Non-lead bullet design theory

[Heym SR20]

Couple of things I have found when shooting Copper Bullets

1) No discernable difference in the real world, biggest is a much cleaner carcass. The Fox Bullet works very well with plenty of expansion. Hardly surprising as it has been designed to work well on deer, rather than on much bigger animals. I also use the RWS HIT in my 7x65R which again is a copper bullet. I am not sure I really understand the low velocity concerns. At deer stalking ranges both the RWS and the Fox ammo have more than enough velocity for adequate expansion and impact energy, and as for BC, again at deer stalking ranges this is really not an issue per se. If you drop down a bullet weight, so the bullet length is the same as your current lead bullet, your existing twist rate is more than good enough, but yes for longer bullets a higher twist rate is needed. But older calibres - the 6.5x54,55, 7x57, 7x64 all were originally designed to shoot ong heavy for calibre round nosed bullets and have fast twist rates already. I am loading up some 80gn Fox for use in my 243 and I expect them to work well on Roe up here is Scotland, and I expect they will work very well on Fallow and Red deer hinds south of the Scottish Border.

And I very much do question all the concern at copper bullets not working well beyond normal stalking ranges. Yes you can measure the range and twiddle turrets to get bullet drop, but over 200m wind becomes a huge factor and it doesn't take much wind to push a bullet out of the kill zone - regardless of whether it is a high BC or low BC bullet. Sniping at Deer at long range will result in wounded and lost animals, and in our crowded little island those deer will be found by the general public and we will end up up with lots of more stories about evil men with rifles wounding deer.

2) I think you do need to ensure that bullet placement is a bit higher and a bit further forward than the traditional behind the shoulder shot. You are impacting a bit more bone / muscle tissue and the nervous system and they drop to the spot. With lead bullets this placement resulted in bullet blow up and a messy carcass. With a copper bullet carcass damage is much less. And copper bullets are tough enough to have the penetration though the shoulders - with the 243 I have problems with a lead soft point bullet not penetrating shoulders on red deer - yes bullet choice and shot placement not ideal.

 

[NigelM]

Everyone who pushes for lead bullets to be phased out has missed the point.

If the 'non-lead/non-toxic only' malarkey is pushed to it's logical end point, with government legislation preventing the use of otherwise conventional, lead-based, cup and core bullets, some which have well over 50 years worth of results and data behind them (think Nosler Partition or similar hunting bullet designs from Sierra) will follow.

Don't get too excited with all your gucci chamberings and home loaded ammo, they will be just as worthless as the older rifles with supposedly obsolete barrel twist rates .

All government forestry leases and contracts in Scotland currently operate under a factory made only,lead-free ammunition policy which is clearly stated in the terms. Anyone who has stalked under the BASC scheme in Arran should be familiar with this.

Guess where organisations like NatureScot (formerly SNH) are going to draw from when it comes to advising ministers (some of whom may have never seen a deer or rifle up close) when the time comes to make these new laws? NatureScot have this policy for their own ground too, so don't be surprised if you find such wording in your lease when it comes up for renewal.

Reloaders with their 280AI's, 300WSM's etc. will not be catered for, so bear this in mind when you preach about copper and why lead is 'so last season dahhling...'

You will be left out in the cold too when the time comes, enjoy paying £60+ for a box of 20 cartridges which are under-powered and over-priced.

And another thing, if you don't have a deer dog for follow up, be prepared to call someone who does and compensate them for their time and effort.

I've got a very good HWV who get's very bored when deer get killed cleanly so at least he will have something to look forward to...

It's easy to preach about what's wrong with the system and shout about how terribly unfair it all is. It's less easy to accept it's coming and to find a new way to overcome the down sides it brings with it. Physics doesn't allow it to be along the same principles we are used to and we will have to accept change.

My leases are not forestry and don't have a ban on home loads, I'm just being affected by what the game dealer will accept. And as I said in the OP, I look forward to the day when bullet makes and rifle makers work together to make the solution more mainstream.

 

[User00040]

And I very much do question all the concern at copper bullets not working well beyond normal stalking ranges. Yes you can measure the range and twiddle turrets to get bullet drop, but over 200m wind becomes a huge factor and it doesn't take much wind to push a bullet out of the kill zone - regardless of whether it is a high BC or low BC bullet. Sniping at Deer at long range will result in wounded and lost animals, and in our crowded little island those deer will be found by the general public and we will end up up with lots of more stories about evil men with rifles wounding deer.

Heard this argument too many times, sorry but it does not hold any water.

A bullet should perform hand in hand with the chambering, and not be working against it.

If you need to launch a bullet 30% faster (or more) to get simillar performance compared to a lead-based bullet, then it's a compromise.

If someone can reliably shoot a deer from 300,400 or even 500m away and recover it, good for them.

In some cases this is necessary due to the terrain.

If you want to hobble yourself, feel free, but don't do it at the expense of others.

 

[User00040]

And as I said in the OP, I look forward to the day when bullet makes and rifle makers work together to make the solution more mainstream.

All lead-based ammo is banned for hunting in California, which is great for some US companies, but pleasing California and its laws are (thankfully) not at the forefront of the firearms industry.

I'm pretty certain that the Californian firearms market eclipses the UK's, possibly a few times over.

Ain't broke?

Don't fix.

 

[Heym SR20]

Heard this argument too many times, sorry but it does not hold any water.

A bullet should perform hand in hand with the chambering, and not be working against it.

If you need to launch a bullet 30% faster (or more) to get simillar performance compared to a lead-based bullet, then it's a compromise.

If someone can reliably shoot a deer from 300,400 or even 500m away and recover it, good for them.

In some cases this is necessary due to the terrain.

If you want to hobble yourself, feel free, but don't do it at the expense of others.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I have stalked plenty in the open parts of Scotland, including up on the flow country. You do not need to shoot at 300, 400 or 500 metres to harvest deer.

I use 130 gn 7x57 ammo - they are launched at 2800 fps - which is plus or minus pretty much what the original 140gn lead core softpoint leaves the muzzle at. Ditto with the 139gn HIT Bullet I use in the 7x65r. They are not being at 30% higher velocity than standard.

 

[User00040]

We will just have to agree to disagree. I have stalked plenty in the open parts of Scotland, including up on the flow country. You do not need to shoot at 300, 400 or 500 metres to harvest deer.

I use 130 gn 7x57 ammo - they are launched at 2800 fps - which is plus or minus pretty much what the original 140gn lead core softpoint leaves the muzzle at. Ditto with the 139gn HIT Bullet I use in the 7x65r. They are not being at 30% higher velocity than standard.

OK, happy to disagree.

But would you not agree that in some unforeseen cases you may need to make a shot at ranges further than normal, or maybe just let a wounded deer or orphaned calf hobble over the march and let their stalker handle it?

Surely the situation should dictate what should be done, whether this can be achieved is down to the stalker and their equipment.

If they are not up to the task, then they should seek to improve and become able to deal with it, not shy away from such a situation.

I appreciate that some may have never fired their rifle (either at a target or live game) much further than 200m, but why should their choices and ability (or lack thereof) become diktat for the rest of us?

 

[NigelM]

OK, happy to disagree.

But would you not agree that in some unforeseen cases you may need to make a shot at ranges further than normal, or maybe just let a wounded deer or orphaned calf hobble over the march and let their stalker handle it?

Surely the situation should dictate what should be done, whether this can be achieved is down to the stalker and their equipment.

If they are not up to the task, then they should seek to improve and become able to deal with it, not shy away from such a situation.

I appreciate that some may have never fired their rifle (either at a target or live game) much further than 200m, but their choices and ability (or lack thereof) should become diktat for the rest of us.

This is exactly why I want a bullet that performs well at extended ranges. I took two long shots last season, one on a stag that a guest shot badly, the other a sika calf that I had just orphaned and hadn't seen before I shot the hind (despite watching for 15 minutes before the shot. Both shots were over 400m and both were very successful thanks to the terminal performance of the bullets I was using. I don't want to forgoe the ability to take those shots because I have to change to copper, hence the thinking.

 

[Heym SR20]

OK, happy to disagree.

But would you not agree that in some unforeseen cases you may need to make a shot at ranges further than normal, or maybe just let a wounded deer or orphaned calf hobble over the march and let their stalker handle it?

Surely the situation should dictate what should be done, whether this can be achieved is down to the stalker and their equipment.

If they are not up to the task, then they should seek to improve and become able to deal with it, not shy away from such a situation.

I appreciate that some may have never fired their rifle (either at a target or live game) much further than 200m, but their choices and ability (or lack thereof) should become diktat for the rest of us.

I agree there are times when deer are wounded, and in my experience the biggest factor is range in the first place. I am fortunate in that I am not stalking with a stalker - I am the stalker in most cases, and thus I get in as close as you can so that range / wind etc is not an issue. I have shot a good number of deer and other animals out at 300m plus. And when it goes wrong, if the starting position is 300m it will get further away more rapidly. Whereas if its at 150m for the first shot a) you have much more certainty of a killing shot and b) any follow up is that much easier.

 

[NigelM]

I agree there are times when deer are wounded, and in my experience the biggest factor is range in the first place. I am fortunate in that I am not stalking with a stalker - I am the stalker in most cases, and thus I get in as close as you can so that range / wind etc is not an issue. I have shot a good number of deer and other animals out at 300m plus. And when it goes wrong, if the starting position is 300m it will get further away more rapidly. Whereas if its at 150m for the first shot a) you have much more certainty of a killing shot and b) any follow up is that much easier.

I don't think there's any argument that you're absolutely correct. Always get in as close as possible. But when it does go wrong - and it does - you want to be loaded with a bullet that does perform well at extended range and have the ability to use it effectively.

 

[muddy42]

The problem is that you then have the BC of a brick, which means they arrive at their minimum expansion velocity in a much shorter distance (plus other associated annoyances).

Noted, I might do some calculations and see what the effect is and how to compensate. I suspect the loss of expansion is marginal at the short ranges I tend to shoot at. I already know with copper, I will have to push them faster

 

[25 Sharps]

Its not going to be a problem, not even in the .243, you’re missing out the increased penetration as a factor in humane kills because of weight retention, theoretically you’re probably right but in the real world it wont matter.

Increased penetration? Most deer bullets are designed to punch through so not sure how you increase that penetration ?!

 

[Dunwaters]

Copper bullets penetrate more than lead projectiles, in 6.5x55 lead 140’s often stay in the animal and lose a little less than 1/2 their weight, 120 copper retains virtually all its weight and so far I’ve only got 1 back, all the rest passed through, same thing in the 270, 130 gr copper seems to penetrate like 150 lead, none back so far.

 

[andyk]

To get back to the topic, I wonder if there is mileage in a design based on the Barnes Varmint Grenada, Hornady NTX etc.

Those who have tried them say that they work ok but the sintered cores are a little too hard compared to lead. A little too hard for a varmint might be good on something bigger.

Could someone take such a sintered core and put it in the front end of something like a Nosler Partition but without the rear core (just keep it copper) and maybe a slightly thicker jacket at the front than is found on the varmint variants.

No idea if it would actually work but in theory it might expand better than a solid copper. The amount of rear solid copper could then be adjusted to allow for more or less fragmentation.

I also don’t believe those sintered cores are too expensive.

 

[takbok]

@andyk I think that the Barnes VG would be ideal if it was offered in larger cals, and maybe with boat tails and longer ogives for improved BC's.

I have some of the 50g & 62gr VG's but haven't had a chance to try them yet.

 

[Heym SR20]

To get back to the topic, I wonder if there is mileage in a design based on the Barnes Varmint Grenada, Hornady NTX etc.

Those who have tried them say that they work ok but the sintered cores are a little too hard compared to lead. A little too hard for a varmint might be good on something bigger.

Could someone take such a sintered core and put it in the front end of something like a Nosler Partition but without the rear core (just keep it copper) and maybe a slightly thicker jacket at the front than is found on the varmint variants.

No idea if it would actually work but in theory it might expand better than a solid copper. The amount of rear solid copper could then be adjusted to allow for more or less fragmentation.

I also don’t believe those sintered cores are too expensive.

RWS have already designed and offer a non toxic cored bullet, where the core fragments. Its sold under the RWS Evo Green brand and also claims to give good performance at extended ranges.

RWS Evolution Green | RWS Ammunition

Excellent stopping power, especially at longer ranges: RWS EVOLUTION GREEN is a lead-free part fragmentation bullet. Lean more here!

rws-ammunition.com

 

[angusb1]

I thought the Nielsen Sonic Hunting with the tip that helps petals to unfurl looks like an interesting alternative to a design that mushrooms on impact. Apparently it helps with deformation at low impact velocity. Does anyone know if there are any other designs that are like that?

 

[NP435]

To get back to the topic, I wonder if there is mileage in a design based on the Barnes Varmint Grenada, Hornady NTX etc.

Those who have tried them say that they work ok but the sintered cores are a little too hard compared to lead. A little too hard for a varmint might be good on something bigger.

Could someone take such a sintered core and put it in the front end of something like a Nosler Partition but without the rear core (just keep it copper) and maybe a slightly thicker jacket at the front than is found on the varmint variants.

No idea if it would actually work but in theory it might expand better than a solid copper. The amount of rear solid copper could then be adjusted to allow for more or less fragmentation.

I also don’t believe those sintered cores are too expensive.

The Varmint Grenade come apart on impact, done it with my 22-250, if the core is tough enough so the whole projectile wont fragment my thought is it may not expand at all. The dual core concept is interesting. In the 1970's I saw the concept done with cast linotype bullet bases, hollow nose so a pure lead cap so to speak was inserted and retained with glue of some sort. I no longer have the reference material memory says they expanded well and the base went on through deer.

 

[angusb1]

Sonic Ballistic Projectiles - Nielsengunparts.com

 

[CarlW]

To get back to the topic, I wonder if there is mileage in a design based on the Barnes Varmint Grenada, Hornady NTX etc.

Those who have tried them say that they work ok but the sintered cores are a little too hard compared to lead. A little too hard for a varmint might be good on something bigger.

Could someone take such a sintered core and put it in the front end of something like a Nosler Partition but without the rear core (just keep it copper) and maybe a slightly thicker jacket at the front than is found on the varmint variants.

No idea if it would actually work but in theory it might expand better than a solid copper. The amount of rear solid copper could then be adjusted to allow for more or less fragmentation.

I also don’t believe those sintered cores are too expensive.

Using slightly different tech, the Lehigh Defense Controlled Chaos bullets have a solid back end, coupled with a fragmenting front-half. I think @Alantoo might be playing with them.

 

[andyk]

RWS have already designed and offer a non toxic cored bullet, where the core fragments. Its sold under the RWS Evo Green brand and also claims to give good performance at extended ranges.

RWS Evolution Green | RWS Ammunition

Excellent stopping power, especially at longer ranges: RWS EVOLUTION GREEN is a lead-free part fragmentation bullet. Lean more here!

rws-ammunition.com

Indeed, I had forgotten about that. Just a pain that no one imports RWS bullets into the U.K.

The Varmint Grenade come apart on impact, done it with my 22-250, if the core is tough enough so the whole projectile wont fragment my thought is it may not expand at all. The dual core concept is interesting. In the 1970's I saw the concept done with cast linotype bullet bases, hollow nose so a pure lead cap so to speak was inserted and retained with glue of some sort. I no longer have the reference material memory says they expanded well and the base went on through deer.

My theorising, and it’s just that, is that the sintered metal could almost act like a filler for the front end, so as to allow a massive copper hollow point. That could then break up and leave a copper monolith, but one with far thinner walls than the current offering and so might mushroom without the need for so much velocity.

This is very much an armchair exercise, so I may be talking bull. I have to agree with NigelM though, there must be more choice for non lead deer bullets than a solid copper shank with a small hole in the front (as some of the smaller companies seem to be showing).