The Solid Bullet Debate

[noel carlson]

MR,

Gerard Schultz is also responsible for inventing the sacrificial forward band concept. This was a critical element in ELR advancement, even though he specializes in short to medium range hunt bullets. As you point out, he is very knowledgeable in terminal ballistics, and some of our expansion technology overlaps. In sharing e-mail notes, it was revealed that we independently arrived at similiar solutions to the problem.

I appreciate the feed-back on standard twist compatability. Eric can tell you that this is counter productive for copper solids. It is an issue of material density. Copper does not begin to shine as a projectile medium until six caliber lengths are reached. The only reason that I took on the hunt bullet project in .338, is that unusually tight twist rates (9-9.5") are becoming common. This is why I believe ZA hunt bullet will always find relatively limited application in the field.

Best,
Noel

 

[noel carlson]

Grit,

You will see the ZA338/6.0-Cu (target version) publicly available in two to three months.

The ZA338/6.0-H (hunt bullet) will appear shortly thereafter.

Best,
Noel

 

[BryanLitz]

Noel,
I'm hopeful and optimistic that you have the solutions to the challenges involved in solid bullet construction. My observations are those of an 'outsider' to the world of solid bullets (for now), and you're obviously much better acquainted with that technology. As always I'm looking forward to learning and specifically on this project and your ZA solids.

If it turns out that your projectiles are far superior to conventional bullets in precision and ballistic performance, then I'll be thrilled to report it. Like Eric said, genuine advancements in the shooting sports are a good thing no matter who's doing it. We're behind your efforts toward improving solid bullet technology.

-Bryan

 

[Michael Eichele]

Noel,

Please accept my appology if anything here offends you. Understand that this is simply cunstructive critisizm here. Nothing more nothing less.

I have to be honest. Sometimes your posts seem very knowledgable and that you COULD have something good to conrtibute to this community.

On the flip side of this, sometimes you can be very dissrespectfull to memebers here. Some who deserve alot more respect than you give them. You cannot say things to Eric like 19 years of swedging bullet hardley makes you qualified to speak on the subject. This type of talk here is not well recieved espescially when ALOT of guys here use Berger bullets and Eric actually has alot of experience in the bullet field AND for all we know you are full of hot air. I am not saying you are. What I am saying is put your product where you mouth is. In other words, put out or get out.

When you release your products, then you will have more of a leg to stand on. Untill then, this is all just theory. As such, there are alot of proven products out there right now that you simply cannot bash without making yourself look bad.

I and many more here can and will take you more seriously if you would respect others a bit more and give us something more real.

What you claim sounds good. I hope youre right. I am always looking for something new and better. If your products are really better, I will be one of the first to congradulate you AND thank you. I would also be a customer. Just please, dont be so argumentetive and dissrespectfull.

You can take this post 2 ways. 1: Constructive or 2: demeaning. I hope you take it as #1, because that is what I meen to accomplish. I and other here have high hopes, please dont dissapoint us.

Thank you,

Michael

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Michael,

I basically agree with you, but I think Noel has already said that his comment to Eric was "over the top"

Hopefully this discussion will continue with mutual respect. I find it very intersting and informative. It's not often you get bullet designers/makers and ballisticians of the caliber we have in this discussion. Now all we need is for Grerard to join in...
-MR

 

[noel carlson]

Michael,

I do not offend easily, and neither do I have much patience for foolishness. I accept your comments in the spirit which they are presented, but I control my agenda, and none other.

One of the "time sensitive" issues alluded to in my post to Grit is what both Bryan, and I, have already made oblique reference to. To avoid the circus atmosphere surrounding reporting of field "data", which has appeared at this site very recently, I have contracted with Bryan to model, and test, the ZA338/6.0-Cu. This will be made publicly available in concert with general release of the bullet. I believe this to be the best option for the sake of the product, and the consumer.

In the interim, you will be forced to take my comments with whatever degree of credibility you choose to assign to them.

I accept your apology, and agree that my communication style can be overly curt, even offensive. Rest assured that is not my objective. Regarding offense given to specific individuals, I am hampered in having no preconceived idea of what assertions should be given undue quarter, I do not know the reputation of individuals here. Sometimes that is technically beneficial, but it is rarely a public relations advantage.

I am going to have lunch, and then continue.

Once again, I look forward to having meaningful exchange with you.

Best,
Noel

 

[noel carlson]

Component #2... THEN THERE WERE BARRELS...

One of the immediate realizations made upon hearing Hay's dismissal of the feasability of high explosive propellants for small arms use, was the default 4150, or 416, alloy justification. Their primary reccomendation has little to do with the application. Other than ease of machining, there is nothing to reccomend them for a high temperature environment.

Is there any barrel-maker in this forum that would care to take issue with this statement?

 

[BigUglyMan]

Like Eric, I have never seen anyone at a rifle match of any kind using solid projectiles.

I'm finding this bullet debate to be very interesting in that it shines a light on many things I'm not familiar with and the intricacies of the bulletmaking world.

Still I must quibble with this quote and it' soft-repeated variants. Every weekend hundreds of shooters across Canada and the US participate in Creedmoor, Schuetzen and BPCR Silhouette. Each and every one of them shoots solid bullets. True, they're not solid copper, gilding metal or unobtainium, which I'm certain Brian and Ed both meant, however if we're talking precision, and being precise, we must be precise in all areas which would include our public statements. The above statement being the example.


It may be sorting gnat **** from pepper, but us blackpowder guys have feelings too! (And for some reason the smilies won't work for me so just know I'm trying to interject some humour, not be a dink!)

 

[JeffVN]

Noel

I have several questions about barrels, but I do not want to detract from the stated purpose of this thread - a discussion of solid bullets. Might I suggest that a separate thread on barrels and barrel production be created....

JeffVN

 

[noel carlson]

Jeff,

We can do that easily enough, but give the question a try first. You may find it is less of a distraction than you think.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Component #2... THEN THERE WERE BARRELS...

One of the immediate realizations made upon hearing Hay's dismissal of the feasability of high explosive propellants for small arms use, was the default 4150, or 416, alloy justification. Their primary reccomendation has little to do with the application. Other than ease of machining, there is nothing to reccomend them for a high temperature environment.

And.......

 

[noel carlson]

... and in the interveining period, initiated with the jet propulsion age, huge metallurgical advances have gone entirely untapped by the barrel industry.

Not only do we have alloys that will withstand the environment with impressive results, but by moving to a cobalt based alloy (as opposed to iron), the degraded physical characteristics associated with elevated temperature service ie., reduced tensile and yield strength, are significantly reduced.

Now one might say, "A $450 barrel is disposible anyway, why not just burn them up, and replace them... who needs a super-alloy when I only plan on using conventional propellants?"

To the precision long-range shooter, it is the second half of the benefit package that has significance. A barrel which maintains it's physicals over a large temperature spread has a bearing on target dispersion patterns.

 

[JeffVN]

Noel

I'll jump in on the barel issue then with a quick question that have been lurking in my head for a while.

If there are barrel materials that can withstand hotter temps and higher pressures, what incentive does a barrel manufacturer have in switching over to a material that lasts longer and needs to be replaced less frequently. Obviously they would need to charge more for each such high tech barrel. Can he dio it with his existing equiment. If not, how do I , a single consumer, get a manufacturer to make that financial commitment?

I clearly see the benefit to me - a high intensity shooter - I put 1,700 rounds through a F-Class 7WSM in the last 2 years before I took it off and recycled it (most folks would say I went at least 500 rounds too many in this barrel but she was a hammer til teh end when it died all at once as I was told it would). During the same time period I put at least a 1,000 rounds through my .260 and a .308 for practice so that I didn't shoot out the barrel any earlier than necessary. To me a barrel is a $650.00 dollar consumable (the blank runs 350-400 but you still need it chambered and head spaced to your rifle).

Granted, I would also strongly consider switching to different - meaning more intensive - chamberings or hotter loads to shoot if I could get a barrel for my 7WSM that would last 2,500-3,000 rounds. Am I correct in connecting the link bewteen the new barrels, the statement about new propellants, and greater velocities... If so, now you've got my attention in a big way.

JeffVN

 

[noel carlson]

O.K. ...

I knew the "debate" characterization of this thread was something of a misnomer, so I will just monologue until someone has a question/challenge.

In the early development of the cobalt family alloys, it was discovered that a welding contact, made from copper, would induce localized micro-cracking if the temperature came anywhere close to solution temperature, and this holds true for all cobalt alloys. In a bore, this is obviously a bad thing.

From experimentation, I can tell you that nothing beats copper as a projectile bearing surface. How was this incompatability issue to be resolved? A friend, from the polymer industry, drew my attention to a TiO2/SiO2 gel used as a lubricant/protectant in hyper-velocity APSD munitions. When loaded into a cartridge, it deposits a continuously renewed ceramic layer in the throat. Presto! No more compatability problem... and then there were the other benefits. Fouling is virtually non-existant, and projectile exit velocities were consistantly single-digit in variation.

Once again, some of you might be saying to yourselves "My barrel does not really foul to any great extent now, and my MVs are pretty consistent also.".

My answer is that you are still all throwing away that barrel following a few thousand rounds due to heat-erosion. This will make even a 416 barrel live for alot longer (I do not actually know how much longer.). The trick is to utilize a shell casing that is designed to disperse the gel. As it happens, this shell casing has approximately the same life as the barrel itself... that is a single shell casing. Is anyone tired of buying, and reworking, quality brass?

I will go to rifling geometry unless anyone has a question at this point.