Pecos,

The heat equivalent of foot pounds is not as much as you might imagine.

1 calorie = about 3 foot pounds of energy.

A calorie is the amount of heat required to change the temperature of 1 gram (15.4 grains) of water by 1 degree Centigrade.

Now let us take a bullet weighing 150 grains at 3000 ft/sec, which will be about 3000 foot pounds and 150 grains is about 10 grams.

If we had 10 grams of water at freezing (0 degrees centigrade) and heated it to boiling (100 degrees centigrade) that would require 1000 calories which equals 3000 foot pounds.

Note that animal tissue is mainly water and if the whole 3000 foot pounds is converted to heating the animal up, we really only have enough energy to boil up maybe a table spoon of body tissue.

However, out at 200 yards out 30/06 150 grainer probably still has about 2000 foot pounds of energy left, so only a 1000 foot pounds has gone to heat, before a block of wood, rock or animal is hit.

So that will only heat 150 grains of water by about 33 degrees centigrade.

But we are not heating water but rather lead and air and both require less heat to increase a given weight of them by a certain temperature.

Water requires about 33 times as much heat as lead so if all the heat in the above example went to heating the lead then the bullet would be heated by about 900 degrees centigrade, which of course would melt the lead.

But, most of the heat will go into heating the air and air requires about 1/4 as much heat to increase the temperature as does a given weight as does water.

As I said earlier, we have an air cooled bullet on the way to the target and a water cooled bullet once it hits the animal.

Think of this way. If you travel a few hundred miles in your car, the engine block stays at a temperature under boiling water. Yet you have released the heat energy contained in many gallons of petrol (gas?)but what you have done is heat up lots of air over your 300 mile trip.

Having said of that, it is a fact that the total energy after, during and whatever remains the same within the system. It changes form only.

For that not to be the case, we would then be entering the area of nuclear energy.

If the above is not clear to read it was even less clear writing it

Mike

Pecos,

One other thing. While our bullet does not have very much energy, what it can do is release it very rapidy or to put it more correctly, energy is work and the bullet can perform work at a very rapid rate.

Power is the rate at which work is done. Run a model aeroplane engine fora couple of hours and the work it could do might be the same as your V8 can do in a couple of minutes.

1 foot pound is the work or energy required to lift a weight of 1 pound to a height of 1 foot or 2 pounds to 6 inchs etc.

Now let us say we make a little crane for ourselves. If we havea little motor and we gear it right down, then our little crane can lift a big weight. But a bigger motor won't need to be geared down so far and therefore can lift the weight to the same height in less time.

If you can lift 550 pounds through a height of 1 foot in 1 second, that is one horsepower as is being able to raise 33,000 pounds 1 foot in one minute.

Since this thread is now almost out of control we may as well go furter.

If we take our 30/06 150 grainer at 3000 f/s and with about 3000 foot pound of energy, that means it has the work capacity to lift 3000 pounds 1 foot or 10 pound 300 feet etc.

Now let us assume that we can somehow make up some block and tack pulley system where we can 'gear right down" our bullet.

We will also assume that the gun is fired vertically and we can somehow arrange for the bullet to attach itself to the block and tackle as it leaves the barrel. Lets also ignore friction and other unwanted problems.

If the gearing was right, then the bullet could rise 3000 feet straight up and in the process through the gearing down of the block and tackle, it would lift a weight of 3000 pounds 1 foot of the ground.

To complete the deal, when the bullet came to a stop at 3000 feet, then out 3000 pound weight would start to fall and drag the bullet back down. However the block and tackle is gearing the weight way up when the weight pulls the bullet back.

Again, assuming no friction losses etc, when the weight hit the ground and stopped, the bullet would have been pulled back to its starting speed of 3000 feet per second.

Mike

This argument is not going to be won with calculations and estimations. Melting tips will only be proven on the test range. The concept of a melting bullet tip must be proven because there is too much existing evidence contrary to this phenomena.

Julian Hatcher conducted much research on ballistics during the 50 & 60's. His data was recorded in his book Hatcher�s Notebook - ISBN: 0811707954. As part of his experiments, he shot, recovered, and examined bullets which were fired vertically. A vertically fired bullet undergoes full flight dynamics because it achieves 0 speed at the top if its flight path. Hatcher estimated that a bullet achieves zero velocity at approximately 9000 ft. Flight time necessary to achieve zero velocity was 20 seconds. The total flight time was 42 seconds for a 150gr bullet fired from a .30-06.

Interestingly, vertically fired bullets hit the ground base first because of the rotational stability is still largely intact throughout the flight. No where in all of his observations was there any reference to a melting bullet tip. You would think that a ballistics expert of Hatcher�s stature would have noticed something an obvious as a melted bullet tip.

Furthermore, several years later another ballistics expert, Lucien C. Haag, performed many of the same experiments as Hatcher. All of his results supported Hatcher�s observations. Again, if there were any meting bullet tips, he also missed this �in-your-face� type of evidence.

Therefore, I would suggest that any melting bullet tip is an exception and probably only rarely occurs (if ever). There is too much physical evidence in existence to refute this position. Subjective observations, conjecture, or wild ass guesses are not effective arguments against physical proof. The only way the melting tip hypophysis can be proven is with physical, scientific evidence. As I stated early on in this discussion, a simple picture would be nice.

Zero,

As I remember those Hatcher tests, they were done with FMJ military ammo.

Mike

Hornady's response to my e-mail.

Allen:

This is to some degree correct that the lead tip of a jacketed bullet will melt in flight. That is if the bullet is traveling at over 2600 fps the amount of compressed air against the nose of the bullet will generate over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit on the nose of the lead causing it to melt. The other point would be the distance that the bullet will travel before it impacts on target. This also has to do with the content of lead in the lead core. I do not think this affects accuracy nearly as much as people want to make it out to be. I have shot many of animals with bullets starting off at 4,000 + fps muzzle velocity and hit deer at over 400 yds. and put the bullet where I want it to go. I have also shot targets at 500 yds. and have kept the bullets in 1/2 minute of an angle at that range with soft point jacketed lead bullets.

The best to you in shooting & hunting!
Lonnie Hummel

Not that it means anything Pecos45 but your math is flawed. 1800 revolutions in a 500 yard flight being your figures, how long does that 500 yard flight last? about a 1/3rd of a second? so 1800 revs. in a third of a second,180/3rds in a minute,1800x180=324,000 revolutions per minute

Mike375 - Hatcher and Haag did conduct much of their tests with FMJ Military and a sampling of other commercially available bullets. I have not read Hatcher's Notes from cover to cover so I do not know exactly what variety of bullets they shot. Based upon the comprehensive nature of these ballistic tests, one could assume that there were a least a few soft points fired.

In any event, 1000 degrees F for 20 seconds is certainly enough heat to melt ANY jacketed bullet! (OK, maybe not a spent uranium projectile fired from GAU-8 Vulcan cannon.) The fact that no physical proof has been presented clearly validating melting bullets should be a clue for the more enlightened. Hummm....

Conjecture cannot negate physical proof. I am not maintaining that it cannot happen. All I am saying is there has never been any physical proof that melting occurs. Until someone has clear, physical evidence, I choose not to believe some BS I read in a magazine. Furthermore, just because you manufacture a bullet does not make you a ballistics expert any more than manufacturing car makes you a Formula I driver.

To win this discussion, someone needs to be producing some high-speed photographs of melting bullets. Until then, this is just more typical pissing in the wind......

Kevin - Hatcher�s experiments also validates rotational speeds of a .30-06 bullet to be in the 300,000 RPM area. While that sounds excessive, it is still only one rotation every foot or so. Rotational speed is directly proportional to maximum barrel twist. It is physically impossible for �standard� bullets to spin faster than the barrel rifling twist rate.

Zero Drift, you can obviously BELIEVE anything you want to.

Including that the melting point of gilding metal is below 1,000 F.

Dutch.

[ 08-17-2002, 00:46: Message edited by: Zero Drift ]

Dutch - You are absolutely correct! I have never stuck a thermometer on the end of a bullet to know what temperatures a bullet is actually subjected to. Furthermore, I don�t know anyone who has recorded the exact temperature to know what the hell they are talking about. The fact that there is no evidence one way or another makes it a null point in this discussion. Just as melting bullets are a null discussion until evidence of the occurrence is produced. Get it?

Creeping Calculations, Batman! It's getting crazy on this thread!

I got a sneaking feeling all of us here have run WAY out beond knowing what the hell we are talking about and wee are mostly just making noise. Myself included.

I think there are MANY VARIABLES which have to be considered and their COMBINED EFFECT considered ALL AT ONCE. I'm not about to show my ignorance further by trying to throw what few formulas I know at anyone. As I said a couple of posts prior, my PERSONAL observations of recovered bullet were sufficient to convince me this "melting tip" theory is all smoke and mirrors.

When I start picking up bullets with the lead tip melted off and lead streaks along the sides of the bullet jacket where this molten lead has flowed along the flight path...then I'll believe it. My experience and EVERYONE else's here indicates just the opposite.

If, for the sake of argument, we accept that a velocity above 2,600 fps CAN produce a temperature of over 1,000 degrees...the following questions puzzle me.

1. How QUICKLY will this temperature be achieved.
2. If the bullet makers seriously believed this supposed issue, WHY in the world would anyone build a bullet with the lead tip exposed??? It's just going to burn off anyway...supposedly!
3. IF the bullet makers believed the tip really melted away in flight, why in heaven's name would they put a POLYMER tip in their bullets which SHOULD melt away in less that 400 degrees?
4. Why aren't bullet tips tungstun or something with an extremely high melting point?
5. Worst of all, if there is any validity to this theory at all, how come so many bullets tips are recovered in tact?

VERY few bullets will maintain a velocity over 2600 fps beyond 200 yards. And assuming we start with the extreme velocity of 4,000 fps, the time of flight is only .167 seconds. In 300 yards you have about a quarter of a second time of flight and only a half second all the way out to 500 yards. And everything I can think of has slowed WAY below the magical 2,600 fps long before it reaches even this distance.

In short, I don't believe there is enough TIME and SUSTANED VELOCITY for this to be occurring.

Them that want to believe it turn right and leave the room. Them that want to call this BS, please turn left and exit the room.

I don't think either side is going to win this debate. We're all just chasing our own tails round and round if you ask me.

BUT, I think we had a good thought provoking discussion. I'm gonna bow out at this time as I've said more than I know already.

Good hunting (with or without your melted tips) to all!

Same to you Pecos45.

Ha! This argument isn't long-lived for nuttin'! Anybody want to start in on gyroscopic precession? BUWAHAHAHAHA!!! Do bullets really go to sleep? Ready...... GO!

Easy, fellas. If you guys solve all the world's problems, we won't have a thing to discuss.

Cheers

Redial

I gotta come to Dutch's defense regarding bullet rotation and rpm calculations.
RPM = fps * 60 * 12 / Twist in inches.

Take a 223 with 1:7 twist. 3,000 fps.
3,000*60*12=2,160,000

2,160,000/7 = 308,571 rpm

My 2 cents on melting tips - I have recovered many undamaged BT's and conventional spitzers from dog towns when 1000 yard shooting. The BT's have undamaged tips and the older Nosler solid base bullets have a small amount of distortion from landing in the soft SD dirt. No evidence of melting.

BTW, the V-Max and BT tips are polycarbonate plastic with about 1/2 the melt temp of lead.

Pecos,
I know I'm breaking all the rules of engagement by not saluting the Brigadier General and accepting his word as gospel. I do hunt with a few of the sainted writers and recognize their human limitations. Each writer has an opinion on most issues. We all know what opinions resemble. Some writers opinions are clean and quite factual. Others...well they are kinda stinky.