Hollow Point Bullets and Metal Consumption

Because they're hollow, I'm guessing that hollow point bullets use less metal than normal ones. I'm not sure if the more complicated shape would negate any production benefits. Might they be useful for a blockaded, but industrialized nation (ignoring the ethical angle)?
 
The point im making is that what ever tiny amount of metal their spared would be insignificant if they are forced to do it,it would mean they have already stripped all the cars,planes etc that they didnt need,all in all its probably easier to just smuggle bullets in illegaly.
 
The point im making is that what ever tiny amount of metal their spared would be insignificant if they are forced to do it,it would mean they have already stripped all the cars,planes etc that they didnt need,all in all its probably easier to just smuggle bullets in illegaly.
If you're making a million bullets and you can use 20% less metal that's over 200k more bullets to make. When OTL's WWII had people donating every bit of scrap metal they had and ripping up old rail lines for the metal I don't think those savings are insignificant.
 
I don't think 'hollow point' bullets use less metal than other bullets. I believe the name comes from the concept that the point of the bullet is an indentation (or hollow) that causes the bullet to spread apart when it hits a solid or even semi-solid object. This causes much more damage to the human body and is therefore outlawed by 'the rules of war'
 
Isolated crazy regimes are rarely that efficient.

I dont think even north korea went through such measures.

Sure it might save some metal but you would probably need to retool the factories to make different bullets.

But what country would need such efficient bullet production?
 

Delta Force

Banned
Hollow point rounds don't have very good penetration capabilities, and are also less aerodynamic. A plastic ballistic tip would be required for rifle rounds to bring back some of the lost accuracy. Also, bullets weigh only a few grams. The 7.62 mm NATO bullet, a medium sized small arm cartridge, has only a 10 gram bullet. If a million 7.62 mm bullets are produced that is only 10 metric tons of material. Even a billion bullets would be only 10,000 metric tons of material. The United States military received 47 billion small arm rounds in World War II, which is still only 470,000 metric tons of material. I say only because a country could always switch to using steel or another material for bullets, and any industrialized country should have well over million or so tons of steel production capacity per year.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Going to steel cartridge cases vs brass saves you a lot more copper for jackets.

Apart from being impossible to reload the cases, what are the other disadvantages of using steel cases? Doesn't steel have lower heat dissipation compared to brass cases?

Also, considering how much steel rounds would tear up the guns, it would probably be best to save metal on the cases where possible before considering using steel bullets.
 
Hollow point rounds don't have very good penetration capabilities, and are also less aerodynamic. A plastic ballistic tip would be required for rifle rounds to bring back some of the lost accuracy. Also, bullets weigh only a few grams. The 7.62 mm NATO bullet, a medium sized small arm cartridge, has only a 10 gram bullet. If a million 7.62 mm bullets are produced that is only 10 metric tons of material. Even a billion bullets would be only 10,000 metric tons of material. The United States military received 47 billion small arm rounds in World War II, which is still only 470,000 metric tons of material. I say only because a country could always switch to using steel or another material for bullets, and any industrialized country should have well over million or so tons of steel production capacity per year.

Well 470,000 metric tons isn't insignificant. That's 4.5 Nimitz carriers worth of material.

Less than I'd hoped though.
 
Apart from being impossible to reload the cases, what are the other disadvantages of using steel cases? Doesn't steel have lower heat dissipation compared to brass cases?

Also, considering how much steel rounds would tear up the guns, it would probably be best to save metal on the cases where possible before considering using steel bullets.

Steel, even very mild steel doesn't expand as much under pressure as brass so chambers will be leaky and get a lot of powder residue deposited in it. In a manually operated gun or one with very loose clearances and firing strongly tapered cartridges (e.g. AK-47), this isn't a problem, but for semiautomatics with tighter clearances residue buildup could degrade reliability.

Steel rounds by itself are no harder on the gun than brass cartridges.

Making a bullet a hollowpoint will not save any material by itself; after all, a 150 grain hollowpoint bullet has exactly as much materials as a 150 grain full metal jacket. If you want to save 20% on materials, why not just make a 120 grain full metal jacket bullet instead?
 
... OTL's WWII had people donating every bit of scrap metal they had and ripping up old rail lines for the metal...

I've heard of that too. So, question: how much of that was due to a desperate need for metal, and how much was to give people the 'proper attitude' about making sacrifices during wartime? By the time you've recycled enough pans to make a Spitfire you've used a lot of energy on them; it might just be easier to get new aluminium. But you have also got people trained to look for more ways they can help the war effort, things they can give up or do without. And you've taught them there are things they can do to help bring victory, which is not insignificant in itself for morale purposes. These other purposes might be just as valuable as whatever metal you get from the exercise.
 
Steel, even very mild steel doesn't expand as much under pressure as brass so chambers will be leaky and get a lot of powder residue deposited in it. In a manually operated gun or one with very loose clearances and firing strongly tapered cartridges (e.g. AK-47), this isn't a problem, but for semiautomatics with tighter clearances residue buildup could degrade reliability.

Germans made a lot of 7.92mm steel case for machine guns, and East Germany made it past WWII.

Worked fine in the MG-42 and other machine guns

Ditto for 9mm for their pistols and smgs
 
The choice of brass versus steel cartridges is decided more by local mines (and access to imported ores) than by cost.
A country with copper mines will cheerfully make brass cartridges, while countries that can only import copper may resort to substitutes.

Shortages of other strategic metals can lead to some bizarre alliances. For example, Russia owns the bulk of titanium mines, so during the Cold War, the USA was forced to import titanium from South Africa. The USA pretended to deplore South African racial policies, but they still bought many tons of titanium from SA. Meanwhile, the CIA quietly shared intelligence about communist troop movements in Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, etc.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The choice of brass versus steel cartridges is decided more by local mines (and access to imported ores) than by cost.
A country with copper mines will cheerfully make brass cartridges, while countries that can only import copper may resort to substitutes.

Shortages of other strategic metals can lead to some bizarre alliances. For example, Russia owns the bulk of titanium mines, so during the Cold War, the USA was forced to import titanium from South Africa. The USA pretended to deplore South African racial policies, but they still bought many tons of titanium from SA. Meanwhile, the CIA quietly shared intelligence about communist troop movements in Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, etc.

Doesn't the brass absorb heat better too and lend itself to reloading? The military obviously wouldn't be too concerned about the ability to reload spent casings, and steel is probably less expensive than brass, so there has to be some reason why Western militaries use brass casings.
 

Redbeard

Banned
In two bullets of similar size the hollow-point would use slightly less lead, but only a few percent. I have never heard that lead was in real shortage during WWII. Anyway, personal weapons are quite insignificant, both in the fighting power of an army and in logistic footprint.

Considdering brass/copper the driving bands on artillery shells probably will take up much more than rifle cartridges.


I reload ammunition for my hunting rifles and wouldn't even considder using steel cases - brass simply is very superior.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
If you're making a million bullets and you can use 20% less metal that's over 200k more bullets to make. When OTL's WWII had people donating every bit of scrap metal they had and ripping up old rail lines for the metal I don't think those savings are insignificant.
That assumes that the metal is the bottleneck in bullet manufacture. In which case you should be able to pick them up for little over their scrap value.

Much of the donated metal was pretty useless and only gathered for morale purposes. People needed a way to fight back. I'm thinking of things like the railings cut down in Britain. Recycling aluminium, particularly aircraft grade, being a notable exception. It wasn't until Speer took over that Germany started using metal from irreparable aircraft and crash wreckage, but it made a big difference to the amount of this strategic material available. Yet even then soldiers were not 'policing' their spent brass cartridges for reloading.
 
Top