That, and the frailty, choking, and chamber length of many older guns. But not all.
Copper kills what calibres
- Thread starter David78b
- Start date
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
I don’t its CIP - I believe its rather our proof proof house that has lower pressure levels than CIP.
No, they do not. Our two proof houses will proof guns to standard, steel (fleur-de-lis), or even beyond that.
The ammunition proofing is done at Birmingham, to CIP levels.
CIP levels are certainly restrictive ATM, for shotshells, not only in simple pressure, but the hardness of the pellets, velocities, and some sort of superior levels are I think being discussed, but if so, that again would have to ripple back to gun proof standards, probably an even higher one.
Beretta for example have indicated that all of their new production guns are designed in anticipation of this, but make it clear that only their most modern interchangeable chokes are designed to cope, and suggest that some of their earlier ones are not good enough. But can be simply replaced with the newer ones, or third party offerings.
But we have left Europe! We must uphold our own standards and not conform to the overbearing European ones which have been imposed on us!
FREEEEDDDDOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!
mchughcb
Well-Known Member
Tungsten super shot is not alleged superior performance. It is superior performance.
Jagare
Well-Known Member
Yesterday I gave away a box of those Remington hyper speed cartridges. They had sat in my ammo stock for too long. They are scary to shoot and the noise is like a cannon going off. They are the only ammo, rifle or shotgun that has left me with a bruised shoulder after firing them.
No more high gull interception when intruding upon your airspace then?
Indeed TSS (solid tungsten alloy) is markedly superior in most aspects to lead, having a density of 18g/cm^3 (pure tungsten is 19.3g/cm^3) Where extreme penetration, and extended range is required. As you have demonstrated in your evaluations.
Lead being 11.3g/cm^3.
However it is not a direct substitute for lead in "legacy" shotguns, no more than steel is.
£76/kilo
As Tungsten Shot say:
WARNING - Any Tungsten based shot can damage the barrels of your gun.
To avoid choke damage, use cylinder or maximum 1/4 choke.
Correct protective wadding MUST be used. (e.g. TPS Wads & Consider Mylar Wraps) Check wads for shot penetration after firing.
To be safe in most guns, Tungsten Matrix (ITX) is needed, powdered tungsten held together in a polymer matrix. Density 10.0g/cm^3 Less than lead. Hence my "allegedly" comment.
This is the stuff normally thought of as a lead substitute, but at least on paper it doesn't add up to any obvious superiority. £55/kilo.
ITX Shot. Available in # 2,3,4,6 & US BB 4.5mm
ITX Shot. This shot has a density on 10.0g/cc so slightly lighter than lead but is hard enough to maintain superior patterning and penetration.
As for bismuth, in pure form density is 9.78gm/cc, but it has to be alloyed with typically 5% tin, giving a density of 9.7g/cm^3
£49/kilo
Bismuth shot is a lead-free alternative that is suited for older traditional guns.
Bismuth can be shot through traditional barrels with plastic or fibre wads without causing any damage.
Available in #3, #4. #5. #6 & #7.
This shot has very similar characteristics to lead with similar penetration at distance as well as being kind to your barrel.
Steel density 7.8g/cm^3, £18 to £23/kilo (plain vs. copper or zinc plated).
Lead, £3.80/kilo, bought in 10 kilo sacks. Or £6 in 1 kilo sample packs.
As for making a tungsten or bismuth cored projectile ? Lets say 150grains, guessing at maybe 130 grains for the core.
At claygame prices of shot, for comparison purposes, in kilo quantities, that's 119 projectiles per kilo. About two boxes of bullets.
So comparative material cost, alone, for the core, might be, in density order, for say 100 bullets::
TSS (more like an armour piercing projectile) £78
Lead £6
ITX (also hard) £55
Bismuth £49
Steel £18
As to making such a projectile, well rifle bullets need to expand at hunting ranges, and be accurate, and that is challenging enough for copper or brass ones at the moment, on soft skinned creatures.
Besides, tungsten and bismuth are in extremely limited supply, strategic resources, and that's not going to change anytime soon, if ever.
That is a correct, and admirably succinct, assessment of the situation.All of them, a lead ban will soon be seen as a great way of making all guns unaffordable to to shoot for the masses and see shooting fade into obscurity. Hunting with carcass value may be the first attack and the last resort. 22 rimfire shooters, air gunners, where will the catalyst for new entrants for shooting remain
mchughcb
Well-Known Member
Indeed TSS (solid tungsten alloy) is markedly superior in most aspects to lead, having a density of 18g/cm^3 (pure tungsten is 19.3g/cm^3) Where extreme penetration, and extended range is required. As you have demonstrated in your evaluations.
Lead being 11.3g/cm^3.
However it is not a direct substitute for lead in "legacy" shotguns, no more than steel is.
£76/kilo
As Tungsten Shot say:
WARNING - Any Tungsten based shot can damage the barrels of your gun.
To avoid choke damage, use cylinder or maximum 1/4 choke.
Correct protective wadding MUST be used. (e.g. TPS Wads & Consider Mylar Wraps) Check wads for shot penetration after firing.
To be safe in most guns, Tungsten Matrix (ITX) is needed, powdered tungsten held together in a polymer matrix. Density 10.0g/cm^3 Less than lead. Hence my "allegedly" comment.
This is the stuff normally thought of as a lead substitute, but at least on paper it doesn't add up to any obvious superiority. £55/kilo.
ITX Shot. Available in # 2,3,4,6 & US BB 4.5mm
ITX Shot. This shot has a density on 10.0g/cc so slightly lighter than lead but is hard enough to maintain superior patterning and penetration.
As for bismuth, in pure form density is 9.78gm/cc, but it has to be alloyed with typically 5% tin, giving a density of 9.7g/cm^3
£49/kilo
Bismuth shot is a lead-free alternative that is suited for older traditional guns.
Bismuth can be shot through traditional barrels with plastic or fibre wads without causing any damage.
Available in #3, #4. #5. #6 & #7.
This shot has very similar characteristics to lead with similar penetration at distance as well as being kind to your barrel.
Steel density 7.8g/cm^3, £18 to £23/kilo (plain vs. copper or zinc plated).
Lead, £3.80/kilo, bought in 10 kilo sacks. Or £6 in 1 kilo sample packs.
As for making a tungsten or bismuth cored projectile ? Lets say 150grains, guessing at maybe 130 grains for the core.
At claygame prices of shot, for comparison purposes, in kilo quantities, that's 119 projectiles per kilo. About two boxes of bullets.
So comparative material cost, alone, for the core, might be, in density order, for say 100 bullets::
TSS (more like an armour piercing projectile) £78
Lead £6
ITX (also hard) £55
Bismuth £49
Steel £18
As to making such a projectile, well rifle bullets need to expand at hunting ranges, and be accurate, and that is challenging enough for copper or brass ones at the moment, on soft skinned creatures.
Besides, tungsten and bismuth are in extremely limited supply, strategic resources, and that's not going to change anytime soon, if ever.
Its awesome you have all this information at your fingertips. How you do it I just don't know.
It's very easy, took me about five minutes to look up and verify the (not so) hard numbers. Which I already knew, having a passing interest in the subject.
Since I like to deal in facts and data.
And the ballistics, they are dead easy to understand for spherical shotgun pellets. Being spherical, they have a form factor of 1.0 Therefore their ballistic coefficient = their sectional density.
Just like cannon balls, which have been understood for centuries. Or round ball muzzle loaders.
QED ITX and bismuth are slightly worse than lead. For the same shot size. Hence my skepticism.
TSS much better. Steel much worse. Hence why, all things being equal, you need to go up in shot size with steel to get parity with e.g. lead. But if you do so, it can perform similarly, at least in theory. Another pet theory of mine, shoot the same load out of a 20 bore gun as a 12 bore and you have automatically a tighter equivalent choke, and longer shot string, so if I were to be designing a new shotgun optimised for steel it might be a 20 bore, with 3" or even longer cartridge.
Since you are shooting TSS, you might care to consider another claygame warning:
Always use matching case length for your gun. (e.g. Do not use 2 3/4" in a 3" Magnum gun, as the shot will damage the forcing cone.)
copper will get cheaper the more people us it, its simple economics.All of them, a lead ban will soon be seen as a great way of making all guns unaffordable to to shoot for the masses and see shooting fade into obscurity. Hunting with carcass value may be the first attack and the last resort. 22 rimfire shooters, air gunners, where will the catalyst for new entrants for shooting remain
AEven if it doesn't a 50 % increase in the cosy of a bullet is hardly going to make freezer filling uneconomic. we spend 1000's on kit and lease fees. Ammo is a drop in the ocean
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Pity then the the UK Government as part of the 2018 withdrawal bill enshrined into UK law all of the EU standards then in force.But we have left Europe! We must uphold our own standards and not conform to the overbearing European ones which have been imposed on us!
FREEEEDDDDOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!
But its OK as rather than being nasty EU law, its now UK law!
Just like our conversion
from copper cup and lead core bullets to 'non-toxic' monolithics, optics are all that matter! 
bluesako
Well-Known Member
whats this when we all change to copper ?
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, I do not share that optimism as copper prices have been steadily rising for months, and compared with the automotive industry, motor windings, electric and electronics industry, even what's used in hifi components, shooting would account for a tiny small fraction of what is used so there's little leverage for obtaining any significant savings from economies of scale for raw materials.
I may change my mind in due course, but I see little advantage of copper which longer term is no more sustainable than lead and which also poisons plants, trees and animals.
The whole lead debate has been going on for decades and as (mostly) recreational shooters, there is so little environmental concern from our part of the sport compared with other areas of the food chain that it's a pure political driven agenda and always was. I clearly see the need for protecting foreshore areas and support the changes where wildfowling is concerned though.
I have yet to see comprehensive peer reviewed data for the alternatives in the UK and would be very interested in reading more, but not just constrained to ballistic performance. Currently it only seems to exist in small pockets driven by manufacturers yet wholesale political decisions were made by the likes of the Forestry commission presumably without lots of scientifically driven back data to examine especially on things like risk with ricochets. If we do go forward with a change in the future (and I am one who hopes that day doesn't happen....but it will), then I would also like to see evidence based assessment for ricochet risk, penetration, expansion, environmental toxic risk and all the other things connected with terminal ballistics which need careful consideration.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
There is a very large body of peer reviewed literature that demonstrates that lead in food is harmful, and that lead consumed by wildlife is also harmful.
There is also now plenty of experience of lead free bullets and that for 95% they just work. You do need to match bullet to application, but you need to do that with lead bullets.
Whilst there is no legal ban on using lead in deer, many organisations, land owners etc are now insisting on lead free ammo being used when shooting deer, or when they purchase the carcass. It’s up to any of us to accept those conditions if we want to hunt on those areas, or put venison into the commercial food chain.
And equally you are free to choose to carry on as before until the law changes.
I have disagree with you. I started using using lead free because I was not happy with lead core bullets for a number of performance reasons. Politics had nothing to do with it.
Do you have evidence that the WHO statement that they could find no safe level of lead for our systems was politically driven? Copper on the other hand is vital to our systems...just as water and oxygen are...and in excess copper is toxic to us just as water and oxygen are...but they are are in a different league altogether with lead.
A laudable basis upon which to choose a bullet to be sure. Did you manage to find the same degree of evidence based data for the bullets you are currently using?
One of the big plusses of the lead free bullet debate on SD for me has been a greater understanding of terminal ballistics and how bullets kill which I was not aware of before.
The advice frequently given on here not long ago to anybody enquiring about choice of rifle chambering was to base it on what ammunition their local RFD had on the shelves. Little consideration was given to the criteria you have listed at all.
Alan
Similar threads
