Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
Good info. I always thought cr-10 was wicked stuff.
Ill have to try the kg12
Good info. I always thought cr-10 was wicked stuff.
Ill have to try the kg12
Gunsmithing Our own Copper/Carbon Solvent Test
- Thread starter kombayotch
- Start date
- Tags
- copper or carbon solvent test
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
Keep in mind that my test may have been biased towards some solvents that may require oxygen to do their job. Submerging the bullets is not exactly the same as coating them with a think layer of solvent. Running a controlled test doing that is a lot more difficult though.
Keep in mind that my test may have been biased towards some solvents that may require oxygen to do their job. Submerging the bullets is not exactly the same as coating them with a think layer of solvent. Running a controlled test doing that is a lot more difficult though.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
Do most of you guys clean for carbon first then copper? Or vice versa?
Do most of you guys clean for carbon first then copper? Or vice versa?
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep in mind that my test may have been biased towards some solvents that may require oxygen to do their job. Submerging the bullets is not exactly the same as coating them with a think layer of solvent. Running a controlled test doing that is a lot more difficult though. </div></div>
I did not think of that...
The Oxygen in a barrel does not get much exchange with outside the barrel if there is no chimney effect.
The mass of the Oxygen in a bore would be ..
Volume of bore = pi r squared L = pi .3/2 squared 24" = 1.7 cu in.
Each cubic foot of air has .27 moles of Oxygen, so bore has .27/1728 = .00015 moles Oxygen.
If we formed Copper Oxide Cu2O, then we would take out .0003 moles of Copper.
63.546 grams of copper = 1 mole
.0003 moles of Copper = .0003 64 = .0192 grams Copper
Density of Copper is 8.96 g/cm 3
Volume of Copper is .0192 /8.96 cm3 = .002 cubic cm
1 cubic centimeter = 0.0610237441 cu in
Copper = .06 .002 cu in = .00012 cu in
Inside of bore area = C L = pi D L = pi .3 24 = 23 sq in
Copper thickness removed = V/A = .00012 cu in/23 sq in = .000 005" thick.
The idea is to get the Copper fouling to stop changing the shape of the bullet.
Changes in bullet shape on the order of .000 005" are not significant.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep in mind that my test may have been biased towards some solvents that may require oxygen to do their job. Submerging the bullets is not exactly the same as coating them with a think layer of solvent. Running a controlled test doing that is a lot more difficult though. </div></div>
I did not think of that...
The Oxygen in a barrel does not get much exchange with outside the barrel if there is no chimney effect.
The mass of the Oxygen in a bore would be ..
Volume of bore = pi r squared L = pi .3/2 squared 24" = 1.7 cu in.
Each cubic foot of air has .27 moles of Oxygen, so bore has .27/1728 = .00015 moles Oxygen.
If we formed Copper Oxide Cu2O, then we would take out .0003 moles of Copper.
63.546 grams of copper = 1 mole
.0003 moles of Copper = .0003 64 = .0192 grams Copper
Density of Copper is 8.96 g/cm 3
Volume of Copper is .0192 /8.96 cm3 = .002 cubic cm
1 cubic centimeter = 0.0610237441 cu in
Copper = .06 .002 cu in = .00012 cu in
Inside of bore area = C L = pi D L = pi .3 24 = 23 sq in
Copper thickness removed = V/A = .00012 cu in/23 sq in = .000 005" thick.
The idea is to get the Copper fouling to stop changing the shape of the bullet.
Changes in bullet shape on the order of .000 005" are not significant.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Clark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Changes in bullet shape on the order of .000 005" are not significant.
</div></div>
How about non-obturating bullets like the original Barnes X that temporarily bulge the barrel as they pass from breech to muzzle?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Clark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Changes in bullet shape on the order of .000 005" are not significant.
</div></div>
How about non-obturating bullets like the original Barnes X that temporarily bulge the barrel as they pass from breech to muzzle?
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
500G,
You are the great white hunter of distraction.
When you sit on the toilet, do you call that "killing an elephant"?
OK....Cu2O... that is what it reads like inside the SH editor.
500G,
You are the great white hunter of distraction.
When you sit on the toilet, do you call that "killing an elephant"?
OK....Cu2O... that is what it reads like inside the SH editor.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Clark</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep in mind that my test may have been biased towards some solvents that may require oxygen to do their job. Submerging the bullets is not exactly the same as coating them with a think layer of solvent. Running a controlled test doing that is a lot more difficult though. </div></div>
I did not think of that...
The Oxygen in a barrel does not get much exchange with outside the barrel if there is no chimney effect.
The mass of the Oxygen in a bore would be ..
Volume of bore = pi r squared L = pi .3/2 squared 24" = 1.7 cu in.
Each cubic foot of air has .27 moles of Oxygen, so bore has .27/1728 = .00015 moles Oxygen.
If we formed Copper Oxide Cu2O, then we would take out .0003 moles of Copper.
63.546 grams of copper = 1 mole
.0003 moles of Copper = .0003 64 = .0192 grams Copper
Density of Copper is 8.96 g/cm 3
Volume of Copper is .0192 /8.96 cm3 = .002 cubic cm
1 cubic centimeter = 0.0610237441 cu in
Copper = .06 .002 cu in = .00012 cu in
Inside of bore area = C L = pi D L = pi .3 24 = 23 sq in
Copper thickness removed = V/A = .00012 cu in/23 sq in = .000 005" thick.
The idea is to get the Copper fouling to stop changing the shape of the bullet.
Changes in bullet shape on the order of .000 005" are not significant.
</div></div>
I wasn't necessarily thinking of the oxygen reacting with the copper itself so much as activating the solvent in some way. Just found it funny that some of these solvents that have such a good reputation for removing copper did nearly nothing in my test. There may be a difference when dunking the copper vs coating it lightly. You could probably theorize the possible reasons for this better than I can given that you seem to have a background in chemistry.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Clark</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep in mind that my test may have been biased towards some solvents that may require oxygen to do their job. Submerging the bullets is not exactly the same as coating them with a think layer of solvent. Running a controlled test doing that is a lot more difficult though. </div></div>
I did not think of that...
The Oxygen in a barrel does not get much exchange with outside the barrel if there is no chimney effect.
The mass of the Oxygen in a bore would be ..
Volume of bore = pi r squared L = pi .3/2 squared 24" = 1.7 cu in.
Each cubic foot of air has .27 moles of Oxygen, so bore has .27/1728 = .00015 moles Oxygen.
If we formed Copper Oxide Cu2O, then we would take out .0003 moles of Copper.
63.546 grams of copper = 1 mole
.0003 moles of Copper = .0003 64 = .0192 grams Copper
Density of Copper is 8.96 g/cm 3
Volume of Copper is .0192 /8.96 cm3 = .002 cubic cm
1 cubic centimeter = 0.0610237441 cu in
Copper = .06 .002 cu in = .00012 cu in
Inside of bore area = C L = pi D L = pi .3 24 = 23 sq in
Copper thickness removed = V/A = .00012 cu in/23 sq in = .000 005" thick.
The idea is to get the Copper fouling to stop changing the shape of the bullet.
Changes in bullet shape on the order of .000 005" are not significant.
</div></div>
I wasn't necessarily thinking of the oxygen reacting with the copper itself so much as activating the solvent in some way. Just found it funny that some of these solvents that have such a good reputation for removing copper did nearly nothing in my test. There may be a difference when dunking the copper vs coating it lightly. You could probably theorize the possible reasons for this better than I can given that you seem to have a background in chemistry.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
I needed a year of chemistry in high school and as a freshman in college. I declined to do homework for either and got terrible grades.
40 years did not improve the accumulated deficiencies.
What does it all mean?
I bet I don't know 10% as much about chemistry as Kombayotch does... who managed to DO his homework.
I needed a year of chemistry in high school and as a freshman in college. I declined to do homework for either and got terrible grades.
40 years did not improve the accumulated deficiencies.
What does it all mean?
I bet I don't know 10% as much about chemistry as Kombayotch does... who managed to DO his homework.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
FYI I asked the KG folks at SHOT about why/when the KG 1 turns blue. He said it was reacting to the copper in a bore. He confirmed that it was not designed to remove the copper but it does seem to react to its presence. I use KG products exclusively now, and have for the last 2 or 3 years. KG 1 for carbon cleaning, KG-12 for copper removal.
FYI I asked the KG folks at SHOT about why/when the KG 1 turns blue. He said it was reacting to the copper in a bore. He confirmed that it was not designed to remove the copper but it does seem to react to its presence. I use KG products exclusively now, and have for the last 2 or 3 years. KG 1 for carbon cleaning, KG-12 for copper removal.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
This is an old thread, but I am resurrecting it because it is always so relevant.
When it comes to cleaning in general, we have tradeoffs... the more cleaning we do, the more of a chance we have of damaging the bore through mechanical action. Solvents allows us to use chemistry to do more with less... basically, clean more while running fewer patches. But we might have just traded mechnical damage for chemical damage.
So it seems to me, with solvents, we have an effectiveness tradeoff. We are trading potential ease in cleaning for potential chemical damage. A solvent can be too good... something that is great at dissolving copper might be good at dissolving iron, or worse, selectively dissolving Chromium, Molybedenum, or Nickel that would have the impact of softening the steel.
For that reason, I am a little bit fearful of a solvent that works really really well as measured by Kombayotch's test.
I guess I could also see how well these solvents work on a chunk of stainless, but that wouldn't address the potential weakening of the steel through the selective leaching of molecules in a gun barrel. Does anyone have any suggestions for testing this? It seems to be the other end of the equation.
This is an old thread, but I am resurrecting it because it is always so relevant.
When it comes to cleaning in general, we have tradeoffs... the more cleaning we do, the more of a chance we have of damaging the bore through mechanical action. Solvents allows us to use chemistry to do more with less... basically, clean more while running fewer patches. But we might have just traded mechnical damage for chemical damage.
So it seems to me, with solvents, we have an effectiveness tradeoff. We are trading potential ease in cleaning for potential chemical damage. A solvent can be too good... something that is great at dissolving copper might be good at dissolving iron, or worse, selectively dissolving Chromium, Molybedenum, or Nickel that would have the impact of softening the steel.
For that reason, I am a little bit fearful of a solvent that works really really well as measured by Kombayotch's test.
I guess I could also see how well these solvents work on a chunk of stainless, but that wouldn't address the potential weakening of the steel through the selective leaching of molecules in a gun barrel. Does anyone have any suggestions for testing this? It seems to be the other end of the equation.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
tag... KG12 for copper, BBS for carbon
tag... KG12 for copper, BBS for carbon
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
Helluva Thread! thanks.
Helluva Thread! thanks.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: veezer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have some 28% ammonia so I thought I would give it a test. I placed a 150gr. 7mm Nosler BT in a small container and covered it with the ammonia solution that has a little liquid soap in it. After 15 min no change in weight. 30 min, nothing. 1 hour, nothing. 3 hours, nothing. After 24 hours there was still no change in the bullet weight. The solution did turn a slight blue color after 3 hours.
I know that this solution will dissolve copper really quick when you scrub a barrel and wonder if that might be the key. You need to constantly wipe or scrub the copper surface to keep the ammonia in contact with the metal. Maybe a slight layer of ionized copper is blocking further action?
Even if this is the case, I wonder how well KG's products would work if you could set up a test where you constantly scrub the surface while appying the solvent? </div></div>
If you really want some grunt try Ferric chloride , warm it up and agitate with a paint brush over the metal surface.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: veezer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have some 28% ammonia so I thought I would give it a test. I placed a 150gr. 7mm Nosler BT in a small container and covered it with the ammonia solution that has a little liquid soap in it. After 15 min no change in weight. 30 min, nothing. 1 hour, nothing. 3 hours, nothing. After 24 hours there was still no change in the bullet weight. The solution did turn a slight blue color after 3 hours.
I know that this solution will dissolve copper really quick when you scrub a barrel and wonder if that might be the key. You need to constantly wipe or scrub the copper surface to keep the ammonia in contact with the metal. Maybe a slight layer of ionized copper is blocking further action?
Even if this is the case, I wonder how well KG's products would work if you could set up a test where you constantly scrub the surface while appying the solvent? </div></div>
If you really want some grunt try Ferric chloride , warm it up and agitate with a paint brush over the metal surface.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
Excellent read! I passed this on to some of my shooting pals as well.
Excellent read! I passed this on to some of my shooting pals as well.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
This is a great thread It got me thinking to try this test on the Tiptons stuff that always seems to brag about the blue patch test. Thanks for turning me onto the KG-12 though.
This is a great thread It got me thinking to try this test on the Tiptons stuff that always seems to brag about the blue patch test. Thanks for turning me onto the KG-12 though.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
Yes, this thread is memorable.
Yes, this thread is memorable.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
Any plans for a carbon cleaner test?
Any plans for a carbon cleaner test?
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tstevens</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any plans for a carbon cleaner test? </div></div>
+1 BTW great write up!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tstevens</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any plans for a carbon cleaner test? </div></div>
+1 BTW great write up!!
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
Not really... haven't had any problems with it.
Not really... haven't had any problems with it.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
Doesnt some of these require the presence of oxygen to work properly?
edit: saw it was mentioned earlier.
Doesnt some of these require the presence of oxygen to work properly?
edit: saw it was mentioned earlier.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
I've been using all the KG cleaning products and have been very happy with them. The KG-1 Carbon remover is amazing, I had brakes that had baked on carbon that I've tried to remove with other carbon cleaners and I was able to remove it 100% clean with a Q-tip and KG-1. I remove the carbon then follow up with the KG-12 and it makes for an easy clean up!!
I've been using all the KG cleaning products and have been very happy with them. The KG-1 Carbon remover is amazing, I had brakes that had baked on carbon that I've tried to remove with other carbon cleaners and I was able to remove it 100% clean with a Q-tip and KG-1. I remove the carbon then follow up with the KG-12 and it makes for an easy clean up!!
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
Last month I built 3 rifles with Shilen stainless barrels and then spent 6 days breaking them in and testing accuracy to 400 yards.I was using moly coated Nosler ballistic tip bullets in all three: 257RAI, 260Rem, and 7mmRM rifles.
I bought "KG-1,2,3,4, and 12 Package Deal" from Ebco.
http://www.eabco.com/store/package-deals/kg-1-2-3-4-and-12-package-deal-all-5/
I mounted two reloading presses in my vehicle, shot prone next to the vehicle, and really worked hard with a fast feedback loop on what worked.
After some experimentation, I was only using the KG1 and KG12 out of package of 5.
And I was back to also using Kroil, Flitz, and Brownell's moly paste.
Last month I built 3 rifles with Shilen stainless barrels and then spent 6 days breaking them in and testing accuracy to 400 yards.I was using moly coated Nosler ballistic tip bullets in all three: 257RAI, 260Rem, and 7mmRM rifles.
I bought "KG-1,2,3,4, and 12 Package Deal" from Ebco.
http://www.eabco.com/store/package-deals/kg-1-2-3-4-and-12-package-deal-all-5/
I mounted two reloading presses in my vehicle, shot prone next to the vehicle, and really worked hard with a fast feedback loop on what worked.
After some experimentation, I was only using the KG1 and KG12 out of package of 5.
And I was back to also using Kroil, Flitz, and Brownell's moly paste.
Re: Our own Copper Solvent Test
I have been using KG-12 and Wipeout. In my experience the KG-12 is faster. I don't like how it doesn't indicate but I use the wipeout to check. I use hoppes 9 solvent and butch's patches to remove carbon. Than KG12 over night followed up by wipeout for an hour. I just tried the New Remington Squeegee with great result! once I get a clean wipe out patch ill do a nylon brush with hoppes for good measure than use the squeegee. If I am going to store it for a while i give it a bore mop with ewl 2000.
I have been using KG-12 and Wipeout. In my experience the KG-12 is faster. I don't like how it doesn't indicate but I use the wipeout to check. I use hoppes 9 solvent and butch's patches to remove carbon. Than KG12 over night followed up by wipeout for an hour. I just tried the New Remington Squeegee with great result! once I get a clean wipe out patch ill do a nylon brush with hoppes for good measure than use the squeegee. If I am going to store it for a while i give it a bore mop with ewl 2000.
Similar threads
