Solid copper hollow points....

S

Super-Dave

New member
Are solid copper hollow points cheaper to manufacture than traditional hollow points?


I was wondering why more companies do not make and sell solid copper hollow points? Are they not as reliable?

Also why could they not take the solid copper hollow point bullet and just fill the core half way along the length with lead. That way it could have similiar weights as traditional jhp but it would open up and expand and perform and look exactly like current solid copper jhp's

Also with all the environmental laws, I figure they would eventually ban lead bullets everywhere.
 
All my carry pistols have Corbon DPX in them. I like the copper Idea. Seems rest of the manufactures just keep reinventing what they have been making. Or borrow idea. from another.
 
Are solid copper hollow points cheaper to manufacture than traditional hollow points?

No.

I was wondering why more companies do not make and sell solid copper hollow points?

See above


Are they not as reliable?

They shoot fine.

Also why could they not take the solid copper hollow point bullet and just fill the core half way along the length with lead. That way it could have similiar weights as traditional jhp but it would open up and expand and perform and look exactly like current solid copper jhp's

Why do you think it has not been done? P.O. Ackley made some .224" bullets that were 40 grains of copper and 10 of lead for use in very high velocity rifles. But it would not add enough weight to be worth the trouble in a pistol caliber.

Also with all the environmental laws, I figure they would eventually ban lead bullets everywhere.

Me, too. There was some work done with zinc bullets which would be cheaper than copper for practice loads, but they are not much mentioned any more.
 
Also why could they not take the solid copper hollow point bullet and just fill the core half way along the length with lead. That way it could have similiar weights as traditional jhp but it would open up and expand and perform and look exactly like current solid copper jhp's
Click to expand...

You're talking about another version of a jacked bullet---sort of. The all copper, solid base works fine and alread performs the way it would it they modified it per your suggestion.
 
Corbon DPX is solid copper - no lead. The penetration and expansion are incredible. Take a look at a pic of the petaled bullet. I carry them in my .40 S&W and 9mm SD weapons. It's nice to be safe and green, too!
 
a tungsten insert in the base of a solid copper bullet with some tweaking of the hollow point would increase case capacity and allow for slightly improved velocity. They would be restricted, as tungsten components in a bullet automatically qualify it as armor piercing. It would be LE only.
 
That's been done, too; in rifle bullets that an American Commoner can buy. That is the design feature of the Speer African Grand Slam.

There was a bullet made with a powdered tungsten core, too. Meant to fragment and chew out a bigger wound with heavy powder in motion.
 
Super-Dave said:
Also why could they not take the solid copper hollow point bullet and just fill the core half way along the length with lead. That way it could have similiar weights as traditional jhp but it would open up and expand and perform and look exactly like current solid copper jhp's
Click to expand...
Depleted uranium would be more effective
 
Unfortunately, Depleted uranium, or U238, would bring in all sorts of human rights arguments. Can't you hear the testimony now?

Prosecution: "are you going to sit in that witness stand, and freely admit to me that you shot this innocent young man with a radioactive bullet, just because he told you to give him your car?"

Good guy: "well, yes, why not? It's only a little radioactive, and gee, I didn't want him to take my car."

Stupid lawyers. They can ruin any great idea.

I'll bet if it wasn't for lawyers, we'd already have cars that run on water.
 
Answer the Attorneys like this:

"Its perfectly safe the military uses it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Militaries around the world has been using depleted uranium in shells for over 30 years. Of course it must be safe. If not it would be banned."

Think about it. A radioactive shell exploding into Millions of microscopic particles how could it be dangerous? :rolleyes:


I was in the USMC and Gulf War 1. I truly believe depleted uranium shells should be banned world wide indefinitely.

I have heard they have used over 800 times the amount of depleted uranium just in Iraq alone than all of the depleted uranium used in Gulf War 1.
 
A radioactive shell exploding into Millions of microscopic particles how could it be dangerous?
Click to expand...

Isn't the depleted isotope used for the weight? Once it's past the half-life, it's pretty much ok.
 
Isn't the depleted isotope used for the weight?
Click to expand...
Yes - that is the primary purpose for using it.

Once it's past the half-life, it's pretty much ok.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The average half-life of Uranium is around 4 1/2 Billion years. In effect all Uranium on and in the earth is already past its half-life. Uranium will always be radioactive, no getting around it. If it gets atomized as in, say, an exploding artillery round, it is hazardous if ingested or inhaled.
 
Are solid copper hollow points cheaper to manufacture than traditional hollow points?
Click to expand...

Let's see. As of May 2010, on the commodity price index, copper was selling for about $3.50/lb. Lead was selling for about 90 cents/lb -- roughly a quarter the price of copper.

Lead is a softer metal and melts at a lower temperature, but requires more care during manufacturing because it is more poisonous and more likely to get into the environment. So, unless and until somebody tells me differently, I am going to assume that the cost differences in the manufacturing process are not sufficiently large to outweigh the price difference in the metal.

You do the math. :D
 
True enough....

Uranium will always be radioactive, no getting around it. If it gets atomized as in, say, an exploding artillery round, it is hazardous if ingested or inhaled.
Click to expand...

Because, by the time Uranium is no longer detectably radioactive, it is lead.

And the list of substances that are hazardous if ingested or inhaled is absolutely HUGE!!!!! Ordinary sand (silica) is one of them. So is sawdust. If table salt were not classified as a food, it would be on the list of hazardous substances.

SO WHAT?!

The problem is (as always) one of perception. Our bodies contain traces of several radioactive isotopes. It is normal, and healthy. The amount of radioactivity in depleted uranium is detectable, but is not hazardous. You could (in theory, anyway) build your house from depleted uranium, and receive considerably less radiation living in it for a year than you get in a single medical X-ray. The real health hazard from depeleted uranium is its properties as a chemical element, not its low level of radiation.

But, since high levels of radiation are dangerous, the general perception is that all radiation is dangerous, and that's where uninformed (or under educated) people tend to focus. If you study the matter a bit, you will be amazed at the number of "radioactive" materials you are "exposed" to in every day life. There is radioactive material in your home smoke detector. In Coleman lantern mantles. In granite buildings (like the US capitol building), even in the potassium you take in vitamins. And don't forget the radioactive Carbon-14 contained in every living thing, to name just a few.

There is a centuries old quote (from 15th alchemist Paracelsus) that says "everything is poison, what varies is the dose". And its true. For some things the poisonous amount is very tiny. For others, it is very large. Too much water and you die. Too little, and you die. Even those things we need to survive are toxic when the amount is too much.

The radiation from depleted uranium used in combat is insignificant compared to all the other chemical (and biological) hazards found in a war zone. The military likes DU because of its density. Volume for volume, it is the heaviest material with a practical use.
 
sakeneko hit it on the head. Copper prices are far too high right now to make it economically feasible to compete with lead bullets.

All copper (or copper alloy) makes for a decent bullet, but it will always be lighter than a lead bullet of similar size/shape. Barnes and others have made good progress in developing high performance copper bullets and they seem to work very well.

The downside for me, is that I can't afford enough copper bulleted ammo to adequately test for reliability and train with them. Not knowing if a round will function 100% in my pistol means a potentially fatal mistake. In a wheelgun, it is much less likely to be a problem.
 
[slapping head]. Thanks, Bill, but I forgot something that makes a difference. Copper has a specific gravity/density of 8930 kg/cu-m (kilograms per cubic meter), while lead has a sg/density of 11340 kg/cu-m. That means that a copper bullet will weigh about 80% as much as a lead bullet of the same size. So you would need to buy only 80% as much copper by weight as lead to get the same number of bullets.

I'm still quite sure that copper bullets cost a lot more to make than lead bullets, though, which would explain why they're more expensive to buy.
 
Because, by the time Uranium is no longer detectably radioactive, it is lead.
Click to expand...
Well, actually Thorium, and it remains there for a long time. (I know you mean the end of the line in the decay chain is Pb, but once Uranium decays, it is no longer Uranium. ;) )

But we digress from the original topic.
 
There was some work done with zinc bullets which would be cheaper than copper for practice loads, but they are not much mentioned any more.
Click to expand...

I recall looking into why zinc wasn't used more often. Something to do with difficulty in casting zinc. Zinc is lighter and harder than lead....also more prone to ricocheting off of hard objects. But, there are people who like to cast and use zinc bullets - definitely possible and not unheard of. Just think, you could melt pennies (post '82) to make bullets! I knew that these zinc pennies must be good for something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top