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

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