Solid copper bullets v. lead

[reerc]

I seem to be seeing more solid copper bullets in self defense pistol loads recently; I know Barnes makes one, Hornady may also.

One half of my pea brain wants me to believe that lead is just ... heavier, and would retain inertia better on impact. The other half of my pea brain is trying to tell me that, if the copper bullet weighs about the same as the lead bullet .... same same. The other half of my pea brain wants me to go have a brownie with some cold milk.

So, while I go have that brownie, perhaps a few of the smartest people I know (yes, I mean y'all) could opine on the copper v. lead question.

Thanks, folks.

[jkc]

I don't know about pistol bullets at handgun velocities, but --- I recently helped a friend with some terminal ballistic tests on high speed rifle projectiles. The test was to determine if 3/8" thick 500 Brinell hardness plate was adequate to protect the structural integrity of a Glulam beam (to be used in shooting range construction). We fired various styles and weights of projectiles at velocities above 3,000 FPS, in .22-250 and .300 Winchester Magnum into a sandwich of glulam overlaid with the very hard plate, covered by 1/4" plywood spaced off the steel plate with a 1" gap (this, to capture the inevitable backspatter of disintegrating projectiles). Most of the projectiles punched a clean hole through the plate, "knocking out" a projectile diameter "plug" of the steel plate, which plugs were molecularly discombobulated, and weighed only a fraction of what their volume suggested. One of the .22 caliber projectiles was a lead-free, frangible variety, which seemingly vaporized on impact. One of the .30 caliber bullets was a 165 grain Nosler Partition at .300 Win Mag velocity, probably around 3,200 FPS. The show-stopper was a copper Barnes Triple-Shock, also 165 grains, traveling within 30 FPS of the Nosler Partition, which, by the way, showed the deepest penetration past the plate of any, at about 2". The Barnes bullet did not penetrate the plate, but apparently disintegrated quite completely on impact. This amazed us, as this is the bullet we'd bet on to show the most "integrity" and deepest penetration past the plate barrier. I wouldn't leap to any conclusions about the efficacy of copper vs. conventional lead handgun projectiles, but thought you might like to know that what the first half of your brain was arguing for, and the second half of your brain was disputing, may both be proved wrong by using the third half of your brain for actual testing...

P.S. This protective barrier was deemed to be well beyond adequate to protect both the structural integrity of the Glulam beam, and adequate protection against dangerous backspatter from the protective plate.

[ohiococonut]

Lead is denser than copper which is why in bullets of equal weights the copper counterpart must be made longer. All of the Barnes bullets that I've shot from handguns that were all copper were also hollow points and did not have the penetration that it's lead counterpart did. Had they been solid copper I'm certain they would have out penetrated their lead counterpart, but that's not what they were designed for.

[reerc]

Fun replies, guys - thanks.

jck; do you work for an outfit that builds gun ranges? Pretty cool descriptions of the testing.

I think that third half of my brain needs another bite of brownie now ... bedtime snack, ya know.

[jkc]

Originally Posted by reerc

Fun replies, guys - thanks.

jck; do you work for an outfit that builds gun ranges? Pretty cool descriptions of the testing.

I think that third half of my brain needs another bite of brownie now ... bedtime snack, ya know.

I don't work for an outfit that designs gun ranges, but am a friend and hunting buddy of an architect who does, as a professional specialty, and who occasionally calls on me and our mutual acquaintances and associates to assist in arcane tests such as the one I described. This particular test was peculiar to the design of a specific range, the particulars of which I'm not at liberty to describe, but, as a result of this testing, can be built at some cost savings over alternative design options, and to the benefit of all of us, on the campus of a not-very-liberal-arts college.

[Erich]

I've always understood that the toughness of the copper bullets would make them cling together better than the lead. So you'd get expansion and penetration w/o fragmentation.

For what they're asking, though, I've not yet been able to bring myself to actually buy any to play with. Always wondered, though.

[David Sinko]

I have seen the same Nosler Partition that you hold in such high esteem (likewise, shot out of a .300 Winchester Magnum) separate both the front and rear lead cores and then fail to completely penetrate a whitetail. This bullet is far from perfect and I will not use it.

As noted, the Barnes XPB pistol bullet is lighter than its lead counterpart, as far as "normal" bullet weight for caliber. But a 200 gr. lead bullet should penetrate as well as the 200 gr. copper bullet, as long as they don't fragment. I have no proof (yet) but I expect the copper bullet to hold up better against meat and bone.

I hear some tales of poor penetration with the copper bullets but I suspect this is because some of these bullets are not loaded to a high enough velocity. The longer bullets restrict powder capacity and solid copper bullets tend to run up pressure compared to their lead counterparts. I'm sure the paranoid lawyers who advise the ammo manufacturers and write the loading manuals are well aware of this. If these bullets weren't so expensive I'd buy more of them and try to shoot things with them, but I'm expecting that they will perform better than an expanding lead bullet of similar weight. Time will tell.

Dave Sinko

[jkc]

Originally Posted by David Sinko

I have seen the same Nosler Partition that you hold in such high esteem (likewise, shot out of a .300 Winchester Magnum) separate both the front and rear lead cores and then fail to completely penetrate a whitetail. This bullet is far from perfect and I will not use it.

As noted, the Barnes XPB pistol bullet is lighter than its lead counterpart, as far as "normal" bullet weight for caliber. But a 200 gr. lead bullet should penetrate as well as the 200 gr. copper bullet, as long as they don't fragment. I have no proof (yet) but I expect the copper bullet to hold up better against meat and bone.

I hear some tales of poor penetration with the copper bullets but I suspect this is because some of these bullets are not loaded to a high enough velocity. The longer bullets restrict powder capacity and solid copper bullets tend to run up pressure compared to their lead counterparts. I'm sure the paranoid lawyers who advise the ammo manufacturers and write the loading manuals are well aware of this. If these bullets weren't so expensive I'd buy more of them and try to shoot things with them, but I'm expecting that they will perform better than an expanding lead bullet of similar weight. Time will tell.

Dave Sinko

The only mention in this thread of the Nosler Partition bullet was in my post, and was to compare its performance within the parameters of our test protocol, and no "esteem" or other characterizations were mentioned. I happen to be a fan of the Nosler Partition, which, as with many other game bullets, can perform erratically, as do many others, but the Nosler Partition projectile has served me very well on animals ranging in size and relative fragility, from whitetails, mule deer, bear, mountain lion, and elk.

[ohiococonut]

As far as handgun bullets go the Barnes XPB is the most destructive bullet I've used on game animals. Expansion is almost double in every case and it leaves a tremendous wound channel. I have to be more selective about my shots so I avoid hitting a deers quarter. And they hold up very well againt bone.

[ArchAngelCD]

Because they cost so much i won't be using them anytime soon. That is unless my State goes crazy like some of the others and bans lead bullets.

[reerc]

Originally Posted by ArchAngelCD

(snip) unless my State goes crazy like some of the others and bans lead bullets.

? I didn't know some states had banned lead. That's dumb. If someone is going to get lead poisoning from a bullet, it's more likely to be travelling ~1,000 ft/sec.

[jkc]

The lead-bullet-ban issue arises from concern about lead ingestion from hunter-shot carcasses of animals fed on by California Condors, an extremely "endangered species" now on the razor's edge of restoration by the long and expensive efforts of a private (Peregrine Fund, et al) and public (USFWS, AZ Game & Fish, etc.) entities. Much, if not all, of Kalifornia, is under lead bullet ban, instituted because of this demonstrably real threat to the restoration effort. In Arizona, hunters have been asked to, and to a very high degree have complied with, requests to either use lead-free projectiles, or remove or bury game animal carcasses in areas used by condors. This has been a highly successful program in AZ, and the threat to condors from scavenging lead contaminated carcasses has been reduced to immeasureable levels, last I looked. This didn't stop some extremist animal-protection organization from recently petitioning the EPA(?) to regulate lead projectiles as an environmental hazard --- a proposal summarily rejected as ridiculous. AZ hunters, as elsewhere, when presented with a cogent argument for changing their ways and protecting ecosystems, have been remarkably cooperative and compliant with the efforts to protect this non-game species, recognizing, I'd like to think, that, as Red Green reminds us "... we're all in this together."

[ArchAngelCD]

Not all species are meant to be on this Earth. Sometimes natural selection tells a species it's time has past. IMO the Condors' time has past and it has nothing to do with lead bullets. It's more to do with all the "California Beautiful People" settling land they should not be taking away from the birds. Loss of habitat puts the most pressure on endangered species.

You can't tell the California know-it-all liberals it's their fault just like you can't convince them they shouldn't be building homes in valleys that burn every year. They want the Million Dollar view and then cry every year when the Santa Anna Winds blow a firestorm over their homes. THEN, the tax payers who don't live there get to pay for their homes to be rebuilt every year. Those people and those big ugly birds should be gone.
[/rant]

[Maximumbob54]

I can't cast copper so I just don't care for them. But the Corbon copper bulleted .38's sure do look spiffy.

[reerc]

I knew there was a problem with lead shot poisoning waterfowl, hence steel shot, but I didn't know this about the condors; interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[jkc]

Originally Posted by ArchAngelCD

Not all species are meant to be on this Earth. Sometimes natural selection tells a species it's time has past. IMO the Condors' time has past and it has nothing to do with lead bullets.
[/rant]

Setting aside the remainder of your post about Californians and their behavior, I believe you're mistaken about the plight of the California Condor. I'm no expert on their natural history, or the cause of their decline, but am certain that human activities played a significant role in their present circumstances, ranging from the use of pesticides and other chemicals introduced into their environment in various ways, to wanton killing, and many other human-caused factors. The precipitous decline of this species seems not to be the result of its evolution into some cul-de-sac, but rather, as a result of human activities, not entirely understood, which adversely affects it. In any case, it strikes me as cavalier and irresponsible to write off a species on the brink of extinction because of its appearance or other immaterial characteristic. We are all in this together, and what may be good for condors is probably good for the rest of us.

[m1gunner]

Originally Posted by ArchAngelCD

Not all species are meant to be on this Earth. Sometimes natural selection tells a species it's time has past. IMO the Condors' time has past and it has nothing to do with lead bullets. It's more to do with all the "California Beautiful People" settling land they should not be taking away from the birds. Loss of habitat puts the most pressure on endangered species.

You can't tell the California know-it-all liberals it's their fault just like you can't convince them they shouldn't be building homes in valleys that burn every year. They want the Million Dollar view and then cry every year when the Santa Anna Winds blow a firestorm over their homes. THEN, the tax payers who don't live there get to pay for their homes to be rebuilt every year. Those people and those big ugly birds should be gone.
[/rant]

I totally agree. The condor is in the same class as the Thunderbird. It can't co-exist in today's environment with man no matter what steps are taken. Sorry, but those big buzzards just aren't worth the billions of dollars the treehuggers want to spend of MY money.

If they want to save these birds, and all the other snail-darters, big-eared mice, and obscure caterpillars, there is one way and only one way to do it. That is to roll back population levels and the environment to 1801 levels. Bulldoze all buildings, tear up all highways, bust the dams, and stick all the current invaders on freight trains and haul them out of there.