My "jury" is still deliberating (still hung, too).
<br>
<br>All the testimony FOR moly seems persuaded before-hand. Much of the testimony after long experience seems increasingly negative.
<br>
<br>A long time ago, I learned that anything that's quickly and enthusiastically embraced by large numbers of people is likely to be a deception. Increasingly, I get the feeling that moly-coating bullets is turning-out to be a deception.
<br>
<br>My unanswered questions are
<br>What are its real benefits supposed to be?
<br>How does one examine and evaluate the extent of its benefits? (IOW, how does anyone know?)
<br>Are its benefits great enough for it to be worth the trouble?
<br>How does it affect accuracy, pressures, etc?
<br>
<br>So far, my impression is that it's supposed to make cleaning easier and less-frequently necessary. What isn't clear to me is whether the effort saved in cleaning is enough greater than the effort spent in coating to justify the effort spent.
<br>
<br>I'm suspicious of what slickening the bullet shank does to neck grip, bullet pull, and the full spectrum of interior ballistics -- first, of course, in the first round fired but also in rounds in the magazine as they undergo the repeated recoil of rounds fired before they come to the top and get fed into the chamber.
<br>
<br>There are just too many crucial questions left unaddressed and unanswered by the enthusiasts who thump tambourines and toot horns cheering for the magic of moly. My "jury" is still awaiting further -- better -- testimony. I may, someday, have to dedicate a test barrel to a series to find the answers. Meanwhile, a growing number of once-enthusiastic moly-shooters are becoming disenchanted with moly.
<br>
<br>
<br>I'm not buying it -- yet.
