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

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