hey physics big brains...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tom Bri

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
310
Location
Rockford Illinois
...answer me a question. I was watching the stars for meterorites tonight, and got to thinking about bullets. Can anyone tell me how HOT a bullet gets from air friction? Seems like every other aspect of bullet flight has been picked to pieces, but I wonder what the temperature of a bullet is when it hits. Never heard about that.

Have to depend on bullet shape, a spitzer would, I guess, not heat up like a wad-cutter. Also velocity, time in flight...
 
Tom Bri said:
Can anyone tell me how HOT a bullet gets from air friction?
I am certainly NOT a physics-type person, but I did a search on the Internet and came up with a temperature of 267 degrees Celsius (513 degrees Fahrenheit). However, this was the temperature measured of a 5.56 mm NATO round as it left the muzzle cloud after being fired from an AR-15. "The bullets cooled as they traveled away from the gun."

This information was taken from http://www.rangerats.org/bullet.html. In the short search that I did, I could not find where the temperature of a free flying bullet had been measured or figured. I certainly do not have the math background to do that kind of extrapolation.

According to Google, "'Temperature of bullet striking target' - did not match any documents."
 
you arent going to heat the bullet with air friction. The bullet will leave the gun hot because of all the hot gasses propeling it. After it leaves the barrel it will cool down from the air flow across it. Bullet velocities are not high enough to generate much heat.
 
Yes and No

A high velocity bullet is heated mainly by the friction of being pushed down the barrel and perhaps a bit by some blow-by gas. If it did indeed stay in the air long enough, air friction would heat it to a bright cherry red. The flight time of a round is too short, and the round looses too much velocity for this to happen. At mach 3 air friction is indeed a heat factor...just needs more time than a bullet normally flies.
 
I think usp9 has stated it about as accurately as it can be stated without a scientific analysis. There are a whole lot of "it depends" involved in the problem. Caliber (surface area), bullet jacket material (barrel friction), bullet shape, many other factors, and perhaps most importantly - bullet speed.

I believe, in the overall scheme of things, the average pistol bullet will usually be cooling off in flight as opposed to warming up. A rifle bullet may or may not warm up depending on distance and velocity. The temperature any bullet fianally reaches is very dependant on the factors stated above and also on environmental factors and the distance travelled.

For an empirical single data point: I was once hit in the leg (not injured) by a ricochetting .45 ACP FMJ bullet that had just been fired at approx. 800 fps less than a second earlier. I picked it up and felt that it was warm. Using my ever-present thermal scanning device (my hand), I would estimate that the temperature was around 100 to 110 deg F. Warm to the touch, but not hot.
 
Go a med school library and read "Gunshot Wounds", a fascinating and important read for anyone who carries a firearm. Besides the physics of it -- either not enough time or speed depending on the bullet -- immediately recovered bullets have been measured, they don't get hot.

Meteor impact speeds are insanely fast, say over mach 20. I don't remember exactly, but a "slow" object entering the earth's atmosphere would be something like the shuttle, around mac 30 to 15.

By the way, anyone with a real interest in the physics and effects of firearms should read the medical work on the subject. It's not easy, but neither is shooting someone. Also you've got to remember that there's a lot of really good information that's just not accessable on the 'net.
 
while time certainly plays a factor, i'm assuming your question is based on comparison to meteorites and rockets burning up as they pass through the atmosphere.

the more important factor then would be the relative speed, not so much the time. Meteors top out around 71 km/s which is 232,939.633 feet per second.

Think about it this way, if i'm on the 1000 yrd line, how long does it take my bullet to get to the target if it starts out at 2600 fps?
If I'm a meteor entering the atmosphere, how long does it take me to hit the earth's surface if I start out at 233 kfps?
 
I would just like to point out that I have a degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering with an emphasis in heat transfer and thermodynamics, and I am working on a PhD in a similar subject.

I recently did a project for my last heat transfer class, and the intent of that project was to estimate the temperature of an AK barrel as the gun was fired (30 rounds, 1/second), allowed to cool, then fired again (another 30 rounds, 1/second). My analysis included the convective heating of the barrel (and bullet) from hot gas, the convective and radiation cooling of the barrel, and of course the heat generated by friction between the barrel and the bullet.

As it turns out, bullets can get fairly hot in the barrel. However, due to the respective hardnesses of the steel and the bullet jacket, most of this friction goes into the steel barrel as the heated jacket rubs off onto the barrel. This is similar to ablative cooling (which I will discuss in a moment). In summary, bullets can get fairly hot, but not hot enough to melt lead. My analysis concluded that bullets can get up to about half the melting temperature of lead in most rifle calibers. The super-fast rifle calibers can get up to around 80% Tm where the lead is weakened enough to fly apart when the jacket is scored by the rifling (a room-temperature lead bullet would be strong enough to spin that fast without flying apart).

As to heating by air friction, that's actually a misnomer. The air is technically heated by compression. Moving air has energy, which can be exchanged between pressure, velocity, and temperature. Pressure and temperature are related by the ideal gas law (which, though it doesn't apply exactly, can be used in a corrected form). The term for this "energy" is the "total pressure." "Total pressure" or "stagnation pressure" is the pressure that a gas flow would have if it was suddenly stopped without any loss of energy (adiabatically) so that all the velocity was exchanged for pressure. Likewise you have the stagnation temperature (the two are not independent).

As the air near the surface of, say, the SR-71 blackbird, is slowed down by friction (which generates a tiny amount of heat) the pressure and temperature increase (remember Bernoulli's law? As the speed of the gas increases, the pressure decreases? Bernouilli does not apply at supersonic speeds, but similar in principle). It is this temperature and pressure increase that heats the surface of the Blackbird and other supersonic aircraft. However, this effect does not occur until very high velocities are achieved - at lower speeds the convective cooling has a greater effect than the compression heating.

As to meteorites entering Earth's atmosphere... They are usually found covered in frost. In the first place, they were in outer space to begin with - and outer space is friggin cold. When the hit the atmosphere, the heat actually melts the outer layer of the meteorite and "blows" it away. This is what is called "ablative cooling" and is used on all the intercontinental ballistic missiles to prevent them from burning up. Most of the heat from flying through the air so fast is used to melt the surface material, and very little is used to heat the interior of the object. (Of note is that the space shuttle and capsules such as Mercury are not protected this way - the shock wave from the blunt surface actually acts as a shield from the hot gases.)

Well, now that I've thoroughly bored/confused everyone, it's off to class!
 
Don't supersonic aircraft have a problem with heat build up on the leading edge of their wings? I know that was a problem with the SR-71 which flew at mach 3 or so (maybe - probably faster but from what I've read it cruised at around 2200MPH which is around 3200 FPS).

Mach 3 is around 3300 FPS - there are quite a few calibers that make that speed so at least a few will probably heat up due to air friction.

The magic velocity would probably depend on the Q of the bullet, ambient temp and air pressure. There's got to be some one here who's taking college physics right now who should be able to do the calculations.
 
so

What about an "accellerator" round? the 55 grain 22's in the sabot that remington used to sell. They were in 30-06 and claimed 5600 fps. i've heard all sorts of claims about what they did and why on impact. i've shot ground hogs and they "blew up"
 
The claimed velocity of the 30-06 accelerator rounds was between 4000 and 4100fps--I can't remember the exact figure anymore. Typical gunpowder performance imposes an absolute projectile velocity limit of somewhere around 5000fps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top