A Study of Ignition by Rifle Bullets 

[Tiff]

This is a reasonably interesting read, particularly if you shoot gongs and other hard targets:

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rp104.pdf

 

Personally I've seen plenty of AK and other steel jacket rounds ignite fires in grasslands, but interesting to see some empirical evidence.

 

 

[gbal]

Thanks Tiff, interesting indeed (as a competition secretary for a club that has gong shooting over peat uplands,like tomorrow -an early morning shower won't seem such a nuisance now.Would not want the 12th to go to blazes.

 

As you say,you have seen this happen with steel and grass. Others who have no reason to be familiar with well conducted detailed scientific method research testing which confirms and goes well beyond such good observation (big bits of copper are also hot enough,eg) might give a thought to how much effort and expertise actually goes into such studies......and summarising them so as to be accessible (as well as the full detailed report-20 pages,not 20 words).

 

There are few cheap lunches in the knowledge business. :-)

 

gbal

[Chanonry]

ex paras wi tracer are a bigger hazard in my experience...

[miki]

ex paras wi tracer are a bigger hazard in my experience...

Just ex paras really

[Chanonry]

turns out gbal wi tracer is another hazard ... Tennis courts at 550 yards

[brown dog]

Interesting read.

 

Steel ignition and autoignition was/is a no-brainer, but autoignition by copper solids was something that had never occurred to me.

 

The only thing I didn't spot, which seemed a little odd, was any data/research relating to the autoignition point of the test substrate. Probably much lower than most would assume (eg propellant will autoignite as low as 200degC)

 

(George: For all the academic layout, that paper made me smile - all that waffle to make a tiny point; the academia version of 'bullshit baffles brains': For guaranteed success, just follow the thesis tick list, doesn't really matter what you find or whether you say anything meaningful: Define everything ad nauseam, mention anything/everything of vague relevance that you can find, written by other people and then bung in a few semi relevant formulae, also written by other people, then (as the first and only piece of original work) do a really really simple experiment, then throw some stats at the results to make them look complicated and meaningful (rather than, in this case 'tally chart of the number of smouldering holes I counted'- which would risk appearing a little academically pedestrian), bung in some graphs or sciency looking pics to further bolster the faux impression of complexity, conclude by restating what was obvious at the outset - then off for tea and crumpets in the senior common room :) )

[furrybean]

Interesting read.

 

Steel ignition and autoignition was/is a no-brainer, but autoignition by copper solids was something that had never occurred to me.

 

The only thing I didn't spot, which seemed a little odd, was any data/research relating to the autoignition point of the test substrate. Probably much lower than most would assume (eg propellant will autoignite as low as 200degC)

 

(George: For all the academic layout, that paper made me smile - all that waffle to make a tiny point; the academia version of 'bullshit baffles brains': For guaranteed success, just follow the thesis tick list, doesn't really matter what you find or whether you say anything meaningful: Define everything ad nauseam, mention anything/everything of vague relevance that you can find, written by other people and then bung in a few semi relevant formulae, also written by other people, then (as the first and only piece of original work) do a really really simple experiment, then throw some stats at the results to make them look complicated and meaningful (rather than, in this case 'tally chart of the number of smouldering holes I counted'- which would risk appearing a little academically pedestrian), bung in some graphs or sciency looking pics to further bolster the faux impression of complexity, conclude by restating what was obvious at the outset - then off for tea and crumpets in the senior common room :) )

that made I larf!

[gbal]

C,indeed--but it just would not have been cricket to pulverise the gravel randomly.Once "zeroed"-go back to the setting it was last time shot-and do not fiddle-and using carefully reloaded ammo (admittedly for a different rifle) it was on the medium stones at 700 (at 12 x they looked about 4 inches,but reality was clear at 36x,about twice that.Sorry for any hole in your box-it was the big shiney thing-several shots.

 

Matt, you have described the tick box for a very modest 2.2 undergraduate thesis in a mid range university (base camp would be the union bar).Put succinctly,whic process is sometimes legitimate, the PhD has been lampooned a 'Piled Higher and Deeper" which seems to amuse those who would have less sense than to even attempt it. ....:-)

It's on the same pejorative level as " Complete guide to military strategy and operational thinking': if it moves,salute it,if not paint it." **(see below)

(I was chatting to a 'graduate of the university of life'-self styled- a couple of days ago who had "watched" the recent program on Einstein,and thought all this general theory was easy-peasy "He just imagined watching a train go past.Didn't even go to a station.Then sat down and wrote the equation (e= mc squared),which isn't complicated,is it." Sometimes,it is all relative,so I just agreed.

 

Sensible point about the ignition temperature of the peat. p7 says that 'the liklihood of ignition of wild land fires..is not well understood..and as part of that "Ignition of organic matter" section,the last paraoutlines the factors of densitymoisture/mineral/ash content ..of peat.. And references some stidieson Russian peat.But you are correct-no temperatures given here.

p21 suggests why not-citing Hadden and others research(2011)that particules of a certain size need 1100C to ignite dry cellulose, the report adds " whether the ignitability of peat is greater than other materials Is not known,but it should be investigated further."

 

OK,maybe that's why the base temp was not given...do you have access to any dry peat ranges-I have a couple of tracers left....

(The whole 'report' is just that-competently done,but not 'academic' in the sense that it was not "peer reviewed' by academics (their function being to bring up the 'base ignition' point or anything else-though the authors do acknowledge some 'reviewers".It was not an academic Jounal publication,but a (very competent) internal research paper by the Forestry Service,Dept Agriculture.

Whilst acknowledging again Tiff's observations,sometimes much research does sort out detail-as was said about ******(human activity of your choice) 50% is flawed,but without the research it's hard to say which 50%.

 

** Military Strategy/operational reality-just reading "A million bullets" Ferguson,J which seems an insightful account,though there are others as yet unread-

 

As K said,a man can never have too much (red) wine ,(research) books and (tennis court) ammunition.One can but try to PHD them,and consume judiciously.Sante!

 

The 'tennis court' was once an "Afghan Compound'....what comes round,comes round as U of L says (well,50% of the time)

But it takes an Einstein to ask "But can the train be early?"

:-)

[brown dog]

I was chatting to a 'graduate of the university of life'-self styled- a couple of days ago who had "watched" the recent program on Einstein,and thought all this general theory was easy-peasy "He just imagined watching a train go past.Didn't even go to a station.Then sat down and wrote the equation (e= mc squared),which isn't complicated,is it." Sometimes,it is all relative,so I just agreed.

 

Very good. God bless the cognitively limited worldly-wise and their beautiful simplicities (I mean, of course, God bless the mince who are too mince to know they're mince!)

:lol:

[Andrew]

That was a lot of Taxpayer money wasted. Their methods very much engineered their findings. JHMO, but I paid for it....~Andrew