4.7 Article

Weight retention and expansion of popular lead-based and lead-free hunting bullets

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 904, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166288

关键词

Ammunition; Ballistics; Copper bullets; Lead; Simulants; Wildlife

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article examines the impact of bullet construction on animal tissues. The study found that copper bullets can retain over 98% of their weight, while lead bullets only retain between 13-55%. Furthermore, copper bullets demonstrate more consistent expansion, while lead bullets can experience separation between their copper alloy jacket and lead core.
Hunting bullets are often comprised of a lead core covered with a copper alloy jacket. When the bullet collides with an animal, particles-sometimes millions-can shed from the projectile and embed in animal tissues. Those lead fragments can persist in game meat and remain in the discarded viscera that many wildlife species scavenge. Bullets often differ in design, so it is vital to assess their weight retention and expansion, which affects how much metal they deposit in tissue and how effectively they kill animals. We fired 12 types of hunting bullets into water to measure their weight retention and expansion at 91 m and 238 m (100 and 260 yards). Bullet constructions included copper, tin, bonded lead, partitioned lead, and cup-and-core lead. On average, copper bullets retained >98 % of their weight, whereas cup-and-core lead bullets retained <13-55 %, depending on the brand and shot distance. One brand of bonded lead bullet retained mass (>= 96 %) nearly as well as copper bullets, while another brand retained much less (similar to 71 %). Two types of copper bullets expanded similarly between test distances, while a third expanded less at 238 m. Cup-and-core lead bullets often experienced a separation between their copper alloy jacket and lead core. Our data emphasize that lead-based bullets of similar construction can drastically differ in weight retention and expansion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据