Consider that you are seated on a rotating merry-go-round with an apple in your hand.
You are in what I call a noninertial frame of reference.
The apple is not moving in respect to you. You would probably consider it to be in a state of equilibrium. If you release that apple it flies out as if under the influence of a force directed radially outward. You would probably call this “force” which supposedly is acting on the apple a “Centrifugal” force. It did not fly out before you let it go because it was “balanced” by a centripetal force in your hand.
There are a number of things to note here: Both the very real Centripetal force and the assumed “Centrifugal” force are both acting on the same apple.
The released apple seems to fly directly outward away from you.
Let us repeat the experiment but this time you are standing out and it is your friend who is seated on the merry-go- round. When the apple is released it flies in a direction at a tangent to the rim of the MGR; In other words following Newton’s first law under inertia. So you would now say you say that this “centrifugal force” is fictitious. Being very intelligent you would not confuse it with the “reactive centrifugal force” which is acting on the hand not the apple. Nor would you confuse it with the “reactive centrifugal force” which is acting on the axle of the MGR. You have these entirely different set of observations and conclusions because you are operating from a different frame of reference an inertial frame of reference.
You do not have to invent any fictitious force if you operate in an inertial frame of reference.
You do have to realise that the apple (or the wobbly bullet) is not in a state of equilibrium and the only forces acting on of every little bit of it are Centripetal forces (acting toward the centre of mass of the rotating bullet). When you work in this inertial frame of reference; which is what you should do if you are talking about bullets. (You are not riding along inside the bullet are you?). You need to consider the moments of inertia involved. Some people are quite happy to use the “fictitious centrifugal force” most Physics educators would say that it is inappropriate. I prefer Newtonian Physics but even that is an approximation when you consider the advances of Einstein. Some people told Einstein that he did not “understand” physics.
If you are worried about my use of the word “centrifugal force” in the hammer example I was only treating forces on the hammer which are all centripetal.
If we consider the reactive force on the athlete as far as he is concerned it is a centripetal force directed toward the centre of mass.
It is not a good idea to quote out of context which some people are inclined to do.

You would clean it like any other bullet. All of these bullets have at least copper jackets if they aren’t entirely made of copper.
So you would clean the barrel the same way you would clean it with all copper jacketed bullets.

Hope this helps.

Great article by the way Jase.