SL68 ...continued
- Thread starter JonB
- Start date
Grump
Member
Um, now ya got me confused just as I'm sorting out the various versions... 68.1 has NO Vaseline, doesn't it? Just as a book-lurnin' informed/educated guess, I'd dub the next version 68.1.1 and follow your suggestion with less oils (1.5 Tbsp gear oil and 1/2 Tsp Castor bean) and adding 1 Tbsp Vaseline to make it a 5-component mix...much as I like the simplicity of only 4...
Thoughts from the more experienced here???
Ian
Notorious member
Good catch, Grump, SOME Vaseline in place of the oil in SL-68.1 would have more accurately represented what I meant.
FYI the Soap Lube series in my book goes through basic version 71, with .2 and .3 versions of SL-68 having been made and tested nearly two years ago. Don't ask, if there were anything that merited publication beyond the basic MW/Ivory/mineral oil/Vaseline constituents of the 68 umbrella it would have been. SL-69 used strictly beeswax in place of petro waxes, SL-62 or 63 (I forget) used straight paraffin wax (Brad called it "Flubber") and was part of the tranny-goo series (SL-61-65). Some of the low-60 series used straight beeswax same as 69, but were made in "reverse" where the wax was added after the soda grease was cooked and thus was not fully incorporated into the soap matrix. All of the soap lubes since version 1.0 have contained between 20 and 40% Ivory soap or 15-20% Na stearate granules, hence the "SL" nomenclature. Generally, though not always, if a major ingredient or cooking technique is altered, I go up a number. If a minor ingredient or combination of minor ingredients is altered, I denoted it as a sub-version. Look, I'm no laboratory scientist, I'm a grease-monkey turned parts man with a background in M.E., so I developed my own "system" of identifying recipes as an expedient that made sense at the time when the sheer data overload made simple names like "yellow jacket" (beeswax/various oils) or "Zombie" (anything using AC ester oil with tracer dye) obsolete. Runfiverun did a similar thing with his E-(color) series, a cookie to anyone who knows what the E stands for. The letter/number series that I eventually adopted let me keep track of changes easily and group trends, an important thing when drawing generalizations about the effects of an individual ingredient. For example, we can say with relative assurance that SL-62 and it's sub-versions has a tendency to throw cold-start flyers, but SL-67 does not. Comparing versions on a manual spreadsheet indicated to me that paraffin wax as a trend causes cold-starts in soap-based lube formulas, but Vaseline or mineral-based petrolatum does not. SL-67 proved the value of micro-crystalline wax as a major ingredient that keeps bore condition consistent under a wide range of temperature. Gradually I got it narrowed down, and SL-68.0 currently stands as an example of what to work toward with soap lube: Micro-crystalline waxes plasticized with straight-chain paraffin oils, with a dash of castor oil for high-velocity enhancement. SL-68.3 was the same as .1 except Maxima K2 ester oil was substituted for the Castor. It had the same problems as .1, though, which caused me to think that the way to test the castor would best be done with version .0. SL-68.4 was never made or tried by me, as I went back to .0 and .1 and haven't really found anything about the castor part of the mix that needed improving.
Jon's SL-68B is his own avenue of experimentation with some input from myself and others, and I think focusing on wax blends is a path worth taking. I'm very pleased that the basic concept of SL-68 has proven worth the time and effort of both him and Barn to take to the next level, and I sincerely hope that they can improve upon it even more. It has taken a village to bring up the Extreme Lube recipe, and continues to do so.
FYI the Soap Lube series in my book goes through basic version 71, with .2 and .3 versions of SL-68 having been made and tested nearly two years ago. Don't ask, if there were anything that merited publication beyond the basic MW/Ivory/mineral oil/Vaseline constituents of the 68 umbrella it would have been. SL-69 used strictly beeswax in place of petro waxes, SL-62 or 63 (I forget) used straight paraffin wax (Brad called it "Flubber") and was part of the tranny-goo series (SL-61-65). Some of the low-60 series used straight beeswax same as 69, but were made in "reverse" where the wax was added after the soda grease was cooked and thus was not fully incorporated into the soap matrix. All of the soap lubes since version 1.0 have contained between 20 and 40% Ivory soap or 15-20% Na stearate granules, hence the "SL" nomenclature. Generally, though not always, if a major ingredient or cooking technique is altered, I go up a number. If a minor ingredient or combination of minor ingredients is altered, I denoted it as a sub-version. Look, I'm no laboratory scientist, I'm a grease-monkey turned parts man with a background in M.E., so I developed my own "system" of identifying recipes as an expedient that made sense at the time when the sheer data overload made simple names like "yellow jacket" (beeswax/various oils) or "Zombie" (anything using AC ester oil with tracer dye) obsolete. Runfiverun did a similar thing with his E-(color) series, a cookie to anyone who knows what the E stands for. The letter/number series that I eventually adopted let me keep track of changes easily and group trends, an important thing when drawing generalizations about the effects of an individual ingredient. For example, we can say with relative assurance that SL-62 and it's sub-versions has a tendency to throw cold-start flyers, but SL-67 does not. Comparing versions on a manual spreadsheet indicated to me that paraffin wax as a trend causes cold-starts in soap-based lube formulas, but Vaseline or mineral-based petrolatum does not. SL-67 proved the value of micro-crystalline wax as a major ingredient that keeps bore condition consistent under a wide range of temperature. Gradually I got it narrowed down, and SL-68.0 currently stands as an example of what to work toward with soap lube: Micro-crystalline waxes plasticized with straight-chain paraffin oils, with a dash of castor oil for high-velocity enhancement. SL-68.3 was the same as .1 except Maxima K2 ester oil was substituted for the Castor. It had the same problems as .1, though, which caused me to think that the way to test the castor would best be done with version .0. SL-68.4 was never made or tried by me, as I went back to .0 and .1 and haven't really found anything about the castor part of the mix that needed improving.
Jon's SL-68B is his own avenue of experimentation with some input from myself and others, and I think focusing on wax blends is a path worth taking. I'm very pleased that the basic concept of SL-68 has proven worth the time and effort of both him and Barn to take to the next level, and I sincerely hope that they can improve upon it even more. It has taken a village to bring up the Extreme Lube recipe, and continues to do so.
Grump
Member
When I detected a trend of systematic nomenclature in the other Extreme thread, it made sense without knowing the details. Knowing more of the method makes me think that swapping out some of the oils for a bit of Vaseline might be the "nevergothatfar" 68.4 experiment.
My question is why swap Vaseline for some of the oil(s)? My whimsical desire for fewer ingredients makes me want to just reduce the oils first and see what happens.
Alas, I lack both the proven accurate (with cast bullets!) rifle test mules and loads to do any heavy lifting myself. If I could get my hands on that LMT shorty AR I could buy one of the proven powders and beg some of you guys' proven bullets, but the wife wants new flooring in the basement! THAT means I have to file all that neglected stuff in my office first!
My question is why swap Vaseline for some of the oil(s)? My whimsical desire for fewer ingredients makes me want to just reduce the oils first and see what happens.
Alas, I lack both the proven accurate (with cast bullets!) rifle test mules and loads to do any heavy lifting myself. If I could get my hands on that LMT shorty AR I could buy one of the proven powders and beg some of you guys' proven bullets, but the wife wants new flooring in the basement! THAT means I have to file all that neglected stuff in my office first!
Grump
Member
Well that puts a more full light on the subject. I'd venture that the microwax in it is of a melt point that doesn't help hot weather drip resistance.
Yeah, the hot weather bleed problem is very important to me. I'm encouraged that a single 180°-F melt microwax plus the Sodium Stearate seems to be all we need to fix that problem. Nervous about undermining that utility.
Yeah, the hot weather bleed problem is very important to me. I'm encouraged that a single 180°-F melt microwax plus the Sodium Stearate seems to be all we need to fix that problem. Nervous about undermining that utility.
Ian
Notorious member
Vaseline is the universal plasticizer that has the fewest side-effects. I created SL-68.1 to reduce the number of ingredients and see if it still did the same job, which it mostly didn't do quite as well, but close. There is also the benefit of having more of the anti-oxidant and anti-rust (not the same things) chemicals present in the lube recipe by having a higher gear oil percentage. SL-68.1 has only two petroleum ingredients: A molecularly narrow product of hydrocracking and and a narrow fraction of paraffin oil in the SAE 140 range. Lots of "gaps" below the oil where lighter oils fit in and lots of gaps above the oil where the heavier constituents of Vaseline and soft microwaxes might fit. The goal to work toward is filling those gaps I think, my reasoning being that lubes with the most full spectrum of wax/oil ingredients seem to shoot the best.
JonB
Halcyon member
So, I got the Rifle Pillar bedded, as well as the whole action bedded this summer.
I was out shooting a couple months ago and I was lazy about posting, as I was hoping to get out again soon after, which I didn't. I hoped to better test a new to me bullet. The HM².
View attachment 717
I did shoot some, but I was using some powder (3031) that I just wanted to use up, that I didn't have a tested load for, to just fire form some FL sized brass to this chamber. The groups were 'spread' about in proportion to what the chrono SD indicated.
But I loaded the last group of the Lee TL with SL68B with a coating of BLL
View attachment 155
I am happy to announce that the leading (or lead particles as reported in the op) didn't show up, so that was a success. But the groups, with the same loads as the OP, weren't as good.
Anyway,
I have cast up a bunch of the HM² bullet and lubed them with SL68B, and I think I am ready to load those with a tried and true load. Stay tuned, as we are having perfect weather and all need is a day off work. It would have been today, but I have garden/harvest activities planned.
Last edited:
JonB
Halcyon member
That's a good question. My initial reaction is, I use stainless and that's what I recommend. But Since I didn't have a 'real' answer to your specific question, I hit the google and good housekeeping was kinda helpful.
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/coo...eviews/a17426/nonstick-cookware-safety-facts/
I think you are dancing close to the line. I suspect companies have different formula's for the coating, that probably have different degradation temps. I just wouldn't chance it.
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/coo...eviews/a17426/nonstick-cookware-safety-facts/
I think you are dancing close to the line. I suspect companies have different formula's for the coating, that probably have different degradation temps. I just wouldn't chance it.
JonB
Halcyon member
I finally got to loading these last week.
The HM² 312-155-2 boolit sure casts easy, GC goes on just right with a light snap, sizes and lubes easily, and scuffs the lands in my Win mod 70 just right.
The boollits was cast last July, AC 94-3-3 with .25%Cu, they measure 15.4BHN after 6 months aging. They were sized to .311 and lubed with SL68B about a week after they were cast. 158gr. finished weight.
Load is 27.9 gr. of Alcan 9450 (4759 mil surp). calculated speed/pressure is 2250fps and 33Kpsi.
R+P brass that has been fired 3 or 4 times in this rifle. Neck sized and length checked. CCI primers. Seated with Bonanza BR seater die.
BTW, my previous visit to the range with this rifle, I found this powder, in this rifle, clocked about 50fps faster than I calculated, which is closer than I ever dreamed I could guesstimate, as there are so may variables to include, and I am just 'ballparking' via the Lyman CBHB #4. I've added that 50fps to my guesstimate for this load.
After reading about Rick's experience with a flash hole uniform tool, for inside the case, I ordered one last fall, and remembered it, AFTER I loaded these, DANG. But the good news is, the next project on my bench was loading 243win for a new plain Savage Axis, and those cases got uniformed, when those were loaded the next day.
I have no idea when I'll get to the range. I should have went today, it's partly sunny and just at melting temps, but it'd be a challenge to get the chrono to function with the low sun angle and the plastic pieces of my Pact 1, that need assembly/disassembly at the range, are prone to break at these temps. I'll probably wait for a day in the 50s, in Feb.
Jon
JonB
Halcyon member
Dirty smoky cast bullet loads:
A common complain by many who are new to shooting cast bullets.
Well, I feel the need to wake up this thread. I recently loaded a batch of 9mm cast boolit ammo. I used Unique...now unique is notoriously a dirty burner...add some boolit lube and it's smoky. But I had a different experience with this batch of ammo, when I took a couple boxes (with different boolit styles) to test, before I loaded the remaining of the 1500 batch...also to test in a new gun (Ruger 9e), mostly to test functionality of a few different OAL.
So, I shot up about 100 rds of ammo, it's noticeably not very smoky. Now it was chilly (35º), and there was a breeze, but I could still see smoke, as I was looking for it. I will admit, that even the smokiest/stinkiest loads wouldn't have been a nuisance that day, but I've shot enough to know these were far less smoky than any other Unique cast boolit loads I've shot. The cases were mostly clean, not sooted up. The gun wasn't sooty at all. I get home and clean the gun and barrel, no unburnt powder in the barrel/action/mags. I did have a small amount of lead fouling, I assume that was due to a rough barrel (notorious of a new Ruger). It cleaned out easy enough, and I'll shoot it some more, to wear off any serious ridges/burrs before I'll worry too much about that, as it was plenty accurate and I'd hate to effect that negatively by polishing the bore with flitz (yes that happened to me a long ago, and i'll never do that again).
All boolits were lubed with SL68B (there is no alox in SL68B, we all know Alox as a lube or lube ingredient is a major contributor to smokiness/stinkiness). Also this batch was newer Alliant Unique (bought in 2013), Alliant made some claims a while back, that they had did something to make Unique less smoky? I remember reading that anyway? but don't recall exactly what the change was?
And lastly, I loaded these to 25Kcup or slightly higher pressures (per Lyman manual). Some powders, especially powders designed for shotgun (like the Dot powders), need to be loaded to a certain pressure level to achieve a efficient burn, meaning they'll burn dirty below that pressure level. I didn't know that to be the case with Unique, but am thinking that now.
A common complain by many who are new to shooting cast bullets.
Well, I feel the need to wake up this thread. I recently loaded a batch of 9mm cast boolit ammo. I used Unique...now unique is notoriously a dirty burner...add some boolit lube and it's smoky. But I had a different experience with this batch of ammo, when I took a couple boxes (with different boolit styles) to test, before I loaded the remaining of the 1500 batch...also to test in a new gun (Ruger 9e), mostly to test functionality of a few different OAL.
So, I shot up about 100 rds of ammo, it's noticeably not very smoky. Now it was chilly (35º), and there was a breeze, but I could still see smoke, as I was looking for it. I will admit, that even the smokiest/stinkiest loads wouldn't have been a nuisance that day, but I've shot enough to know these were far less smoky than any other Unique cast boolit loads I've shot. The cases were mostly clean, not sooted up. The gun wasn't sooty at all. I get home and clean the gun and barrel, no unburnt powder in the barrel/action/mags. I did have a small amount of lead fouling, I assume that was due to a rough barrel (notorious of a new Ruger). It cleaned out easy enough, and I'll shoot it some more, to wear off any serious ridges/burrs before I'll worry too much about that, as it was plenty accurate and I'd hate to effect that negatively by polishing the bore with flitz (yes that happened to me a long ago, and i'll never do that again).
All boolits were lubed with SL68B (there is no alox in SL68B, we all know Alox as a lube or lube ingredient is a major contributor to smokiness/stinkiness). Also this batch was newer Alliant Unique (bought in 2013), Alliant made some claims a while back, that they had did something to make Unique less smoky? I remember reading that anyway? but don't recall exactly what the change was?
And lastly, I loaded these to 25Kcup or slightly higher pressures (per Lyman manual). Some powders, especially powders designed for shotgun (like the Dot powders), need to be loaded to a certain pressure level to achieve a efficient burn, meaning they'll burn dirty below that pressure level. I didn't know that to be the case with Unique, but am thinking that now.
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
Yes, on all suppositions. Unique apparently uses a cleaner, purer form of charcoal in the manufacturing process now, less unburnt crud left over.
And Unique does burn much better if the pressures are higher. A perfect example of this comes from my early IPSC days. I was loading H&G68s
(200 SWC) in .45 ACP and got good accy. When we started measuring velocity to calculate power factor, I checked my velocities. I was shocked
to find that a 10 round string could vary 125 fps. I checked again and another guy's similar load and same thing, 125-150 fps variation, even though
the accuracy was OK - IPCS is not 2700. I tried using 230 cast and the velocity variation went down dramatically to about 40 fps for 10 shots, IIRC.
I believe this is due to raising pressures and burning more completely.
My biggest use for Unique now is for rifle cast bullet loads and for 10 gr of Unique in the .44 Mag under a 250 Keith, my standard load. This burns
very cleanly, IME, because pressures are high.
Bill
And Unique does burn much better if the pressures are higher. A perfect example of this comes from my early IPSC days. I was loading H&G68s
(200 SWC) in .45 ACP and got good accy. When we started measuring velocity to calculate power factor, I checked my velocities. I was shocked
to find that a 10 round string could vary 125 fps. I checked again and another guy's similar load and same thing, 125-150 fps variation, even though
the accuracy was OK - IPCS is not 2700. I tried using 230 cast and the velocity variation went down dramatically to about 40 fps for 10 shots, IIRC.
I believe this is due to raising pressures and burning more completely.
My biggest use for Unique now is for rifle cast bullet loads and for 10 gr of Unique in the .44 Mag under a 250 Keith, my standard load. This burns
very cleanly, IME, because pressures are high.
Bill
JonB
Halcyon member
I am just about OUT of lube.
it's been a couple years (or more?) since I made some.
The weather this time of year in MN is just about perfect for Cooking Soap lube with Beeswax.
I'm thinking Monday or Tuesday...sunny and mid 30s are predicted.
I will be reducing the Castor oil to 1 tsp per batch...everything else in the recipe posted in the OP remains the same.
it's been a couple years (or more?) since I made some.
The weather this time of year in MN is just about perfect for Cooking Soap lube with Beeswax.
I'm thinking Monday or Tuesday...sunny and mid 30s are predicted.
I will be reducing the Castor oil to 1 tsp per batch...everything else in the recipe posted in the OP remains the same.
