...the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, or EPR, in 2010 has eliminated nearly two thousand tons of lead from the waste stream, according to the latest Picatinny figures."Density of copper: 8.96 grams per cubic centimeter.
Density of lead: 11.34 grams per cubic centimeter.
If you decrease the cross-sectional density of a bullet, and decrease mass, you'll lose range, because of decreased momentum. If you keep the mass of the projectile the same by increasing length, you'll lose accuracy over long distances in real-world conditions (because a longer bullet will suffer more deflection from cross-winds, and isn't the right length for the turns-per-inch of rifle barrels made for conventional bullets).
And as an added plus (from the perspective of those who would like nothing better than to weaken the American military), solid copper is less lethal because it's harder and has less expansion. (The Army officers quoted in the linked article dance around this fact by calling it "better penetration.") Hunters like copper bullets, because it leaves a smaller wound channel and doesn't ruin as much meat; and most hunters shoot from 150 yards and in. They're right about one thing -- it will have "more consistent performance against soft targets" -- consistently bad performance.
In places like Afghanistan, where firefights were typically at distances of 400 or 800 yards, taking 100 yards off of that maximum effective range, adding a minute of arc to the size of the group, and reducing the destructive effect the projectile, will end up costing the lives of American soldiers and marines.
On the plus side, though, it will be great for the environment. It's a wonder anyone can live in France, for example, with all of the lead that was expended there in two world wars. It's basically a barren wasteland, populated only by mutants.
22 comments:
That's interesting. What other soft, dense metals are there besides lead?
Gold bullets would be cool. The enemy would try to get shot - much improved accuracy with that.
Off topic, Meade needs to know that his fancy no-touch reel mower isn't going to cut all kinds of grass. In fact some grasses will thoroughly stall the mower via their resistance to no-touch cutting.
Some very fine bladed grass that shows up is one of the bad guys. I think Bermuda is advertised as another bad one somewhere.
On topic, I'd think the length of the bullet makes it displace laterally owing to more lift for a given angle of precession, making it a little wing.
I don't see how turns per inch matter though.
Pasta--I think it depends on what you want from a bullet--as an old soldier, I prefer stopping power--KE (roughly stopping power) equals one half the mass times the velocity squared--you can get stopping power by increasing the mass but you get better power by increasing the velocity.
Of course if we are interested in "green effects" just let the bodies rot in the field and voila--instant fertilizer.
Damn warmongers!
always wanting to kill people!
Don't they see saving the Environment is more important than saving their lives?
bagoh20 said...
Gold bullets would be cool. The enemy would try to get shot - much improved accuracy with that.
What are you, a Communist?
It's silver bullets that are cool.
depleted uranium is like really high in mass--which is why it is used in tank gun rounds.
And as an added plus (from the perspective of those who would like nothing better than to weaken the American military), solid copper is less lethal because it's harder and has less expansion
This is a big problem for us who hunt deer in California. They want to abandon the lead bullets in the aim of "saving the environment".
All this will do is increase the amounts of deer that are shot and NOT immediately killed. A through and through on the deer and they will run off and bleed to death far far away from where you are. They will take longer to die, maybe not die at all, but live in horrible pain crippled and later taken out by a mountain lion or pack of coyotes. Where we hunt, unlike back East, it is wide open spaces and your shots are hundreds of yards not close up. An expanding bullet is necessary to get an efficient kill.
A lead bullet will mushroom (expand) upon impact and create more immediate damage and kill the deer.
I know....either sounds horrible to someone who doesn't hunt, but believe me....the lead bullets are much more humane.
These are stupid rules being made by people who don't hunt, don't understand guns and probably have never been out in a real nature environment. They think that the world is Disneyland.
"Hunters like copper bullets, because it leaves a smaller wound channel and doesn't ruin as much meat"
Hunters like copper bullets, because of the excellent expansion characteristics (mushrooming while staying intact) of new copper bullets like the Barnes TSX that will tear a large hole and don't stop digging when they hit bone.
These bullets can be pushed a lot faster than lead comparables, and in fast twist barrels are more accurate to boot.
It's a wonder anyone can live in France......It's basically a barren wasteland, populated only by mutants.
Have you been talking to Crack about France & the French again?
".It's basically a barren wasteland, populated only by mutants."
They seem to have done alright with the female strain, but the males lack vigor.
Leftists once again are injecting themselves in something they have no business getting into. This has to be stopped. Ridiculous.
YoungHegelian said...
It's a wonder anyone can live in France......It's basically a barren wasteland, populated only by mutants.
oh, I was going to say the eastern seaboard, but then I saw you mentioned France and forgot about that.
They have a new tank in the design stage. It has one of those flower holders like the newer Volkswagen Beetle.
The crew now consists of:
1 commander
1 driver
1 loader
1 gunner
1 Larry
Lipperman: Bullshit.
They're more accurate in a fast-twist barrel? Well, sure. They're longer, they're made for a fast-twist barrel. That's like saying a Jeep Cherokee does better off-road than a Ferrari.
Which bullet is more accurate in a standard-twist barrel?
Let's compare accuracy with a copper bullet, compared to a good jacketed lead bullet, where each is fired from the optimum barrel for the projectile. Maybe that's what you meant. At 600 yards, with a 15mph cross-wind and a light rain, I think I'll go with a jacketed lead bullet, because: Basic physics.
And with a target that's human and not a bear or elk, I'm not going to be too concerned about the bullet making it through bone or remaining intact. And in a target that small, a copper bullet is not going to have time to expand worth a warm shit. And the bullet you're talking about has a nose cavity -- the military doesn't use those.
There's a lot of chatter online in support of these Barnes copper bullets. The chatter flies in the face of basic physics. Yeah, they can be held to tight tolerances -- that doesn't really count for much when they lose half their muzzle energy before reaching the target because it's like firing a damned nerf gun.
Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns! Rainbows and unicorns!
I'm sure if we all chant it enough we won't even need those nasty bullets, copper or lead.
However, I do like the depleted uranium idea.
the difficulty with lands and grooves to impart spin to the bullet will slow it down--as Pasta says basic physics; you are sacrificing muzzle velocity for some increase in accuracy--I am most familiar with tank gun rounds which are fired from a 120 mm smoothbore gun--less friction and higher muzzle velocity. I am not sure how the Barret sniper rifle is machined, but it appears to have hit a good balance between accuracy and KE on the receiving end.
apologies--Unknown is in me, RogerJ--I hate posting anonymously.
The whole point of the 5.56 (well, okay, not the whole point) was that the bullet tumbled, causing ugly wound channels (on the theory that a wounded soldier takes the attention of usually 2 other soldiers, not to mention being demoralizing if he's screaming and crying).
CEO-MMP said...
The whole point of the 5.56 (well, okay, not the whole point) was that the bullet tumbled, causing ugly wound channels (on the theory that a wounded soldier takes the attention of usually 2 other soldiers, not to mention being demoralizing if he's screaming and crying).
7.62x39mm, 7.62x51mm all the way.
Pastafarian:
I base my opinion on actual experience, not "online chatter".
Rifles with shorter and faster twist barrels, shooting less grains copper bullets with considerably more whack than old-school lead, is where it's at these days. Look into it.
Has nothing to do with the environmental factor for me.
I'll be on the line at Camp Perry for the National Rifle and Pistol Matches next week. The next guy I see shooting copper bullets there will be the first one. The military marksmanship units will be competing and I don't have to guess what they'll be shooting either.
They'll be shooting paper.
Post a Comment