My thoughts on solid copper bullets and in comparison to other bullet types.

[xsn10s]

It's been a while since I perused the writings and I'm not recalling that info, but it could well be.

Same here since I fully read his work. And to be honest it's tiresome. The barrel twist info I got from the two Colt M16/ AR15 factory courses I took. Also some of the other stuff was probably from ITTS Urban Rifle Courses. And Dr Fackler's work has long been documented from his experience as a trauma surgeon in Vietnam. He also discusses the fragmentation wounds and secondary projectiles from bone fragments. And the permanent wound channels due to yaw and fragmentation.

 

[FEENIX]

I wager it has as much to do with the motive that is perceived (fair or not fair) behind the post than the post itself (timing & placement of the post in context). Just sayin... I'm not gonna beat the drum. I don't feel threatened by it, as I run with what works for me in the field regardless of the 100th or 1000th percentile off 100% pure. I'm sure that percentile fluctuates a bit within manufacturers accepted tolerances.

The data makes interesting talking points though I'm not sure how valuable it is. Not really worth making enemies over for sure.

I agree, esp. your last statement. I simply do not understand why people are threatened by shared information. If the end-user is happy with bullet X's performance for their intended purpose regardless of the information, as you noted, press on.

 

[bigngreen]

An LRH member was nice enough to volunteer to conduct bullet analysis and share the following copper bullets noted in the spreadsheet. Cheers!

Bruker Nano GmbH, Germany
Quantification results
Mass percent (%)
Date:
Spectrum	Cu
BARLRX_308200 21.spx	99.41
BD2_26125 20.spx	99.31589​
BD2_26125 19.spx	99.24028​
BARLRX_308200 22.spx	99.17328​
CBB308168 17.spx	99.14582​
CBB308168 18.spx	99.08929​
HAM308178 11.spx	99.07997​
HAM25117 15.spx	99.01849​
HAM308178 3.spx	98.99935​
HAM25117 16.spx	98.89941​
HAM308178 12.spx	98.79048​
CYG25117 14.spx	98.78272​
HAM308178 4.spx	98.72898​
CYG25117 13.spx	98.69757​
HAM25117 5.spx	98.66783​
CYG308178 10.spx	98.64048​
HAM25117 6.spx	98.62495​
CYG308178 9.spx	98.60255​
CYG308178 8.spx	98.55894​
BNS308168 29.spx	96.88887​
BNS690 31.spx	96.53794​
BNS308168 30.spx	96.32752​
HORGMX_01 11.spx	96.22972​
HORGMX_01 12.spx	96.10689​
BNS690 32.spx	95.85589​
Cu_std_block_Rh_50kV_399_microAmp_05042022_1	93.48453​
GMX685 27.spx	93.33799​
GMX685 28.spx	93.05818​
GMX2139 25.spx	92.13512​
GMX2139 26.spx	91.96168​
GSC26110 24.spx	91.74521​
GSC26110 23.spx	91.35859​
stage_blank 7.spx	0.511236​
Mean value:	94.09108​
Std. Abw.:	17.00668​
Std. Abw. rel. [%]:	18.0747​
Conf. interval:	2.960483​

So sitting down and really looking at the numbers vs what we know functionally I see little difference between the top three brands, the Barnes, Badlands and Hammers are all very similar yet functionality is different. It does answer kinda where the lines are between mushrooming copper and copper that petals back. I'm very much not into retained frontal area and we can see that function on both ends of the spectrum so maybe we're back to shoot them and opening up some game and looking at wounds and this was all really just wasting bandwidth?

 

[mcdil]

Gents,
The folks engaged in the discussion within this topic on alloy content may benefit a bit from the knowledge that within the differing ASTMs for the production of copper rod, the total copper value is inclusive of several other alloys, so the final number is a bit deceiving. At no point, do I think the third-party evaluations are inaccurate, and I do believe the mills are accurately representing the metallurgy. However, if copper is assessed solely by itself, the value will be different than what's represented on the mill cert based on the guidance in a material's respective ASTM. I hope that clears up the hot debate on this particular topic.

 

[fordy]

Gday
Nothing wrong with shared information when it is correct it's when we get interpretation's / Chinese whispers , that's when problems exist let alone some gurus promoting how good they are to promote theirselves
Now I also understand some will say this is my interpretation which is fine but my interpretation is backed with actual facts

Cheers

Lastly just a query @FEENIX I notice you use cheers a bit in certain posts ( don't worry I'm not trolling you as I only see your name pop up now & then on some threads that interest me )
This is usually a Aussie thing & lesser extent a few other nations it's also not directed solely @ you as I've asked others the same
Cheers

 

[FEENIX]

So sitting down and really looking at the numbers vs what we know functionally I see little difference between the top three brands, the Barnes, Badlands and Hammers are all very similar yet functionality is different. It does answer kinda where the lines are between mushrooming copper and copper that petals back. I'm very much not into retained frontal area and we can see that function on both ends of the spectrum so maybe we're back to shoot them and opening up some game and looking at wounds and this was all really just wasting bandwidth?

Exactly, I do not know why people are freaking out about it.

 

[FEENIX]

Gday
Nothing wrong with shared information when it is correct it's when we get interpretation's / Chinese whispers , that's when problems exist let alone some gurus promoting how good they are to promote theirselves
Now I also understand some will say this is my interpretation which is fine but my interpretation is backed with actual facts

I guess you are better than the tester that works for https://www.nist.gov/ then.

Cheers

Lastly just a query @FEENIX I notice you use cheers a bit in certain posts ( don't worry I'm not trolling you as I only see your name pop up now & then on some threads that interest me )
This is usually a Aussie thing & lesser extent a few other nations it's also not directed solely @ you as I've asked others the same
Cheers

I do not know an Aussie thing strictly, but I was stationed at RAF Lakenheath for nearly 4 years, and Brits say the same thing.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Exactly, I do not know why people are freaking out about it.

I think because the start of this thread came across as an attempt to lump all copper bullets into the same place. When the fact is they are not all the same. Hammer Bullets are in a class of their own. Let the bashing begin again because I said so.

I will say that it is good to see the false statements of the op are being pointed out, as I did, without them being called a bully, and said to be trying to shut down the thread. Let it be said that I never want to shut down a thread that I enter into. Does me no good. Nor does it do any good to those who would like to hear truth.

I carry my own water, and I am not afraid to say when I spilled some. Some people just like to drink the water that someone else carried.

 

[GLTaylor]

To those who just read Dr Fackler, yep, he focused on M 16s. If you'd like to read a far more comprehensive treatise, look at Rathcoombe. His primary thrust is hunting bullets. He includes jacketed hunting bullets, pistol bullets, dangerous game solids and a very slight bit (unfortunately) of the then "new" copper monos. Wish he could test modern/current monos. He did make the statement that monos were probably the future bullet of choice for penetration plus performance.

 

[FEENIX]

I needed a refill, cheers!

 

[adam32+P]

This thread should be read again I think...

Bullet failures

So, after all the threads lately about bullets and how one is better than the other etc etc etc... Has anyone truly had a "bullet failure" on a game animal? Where you for 100% certainty, can say you made proper shot placement and the bullet actually failed at killing the animal humanely? Do...

www.longrangehunting.com

 

[xsn10s]

Can anyone nail down who Rathcoombe is?

 

[xsn10s]

His stuff has been around for awhile. But no one can nail down who he, or she really is.

 

[GLTaylor]

His document is titled "shooting holes in wounding theories". Don't know much about him, but part of his work had to do with developing armour piercing rounds for tanks at some institute. Never bothered looking up his credentials/work history.