Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Do Exposed Lead Tips of Bullets Melt During Flight?

Have been told that bullets (with exposed lead tips) will melt from the heat / high-speed friction while going through the air.

Is this true? If so, then the uneven or jagged exposed lead tips don't matter too much because they will melt during flight.

If they are bent they can introduce a wobble that will stay with the bullet all the way to the end of it's flight whether it stays on the bullet or not. If it get's hot enough to melt lead it will certainly get hot enough to melt plastic tips as well wouldn't it. Great question.

Simple answer is ...NO.
If you find the formulia (there is one BTW) you'll find that the tip temp does not increase as a result of friction. The PD shooters often find the plastic tips, while examining the carnage, all reports are that there undamaged on recovery.

I recovered 3 tips inside deer last year from 180 gr Ballistic Tips fired from a 300 WM at 3100 fps. The tips were all intact and just under the offside hide.

Sierra told me that lead meplats will not melt so I guess it's so but I remain a little suspicious.

Cores will melt however. The Sierra 50 gr Blitz (222R bullet) will melt out of a .219 I. Zipper at 3600 fps. A sprial of lead can be seen around every bullet hole in the target. They don't group well either.

Don
Where does the magic energy come from to melt the core?
art

When the firing pin connects to the primer bone it connects to the powder bone. That in turn pushes on the bullet bone that rubs on the barrel bone.

Do you remember the tune now? Harry Mills and his brothers did my favorite rendition.

Turn up your sound


Ezekiel cried, "Dem dry bones!"
Ezekiel cried, "Dem dry bones!"
Ezekiel cried, "Dem dry bones!"
"Oh, hear the word of the Lord."

The foot bone connected to the leg bone,
The leg bone connected to the knee bone,
The knee bone connected to the thigh bone,
The thigh bone connected to the back bone,
The back bone connected to the neck bone,

I don't think so............ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

They melted out of my rifle. The Blitz bullet was made for the 222 R and they left a comet tail on the target at close range from the Zipper.

I was looking for some reference to melting and I came across this post by Mule Deer:
"Wayne really mangled them, as I recall--nothing like the simple flattening we normally see.

I have shot buckets full of rounds that either had flat tips, or that I "fixed" with a file, and could see no significant difference in accuracy.

The lead-melting theory was caused by some old photos that had been taken by some lab. A lot of gun writers mentioned thgem over the years.

Eventually, however, somebody tried the experiment again with modern photo equipment and found that the lead tips weren't being melted off after all, it just looked that way in the old, fuzzy black and white photos.

If the lead tip really bothers you, can just file it off flat with the front of the jacket. This doesn't make any difference at all out to 300 yards, and not much after that. Or you can use Speer Mag-Tips or Grand Slams, which already have the job done."

MD

Later

I know about the Sierra Blitz.........I have put more than a few downrange out of a 222......and, out of a 223......and, out of a 22-250.........

I have also shot 33 grain V-Max "surplus" bullets out of my 22-250.......I can assure you, the 33 grain V-Max jacket is MUCH thinner than the Blitz jacket......those 33 grain bullets do 4330 fps out of my 22-250! When they hit a gallon milk jug full of water, they don't exit.......and the fragments that are left in the water don't show ANY properties of melted lead.

Ask yourself one question......if the core is melted......why isn't the lead tip melted too??? After all, the tip IS part of the core!

HUH ???

Must be some new law of physics......(I'm confused <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />)

Tony

The lead meplats on the Blitz's must be melted as how else could a comets tail be painted around each bullet hole?

It's from the thin jacket, my tight bore and the velocity. My bullets were purchased in 1970 so maybe the Blitz has been changed.

Here is a thread where Hornady is quoted as saying that lead meplats do melt from air pressure at over 2600 fps!

air pressure

I don't know what you are seeing when you talk about "comet trails"......I do know that bullets have been known to break up in mid air because the rotational forces placed on the bullet overcome the ability of the jacket to hold things together and cause the bullet to spin apart or "explode" before it reaches the target! That's how I got started shooting the 33 grain V-Max in the 22-250........I wanted to see if I could make it explode before it reached the target........couldn't do it!

I can tell you one thing for certain......when that little 33 grain V-Max....... launched at 4330 fps from my 22-250.......slams into a gallon milk jug full of water at 100 yards and comes apart......the plastic point is usually found laying in the bottom of the jug with the rest of the bullet fragments ......and.....guess what.....it is NOT melted! Since it takes a lot less heat to melt that little plastic tip than it does to melt lead.....well, you figure it out............


By the way.......a 33 grain v-max.....started out at 4330 fps......will absolutely ruin a coyotes day! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Gon Hunting, I am curious about the 33 grain vmax load in your 22-250. Can you share the info of your setup. I am thinking of working on the same type of load for mine. Like the sound of ruining a coyote's day.Thanks Ron

The lead smear looks like particles of lead were spraying out of the bullet around each bullet hole.

Ruining a coyotes day is a very good thing. Can you see those bullets hit?

Here is the ballistic coefficient of the 35 gr .224 VMax (224" 35 gr. 0.109). What with that unusually poor Ci for the 35 gr I don't see a special advantage for it out of a big .224 like the 22-250?

I have never seen lead spots around the bullet holes on any of my targets. I have seen grey/black residue around the holes. Even with vmax and other poly tipped bullets. I think what I see is gunpowder residue or borebuildup from previous shots. I think it might have alot to do with powder type. In my .45acp especially the cheaper the round you use the dirtier it burns and the more residue on target/hands after shooting.

Don
How much energy do you suppose it takes to raise the bullet's temp to the melting point of lead? Where do you suppose that energy would have to come from? Do the math and calculate just how much velocity would be left...

Then calculate how much heat is lost to the air. Now add in the latent heat of fusion to the equation and there is no way enough energy could be given to a flying bullet to melt lead and reach the target.
art

Art,

As you say it must calculate out or it can't happen for heat reasons anyway and thats what were both thinking of.

I happen to still have the circa 1970 50 gr Blitz bullets and the same rifle. I may try it someday but not this week.

From Mike375


"posted Aug 16, 5:51 AM
Pecos,

Back in the late 60s we use to use 219 Zipper Improveds a lot in Austrlai with 50 grain Hornady SX bullets.

Frequently at the range, you would see waht bI would describe as like a silver sheen appear in the air about halfway or 2/3rds down to the 100 target.

It was always thought that air friction was literally sanding off microscopic biths of lead and because there was no lead oxide on those bits, they shone in the sun."

Ron

From my load notes:

Win brass
33 grain V-Max (home molied)
39.0 gn Varget
Win Large Rifle Mag primer
2.24 OAL
4330 average velocity (24" barrel)
3 shot average .72"


Keep in mind, these are NOT the 35 grain V-Max bullets that Hornady sells.......these are 33 grain "surplus" bullets. I believe they were made by Hornady for Remington to use in their 22 mag loads (green plastic tip). They do measure .224" diameter......the ballistic coefficient isn't very good as they are short with a rounded nose.....so they aren't really a long range bullet. I bought them because they were dirt cheap and I planned to use them in a couple of single shot pistols and for plinking in my 222 and 223. I tried them in the 22-250 just to see if they would blow up in mid air........they stay together and are amazingly accurate for what they are.....so.... I just HAD to whack a coyote with one! Even though they will kill a coyote "dead right there" with a broadshot to the ribs, I don't really recommend the practice because they aren't constructed heavily enough to penetrate the shoulder!

99

Is it possible that the bullet is breaking up on contact with your target backer, causing the "comet tail"???

I have never really tried to see the 33 grain bullet hit........I have never shot them at long range.

You are correct about the poor BC of the 35 grain V-Max......the 33 is worse because it is shorter and more rounded on the front. As my response to Ron says.......I didn't buy these bullets for the 22-250........just tried them to see if they would blow up in mid air. I generally use the 50 grain V-Max in the 22-250...... in my experience, it is a more reliable killer of coyote sized animals. Besides......I think the 33 at 4330 fps is a bit hard on the throat! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I always assumed that the 50 gr SX's were melting out of the 219 I. I only fired a few anyway as they were left over from my 222 days and I just went to the Sierra 50 gr SPT and never left as it worked just fine.

My barrel is Buhmiller rechambered from a R2 Lovell. It's a 1-16" twist with a .2228" groove diameter. The load that flew apart is unknown but it may be in my notes. I never loaded this old High Wall all that hot and 3600 fps with a 50 was called good.

I just got off the phone with Sierra and they say the core was vaporizing and coming out of a fractured jacket. That the combination of the low antimony (1.5%) vrs (3%) of the standard bullets, the thin Blitz jacket combined with the friction in the barrel, the rotational forces and the vaporizing lead left the comet tail on the target.

Don
I find it difficult to believe someone from a bullet-maker would overlook the basic functions of melting and go all the way into the latent heat of evaporation, which is additive to the basic latent heat of fusion. Both are huge numbers...

Oh, and then there would be the adibiatic effect of the vaporizing lead, cooling the bullet further (which BTW is what EVERY component, except powder, of the entire equation is trying to do!) and pulling out energy that would be maintained for velocity.

It is absurd to continue to think core melting or evaporation happens, at all, ever. As plain physics and math fail to disabuse you, feel free to maintain your fantasy.
art

Donny, I don't know where you come up with this stuff, but it makes about as much sense as a bullet knocking a deer off it's feet does. There are several bullets out that will explode from rotational spin and frontal air pressure as they are shot at high velocity. One in particular is the Speer 50 grain TNT. At just over 3,500 fps, most won't make it to the target. Instead, they leave a blue cloud about 20 yards down range of the barrel. The bullets are flat out coming apart, they are NOT melting. The jackets are EXTREMELY thin on this bullet and the hollow point is forced open by the extreme air resistance of the high velocity and the bullet erupts. Lead is soft and therefore easily turns to dust at said velocity. I just monkeyed with them again in an 8 twist .22-250. They nuke at about 3,400 fps. This backs up the theory that the faster the rotational spin, the easier a bullet comes apart when a thin jacket is used. The few that do hit the paper don't hit in a consistent place. Two or three will go in the same hole, then a couple will be several inches away and the holes look funny. The bullets are obviously coming apart, or the jacket in the nose area is peeling back on one side. The holes in the paper aren't quite round, but will have a small tare on one side. The bullets are still hitting nose first, but they are on the edge of nuking. Interesting stuff, but they are NOT melting. Nice try though <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Flinch

One more thing on the subject. I got 75 grain Vmaxes to nuke at 3,900 fps when shot out of a .25-284 10 twist barrel. The tell tell blue cloud 40 yards from the muzzle and nothing hitting the target were pretty good clues to the state of the bullet in flight <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Now that is a sight to behold. Muley Stalker was with me on just such an occassion. 110 degrees in July. It was hot and the bullets were really struggling to stay together <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> The barrel was hot, the bullets were hot, the air was hot, and the rounds were in the sun <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Flinch

Art,

Sierra did say that the bullet vaporized. I am not sure if they ment liquid lead vaporized or not?

Why don't you run those numbers for us that you have outlined and see how close they come to the melting point?

My load was about 33 to 34 grs of IMR 4064 and the case is a tiny bit bigger than the 225 Win in capacity.

Flinch,

Maybe they are turning to dust? What about the reference over at the AR link that I provided that quotes Hornady as saying that soft lead meplats melt at over 2600 fps?

Why do you bring temperature back into the discussion? Do you mean that the lead core was melted or close to it?

Quote from Allen Gore at AR.


" posted Aug 14, 10:12 PM
One call to Hornady will help with part of this. They state at 2600 FPS that soft lead tips do indeed melt. One call will get you the answer. 1-800-338-3220. We start these bullets from a standing start to several thousands of feet per second, the projectile is heated to temperature far in excess of the melting point of any of it's components and send it spinning at several hundreds of thousand of feet per minute. All of this in just nanoseconds. Something has to give.

Nosler BT's and Hornady V-Max bullet tips are not plastic, they are made of a polymer product, higher melting point than lead. Ever wonder why nylon seals will wear a groove on a crankshaft without melting?

[ 08-14-2002, 23:07: Message edited by: Allen Glore ]"

------------------------------------------------------------------

I just spoke with Doug at Hornady. He said that the Blitz cores were melting! And that at over 2600 fps soft lead meplats melt also! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

PS: With all due respect Flinch this is how "Donny" comes up with this stuff!

Donny

I knew I'd have to go dig up the formulia, you can find it here, along with a clip from the last thread on this topic.

"This page was given as proof that the bullet temperature stabilizes at 518.67 R.

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/appendices/stdatm.htm l

I thought I would try it out. I noticed something, namely whether 1mph or 10000000 mph was used, miraculously, the temperature of the projectile remains at 518.7 R, whatever R is."
BTW, R is Rankine, which is a temprature scale where 1deg increase is equil to 1degree F and 0 R is the absolute zero temprature where all atomic movement stops (Kelvin is the metric equivalent). The conversion between Rankine and F is: F = R - 459.67 and R = 1.8 * K where R is Rankine temperature, and K is Kelvin, F is Fahrenheit
So a 518.67R temp is 59F

I don't know if the lead melts or not but it seems that the physics support it.

At maximum pressure, the chamber temps at the base of the bullet from the powder ignition are around 3500 deg., enough to erode and surface crack the steel in the barrel throat. A .22 bullet at 50000psi has around 2000 pounds of pressure exerted on its base, this changes the shape of the bullet and forces it into the under-bored barrel. The force shaping of the bullet causes additional internal heating of the bullet just as bending any metal causes it to get hot.

The bullet travelling down the barrel is continually being reshaped as copper is shredded from its jacket by the friction. The external evidence of this is a barrel that weighs a few pounds getting at least warm. A 50 grain bullet is only .007 of 1 pound, tremendously less mass than a barrel but absorbing basically the same energy. Copper is a relatively efficient conductor of heat so the heat would be transferred to the lead core.

When the bullet leaves the barrel it encounters air. At some velocity, and I don't know what it may be, but the friction with the air will create heat that is greater than the heat loss. From a government link on super sonic aircraft "Any object-airplane, spacecraft, asteroid-speeding through the atmosphere will compress and heat the air in front of it. This heat is inevitably absorbed by the surface of the object."

I don't know what all the right numbers are for a bullet but the physics clearly support melting of the bullet.

I still haven't heard any explanation as to why, if enough heat is generated to melt lead tips/cores, that plastic tips don't melt????

"Nosler BT's and Hornady V-Max bullet tips are not plastic, they are made of a polymer product, higher melting point than lead. Ever wonder why nylon seals will wear a groove on a crankshaft without melting?

[ 08-14-2002, 23:07: Message edited by: Allen Glore ]"

99

Once again, you are quoting unsubstantiated statements from another thread.......these statements prove NOTHING!

Nylon seals wear a grove in a crankshaft because of the abrasive particles that embed in the nylon! While the nylon is both cooled and lubricated by the oil on the crank, the oil does not prevent the abrasives from wearing the crank!

Take a propane torch or even a lighter and hold it to the plastic tip of a bullet and to the lead tip of a bullet and see which one melts first!

I just tried the melting test.......took a 55 grain v-max and a 50 grain blitz and held them in a propane torch flame.....the plastic tip on the v-max ignited within 1 second and was completely burned off in under 5 seconds.....the tip on the blitz didn't show ANY change until 7 seconds in the flame and then it was only slightly deformed........apparently, Mr. Glore doesn't know what he is talking about!

If a bullet is subjected to enough heat to melt the lead tip, then the plastic tips should be completely consumed......I can tell you without a doubt that the plastic tips survive flight and impact......how do I know??? I have recovered the plastic tips from both animals and targets........

Say what you want, but I have SEEN the results with my own eyes.........

I believe bullets can spin apart due to high rotational forces....it is not uncommon for bullets to disintegrate in flight......that doesn't mean they are melting!

Here is another one for you........if bullet cores do melt in flight, why is any lead left in the jacket when it reaches the target?? If the melted core theory was true, a Hornady half jacket bullet would be nothing but a core by the time it reached the target???

Gonehuntin,

It seems that Gore was right on what Hornady said about the lead meplats melting. Do you agree with that?

Then Gore says that the plastic meplats are made from a material that does not melt. Why don't you try to find out what the material is and what their melting points are?

Are you sure that an open flame is the proper way to test these tips? Besides that there has been no question if they melt or not! It's the lead that seems to be the primary topic.

Keep in mind that the bullet in question has no plastic tip!

Another thing Gonehuntin is that I find your approach just a little out of the strike zone so unless you think harder your questions are really not appropiate and not worthy of a reply.

Lets sum it up this way. I saw the melted lead on the targets. Sierra says it happens. Hornady says it happens.

The end.

Don
Try to get off your high horse... to suggest someone asking very good questions is wrong simply because he finds fault with your seriously flawed arguments is somehow not "in the strike zone" is pretty petty... and sad.

I suggested repeatedly that you should do the math. No one has done the simple stuff that will show it cannot happen. I will use your 33gr bullets at 4300... They have about 401 total calories in flight for energy, starting out. Assuming they are 200F is generous toward your side of the argument.

Converting calories to BTUs we find about 1.591344 in the bullet, total. Raising the whole bullet to 621F, the melting point of lead only takes about .0635 BTUs. Latent heat takes another .0547 BTUs. That would seem to suggest there are 1.473144 BTUs left for getting the bullet down range.

Only problem is the bullet arrives at 100 yards with more energy left than that... Oh, and while you are at it, why not consider a couple basic physics laws... How about the one that says something to the effect that energy cannot be transfered from an engine at a lower energy level to an engine at a higher energy level unless work is done on that engine...

The bullet is heating the air it passes through, which of course means it is COOLING the bullet. (The barrel gets hot, guess that means the bullet is too? Nope. The barrel is cooling the bullet.) That energy is removed from the equation. The bullet is also MOVING the air it moves through and that takes more energy.

Bullets are shaped as they are to reduce frictional losses and those differences are pretty easy to calculate... look at the balistic coefficients of equal weight round nose bullets Vs spitzers. Big energy differences down-range equate to frictional LOSSES to the air, not hotter bullets.

The transfer rates for heat in lead are not fast enough to allow lead to melt in the bore from the heat of powder burning nor friction in the barrel.

I am being jerked in to socialize and may have left out a step, but I will check it later... but quite simply, just using the big numbers the bullet does not have enough energy to melt AND reach the target with the elevel of energy it retains...
art

Art,

Go ahead Art and take up Gonehuntins arguments. Present them for me.

As to your repeated request that the "math" be done on this I ask again that since it's your idea that you do it.

"Practical wisdom is only to be learned in the school of experience. Precepts and instruction are useful so far as they go, but, without the discipline of real life, they remain of the nature of theory only."
Samuel Smiles

Don
He did a fine job of presenting valid points... you parroted another board, an unknown poster and clearly someone that does not know what he is talking about.

I have zero doubt fools can be found to agree with you... the myth has been around for a very long time, but you cannot do things that physics disallows... and you are still trying.

Frankly, your erudite quotes do not match your arguments... fortunate for your quotes...
art

"Re: Do Exposed Lead Tips of Bullets Melt During Flight?"

Art,

The quote listed above is the orginal topic. Then a sub topic came up when I said I thought I saw melted lead as comet tails. Do you agree so far?

After a discussion I quoted Gore who turned out to be correct in his quote of Hornady that indeed bullet tips do melt in flight. I also called Sierra and Hornady and confirmed that my observation was correct as well. Agreed?

Then Gonehuntin tried to tie the fact that a plastic meplat he shot did not melt to his "test" that he could set one afire! Also he held up to the light Gores weak analogy of nylon bearings to wear.

Why don't you run the math on the potential energy present in that firearm and how it might relate to the melting of the lead core?

Hornady MAY have said it......doesn't mean it's true.......saying something is true and offering PROOF are not the same! I know what I have seen and, what I have seen with my own two eyes does NOT support what Hornady says.........I'll trust my eyes!




Knowing the melting point or material of construction of the plastic tip is not necessary to prove that his statement is false! He states that the plastic tips have a higher melting point than lead........I did a simple, reproducible experiment that PROVES that his statement is false......try it for yourself!



How would you suggest that we test the tips to see if what Glore says is true?? I have recovered plastic tips intact......they weren't melted.......since they melted long before the lead tips in my test.......what conclusion would you draw???? Are you suggesting that there a "special" type of heat that melts lead but doesn't melt plastic??? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Well Duh??? I have a couple of boxes of the bullets in question in my reloading supplies.......that is how I was able to do the test! I noticed, right away, that the blitz bullets don't have a plastic tip........remember, I said the L*E*A*D tip on the blitz didn't even deform in the propane flame until 7 seconds.........I removed the bullet from the flame the instant I saw any change.......guess what.......the lead tip was still intact and nearly identical to every other bullet in the box.......the plastic tip, on the other hand, was G*O*N*E...... burned off.......history......in 5 seconds........what do you make of that????



So what you are saying is........"I can't answer the question so I'll try to BS my way out of it"!!! Are you a democrat???<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Nope.....you saw what you described as a "comet trail"........NOT melted lead! Have you ever worked with melted lead?

[color:"red"] For discussion's sake, Let's *assume* that you are correct.......the cores of bullets melt in flight........ [/color]

How was the "melted lead" that caused your "comet trail" escaping from the bullet jacket???

*IF* the lead was molten and *IF* there was a fracture in the bullet jacket that allowed it to escape..... How is it that the "melted lead" made it to the target instead of being ejected from the bullet jacket somewhere between the muzzle and the target???

Since every bullet is slowing down after it leaves the muzzle.....simple physics tell us that: 1.the rotational forces on the bullet are greater closer to the muzzle.......and 2. the heat of the bullet is greatest closest to the muzzle.......then WHY isn't the molten lead ejected from the jacket BEFORE the bullet reaches the target????



Wrong again........according to you, sierra said the bullet "vaporized".......what, exactly, do they mean by "vaporized"? I have been to and toured the Sierra plant.......I have personally met a few of their technicians and visited with most of them on the phone......they are not scientists.......they don't have a lab........I was in the shooting tunnel area, there was no high speed photography equipment there........there were no instruments capable of measuring the temp of a bullet in flight......

Can't say for certain about the folks at Hornady.....but I suspect they have about the same equipment and credentials......


Here are a couple more questions for you.........

Lot's of full metal jacket bullets have lead cores that are completely exposed at the base of the bullet......there is NO jacket covering the core at the base (I have .224 and .308 bullets made this way and can supply photos if necessary)........if the core melted in flight.....how could it possibly stay in the jacket on the way to the target???

Why is it that bullets recovered from water or snow banks often have the lead tip intact when recovered???

My apologies if my approach is "out of the strike zone"......at least I'm not out in left field! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Gonhuntin,

"Hornady MAY have said it......doesn't mean it's true.......saying something is true and offering PROOF are not the same! I know what I have seen and, what I have seen with my own two eyes does NOT support what Hornady says.........I'll trust my eyes!"

When someone quotes Hornady and lists the 800 number it's out of line to infer that they are lying about what Hornady said. This was the reason and still is the reason that I am reluctant to discuss anything with you. Now go and call Hornady or Sierra about this topic but other wise remain silent.

"Knowing the melting point or material of construction of the plastic tip is not necessary to prove that his statement is false! He states that the plastic tips have a higher melting point than lead........I did a simple, reproducible experiment that PROVES that his statement is false......try it for yourself!"

Your expeiment was flawed. Remember that the plastic has to get thru the bore and to the target without melting. It does not have to resist a propane flame!

If you think about it the jacket gets hot from friction with the bore and transmits that heat to the highly conductive lead core. Also the flame from the burning powder does the same.

On the other hand the plastic meplat is far from the flame or the bore and also of a lower conductivity. Thus it does not melt. It seems that you did not think of that did you?

"How would you suggest that we test the tips to see if what Glore says is true?? I have recovered plastic tips intact......they weren't melted.......since they melted long before the lead tips in my test.......what conclusion would you draw???? Are you suggesting that there a "special" type of heat that melts lead but doesn't melt plastic??? "

All that needs to be done is to shoot them and we have done that and they pass. That's the application.

"Well Duh??? I have a couple of boxes of the bullets in question in my reloading supplies.......that is how I was able to do the test! I noticed, right away, that the blitz bullets don't have a plastic tip........remember, I said the L*E*A*D tip on the blitz didn't even deform in the propane flame until 7 seconds.........I removed the bullet from the flame the instant I saw any change.......guess what.......the lead tip was still intact and nearly identical to every other bullet in the box.......the plastic tip, on the other hand, was G*O*N*E...... burned off.......history......in 5 seconds........what do you make of that????"

The cores in the Blitz bullets melted because the too thin jacket slit open and therefore exposed the lead to 3600 fps.

Maybe if the bullet had the same platic core that the meplats are made from it would have melted too. But thats not the application.

"Nope.....you saw what you described as a "comet trail"........NOT melted lead! Have you ever worked with melted lead?"

How do you know that? I was there. Sierra says it's vaporized lead, Hornady says it's melted lead. Yet you have the audacity to question us when you have never even observed the phenonomen and most likely never even heard of it before.

"How was the "melted lead" that caused your "comet trail" escaping from the bullet jacket???"

The too thin jackets split open.

" *IF* the lead was molten and *IF* there was a fracture in the bullet jacket that allowed it to escape..... How is it that the "melted lead" made it to the target instead of being ejected from the bullet jacket somewhere between the muzzle and the target??? "

Maybe it was as the loads were not accurate at all.

"Since every bullet is slowing down after it leaves the muzzle.....simple physics tell us that: 1.the rotational forces on the bullet are greater closer to the muzzle.......and 2. the heat of the bullet is greatest closest to the muzzle.......then WHY isn't the molten lead ejected from the jacket BEFORE the bullet reaches the target????"

Maybe it is. In any case the rpm does not change much at all.

" Wrong again........according to you, sierra said the bullet "vaporized".......what, exactly, do they mean by "vaporized"? I have been to and toured the Sierra plant.......I have personally met a few of their technicians and visited with most of them on the phone......they are not scientists.......they don't have a lab........I was in the shooting tunnel area, there was no high speed photography equipment there........there were no instruments capable of measuring the temp of a bullet in flight......

Can't say for certain about the folks at Hornady.....but I suspect they have about the same equipment and credentials......"

To me vaporized means that the melted lead became a vapor.

"Lot's of full metal jacket bullets have lead cores that are completely exposed at the base of the bullet......there is NO jacket covering the core at the base (I have .224 and .308 bullets made this way and can supply photos if necessary)........if the core melted in flight.....how could it possibly stay in the jacket on the way to the target???"

Did those bullets have too thin jackets that split open?

"Why is it that bullets recovered from water or snow banks often have the lead tip intact when recovered???"

Gore said soft lead and not hard lead. The Blitz has 1.5% antimony and many other of thier bullets have 3%. Maybe pistol bullets have even less antimony.

WAIT just a minute......I never said or inferred that Glore was lying!!!.........Hornady MAY have said that bullet tips melt in flight......but that does not make it a fact! Unless Hornady has equipment to film a bullet in flight or, more importantly, equipment to determine the actual temp of the bullet in flight......then, they are guessing.......I don't need to call Hornady or Sierra to hear their OPINION.......you and Glore have already relayed that opinion.



Was the experiment flawed????Depends on what we are trying to prove.......my experiment PROVED that the plastic tip melts faster than the lead tip......remember, Glore claimed that the plastic tips had a higher melting point than lead........my simple experiment shows otherwise! Try it for yourself......



Certainly I thought of that........what you fail to grasp is that we are discussing two different questions here......first, does a lead tip burn off in flight......and second, does a bullet core melt in flight.

The "test" I did was only meant to prove one thing.......that, contrary to Glore's statement, the melting point of the plastic tip is LOWER than the melting point of the lead tip.........

Since the plastic tip melted quicker than the lead tip.......and, since plastic tips are routinely recovered UNMELTED....... common sense tells us that lead tips don't melt in flight!




EXACTLY!!! Plastic tips don't melt in flight!



So, now you are saying that exposure to 3600 fps CAUSES lead to melt??? If so, why don't the exposed lead tips melt??



Do you ever shoot cast bullets???? Have you ever recovered a cast bullet and noticed that some of the lube is still in the lube grooves???? Happens all the time! Granted, most cast bullets are never fired at 3600 fps.......but they are routinely fired at 2000 + fps.........makes you wonder how hot that bullet got if the wax based lube wasn't even melted ??? Some of the cast bullet guys have actually filled the base of a hollow based cast bullet with the same lube and recovered the bullet with the lube still in the base.......if the pressure and heat generated by the burning powder and bore friction don't melt wax based bullet lube.....how would it melt lead??? Oh, what about barrel leading???......well, that is almost always caused by a bullet that does not seal in the barrel....this can be the result of a bullet that is too small or too hard.....the result of this failure to seal is called gas cutting......very similar to a cutting torch......



You are correct, I wasn't there.....neither was Sierra or Hornady......yet you jump on their explanation because that is what you want to believe! I have worked with melted lead........have you??.....you don't even know for sure that what you saw was lead.......and you certainly don't know what I have heard of or seen! Now, I never said that the "comet tail" you witnessed was not caused by lead escaping from a ruptured bullet jacket........what I am saying is that it is highly unlikely that the 'comet tail" was caused by molten lead from the bullet core........I know that bullets can and do "explode" in flight when rotational forces overcome the structural integrity of the material the bullet is made from.......does that mean the bullet core melted??? I don't believe that conclusion is supported by the facts.......sometimes, things just come apart.....

For instance, I make custom predator calls......on occasion, the rotational speed of the lathe overcomes the structural integrity of the piece of wood or plastic I am turning......this results in the piece "exploding"......but it certainly does NOT melt! I believe the same thing happens when a bullet comes apart or "explodes" in flight!



I didn't ask what vaporized means to you.......I asked what the person at Sierra meant by the term vaporized.......are you saying that something has to melt to be vaporized???



They wouldn't need a split in the jacket for a molten core to escape when the entire back of the bullet is OPEN!!! Maybe you think the lead doesn't get hot enough to melt unless the jacket splits??? If so, what about the lead tip.....it is exposed and does not burn off........



Glore is just another guy with an opinion.......hard lead is less malleable than soft lead.......but I'm not sure the very slight difference in antimony content would have any practical effect on the melting point of the exposed lead tip......so, I guess I'm still waiting on an explanation as to why lead tipped bullets are often recovered with the tip intact.......

Facts:

1. it can easily be shown that plastic bullet tips melt at a lower temp than lead...

2. It can easily be shown that plastic bullet tips DO NOT melt in flight

Conclusion:

1.Since plastic bullet tips don't melt in flight......and since plastic bullet tips melt at a lower temp than lead......the logical conclusion is that lead bullet tips DO NOT burn off in flight.


I have enjoyed this discussion, however, parts of your last two posts have tried to discredit me or acuse me of things I haven't done or said........if you wish to continue with the facts and thories of this discussion....in hope that we all can learn something....I'm all for it.......if, on the other hand, you choose the tactic of trying to discredit me or other posters when you can't answer our questions or defend your positions......then I have no more interest in discussing this with you.....

Good day!

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Gonhuntn,

I am satisfied with the conclusions that were reached by the bullet companies and myself.

Lets see what Art comes up with in his physics problem.

There is one factor that only Art has alluded to in this equation, and that is time. The heat, whether it be from barrel friction or air resistance, is not applied for a long enough time span to have any effect whatsoever on the lead tip or core. It does not melt in flight, but bullets sometimes do come apart in flight, due to rotational velocity, not heat. I have recovered lead tipped bullets intact with no deformation at all except for rifling marks after being shot from a .22-250 at long-range prairie dogs(600+ yds). The bullets slowed down enough that impact with the sandy ground around the mounds didn't affect them at all. And YES, the lead tip was still perfectly formed. We have done the same thing with plastic-tipped bullets and match type bullets also. These were exposed to the "heat" of friction for as long as they could stay in the air, and still the tip didn't melt. You can continue this argument with your head in the sand, or come out in the light with the rest of us....

Jamison,

Then go ahead and show us your work. To be this sure that I have my head in some sand you must have done all of the rigor.

Meanwhile I stand on the fact that I saw comet tails around each bullet hole from bullets fired beyond their design velocities. Along with this two of the premier bullet manufacturers confirm my observation.

The bottom line is this. There was something that looked like lead sprayed around each bullet hole. Sierra says that the lead vaporized. Hornady says that soft lead tips melt at over 2600 fps from being fired and that the Blitz bullets melted due to the factured jackets.

Long before there were theories or mathematics things were happening. Then academia wrote things on paper that explained what happens anyway.

Show us your work.

I saw a comet tail when Halle-Bopp came through a few years back, but I don't know what it was made of. Sounds like you don't know, either...Did it look like this???

Jamison,

Get together with Art and work out the physics. If you get stuck on some part of it just post your work here and we will get someone to help.

How far have you got on it already? You seem to know that there is not enough time to melt the lead. Show me how you figured this out.

I offer you this fundimental description of a modern bullet. Perhaps this will help you.

"The modern bullet
The next important change in the history of the rifle bullet occurred in 1883, when Major Rubin, director of the Swiss Laboratory at Thun, invented the small-calibre rifle, one of whose essential features was the employment of an elongated compound bullet, with a lead core in a copper envelope.

The copper jacketed bullet allows much higher muzzle velocities than lead alone, as copper has a much higher melting point, greater specific heat capacity, and is harder. Lead bullets fired at high velocity may suffer surface melting due to hot gases behind and friction with the bore. This can allow the gas past the bullet, deforming it and destroying accuracy. Very rapid acceleration of a lead bullet may cause the rifling to strip, reducing the spin imparted to the bullet, and also destroying accuracy. A gas check may be used for some lead bullets, but are only useful up to a certain speed, as they only protect the base of the bullet from melting, not the sides. They are normally a very thin copper disc.

The modern bullet has had minor refinements, but the basic bullet and self-contained cartridge has since remained almost unchanged for over 130 years.

In the late 1950s, engineers noted that a reverse ogive on the rear, a boat-tail increased range on supersonic bullets.

At one point in the 1960s, it looked as though flechettes might replace bullets, but bullets proved more economical, and no less destructive.

Other bullet types: soft point bullet, full metal jacket"

Remember that the Blitz jackets ruptured.

I hope this helps.

I don't need to "work it out" as the end justifies the means...
If the core and tip are still intact after it has been fired and recovered, common sense tells you it didn't melt....
Maybe common sense isn't so common after all, in your case, anyway...

Here is some data that will help with your calculations.

"Lead requires 18 BTU per pound to raise its temperature from 60� F (15.56� C) to the melting point of 621� F (327.22� C). The latent heat of fusion, which is the heat required to bring the metal from a solid state to a liquid state at the same temperature, is for lead 11.3 BTU per pound. Lead when in the solid state weighs around 0.41 lb./in� but in the liquid state because of expansion it weighs only around 0.37 lb./in�. A block of lead 5 inches square and four inches long would contain 100 cubic inches of lead, and would weigh 40.9637787 pounds. This would require about 737.352 BTU to raise this block of lead from 60� F (15.56� C) to the point of melting, and an additional 462.8932 BTU to melt it."

Don
Your humility is only exceeded by your reasons for being so... The energy remaining in a bullet at 100 yards subtracted from the energy starting out do NOT leave enough for the friction, which is heating the air, not the bullet, to melt the lead.

In talking to Doug at the number you posted he said the tips go away and someone else proved that with photography... but he did not know anything of the stuff that showed that was an aberration... he said it might be "erosion" at work... there are lots of ways to show that is not likely...

He said their "physicist" would call me back with something more substantial. I asked him to get back to me with the source of the magic lead-melting energy... he has not called back yet... Often people get so wrapped up in complex formulae they lose sight of the big picture...
art

Don-- Since you tend to believe everything you read or hear except what Art and I write, here is an exerpt from leverguns.com concerning the time factor and melting bullets...

Keep in mind that the lead was there on the target. Thats for sure. Also most agree that it started from the jacket rupturing.

When the jacket ruptured perhaps the exposed lead was caught between the jacket and the bore and that shreaded it or melted it?

In any case Doug told me that soft lead meplats melt. He also said that the cores melted in the Blitz bullets.

By the way Art show us your calculations on the energy involved.

Another thing. Why don't you act a little more adult and resist foolish statements like your last one "Don
Your humility is only exceeded by your reasons for being so.."

Why do you have to say that? All I did was to post my observation that it seemed that some weak jacket bullets melted. I called some manufacturers and posted my findings along with that from other forums. Meanwhile Art you have posted no math or data disproving anything.

Don
Post 451196, by me shows the numbers I got on energy values and requirements... also the simple direction in which energy CAN flow in the equation. If the equation includes those simple factors it CANNOT find molten lead.

The fact that bullet lube arrives unmelted, unslung, says enough also... I have to treat you like a child because you act like a child.
art

Jamison,

Thanks for the reference. Up to now thats your first.

I does relate to very low pressure firearms such as pistols and shotguns however. Remember that the Blitz bullets were going 3600 fps!

Art,

You are just a bully and make no real sense. You have been doing this to others but you got your head handed to you by lb 404 when you accused him of "strutting" and it turns out that he does indeed have hundreds of fine firearms and the weath to upgrade them.

Art,

Please show us the rigor on your calculations. You see there may be a fine line here as we know most lead cores don't melt but I saw lead on my target and it came when a jacket ruptured.

So as I say there may be some detail here that we are not taking into account like my observation above that the vaporized lead (using Sierra's word) may be caused by minute friction with the bore at just that contact point. In other words perhaps only some of the lead vaporized or melted and that was enough to paint a comet tail around each bullet hole.

This tells me that there is even less time for the lead to melt... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Good retort but less heat as well. Maybe not enough heat.

When I was talking with Sierra he seemed bound not to use the word "melted". Of course Sierra is the company that told me years ago that lead tips do not melt as I mentioned in an early post. Sierra did say the lead was vaporized.

On the other hand Hornady as specific and said that the lead melts on soft bullet meplats and that the lead melted in the case of the Blitz bullets. Hornady did not say that "all" of the lead melted nor did he say that it did not all melt.

Again perhaps some of the lead, the part that worked thru the shreaded jacket melted.

Don
That is funny! I make no sense because what I say makes no sense... or because you are not sharp enough to follow? I fail to see where lb's material possessions have anything to do with whether he is bragging or not. I could not possibly care less what he has. And how do you figure my head was handed to me? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

There are some things you are clueless about that really make this funny... but there is no point for you to study on it... you seem to have more trouble than you can handle with molten lead.

Now, for the umpteenth time, total energy minus residual energy does NOT leave enough energy to melt the lead. The numbers are there to challenge...
art

Art,

Long ago in these and other forums before this one I would note the rude insults others use to bully someone out of an argument. I count each insult or rude remark as a win or point for my side knowing that you, in particular, seem to dote on such tactics. However they are the mark of a vacuous argument.

So each time that you insult, such as calling me a child, I chuckle. Mind you I don't laugh as that would be rude. But instead I am disapointed in you seeming being such an erudite man would step to such low and really lazy tactics.

Now back to the problem?

You say that the total energy is not there. Well darn it all show the specific math on it. If indeed it is there or not there address my point that perhaps not all of the lead melted! In other words maybe only the lead that hit the bore melted?

"Around 1890, lead bullets began to be made with a copper or copper alloy covering called a jacket. The increased heat of the then new smokeless powder caused the surface of the soft lead bullets to melt in the gun. The molten bullets left lead adhering to the inside of the gun barrel, making the gun less accurate. The solution was to clad the easy to melt lead in a harder jacket."

Don,

Are you a democrat?

MtnHtr

Mtn Hunter,

What's the matter Mtn Hunter? Nothing to add of value?

Ruark wrote a book about that and some say it's one of his best.

Don
Get a clue... You have no argument. You have parroted a few different unknowns and a bullet tech board that could not answer the simple question.

I cannot answer the question about how they can melt because I have shown there is insufficient energy to melt them. You can post all the ancient quotes you like, until you explain where the extra energy is coming from you to accept as fact that the lead cannot melt.

I gave the numbers that prove it. Showing the numbers is not needed because they are simple, one step transitions from one form of energy to the next. If you need help doing that you really should not be arguing because you clearly are lost... what part are you unable to follow?

As for me "bullying" over the net... do you really think I am intimidating others by making clear concise statements? Do you really think a cliche parrot stands a chance of winning a debate with mangled metaphors? But thank you for the lesson in Licoln-Douglass according to Don... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
art

Art,

Do you agree that the jacket on the Blitz ruptured?

Please calculate the exact energy that the system produces.

Please comment if you think that some of the lead could have melted?

I stand on the conclusions reached by Sierra and Hornady as to why there were comet tails on my target.

Please post all of your math. If you don't post your math in complete rigor I am calling you on the fact that your just throwning around outlines but you have never worked it out.

It seems that some of the lead melted at least.

Don,

No, I don't. The other posters have covered that nicely based on experience unlike your heresay. You are a quack of the gun world and I don't need any references from books to validate that fact. Carry on with your gundom fantasies, at least its of some entertainment value................

MtnHtr

This is SO much BS that I'm surprised we can't smell it through the monitor!!!

I don't know who wrote the garbage you quoted.......but they OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue what they are talking about and you don't have a clue that they don't have a clue! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Barrel leading from cast bullets can be caused by a few different problems.......as I stated before, it is generally the result of a bullet not sealing against the bore......this can happen when the bullet is too small or too hard to obturate and seal the bore.....when that happens, gas cutting results.........it is NOT because "The increased heat of the then new smokeless powder caused the surface of the soft lead bullets to melt in the gun." Anyone that knows anything about shooting cast bullets will tell you the same thing.........You mentioned that Jamisons shotgun wad example was flawed because the pressures were too low......care to comment on the plastic sabots used in "accelerator" loads??........they certainly are NOT low pressure loads.......and, guess what, they don't melt either! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

As I understand it, jacketed bullets were first developed because lead bullets were too soft and would often "strip" out at the higher velocities that were being achieved.......jacketed bullets, on the other hand, were hard enough to withstand the forces caused by traveling through the rifling at higher velocities. Paper patched bullets were the first "jacketed" bullets, and, they resist stripping in the rifling much better than pure lead bullets.

I fail to understand why you cling to an obviously incorrect idea just because someone at Hornady said it was so........one more thing.....are you 100% sure that the "comet tail" you saw wasn't CARBON that was left on the bullet when the powder burned???? How about posting a photo for the rest of us to see???

Gentlemen,

My observation was a rather rare one. It seems that none of you have even seen it yet a few here continue to speculate with no direct knowledge.

I stand on the conclusions of Sierra and Hornady.

Those who don't agree can go on thinking whatever they want but the bottom line is that I have actual experiance and authority and you have nothing but speculation.

I am still waiting for Art to show his specific math and to comment if some of the lead melted and vaporized.

Don
You sure pegged that bully sitka deer! Over the past 15 years I have seen some of the most disgusting strong arm tactics out of him!

Why, a couple of years ago he bullied the entire family of a young boy with cancer onto his boat and held them captive for an entire week! He bullied posters here into donating to Hunt of a Lifetime over it too... disgusting...

Then there was the time he bullied everybody for a memorial trail for a poster's son... despicable!

Then there are a legion of old folks in Anchorage that he bullies into letting him shovel their snow... called him early this winter and found him on an old lady's roof bullying her into letting him steal the snow off her roof. What a jerk!

He is without a doubt the biggest bully I know. You ought to see how he bullies my kids. He even bullied my son into accepting an 870 and then bullied him into building a stock for it! I could go on, but I think even you get the picture.

He IS as smart as he seems, and as he would say, "So are you!"
maytag

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Dang Art, your such a big pr^ck!!!!!!!!!!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

For the heck of it I ran some numbers thru quickload. Pushing a 50gr bullet to 3600fps (I won't comment on the pressure required), 24" barrel, the bullet leaves the barrel in .932 milliseconds. Not enough time for flame temp to heat core to critical temp. Copper is good at conducting heat, but not that good. Muzzle energy is 1918 joules. At 100 yards bullet energy is still 1439 joules, is that enough energy to melt lead Art <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

While I don't doubt you've seen a halo around your bullet holes, I know of one whom loads his AR hot enough to have bullets disintegrate before they hit the target, I wouldn't use the word "melt".

AJ
An unstablized bullet COULD melt and come apart and friction would be a huge part of that... There is plenty of energy in ME of 1918 joules to vaporize lead... the thing is there is NO retained energy to make the equation simple.

Friction and gravity are the ONLY components the bullet responds to when it leaves the bore. If ALL of the energy is dumped in a blue cloud there is no telling how hot it might have gotten.

Doug, the bullet-maker tech guy, says ALL lead points driven over 2600 "erode" immediately... I know better...

Just picked a bullet from said maker's offerings... 250 gr to make a few conversions easier... Picking a point where it arrives at just over 2600fps says it loses 609 ft.lbs., or .782581388271642427 BTUs.

Given the specific heat of lead, it takes .4811428571 BTUs to raise the temp of the bullet to 621F. But that doesn't get the lead melted... that takes an additional .40357142875 BTUs... that would, of course be the requirements to melt the entire bullet, not just the tip.

But that would assume the 100% uphill battle the energy is fighting went into heating the bullet. The air in its wake required zero energy to move and it remained at exactly the same energy level. The bullet yawing was accomplished without losing any energy to the air and the energy was converted in its entirety to heating the bullet.

yup... I see it....................... NOT!
art

I don't know if this is any help, but I had a buddy who used to own a .17 caliber wildcat. Somebody sold him the rig, complete with brass and dies at a gun show. At one point he got it chronographed at 4000 fps. Loaded at that level it would either leave a halo of pin-holes or the entire bullet would disappear and he would be left with a spray of pinholes and bits of congealed lead on the face of the target. He later backed off the load, got it down below 3800 and had a fairly decent vaporizer of ground hogs. He sold it at a profit not long afterward to someone who thought 4000 fps was a neat idea.

This might have been just a tall story, but a mutual friend of ours claimed to have been there when Bob was scratching his head at the target, trying to figure out where the bullet had gone. He often kidded Bob at his one foray into the world of wildcatting. I doubt Bob would have put up with the ribbing if it wasn't true.

I am left to conclude that there is a mechanism that will cause a bullet that is over driven to come apart into very tiny bits and that those bits can appear molten when they hit the target. Whether this effect comes from friction with the barrel or the air is beyond my understanding. I just thought I'd spatter this on the wall and see if it was any help.

I don't know if this is any help, but I had a buddy who used to own a .17 caliber wildcat. Somebody sold him the rig, complete with brass and dies at a gun show. At one point he got it chronographed at 4000 fps. Loaded at that level it would either leave a halo of pin-holes or the entire bullet would disappear and he would be left with a spray of pinholes and bits of congealed lead on the face of the target. He later backed off the load, got it down below 3800 and had a fairly decent vaporizer of ground hogs. He sold it at a profit not long afterward to someone who thought 4000 fps was a neat idea.

This might have been just a tall story, but a mutual friend of ours claimed to have been there when Bob was scratching his head at the target, trying to figure out where the bullet had gone. He often kidded Bob at his one foray into the world of wildcatting. I doubt Bob would have put up with the ribbing if it wasn't true.

I am left to conclude that there is a mechanism that will cause a bullet that is over driven to come apart into very tiny bits and that those bits can appear molten when they hit the target. Whether this effect comes from friction with the barrel or the air is beyond my understanding. I just thought I'd spatter this on the wall and see if it was any help.

I don't know if this is any help, but I had a buddy who used to own a .17 caliber wildcat. Somebody sold him the rig, complete with brass and dies at a gun show. At one point he got it chronographed at 4000 fps. Loaded at that level it would either leave a halo of pin-holes or the entire bullet would disappear and he would be left with a spray of pinholes and bits of congealed lead on the face of the target. He later backed off the load, got it down below 3800 and had a fairly decent vaporizer of ground hogs. He sold it at a profit not long afterward to someone who thought 4000 fps was a neat idea.

This might have been just a tall story, but a mutual friend of ours claimed to have been there when Bob was scratching his head at the target, trying to figure out where the bullet had gone. He often kidded Bob at his one foray into the world of wildcatting. I doubt Bob would have put up with the ribbing if it wasn't true.

I am left to conclude that there is a mechanism that will cause a bullet that is over driven to come apart into very tiny bits and that those bits can appear molten when they hit the target. Whether this effect comes from friction with the barrel or the air is beyond my understanding. I just thought I'd spatter this on the wall and see if it was any help.

I have forgotten a lot more physics than I remember, but I still have most of my common sense.
As to the statement that the bullet heats the air or the barrel it passes thru and therefore it is being cooled is incorrect in my opinion. The temperature increase of the air or the barrel is due to friction with the surface of the bullet. The heat generated by friction is shared between the two objects that are in contact with each other ie: one does not lose heat to the other. Think of rubbing two hands together. They both heat up from the friction shared by them. Also the total amount of heat generated is a function of time. Why does the space schuttle need a heat shield when it enters the atmosphere?
It seems as though there is some belief that absorbing heat and melting happens with the speed of a nuclear reaction, ie nearly instantaneously. Getting lead to the melting point by firing it down a relatively short barrel or by passing it thru air at shooting velocity in a fraction of a second does not seem all that likely to me.--- With or without any physics or doing the math. ---I would suspect that the time in the barrel generates the peak temperature and during the time in the air, the heat loss of the bullet is greater than the heat gain from friction with the air and therefore the net effect is cooling of the bullet during flight time in air. ie: it reaches the target cooler than when it left the barrel.
It seems this topic would be on the minds of the manufacturers with all the new 4000+fps going on lately. I am sure there is the capability of photograghing the melting phenomenon if it is really happening. I think I will resurrect my polaroid and check out those 55grainers out of my .243.

roadkill
Well, which is it? You start out saying you don't believe the bullet is being cooled, then state it is... can't have both...

You have a bunch of incorrect assumptions floating around in your post though. Rubbing hands is an example of two engines at the same energy level, so heat is shared. Rub a cold pipe with your hands and see how much heat is shared. Second law of thermodynamics explains it...

Actually, there is a boundary layer of air riding with the bullet which is rubbing the air around it and that is where the friction is generated.

Those problems aside you make a bunch of extremely good points... time is a huge and overlooked function in this thread.
art

Shaman
There is no doubt the energy exists in the bullet to melt the bullet... BUT the bullet cannot arrive downrange with much velocity and melt...
art

Sitka deer----I used the phrase "being cooled" in reference to the bullet interacting with the barrel and the air. These both create heat and the heat is shared at some rate between the 2 objects experiencing the friction----not one losing all and one absorbing all the heat generated. If the 2 objects are placed in static contact with each other there will be a one way transfer of heat--if they have different temperatures. When you add friction to the equation things are different.
The other phrase -- "the net affect is the cooling of the bullet in flight" -- is saying that the heat the bullet gained while in contact with the barrel is being lost during flight faster than heat is being generated by the friction between the bullet and air. Net is the operative word there.
Back to common sense-----Are you saying that I cannot rub a cold pipe with my hand and have both objects gain heat and rise in temperature? Oh crap there is that issue of time to contend with and oh yeah now maybe we should consider the amount of pressure applied-----both which are a function of the amount of heat generated. The immediate contact with the cold pipe will give me the "sensation" of heat loss in my hand----but I can rub a cold pipe and both the pipe and my hand will increase in temperature-----in time with force being applied.
Maybe "lead melting in flight" is like flying saucers. I don't believe they are out there, but I don't have proof either way. Which leaves us with---yes it is possible but common sense........................

Sitka----I will be passing thru Anchorage in Sept on the way to Goodnews Lake. Maybe we could do some testing at that time. Just kidding, I probably won't have time and I am sure you have more pressing things to do.

roadkill
A cold pipe rubbed vigorously by a warm hand will not share the heat generated... there will be a heat transfer from the warm hand to the cold pipe. Net loss, gross loss, call it anything, the hand will be colder when finished rubbing the frosty pipe...

There are a few guys that post here that would like me to be elsewhere in Sept... chasing deer on Kodiak actually... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Was curious about Goodnews Lake's name derivation and so looked it up in the dictionary of AK place names... a truly good book! It turned up something of interest...

"In 1868 USCGS derived 'Goodnews Bay' from translation of the Russian name 'Port Dobrykh Vestey' meaning Port Goodnews...................... Capt. Lutke in 1836 IRN called it in French 'Bonnes Nouvelles baie' or 'goodnews bay' and said that it might better be called the'Bay of False Reports.' It was visited and probably named by the land expedition of Vstiugof and Korsakof of 1818-19."

There is no explaination for the false reports idea... but it is a potentially humorous thing... hope you are being given true reports... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Killbuck caribou hunting?
art

Looking back at your post I realize we are a lot closer to agreement than I initially took your argument... you are outside the bullet example for much of your statement and I was using narrow statements relative to that.

The time thing is, as you point out, critical to much of the argument... In times relavent to bullet travel the bullet will not be there long enough to gain heat from the air... but it is possible to share heat if enough time and pressure are available...
art

Nearin' on a hundred years ago, Charls Newton did an expariment. He somehow got the ideal that the cores of his bullets melted because of the burning powder. To test this theory, he took some bullets and a hole on either side of the jacket. He shot the bullets into paper, and found a lead streak on either side of the hole. He wanted to fix the problem, so he wrapped the cores in paper, and preformed the same test again. He reported no problems.

I read on the Lost River Ballistic website that bullet tips melt at approx. 3300 FPS. (This is the company that makes bullets meant for super high velocity impacts, ultra long range shooting and they were designed by doctors)

Quite frankly, I don't care if the front half of the bullet melts away, so long as it doesnt affect accuracy or bullet proformance on game.

(I don't know where I pick up all these useless facts, but I do.)

I believe that most eveyone here had some good points/arguments.
If the pipe and hand are at ambient temperature to start (like a bullet, barrel and air) what is your take on the heat generated by friction--will one or both objects gain heat?
Now thanks to 264 I am wondering if a molten lead bullet is a lot more explosive to crow flesh than near molten.
ps: The trip to Goodnew Lake will be with my son who is in the Army stationed in Anchorage. We will camp, float, hunt and fish our way out to the ocean and have a great time no matter what happens.

Sitka----Forgive my not taking the time to thank you for the info on Goodnews and to wish you well on Kodiak. If you get a blacktail antler you would like made into a knife---let me know.

roadkill
When all start at ambient friction works equally on all, but heat is shed faster by some media than others. As soon as the temperature differential develops the heat starts flowing in the cooler direction. A bullet leaving the bore has been shedding heat to the bore since very early in its travel... but it picked up heat in the bore.

Once it is in air the bullet is shedding heat as fast as the air will receive it. Not all lost energy is lost as heat though. The motion imparted on the air by the bullet takes energy...

PM heading your way in a few...
art

Now I don't want you fellas to start thinking this thread is winding down 'cause I gotta whole new [color:"red"] spin [/color] for you to consider. I know it was a bad pun, but 'tis the only pun I have at the moment. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

IF I were to accept the idea that cores melt in flight there's a couple of things I have to work out first. First one is fairly simple, how come hard cast lead bullets can be fired near abouts 3000 foot per? I mean, where does the cast draw the line? One molecule say to the other, "okay, okay, okay, you be the core, I'll be the jacket!"? Then there's this thing with jacketed bullets 'cause I know that's what you're talkin' about. Right, so the deal is, when I shoot my Partitions out of my .300 Rum at 3800 foot per, does the lead all melt out the a$$ end of it? And when it goes all the way thru that 6X6 elk after it sheds the nose section, well 'splain that'n to me if you don't mind. 'Nother thing, and this is the tough one. When the core melts(that means liquify to me dudes), then you got this bullet rippin' down range with a solid jacket, a solid nose(lead or plastic), or maybe a nose that's gettin' a little weak in the knees, and the guts of the bullet is lookin' like a Maytag on 220 VAC. Now did you ever ask yourself(do if you haven't), "I wonder if this would affect the gyroscopic stability of the projectile?" "This" being the standin word for "liquid core".

I'm just sorry as hell boys, but my Cray is in the shop for a redeux, and anyway my program for computational fluid dynamics still has a few bugs, and well...I ain't gonna show you my work. Do it yourself. Or read some of Harold Vaughn's papers on the subject of stabilizing liquid filled projectiles.

Keep at it, this is more fun than half time at the Super Bowl! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Ain't gonna happen, nobody bought Sav99's fairy tale! It is still up for sale though.........

MtnHtr

[color:"red"] [/color] I actually registered to this forum because of this topic. Thanks! [color:"blue"] [/color]

Here is the deal, IMHO. I have been commercially building/casting bullets for a few years now, and the only deformation that lead undergoes (after leaving the barrel and before impacting a target) in my research to date is SOME dead soft BHN 5-6 lead COULD theoretically deform in flight at those velocities due to the pressures exerted on the projectile nose. NOT melting, aerodynamic pressures causing the soft lead to SLIGHTLY move from frontal pressures on a FLAT NOSED or POSSIBLY HP pure (as much as it can be) lead bullet.

Now, one must first get that dead soft lead TO that velocity, and that is another matter entirely, as that much pressure can actually blow the center out of an all lead projectile of very soft construction (no jacket, and BHN 5-6) well before the MV we are discussing is reached in a bore, especially if there is nothing to ease pressure on the base (gas check, wad or other filler, wax disc, etc.).
But nobody will be able to convince me without a photo (and I know a pic can be done, I have one of a .270 Winchester at better than 3100 fps, and the nose is perfect) of the event that a nose melts from heat of friction with the air. And that photo would be worth it's weight in gold. Oh, and there are halos on ALL of my 45 ACP hits on paper..With a plated bullet or lead, and even on jacketed ones. It is called "powder residue". It also happens on my 50 cal, the 44, the 22 Mag, 270, etc. etc. after even a few shots. Try a powder change to a cleaner propellant ( I am happy with my choices and am not worried about it). <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> [color:"blue"] [/color]

bulletmaker
Welcome to the fire! There were some photos taken that seemed to show melted tips and that has led to the confusion about the issue... or so I have read.

The funny thing is the folks doing the most arguing for the melting tips have done nothing to explain where the magic energy comes from to melt them...

I am sorry to see them quit because I did not get to play the ace I have been holding... Friction is a function of surface area... the energy required to melt the tips must be converted from kinetic energy and result in a drop in velocity.

The tip is sooooo tiny and the friction MUST be developed there (too little time to be conducted there and heat goes toward the cooler center or air) So... the surface area of the tip converts kinetic energy to heat at some rate faster than the jacket, but not much (arguably, not at all)... the result is the surface area of the jacket is where the vast majority of the conversion takes place... the tip may convert more per unit of area, but the area is too small to make a significant dent in the conversion. The bullet arrives at 100 yards with too much energy to both maintain speed and melt lead, let alone do it with almost no surface area.
art

I have not read the other 90 something posts so this may have been mentioned before. Craig Boddington mentioned in a sidebar on plastic tip bullets that one of their advantages was the tip not melting in route to the target as do lead bullets. I wrote Guns&Ammo requesting proof of that statement. Based on high speed photos of bullets in flight, the tip doesn't melt. I offer a simple experiment; hold a ballistic tip bullet by the boattail and place a burning candle under the tip, it melts almost instantly. Try that with a lead tipped bullet and you will drop the bullet from heat being transferred before the lead melts. G&A never answered.Rick.