Sparks and AR500?

[Red Delicious]

I'm on an advisory committee for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) concerning shooting on the Wenas Wildlife Area. A concern here in Eastern Washington is wildfire. The Cheatgrass infestation provides large amounts of tinder just waiting to ignite. Does anyone know of studies relative to spark production with AR500 steel and hunting bullets?

Thanks

 

[hydehunter]

good question,I would like to know also as I just pulled my targets off the property here in So Dakota as it is very dry and I would not like to pay for a burned hay field due to fire from a spark on steel, thanks Jim

 

[BallisticsGuy]

I'm on an advisory committee for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) concerning shooting on the Wenas Wildlife Area. A concern here in Eastern Washington is wildfire. The Cheatgrass infestation provides large amounts of tinder just waiting to ignite. Does anyone know of studies relative to spark production with AR500 steel and hunting bullets?

Thanks

Yep. http://www.iawfonline.org/FS STUDY WILDFIRE BULLETS.pdf

 

[Red Delicious]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

 

[Bear Camp]

I can personally tell you in very low light I have see faint sparks at 1,000 yards on AR 500 plate with a 338 EDGE and 300 grain Berger bullets. I dont like to be regulated much but because of my personal experiences I have been very careful when shooting in late summer. I usually wait till a rain comes through. Tough to regulate this when some common sense is all that's needed. Best of luck to you and the shooting community.

 

[Red Delicious]

I can personally tell you in very low light I have see faint sparks at 1,000 yards on AR 500 plate with a 338 EDGE and 300 grain Berger bullets. I dont like to be regulated much but because of my personal experiences I have been very careful when shooting in late summer. I usually wait till a rain comes through. Tough to regulate this when some common sense is all that's needed. Best of luck to you and the shooting community.

I don't mind the regulations if they are based on scientific fact and common sense. As you said if there was more common sense we would need fewer regulations. From what I've read of the report so far what you're probably seeing are bullet fragments that have enough kinetic energy converted to thermal energy to achieve temperatures upward of 900 C. With the proper conditions and tender certainly a potential for fire. We have both, it's supposed to be at or near 100 F for the rest of this week and a wet spring gave the cheat grass a bumper crop. What we as a committee need to do is come up with suggestions that will hopefully mitigate some of the issues and provide safe shooting for as much of the year as safely possible.

Thanks for the input the more the better!

Craig O.

 

[Bullet bumper]

I have fired thousands and thousands of all kinds of rounds Military and civilian commercial in everything from Jungle to Deserts to tinder dry plains and in Pine and Eucalyptus bush and never seen a fire started ever with bullets bouncing of all kinds of metal objects except when using tracer rounds they start fires easy . Steel jacketed bullets spark much more and could be a greater risk . Can't see AR500 steel being much different to a tank . Chain saws , motor bikes , vehicles , camp fires and lightning strikes are a far greater fire starting risk in my view . If the general area around the steel target is clear of fuel I can't see any risk.

 

[Country Bumpkin]

I think it's safe to say that where there's fuel there's potential for fire. Add a spark and you just landed yourself in front of the feds with some very large fines and possible jail time.

So, what are the options?

We either choose not to shoot, shoot and risk it, or modify our shooting area and be prepared to address any potential hazards.

I like to shoot, so I'm curious about mitigation efforts in lieu of restrictions. I would be curious to see a study of "frag dispersement". Most of us on this forum like to shoot steel plates. There are multiple options for this, spinners, hanging plates, competition trees. All of the various options are going to spread frag differently. Let's consider the most common option, a hanging gong, how does this target spread frag?

Is it possible to determine a safe no-fuel zone that can be cleared around the target site? As shown the image on the previously posted link the projectile hits the target, the target reacts from the suspended hinge point and a lot of the frag is deflected down and to the rear of the target. What we'd need to know is where does the rest of the frag end up? How far away will a 210 grain 30 cal frag end up to the sides of the gong? Is it too large of a dispersement for the average Joe to be willing to clear the area of fuels? Is there an average clear-area that could be considered a standard safe zone for the common range of calibers (let's assume the 30 cal is the top of the standard range, 338 guys get to step up to a larger area . . . )

Just food for thought.

 

[BallisticsGuy]

From what I read in the report, there need to be some regulations during your fire season but what I suggest is needed is MUCH more is community outreach and hammering on messaging to shooters to limit ammunition used to cup and core lead/copper ammo with soft points and how to properly clear a target area of brush.

 

[Red Delicious]

I like to shoot, so I'm curious about mitigation efforts in lieu of restrictions. I would be curious to see a study of "frag dispersement". Most of us on this forum like to shoot steel plates. There are multiple options for this, spinners, hanging plates, competition trees. All of the various options are going to spread frag differently. Let's consider the most common option, a hanging gong, how does this target spread frag?

Is it possible to determine a safe no-fuel zone that can be cleared around the target site? As shown the image on the previously posted link the projectile hits the target, the target reacts from the suspended hinge point and a lot of the frag is deflected down and to the rear of the target. What we'd need to know is where does the rest of the frag end up? How far away will a 210 grain 30 cal frag end up to the sides of the gong? Is it too large of a dispersement for the average Joe to be willing to clear the area of fuels? Is there an average clear-area that could be considered a standard safe zone for the common range of calibers (let's assume the 30 cal is the top of the standard range, 338 guys get to step up to a larger area . . . )

Just food for thought.

That's where I'd like to head with this voyage of discovery. One of the commonly used shooting areas on this state land has been used for 35 or 40 years that is documented. At one time there were 6 or 7 concrete benches installed by a local Muzzle loader club. Over the past 10 or 15 years it has fallen into disrepair and people have chosen to go other places on the 115,000 acre tract of land. Unfortunately some shooters leave quite a mess behind. The end results is the State would like to get this thorn out of there side one way or another.

What I'd like to see is the range repaired and maintained so people want to do most of their shooting at that location. That would allow some of us to occasionally go to outlying locations that represent shooting which more closely represents what we will encounter while deer and elk hunting. I'm thinking of shooting at inclinations rather then a nice flat area to the target.

If I can find a study with the dispersion distances of the frags then I could propose Permanente steel targets be placed at several yardages with appropriate clear zones around them. I'm sure different clubs or individuals would sign up for maintenance of the targets. Others do so already for annual clean up of the general shooting area.

This might be a valid study for target and bullet manufactures to invest in. What is the frag difference between a fixed target and a swinging target? Does bullet "A" frag more then bullet "B"?

Thanks everyone for your input.

Craig O.

 

[Red Delicious]

From what I read in the report, there need to be some regulations during your fire season but what I suggest is needed is MUCH more is community outreach and hammering on messaging to shooters to limit ammunition used to cup and core lead/copper ammo with soft points and how to properly clear a target area of brush.

Communication has been a big discussion point for the committee. We all need to take a much more active roll in assuring that takes place.

Craig O.

 

[Bullet bumper]

The reality is the risk for fire is far greater from the shooters who smoke cigarettes and flick them all over the place still alight than from any normal hunting bullet they may shoot .
I live in a place where bush fires are a way of life and in my 67 years I have never ever heard of one single bush fire being started by a normal rifle bullet hitting anything . Fires starting from arson is a million times more likely .
Fires starting from cigarettes many times more likely . Lightning strikes more likely .
Do an experiment get a 1000 rounds of full metal jacket and slam away at the steel target from a safe distance . I bet you don't start any fire.
We have rifle ranges in state forests , national parks and all kinds of bush areas but the grass is kept short and the scrub cleared back in 45 years of going to ranges I have never seen a fire started by a normal hunting bullet .
Military tracer bullets is the only time I have seen two fires started they are bad .

 

[Escopeta]

If you read the study that was conducted (link posted above) there are several key points that immediately stand out as worth mentioning. When taken in context, they conclude that the risk of fire started by bullets hitting AR500 steel targets is extremely unlikely if said bullet is made of non-ferrous and non-solid copper. Which for me is 100% of every bullet that goes down my tube. It goes on further to conclude that with a modicum of restrictions related to the environmental conditions (Temp and RH), combined with most vertical steel targets found at private and public ranges the risk is reduced even more.

The key points that I refer to are the following:

"As with all fire behavior and ignition research,
moisture content of the organic material will be an
important factor in ignition. Peat moisture contents
of 3-5%, air temperatures of 34-49 °C (98-120 °F),
and relative humidity of 7 to 16% were necessary
to reliably observe ignitions in the experiments.
Peat moisture contents above this (perhaps 8%) did
not produce ignitions." (my emphasis)

Comment: At our range, we have a self imposed limit of 85 degrees and less than 30% RH. BOTH those conditions have to exist for us to cancel shooting. Which according to this study is a tremendous margin of safety. And truthfully, even in the shade, shooting in above 85 degree with no humidity isn't much fun anyway so it works for us. Even in one of the biggest tinderboxes in the country (SW ID in a high cheat grass year) the conditions above are encountered only a few times a summer. Unfortunately, lightning is a much more effective fire starter.....

"The regression model suggested that impact angle should also play a role in ignition probability, with more oblique angles more likely to produce an ignition. However, when the target was set at higher angles (60- 80 degrees) we suspected that more bullet fragments were escaping the collector box. The effect of angle on ignition would, therefore, involve more than effects on fragment properties (size or number). At high impact angles, fragments flying farther from the point of impact will experience more cooling before finally resting on potential ignitable substrate (Table 2) and maybe less likely to cause ignitions."

Comment: Most targets I've seen on public and private ranges consist of suspended targets hanging vertically. This reduces the chance of ignition even more and takes it even lower if (again) you restrict to hunting/match constructed bullets with no steel or solid copper.

Finally:

"Shooting took place in the laboratory from a distance
of about 32 m (35 yds). "

Comment: The heat produced by projectiles (fragments) of any construction when it hits a solid object is MUCH higher the faster the velocity (there is a chart in the document). The outcome of this reality is that its actually less likely to start a fire, the further out your target is. Truthfully, this 35 yrd test distance really queers the data from reality in my opinion. Even if they moved it back to 100 yrds it would have been a great improvement.

As was stated earlier, the reality is people dragging boat trailer chains on the way to the lake or pitching lit cigs out the window will start far more fires than shooting ever will - even in the most awful conditions.

 

[BallisticsGuy]

^^^ Solid analysis IMO.