure you know all this already. Would be an intresting report though. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 9/21/2010 10:42:17 PM EDT
[#40]
+1...thanks for your time and dedication to make this a fact!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2010 10:53:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: danpass]
[#41]
Are the pics in the op still giganormous?
I don't wanna look
|
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 9/22/2010 11:18:58 AM EDT
[#42]
For a second there I thought Mythbusters but alas it's only Popnfresh . Great write up bordering to scientific in my opinion.
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 9/22/2010 11:57:10 AM EDT
[#43]
Anyone else think under magnification the Power Pistol looks like little breakfast sausage patties?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2010 7:49:42 PM EDT
[#44]
Nothing short of epic. Fantastic post, requires a tack.
Thanks a ton from shooters everywhere |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 6/8/2011 1:36:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ma96782]
[#45]
Taken from........
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2008/09/why-you-should-not-tumble-clean-loaded-ammo/ Editor says:
September 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm Phil, Others have done simple experiments and concluded that they can not see visible signs of powder changes after tumbling loaded ammo and then pulling apart the rounds. See, e.g. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300510 But these experiments are far from comprehensive (or scientific) and rely, typically, on simple “eyeball” inspections. The “evidence” was “hey the powder pretty much looks the same (after tumbling), so it must be the same.” How many of these “home tests” tried 40 or more powders, or sent the tumbled powders to a lab for close analysis? Remember if one claims that tumbling loaded ammo is “safe”, that better apply to EVERY type of Powder, EVERY case fill percentage (load density), and EVERY tumbling interval. NONE of the “home workshop” type tests I’ve seen has sampled more than a half-dozen types of powder, and they were normally tumbled in cases with a full powder charge. Moreover, AccurateShooter.com takes the position that ammo-makers and powder-makers are advising caution for a good reason. And we would certainly not put in print a procedure that runs contrary to manufacturers’ stated safety warnings, particularly when there really is NO GOOD REASON to tumble loaded cases other than to make them look prettier. As one shooter posted on the Accurate Reloading Forum: “You might get by with it for years and years and then all of a sudden something happens and a gun blows up, I’ve seen it happen. It’s not worth the potential hazards. A lost eye or finger isn’t worth all the shiny brass in the world.” And............ dave says:
March 2, 2010 at 3:40 pm RE: Tumbling Loaded Ammo Tue, March 2, 2010 10:04:34 AMFrom: Dave Campbell Add to Contacts To: Dave ——————————————————————————– It is the policy of Hodgdon Powder Co. to recommend against ever tumbling or vibrating loaded or reloaded ammunition. Vibration for even short periods of time may degrade propellants or change their burn characteristics. Vibrating propellants may cause coatings to wear off and edges or ends to erode. Dave Campbell Ballistician/ Customer Service Hodgdon Powder Company Family of Propellants: Hodgdon Smokeless Powders, The Brand That’s True IMR Legendary Powders Winchester Smokeless Powders, For Loading Professionals Pyrodex Triple7 Goex Black Powder White Hots http://www.hodgdon.com 913-362-9455 ext. 117 [email protected] —–Original Message—– From: Dave [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:41 PM To: Dave Campbell Subject: Tumbling Loaded Ammo What stance does Hodgdon , IMR And Winchester Powders, take on the practice of tumbling ammo, after it has been loaded or reloaded?? There is an ongoing debate amongst loaders if this is recommended by powder manufactures. Thank you for your time Dave [email protected] Aloha, Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2011 9:07:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Flamethrower]
[#46]
Mark, nobody said tumbling loaded ammo isn't without a degree of danger. If someone here ever said it is completely safe, I would like to see it. Fact is, it has never been stated that it is safe 100% of the time. As with anything related to reloading there is an inherit risk. You have stressed your points on many an occasion. There is nothing wrong with that. I am wondering what has happened to you that has made you so "gun shy" to many things, to the point it has you playing Internet attorney. This subject especially seems to be the hill you want to die on.
ETA: I did not see the other thread where people were claiming it is 100% safe. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 9:51:08 PM EDT
[#47]
Did you chrono any loads with the new and tumbled powder to compare velocity or pressure?
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 9:10:16 PM EDT
[#48]
Did you chrono any loads with the new and tumbled powder to compare velocity or pressure?
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 10/4/2011 10:45:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Counselor]
[#49]
deleted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2012 11:21:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Is this a sticky?
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
