Tests by Berger re barrel heat/blowups??

alinwa

oft dis'd member
I read elsewhere that "Tests by Berger Bullets indicated that excessive barrel heat in the last few inches of barrels was one of the most common causes of jacket failure."

And the article was talking about barrel heats "as high as 500 degrees F" over several inches of barrel as adding to bullet blowup rates.

Anyone know of these tests?

I must be out of the loop on this......

I know that Henry C, Eric S and others have indicted friction heating for blowups but this is the first I've heard of the 300-400 degree difference between a "cold barrel" and a "hot barrel" as being important.

comments?

al
 
I'd always heard it was a matter of gas blowby heating the jacket that caused jacket failures.
I suppose if blowby were eliminated, as it should be when the bore shows no erosion and a bullet is a proper fit to the bore, then heating of the last few inches by friction would be the most common cause.

I ran across an article on tests run on water cooled machineguns that suggested friction was the major cause of barrel heating and included some tests run bu drilling tiny holes in the bullet jacket and photographing bullets in flight that showed spiral plumes of vaporized lead.

I'd have to do some digging to find that reference, but at the time it seemed to me that the test methodology was flawed in some ways. For one thing tests to destruction of the Benet Mercier MG showed that the breech including the front of the receiver grew glowing red hot after 6,000 rounds of continous firing. This indicates that a great deal of barrel heeating must come from the thermal gas heating of propellants long before velocity reached the level that friction would be a major factor.The double base powders in use at that time generated far higher temperatures than later propellants though.

PS
A bullet would have to be mighty flimsey to be affected by temperatures of 500 F even for minutes at a time, much less a thousandth of a second or so.


It just occured to me that in early testing of the first Cordite loads for the .303 British they found that if there was no residue in the bore at all, as in a cold clean barrel, the bullet jacket already hot from the high temp gases would often lose a good deal of its lead core while passing through the bore.
If the bore were fouled by use of a different powder the bullet did not suffer the same problem.
The earliest experimantal Cordite contained none of the Mineral Jelly or other additives later introduced to leave a carbon fouling layer to reduce friction and metal fouling fusing to the bore surface.
In that case friction combined with gas heating to loosen the jacket and partially melt the core at core/jacket interface. Among solutions was to change the core alloy and use a thicker jacket. It was suggested that a insulating material be placed between jacket and core.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tests by burger re barrel

I agree with Old gunner. 500deg is not really all that hot.
Not great for the barrel but i doubt it would cause bullet failure.
I guessing it's the rate of spin on the bullet at high velocity,
Friction Thru the air is more then likely the culprit.
 
I agree with Old gunner. 500deg is not really all that hot.
Not great for the barrel but i doubt it would cause bullet failure.
I guessing it's the rate of spin on the bullet at high velocity,
Friction Thru the air is more then likely the culprit.

Bullet blowups within inches of the muzzle happened quite often when the .220 Swift first came along, excessive spin and centifical force was considered to be the culprit.
reducing velocity by several hundred FPS seemed to cure the problem, but made the cartridge far less awesome than its original loading of around 4,000 FPS. Reducing velocity would reduce the spin and its centrifical force. It would also reduce other stesses on the bullet including a slight reduction in friction heating.
I suspect that the very hot charges of high temp Double Base powders quickly eroded the throat and bore, so that gas blowby heating quickly became the major factor in jacket failures.

High speed photos I've seen of .220 Swift blowups show the lead core turing into a steak of vaporized lead, practically disappearing within a few feet of travel.

If friction played a part it would have had to have generated near 1,000 F or more to acheive that result, and it would have had to transfer its heat to the entire core, not just the interface between jacket and core. I don't think a few final inches of travel would do it, just not enough time or calories.

PS
It occurs to me that the results of the Berger tests might be easier to get a handle on if the heat transfer was expressed in calories rather than in degrees.
500 degrees would have little effect on a bullet jacket or core, but a bullet already heated up by other factors then exposed to a significant amount of heat before leaving the bore might pass a tipping point when that energy is absorbed.

It could also be a case of the factors that caused the heating of those last few inches were factors that had already done their worst to the bullet itself. Rather than a hot barrel causing a hot bullet, it might be vice versa.

While the bullet would be reaching its highest veloxcity, bullet engraving and the major sources of riction and pressure would have already passed. At that point heated jacket materials would be more likely to smear off onto the bore than carry heat back to the core.

PPS
Found what may be the source for the quoted, or perhaps misquoted, test results.
#1 02-13-2007, 12:09 PM
Eric Stecker
Registered User Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 266

Bullet Failure Causes and Solutions Defined

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As many of you know we have been working on the bullet failure (blow up) situation for some time. I have been collecting data from numerous shooters over the last 2 ½ years ranging from general observations to controlled experiments. At Berger, we have been working with folks at MIT and with other top minds in metallurgy and ballistics. What I have below is a report on what we have learned.

To briefly review, bullet failure is when the bullet does not hit the target anywhere near the expected impact location. (This is not about the unexpected 8 or the fifth shot out of a bug hole group). This result can be observed as a shot that is driven way off course but does make it to the ground, a shot that appears as a puff of smoke 30 yards or more from the muzzle, and everything in between. The shooter can experience bullet failure with several shots or with one shot out of a string.

The wide range of results and conditions has made it very challenging to sort out the true root cause. The information below is meant to bring the true root causes to the surface. I am not suggesting that these causes exist in every situation; however, they cover the vast majority of bullet failures.

The first two root causes are responsible for the most bullet failures:

Excessive RPM resulting from high velocity and a barrel that has a twist rate much faster than is needed for the bullet used. We are working on determining the general RPM limits for various bullets. This will be a long project, and the data we have now is not enough to publish RPM limits.

Solution: Use twist rates that are the same as or close to (faster) published recommendation. When shooting cartridges that produce higher than normal velocity (high capacity wildcats) consider using twist rates slower than those published since the published twist recommendations are based on velocities achieved by standard cartridges. (How much slower is based on the situation however it will usually be only 1” slower)

Friction that produces heat that exceeds the melting point of lead. This result is observed most often by the puff of “smoke” that will be within the first hundred yards from the muzzle. The “smoke” is in fact molten lead. The puff of molten lead does not always occur during this failure. A core that becomes even slightly plastic will not make it to the target properly.

You have heard me talk about a combination of conditions that produces a failure. I have believed this to be true for a long time but frankly, it has only been recently that we have begun to truly understand what is actually happening. Once we started looking at the possibility of the core melting, all the puzzling information from the various reports began to make sense. This is going to be a lengthy post focused on identifying root causes and their solutions so I will not go into all the various conditions and ranges in which these conditions exist that support these findings.

The report that our bullets would fail while Sierras would not was particularly puzzling. We have known for a while that making the jacket thicker does not make the jacket significantly stronger. As it turns out, we were looking at it from the wrong point of view. We had been looking at a thicker jacket as being a tougher jacket and this just isn’t true, however when you have a thicker jacket you are moving the lead away from the source of the heat (friction between the barrel and the bullet which is mostly in the area of the rifling, not the grooves). Bullets that have thicker jackets are actually thicker in the base and sidewalls near the base, which moves the lead further away from the heat. This increases the amount of friction that the thicker jacketed bullet can realize before the lead core gets hot enough to melt.

Since thicker jackets are difficult to make concentric, we have two solutions. The first is that we are going to work on making thicker jackets for our long-range bullets. This is going to take time, as we will not produce jackets that are greater than .0003 TIR in wall thickness variation. This is harder to do with thicker jackets. The bullets we make now shoot very well and there are several ways that this failure-creating friction can be avoided as it has been by many shooters. Avoiding this condition is the second solution.

Solution for avoiding failure-creating heat using our current bullets: The goal is not to slow the bullet down but rather reduce the heat created by the friction. There are several ways to do this. (Keep in mind that each condition is not absolute and in fact works with other conditions to create failure. Since failures occur occasionally when all the conditions work together to create excessive heat we know that it will not take much to insure that failures are avoided)

First, you can consider your barrel length. It has been found that barrels longer than 28” are capable of produce failure-creating heat. Remember that the bullet is hottest at the muzzle. The more metal the bullet has to travel over, the hotter it gets.

Second, consider using moly, Danzac (tungsten disulfide), or any other dry lubricant as these reduce friction thereby reducing heat. I know moly is a hot button for many shooters however setting all other things aside it works great as a friction (heat) reducer.

Third, consider running a patch with a light amount of Kroil through your barrel prior to shooting. This will lubricate the barrel long enough until the carbon builds up enough to serve the same purpose. The first few shots will be erratic, but failure-creating heat is avoided. Barrels that are squeaky clean produce significant levels of friction if no friction reducers are present before firing. (I am not suggesting that you do not clean your barrel completely but rather pointing out how to avoid failure-creating heat when you start shooting).

Fourth, consider the bore diameter of your barrel (land height not groove depth). Some barrel makers can provide you with different bore diameters. Consider diameters on the larger side of the available options.

Fifth, consider the land configuration in your barrel. Six groove, cut, squared off rifling produces greater friction than a 5C or 5R type barrel. The 5C or 5R type rifling produces more friction than a three-groove barrel. I am not suggesting one is better than another; however, the friction generated by the different rifling designs should not be ignored.

Sixth, consider the cartridge you are using. Cartridges such as the 6X284 or any overbore wildcat are notorious for high velocity and barrel life consumption (rapid erosion). These are some of the main ingredients in failure-creating heat generation.

Please remember that the combination of components used in your rifle is a compromise. I have learned why Berger Bullets fail when others do not. I have decided to share this with you because I am committed to enhancing the experience for the shooter and in my opinion, more information is better even if on the surface this information makes us look bad.

Many shooters avoid failure-creating heat when they use Berger and find that Bergers work best for them. You can look at the information above as a reason not to shoot Berger or you can look at it as detailed instructions on how to make Bergers work for you without the concern of producing failures. If you value the accuracy that Bergers produce, then the above information details areas where you can make an easy compromise now that you have all the facts. If you value the conditions listed above that produce failure-creating heat more than you value the accuracy of Berger Bullets, then your decision is also made easier with these details.

The following root causes are responsible for bullet failures but in smaller numbers:

Human error that produces failure-causing condition. Let’s all admit up front that none of us are perfect. A shooter can create failure-causing condition in the barrel by improper break in, cleaning or storage (crown damage). Failure causing conditions can be created with the load as well. Using the wrong powder, not chamfering necks, excessively tight neck tension damaging the base of the bullet, poor handling practices can also lead to failures. Careful and appropriate firearm handling and loading practices usually avoid these failure causing conditions.

Tight or rough bore that actually tears jacket material away from the bullet. This is an extreme and rare condition that is easily identifiable with a bore scope, by slugging the barrel or by feeling for a spot that is more resistant to cleaning with a tight patch. Barrel makers are quick to resolve this situation.

Poor bullet fabrication such as too low or too high seating pressure. Low seating pressure can create a poor mechanical bond and/or air pockets that further destabilize the bullet. Seating pressure that is too high effects the copper jacket by producing a weakness where the nose can separate from the body. These conditions can be most easily detected by weighing your bullets, as too low or too high seating pressure is mostly the result of an extreme change in the mass of the lead.

Other examples of poor fabrication are any excessive lube on the cores (many bullet makers do not clean their cores before bullets are swaged) or debris between the jacket and the core can produce a weak bond, air pockets and/or significant stability issues through poor balance around the axis. Another poor fabrication condition that is easiest to avoid is lead that contains debris or significant air pockets due to double extrusion. This condition does not exist when a quality source of lead is used. Quality bullet manufacturers of which there are many can avoid all of these fabrication conditions.

There might be some other causes of bullet failures beyond those listed above but they happen is such rare occurrences that they have not been identified and should not weigh heavily on your mind.

It is my sincere hope that you find this information useful toward enhancing your shooting experience.

Regards,
Eric Stecker
Berger Bullets
http://www.benchrest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40028
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alinwa
The thread you are talking about is located in the F-Class forum not the 600-1,000 yard forum.I think Henry C told me the heel of the bullet exceeds 1000 degrees easily and sent me some pictures of his molten lead spewing in a rotational pattern 10 feet from the muzzle going through his yaw cards.He doesn't enter the thread until about page 5 but as usual he is spot on correct.
Lynn aka Waterboy
 
I think Henry C told me the heel of the bullet exceeds 1000 degrees easily and sent me some pictures of his molten lead spewing in a rotational pattern 10 feet from the muzzle going through his yaw cards.

Would that have been open base FMJ bullets? If so that fits in with the early .303 testing described by Lord Cottesloe.
The British added a glazeboard card wad over the charge to both protect the base momentarily and help seal against blowby. When the MkVII ammunition was tested using the same components but without the card wad erosion destroyed accuracy in one sixth the number of rounds fired with the card wad.

I found this thread in the F Class forum.
http://www.benchrest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49336

It appears to me that these tests are basically a recreation of tests run early in the 20th century by the US Ordnance dept and with basically the same results and recommendations.
The more recent testing and research is of course a necessity since velocity levels are generally much higher than they were when the original tests were run.
They also recommended thicker and stronger jacket materials to offset the effects of blowby due to thermal gas erosion.

At some point the .30/06 Ball ammunition was given a pure lead core, the reason why is not exactly clear, a shoratage of alloying agents is given. The result was that the standard 150 gr bullet now weighed 152 grains.
If the information in the threads linked to is correct, and I'm sure that it is, the pure lead core while not as mechanically strong at normal operating temperatures is less prone to failure than the alloyed core would be due to pure lead having a higher melting point.

I'd been looking into causes of bullet blow through and shed jackets occurring inside the barrel rather than blow ups outside the barrel, the basic causes seem to be the same.
Unfotunately huge amounts of data on British experiments during early development of the .303 appear to have been lost or destroyed during a Ministry of Defence house cleaning, called a "slaughter" by researchers.
US Ordnance data can still be found, but its pretty much scattered among mountains of paperwork that never got properly sorted and preserved. Plus I suspect much was lost during the disasterous attempts to digitalize records in the 70's which resulted in the loss of literally millions of pages of data, some of which have been recovered from old microfilm and paper copies in recent years.

Probably much of what was learned is filed in the same warehouse where they keep the Ark of the Covenent and Hitler's brain in a jar.;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OldGunner
I believe Henry sent me the temperatures a typical 1,000 yard match bullet would see every couple inches down a typical barrel used in 1000 yard competition.I would have to dig it out of my note books and will attempt that later tonight.
Waterboy
 
I'd appreciate any such info.

I got to thinking on those bullets observed blowing up far down range.

I doubt air resistence would have heated a bullet that much, but the heat from friction with the air would prevent heat from radiating away from the heated jacket long enough that it could transfer more stored heat to the core after leaving the muzzle.
Also any damage to the base or loss of core material through the open base would progressively destabilize the bullet in flight, reaching a tipping point well downrange and sending it into a tumble that would tear the weakened jacket apart.
 
Alinwa
The thread you are talking about is located in the F-Class forum not the 600-1,000 yard forum.I think Henry C told me the heel of the bullet exceeds 1000 degrees easily and sent me some pictures of his molten lead spewing in a rotational pattern 10 feet from the muzzle going through his yaw cards.He doesn't enter the thread until about page 5 but as usual he is spot on correct.
Lynn aka Waterboy

True,

but this has nothing to do with my question.

al
 
Well its mentioned that longer barrels 28-30" can contribute to bullet blow ups. There could be a number of reasons why a few extra inches of travel could allow heat generated earlier on in bullet travel to penetrate more deeply into the core.
Some materials transfer heat more quickly than others, copper and copper based alloys conduct heat fairly quickly.
Lead based alloys have a tendency to remain solid while heated till a tipping point is reached, then collapse into a molten pool.
A shorter barrel may allow the bullet to escape earlier and begin losing heat by radiation to lower core temperature.

The smaller tighter bores coupled with higher velocities may have introduced factors not readily apparent with the early high performance ammo types such as the .30-06.
I do remember seeing some research done on the super high velocity cartridges that had a short and not very sucessful carreer, mainly due to unsuitable propellants.
I'll look these up to see if they found something applicable to the more modern cartridges of similar performance levels.

PS
an attempt to use Cordite with boat tail bullets in a .303 caliber magnum level long range cartridge turned out poorly. They then tried adding a flange at the junction of the taper to better seal gases and reduce blowby damage to both bore and bullets. It didn't work out well but the experiment might provide something of use.
 
Barrel heats do not necessarily indicate bullet heats. The bullet may well have been experiencing heats well in excess of 500 degrees. Heat may well be the or one of the culprit/s.
 
BTW, in case I was unclear, the "barrel heat" referred to in the blurb I was reading on another website was talking about BARREL HEAT as in how hot the steel barrel was.

It was NOT about friction nor base temp nor height nor depth nor principalities. It said that when your barrel gets "hot" like 500 degrees this could cause bullets to blow up.

I think it's hogwash. And a misrepresentation of the fine work done by HBC and Berger Bullets, among many others.

al
 
About all I can add on barrel heating is that the Hotchkiss air cooled medium MG was said to heat up to a bit over 400 degrees, glowing a dull red from stem to stern, then radiate heat as fast as it was generated. Continuous firing with the barrel that hot was probably not good for the barrel, but doesn't seem to have had much effect on the bullets.

I've gotten an Enfield barrel too hot to touch with ten rounds fired as fast as I could work the action, but still a long way from being red hot, and thats with Cordite MD that generates well over 4,000 degrees F.
 
Back
Top