|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 members (bigblock, arrieta2, SKB, Southern Sport, Perry M. Kissam, 1 invisible),
1,152
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,445
Posts544,844
Members14,406
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
If a specific post was interesting or useful to you, we recommend that you Like that post. It tells the post author, and others, that you found the information valuable. Clicking Like is another way to let others know that you enjoy it without leaving a comment.
Log in to join the conversation and Like this content.
|
|
|
|
SKB (Feb 13th 2021) |
|
Total Likes: 1 |
|
 Re: Lead alloy formula?
#592025
Feb 12th a 08:14 PM
|
| by Parabola |
| Parabola |
Gentlemen,
Are we not missing the known unknown?
Pamtnman in his post on 10th February says the “original bullet has the copper peg in the tip”.
If, as I take it the bullet is for a British black powder express rifle, the “peg” is likely to be the closed top end of a copper tube, extending perhaps half way down the bullet and filled with air (or perhaps fulminate?) to promote sudden and violent expansion on impact.
In case it is fulminate I would suggest not trying to dismantle it.
The hollow is likely to be at least the volume of a 40 grain .22 bullet (perhaps narrower but longer) and would easily account for the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|