Most U.S. gun owners use lead-based ammunition and primers, and nearly half don’t engage in any post-shooting hygiene behaviors such as changing their clothes or showering, a study found.
The force difference would be absolutely miniscule. The energy comes from the powder, not the bullet material. Denser cores increase penetration by concentrating the force, not magically delivering more force.
Kinetic energy from a projectile is equal to the mass of the projectile times the square of the velocity, but air resistance saps velocity off quite rapidly and independently of the mass. So a heavy projectile will deliver more kinetic energy to a target than a lighter one with the same initial velocity.
A lighter projectile can be driven faster by the same charge of propellant, but air resistance increases with the cube of the velocity so delivering more energy through increased velocity is a losing game. You can decrease air resistance by decreasing the cross section of the projectile, but that requires dense materials like lead.
tldr: the difference is absolutely not minuscule. There’s a reason why bullets are made of dense materials.
The force difference for rounds made to similar WOULD be miniscule, because they’d be made to be similar. OFC you cannot cheat physics. I’m not trying to defend bullets made of fucking feathers here…
Of course it isn’t an energy multiplier. The energy carried as the bullet leaves the barrel will be very very close to the same. The energy it carries will be lost more quickly to air resistance with a less dense round though. Especially since the same powder behind less mass, means more speed, means more air resistance. How much that matters depends on a lot of factors, but it can certainly be enough to matter.
You’re correct, but also completely wrong at the same time. Yes, you can have a lighter bullet that is faster that carries the same kinetic energy. It might even hold its energy longer if it’s more aerodynamic. Where you are wrong is the ability to transfer that energy. A full metal jacket would pass clean through the target without transferring most of its energy into the target. A lead bullet that deforms is going to dump a lot more energy into the target. That’s why you have hollow points and other bullets that are designed to petal and fragment on impact. For hunting the goal is a bullet that does pass all the way through creating two wounds to bleed out and cutting as large of a wound channel as possible. Which is different than say self defense where you want a bullet that dumps all of its energy as fast as possible so you don’t over penetrate and hit your neighbor.
I guess all of that falls in line with the force being concentrated. It just really isn’t related to density as much as you’re implying. Unless I misunderstood what you’re saying.
That’s literally the opposite of what I have said in this thread. I’ve repeatedly said copper is just as effective with the only downside being that it is more expensive. Why don’t you calm down and actually read what was said instead of reacting defensively.
rofl if you continue to fail to understand how lead isn’t the only viable option, you’re only proving how pathetic and ignorant YOU care to be on the topic. Pathetic. Genuinely, your view is ignorance manifest.
You’re defending using literal biotoxins as projectiles. You are a vile piece of shit who would readily violate many treaties of the past. You are a fucking loser who fails to understand the problems of certain technological advancement. You are a braindead stone sitting in the stream of the past.
Again, that’s literally the opposite of what I have said in this thread. Try reading instead of knee jerk reacting. The ad hominem attacks aren’t helping you.
The force difference would be absolutely miniscule. The energy comes from the powder, not the bullet material. Denser cores increase penetration by concentrating the force, not magically delivering more force.
Kinetic energy from a projectile is equal to the mass of the projectile times the square of the velocity, but air resistance saps velocity off quite rapidly and independently of the mass. So a heavy projectile will deliver more kinetic energy to a target than a lighter one with the same initial velocity.
A lighter projectile can be driven faster by the same charge of propellant, but air resistance increases with the cube of the velocity so delivering more energy through increased velocity is a losing game. You can decrease air resistance by decreasing the cross section of the projectile, but that requires dense materials like lead.
tldr: the difference is absolutely not minuscule. There’s a reason why bullets are made of dense materials.
The force difference for rounds made to similar WOULD be miniscule, because they’d be made to be similar. OFC you cannot cheat physics. I’m not trying to defend bullets made of fucking feathers here…
Of course it isn’t an energy multiplier. The energy carried as the bullet leaves the barrel will be very very close to the same. The energy it carries will be lost more quickly to air resistance with a less dense round though. Especially since the same powder behind less mass, means more speed, means more air resistance. How much that matters depends on a lot of factors, but it can certainly be enough to matter.
Unless you’re a sniper working from 100+ yards, you do not need to care about the energy delivery difference air resistance would make.
Even then, it’s more about bullet drop and far less about suddenly losing lethality.
You’re correct, but also completely wrong at the same time. Yes, you can have a lighter bullet that is faster that carries the same kinetic energy. It might even hold its energy longer if it’s more aerodynamic. Where you are wrong is the ability to transfer that energy. A full metal jacket would pass clean through the target without transferring most of its energy into the target. A lead bullet that deforms is going to dump a lot more energy into the target. That’s why you have hollow points and other bullets that are designed to petal and fragment on impact. For hunting the goal is a bullet that does pass all the way through creating two wounds to bleed out and cutting as large of a wound channel as possible. Which is different than say self defense where you want a bullet that dumps all of its energy as fast as possible so you don’t over penetrate and hit your neighbor.
I guess all of that falls in line with the force being concentrated. It just really isn’t related to density as much as you’re implying. Unless I misunderstood what you’re saying.
This isn’t a discussion of lead vs some stupid-ass strawman you all imagine. This is about lead vs literally anything possible.
If you think copper or other heavy-ish metal bullets could never compete with lead, even on spread and delivered damage, then you are just stupid.
What strawman did I present? Go ahead, find one.
That’s literally the opposite of what I have said in this thread. I’ve repeatedly said copper is just as effective with the only downside being that it is more expensive. Why don’t you calm down and actually read what was said instead of reacting defensively.
rofl if you continue to fail to understand how lead isn’t the only viable option, you’re only proving how pathetic and ignorant YOU care to be on the topic. Pathetic. Genuinely, your view is ignorance manifest.
You’re defending using literal biotoxins as projectiles. You are a vile piece of shit who would readily violate many treaties of the past. You are a fucking loser who fails to understand the problems of certain technological advancement. You are a braindead stone sitting in the stream of the past.
Again, that’s literally the opposite of what I have said in this thread. Try reading instead of knee jerk reacting. The ad hominem attacks aren’t helping you.