NFR NY Times article on Copper Ammunition

kmudgn

Active Member
#17
Kinetic Energy is defined in the following formula: ke=mv2 (that should be superscript 2 for squared, but I can't figure out how to do it here) where ke is kinetic energy, m is mass, and v is velocity squared

So, as the formula defines, it is the velocity of the object which is the most significant factor for energy transfer. The weight of a .22 lr bullet (40 grain) vs a 30-06 (180 grain) is roughly one third. However, the velocity of the .22 is around 1200 fps and the 30-06 around 2700 fps). Plugging in the formula shows that the .22 produces around 85 ft pounds of energy and the 30-06 about 3000.

All things being equal, if the Copper bullet is the same weight and speed as the lead it should yield about the same energy. I'm sure that there are differences in ballistics, shock-wave, and penetration, but I have no idea about that data.

As I don't kill Bambi anymore (don't have any moral objection, just lost the "blood lust") it is all academic. That being said, I am open to receiving packages of venison, or better, venison/pork sausage.
 
#18
2 Big benefits to copper bullets that the author and many other folks missed entirely.
A) 100% Copper bullets open up different manufacturing possibilities to tighter tolerances and better designs. Some of the best ELR marksmen have been using 100% copper bullets turned on a lathe for some time now. These new bullets have some truly absurd G7 ballistic coefficient and G7 drag factors.
Example: Flat-line Projectiles in laymen's terms these bullets resist wind, barometric pressure, and air density which effects the bullet's intended trajectory in a lighter weight package that yields greater velocity from a given cartridge. Fly flatter, better wind resistance, and increased velocity retention downrange, sounds like a winner to me.
B) Terminal ballistic performance. Almost every single one of the bronze or copper bullets retain greater than 90% of their original weight after impact. What this means is that despite having a lower SD or Sectional Density than their lead cored counterparts, they will penetrate deeper. A full pass through of the lungs will likely cause a tension-pneumothorax(the build up of air inside the body cavity causing the lung to collapse), hemorrhagic shock(massive blood loss from striking a large artery or even the heart), and even hydrostatic shock(neural disruption from a supersonic projectile sending waves of energy through tissue) can all kill very quickly. Often times with these expanding all copper projectiles you will see all 3 conditions present.
I actually just saw a YouTube video of a guy sending a 285gr Cutting Edge bullet from a 338 Lapua through 36" of hickory and a cinder block @ 500 yards. If I can find it I'll post it up.
 

steelydan

Newb seeking wisdom
#22
View attachment 185439

See below, .380 bullet impact. A WHOPPING 170 foot pounds (vs 3000+ I cited) of energy (rolling eyes this time)

SACRAMENTO — A police officer in California shared a photo on social media that shows the bruise caused by a .380 caliber bullet that struck his body armor vest.
"So this round is a, the knock-down power is 170 foot-pounds of energy, which is a good solid punch," he said.

Link to page and video: https://wreg.com/2017/09/21/officer...d-by-bullet-that-struck-his-bulletproof-vest/
What you're ignoring is the TIME component.
The energy exerted may be exerted ALL AT ONE TIME(body armor stops a bullet immediately, that energy dumps immediately).
A deer or other soft target absorbs the bullet and the energy is dumped over a period(a very short period, but a period, nontheless).
Does a golf ball moving 200fps bounce farther off of a brick wall or a human body?
Why?
We then move on to the sectional density argument.....
 
#23
What you're ignoring is the TIME component.
The energy exerted may be exerted ALL AT ONE TIME(body armor stops a bullet immediately, that energy dumps immediately).
A deer or other soft target absorbs the bullet and the energy is dumped over a period(a very short period, but a period, nontheless).
Does a golf ball moving 200fps bounce farther off of a brick wall or a human body?
Why?
We then move on to the sectional density argument.....
Time component? The fuck are you talking about? Soft armor works in the same way as a trampoline, catch bullet and distribute impact forces over a larger surface area. Soft tissue does not absorb energy. All it does is act as a new medium for which the projectile flies. Since flesh has greater resistance than air, the projectile bleeds velocity quicker. This is why FMJ projectiles tumble after impact, flight becomes destabilized when the projectile goes subsonic, but because the projectile is still rotating from the rifling, flight paths become erratic and unpredictable. Same shit happens when shooting extreme long range, think 3000+ meters, bullet goes subsonic and impacts start flying all over the place. Or when rifle twist is not fast enough to adequately stabilize flight. Kinda cool to see keyhole'd targets, unless you're the one footing the bill to re-barrel the weapon.
Anyways... by disrupting the integrity of flesh from a supersonic impact of a projectile, we fuck shit up. Same thing happens when a bullet flies through the air, you can see the vapor trail of a bullet particularly in cold, dry air. The difference between air and flesh is density, neither absorbs energy but do reflect disruption from the flight of the projectile.
Thus endeth the lesson.
 

steelydan

Newb seeking wisdom
#24
Time component? The fuck are you talking about? Soft armor works in the same way as a trampoline, catch bullet and distribute impact forces over a larger surface area. Soft tissue does not absorb energy. All it does is act as a new medium for which the projectile flies. Since flesh has greater resistance than air, the projectile bleeds velocity quicker. This is why FMJ projectiles tumble after impact, flight becomes destabilized when the projectile goes subsonic, but because the projectile is still rotating from the rifling, flight paths become erratic and unpredictable. Same shit happens when shooting extreme long range, think 3000+ meters, bullet goes subsonic and impacts start flying all over the place. Or when rifle twist is not fast enough to adequately stabilize flight. Kinda cool to see keyhole'd targets, unless you're the one footing the bill to re-barrel the weapon.
Anyways... by disrupting the integrity of flesh from a supersonic impact of a projectile, we fuck shit up. Same thing happens when a bullet flies through the air, you can see the vapor trail of a bullet particularly in cold, dry air. The difference between air and flesh is density, neither absorbs energy but do reflect disruption from the flight of the projectile.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Thus beginneth the lesson....I love it when an 'expert' schools me.....

-the projectile bleeds velocity quicker-

You answered your own question.

Try this....Stop your car from 60-0 in 1/10th of a second and then stop your car from 60-0 over a 10 second period. Which one hurt more?

Period of time over which energy is bled....Same energy,
 
#25
What I believe being discussed is the formula for acceleration (or deceleration) aka delta V. Defined by the basic physics formula of f=ma (force =massxacceleration), but lets not get into the weeds here. Being shot hurts, that's about all one needs to know
 
#26
Thus beginneth the lesson....
Did you even bother to Google? Did you even bother to ask yourself, "Does he have a point?" or just remain obstinate because someone checked you for posting something you think you know?
I googled for you
TL;DR body armor acts as a trampoline by dispersing impact energy over a larger area.
The exact same thing I posted before.
I will reiterate, time has nothing to do with soft armor stopping a bullet. Flesh does not 'absorb' energy from a ballistic impact. Let's take your car example.
Instead of stopping, which is not attributed to resistance from the environment but rather braking forces on-board the car its self. Let's make it simpler. You get hit by a 4500lbs car traveling at 3mph. By no means is this the kind of impact we would fear death and dismemberment from. Let's find out how much energy you're being hit with. If we convert from pounds to grains we'd need to multiply every pound by 7000 to get the grain value. We get 31,500,000 grains. We plug that into the calculator Here and we get 1354ft-lbs of energy from a 4500lbs car traveling @ 3mph or 4.4fps. The car hits with roughly 3.25 times the energy of a 9mm round. With this in mind why does the car at that speed not have the same ability to kill as the 9mm round when car clearly has more energy? If we are to believe your assertion...
A deer or other soft target absorbs the bullet and the energy is dumped over a period
Then the car should damage internal organs the same as the 9mm bullet. I mean, soft targets 'absorb' energy from projectiles right? Projectiles are projectiles right? Wrong. Why? Surface area of the impact. Tensile strength of the skin requires x amount of energy per sq inch in order to penetrate but acts as a net when the object impacting has a greater surface area. It is why a knife penetrates so easily, it's energy impacts over a very small area making integrity of skin that much easier to compromise. I dare you to tell me a knife will strike with greater energy than that car. Now with the car scenario, if you mounted a spear on the front end you'd get the kind of damage that a bullet would cause.
If we are to believe you that flesh can 'absorb' energy, we can also assume that air or water 'absorbs' energy as well, correct? If that is so, sonar would never work because then water 'absorbs' sound energy and so would the fish you are trying to detect. One would never see a damn thing because air would also 'absorb' light energy, and seismologists would not be able to detect earthquakes because solid ground also 'absorbs' energy right? Thank goodness you're wrong because all these things do not 'absorb' energy as you asserted earlier.
Projectiles lose velocity because of medium viscosity(in laymen's terms resistance from static objects) from those pesky molecules. This comes from that basic physics principle of an action causing an equal or opposite reaction. In this case a supersonic projectile compresses static air molecules and pushes them out of its way. The molecules do not 'absorb' energy, if they did you would not see the vapor trail of a bullet because the molecules would bounce off the bullet in a non-linear fashion. Since we can see vapor trails from bullets, we know that the air molecules are not 'absorbing' energy, rather they are being pushed around by the bullet and return to the vacuum created behind the bullet.
I love it when an 'expert' schools me.....
Happy to help!
Oh and for the record, I never claimed to be an expert. I base my assertions from a decade of first hand operational experience and training during the height of the GWOT.
 
#27
Back to lead poisoning. As far as I can find out, there has never been a single case of clinical lead poisoning resulting from eating game killed with lead projectiles. Secondly, there was a time when folks ate far more hunter-killed game than we do (remember when Colorado mule deer were almost eradicated by market hunting?), and there was no rampant lead poisoning. Lead-killed waterfowl and upland birds, as well as rabbits and squirrels were on lots of tables, many more than now, in the years preceding and after WW II. Lots of lead poisoning from inner cities with deteriorating lead-based paint, though, so doctors were certainly looking for it.

So, "studies" come along, and show that levels might rise a bit, and even without a shred of evidence that this results in clinical disease, "scientists" decide that the best thing to do is to pass overwhelming laws "just in case" an association with clinical disease might someday develop, even though that was never demonstrated on the game-eaters around WW II. All those folks did was free the world from fascism, go to the moon using slide rules, and develop most modern meds and machines.

Having said that I shoot Barnes in my .300 Win Mag and .25-06 and most animals fall in their tracks.

I just hate to see science used as a political tool, being raised on science in an earlier era, when the null hypothesis actually existed, rather than selection of data to substantiate the researchers bias.
 
Last edited:
#29
Did you even bother to Google? Did you even bother to ask yourself, "Does he have a point?" or just remain obstinate because someone checked you for posting something you think you know?
I googled for you
TL;DR body armor acts as a trampoline by dispersing impact energy over a larger area.
The exact same thing I posted before.
I will reiterate, time has nothing to do with soft armor stopping a bullet. Flesh does not 'absorb' energy from a ballistic impact. Let's take your car example.
Instead of stopping, which is not attributed to resistance from the environment but rather braking forces on-board the car its self. Let's make it simpler. You get hit by a 4500lbs car traveling at 3mph. By no means is this the kind of impact we would fear death and dismemberment from. Let's find out how much energy you're being hit with. If we convert from pounds to grains we'd need to multiply every pound by 7000 to get the grain value. We get 31,500,000 grains. We plug that into the calculator Here and we get 1354ft-lbs of energy from a 4500lbs car traveling @ 3mph or 4.4fps. The car hits with roughly 3.25 times the energy of a 9mm round. With this in mind why does the car at that speed not have the same ability to kill as the 9mm round when car clearly has more energy? If we are to believe your assertion...

Then the car should damage internal organs the same as the 9mm bullet. I mean, soft targets 'absorb' energy from projectiles right? Projectiles are projectiles right? Wrong. Why? Surface area of the impact. Tensile strength of the skin requires x amount of energy per sq inch in order to penetrate but acts as a net when the object impacting has a greater surface area. It is why a knife penetrates so easily, it's energy impacts over a very small area making integrity of skin that much easier to compromise. I dare you to tell me a knife will strike with greater energy than that car. Now with the car scenario, if you mounted a spear on the front end you'd get the kind of damage that a bullet would cause.
If we are to believe you that flesh can 'absorb' energy, we can also assume that air or water 'absorbs' energy as well, correct? If that is so, sonar would never work because then water 'absorbs' sound energy and so would the fish you are trying to detect. One would never see a damn thing because air would also 'absorb' light energy, and seismologists would not be able to detect earthquakes because solid ground also 'absorbs' energy right? Thank goodness you're wrong because all these things do not 'absorb' energy as you asserted earlier.
Projectiles lose velocity because of medium viscosity(in laymen's terms resistance from static objects) from those pesky molecules. This comes from that basic physics principle of an action causing an equal or opposite reaction. In this case a supersonic projectile compresses static air molecules and pushes them out of its way. The molecules do not 'absorb' energy, if they did you would not see the vapor trail of a bullet because the molecules would bounce off the bullet in a non-linear fashion. Since we can see vapor trails from bullets, we know that the air molecules are not 'absorbing' energy, rather they are being pushed around by the bullet and return to the vacuum created behind the bullet.

Happy to help!
Oh and for the record, I never claimed to be an expert. I base my assertions from a decade of first hand operational experience and training during the height of the GWOT.
I should have pointed out (!) a constant surface area. I most definitely never said flesh absorbs energy. (See first law of thermodynamics).

Flesh does not 'absorb' energy from a ballistic impact. Let's take your car example.

Remind me again of the first law of thermodynamics. Where exactly does that ‘trampoline effect’ energy go?
Energy is not absorbed. It is converted to other types of energy(hydrostatic, thermal, motion, sound) in your sonar example, explain the term ‘frequency ‘ as used(frequency is a measure of energy and time).
Let’s stop arguing and just admit the faster an object loses velocity, the more violent the transfer of energy.
 
#30
I should have pointed out (!) a constant surface area. I most definitely never said flesh absorbs energy. (See first law of thermodynamics).

Flesh does not 'absorb' energy from a ballistic impact.
Ok, in that case I misinterpreted what you wrote. My bad.

Let’s stop arguing and just admit the faster an object loses velocity, the more violent the transfer of energy.
K
 

Latest posts