Bullet Tumble


PDA






Onward Allusion
October 3, 2012, 11:06 PM
Is bullet tumble necessarily a bad thing in a SD situation? I was shooting a older NEF snub in 22LR and noticed that the target had keyholes at 7 yards. Leaded barrel from hundreds of rounds.

It got me thinking...if a bullet is tumbling on the way into the body or hitting the target sideways, doesn't that create a larger or more ragged hole along with ripping things apart inside? Thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Bullet Tumble" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M-Cameron
October 3, 2012, 11:08 PM
It got me thinking...if a bullet is tumbling on the way into body or hitting the target sideways, doesn't that create a larger or more ragged hole along with ripping things apart inside? Thoughts?

yes it does, but if a bullet is tumbling in the air, your accuracy goes to hell.....in a SD situation, ill take accuracy over additional 'tumble damage' any day....

W.E.G.
October 3, 2012, 11:12 PM
Tumbling bullets are velocity-compromised.

Slower bullets penetrate less.

Now, a 105mm Howitzer round that comes through sideways will make a hole through-and-through animate targets anyway.

The .22 LR is a joke for a self-defense weapon.
Its a pathetic joke if its tumbling.

Onward Allusion
October 3, 2012, 11:12 PM
I understand that, but what about at close range? Say 5 yards? 3 yards? BTW, not debating the merits of 22LR for SD. To each their own on that one.

TurtlePhish
October 3, 2012, 11:28 PM
Largely depends on bullet shape. Something like most pistol bullets wouldn't have a dramatically different wound profile- the shape isn't very different viewed from the side or bottom compared to the top. However, if you look at some projectiles for rifles, they can be VERY long for their diameter. If one of those were tumbling in flight, a sideways impact could very well produce an incredibly nasty wound (not to mention additional fragmentation damage from stresses on the bullet at that angle).

Of course, a hit from a rifle at 3 to 5 yards is likely to be lethal no matter how the bullet hits the target.

Talking strictly handguns, you MIGHT do more damage. Whether or not that "might" is worth the negative aspects of tumbling projectiles is up to you.

230RN
October 3, 2012, 11:35 PM
What the above folks said, but did it do this after you cleaned the barrel? You did clean out the barrel, didn't you?

Makes me wonder how a .22LR barrel got leaded up unless it was really pitted by rust at some point or someone was firing a lot of the old crimped-shell ratshot rounds through it. These did not have a plastic jacket around the shot charge. The little #12 pellets just went up the barrel stark nekkid. I suspect that it was used mostly as a barn gun for rats running around in there. Or barn pigeons.

http://www.replicagunsupply.com/wp-content/uploads/products_img/22lr%20blank%20ammo.jpg
This shows the old-fashioned crimped shells. (I think these look more like Ramset powder-actuated driver blanks, but that's the kind of crimp I'm talking about. Old-timers will remember these.)

The Liberator pistol was unrifled, but that was meant for almost contact distances and with the .45ACP slug's profile, at those distances, sidewise or backwards when it hit almost didn't matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

Besides, the expanding bubble of hot gases inside the body cavity with a contact shot would probably do all the damage needed without any bullet at all.

The original versions of those .45 Colt / .410 shotshell revolvers like the Taurus "Judge" were known to tumble with the bulleted .45 Colt round, but that was because the rifling was so shallow. I don't know if they fixed that or not.

My personal impression at the time I read the American RIfleman review of them was that the very shallow rifling was kind of a token thing anyhow to keep it from being called an illegally short smooth-barreled shotgun, yet shallow enough that the shot charge didn't spin too much and form doughnut patterns too badly.

They may have improved matters since then. Nevertheless, same story as with the Liberator: A .45 Colt round at the bad-breath-belly-to-belly distances that the gun was intended for, whether the bullet struck sideways or backwards didn't matter much to the intended target.

Terry, 230RN

ConstitutionCowboy
October 4, 2012, 12:09 AM
One must consider the fact that a tumbling bullet, if it hits sideways, is presenting a much larger surface area at impact. With virtually the same mass spread out over a much larger area, the damage at the surface might be greater, but the energy will be shed much faster and penetration will be seriously compromised.

With your heavily leaded barrel, the rifling will be full of lead, therefore, imparting no spin to the bullet resulting in an unstable bullet, apt to go awry in most any fashion.

I'm in the process of breaking in a new 22LR pistol with a 5" barrel, and ran 150 rounds through it the first time out, using copper plated bullets. Accuracy had deteriorated considerably toward the end, but no bullets were tumbling.

Even after soaking the barrel with Hoppes for half an hour, I got the cleaning rod with a 22 caliber brush on it stuck in the barrel! The rod would not go into the barrel more than a half inch! I had to work the brush in and out a little at a time before I could get the rod through the barrel. I couldn't hardly believe how much lead I got out of the barrel. I was removing slivers of lead. It took 2 hours to clean that barrel of all traces of lead. I can't imagine how much lead is in your barrel.

The point is, keep your barrel clean and it'll perform well ... Well, as well as any 22LR is able. Please give us a range report after you get your barrel clear of the lead. I'll be doing more break-in this Friday with mine and I'll report back as well.

Woody

VA27
October 4, 2012, 12:15 AM
At 5 to 7 yards I don't think it'll make much difference. I don't think anyone here would volunteer to take a hit from one just to prove a point.

gunnutery
October 4, 2012, 04:05 AM
Largely depends on bullet shape. Something like most pistol bullets wouldn't have a dramatically different wound profile- the shape isn't very different viewed from the side or bottom compared to the top. However, if you look at some projectiles for rifles, they can be VERY long for their diameter. If one of those were tumbling in flight, a sideways impact could very well produce an incredibly nasty wound (not to mention additional fragmentation damage from stresses on the bullet at that angle).

Of course, a hit from a rifle at 3 to 5 yards is likely to be lethal no matter how the bullet hits the target.

Talking strictly handguns, you MIGHT do more damage. Whether or not that "might" is worth the negative aspects of tumbling projectiles is up to you.

I'd never thought about it being different in pistol bullets but I fully agree with the above statement. However to add to it, once the bullet is doing something other than spinning nose-first, it's acting in a way that was not intended and thus becomes very unpredictable. As others have stated, 3-5 yards or HD ranges in general, it's probably not going to be a big enough difference to matter, but I'd rather have my rounds doing what they're supposed to do while in flight.

Remllez
October 4, 2012, 09:16 AM
Get that barrel squeaky clean, scrub a dub dub. You need all the velocity your .22 can muster for penetration and accuracy at the target, most bullets turn or yaw once inside the body. Look carefully at gel test and notice the slug rarely comes to rest straight.

You need penetration to effect organ damage and a .22 slug slapping the skin sideways loses velocity quickly.

Onward Allusion
October 4, 2012, 09:27 AM
I had shot about 1/2 a brick from the revolver before it started keyholing. Besides, it's a snubbie barrel, much greater issue with stabilization in the first place. It's a range plinker, so no worries about needing it for SD, but I guess I do need to drive a brush down it a few times. I might make a block of ballistic jello before cleaning to prove out my theory just for grins, though.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 4, 2012, 12:38 PM
It'll be interesting to see your results.

Woody

ljnowell
October 5, 2012, 02:38 AM
The original versions of those .45 Colt / .410 shotshell revolvers like the Taurus "Judge" were known to tumble with the bulleted .45 Colt round, but that was because the rifling was so shallow. I don't know if they fixed that or not.



You got a link to that? I have seen 100+ yard shots made with the taurus judge, the bullets definately werent tumbling, and this is the first I have heard of it.

To add, I dont own a judge, dont want a judge, have no use for it. Just saying that I have never heard of this being an issue with them.

Owen Sparks
October 5, 2012, 02:58 AM
My wife has a carbine version of The Judge and I can consistantly ding an 8" steel plate with it at 50 yards using lead .45 Colt cowboy loads. I have not tried jacketed bullets yet but lead ones do take the rifling and make nice round holes in targets.

Kenneth
October 5, 2012, 08:24 AM
Is bullet tumble necessarily a bad thing in a SD situation?
Not necessarily.

One must consider the fact that a tumbling bullet, if it hits sideways, is presenting a much larger surface area at impact. With virtually the same mass spread out over a much larger area, the damage at the surface might be greater, but the energy will be shed much faster and penetration will be seriously compromised.

A larger surface area at the point of impact is more likely to produce a stop or a knock down. Stopping power, or knock down power is always preferred over lethality in an SD situation.



When you get mad enough, grab your rifle and run outside. If no one else is out there with you, itís not time yet.

homatok
October 5, 2012, 01:37 PM
Quote "A larger surface area at the point of impact is more likely to produce a stop or a knock down. Stopping power, or knock down power is always preferred over lethality in an SD situation."

Why??

230RN
October 5, 2012, 03:54 PM
Keyholing in .45 Colt in the original Taurus Judge

I first read about that in the American Rifleman, August 2007 p. 50, when the gun first came out. I found an article referencing that older article:

http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1526&cid=26

But this cited re-review doesn't mention the keyholing. As I said,

The original versions of those .45 Colt / .410 shotshell revolvers like the Taurus "Judge" were known to tumble with the bulleted .45 Colt round, but that was because the rifling was so shallow. I don't know if they fixed that or not.

I guess they have, according to your observations.

The original article also had a closeup pic of the indexing star at the rear of the cylinder which looked as if it had been haggled out by a Dremel tool. The original reviewer did not emphasize the point, but left it to the reader to figure that out for himself from that picture.

The original article had photos of the keyholing in the target. At the time I read it, I suspected that the keyholing may also have been caused by poor timing due to that indexing star, although the author did not mention that. He only dwelt on the shallow rifling.

I also felt that part of it might have been due to the fact that, with that long (unrifled) chamber for the .45 Colt round, the bullet had already accelerated to 2-300 feet per second when it hit the shallow rifling and had to try to spin up instantly, resulting in stripping of the bullet. That one was my idea.

It is fairly common, in my opinion, for gun reviewers, who obtain their test guns "for free," especially when the manufacturer is an advertiser, to point out the good points of the tested firearm and gloss over its bad points. I'm sure the astute observer has noted that almost every time a review is published, there is an advertisement for that gun or accessory in the magazine.

Terry, 230RN

TurtlePhish
October 5, 2012, 04:00 PM
A larger surface area at the point of impact is more likely to produce a stop or a knock down. Stopping power, or knock down power is always preferred over lethality in an SD situation.


Larger surface area at the point of impact simply means that the impact force is spread out over a larger area, not much more than that. I'd rather get hit with a .50 rimfire than a .223, and I daresay the .223 would do more damage.

I'd be fine with lethality in an SD cartridge. I don't put any stock in "stopping power" or "knock down power".

Certaindeaf
October 5, 2012, 04:04 PM
The .380/200 Manstopper tumbled after it hit, hence the name.

Redlg155
October 5, 2012, 04:40 PM
Kinda reminds me of some of the Vietnam Era war stories where the M16 bullet could hit your arm and tumble around until it came out your big toe!

Certaindeaf
October 5, 2012, 04:50 PM
^
Don't forget about the rattling .22lr. it'll skid around and clean you out like a trout

Kenneth
October 5, 2012, 06:55 PM
I'd be fine with lethality in an SD cartridge. I don't put any stock in "stopping power" or "knock down power".
So you prefer FMJ bullets over JHPs for self defense? FMJs are more lethal but incapacitation times are greater. JHPs at 9mm PB+P+ or larger produce one shot stops over 80% of the time, and are less lethal.

Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics
Examining and Interpreting Forensic Evidence
By Brian J. Heard

Millwright
October 5, 2012, 09:17 PM
W.E.G.,

"The .22 LR is a joke for a self-defense weapon.
Its a pathetic joke if its tumbling."

Y'all might want to run that opinion past an experienced forensics examiner.

The heeled bullets used in the .22RF are, of necessity, soft, thus given to being deformed or fragmented in flesh. How much and to what extent is a function of impact velocity IME. They also tend to "saucer"; that is not take a straight path or eing deflected by bone. The latter probably why they were a caliber of choice for assassins. >MW

TurtlePhish
October 5, 2012, 10:24 PM
So you prefer FMJ bullets over JHPs for self defense? FMJs are more lethal but incapacitation times are greater. JHPs at 9mm PB+P+ or larger produce one shot stops over 80% of the time, and are less lethal.


I never said that. I'd strongly prefer JHPs to FMJs for SD. All I said was that I didn't believe in the idea of "stopping power". A one shot stop is a one shot stop, and increased lethality shouldn't really be seen as a negative either way.

Kenneth
October 5, 2012, 11:08 PM
W.E.G.,

"The .22 LR is a joke for a self-defense weapon.
Its a pathetic joke if its tumbling."
Y'all might want to run that opinion past an experienced forensics examiner.


Iím with W.E.G. on this one. A .22 LR most certainly can inflict a mortal wound if you hit a vital area and the person you are shooting isnít wearing too much clothing. However, the whole point of self defense is to stop an attacker cold, not to wait minutes or hours for an attacker to lose enough blood to finally pass out.

hardheart
October 7, 2012, 01:29 AM
Handgun bullets have a hard time knocking down bowling pins, they certainly don't knock down people or anything of similar size.

Stress_Test
October 7, 2012, 02:02 AM
I read a book called "American Rifle" that had a chapter about the M16. Apparently, some of the early M16s were mistakenly produced with a ridiculously slow twist rate, like 1 in 20 or something. This meant that the bullets were basically wobblin' goblins in flight, and when they hit a bad guy, the bullet would immediately tumble out of control, creating major wound trauma. This lead to some exaggerated claims of the 5.56 round's lethality. (I guess it would be pretty lethal but the accuracy would suck).


So the book claimed. I haven't heard this info before, so if someone can confirm with another source that'd be good.

Anyway, to the OP, it looks like a tumbling bullet CAN produce extreme damage, but in the example above, the high velocity of the 5.56 was also a factor.


PS: I've wanted to try this if I could somehow get a really slow twist rate barrel and then shoot 77 grain .223 rounds and see what happens...

ConstitutionCowboy
October 7, 2012, 12:45 PM
If I remember what I heard correctly, the 5.56 bullets didn't actually tumble, they wobbled. Upon entering an enemy, then they would tumble around causing much damage.

I also heard that the "less lethality" of the 5.56 was meant to only wound enough to incapacitate thereby causing one or two more soldiers to help the wounded man off the battlefield. 'Course that is only effective against an army that cares enough about fallen soldiers to carry them off the battlefield to the aid station.

So, there you have two opposing "views" of how the 5.56 is - or was - supposed to function. Either view is probably as bogus as the other view is. I don't really know the truth, but that's what I heard in the 60's and 70's. I'm still confused about the 5.56. I prefer and shoot the .308.

Later on this afternoon, I'll be cleaning my 22LR pistol that I'm breaking in (refer to post #7) and report on the leading and accuracy.

EDITED TO ADD:

Sorry, Stress Test. I didn't read your post before I posted my - er same as your - comment.

Woody

Stress_Test
October 7, 2012, 01:47 PM
That's okay, you pointed out something that I should've said more clearly, that the bullet wasn't actually tumbling in flight, just that it was unstable in flight. The tumbling happened after impact.

230RN
October 7, 2012, 05:15 PM
Stress_Test remarked,

I read a book called "American Rifle" that had a chapter about the M16. Apparently, some of the early M16s were mistakenly produced with a ridiculously slow twist rate, like 1 in 20 or something. This meant that the bullets were basically wobblin' goblins in flight, and when they hit a bad guy, the bullet would immediately tumble out of control, creating major wound trauma.


The spin required to stabiize a bullet varies with the density of the medium through which it is passing. More dense materials, such as flesh, require more spin to stay point-on. But the twists we find in most firearms are designed to be for that ammunition in air. So they tend to destabilize when entering other materials.

Like flesh.

How much of this "tendency" is the subject of much experimentation in Ordnance Departments around the world.

For more dense target materials, "the spin as worked out for air must be multiplied by the square root of a number found by dividing the density of the material in question by the density of air." (Hatcher's Notebook, p 556-557 and following.)

This, bearing in mind that there are no sharp cutoffs in twist calculations, such as the "Greenhill Formula," for estimating twist requirement for a particular bullet. In general, it's better to have a faster twist so that longer (hence heavier) bullets can be used if necessary.

Another destabilization factor is the "arrow effect." I understand, but cannot cite offhand, that certain variations of combloc bullets had the points virtually hollow, with the main weight of the core toward the rear of the bullet to encourage tumbling in denser materials.

Like flesh.

Point shape is also a consideration.

Yet another major factor is the density of the bullet. A greater twist is required for less dense bullets. An aluminum bullet of the same size and shape of a gilding-metal clad lead bullet would have to have twice the spin required for stabilization in air. (Op cit, p 556)

The new developments in 5.56 NATO bullets are a result of experimentation to determine the best compromises between accuracy at range and terminal ballistics (including armor penetration and destruction of tissue) out of the short-barreled M4 carbine.

Terry, 230RN

ConstitutionCowboy
October 9, 2012, 10:31 PM
Finally! My Internet is back up! Two days down! AGGAHHH!

Referring back to Comment #7, the test/ break-in on my new 22LR pistol - a Chiappa 1911-22 - continued Friday AM and the accuracy was much improved. After fifty rounds in this second firing, there was very little lead build-up. I suspect there was some sort of build-up in the barrel prior to my initial 150 rounds. I guess it's paramount that you especially, THOROUGHLY, clean the barrel on your new guns before you do any firing, though I've never had such a build-up in any of the new guns I've ever bought previously.

My conclusion is that once the rifling gets loaded up with lead (or copper), you loose spin and therefore, accuracy. I do believe it could also create higher pressures in the chamber/barrel to the point of possible structural failure.

Flopsweat
October 10, 2012, 05:35 AM
...

Makes me wonder how a .22LR barrel got leaded up unless it was really pitted by rust at some point or someone was firing a lot of the old crimped-shell ratshot rounds through it.
...


I've had the same thing happen with a well maintained gun. I can fill the grooves with lead in my 22 pistol just by shooting a brick of unjacketed rounds like Blaser without cleaning it. They'll start to keyhole if I keep it up long enough. Much the same experience as the OP - I can push lead shavings out of the barrel with a brush. The barrel is in perfectly good shape - not rusted or rough. In fact it's very accurate until the grooves get clogged up. On the other hand, I can put a whole box of jacketed rounds through it - like the Federal 525 bulk pack for example - with no ill effects.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 10, 2012, 11:45 AM
I've had the same thing happen with a well maintained gun. I can fill the grooves with lead in my 22 pistol just by shooting a brick of unjacketed rounds like Blaser without cleaning it. They'll start to keyhole if I keep it up long enough. Much the same experience as the OP - I can push lead shavings out of the barrel with a brush. The barrel is in perfectly good shape - not rusted or rough. In fact it's very accurate until the grooves get clogged up. On the other hand, I can put a whole box of jacketed rounds through it - like the Federal 525 bulk pack for example - with no ill effects.


Just a somewhat minor correction: Federal 525 is plated, not jacketed, like the CCI plated stuff. The copper plating does help tremendously, though.

Woody

Flopsweat
October 11, 2012, 03:39 AM
Just a somewhat minor correction: Federal 525 is plated, not jacketed, like the CCI plated stuff. The copper plating does help tremendously, though.

Woody
Fair enough. I give people grief over clip vs. magazine so I'm in no position to birch. ;)

ConstitutionCowboy
October 11, 2012, 11:24 AM
We're on the same plank.

Woody

exavid
October 12, 2012, 01:13 AM
I'm surprised that a .22 pistol would lead up that easily. I shoot Bullseye every Monday eveningat my club. We fire about 100 rounds per Monday, 90 on targets and ten for warm up. I clean my Buckmark about once every four weeks. The pistol does get a good bit of soot and powder residuals but no lead in the barrel. I also shoot Adult Smallbore in the winter where we fire about 80-100 rounds each Wednesday for a six month season. I don't clean the rifle very often either but it doesn't lead up and will shoot a 1/2" group all day long at 50' with my old eyes. I use Federal Target Grade ammo in the cubical white box purchased at WalMart. I usually buy at least ten boxes at a time hoping they're all the same batch. That way performance is pretty consistant.

ConstitutionCowboy
October 12, 2012, 11:09 AM
I tend to agree wit you, exavid. I'm wondering if an over heated barrel can cause the lead build-up as well as a fouled or dirty barrel. My first run of 150 rounds a couple weeks ago was rather rapid - the 150 rounds in half an hour.

Woody

mr.trooper
October 13, 2012, 08:06 PM
A 22LR can achieve 11 - 12" of penetration in Ballistics gel from a 3 - 4" barrel.

The .22 LR is a joke for a self-defense weapon.

SUB OPTIMAL, sure... But a JOKE? Far from it.

One shot stops are absolutely possible with a .22LR handgun - both physical and psychological stops.

Sure, it MAY take several minutes to bleed out from a center mass hit from a .22 - or you could be unconscious in a few seconds when it shreds an artery or perforates your heart. The reason .22 is not recommended for primary carry is not that it wont work, or even that it is unlikely to work, but rather simply to err on the side of caution.

Logic is a two way street; just because you can't count on a .22 to immediately incapacitate DOES NOT mean you can count on it to fail. Many a person who knows that to be true is no longer here to interject. That is the furthest thing from a joke.

exavid
October 13, 2012, 09:14 PM
Yeah those .22s are really worthless for SD. Get real!

If you can place your shots accurately the venerable .22LR is effective. Just Robert F. Kennedy. Oh yeah, you can't ask him because he was assassinated with an old Iver Johnson .22 revolver.
How about this farmer?
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-09-04/news/33587269_1_home-intruder-intruder-police-earl-jones

exavid
October 13, 2012, 11:11 PM
And how do we know that? All official accounts I can find stagte that Kennedy was hit three times with Sirhan's .22. Of course there are plenty of other possibilities, there might even have been a shooter standing on a grassy knoll in that hotel kitchen.

AethelstanAegen
October 13, 2012, 11:13 PM
but we do know that it wasn't sirhan's .22

We know nothing of the sort, twinny. Who are "we" anyways? What was it, a shooter hidden in the podium? Sometimes it is exactly as straightforward as it is. Are you just trying to troll everyone by making us shake our heads in confusion? All your posts are like this.

Walt Sherrill
October 13, 2012, 11:21 PM
Makes me wonder how a .22LR barrel got leaded up unless it was really pitted by rust at some point or someone was firing a lot of the old crimped-shell ratshot rounds through it.

It can depend on the barrel, but more often on the round itself. I had a Ruger Target Competition (Government model, slab-sided) that shot beautifully with almost everything but one brand of bulk ammo (Remington, if I remember correctly), and one brand of premium Target ammo. In both cases, the barrel would go from clean to heavily leaded in one range session of a box or two of ammo, with keyholing obvious at the end of the session. No rust or pitting in the barrel, and no use of odd ratshot rounds.

With regard to earlier comments about the effectiveness of .22 rounds:

While a lot of small caliber rounds have taken lives, a lot of them -- especially with head shots -- go under the skin and travel around OUTSIDE the skull if they simply don't hit and bounce away. If you're trying to use a .22 for self-defense, the rounds really aren't going to stop anyone unless 1) you're lucky, 2) have time to really aim well, 3) can see a good target area. A lot of gun-related confrontations don't come with those options. A .22 rifle might be a better option, but that's not easily carried or concealed.

I'll bet the emergency room docs who talk about them forgot to mention all of the far less damaging shots they've had to patch up from similar small-caliber rounds.


.

230RN
October 14, 2012, 04:20 PM
^ Makes me wonder how a .22LR barrel got leaded up unless it was really pitted by rust at some point or someone was firing a lot of the old crimped-shell ratshot rounds through it.

It can depend on the barrel, but more often on the round itself. I had a Ruger Target Competition (Government model, slab-sided) that shot beautifully with almost everything but one brand of bulk ammo (Remington, if I remember correctly), and one brand of premium Target ammo. In both cases, the barrel would go from clean to heavily leaded in one range session of a box or two of ammo, with keyholing obvious at the end of the session. No rust or pitting in the barrel, and no use of odd ratshot rounds.

Thanks. I neglected to mention that. I, too, use standard velocity or the high-speed "standards" and have never had a problem with leading. The picture is probably different if you habitually use souped up rounds.

A long time ago, when the Ordnance Department was investigating cupro-nickel jacket fouling in the GI rifles, the fouling mainly occured near the muzzle, "not where the pressure and temperature was highest, but where the bullet was fastest."

Perhaps there's a lesson there with respect to lead or plated .22LR bullets. Try to run 'em out faster than the competition's rounds, and by gum golly, you get leading.

And there are other variables, such as the lube on the bullets --different kinds of wax, moly di versus graphite, different lead alloys, etc. (In general, alloying anything with a base metal lowers the melting point.)

And, let's face it, if you're going to shoot cast bullets in center-fires at much over, say, approximately, more-or-less, kinda-sorta 1100 feet per second, you really ought to use copper gas checks on your lead bullets or you will get severe leading from the bases of the bullets getting all melty and squooshy on their way up the barrel.

And you still get leading anyhow.

A lesson there, too?

Terry, 230RN

If you enjoyed reading about "Bullet Tumble" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!