Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Don't think I did so bad

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699

    Don't think I did so bad



    $35. Feels like 100 pounds.

    So...
    Light'em Up!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    Nice! I found an old bullet ingot in my backyard the other day, thought it was pretty cool

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by MattinWA View Post
    Nice! I found an old bullet ingot in my backyard the other day, thought it was pretty cool
    Awesome. I'll be spending lunch tomorrow sorting the bucket. My co-worker, help me sort the other bucket Friday, though it wasn't full. I normally give him the zinc or steel weights.

    So...
    Light'em Up!

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    You may not want to give away all of that zinc.

    Aguila Ammo used to make a zinc alloy .45acp bullet that weighed 117 grains. It was sold as the .45ACP IQ. See http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i...p/t-10690.html http://wethearmed.com/handguns/aguila-iq-ammunition/ Supposedly Aguila stopped importing it (they'e a Mexican firm) because some cops "claimed" the bullet could pierce soft armor, and rather than fight the fight of disproving the rumor they just gave up.

    Lots of folks put it down as having poor penetration performance, and almost as many others showed pictures of feral hogs that they had taken using it.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    I've been debating this. I've been doing some research, and what I've read, the zinc round is good for 30-40 yards before it runs out of steam. This is acceptable to me, for a personal defense round. Just trying to find hard data for it.

    So...
    Light'em Up!
    Last edited by mpguy; 11-03-2013 at 07:02 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    I've been debating this. I've been doing some research, and what I've read, the zinc round is good for 30-40 yards before it runs out of steam. This is acceptable to me, for a personal defense round. Just trying to find hard data for it.

    So...
    Light'em Up!
    Did the sources you read state why zinc would lose steam any more or less then lead or steel core? It'd be the same grain bullet correct? I'm not a physicist, i just figured if it was the same mass then it should fly the same as long as all else is the same.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Did the sources you read state why zinc would lose steam any more or less then lead or steel core? It'd be the same grain bullet correct? I'm not a physicist, i just figured if it was the same mass then it should fly the same as long as all else is the same.
    From my understanding, zinc weighs less than lead of the same size. Using the same load data as lead, zinc will scream out of the barrel, because it's lighter. Due to having less mass, it won't hold the speed like lead, as it travels down range.

    This is how I gather it.

    I'm starting to think as we look at California, now is the time to start looking collectively for a alternative, as a precaution. Only having one option can't be a good thing.



    So...
    Light'em Up!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    Awesome. I'll be spending lunch tomorrow sorting the bucket. My co-worker, help me sort the other bucket Friday, though it wasn't full. I normally give him the zinc or steel weights.

    So...
    Light'em Up!
    Do u work with/know alot about metals. My ingot says "federated castomatic" on the top, and is stamped "mor-tin linotype" on the back. I did a google search for a while and discovered that it was a bullet ingot, but its composition was not a definite from my search. Anyone know?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    I believe Linotype is tin, antimony, and lead smelted together. I've picked up what I know by reading here, Google, and what I've picked up watch my father. He is in the Hvac business. Does a lot of brazing, and welding.

    So...
    Light'em Up!

  10. #10
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    From my understanding, zinc weighs less than lead of the same size. Using the same load data as lead, zinc will scream out of the barrel, because it's lighter. Due to having less mass, it won't hold the speed like lead, as it travels down range.
    You're dealing with density of the bullet - lead is denser that steel than tin. For the same volume, lead weighs more than steel than tin - more weight/unit of volume. Steel is 7.8 grams/cm3 and lead is 11.3 gm/cm3 - or about 50% heavier. From the explosion of the same amount of gunpowder - the momentum of the bullet is mass x speed - a heavier bullet will go slower, and a lighter bullet will go faster. The other factor is wind friction, or drag. The faster the bullet speed, the greater the drag - drag for the same object size would be the square of the bullet speed. By varying bullet metal density, size of bullet, load of powder - or by doing calculus on the various combinations, you'd come up with alternative 'combinations' that you could use to obtain similar results if you say - wanted to have maximum impact at 27 feet.

    As was suggested on another thread, it w/b optimal to use depleted uranium if lead was getting hard to find - 19 gm/cm3.
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    You're dealing with density of the bullet - lead is denser that steel than tin. For the same volume, lead weighs more than steel than tin - more weight/unit of volume. Steel is 7.8 grams/cm3 and lead is 11.3 gm/cm3 - or about 50% heavier. From the explosion of the same amount of gunpowder - the momentum of the bullet is mass x speed - a heavier bullet will go slower, and a lighter bullet will go faster. The other factor is wind friction, or drag. The faster the bullet speed, the greater the drag - drag for the same object size would be the square of the bullet speed. By varying bullet metal density, size of bullet, load of powder - or by doing calculus on the various combinations, you'd come up with alternative 'combinations' that you could use to obtain similar results if you say - wanted to have maximum impact at 27 feet.

    As was suggested on another thread, it w/b optimal to use depleted uranium if lead was getting hard to find - 19 gm/cm3.
    Depleted uranium don't sound safe..

    So...
    Light'em Up!

  12. #12
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    Depleted uranium don't sound safe..

    So...
    Light'em Up!
    Well..... wouldn't they be easier to find at night?
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    Depleted uranium don't sound safe..

    So...
    Light'em Up!
    Quote Originally Posted by jt59 View Post
    Well..... wouldn't they be easier to find at night?
    Tell the .mil that DU is unsafe - they use it for all sorts of rounds just because it is denser per volume than lead.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...mstrade.kosovo

    Metallic uranium occurs naturally in tiny quantities. In its native state it is a mixture of highly radioactive uranium-235 and less active U-238. U-235 is used in reactors and atomic weapons; once it is extracted, the rest is depleted uranium (DU). It is a poisonous heavy metal like lead or mercury, but only slightly radioactive.

    To understand why DU makes a good anti-tank weapon you have to enter the Alice In Wonderland world of high-energy collisions. When metal meets metal at five times the speed of sound, hardened steel shatters like glass. Metal flows like putty, or simply vaporises. A faster shell does not necessarily go through more armour, but, like a pebble thrown into a pond, it makes a bigger splash.

    Armour penetration is increased by concentrating the force of a shell into as small an area as possible, so the projectiles tend to look like giant darts. The denser the projectile, the harder the impact for a given size. DU is almost twice as dense as lead, making it highly suitable. The other metal used for anti-tank rounds is tungsten, which is also very hard and dense. When a tungsten rod strikes armour, it deforms and mushrooms, making it progressively blunter. Uranium is "pyrophoric": at the point of impact it burns away into vapour, so the projectile stays sharp. When it breaks through, the burning DU turns the inside of a vehicle into an inferno of white-hot gas and sparks.

    Normal uranium is not as hard as tungsten. But a classified technique allows it to be hardened. This is believed to involve alloying it with titanium and cooling it so that it forms a single large metallic crystal rather than a chaotic mass of tiny crystals. This structure is very strong and produces an improvement similar to the difference between a brittle pencil lead and a carbon-fibre tennis racquet. The final advantage of uranium is cost. Machined tungsten is expensive, but governments supply DU more or less free.
    And the claims that DU is "radioactive waste" that causes birth defects? It's not radioactivity that is the problem, and you pretty much need to give it a few decades to leach into the ground water and be picked up by crops, animals or drink the disolved stuff.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Tell the .mil that DU is unsafe - they use it for all sorts of rounds just because it is denser per volume than lead.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...mstrade.kosovo



    And the claims that DU is "radioactive waste" that causes birth defects? It's not radioactivity that is the problem, and you pretty much need to give it a few decades to leach into the ground water and be picked up by crops, animals or drink the disolved stuff.

    stay safe.
    Please no suspension - tell me how the solution is disolved.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    From the article :

    *It is a poisonous heavy metal like lead or mercury, but only slightly radioactive

    --everywhere you go, no matter what, you are exposed to detectable levels of radiation.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by MattinWA View Post
    From the article :

    *It is a poisonous heavy metal like lead or mercury, but only slightly radioactive

    --everywhere you go, no matter what, you are exposed to detectable levels of radiation.

    C'mon now! Didn't you know the sun doesn't output radiation anymore??

    So...
    Light'em Up!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    C'mon now! Didn't you know the sun doesn't output radiation anymore??

    So...
    Light'em Up!

    Sun, plants rocks, you, radiation is detectable from just about everything. Also an important note: there is no scientific proof that radiation doses to pregnant mothers correlate to higher birth defects. Or that radiation is a factor in post exposure procreation.
    Last edited by MattinWA; 11-04-2013 at 10:09 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by MattinWA
    there is no scientific proof that radiation doses to pregnant mothers correlate to higher birth defects. Or that radiation is a factor in post exposure procreation.
    I've found people who say you're right, and others who say you're wrong.

    The Radiation Effects Research Foundation says you're right.
    "No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among children of survivors. Monitoring of nearly all pregnancies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began in 1948 and continued for six years."

    I'm curious to know how the children did. Did they have higher incidence of cancers, birth defects for their kids, etc.?

    The Atomic Bomb Museum says you're wrong.
    "surveys revealed a high frequency of aberrations in blood cells and lymphocytes in fetuses exposed to large radiation doses in utero (in the womb) or soon after birth."

    "A Nagasaki survey of 98 pregnant women exposed at a distance of 2.0 km from ground zero and 113 pregnant women exposed at 4.0 and 5.0 km from ground zero, showed a high percentage of neonatal and infantile deaths for those exposed within a 2.0 km range, as well as signs of acute radiation illness such as loss of hair, bleeding tendency, and inner mouth lesions. Mental retardation was noted in 25% of newborn survivors.

    Besides high mortality rates, retarded growth and development was also indicated. Most notable in those exposed within 1.0–5.0 km of ground zero were retarded stature, underweight, and smaller head circumference, a condition called microcephaly, one of the most pathetic aftereffects of the atomic bombings, especially when accompanied by mental retardation."







    -

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    The Atomic Bomb Museum says you're wrong.
    "surveys revealed a high frequency of aberrations in blood cells and lymphocytes in fetuses exposed to large radiation doses in utero (in the womb) or soon after birth."

    What u describe here is cancer. No one disputed that a large enough dose of radiation will give you cancer, its well documented.







    -[/QUOTE]

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    Atomic bomb museum "surveyed" 98+113 women.
    Radiation effects research center examined over 60,000 babys...
    Last edited by MattinWA; 11-04-2013 at 02:49 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    Some of the smaller pieces.





    So...
    Light'em Up!

  22. #22
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    …..Monitoring of nearly all pregnancies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began in 1948 and continued for six years."
    I don't know about you fellas, but I am sure my wife and her girl friends would KNOW that after a 6 year pregnancy, SOMETHING wrong was going on there….
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    I don't know about you fellas, but I am sure my wife and her girl friends would KNOW that after a 6 year pregnancy, SOMETHING wrong was going on there….
    Major grammar fail!

    You were looking for them to say was "nearly all pregnancies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began begun in 1948 and continued continuing for six years."

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    Depleted uranium don't sound safe.
    Perfectly as safe as lead. Depleted means all the good stuff has been removed. Fear of DU is a subdivision of hoplophobia.

    About the health and safety of radiation, see Genevieve Matanoski, JHU, in general and in particular her Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study - NSWS (Health effects of low-level radiation in shipyard workers)- http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?abbr=DE92003069

    There is a strongly positive correlation between radiation exposure and general health, called radiation hormesis.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

    Extrapolation of bomb survivor data towards no/low exposure gave us the Linear No Threshold hypothesis of BEIR and UNSCEAR.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

    I am an extreme datum of NSWS with ~3 REM WBE
    Last edited by Nightmare; 11-13-2013 at 06:48 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    519
    Naturally occurring Uranium is about 99.3% U-238 and 0.07% U-235. Natural Uranium is processed (enriched) to separate as much of the fissile U-235 as possible for use in reactors and nuclear bombs. What is left over is uranium that has been depleted of its U-235. Depleted uranium is comprised almost entirely of U-238. No radiation hazard at all. Wouldn't want to be shot at with a depleted uranium projectile, but you won't grow a third eye due to radiation.

    The health issues in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the detonation of the atomic bombs were far more likely to be from exposure to the massive X-ray flash from the bomb's detonation and not from residual uranium or fallout. Anyone close enough to ground zero would have simply been vaporized by the X-ray pulse. Those farther away who managed to survive the X-ray flash, thermal pulse, shock wave, fires, etc. could have received X-ray doses which could have been lethal in a few hours or decades.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •