In a world without lead, how would you optimize a rifle for monolithic ammunition?

[PBBananaHammock]

I’ll preface by stating I do not use monolithic ammunition and feel no need to do so. This is not a copper vs lead debate. My question is on the subject of optimization.

In this scenario, lead has disappeared as a material for ammunition. The reasons not important, it’s just not an option. If you had to build a rifle optimized for monolithics, what would it look like? What caliber/cartridges most inherently lend themselves to work best with monolithic projectiles? What would the hunting rifle market look like if all ammo was monos?

Some factors I consider but many may not agree with:

For copper, speed is king, so a higher starting velocity and good bc to retain that speed is favorable. This makes the best case for rifles with 24-26in barrels and really throws salt on shorter barrels, non magnums, and for some suppressors. However in the absence of a shot striking bone or dense tissue, many monos lack emphatic expansion below 2400fps (compared to lead). Therefore, manageable recoil to make those shots on demand in the areas of high resistance is desirable, which conversely is a point against magnums and their higher recoil.

Even with perfect shot placement, low velocity performance is nothing compared to soft jacketed lead, so terminally effective range is diminished.

Next to an FMJ or hard cast, copper will penetrate the deepest and cause the narrowest wound tracks. Therefore the strengths are in taking shots at any angle and getting adequate penetration (even with mild cartridges), but the weakness being an entrance and exit wound is essential to bleed out the animal in the absence of a wide wound track like you get with a softer lead round.

I’ve also heard anecdotally that larger calibers such as 280 and 308 are more forgiving with expansion velocity in copper compared to 6mm and 6.5mm bullets, due to the larger hollow point diameters under the ballistic tips. Just holding two bullets in 260 and 280, the 280 hollow point seems much larger even if the bullet diameters themselves are not that dissimilar (I’m not sure if this truly is a real factor in the real world). Also given two cartridges of equal capacity, and bullets of equal weight, the larger caliber will always be faster due to the expansive gases’ surface area on the bullet… So how does, say a 130g 308 stack up against a 130g 6.5? Hypothetically, the 308 would be faster albeit with a lower BC, but could potentially cause a larger wound track at lower velocities due to the larger surface area of the hollow point and increased resistance it would encounter. Is there any significant efficacy to the larger hollow point of wider bore diameters like 308 having a lower velocity threshold for expansion in monos? If so, a larger bore could extend the terminal effective range regardless of its lower BC bleeding velocity compared to an equal weighted and propelled 6.5.

Again I don’t want this to be a debate on the merits of copper vs lead, simply opinions on the most effective way to optimize monolithics. I’m a lead fan, beyond conversion unless legally coerced, and have no intention of buying anything in response to this thread. I just want more knowledge on the subject for the sake of learning.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’ll preface by stating I do not use monolithic ammunition and feel no need to do so. This is not a copper vs lead debate. My question is on the subject of optimization.

An optimized non-lead bullet wouldn’t look anything like current TTSX/CSX/ETIP’s. DRT Technologies is on the right path. You find a metal or substance that performs like lead with impacts. The only way to make a solid copper bullet better than what they currently are is to control yaw- tumbling inside tissue. PVA Cayuga’s are trying to, maybe they do.

 

[PathFinder]

Form beat me to the concept. I'd invent some sort of sintered or powder core that would work like a typical jacketed bullet. Homogenous, hopefully with a density near lead, fragmenting like a lead core. I've been toying with the idea for a while but haven't tried anything.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

Thanks guys, that is an interesting thought. I’m sure the industry would go full speed in finding a similar replacement with similar characteristics to lead. If they could replicate lead characteristics, I image not many design elements we currently have would need to be changed. Except, short of adding tungsten, I’m sure the projectiles wouldn’t be as dense all else being similar.

However, in the absence of the powdered core design being a matured and abundant option (which would be ideal), what attributes would be desirable for options like TTSX/CSX/ETIP’s and etc until that day comes?

Would slowing twist rates down to encourage bullet instability on impact be a viable method to increase the chance of yaw-tumbling? I’m thinking something along the lines of what was done with the first iteration of the m16 and m193 to maximize wounding at high impact velocities.

Short of raw speed and heavy resistance on impact, are there any other variables that can be utilized to stretch the effectiveness of current common mono loadings? Does increasing bullet diameter (ie hollow point size and increasing resistance on impact) seem to make any meaningful difference in leau of fragmentation with current coppers?

 

[hereinaz]

Given the motivation, an alternative that is better than copper but not quite as good as lead will happen.

I could foresee a core of something like bismuth or tungsten, and if they could get the copper jacket thin enough, the bullet could separate into pieces and then send more cutting shrapnel into tissue than an expanded 100% copper bullet. The shrapnel would also tumble and yaw through tissue causing much more damage.

The Hornady A tip with aluminum tip shows manufacturing is good enough to make the tip consist and parts consistent.

Cost would be higher, and would change load development for a lot of people, lol. But, bullets are still one of the smallest cost of the hunt. I just bought my first tungsten and bismuth shotgun ammo for birds. It’s expensive but we’ll worth the cost over steel when I am traveling to AK and won’t be back. I can save steel for puddle jumping ducks in AZ.

In copper bullets available now, I would stick with 7mm for cross section/sectional density, ballistics, and recoil management. I would run the heaviest copper bullet I could and put it in the right spot to kill.

I like lead match bullets for performance over copper, but I know if I put a copper bullet in the same spot I put a lead bullet, the critter is dying. The tissue damage and time to death won’t be any quicker with current copper options, probably slower. But. I would have plenty of confidence in a good shooting copper bullet to send it.

And, there are some shots I would have more confidence with copper, like hard front quartering shots through bone. I don’t hesitate much if I have the shot with lead, but a copper through bone is the best case scenario. Extra bone fragments and penetration make it the best choice.

I may even choose to shoot the shoulders with copper as a tactic for that reason. With lead, a shot in the ribs and through the lungs is devastating and spoils less meat. Copper is an advantage in that respect, spoiling less meat in a shoulder shot.

The only other limiting factor for copper would be impact velocity. I trust lead to open up at lower impact speeds than copper. Lead at a low impact can cause as much damage as a copper at a much higher velocity because less expansion of the lead will lead to more penetration and smaller wound channels/large fragments.

 

[JP100]

I dont think is is as big an issue as people want it to be.



For normal hunting situations the difference in projectile designs and materials is minimal. This theoretical situation you speak of is happening right now in the UK, and potentially will happen in many of countries and states. Just drop a bit of weight and go fast. Dont overthink it.

We likely to see more and more non lead projectile options on the market in the near future, and its likely they will be just as good as lead in every way, except cost.
I think the only issue for the 'normal' monolithic projectiles is those guys who cant stalk and insist on trying to shoot stuff at 800 yards.

I have used monos only for a limited time, but seen many combinations of them used by my clients, and they always work with amazing reliability and consistency.


I thought about trying some 110 barnes in my 300wsm which would be quite an interesting test of the 'extreme' end of the equation. I never did sadly and sold that rifle. But I am sure it would have worked amazingly.
I have used 75gn monos in a .243 on big game, and the results were impressive. weight really leaves the equation with most mono designs.

 

[Bluefish]

I think a big thing is chambers and magazines need to be longer to deal with less dense bullets. Ie longer for the same weight. Faster twists to stabilize the longer bullets. This also increases BC on the low end of stability. Sort of the same stuff hornady has been doing already. If it was clean slate, I expect todays short action is too short and what is todays long action would be a short action.

there are copper bullets that can open slowly. I have some that open down to 1400 and a subsonic that will open down to 800. Unfortunately they tend to have bad BC’s due to tip design. Also BC is lower on average for less dense than lead so they need to go faster to come close down range.

 

[hereinaz]

I dont think is is as big an issue as people want it to be.



For normal hunting situations the difference in projectile designs and materials is minimal. This theoretical situation you speak of is happening right now in the UK, and potentially will happen in many of countries and states. Just drop a bit of weight and go fast. Dont overthink it.

We likely to see more and more non lead projectile options on the market in the near future, and its likely they will be just as good as lead in every way, except cost.
I think the only issue for the 'normal' monolithic projectiles is those guys who cant stalk and insist on trying to shoot stuff at 800 yards.

I have used monos only for a limited time, but seen many combinations of them used by my clients, and they always work with amazing reliability and consistency.


I thought about trying some 110 barnes in my 300wsm which would be quite an interesting test of the 'extreme' end of the equation. I never did sadly and sold that rifle. But I am sure it would have worked amazingly.
I have used 75gn monos in a .243 on big game, and the results were impressive. weight really leaves the equation with most mono designs.

I agree, bullet design, whether in lead or copper is more important than bullet weight. I tell people the right .243/6mm lead bullet will do the same work even in bigger game. We have good data and information to tell us that.

Having a good long range copper bullet is important to me. Depending on terrain, which season, and game density, the long shot could be the only opportunity a guy might get on game in the west.

If I hunt for a week and only have an 800 yard shot, and conditions allow very high confidence, would you tell me to eat tag soup? If you did I wouldn’t listen and I wouldn’t feel like less of a hunter.

Archery only guys could use the same argument you used against every rifle hunter. But, we know a post rut hunt is different than a rut hunt. There is a time and a place.

Lots of coues whitetail tags only get filled in AZ if you can make a cross canyon shot. Or, what if you have a great honey hole that you can’t really hunt in foot, but if you get high you can spot animals but only have long range shots?

I want my high BC copper bullet that expands reliably at low velocity, please.

 

[JP100]

I agree, bullet design, whether in lead or copper is more important than bullet weight. I tell people the right .243/6mm lead bullet will do the same work even in bigger game. We have good data and information to tell us that.

Having a good long range copper bullet is important to me. Depending on terrain, which season, and game density, the long shot could be the only opportunity a guy might get on game in the west.

If I hunt for a week and only have an 800 yard shot, and conditions allow very high confidence, would you tell me to eat tag soup? If you did I wouldn’t listen and I wouldn’t feel like less of a hunter.

Archery only guys could use the same argument you used against every rifle hunter. But, we know a post rut hunt is different than a rut hunt. There is a time and a place.

Lots of coues whitetail tags only get filled in AZ if you can make a cross canyon shot. Or, what if you have a great honey hole that you can’t really hunt in foot, but if you get high you can spot animals but only have long range shots?

I want my high BC copper bullet that expands reliably at low velocity, please.

Dont want to derail the post, but yes if I was the guide(as I am) I would say eat tag soup haha.
The reason is simple, experience.
I have never seen 'that guy' who can take that shot with a high enough reliability to make it worthwhile. and yes, I have had lots of experienced long range hunters and shooters on hunts.


The situation of only having the 800 yard shot never has happened. I have guided mountain game for 10 years, both here in NZ and in Canada. Never have I been in a situation when we could not get closer. There has been a handful of times we have only been able to get to around 400 yards. And we took those shots without issue.



I normally let guys have their fun after the 'trophy' is shot. on goats, wallabies or nanny tahr. The hit to miss ratios past 600 yards are pretty disappointing. But I am sure you and everyone else will have all the stories of one shot cold bore kills at 800 yards....

I am still waiting for that guy to show me it in real life, until then, I will get closer and kill shit dead the first time haha. Its not about being 'unethical', or 'unsporting', its about success. As a guide, success is our game, we want clients to kill animals.
Most guides I know, know that there is a trade of with distance and success. 200-400 yards is the magic distance where stalks are easy, and shots are easy. 800 yards is a 'pissing in the wind' distance, where you are more likely to spook or even worse wound the animal your after.

 

[doc holiday13]

copper with tungsten core

 

[Sundodger]

The big jump I would like to see is higher pressure cartridges like the 277 SIG fury. It would benefit long range shooters as well as tree stand or still hunters. Long range guys could have their 800 yard shots with reasonable barrel lengths and the tree stand/still hunters could have a very short barreled rifle for tight situation maneuvering.

I might be willing to give up a kidney for an accurate integrally suppressed rifle with a total barrel/suppressor length of 16" that flings a .277 cal 130 grain bullet 3,000 FPS for still hunting rosie elk and blacktail deer.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Well, if battery technology continues to improve, the scenario could be a railgun shooting steel.

In all honesty, if it ever did come to pass that lead was no longer available for bullets, we would see the major bullet manufacturers step up with new bullet designs and materials that would address the needs of their customers, just like they do now.

 

[Macintosh]

My guess is that given where the numbers of hunters are and how they hunt (ie midwest and east, with 99.9% of their use inside 300 yards, and most hunters even in the west making shots inside 300 yards), that really nothing would NEED to change. Standard copper bullets like ttsx and similar, as much as they get maligned here, are proven to work reliably at those ranges, and have been doing so for a long time. The folks needing something different are by far in the minority. For sure better options will get developed for them—frangible bullets or bullets that expand more explosively at lower velocities, and with higher bc’s, and factory rifles built to shoot them—but that is already happening. Im sure the pace of that change will increase, though.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

Well, if battery technology continues to improve, the scenario could be a railgun shooting steel.

Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range would not be a fate worse than death…

The biggest change I imagine is the suppressed short barrel and long range rifle market would take a swift kick in the groin until bullet tech perfected a reliable and affordable soft bullet option. I hadn’t considered the Sig hybrid case for higher pressures. Thats an interesting and opposite method of changing the projectile that could create a whole different lineage of rifle design.

I imagine in the short term with the tech that’s readily abundant and affordable, we’d see the same tendencies as the magnum/weatherby craze. Light and stout projectiles, overbored, and constantly driving velocities higher and higher. At least until softer higher BC options became more abundant and affordable.

I would think something with a wide hollow point and low sectional density pushed very fast like a 130g 300wsm would emphasize the strengths of the current monos (inherent penetration advantages) while minimizing the drawbacks in short barrels (minimum impact velocity), and/or extended ranges for more conventional barrel lengths.

 

[SouthPaw]

copper with tungsten core

This.

It already exists. More to come...

 

[medvedyt]

i do not shoot long range distance and i have available at least for the moment: lapua naturalis in .308, .284 and .366 the same for barnes and i have at the last resort some ecx bullets from hornady and they all shoot good enough for me and my rigs.

 

[Sundodger]

Something I should point out, is they already can make copper bullets expand at lower velocity's. The copper bullets (federal Bore Lok) I use in my muzzy have cuts to facilitate this. They open beautifully, I have recovered at least 5 bullets from animals ranging 75 yards to 10 ft with a minimal powder charge and they all are nice flowers.

But seriously, Sign me up for a Creedmoreized Sig Fury.

 

[doc holiday13]

This.

It already exists. More to come...

View attachment 590236

where TF you get that?