Homogenous copper bullets can be inhumane

[timblevins]

The blanket statements made in this article are simply emotional and uninformed, made by a self important, self proclaimed expert.

I can't speak for other copper or mono bullet manufacturers, but as far as we are concerned, terminal performance is by far the most important reason we got into making bullets. We at Hammer Bullets will never sacrifice terminal performance for anything. Not bc, not price, not production capacity, not anything.

Prior to making bullets Brian and I were those weird guys at the range catching bullets in water jugs to see what they did. Our quest for a better bullet that would make our animals nice and dead without blowing them to pieces lead us to copper bullets. We saw much less meat damage with copper vs lead. We used quite a few diff copper bullets for hunting. In the end they all had some issue that we didn't like. We wound up making our own. With that said we thought if we just purchased the most pure copper available it would make the perfect bullet for hunting. Well, it didn't work that way. If we had known we would have never started this business. We were in to deep at this point with a cnc lathe set up in my garage, that we couldn't afford, and we had to find a raw material that would work. We literally bought thousands of pounds of copper at full price and recycled at less than half price trying to find a copper that would do what we expected throughout the range of velocity required for hunting. In the beginning we used copper that is common in the bullet industry. It did not live up to our standards, but it worked well enough to go to market. We were not satisfied with good enough and continued to try diff copper alloys trying to find our ideal terminal performance. Our ideal bullet was based on this physics study http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html, not personal bias and emotions. By the grace of God we found the copper that we use now. It changed everything. We now had a copper that would perform at high or low velocity, predictably, the way we wanted. We have to continually monitor or copper to make sure that it meets our needed formula to work properly as a bullet.

So to throw a blanket statement aimed at non lead bullets from a personal bias without any first hand experience, let alone scientific knowledge of how a permanent wound is created by a bullet, other than " I have killed lots of animals, therefore I am an expert on terminal performance." is irresponsible at best.

For those of you that want to know more about terminal performance, I recommend you take the time to read the physics paper that I linked. Weather you want to use copper or lead bullets makes no difference. Knowledge is good. Wives tales spread falsehoods that are detrimental.

There is no mistaking what @FEENIX is trying to do. Help inform everyone right? So I am sure he will welcome my thoughts and encourage folks to study the science.

Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hard rock]

A comment on recent banning of BFD Guns.

I just replied to someone who was expressing politely their regret that I have banned
I am posting here my reply to that person.

"Sorry, but I gave him more chances than I normally do. A shame to lose access to his knowledge but this necessarily has had to be done with MANY otherwise good contributors over our 20 years."

BFD Guns seemed very knowledgeable I agreed with some of his post , but sometimes really went over the top , I hate too see him banned . I have keep track of a lot of his post and seen it coming .Len I don't personally know you but I'm sure your a fair man and had too make a tough decision too keep LRH on track thanks for your hard work.

 

[FEENIX]

@WildRose made some very spot on points. I will add that copper is 20% less dense than lead. So the physical size diff between copper and lead bullets is a bit more than he described. Stability is a very big component to terminal performance. Marginally stable bullets can work very well ballistically, but have an increase potential for failure on impact due to yaw impeding fluid from entering the hollow point which starts the expansion process. This holds true for any bullet not just copper bullets. The stability calculators are for determining ballistic stability. That means stability in flight and has nothing to do with whether or not a bullet is stable enough for reliable expansion and terminal performance. I think many of the reports of brand xxx (fill in the blank) failed are not actually a bullet failure but a failure to have enough stability to ensure proper terminal performance.

There is a notion or reputation out there that copper bullets need more speed to work properly. I will address this only regarding our Hammer Bullets. Our bullets do not need more speed to work with full deformation. We impact test our bullets down to 1800 fps for proper terminal performance. This doesn't mean a slight deformation. We expect full deformation and shedding of the nose. Less than this we would almost consider a failure. Our bar is set high for terminal performance. I will add that we don't need none or shoulder impacts to see great terminal performance. If you are a shoulder shooter or a pure lung shooter they will work very well.

When it comes to speed, we have potential for greater muzzle velocity than traditional bullets because Hammers have lower engraving pressure than traditional cup and core bullets and quite a bit less engraving pressure than traditional mono bullets. This is due to our patented radius drive band design, called PDR. Parabolic Drag Reduction. This design solved the copper bullet issues if high pressure in tight bores and poor accuracy in loose bores. So higher velocity potential is a plus not a need.

As @WildRose pointed out. Copper bullets are longer for their weight compared to lead bullets, resulting in the copper bullets requiring more twist to be stable. In general, this results in copper bullets being about 20% lighter compared to lead bullets when maximizing bullet weight for the twist of a given rifle. It is just physics. Weight makes bc. You can only do so much with form or shape of the bullet. So if you have a copper and a lead bullet shaped exactly the same, the lead bullet will be 20% heavier resulting in a proportional increase in bc. The lighter copper bullet will have an advantage in muzzle velocity. This is the classic rabbit and turtle race. The rabbit gets a head start and the turtle always wins the race in the end. The question is, at what point down range does the turtle pass the rabbit? Often it is farther down range than the usable hunting range of the rifle combo or the hunters need / ability.

Here is the link again to the physics paper on terminal performance. Written by Dr. Rath Coombe.

Terminal Ballistics

Anyone who is truly interested in terminal performance and how it works should read this. It is not easy and can't be done in an evening after work. Never the less I am very interested in @FEENIX review of the work.

See #177.

 

[FEENIX]

Curious how many books have been sold the last 2 days!

LL!

 

[284ackley]

The blanket statements made in this article are simply emotional and uninformed, made by a self important, self proclaimed expert.

I can't speak for other copper or mono bullet manufacturers, but as far as we are concerned, terminal performance is by far the most important reason we got into making bullets. We at Hammer Bullets will never sacrifice terminal performance for anything. Not bc, not price, not production capacity, not anything.

Prior to making bullets Brian and I were those weird guys at the range catching bullets in water jugs to see what they did. Our quest for a better bullet that would make our animals nice and dead without blowing them to pieces lead us to copper bullets. We saw much less meat damage with copper vs lead. We used quite a few diff copper bullets for hunting. In the end they all had some issue that we didn't like. We wound up making our own. With that said we thought if we just purchased the most pure copper available it would make the perfect bullet for hunting. Well, it didn't work that way. If we had known we would have never started this business. We were in to deep at this point with a cnc lathe set up in my garage, that we couldn't afford, and we had to find a raw material that would work. We literally bought thousands of pounds of copper at full price and recycled at less than half price trying to find a copper that would do what we expected throughout the range of velocity required for hunting. In the beginning we used copper that is common in the bullet industry. It did not live up to our standards, but it worked well enough to go to market. We were not satisfied with good enough and continued to try diff copper alloys trying to find our ideal terminal performance. Our ideal bullet was based on this physics study http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html, not personal bias and emotions. By the grace of God we found the copper that we use now. It changed everything. We now had a copper that would perform at high or low velocity, predictably, the way we wanted. We have to continually monitor or copper to make sure that it meets our needed formula to work properly as a bullet.

So to throw a blanket statement aimed at non lead bullets from a personal bias without any first hand experience, let alone scientific knowledge of how a permanent wound is created by a bullet, other than " I have killed lots of animals, therefore I am an expert on terminal performance." is irresponsible at best.

For those of you that want to know more about terminal performance, I recommend you take the time to read the physics paper that I linked. Weather you want to use copper or lead bullets makes no difference. Knowledge is good. Wives tales spread falsehoods that are detrimental.

There is no mistaking what @FEENIX is trying to do. Help inform everyone right? So I am sure he will welcome my thoughts and encourage folks to study the science.

Great responsible comment. Thx.

 

[ButterBean]

One thing is for sure, Hammer Bullets, like them or not have taken the lead in yet another thread, gotta love free advertisement

 

[asd9055]

We are all passionate and some times we forget we are guests. That is why it is good to get a coffee break or your favorite beverage...
I like Brad and will miss him...
But like I said before, we have so many outside the sport against us, we need to stick together
Cheers all!

 

[Ga6570]

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Kn...G9wpQk3583ooPAZg51cbcATzthQOmC2AZXPb61nesmcPk

I'll sum up the article in a few short sentences.
The author believes that lead core bullets are superior in killing efficacy than are copper bullets. He is stating and showing images of his research and experiences.

I'll further state that this whole article could also be restated in a few words. These are my words describing the article content if I were doing a book report.

"When hunting big game with a rifle. Most Lead core bullets are much more forgiving to less than ideal shot placement and will help you kill your game when you impact the animal in an area that doesn't have the vitals that need to be impacted to cause a fast death."

My experience may not be as vast or varied as mr foster. I've read a lot of his stuff over the years. But I also know that my lead core bullets killed elk but some also required more than one good hit. I also know that bullets that fragment dramatically cause a lot of meat damage. As someone who enjoys antlers but hasn't found a good way to eat them, I started using copper bullets to limit meat loss from the same or similar bullet impacts. I've killed elk with lead core bullets of various brands and I've killed elk with copper bullets. All - I feel - did the job they were given. I will say the copper bullet kills left very little meat loss compared to the lead core bullet kills.
I choose to use copper most of the time. But my long range shooting is done with lead core bullets because of the high BCs.

To each his own. And unfortunately I think the poster who mentioned "they don't want you to have any bullets" has a good point. So I'll add that being civil in topics like this that may cause some controversy is important. No need to get into fighting amongst those who love this activity of shooting and hunting.

For some reason this old video clip comes to mind. I'm not exactly sure how it applies.
"It isn't about the nail"

 

[Creedmoor shooter]

H

One thing is for sure, Hammer Bullets, like them or not have taken the lead in yet another thread, gotta love free advertisement

I'm beginning to realize hammers are the new creedmoor in that regard

 

[Rich Coyle]

We might as well be a communist state if we're going to censor anything that is disagreeable.

This is a website, not a state. It is privately owned. IF we don't like his rules, we shouldn't open it.

 

[asd9055]

I'll sum up the article in a few short sentences.
The author believes that lead core bullets are superior in killing efficacy than are copper bullets. He is stating and showing images of his research and experiences.

I'll further state that this whole article could also be restated in a few words. These are my words describing the article content if I were doing a book report.

"When hunting big game with a rifle. Most Lead core bullets are much more forgiving to less than ideal shot placement and will help you kill your game when you impact the animal in an area that doesn't have the vitals that need to be impacted to cause a fast death."

My experience may not be as vast or varied as mr foster. I've read a lot of his stuff over the years. But I also know that my lead core bullets killed elk but some also required more than one good hit. I also know that bullets that fragment dramatically cause a lot of meat damage. As someone who enjoys antlers but hasn't found a good way to eat them, I started using copper bullets to limit meat loss from the same or similar bullet impacts. I've killed elk with lead core bullets of various brands and I've killed elk with copper bullets. All - I feel - did the job they were given. I will say the copper bullet kills left very little meat loss compared to the lead core bullet kills.
I choose to use copper most of the time. But my long range shooting is done with lead core bullets because of the high BCs.

To each his own. And unfortunately I think the poster who mentioned "they don't want you to have any bullets" has a good point. So I'll add that being civil in topics like this that may cause some controversy is important. No need to get into fighting amongst those who love this activity of shooting and hunting.

For some reason this old video clip comes to mind. I'm not exactly sure how it applies.
"It isn't about the nail"

Very well said.
About the video: Any of you have have children between say 15 and 30, you might understand! Thy just want you to listen, not find a solution!

 

[greenejc]

IMO this helps to emphasize the importance of understanding the bullet's capabilities and minimum expansion velocities. We'll see the shooter blame bullets for their performance. Many times I wonder why the shooter chose a particular bullet for a particular job.

Most of the time, they don't. Sierra makes their Gameking to shed weight on pass through. I've shot antelope with the 200 grain in an -06 at 200 plus yards and had tennis ball sized exit wounds from it. I've also shot deer at less than 30 yards and had three or four exit wounds, with massive internal damage. Some people call that bullet failure. I don't. Bullet failure is when it doesn't kill the animal, and I have to spend the next two hours trying to find it. Speer .30 cal and below are designed like the Sierra to make a very large wound channel in thin skinned game, and are extremely effective on deer and antelope, and with heavier grain weights, on elk. Since 'Ballistics Studies' is showing you real world results, and since he's either shot or guided people who've shot thousands of head of game, maybe you should listen and give him the benefit of the doubt. By the way, I use Sierras in my Whelen for deer, because the Speer 250 has too thick a jacket for good expansion inside 200 yards. The Sierra Gameking in 358 has the same jacket thickness as the Sierra 180 grain .308 gameking, and makes fist sized holes out to at least 450 yards, which was as far as I could shoot deer across a Kansas wheat field.

 

[Papa762]

The blanket statements made in this article are simply emotional and uninformed, made by a self important, self proclaimed expert.

I can't speak for other copper or mono bullet manufacturers, but as far as we are concerned, terminal performance is by far the most important reason we got into making bullets. We at Hammer Bullets will never sacrifice terminal performance for anything. Not bc, not price, not production capacity, not anything.

Prior to making bullets Brian and I were those weird guys at the range catching bullets in water jugs to see what they did. Our quest for a better bullet that would make our animals nice and dead without blowing them to pieces lead us to copper bullets. We saw much less meat damage with copper vs lead. We used quite a few diff copper bullets for hunting. In the end they all had some issue that we didn't like. We wound up making our own. With that said we thought if we just purchased the most pure copper available it would make the perfect bullet for hunting. Well, it didn't work that way. If we had known we would have never started this business. We were in to deep at this point with a cnc lathe set up in my garage, that we couldn't afford, and we had to find a raw material that would work. We literally bought thousands of pounds of copper at full price and recycled at less than half price trying to find a copper that would do what we expected throughout the range of velocity required for hunting. In the beginning we used copper that is common in the bullet industry. It did not live up to our standards, but it worked well enough to go to market. We were not satisfied with good enough and continued to try diff copper alloys trying to find our ideal terminal performance. Our ideal bullet was based on this physics study http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html, not personal bias and emotions. By the grace of God we found the copper that we use now. It changed everything. We now had a copper that would perform at high or low velocity, predictably, the way we wanted. We have to continually monitor or copper to make sure that it meets our needed formula to work properly as a bullet.

So to throw a blanket statement aimed at non lead bullets from a personal bias without any first hand experience, let alone scientific knowledge of how a permanent wound is created by a bullet, other than " I have killed lots of animals, therefore I am an expert on terminal performance." is irresponsible at best.

For those of you that want to know more about terminal performance, I recommend you take the time to read the physics paper that I linked. Weather you want to use copper or lead bullets makes no difference. Knowledge is good. Wives tales spread falsehoods that are detrimental.

There is no mistaking what @FEENIX is trying to do. Help inform everyone right? So I am sure he will welcome my thoughts and encourage folks to study the science.

Sounds like a PETA.

 

[ridgewalker]

Interesting article and a bit contradictory of his cartridge research. Not sure why Foster published this. In every cartridge article I have read of his, he has nothing to say but praise for Barnes bullets. The only negative is if the velocity has dropped to below the velocities that even Barnes has indicated, then expansion is reduced, or non-existant.
Never read his reviews of any monolithics other than Barnes.
Cup and core bullets not designed for low velocity expansion can fail at long range as well.