Talk:Bullet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Here is how I got here

"Dear Yahoo!: What would happen if I shot a gun in space? Kimm Buffalo, New York Dear Kimm:

Ah, an inquiry that warms the hearts of gun-toting physicists. The peacenik response might be...nothing. A gun cartridge holds the bullet or metal tip and the gunpowder (yup, they still use that stuff). The latter requires a spark, a nifty chemical reaction that involves oxygen, which tends to be sorely lacking in space. However, forward-thinking manufacturers have packed an oxidizer within the bullet casing. Whether that's sufficient for an explosive launch is up for much debate." --User:W8IMP 16:40, 26 Jul, 2006 (UTC)

"However, it does not explain why poisons remain unused."

Guns are usually used to stop an immediate threat from which there is no retreat. If you have time to wait around for the poison to do its job, you have time to run away.

[edit] Centerfire and Rimfire

If theres no objection I would like to move this section, Centerfire and Rimfire just down to the start of modern bullet subsection and merged into the design section of Cartridge (weaponry). It's well written by an anonymous Wikipedian but does not deal with bullets directly but rather the cartridge case. If the anon contributer is still here and agrees, please feel free to move or make comment. Anyone else want to comment? I will merge in a few days if there are no disagreements. --Buster 19:30, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Merged --Buster 20:59, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

The Americans have since improved the design to increase its effectiveness against armour, and the SS109 bullet can now pierce about 7cm of armour plate, due to the Tungsten penetrator design, which still tumbles on soft tissue contact.

Nitpick first: the SS109 does not have a tungsten penetrator, the M995 has a tungsten penetrator (actually, tungsten carbide). But more importantly, I find that penetration figure a little difficult to swallow. The M995 was designed to penetrate a BRDM-2 hull (14 mm RHA equivalent not 70 mm!! [1]). Also the M855 (US version of SS109, very similar to M995 but with hardened steel penetrator instead of tungsten) has an order of magnitude less penetration than is here claimed for the M995. Does anyone have any reliable cites for M995 penetration in RHA? Securiger 06:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This is a really stupid title for this article

The photos are of CARTRIDGES, not of BULLETS. I am strongly in favor of moving this to Firearm Cartridge or Rifle Cartridge or something more sensible than bullet. Goddamn firearm luddites. Avriette 16:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

after reading the above mention of Cartridge (weaponry), I am in favor of merging these articles. Avriette 16:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While the photos are of cartridges, the article is, in fact, about bullets, and barely discusses cartridges at all; would you be happy with better pictures of bullets separated from cases? Having said that, I wouldn't object if you did a good merge of the bullet article and the cartridge article, except that you'll hit the 32 kB limit, and you'll have a heck of a time moving all 182 redirects. ;^) Securiger 14:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bullet Size?

I know nothing about firearms, but there is something I would like to read about on this page. On TV shows people are always talking about (I think) the size of bullets, like a 44 millimeter. What does this refer to, the diameter at the base of the bullet? Does this pertain only to hand gun bullets? Also, what kinds are used for what purposes? For example, certain hand guns require 9mm bullets? Or can you use different sized bullets on the same gun?

--unregistered 15:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is explained in short in Cartridge (firearms).

The first number is the nominal diameter of the bullet in either mm oder fractions of an inch. eg.: .44 (0.44 inch)

The nominal diameter can be the distance between the lands, sometimes even between the grooves, the diameter of the original bullet used in that cartridge or something inbetween. This means that the nominal diameter differs slightly from the actual diameter of the bullet. Also bullets of slightly different diameters and designs can be use in the same cartridge. eg.: A normal .44 Magnum FMJ bullet has an actual diameter of .429 inch. A normal .44 Magnum lead bullet .430 inch.

The nominal diameter is not enough to define a cartridge, because several cartridges might share the same diameter, but have different lengths and amounts of gunpowder in them. Therefore cartridges are specified by giving the diameter and either a brand name like "Magnum" (which is common in the US and UK) or by giving the diameter and the length of the cartridge's case (which is common in Europe and NATO). Older rounds sometimes also use designations where the diameter is followed by a dash and a second number which might be the year of it's adoption or some version number of the inventor.

eg.: .44 Magnum, .357 Special, .455 Webley, .45 ACP

9x19 (mm), 9x18 (mm), 7.62x51 (mm)

.30-06, .30-30 (Winchester), .25-35 Winchester

Some rounds have several more or less official designations:

7.62x39 = 7.62 Soviet = 7.62 Russian

9x18 = 9mm Makarov = 9mm Russian

9x19 = 9mm Parabellum = 9mm NATO

7.62x51 = 7.62 NATO = .308 Winchester = .308 Win.

5.56x45 = 5.56 NATO = .223 Remington = .223 Rem.

(NATO-rounds are not exactly the same as the civillian .308 or .223, though they can usually be fired from the same weapons with slightly reduced accuracy and reliability. Some gun makers, however, insist on using the correct type of ammunition to prevent liability issues in case of a catastrophic failure due to the higher gas pressures in military ammunition.)

With few exceptions different cartridges require different guns or at least a conversion kit. The most famous exception are .357 Magnum revolvers. The .357 Magnum uses bullets of the same diameter as the .38 Special thus .38 Special cartridges can be fired from .357 Magnum revolvers. Keep in mind that it doesn't work the other way round, because the gas pressure of the .357 Magnum is well beyond the maximum pressure of the .38 Special.

[edit] Last sentence

"Bullets are not faster than missiles. The fastest bullet is fly at the speed of 1500+ km/h"

The Nike Sprint Missile flew significantly faster.--Asams10 02:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing this last sentence, because it's not only grammatically incorrect, but also regarding it's content.

While 1500 km/h is a halfway appropriate number for most handgun bullets, it's just the lower margin for rifle bullets. Nowadays military assault rifle bullets reach velocities of generally around 900 m/s (~3200 km/h). Special rounds (sabot subcaliber rounds like SLAP) reach app. 1200 m/s (~4300 km/h) which is still well below the theoretical maximum achievable with unmodified weapons.

As an aside: Missiles fly between around 300 m/s (slow TV-guided Air-To-Ground missiles) and 1400 m/s (long range Air-To-Air missiles).

This could just be me, but that's not meant to be in the 'Materials' section. Is it?

Where is the list of sources?

What are you disputing? Much of what I edited came from my memory. Dispute that with your own sources.--Asams10 02:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full Metal Jacket

I figure contributors to this article would like the heads up on the FMJ article. It's pretty messed up right now, lotsa bad and just plain wrong information. --Cuitlahuac 04:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullets and Weapons Price

I am not looking for places to buy guns, I am just curious to know how much do weapons cost. Anyone here can tell me how much does a bullet cost? I understand that prices probably are very different acording to the type of bullet and market, but can anyone point me in right directions and tell me of any good web source of information? I would like to know, for example, how much does an average person pays for an Ak-47 and its ammo (per bullet).Maziotis 23:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I just happen to read a news article about this yesterday. (http://www.mingpao.com/) It states the price of the black-market AK-47 bullet is US$0.31 in Iraq. People shot to death in Iraq takes an average of 8 bullets, therefore, approximately US$2.48 is needed to kill each of them. It does not state the price of the AK-47 though. Also, this is really not the place to ask, try to search the web yourself, I did a very simply search at google and found a lot of results like this one. MythSearcher 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slug Base and Pelton Wheel

Is the flat base of all the slugs the most efficient design for transfering the explosive energy? I thought about submitting a patent to have a slug with a concave base with the principle of the pelton wheel. Aside from fluid dynamics being different, to me it makes sense, aside from the weak ends where the skin of the slug is thin. If it deformed outward, it would lose power from the rifling of the barrel. --Nuke-Marine 08:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not All Bullets Come From Cartridges

I'm taking the liberty of changing the description of a bullet from a metal slug propelled from a mechanism in the cartridge to simply being a metal slug. Not all bullets come in cartridges, but, to my knowledge, all bullets from firearms are made of some kind of metal.--Echo5Joker 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Are they all made of metal? Aren't less-lethal bullets usually made of rubber or nylon? And aren't many frangible bullets made of a hollow plastic shell around a number of smaller projectiles? - EngineersAnon 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge from frangible

I'm not sure anyone has noticed but it has been suggested that frangible be merged in this article. For the record, I oppose: the term is also used in rocketry for instance and I think there's room to expand the frangible article so that it does not exclusively deal with bullets. Pascal.Tesson 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll disagree with you only because the frangible rocket cannot be anything significant. Frangible bullets are. I used 100 of them just two weeks ago qualifying on the M16. What is a frangible rocket, how often are they used, and does it justify any more than a sentence under frangible bullets?--Asams10 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the furthest distance a bullet can travel before it just stops?

I think I'll have to vote for fleshing out the entry on "frangible" rather than merging it. There are several other instances of frangibility that are applied in everyday life. For instance, certain types of jewelry (rings, necklaces) can be made frangible so that if you happen to get it caught in the belt sander at work, you won't lose your finger, just the jewelry. More importantly in many mechanical engineering instances certain parts of an assembly may be designed to be frangible to protect more delicate portions of the assembly. For instance, a part may be deigned to break and release dangerously high pressure in a safe manner before it can destroy the entire assembly. For these reasons, I belive the stub should be expanded into a full article about "frangibility", rather than inferring that the only objects that can be frangible are bullets.

If fleshed out, the bullet part should be moved to Frangible bullet, because articles under adjective titles is bad form. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the vote for fleshing out - clearly the concept of frangibility is a significant part of mechanical engineering, not merely a type of bullet. And the (unsigned) post is correct, too, about having the article be about the noun indicating the concept rather than the adjective describing an item made in such fashion. This answers, too, the point that an article whose title is an adjective is bad form. - EngineersAnon 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armor piercing bullets

While counter-intuitive, pointed bullets are less effective penetrators than flat tipped bullets. Understand that a pointed bullet must push and deform metal to get through armor plate. A flat-tipped bullet cuts a plug out of the armor, thus requiring much less energy be expended for the same result. This is well documented in the book I referenced. Check it out and read it, please.--Asams10 04:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

ASams, quit spewing complete and utter nonsense.
There is no "plug" cut from an armor plate with respects to small arms cartridges. If it were true then the most modern AP rounds like M993 or M995 for the 7.62Nato and 5.56Nato would not have conical points for their hardened penetrators. Even MK211, the wonder round of the elite NASA space shuttle door gunner, doesn't have a "plug" (better term would be "wadcutter") profile, it too is a conical shapped penetrator.
Cut aways of the M993/M995 cores can be found at the following link.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m993.htm
Velocity is king when it comes to defeating armor or metals, hence the reason why 50BMG SLAP is so much more effective than ordinary KE AP like 700grn M2 or even the MK211 wonder round. Push things fast enough and it doesn't matter what the shape of the projectile is. (The previous comments were left unsigned by user:66.27.228.181)

Your personal attack is unwarranted. Your argument is wrong. I provided a reference. Now, you provide a reference that says your argument is correct or stop spewing. You counter my assertation by accusing me of spouting nonsense and making an unreferenced accusation? C'mon, keep it civil. --Asams10 15:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


It's no personal attack, if I wanted to do that I would have been much more blunt and direct.
I've handloaded enough AP projectiles, from old M2 163grn 30-06 AP and M2 700grn 50BMG, as well as more recent M61, to know what the cores are shaped like. I've also driven the M61 tips to 3400fps at which point they tended to fail miserably upon impact with steels due to the cores being made of a more mild steel, where as the M2 AP remained sharp at muzzle velocities exceeding 3200fps and exceeded the performance of M61.
Argue theory out of a book all you want, if it had a practical effect then you'd see it used on a more wide spread scale or you would see a sweeping change to the new core design in AP ammunition that is made. After 60+ years of AP ammo being made, they still have penetrators that come to a sharpened point.
If a sharpened tip of the bullet's penetrator was not desired, then the most recent M993 and M995 would not employ such a design in their penetrators(a profile which they are purposely machining into the penetrator, otherwise they'd simply face off the core making cylinders instead of pointed truncated cones). Want to talk about the effectiveness of a rounded ogive on a sharpened point penetrator or a variety of conical/truncated cone type point on a penetrator, okay. But flat faced cylinders?
Velocity makes the metal "flow" more or less regardless of tip shape, this point is proven time and time again when NASA fires a tiny .177 caliber bb at insane velocities against a steel plate and can make it fail.
Mind you I've spent the past 8+ years on various forums talking about these sorts of things where I either have direct first hand experience or am discussing it with others who do. Some of the members of those forums have some impressive collections of old AP ammo for both handgun as well as rifle. The only time you see interesting bullet designs comes with handgun rounds that have to rely on some kind of trickery, in combination with a lower bullet mass to allow it to achieve a higher velocity, to make it through soft body armor that would stop ordinary rounds from the same chambering. Yet due to their low velocity and construction, they are pitiful performers against actual hard "armor", their "AP" abilities are only effective against soft armor.
There are 2 rifle bullets that I can think of that have a "clipped" point to their penetrators(note that they still have a relative "point" though), one is the meager little steel penetrator of the M855/SS109 bullet(which after having used it quite a bit is hardly an ap round by any stretch of the imagination), and the other is the steel core of the Israeli 7.62Nato which I have seen fail miserably just like M61 due to poor core construction.
Personal experience speaking, from having loaded it and then shot it against a wide variety of materials? A truncated cone point is likely the most effective tip/point to put on a penetrator.

That's all fine; I disagree. Again, anecdotes and repeating your POV over and over don't make you right. AP bullets are pointed because that's a more aerodynamic shape. Rod penetrators on tank guns are shaped with a point because it increases spalling. You may write all you want but I'll continue to be right unless you post a reputable source that counters mine. I don't doubt your intuition, but that's not what we're looking for here. Twist rate actually has a greater effect on penetration than does velocity, but the optimum bullet shape is a flat slug. Also, please sign your posts.--Asams10 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


There is more than just acnectodal evidence, personal experience in having fired various AP rounds against 1 1/4inch steel plate will tend to show a person a couple things about how the rounds actually perform. And having always been curious of if there is anything better out there I do keep an eye out for new developments in AP ammo. How come there is no cylinderical flat faced penetrators for 50BMG ? Aerodynamics aside, if it was as effective as you lay claim(or your reference material claims) then ammunition makers would be developing it for use.
May I ask how much experience you have actually have putting AP rounds down range and against what kind of medium?
I'm not about to start posting links to my own personal URLs within this wiki entry but would be more than willing to post them on sites that I am a member of such as AR15.com, TheFiringLine, or any one of several others I am a member of. Your claims are something that I am sure others would like to take part in and discuss openly so I urge you to open this up for discussion else where, if not then I likely will.
Other than this one reference you have regarding the theory of getting metal to flow around a cylinderical AP core, your claims are just as anecdotal at this point. Still haven't seen this link to your reference material, which I would be more than glad to read if it is online. And hopefully it's not referencing very large projectiles such as would be fired from artillery or naval cannons.
Again, if it was so remarkably effective then it would be employed right here and now in modern bullets intended for armor piercing capabilities. And by that I mean, they could easily have a normal jacket giving an aerodynamic shape to it's nose, with a cylinderical AP core under neath that jacket. But what is actually out there, does not demonstrate your claims to be true.
Stop sounding so much like a kid fresh out of boot who takes everything he reads or is told to him as gospel, this based on your statement regarding twist rate having an impact on penetration. I can only assume that you are mentioning twist rate with regards to penetration in tissue, because in hardened materials it is NOT going to matter provided the round is in stable flight at the time of impact. And twist rate will NOT have a more advantageous effect that is above that of velocity, proof is in the pudding with respects to what 30-06 M2 AP is capable of as opposed to what the same bullet being driven from a 300WinMag is capable of. It's again ironed out with the differences in M193 55grn 5.56 versus M855 62grn 5.56, at closer range out of a rifle length barrel the 55grn bullet often exhibits better penetration than the 62grn bullet simply thanks to the velocity(twist rates being equal due to being fired in the same firearm). Yet the 62grn bullet down range, which due to additional mass and better aerodynamics, pulls ahead and begins to penetrate better at extended distances thanks to the retained velocity.
As for twist rates having an effect on bullet tumbling/yawing behavior, a simple search for the research of Dr Martin L Fackler will provide more than enough insight to how "stabilized" and "over stabilized" bullets act in tissue. Only with grossly inappropriate twist rates, where the bullet is likely to tumble in flight long before it impacts the target, is rifling twist rate going to have an effect on penetration.
I'm more or less done with responding to this entry and discussion, want to talk about it more I urge you to bring it over to where there is much more experience and genuinely interested people to discuss it.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=3&f=16

More anecdotal evidence. Falker didn't research AP bullets, however Hughes did. You are wrong on twist as well. The M855 performed better on armor out of a 1-in-7 twist than it did from a 1-in-12 barrel. That's a fact. You still should sign your posts. Just start an account here like you have on ARFCOM and you'll be more annonomous. You've already decided you're right and I'll just have to let you think that. Read the Hughes book.--Asams10 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what Fackler did research on, and until just now I had no idea who you were trying to reference with this stuff about cylinderical wadcutters being optimal in penetrating armor.
regarding twist rates,
Ofcourse 62grn SS109 bullets in M855 are going to perform better fired from a 1:7 than they will a 1:12, it's because a 1:12 twist is generally not going to stabilize a bullet well enough for it to even stay stable in flight. Kinda hard to penetrate a target when it impacts the target broadside or shows signs of keyholing in paper.
Now try something like a 1:9 that will stabilize the bullet just fine and test it against a 1:7 and watch how marginal the differences are.
The reason for the 1:7 twist was never due to some perceived need for enhanced penetration. The twist rate was used due to the problems that came with trying to stabilize the long M856 tracer which has all the length of a match grade 80grn bullet. If it wasn't for the M856 tracer a twist rate of 1:9-1:10 would of sufficed for the 62grn SS109 bullet.
You claim to be a gunnut, come on over and start a discussion in a thread dedicated to the topic by people who have more than a passing interest in such things. I gaurantee it won't be the armchair commando types you evidently think infest the internet, the forum is moderated and they hold people accountable.
I'd love nothing more than to have a lathe and a Corbin bullet press so I could try different nose geometries with a steel core penetrator, there is likely some conical shape that is between a flattened wadcutter like you advocate and the old rounded ogive designs of WWII/Vietnam era M2 projectiles. If I had to guess, I'd look at the geometry of the M993/M995 and MK211 penetrators with their conical points.

I've been on ARFCOM for years. That you hang out there doesn't make you right. Neither does it make pointed bullets penetrate better than flat tips. Feel free to have the last word.--Asams10 07:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Advertisement?

In the middle of the article, there's a segment which mentions (and links to) a website called RCBS. It reads "RCBS, one of many makers, offers many different designs, starting with the basic round ball." While I'm sure it's very convenient to link to a place with information, I fail to see the reason to cite this specific maker, and what it offers. Please advise. Buzinkai 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/l/Talk%7EBullet_f473.html"