Talk:Very-low-drag bullet

Toxicity
The article states:
 * ...alloys of copper, nickel,and tellurium. These materials are also popular because (aside from tellurium) they are nontoxic, improving the quality of hunted meat, by eliminating lead consumption health risks for the consumers of hunted meat.

It is hard to know where to begin with the errors and misleading statements in this short quote. Firstly, all of the listed materials are toxic; lead, tellurium, nickel, and yes, even copper. It is not easy to compare toxicities of different materials, so I'll just plump for the easiest number: the PEL for soluble salts. Far from tellurium being significantly more toxic than copper, in fact tellurium, copper and lead are actually quite similar, with PELs respectively 100 µg/m³, 100 µg/m³ and 50 µg/m³. Nickel is the least toxic, with a PEL of 1000 µg/m³ -- however unlike the others, its TLV is an order-of-magnitude lower than its PEL.

IF significant amounts of these metals dissolved into the tissues of shot game animals during the brief period between shooting and dressing, then any of them would be dangerous -- including pure copper. However the fact of the matter is that unlike in the form of soluble salts, in the form of solid metal none of them are particularly dangerous -- not even lead. The solid metal form simply cannot be absorbed by an animal or human body, so it is dangerous only in the form of a fine mist that can be inhaled, or if it reacts with something to convert it to a form that is more readily absorbed. And since all of these metals are highly corrosion resistant, difficult to oxidise at room temperature, and simply do not easily turn into soluble salts, as evidenced by archaeological recovery of lead bullets that have not dissolved to any measurable degree despite weathering for centuries. It certainly will not happen to any appreciable degree during the few minutes before the meat is dressed.

This is borne out by studies of lead blood levels in hunters who routinely hunted with lead bullets, as discussed in Lead poisoning. None of the hunters showed levels of concern, and their average level was actually significantly lower than the average level in the non-hunting population (who probably spend more time in cities, exposed to trace levels of soluble salts of lead from industrial processes.)

So why is lead shot a concern for waterfowling? It is specifically due to a peculiarity of their digestive tracts, in which they hold many small hard objects in the gizzard to abrade their food. Normally this would be gravel, but if they eat shot pellets, they will hold them indefinitely, until they are ground away to nothing. This fine grinding in the presence of acid, and continual removal of the protective oxide coat, greatly increases the metal absorption. It is not peculiar to lead; if we used copper shot, the ducks would probably be getting elevated copper levels and possibly copper toxicity. (And indeed the same for steel shot, but iron is much less toxic -- and an important nutrient at moderate levels -- and the body is also better able to excrete excess iron.) This process is of no relevance to hunting with bullets. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Removed controversial section Chalky (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This contains just a very marginal amount of truth... That PEL based risk assessing just gives you a very narrow image of the whole problem and is too much used by pro lead lobbying to distract people from the real issues. I read exactly that argumentation on a hornady flyer at an exhibition but it is of very little use at all. Lead is more reactive than copper is. That alone leads (in general, too complex to cover all circumstances) to higher ion concentrations of lead ions than copper ions in the same environment and boundaries. While lead is heavier, higher ion concentration means an even more-than-linear higher mass concentration like the PEL is => PEL is a completely useless scale to assess these issues. Copper again is at least an essential trace element for human physiology while lead is only known as a (mild) poison. One of the concerns of lead bullets is the lead output into the environment, as usually most of a bullet is meant to fly straight through the game.


 * Only the waterfowling paragraph is completely supportable. This is why steel shot is used nowadays. I have not heard of copper shot as shotgun bullets, yet. Too expensive while steel does the job. --Dispatcher7007 (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Spam
User:JamesBWatson wants to add spam and non-existing sites to the article, and has the chutzpah to call me a vandal for removing them. Is this acceptable behaviour? --91.10.7.177 (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a mistake apparently. --91.10.7.177 (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC) THERE ARE SO MANY ERRORS IN THIS ARTICLE OF SO-CALLED VLD WHICH DOESNT EXSIST AND NEVER BEGAN IN THE 1980-1990'S ETC.THE EDITOR OF THIS VLD OR VERY LOW DRAG (MADEE SOMETHING UP TOSOUND COOL) KNOWS NOTHING OF THE TRUTH AND JUST GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE REALLY ANGRY WITH HIM.

Bad statement in the "Development" section: "a cavity or hollow in the bullet nose (hollow point) to shift the projectile's centre of gravity rearwards"
This is the usual nonsense that bullet manufacturers often claim as a benefit, but it cannot be further away from the physical reality.
 * 1) Shifting the bullets center of gravity rearwards is the worst thing you could possibly do for aerodynamic stability (quote any scientific book about aerodynamics, I prefer John D. Anderson: Fundamentals of aerodynamics). It just increases the amount of spin stabilization needed!
 * 2) It reduces the mass of the bullet, as you are launching air. That harms VLD properties. You could just as well send more mass down range with less amount of spin stabilization needed.
 * 3) The only (!!!) reason bullet manufacturers do this at all is because the production process of jacketed bullets is unstable with filled nose cones and drawn tips and suffers from uneven mass distribution which leads to imbalance spiraling of the bullet, which cannot be controlled with the existing tech. Bullet manufacturers do not want to invest in new machinery. Many of the bullet presses already made bullets for the WWs (!!!) although those machines are not the ones shown in the marketing movies. They much rather sell you the old stuff for good money. Because only very few people know enough about aerodynamics AND production processes to uncover that idiocy, it works. Wikipedia should not be part of it.
 * Combined that is actually a way to inhibit VLD efforts and is just a method to counter negative side effects of an outdated production process for bullets. --Dispatcher7007 (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

tellurium alloy mono-metal vld bullet/
I cannot find any evidence of mono-metal vld bullets being sold that are marketed as being constructed of 'tellurium alloy'. Perhaps there might be an alloy that contains a percent or two of tellurium, but I can't find any evidence of that either. Even if that is the case, calling it a tellurium alloy is at least less than forthright. Some easily machinable alloys composed mostly of iron, contain minute amounts of tellurium, but if you asked for 'tellurium alloys' instead of 'steel' from the producer/distributer/retailer, they would likely deny having any in stock. . In the previous comments, those attempting to draw similarities between the safety of copper and the safety of lead, probably need to reduce their lead intake.

70.171.47.39 (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)bgriffin

Mono-metal
Could we get a brief explanation of what a "mono-metal" bullet is, how it compares to regular bullets, etc? I see a lot about the technical aspects of constructing one, but I have no idea what a "mono-metal bullet" IS, other than what I can glean from common sense..45Colt 18:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)