PDA

View Full Version : New "Hypercav" bullet design



Zhukov
11-09-09, 14:43
Someone posted this link to the website over on AR15.com: http://www.hypercavbullets.com/

I will bite my tongue with the exception of the following image which is blatantly false:

http://www.hypercavbullets.com/images/chart.jpg

A "conventional" hollowpoint does NOT take 4" to expand - not to mention the poor penetration depth.

As far as the bullet performance of the Hypercav is concerned: I'll withold judgment until comprehensive testing by an independent reviewer is done on the FBI protocol. If they work correctly, there's no reason to shun them. From a first look, the fantastic and distorted claims on the website do not give a favorable impression though.

WS6
11-09-09, 17:53
Someone posted this link to the website over on AR15.com: http://www.hypercavbullets.com/

I will bite my tongue with the exception of the following image which is blatantly false:

http://www.hypercavbullets.com/images/chart.jpg

A "conventional" hollowpoint does NOT take 4" to expand - not to mention the poor penetration depth.

As far as the bullet performance of the Hypercav is concerned: I'll withold judgment until comprehensive testing by an independent reviewer is done on the FBI protocol. If they work correctly, there's no reason to shun them. From a first look, the fantastic and distorted claims on the website do not give a favorable impression though.

I have seen hi-speed videos of JHP handgunbullets hitting gel. We are talking maybe .5-1.5" before FULL expansion was observed. The TBBC rifle projectile takes 1-2". Same with the barnes TSX's.

http://www.hypercavbullets.com/images/chart3.jpg

So...these tiny holes...they will not be instantly crushed upon impact, but rather will stay patent until all the air is out of the cavity? I dunno if I buy that either.

I guess wait-and-see is the "safe" response, but I forsee fail.

"I’ve done the calculations (my calculus by hand sucks, by the way) and designs on AUTOCad Inventor, and verified those with Solidworks. Ran simulations on same. I’ve also made a few prototypes (crudely, I might add) and tested them. To date, I have every reason to suggest that this new round will be reliable, safe, devastatingly effective, and simple/cost-effective to integrate with current hollow-point slug designs with minimal effort. "-The Inventor (taken from linked website)

I'm sorry, but the above does NOT inspire my confidence. Maybe I am just hard to impress.

I would like to see side-by-side tests in IWBA 4-layer gel, etc.

QuietShootr
11-09-09, 18:02
taptap...Stan, is that you?

TiroFijo
11-10-09, 07:03
Yet another "wonder bullet" with false advertising claims... :rolleyes:

There are many good bullets available, I guess some people think that if you are unknown then you have to be "different" and claim a "breakthrough" to get some makert share.

WS6
11-10-09, 07:29
Yet another "wonder bullet" with false advertising claims... :rolleyes:

There are many good bullets available, I guess some people think that if you are unknown then you have to be "different" and claim a "breakthrough" to get some makert share.

Looks to me like he is modifying existing projectiles.

FromMyColdDeadHand
11-10-09, 09:12
SuperCav sounds like it is trying to build on that Russian super cavitating torpedo/missile technology.

The older I get the more I realize that if something seems to good to be true, EVEN if you have data, it probably won't be that much spectacular in the long run. There are just too many smart people out there for huge gains to be made in something as explored and studied as projectiles.

Palmguy
11-10-09, 09:29
I wonder if they also sell magnets for your vehicle's fuel lines :rolleyes:

Old_Painless
11-10-09, 11:02
I was contacted by that gentleman, and asked if I would be willing to do some tests on their product.

I advised him that to really do valid tests would require ballistic gelatin testing, which I am unable to do.

I suggested to him that he contact DocGKR at this site. He thanked me and said that he would.

No need to thank me, Doc. :p

They1
11-10-09, 19:11
Hi all.

This is my first post here, and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join this distinguished group.

Coudn't help but notice the chatter related to the Hypercav bullet project, and I'd be happy to answer any reasonable questions you may have.

One point I'd like to stress right off:

The HC round is NOT intended to be the "golden bullet". HC is not perfect...nothing is.

The porting of the cavity simply removes the "compressible factor", the trapped air, that all HP rounds fired must overcome before expansion can begin.

The fundemental factor of the HC concept, is to add additional reliability to existing HP rounds, many of excellent design, to work as intended over a much broader spectrum of conditions.

Work is currently underway to repeat our test results by independent entities, and those results will be published as we get them.

For those who would be critical, bravo. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
I ask no more or less of you than I'm willing to do myself. Of course be skeptical.

I would ask that you delay judgement until all the facts are in. Fair enough?

I would also point out that currently, there are several very talanted folks working on this project as you read this, and aside from a few minor adjustments, everyone agrees with the concept potential, and the physics behind it.

Much work is still to be done...this is a new concept, and as such, a lot of tweaking is still forthcoming.

For the record, we're not the only ones who believe in the project; currently we're begining talks with one major manufacturer, and I've been contacted by two other so far.

After all is said and done, and proven, wouldn't you want your ammunition to work as designed...only better?

Thanks for your time. Pleasure to be here.

___________

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Iraqgunz
11-11-09, 00:34
Are you affiliated with this company? If so, you need to disclose this relationship in your post(s) at the bottom.


Hi all.

This is my first post here, and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join this distinguished group.

Coudn't help but notice the chatter related to the Hypercav bullet project, and I'd be happy to answer any reasonable questions you may have.

One point I'd like to stress right off:

The HC round is NOT intended to be the "golden bullet". HC is not perfect...nothing is.

The porting of the cavity simply removes the "compressible factor", the trapped air, that all HP rounds fired must overcome before expansion can begin.

The fundemental factor of the HC concept, is to add additional reliability to existing HP rounds, many of excellent design, to work as intended over a much broader spectrum of conditions.

Work is currently underway to repeat our test results by independent entities, and those results will be published as we get them.

For those who would be critical, bravo. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
I ask no more or less of you than I'm willing to do myself. Of course be skeptical.

I would ask that you delay judgement until all the facts are in. Fair enough?

I would also point out that currently, there are several very talanted folks working on this project as you read this, and aside from a few minor adjustments, everyone agrees with the concept potential, and the physics behind it.

Much work is still to be done...this is a new concept, and as such, a lot of tweaking is still forthcoming.

For the record, we're not the only ones who believe in the project; currently we're begining talks with one major manufacturer, and I've been contacted by two other so far.

After all is said and done, and proven, wouldn't you want your ammunition to work as designed...only better?

Thanks for your time. Pleasure to be here.

___________

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

TiroFijo
11-11-09, 08:03
Feel the love, They1 :)

No problem with this:

"Work is currently underway to repeat our test results by independent entities, and those results will be published as we get them.

For those who would be critical, bravo. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
I ask no more or less of you than I'm willing to do myself. Of course be skeptical.

I would ask that you delay judgement until all the facts are in. Fair enough?"


But I have to ask, why put that deceiving graph in your site? Difficult not to make funny comments or worse when seeing that kind of "infomercial".

Probably you are looking for sponsors/partnerts/investors to develop/produce the bullets, but if "much work is still to be done", and obviously "all the facts are not in" I would suggest to wait for serious, independent, verifiable results instead of boldly claiming to be "the future of reliable hollowpoint ammunition", no matter what theory or preliminary tests suggest.

They1
11-11-09, 08:34
Are you affiliated with this company? If so, you need to disclose this relationship in your post(s) at the bottom.

Morning Iraqgunz,

Didn't mean to omit any information. As I am new to this forum, I can miss some points of protocol.

I'm the inventor of Hypercav.

They1
11-11-09, 09:09
> Well that is a surprise. Do we actually have a mechanical engineer involved in bullet design on M4C now that is for real? Welcome, Sir.
Would you mind telling us a bit about your qualifications, background, etc. I do not wish to ridicule you, I am very interested in bullet design myself.
Thank you for your time,
Dave

PS I am curious to find out too how these JHPs will stand up to Doc's testing. REALLY curious!

Good morning TE/Dave, thanks for the welcome!

My background is as a Design Engineer/New Products Developer.

While over the years my formal education has been diverse, my primary education was at Rice University.
Besides the Engineering side, other focal points were Aviation, Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic studies. "Fluid Dynamics" to sum it up.

I currently have 16 Patents that are multi-verse, ranging from now bullet design, to Sunglasses, Pillows, Medical devices, Automotive, Law Enforcement, Military and others.

I also have a "different" sense of humor.
(GOOGLE: "man legally changes is name to they" for background)

My father was a career Marine (Gunny)(BTW: Happy birthday USMC, "Semper Fi" ), and I spent several years in the Coast Guard ("Hey, I can see the shore from here...").

As a general rule, I would prefer to Listen, ask questions, and keep an open mind, as opposed to speaking, which suggests "conlusions".
I learn more that way.
I believe in letting facts take me where I'm going.

I am race blind, color blind, and gender blind. So if someone is either OK, or a stupid a$$ho!e, they earned it, as an individual.

Normally, I don't like talking about myself...talk is cheap.
However, you guys don't know me from Adam...and you DID ask...

____

"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

Forest
11-11-09, 15:22
I'd be curious to know what kind of tests were done to determine the compressed air was causing a delay in opening the HP vs the HP not opening as fast due to it's design.

Thanks.

DocGKR
11-11-09, 15:26
As Tom Burczynski's superb work has detailed, most well designed projectiles have fully upset within the first 2 inches of travel...

Iraqgunz
11-11-09, 15:39
Hello,

Please put in your signature line that you are the inventor of this particular bullet. Thank you.


Morning Iraqgunz,

Didn't mean to omit any information. As I am new to this forum, I can miss some points of protocol.

I'm the inventor of Hypercav.

They1
11-11-09, 15:51
Done.

worldskipper
11-11-09, 20:54
Mr. They,

Couple of questions:
1. Do you have a copy of Mr. MacPherson's Book?
http://www.firearmstactical.com/bulletpenetration.htm
2. Are you using your own cup and core (bonded or non-bonded) bullet or modifying and existing manufacturer?

3. How much time does it take per bullet to drill the holes?

4. Don't the holes cause a weakness in the jacket (i.e. a point where the petals can come off)?

5. Did you read a column I wrote a few years ago (granted there are a few errors in it that one of the fine contributors here noticed) but it does go into some of the issues you're looking at.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/bullet.pdf

This is a tough crowd around here, After the LeMas bullet fiasco (wasting taxpayer dollars to boot) most everyone who follows this field is very skeptical of new designs. A good rule of thumb would be: results first, marketing second.

Hope you stick around.

Worldskipper
aka Ken E.

They1
11-12-09, 15:25
Hi Worldskipper.

If you don't mind, i'll respond to your queries in-line with your text;



Mr. They,

Couple of questions:
1. Do you have a copy of Mr. MacPherson's Book?
http://www.firearmstactical.com/bulletpenetration.htm

*No, I don't. I've been to the website a few times, but the links aren't working for some reason.
I'll keep trying.

2. Are you using your own cup and core (bonded or non-bonded) bullet or modifying and existing manufacturer?

*All of the ammo tested are modified from existing ammunition products. Which was actually part of my original point.
It's well known by now, that there are many excellent designs out there. An HC modified round simply allows the trapped air in the cavity to "vent" on contact, which in turn removes the compression factor. In other words, Where a typical HP round hits, compresses, fills and expands, the HC round hits, vents while filling, and expands.

It's simply a more efficient exchange of material mediums.


3. How much time does it take per bullet to drill the holes?

*We've done a bunch of these so far. With a jig and drill press, it's only takes about 5 minutes or less now.

4. Don't the holes cause a weakness in the jacket (i.e. a point where the petals can come off)?

*No. If it did, I would've halted the project some time ago.

Again, the Hypercav mod is ONLY designed to augment the original HP rounds' design and performance specs.
For example, the ports incorporated into a Speer Gold Dot 135gr .38+P, are only 1/32 dia. X 3. In all the tests, performance of the bullet opened as expected, sans one;
One HC round over expanded when shot into a medium that was 50% more dense than standard gelatin. For reference, the medium was "Bullet test Tube" which was shot with a Speer Gold Dot 125gr. the teprature at that time was 64degrees Fht., when spec called for 73~75 degrees optimum.
Wierd stuff actually, don't know why I bought it. But I think I understand why their phone number is disconnected...

5. Did you read a column I wrote a few years ago (granted there are a few errors in it that one of the fine contributors here noticed) but it does go into some of the issues you're looking at.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/bullet.pdf

*I did. A well thought out and informative article. I did notice a few small errors, but nothing to get in a snit about.
Overall, I came away thinking you pay close attention to detail, and write without bias. Something to be commended.

This is a tough crowd around here, After the LeMas bullet fiasco (wasting taxpayer dollars to boot) most everyone who follows this field is very skeptical of new designs. A good rule of thumb would be: results first, marketing second.

*I don't mind tough crowds...this ain't my first Rodeo.

What, is everyone here "shell-shocked" by one guy who would make such ridiculous claims that a shot in the a$$ would kill someone in a few seconds?
Or that through some magical metalurgical hocus-pocus, a bullet can "distinguish" between metal and meat in milliseconds??
You've got to be kidding me...

I make no such goofy claims that a 9mm HC round will "blow people to bits". Gimmie a break.

Hypercav is based on proven laws of physics, nothing more, nothing less;
1. It's a given that air is a compressible gas.

2. Air trapped in any confined space must be negated by some means in order to cause a given reaction, based on the intended purpose. In this case, to cause a bullet cavity to be pressurized by a semi-solid, in order to initiate and facilitate the expansion process.

3. Current bullet designs, ALL current bullet designs, do NOT allow that trapped air to vent, and thusly, that trapped air MUST be compressed to a point where the air is no longer a factor, and can then begin pressurizing the cavity.
(That's why I was able to patent this concept, and we we searched internationally, all the way back to 1914)

4. Allowing the trapped air to escape as the cavity is filled with a semi-solid, eliminates the air-pressurization factor, allowing the cavity to be instantly filled, pressurized and expanded more rapidly, without the loss of energy during that period.

NOTE: One by-product (theorized, not proven as yet), is that an HC bullet "might" be able to have a smaller diameter HP cavity opening, which could reduce another nemisis to HP's...plugging. (Just a thought, but worth the mention, and further research)

Hope you stick around.

*I'm not going anywhere...

Worldskipper
aka Ken E.

worldskipper
11-12-09, 15:28
Thanks for the response and thanks for the compliment.

The guy who sells Duncan's book (Shawn Dodson) is here on the forum. Contact him if you have trouble ordering the book.

If he's out of copies I think I've got a spare book around I don't mind parting with.

Worldskipper.

They1
11-12-09, 15:33
Thanks for the response and thanks for the compliment.

The guy who sells Duncan's book (Shawn Dodson) is here on the forum. Contact him if you have trouble ordering the book.

If he's out of copies I think I've got a spare book around I don't mind parting with.

Worldskipper.

No need for thanks...you earned it.

I'd like to get that copy from you, where are you located, how much do you want for it? (It's used, you know...:D)

worldskipper
11-12-09, 15:50
Steady there Haus' :D

https://www.m4carbine.net/member.php?u=3013

Contact Shawn first see if he has any copies left. Last time that book went out of print it was going for $150 on Amazon. So I'm not turning loose of my extra book until he's run out (plus I've got to find it).:p

Used.
Ha.

Seriously, if he's out I'll send you contact info and we can work something out.

-I picked up an extra copy to see if a do a little horse trading with John Linebaugh, but his eyes glazed over when he looked through it, so I've still got it

Funny I see that same look when another engineer flips through my water wave mechanics.

They1
11-12-09, 16:17
Steady there Haus' :D

https://www.m4carbine.net/member.php?u=3013

Contact Shawn first see if he has any copies left. Last time that book went out of print it was going for $150 on Amazon. So I'm not turning loose of my extra book until he's run out (plus I've got to find it).:p

*$150? geez...you'd have to take financing. :rolleyes:

Used.
Ha.

*Hey, can't blame a guy for trying...

Seriously, if he's out I'll send you contact info and we can work something out.

-I picked up an extra copy to see if a do a little horse trading with John Linebaugh, but his eyes glazed over when he looked through it, so I've still got it

*I know that look. I think I've been an "offender" now and then...

Funny I see that same look when another engineer flips through my water wave mechanics.

*Actually, I'd be interested to see you water wave mech. studies.
"Hydrodynamics" or aka the pure study of "chaos and order".

I've spent about half my life at sea in one fashion or other...

MK108
11-16-09, 05:14
Dear They1,

...very interesting...

...thank you for sharing!

...some questions...

...have the channels through which the air is evacuated particular shapes/dimensions to prevent choking?

...the drawings about the behaviour comparison between your bullet design and conventional bullet design depicted your ideas about what happens during these different bullets penetration in soft tissues or depicted the results from your experimental tests?


All the best
Andrea

P.S.: please, excuse me for my bad english!

They1
11-16-09, 10:48
Hi Andrea.
I'll respond in-line with your original text...



Dear They1,

...very interesting...

...thank you for sharing!

...some questions...

...have the channels through which the air is evacuated particular shapes/dimensions to prevent choking?

*If I understand your question, that is an aspect we're looking at.
The possibility exists that with the reduced "pressure" needed to exchange mediums, that bullet cavity opening can be smaller, thus reducing the plugging issue.

...the drawings about the behaviour comparison between your bullet design and conventional bullet design depicted your ideas about what happens during these different bullets penetration in soft tissues or depicted the results from your experimental tests?

*Could you clarify this question please? Thanks!
-They

All the best
Andrea

P.S.: please, excuse me for my bad english!

They1
11-16-09, 10:54
FYI: We updated/corrected the calculations on the website. Should be informative.

New photos are being done by Oleg Volk. We'll post them as soon as they're done.

He's one of the premier photographers in the industry.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms

MK108
11-16-09, 11:22
Dear They1,

thank you for your reply...

when I wrote:

"have the channels through which the air is evacuated particular shapes/dimensions to prevent choking?"

..I did not mean the plugging by tissues but the choking because the high velocity air flow alone....as used in some tubular training rounds to reduce the maximum range...

...about the second question...on soft tissues penetration your bullet behaviour depicted in the colours drawing(..as in page 1..) is the one you obtained experimentally or is your target?

...I need to tell you that I am a bit skeptical about the difference in terminal bullet behaviour because the compressed air... using your interesting data in "The technology" page....I guess that all other things being equal a variation of about 2 m/s from round to round in the same box of ammunition is a very good variation for pistol round ammunition (Molon is certainly more accurate than me..)....so if the bullet in your example has a velocity of 259 m/s the next bullet fired can have 261 m/s for example...and the KE variation is about 1.6%...so about twice the work done to compress the air in your example...

All the best
Andrea

P.S.: please, excuse me for my bad english!

They1
11-16-09, 12:29
*****

Dear They1,

thank you for your reply...

when I wrote:

"have the channels through which the air is evacuated particular shapes/dimensions to prevent choking?"

..I did not mean the plugging by tissues but the choking because the high velocity air flow alone....as used in some tubular training rounds to reduce the maximum range...

*Ah, I see what your asking; The diameter of the ports themselves, and the angle relative to the bullet/cavity, (90 degrees) have a negligable aerodynamic effect on overall flight characteristics, given a particular manufacturers original design specs. This, coupled with boundry layer interaction, shows a minimal effect on overall performance to date.

...about the second question...on soft tissues penetration your bullet behaviour depicted in the colours drawing(..as in page 1..) is the one you obtained experimentally or is your target?

...I need to tell you that I am a bit skeptical about the difference in terminal bullet behaviour because the compressed air... using your interesting data in "The technology" page....I guess that all other things being equal a variation of about 2 m/s from round to round in the same box of ammunition is a very good variation for pistol round ammunition (Molon is certainly more accurate than me..)....so if the bullet in your example has a velocity of 259 m/s the next bullet fired can have 261 m/s for example...and the KE variation is about 1.6%...so about twice the work done to compress the air in your example...

*Your interpretation is correct. Very perceptive!
However, I might add that while these figures establish "baseline" fundamentals, one should always factor in the variable dynamics inherent to real-world conditions. The result of this acknowledgement suggests two basic points;
1. that porting, or "burping" a bullet can only enhance the expansion process over a wider set of conditions, and 2., nothing is perfect.

In ALL things, I always consider the "Chaos within the Order", and vice versa.

At the very least, we know beyond doubt that every bullet expends some energy in order to overcome air compression. As shown in the 'technology' page calculations, in the example of the Speer Gold Dot 135gr .38+P, it's .84%.

Again, while you can look at this as a "hard" number, the true ramifications are "what other 'by-product' reactions are an either direct or indirect result?"

I call it "flexible physics".

OT: Taking a guess here, I can't help noticing the 'structure' of your text. It would suggest a European base? Italy perhaps?




All the best
Andrea

P.S.: please, excuse me for my bad english!

WS6
11-16-09, 18:42
I think a qualified lab shooting gelatin and measuring the "neck" would be in order, however, just looking at these pictures, I fail to see this long neck you are talking about before expansion takes place with conventional JHP's.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/.38%20Special%20158gr%20Federal%20Nyclad%20+P%20SWCHP.html

The old .38 special Nyclad rounds looks to have fully expanded in under 2 inches. Ergo, based on the drawings on your website depicting full expansion in 1-2" as the goal with your modified projectile, you hope to do nothing more than replicate the old Treasury load.

If your claims are accurate, your modification will allow 2-3# more energy to go towards penetration/target disruption rather than overcoming air resistance. I fail to see where this is a cost-effective gain, if it is correctly calculated.

Put me in the skeptic's corner, as I see you just re-inventing the wheel if your claims are accurate about your projectile's performance. Of course, if you can prove me wrong with un-biased testing, throw up an order form on your website. You will get some of my money.

PS> Looked at the photos the photographer took that you linked us to. Awesome work. If he does your product photo's it might give Rainier Arms a run for their money, lol (I always like buying stuff from them. Good photos let me see what I am getting and answer questions without resorting to the phone, etc.)

They1
11-16-09, 19:58
I think a qualified lab shooting gelatin and measuring the "neck" would be in order, however, just looking at these pictures, I fail to see this long neck you are talking about before expansion takes place with conventional JHP's.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/.38%20Special%20158gr%20Federal%20Nyclad%20+P%20SWCHP.html

The old .38 special Nyclad rounds looks to have fully expanded in under 2 inches. Ergo, based on the drawings on your website depicting full expansion in 1-2" as the goal with your modified projectile, you hope to do nothing more than replicate the old Treasury load.

If your claims are accurate, your modification will allow 2-3# more energy to go towards penetration/target disruption rather than overcoming air resistance. I fail to see where this is a cost-effective gain, if it is correctly calculated.

Put me in the skeptic's corner, as I see you just re-inventing the wheel if your claims are accurate about your projectile's performance. Of course, if you can prove me wrong with un-biased testing, throw up an order form on your website. You will get some of my money.

PS> Looked at the photos the photographer took that you linked us to. Awesome work. If he does your product photo's it might give Rainier Arms a run for their money, lol (I always like buying stuff from them. Good photos let me see what I am getting and answer questions without resorting to the phone, etc.)

Interesting you cite Brassfetcher. We're setting up to have hime do some independent testing, and DocGKR to do a full FBI protocol series in the near future.

I'm really looking forward to see the results of Olegs' work! He "claimes" he could make even me look good...lol. There's a challenge...

Abraxas
11-16-09, 20:39
Wow this thread has turned out to be much better than I thought it would.

They1
11-16-09, 20:44
Wow this thread has turned out to be much better than I thought it would.

"Intelligence is not the ability to regurgitate information. It is the ability to make sound decisions on a consistent basis "--me

-Couldn't have said it better myself...

WS6
11-16-09, 22:06
Interesting you cite Brassfetcher. We're setting up to have hime do some independent testing, and DocGKR to do a full FBI protocol series in the near future.

I'm really looking forward to see the results of Olegs' work! He "claimes" he could make even me look good...lol. There's a challenge...

Well and good, but let me ask again and more succinctly: "What does your bullet have to offer, based on your claims, that we don't already have?"

tpd223
11-17-09, 02:30
No BS, I was doing this to .22lr bullets in the late '70s as a bored kid looking for a way to blow up crows and other varmints more spectacularly.

Modified bullets one at a time by hand looking for the perfect bullet.

Strangely enough I also built a sort of Hornady Flex Tip bullet using silicon.

I should have written some of this down 20-30 years ago.

Carry on.

MK108
11-17-09, 03:25
Dear They1,

thank you very much for your kind replies,

I need only to add that when I wrote about the possible airflow choking I did not mean the one that can happen during the flight of the bullet in air but I refer to the one that can happen in the first moments of the tissues penetration by the bullet...

..please, let me clarify....

...from your explanations I guess that you want to limit the energy spent in the compression of the air in the cavity. Sorry for my possible misunderstanding but I guess that in your design the air trapped in the cavity needs to be pushed by the tissue when the latter enters in the cavity so that the air escapes from the nose cavity through the tiny radial channels...

...if so it happens in a very short time and to be displaced through such tiny channels the air flow must have a very high velocity....so that the air flow in reality can be really slowed because the channels appears as choked...with the final result that you could have the air compression with or without such channels unless they have proper size and design, imho.

...much like a syringe with a very small outlet and full of air...on moving the piston slowly tha air flows outside without great problems....but if you try to move the piston very fast it seems to be locked as there isn't any hole in the sirynge bottom...

..it comes to my mind that another possibility is that you want a continuos flow of air from the nose cavity through the tiny channels during the air flight in order to haven't any air inside the nose on impact with the body tissues....but even in this case the air needs to be displaced continously through this small orifices...

...about my comparison between the KE lost in the air compression as in your example and the KE variation for the bullets in the same box of ammunition in my example my guess is that if the energy lost in air compression is so an important factor in the expansion behaviour of a hollow point bullet maybe I am wrong but I can expect a wide variation of expansion/penetration behaviour even from bullets with conventional hollow points fired from cartridges taken from the same ammunition box all other things being equal.

All the best
Andrea

They1
11-17-09, 13:21
*Please see in-line response:


Dear They1,

thank you very much for your kind replies,

I need only to add that when I wrote about the possible airflow choking I did not mean the one that can happen during the flight of the bullet in air but I refer to the one that can happen in the first moments of the tissues penetration by the bullet...

..please, let me clarify....

...from your explanations I guess that you want to limit the energy spent in the compression of the air in the cavity. Sorry for my possible misunderstanding but I guess that in your design the air trapped in the cavity needs to be pushed by the tissue when the latter enters in the cavity so that the air escapes from the nose cavity through the tiny radial channels...

*In effect, you are correct. That's exactly what I'm doing.
However, porting of the cavity is only "the means-to-an-end".
I'll explain; The ultimate goal is to minimize the effect of the trapped air in the HP cavity, which, as a "compressible" gas, acts simply put, a "shock absorber", or "cushion" at the time a bullet makes contact with a target. (The same effect as a suspension system works so well on a car, as opposed to the go-carts we rode as kids)
By allowing that gas to be vented in a direction other than forward, the compression factor is negated, while at the same time, the cavity space is more readily exchanged with the intended medium (target tissue), which is obviously necessary to begin the expansion process. To date, the only real bullet design to address this issue, and an effective one I might add, are rounds filled with the semi-sillicone-based materials. And while this is a notable advancement, one should note that by it's own design, it's still a medium that MUST COMPRESS to be effective. In short, it's still a "second-stage" in the expansion process. (1. Bullet contact, 2.Compression, 3.Exchange, 4.Pressurize, 5.Expand)

The HC round basically eliminates that second stage, thus promoting, or enhancing the third. This "cascade" effect also causes the target tissue to "slam home" with greater force, and as a result, a bullet expands with greater force. (i.e. like being hit with a broom, or being hit with a bat.)


...if so it happens in a very short time and to be displaced through such tiny channels the air flow must have a very high velocity....so that the air flow in reality can be really slowed because the channels appears as choked...with the final result that you could have the air compression with or without such channels unless they have proper size and design, imho.

*I must say your knowledge and grasp on this subject is very lucid and well thought out. I'm very impressed.

Indeed, correct again...Please note that this project is in it's infantcy, and I am only the inventor, not the end-developer.

My original concept, and prototype testing of this concept, was simply to prove the viability of the concept itself. The ultimate Licensee, through their own R&D will no doubt have to "calibrate" port size, port count and port diameter for optimum performance based on the multitude of calibers, cavity sizes, velocities, etc..

...much like a syringe with a very small outlet and full of air...on moving the piston slowly tha air flows outside without great problems....but if you try to move the piston very fast it seems to be locked as there isn't any hole in the sirynge bottom...

*Good analogy.
Let's expound: While your example is dead-on, you must put this example into perspective;
Hypothesize for a moment several syringes with the same diameter nozzle. Now input the same amount of pressure applied to the plunger. The resistance to those plungers will be directly porportional to the cavity of air being expended. Would the resistance be the same, under the aforementions conditions when comparing a 30cc, 10cc or 1cc syringe? Of course not.

Now put into perspective the actually quite small area of an HP cavity, now add a 1/32 diameter port, now make that times 3 ports, and you can see how ultimatly small the ports can be, while still allowing rapid gas exchange with minimal impact on the bullets original strength, opening and design specs.

I got a hard lesson in this many years ago when I invented a "robotic photographic tripod". It was designed to allow a user to control all adjustments to a tripod, using only two micro-switches that were attached (by velcro) just unter the camera shutter button.

I did this by adding pneumatic actuators at the legs, wheels (retractable), boom arm and camera mount head.

Powering this was a control box which housed a compressor, battery, regulators and switching relays.

Ultimatly, the greatest challenge was calibrating pistons that would apply enough force to lock and release all lock points, while keeping operating pressures and volumes at a minimum.

In the end, the "Android-1" prototype was a way cool, rocket-fast, 60lb, $60,000 dollar project that went to BOGEN tripods in Bassano Del Grappa in Italy.
(Beautiful city btw, hope go go back and visit again one day.)

It seems that experience has served me well in this context.

..it comes to my mind that another possibility is that you want a continuos flow of air from the nose cavity through the tiny channels during the air flight in order to haven't any air inside the nose on impact with the body tissues....but even in this case the air needs to be displaced continously through this small orifices...

*Not really. Ideally, I'd like there to be no reaction to a bullets' laminar airflow during flight, but that's not possible. The effect with the ported design is "negligable", but inevetable. There will be some air exchange, and with a "bullet-to-bullet" comparison, the HC round will have a slightly lower in-flight cavity pressure compared to a typical HP round, but I don't find any significant effect until the "metal meets the meat".

...about my comparison between the KE lost in the air compression as in your example and the KE variation for the bullets in the same box of ammunition in my example my guess is that if the energy lost in air compression is so an important factor in the expansion behaviour of a hollow point bullet maybe I am wrong but I can expect a wide variation of expansion/penetration behaviour even from bullets with conventional hollow points fired from cartridges taken from the same ammunition box all other things being equal.

*I must admit, I'm not quite sure what you're asking here...
Are you suggesting that conventional, identical HP rounds would have variable cavity pressures/dynamics?

All the best
Andrea

Weaver
11-17-09, 15:53
What is to keep these channels from being closed by the initial deformation of the hollowpoint cavity, thus blocking the air from escaping? Do the channels remain open and clear while the air is expelled, or does the deformation (either from simple crush of the whole channel or through metal blocking the hollowpoint-end of the channel)?

worldskipper
11-17-09, 17:58
This bullet idea really needs an finite element analysis done. That could really give us a firm grasp of what's going on in the nose. (Heck maybe even some navier-stokes) to check how the fluids would behave (both gas and fluid) through these holes....

Ok off to take some aspirin, my head hurts just thinking about how to model this...:p

Rampant Colt
11-19-09, 20:04
What this new ammunition needs to be taken seriously is a boost from some bold, agressive marketing. I suggest using magazine ads featuring an "agent" clad in all-black BDUs with lightning bolts and wild neon graphic lettering and shiny black boxes. ;)


Seriously though, I'm not forming an opinion or passing judgement on this stuff until it has been tested by unbiased experts in calibrated ballistics gel using standard FBI protocol. It appears to have promising qualities that specifically address the heavy clothing issue.

WS6
11-19-09, 20:26
The fact that They has artfully dodged my probing about what he hopes to accomplish with this load has told me all I need to know.

I challenged him on the fact that it expands no sooner than decades old JHP designes according to his claims and that the kinetic energy that he claims it MIGHT gain is less than the variance between pistols or bullets in the same box and he had no response other than to re-direct the conversation to more mundane things.

While I am normally a fan of "let the product stand on its own merit, or fall for the lack thereof", the weasling of its inventor has all but made it a stillborn thought for me.


My post:

I think a qualified lab shooting gelatin and measuring the "neck" would be in order, however, just looking at these pictures, I fail to see this long neck you are talking about before expansion takes place with conventional JHP's.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/.38%20Special%20158gr%20Federal%20Nyclad%20+P%20SWCHP.html

The old .38 special Nyclad rounds looks to have fully expanded in under 2 inches. Ergo, based on the drawings on your website depicting full expansion in 1-2" as the goal with your modified projectile, you hope to do nothing more than replicate the old Treasury load.

If your claims are accurate, your modification will allow 2-3# more energy to go towards penetration/target disruption rather than overcoming air resistance. I fail to see where this is a cost-effective gain, if it is correctly calculated.

Put me in the skeptic's corner, as I see you just re-inventing the wheel if your claims are accurate about your projectile's performance. Of course, if you can prove me wrong with un-biased testing, throw up an order form on your website. You will get some of my money.

PS> Looked at the photos the photographer took that you linked us to. Awesome work. If he does your product photo's it might give Rainier Arms a run for their money, lol (I always like buying stuff from them. Good photos let me see what I am getting and answer questions without resorting to the phone, etc.) *red added for emphasis

They's response:

Interesting you cite Brassfetcher. We're setting up to have hime do some independent testing, and DocGKR to do a full FBI protocol series in the near future.

I'm really looking forward to see the results of Olegs' work! He "claimes" he could make even me look good...lol. There's a challenge...

Perhapse I should have been more direct in my questioning, but I WAS hoping for an explanation.

They1
11-19-09, 20:41
The fact that They has artfully dodged my question about what he hopes to accomplish with this load (after presenting him with another bullet, the old Treasury .38 Spl. loading that matches/exceeds his claims for "opening fast" with this new design of his) when by his own admission it is only worth 2-3# more kenetic energy transferred to the target (assuming this isn't lost in-flight due to the air passing through the holes and creating drag) has told me all I need to know.

WS6- I just got online. Hello to you too...

If I understand your comment/condemnation/assumption, etc., I infer that my "claim" is only "faster opening" is false...

Rapid opening is only a by-product (pls read entire thread). The main focus of this design is to enhance bullet opening over a broader range of conditions.

Right now there is a major ammunition manufacturer evaluating samples.

Testing is being set up w/2 very qualified independent entities.

This will take some time, so please reserve judgement until you see the results, OK?

They1
11-19-09, 20:45
What this new ammunition needs to be taken seriously is a boost from some bold, agressive marketing. I suggest using magazine ads featuring an "agent" clad in all-black BDUs with lightning bolts and wild neon graphic lettering and shiny black boxes. ;)

I'm not so mush a "lightning bolt" fan. I think flames...

Seriously though, I'm not forming an opinion or passing judgement on this stuff until it has been tested by unbiased experts in calibrated ballistics gel using standard FBI protocol. It appears to have promising qualities that specifically address the heavy clothing issue.

That's fair enough...thanks.

WS6
11-19-09, 21:04
WS6- I just got online. Hello to you too...

If I understand your comment/condemnation/assumption, etc., I infer that my "claim" is only "faster opening" is false...

Rapid opening is only a by-product (pls read entire thread). The main focus of this design is to enhance bullet opening over a broader range of conditions.

Right now there is a major ammunition manufacturer evaluating samples.

Testing is being set up w/2 very qualified independent entities.

This will take some time, so please reserve judgement until you see the results, OK?

What parameters are these? Most modern projectiles expand at any velocity range that will be encountered by even sub-compact pistols. As to plugging with material, I do not see how the holes would help there unless you were able to lessen the size of the cavity as you propose. Anyways, fair enough I guess. Prove its worth, and you will get my money. Sounds like a winner from your point of view, and mine.

They1
11-19-09, 21:09
What parameters are these? Most modern projectiles expand at any velocity range that will be encountered by even sub-compact pistols. As to plugging with material, I do not see how the holes would help there unless you were able to lessen the size of the cavity as you propose. Anyways, fair enough I guess. Prove its worth, and you will get my money. Sounds like a winner from your point of view, and mine.

A very reasonable observation. That is one aspect we're looking into. If, by reducing the effort on the cavity, we might indeed be able to reduce the opening diameter, without sacrificing the opening process.

WS6
11-19-09, 21:44
A very reasonable observation. That is one aspect we're looking into. If, by reducing the effort on the cavity, we might indeed be able to reduce the opening diameter, without sacrificing the opening process.

How much would the cavity diameter be able to be lessened? You are talking a VERY small reduction in energy to open here, I presume the opening would be reduced accordingly. I am concerned that the law of diminishing returns could waylay things.

They1
11-19-09, 21:49
FYI: First of Olegs' work...

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/hypercav_bullets_SM8325_8328.jpg

They1
11-19-09, 21:53
How much would the cavity diameter be able to be lessened? You are talking a VERY small reduction in energy to open here, I presume the opening would be reduced accordingly. I am concerned that the law of diminishing returns could waylay things.

That's a valid, but "variable" question.

Note that ports, nose openings, number of ports and diameters will have to be "calibrated" for each caliber, fps, cavity sizes, etc..

WS6
11-19-09, 22:31
That's a valid, but "variable" question.

Note that ports, nose openings, number of ports and diameters will have to be "calibrated" for each caliber, fps, cavity sizes, etc..

How do these ports affect accuracy?

They1
11-19-09, 22:37
How do these ports affect accuracy?

While we're only getting into Rifle rounds now, the handguns we've shot doesn't seem to be effected:

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCTARGETWGUNv2.jpg

WS6
11-19-09, 22:41
While we're only getting into Rifle rounds now, the handguns we've shot doesn't seem to be effected:

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCTARGETWGUNv2.jpg

Rifle rounds, eh? I am curious to see how that one goes. I would think at that velocity ANY discrepancy with reguards to spacing or hole size or patency would cause issue.

Curious how this all turns out.

MK108
11-20-09, 03:28
Dear They1,

thank you for your replies....it could be interesting for you that I live in a country not very far from Bassano del Grappa....in fact I live near the border between Italy and Slovenia....I am very happy that you like your trip in my country!

I need to explain better my previous statement. In fact I wrote:




...about my comparison between the KE lost in the air compression as in your example and the KE variation for the bullets in the same box of ammunition in my example my guess is that if the energy lost in air compression is so an important factor in the expansion behaviour of a hollow point bullet maybe I am wrong but I can expect a wide variation of expansion/penetration behaviour even from bullets with conventional hollow points fired from cartridges taken from the same ammunition box all other things being equal.



That's what I mean.

If I take two rounds from the same box, for example two 135 GD as in your example, and I fire them in the same revolver, for example a snub nose as in your example, a muzzle velocity variation of about 2 m/s between one bullet and the other is not unusual at all.

I suppose for semplicity that expansion will take place once the soft tissues completely filled the cavity after the air bubble full compression.

The bullet number one has a muzzle velocity of about 259 m/s and the bullet number two has a muzzle velocity of about 261 m/s. I suppose too that the target, be it a ballistic gel block or a bad guy's body, is near the revolver muzzle so that it's possible to assume that the muzzle velocities are similar to the impact velocities.

With rough calculations is possible to note that the compressed bubbles have about the same volume when fully compressed (..the compressed air bubble for bullet 2 is negligibly smaller..) and that the energy that the bullet spend to compress such bubbles is similar for the two cases (..negligibly higher for the faster bullet..).

The energy spent is about 3.5J while the KE of the two bullets before the compression is respectively about 293 and 298J.

If the energy lost in the air bubble compression has such a marked influence on bullet expansion of bullet one(..the slower that flies at the same velocity as in your example..) I would expect that a normal variation of about 2 m/s in the impact velocity overcomes the problem of such energy lost because the KE available for the second bullet after the bubble compression(298-3.5=284.5) is a bit higher than that of the first bullet when it doesn't have to compress any air bubble in its nose (293).

The data of the manufacturer(CCI Speer) for the 135 GD shows this bullet launched at 860 fps has about 842 fps at 20 yards of distance from the muzzle.

It means to me that if the energy lost in the air bubble compression has such marked effects on the bullet expansion I would expect too a great difference in terms of bullet expansion/penetration behaviour when the soft target is near the muzzle or when the same soft target is at a distance of about 8 yards or more or even using two revolvers of the same type with the same barrel lenght and manufactured by the same company when there are very slight differences in barrel bores and cylinder to barrel gaps as it's usual.

The rough calculations of the time it needs for the tissue to fully compress the air bubble or for the tissue to fill the empty cavity in the nose shows that such time is very similar (..negligibly less with the bubble compression...the bullet is a bit slowed by this compression but the tissue needs to travel a bit less to fill the cavity because the space occupied by the compressed air bubble) with a stagnation pressure difference of about 1.5% with a bullet velocity of 850 fps (259 m/s).

...I need to add that's it's not a critic to your interesting work....only some thoughts that comes in my mind about the topic....I haven't any reason or will to criticize anyone....I am here only to learn more about wound ballistic much like a student....

...just to end this long (...maybe too long...I'm sorry..) post....there is an old trick to promote a rapid and quite reliable expansion of bullets with a cavity in the nose....I guess that if the nose is full of liquid you don't need to wait for the nose cavity to be filled by the soft tissues and after that it's already full of a real liquid and not will be full of a fluid-like material like the soft tissues...the problem to solve is to find a way to lock the liquid in place...or to use some material that is solid at room temperature and liquid when the bullet heats on firing.

All the best
Andrea

P.S.: on yesterday I had an odd idea .... I thought about a test with a pistol inside a vacuum chamber .... but apart highly probabilities of non negligible muzzle velocity variation of the bullet compared to the same fired in air.... I guessed that my colleagues were not very happy because the pollution by the firing residue and ballistic gel(..what's its behaviour in vacuum?..) on components, gauges and pumps:D

They1
11-20-09, 10:19
Hi MK108, please see in-line;


Dear They1,

thank you for your replies....it could be interesting for you that I live in a country not very far from Bassano del Grappa....in fact I live near the border between Italy and Slovenia....I am very happy that you like your trip in my country!

*I very much enjoyed my trip there. I've always been interested in cultures, history and architecture.
I found so much interesting while I was there, including the bridge that still had bullet holes from WWII. I also found time to take the one hour train ride down to Venice. A great time, and met many great folks. (The food was good too...:D)
I will look forward to visiting again some day.

Such history and cultures need to be preserved.

I felt the same way when I was in Cartegena, Columbia (the old city). How cool!


I need to explain better my previous statement. In fact I wrote:

That's what I mean.

If I take two rounds from the same box, for example two 135 GD as in your example, and I fire them in the same revolver, for example a snub nose as in your example, a muzzle velocity variation of about 2 m/s between one bullet and the other is not unusual at all.

I suppose for semplicity that expansion will take place once the soft tissues completely filled the cavity after the air bubble full compression.

The bullet number one has a muzzle velocity of about 259 m/s and the bullet number two has a muzzle velocity of about 261 m/s. I suppose too that the target, be it a ballistic gel block or a bad guy's body, is near the revolver muzzle so that it's possible to assume that the muzzle velocities are similar to the impact velocities.

With rough calculations is possible to note that the compressed bubbles have about the same volume when fully compressed (..the compressed air bubble for bullet 2 is negligibly smaller..) and that the energy that the bullet spend to compress such bubbles is similar for the two cases (..negligibly higher for the faster bullet..).

The energy spent is about 3.5J while the KE of the two bullets before the compression is respectively about 293 and 298J.

If the energy lost in the air bubble compression has such a marked influence on bullet expansion of bullet one(..the slower that flies at the same velocity as in your example..) I would expect that a normal variation of about 2 m/s in the impact velocity overcomes the problem of such energy lost because the KE available for the second bullet after the bubble compression(298-3.5=284.5) is a bit higher than that of the first bullet when it doesn't have to compress any air bubble in its nose (293).

The data of the manufacturer(CCI Speer) for the 135 GD shows this bullet launched at 860 fps has about 842 fps at 20 yards of distance from the muzzle.

It means to me that if the energy lost in the air bubble compression has such marked effects on the bullet expansion I would expect too a great difference in terms of bullet expansion/penetration behaviour when the soft target is near the muzzle or when the same soft target is at a distance of about 8 yards or more or even using two revolvers of the same type with the same barrel lenght and manufactured by the same company when there are very slight differences in barrel bores and cylinder to barrel gaps as it's usual.

The rough calculations of the time it needs for the tissue to fully compress the air bubble or for the tissue to fill the empty cavity in the nose shows that such time is very similar (..negligibly less with the bubble compression...the bullet is a bit slowed by this compression but the tissue needs to travel a bit less to fill the cavity because the space occupied by the compressed air bubble) with a stagnation pressure difference of about 1.5% with a bullet velocity of 850 fps (259 m/s).

*Your base assumptions are correct. And while one can establish "hard-line" numbers to explain a given criteria for scientific proof of theory, perhaps, rather than banging formula to the extent that it makes our heads hurt, I could provide an analogy that would explain the broad-spectrum of HC interaction performance;

Two vehicled are traveling towards each other at 50mph (80kph for you ;)).
Vehicle #1 has an Airbag, Vehicle #2 does not.
Driver of V#2 is fatally injured, while driver in V1 walks away with scratches a bruises. Why?


...I need to add that's it's not a critic to your interesting work....only some thoughts that comes in my mind about the topic....I haven't any reason or will to criticize anyone....I am here only to learn more about wound ballistic much like a student....

*Noted...appreciated.
Please note that i am not an expert on wound channel ballistics. there are many who are far more qualified on that subject than I am. Many on this very forum.




...just to end this long (...maybe too long...I'm sorry..) post....

*Never aplogize for making sense.
Your questions are well thought-out, and you reserve conlusions until you gather facts. Bella.

"A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something". -PLATO

there is an old trick to promote a rapid and quite reliable expansion of bullets with a cavity in the nose....I guess that if the nose is full of liquid you don't need to wait for the nose cavity to be filled by the soft tissues and after that it's already full of a real liquid and not will be full of a fluid-like material like the soft tissues...the problem to solve is to find a way to lock the liquid in place...or to use some material that is solid at room temperature and liquid when the bullet heats on firing.

*That's been bantered about for eons; personally, I see too many issues with that concept, too many to discuss here in true detail, but just a few:

1. While the "concept" of a liquid-filled cavity would in-fact eliminate the need to eliminate air, how would you reliably contain that liquid?
Even in it's static state, the liquid will ALWAYS want to escape. A wax cap for example, would be suceptable to heat, handling, storage, etc.
An Epoxy-class cover would increase resistance on contact with a target.
Any metal or other alloys would pose exhaustive issues in manufacture.

2. Any liquid would no-doubt increase buller overall weight, and any attempt to compensate for same would likely decrease bullet-wall strength.

3. It would be highly unlikely that any cavity filled medium could, or would react to transform from a solid to liquid state based on heating. Consider the actual time involved, and the time it would take from the firing sequense, to transfer its heat through the bullet, to the medium and liquid-change state.

4. A manufacturer would ALWAYS have to insure a completly air-free cavity everytime. Otherwise bullet instability in-flight would almost be inevitable.

5. Bullet walls would likely have to be much thicker, considering the liquid would exponentially react to the rapid acceleration, and try to reshape itself accordinlgy (equal and opposite reaction, fluid dynamics, as it were)



All the best
Andrea

P.S.: on yesterday I had an odd idea .... I thought about a test with a pistol inside a vacuum chamber .... but apart highly probabilities of non negligible muzzle velocity variation of the bullet compared to the same fired in air.... I guessed that my colleagues were not very happy because the pollution by the firing residue and ballistic gel(..what's its behaviour in vacuum?..) on components, gauges and pumps:D

*I think that's been done.
As I recall, the guys on 'Mythbusters' did something like that.
I don't really rember the results, but you could expect two; 1. In-flight resistance would be close to zero, and 2., gravity/bullet drop would be almost constant.

While I find that type of research 'interesting', I've not spent much time dwelling on that considering I don't expect to find myself shooting a BG in space...(sometimes I just crack myself up...)

They1
11-20-09, 10:33
Hey guys (and gals),

I've been thinking:

I've seen so many great comments and questions since I started this thread, I'd like to put some of them on my HC website.

I'd like to ask your permission to do so.

If that's ok, please go to my website; www.hypercavbullets.com, fill out the "Wish List form, and in the "Comments" section at the bottom, note that its ok w/you.

I'd like to include critical comments and questions, as well as others.

Thank you!

TiroFijo
11-22-09, 15:12
Be sure to post in your website exactly how do you know that a normal JHP takes 4" to expand... ;)

Reference tests by a knowledgeable independent party (not calculations) would be nice.

They1
11-22-09, 15:23
Be sure to post in your website exactly how do you know that a normal JHP takes 4" to expand... ;)

Reference tests by a knowledgeable independent party (not calculations) would be nice.

Again...independent test platforms are being set up with Brassfetcher, and DocGKR. VERY qualified sources.

Testing and evaluation is being conducted by a major manufacturer as you read this.

Please re-read entire thread for details.

Thanks.

TiroFijo
11-22-09, 15:46
Again...independent test platforms are being set up with Brassfetcher, and DocGKR. VERY qualified sources.

Testing and evaluation is being conducted by a major manufacturer as you read this.
Please re-read entire thread for details.

Thanks.

I've read it, thanks.

But I wasn't talking about your new bullets, but your claim that existing JHP bullets take 4" to expand... after all it is boldly stated in your website, graphics included.

MK108
11-23-09, 02:39
Dear They1,

my replies under your statements,



*Your base assumptions are correct. And while one can establish "hard-line" numbers to explain a given criteria for scientific proof of theory, perhaps, rather than banging formula to the extent that it makes our heads hurt, I could provide an analogy that would explain the broad-spectrum of HC interaction performance;

Two vehicled are traveling towards each other at 50mph (80kph for you ).
Vehicle #1 has an Airbag, Vehicle #2 does not.
Driver of V#2 is fatally injured, while driver in V1 walks away with scratches a bruises. Why?

...I find very difficult that the bubble air compression in the nose has a cushion effect so large to explain the expansion failure...so large to be roughly compared to the injuries difference between two vehicle accidents with or without the presence of the air bag...in fact it seems to me that the air bubble acts much like a very weak spring....much like an almost unflated air bag...using similar proportions as in the example of the 135 GD bullet...if I drive my car without the safety belt at about 30 mph and I have an accident so that the car stops abruptly I guess that the injuries on me are not very different if I have an impact with the steering wheel and the windshield at 30 mph or at 29.5 mph...


2. Any liquid would no-doubt increase buller overall weight...

..while there will be a bullet mass increase its final mass depends on the liquid used and on the cavity size...for example the use of a liquid with a density comparable to the density of the water inside the cavity of the 135 GD gives a bullet weight increase of about 1.5 grains....negligible from the practical point of view.... as I remember it's not unusual for the same type of cast or plated bullets utilized to reload pistol ammo to have a larger mass variation in the same box of ammunition...a difference hardly noticed by the shooter, by the pistol and...by the target...



3. It would be highly unlikely that any cavity filled medium could, or would react to transform from a solid to liquid state based on heating. Consider the actual time involved, and the time it would take from the firing sequense, to transfer its heat through the bullet, to the medium and liquid-change state.

...that's true...I wrote only an idea that came in my mind...


4. A manufacturer would ALWAYS have to insure a completly air-free cavity everytime. Otherwise bullet instability in-flight would almost be inevitable.

...to fill a cavity with a liquid without air bubbles it seems to me not a great problem for an accurate manufacturer....about the air trapped in the liquid filled nose of the bullet and its possible detrimental effects on the bullet flight....it depends on the magnitude of the mass asimmetries on the bullet....so sometimes these effects can be negligible...while other times they can be not negligible...



*I think that's been done.
As I recall, the guys on 'Mythbusters' did something like that.
I don't really rember the results, but you could expect two; 1. In-flight resistance would be close to zero, and 2., gravity/bullet drop would be almost constant.

While I find that type of research 'interesting', I've not spent much time dwelling on that considering I don't expect to find myself shooting a BG in space...

I wrote about an hypothetic firing test on a vacuum chamber for the simple reason that using two really identical bullets at the same impact speed in air and in vacuum against a block of soft tissues simulant it's possible to see the terminal behaviour of that bullet with (..in air..) and without (..in vacuum..) the air bubble compression...

...I am very interested too about the test results from Mr. John Ervin(...aka brassfetcher..) and Dr. Roberts!

All the best
Andrea

They1
11-24-09, 11:35
I've been asked several times now about this issue...

About the graph of expansion on the website:
I want to address this directly. I've been asked several times about the "avg. 4"" expansion statement.

This average, is a result of research that includes literally thousands of reports of actual shootings dating back to 1974. These include reports from doctors, LEO's and other qualified, viable accounts/reports.

This also takes into account all ranges of bullet performance in individual shootings, that encompass everything from bullets that expanded prematurely (i.e. high-velocity, thin-walled rounds that destroyed themselves in flight), to rounds that failed to expand at all.

I can see how that graph could be interpreted as a "hard number", and I should/will adjust the site to include the explanation of that average to reflect those conclusions.

I make no mistake that current HP rounds have improved dramatically over the last decade, and there are several excellent bullet designs on the market today.
However, since nothing is perfect, logic dictates that any and all useful improvements to any bullet design, can only serve us all better. After all, our very lives could depend on it.

The HC modification only serves to enhance existing bullet design performance, given the multitude of "variables" involved overall.

TiroFijo
11-24-09, 12:49
Perhaps you can even mention this in your web site:


As Tom Burczynski's superb work has detailed, most well designed projectiles have fully upset within the first 2 inches of travel...

...after all, an apples to apples comparison should be considering modern competitive designs, tested according to FBI standards.

Comparing modern, state of the art bullets, and using historical data that includes 70's designs, such a wide variation of shooting incidents and doubfutl reports, bullets fragmenting in air or impacting way out of their optimal design window, etc. is not conductive to anything useful.

I agree any and all improvements to bullet design are welcomed, but there is a point where the difference is so small it may become meaningless.

Not saying this is your case, I'll wait for the results.

RogerinTPA
11-24-09, 14:15
How do these ports affect accuracy?

I'm curious about that as well. Being that the holes appear to be perpendicular to the bullet and not at a forward angle (direction of travel), the holes should have only a minor aerodynamic affect, if that.

You would think that the air pressure captured in the cavity would aid in it's expansion, like a small shaped charge. Wouldn't simply filling the cavity with a more durable wax, epoxy or a soft plastic tip, like TAP, accomplish the same thing? I have some glaser rounds with an epoxy in the cavity, which seems pretty durable.

They1
11-24-09, 14:34
I'm curious about that as well. Being that the holes appear to be perpendicular to the bullet and not at a forward angle (direction of travel), the holes should have only a minor aerodynamic affect, if that.

You would think that the air pressure captured in the cavity would aid in it's expansion, like a small shaped charge. Wouldn't simply filling the cavity with wax, or a soft plastic tip, like TAP, accomplish the same thing?

*The angle of the ports are designed to offer the least resistance in flight, while the same angle will promote "plugging" of the channels after the cavity has been filled with target tissue.

An interesing observation about the air 'aiding expansion', but it's really not the case. rember, while the tissue is compressing the cavity, the bullet is also bleeding energy at an exponential rate. Once the cracking moment has begun, any potential benefit of the trapped/compressed air has long-since been nulified.

---

While I always thought the 'tipped' or filled cavities offer an improvement, wax-type mediums would be suceptable to heat (either by environment or from firing), and the silicones are still a "semi-solid", still needing compression, and still slower than simply filling an empty space.

One other thing to consider; Which costs less? Adding material, or simply drilling holes in the same bullet?

MK108
11-26-09, 05:35
...about the travel in soft tissues or tissues simulant that the hollow point bullet needs to achieve a noticeable expansion (..when it expands..) ...I guess that it could be interesting to take a look at the tables from the BRL paper "Ammunition for the law enforcement Part II: data obtained for bullets penetrating tissue simulant" (..a part of the well known RII study..)... of mid/late 70's...

...while this study is faulty under some aspects, knowing that the density of the 20% ballistic gel is similar to those of body soft tissues or the now used 10% ballistic gel means that the bullet behaviour when its velocity is quite high is similar too....so I guess there were not so very different expansion rates on the same HP bullet type with the same impact velocity on testing it in these different media...

...in the case of HP bullets the shapes of the temporary cavities depicted show us that normally the max TC diameter happens more or less at a penetration distance near 2"... I don't know if the max TC happens exactly when the bullet is fully expanded....but I guess that it happens near the position of the max expansion....

..I guess too that it's useful to take a look at a drawing of measured TC shapes for the same bullet with different impact velocities...in the example it seems that the max TC diameter positions don't change so much for the same bullet at those different impact velocities...

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/9463/cavity.th.jpg (http://img145.imageshack.us/i/cavity.jpg/)

All the best
Andrea

They1
11-26-09, 08:16
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

WS6
11-27-09, 12:51
...about the travel in soft tissues or tissues simulant that the hollow point bullet needs to achieve a noticeable expansion (..when it expands..) ...I guess that it could be interesting to take a look at the tables from the BRL paper "Ammunition for the law enforcement Part II: data obtained for bullets penetrating tissue simulant" (..a part of the well known RII study..)... of mid/late 70's...

...while this study is faulty under some aspects, knowing that the density of the 20% ballistic gel is similar to those of body soft tissues or the now used 10% ballistic gel means that the bullet behaviour when its velocity is quite high is similar too....so I guess there were not so very different expansion rates on the same HP bullet type with the same impact velocity on testing it in these different media...

...in the case of HP bullets the shapes of the temporary cavities depicted show us that normally the max TC diameter happens more or less at a penetration distance near 2"... I don't know if the max TC happens exactly when the bullet is fully expanded....but I guess that it happens near the position of the max expansion....

..I guess too that it's useful to take a look at a drawing of measured TC shapes for the same bullet with different impact velocities...in the example it seems that the max TC diameter positions don't change so much for the same bullet at those different impact velocities...

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/9463/cavity.th.jpg (http://img145.imageshack.us/i/cavity.jpg/)

All the best
Andrea

Precisely. JHP's already expand fully by 1-2" penetration. Even if They's projectiles work, what will be gained? We may have the same problems he had, if it works. Over-expansion/underpenetration.

The only benefit I can see to his design is if JHP's can be designed with smaller mouths. However, the Corbon DPX has a mouth like the Staypuff marshmellow man and I have not heard of those clogging.

I will continue to remain skepticle until evidence of efficacy is presented.

They1
12-24-09, 17:57
My best wishes to all of you.

A Merry Christmas and a happy new Year!

Be well.

:D

They1
01-03-10, 14:19
Ok folks, here's the deal; I've had these photos for some time now, test performed early on in the project's development.

I've not shared them to date for several reasons. The primary reason is I didn't think this was a valid test, considering the test medium proved to exceed the 'standards' of ballistic gel criteria. We used a medium from "Bullet Test Tube". The idea being it was reusable. (Thinking economy here)

Turns out though, that after measuring later, the BTT medium is almost TWICE the density of standadrized ballistic gel.
So, after learning this, we canceled any further tests as this seemed to be a "bad idea".
I tried to contact BTT, but no response to email, and their phone appears to be disconnected. (I think I know why)

The next reason, is the quality of the photos are severely lacking.

All things being equal, my goal has been to present clean, independent scientifically-based test result information with solid data, and quality photos.
While we're working on that as you read this, please keep in mind the unscientific nature of the pics here:

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT1JPG.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT2JPG.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT3JPG.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT4JPG.jpg

**NOTE: You'll notice the three port blast marks as the bullet enters the target.

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT5JPG.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT6JPG.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT7JPG.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT8JPG.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT9JPG.jpg

To help put things into prespective, the following is a photo from BTTs' website, showing the same medium, but with a RIFLE round:
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/BTT4.jpg

geminidglocker
01-03-10, 14:39
Sorry, but I'm not into Role Playing Games. If it is not in stock and available, and I have not killed Humans or Animals with it, I don't really care how "Special" it is. End this silly thread already. OP, how many "Things" have you killed? How many samplings of ammo have you shot? You see, I should hope that both yourself and myself have spent enough time striking things in the head with bullets, to realize that no further designs are necessary. Try building a rail gun or something useful.

They1
01-03-10, 14:52
Sorry, but I'm not into Role Playing Games. If it is not in stock and available, and I have not killed Humans or Animals with it, I don't really care how "Special" it is. End this silly thread already. OP, how many "Things" have you killed? How many samplings of ammo have you shot? You see, I should hope that both yourself and myself have spent enough time striking things in the head with bullets, to realize that no further designs are necessary. Try building a rail gun or something useful.

An 'interesting' response to say the least.

I suspect your comments alone speaks volumes about your thought processes.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln

No further comment is necessary...

WS6
01-03-10, 15:05
I missed the picture of the path left by the OEM GDHP. All that is coming up for me is the wound left by the modified one.

geminidglocker
01-03-10, 15:14
When it comes to ammo issues and unknown factors, think like Spock in Star Trek, You will be rewarded if you follow our strict rules of Logic, yet you shall fail by operating otherwise. Too, many variables. Seek the logic and use the statistic probability factors to determine the proper selection of munition. Their are plenty that are adequete and will keep you alive just fine, Provided you do your part!;)

They1
01-03-10, 15:25
When it comes to ammo issues and unknown factors, think like Spock in Star Trek, You will be rewarded if you follow our strict rules of Logic, yet you shall fail by operating otherwise. Too, many variables. Seek the logic and use the statistic probability factors to determine the proper selection of munition. Their are plenty that are adequete and will keep you alive just fine, Provided you do your part!;)

The "variables" are exactly the reason we should always seek improvement...in everything.

Always account for the "chaos" in "order", and vice vera.

BTW: Spock, and Star Trek...are science fiction.

geminidglocker
01-03-10, 15:56
Well, Hypercav, send me some test ammo, and if my hand is still attached to my wrist, I'll write an Honest Review.

They1
01-04-10, 10:35
Well, Hypercav, send me some test ammo, and if my hand is still attached to my wrist, I'll write an Honest Review.

No problem! Go to the website and put in your order, I'll put you in the que.

"Nothing proves like a demonstration".

BTW: I wouldn't worry too much about your keeping your hand, unless you shoot with your hand in front of the barrel...

WS6
01-04-10, 12:41
No problem! Go to the website and put in your order, I'll put you in the que.

"Nothing proves like a demonstration".

BTW: I wouldn't worry too much about your keeping your hand, unless you shoot with your hand in front of the barrel...

Have you inquired with DocGKR if he would like to test some? You may have and I forgot, but my memory is fuzzy right now. Just had a big meal :D

Redmanfms
01-06-10, 20:55
Have you inquired with DocGKR if he would like to test some? You may have and I forgot, but my memory is fuzzy right now. Just had a big meal :D

He could always have Dr. Courtney test it......:p

Seriously though, They1, you should find out if Dr. Roberts would be willing to test the stuff in a direct comparison.

They1
01-10-10, 15:20
FYI: On request, here is a blow-up photo of the BTT shot entry showing the three "port blast" marks

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT4CLOSEUPJPG-Copy.jpg


Also, we hope to have independent gel-test done by the end of the week w/Brassfetcher.

Tests will be 9mm HC, .38+P HC and a "special" .380 HC.

I'll post info when we get it.

They1
01-10-10, 15:30
Have you inquired with DocGKR if he would like to test some? You may have and I forgot, but my memory is fuzzy right now. Just had a big meal :D

Yes, I've been in touch w/Dr. Roberts for some time now. I'm waiting to hear back on when his current project/agenda clears.

WS6
01-10-10, 17:00
It would be nice if you had shot that bullet-tube with a normal GDHP so we would have something to compare it to. I dare say it would look identical, in fact, I went and hunted down a picture so you wouldn't have to post one. Here it is:

Sorry, it is not the same caliber (this is a 357 Magnum from a lever-gun) or velocity as yours (it is 158gr@a tad over 1650fps at impact, but you can see that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the length of the "neck" leading to expansion between this and your ammunition other than the soot smudges that yours left.)

So far from what I can see you are right, the air DOES evacuate through the ports you drilled. Ergo, I am gaining about 1-3# of energy assuming I am not losing velocity due to in-flight dynamics. I see no tangible benefits at this point in your product demonstration. I await further "convincing".

My picture:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2i12lhi.jpg

Your picture:

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/HCBTTSHOT5JPG.jpg

My source for this photo: http://www.diyballistics.com/.357%20Mag%20Carbine%20Tests.html

They1
01-11-10, 10:54
It would be nice if you had shot that bullet-tube with a normal GDHP so we would have something to compare it to. I dare say it would look identical, in fact, I went and hunted down a picture so you wouldn't have to post one. Here it is:

Sorry, it is not the same caliber (this is a 357 Magnum from a lever-gun) or velocity as yours (it is 158gr@a tad over 1650fps at impact, but you can see that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the length of the "neck" leading to expansion between this and your ammunition other than the soot smudges that yours left.)

So far from what I can see you are right, the air DOES evacuate through the ports you drilled. Ergo, I am gaining about 1-3# of energy assuming I am not losing velocity due to in-flight dynamics. I see no tangible benefits at this point in your product demonstration. I await further "convincing".

WS6,
Thanks for posting that! I was unaware of that particular photo.

As a rule, I don't usually compare 'apples and oranges', but since you brought it up, I will respond directly;

1. Note in my initial comments, that I thought the BTT medium did NOT represent a valid test, given that the BTT medium measured almost TWICE the density of standard test medium, when compared to standard (and accepted) 10% gel block medium. This is one reason I've contracted Brassfetcher re-test everything.

Having said that, you have produced a BTT photo, so on that note let's compare;

Yes, the necks are very close in dynamic effect. That's the intention of the HC mod. HC is NOT designed to 'blow people up', it's designed to make a good bullet...better...more reliable, over a wider range of conditions. Any "by-product" results are only another aspect of the porting.

2. Your test shot was from a SPGD .357 MAGNUM 158gr, moving at 1,650 fps, fired from a RIFLE barrel.
Photo shows good expansion, and (if I read this right) approx. 6 3/4" PENETRATION.

The Hypercav was a SPGD .38+P 125gr, 945 fps, fired from a 2 1/2" barrel.
Total penetration was 11".

*NOTE: As mentioned earlier, we DID shoot a standard SPGD. Didn't record it as it was "unremarkable". Bullet stopped about 3" short, and due to the high density of the BTT medium (we suspect), the petals folded back almost to the shank.

By comparison, please see the photo of the expended HC round. Petals are almost 90 degrees from body, and very 'jagged' (better overall wound channel)

I would agree that these numbers and results seem "wierd". That's why I don't trust the BTT medium.

WS6
01-11-10, 11:22
WS6,
Thanks for posting that! I was unaware of that particular photo.

As a rule, I don't usually compare 'apples and oranges', but since you brought it up, I will respond directly;

1. Note in my initial comments, that I thought the BTT medium did NOT represent a valid test, given that the BTT medium measured almost TWICE the density of standard test medium, when compared to standard (and accepted) 10% gel block medium. This is one reason I've contracted Brassfetcher re-test everything.

Having said that, you have produced a BTT photo, so on that note let's compare;

Yes, the necks are very close in dynamic effect. That's the intention of the HC mod. HC is NOT designed to 'blow people up', it's designed to make a good bullet...better...more reliable, over a wider range of conditions. Any "by-product" results are only another aspect of the porting.

2. Your test shot was from a SPGD .357 MAGNUM 158gr, moving at 1,650 fps, fired from a RIFLE barrel.
Photo shows good expansion, and (if I read this right) approx. 6 3/4" PENETRATION.

The Hypercav was a SPGD .38+P 125gr, 945 fps, fired from a 2 1/2" barrel.
Total penetration was 11".

*NOTE: As mentioned earlier, we DID shoot a standard SPGD. Didn't record it as it was "unremarkable". Bullet stopped about 3" short, and due to the high density of the BTT medium (we suspect), the petals folded back almost to the shank.

By comparison, please see the photo of the expended HC round. Petals are almost 90 degrees from body, and very 'jagged' (better overall wound channel)

I would agree that these numbers and results seem "wierd". That's why I don't trust the BTT medium.

I just found it odd that you wouldn't show what your product would do compared to another. Also, your theory is that the fact that air must be compressed and THEN the bullet will expand. My picture shows that even if this must occur, there is no real difference in "neck" length. I wish I could find a .38 GDHP from a bullet test-tube. However, I could not, since you have now decided that the BTT is not a good test media because of its density, I found something even better than a mere photograph, this time in a lighter density medium. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

FF to 4:52 in this video (which, btw, is a cool video through and through, but what we are interested in starts at 4:55).

It will show you, at 1 million frames per second, what happens when a JHP impacts a hydraulic target. Again, it expands at the same rate that your modified GDHP did in the bullet-tube, at least, if there is any difference you would need a micrometer to determine it. Note that these bullets also appear to be of older design than the GDHP, if you go to the site I linked you to for my previous picture, you will see that some of these older bullets do take a bit longer to expand sometimes.

No, sadly it was not a .38 GDHP. I really don't think I am going to be able to find that in a medium showing the length of the "wound neck". There is also another photo out there of a 2" thick slice of gel showing a fully expanded HST round exiting it. Maybe someone can post it if I cant find it again.

Redmanfms
01-13-10, 21:08
Yes, I've been in touch w/Dr. Roberts for some time now. I'm waiting to hear back on when his current project/agenda clears.

Very cool.

They1
01-14-10, 21:32
Hi all,
HC update:

Testing continues, and in the last couple of days our PhD guy did some water jug shots. he took some pics and video, the later will be posted when we get it transferred.

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/38spl125SGDP_4inbbl.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/9mm124SGD_40gW231_G26.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/9mm124SGDP_G26-1.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/9mm124SGDP_G26.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/9mm124SGD_40gW231_G26_side.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/38spl125SGDP_2inbbl_side.jpg
*NOTE: Although neither bullet showed significant expansion, tester reported that the Hypercav round produced a "significantly more violent" entry, virtually destroying the first two water jugs.
We're still analyising the info, but it appears that even if the ports are not destroyed by the expansion process, that the ports act as a 'hydraulic cutting jet", forced by the target material being forced at very high pressure into the cavity.

Again, video will be posted as soon as it's available.

Furthermore, Brassfetcher should have test samples shortly for gel-block testing.

Hopefully, we'll have some good photos and data in time for SHOTSHOW!

MK108
01-15-10, 08:15
They1,

interesting pics and data...

...from your measurements it seems that almost every time the penetration in media is lower for the unmodified version..

..and it means that almost every time the "hole" of crushed tissue is on average a bit larger for the unmodified version than the Hypercav version...the exception is the last test where, thanks to the very short barrel of the revolver, the two bullets were almost undeformed so that they had a similar profile of the nose during the penetration...

All the best
Andrea

WS6
01-15-10, 10:55
All of these pictures show the "hypercav" mod as detracting from expansion. The last picture is most telling of all. The "hypercav" bullet shows almost imperceptible expansion, as far as I can see, while the unmodified one shows a little bit of widening of the mouth of the hollowpoint, a good bit of difference between the two if you look close.

Every picture posted shows a reduction in the efficacy of the projectile with regards to expansion after recieving the "Hypercav" modification.

As it stands, it looks like "Hypercav" is a measurable step BACKWARDS in expansion technology.

MK108's post hits the nail on the head with redards to expansion/penetration correlation.

They1
01-24-10, 16:54
Made it back from SHOT Show this morning. It was my first time to this event. Quite an experience...way cool!

This show was good for Hypercav, bad for my feet.

First of all, Brassfetcher has my test rounds, and is working up gel-blocks for tests this week.

To those who've criticized why I've not shot/posted my own tests, it's because, as I've said many times, independent tests will tell the story, without ANY bias.

The project was well recieved by literally all who I shared this concept with. Including manufacturers and press. (You should start to see mentions from several well-known media sources in the near future.)

I met Massad Ayoob while there. He really liked the concept, and agreed to test some HC ammo for review. A very knowledgable guy, and unquestioned in the industry.

R. Lee Ermy also wants some. After I showed him samples and explained the project, he said, 'that makes perfect sense!" Then he asked; "why someone didn't think of this a long time ago" (he also threw in a "Hoo-Rah!). While, I don't have that answer, and never will, I know it has now...:) (Nice guy too.)

One NRA guy said; "shooters are going to eat this up!"

Ted Nugent wants some.
"Stone Cold" Steve Austin want to try some.

One of the manufacturers I've been talking to told me they have already test fired samples I sent them some time ago, and he told me 'they did exactly what I said they would do." (I was unaware of this test-set before I met w/them at the show) These tests were in standard gel-block medium. He also mentioned that they did not record the data, so unfortunatly, I have no photos to share here. Besides, due to corporate confidentiality issues, I doubt that I could anyway. However, I will post Brassfetchers' results when they become available.

In all, there are at least three manufacturers are seriously looking at this project. Others have entered the 'pipeline' for consideration, but nothing specific was mentioned of commitment at the show. I cannot give details of the conversations, nor will I, until a mutual agreement is struck. Also note that future details may not be disclosed if the end-licensee stipulates such restrictions, and of course, I will respect their wishes.

Machinery is being designed to automate the 'porting' process for mass-manufacture of HC-class bullets.

I hope everyone understands that this project isn't "perfect". There is still much work to be done in creating the best port configuration for all calibers, ultimate port diameters, count and positions must be calibrated to provide the best performance in relation to each type of round. As you can imagine, handgun and rifle ammo will have different criteria.
These aspects will be addressed by the licensee's R&D.

In the end, those who understand the endless complexities in any new product development will know what I've been saying all along; this is a slow process at best, but necessary to create the best-performing product possible.

For those who would rather make knee-jerk conclusions and assumptions before all the data is in (you know who you are...), there's nothing I can say or do other than offer the proof as it comes in. After that, I can't help you.

I have no idea what the ultimate 'evolution' of Hypercav will become...many possibilities exist. Only time, design and testing will tell the story. There is still much to learn and exploring the possibilities, as this is a brand new entity being introduced into the ballistics industry. Having said that, I can quote one person of "note" in the industry; this could be a game-changer."

TiroFijo
01-25-10, 06:04
WOW!!

Brassfetcher
Massad Ayoob
R. Lee Ermy
One NRA guy
Ted Nugent
"Stone Cold" Steve Austin

some of the most knowledgeable and respected names in the industry :D

...gives an idea of the target audience.

WS6
01-25-10, 06:37
I am interested in seeing the brass-fetcher results.

They1
01-25-10, 09:07
WOW!!

Brassfetcher
Massad Ayoob
R. Lee Ermy
One NRA guy
Ted Nugent
"Stone Cold" Steve Austin

some of the most knowledgeable and respected names in the industry :D

...gives an idea of the target audience.



"Target" audience? Not by a long shot (pardon the pun...).

I was the original target "audience"...If I had not had the results with this project as I have to date, you would have never heard of Hypercav.

The next 'target audience', was folks like you, and all shooters who would like a more reliable bullet.
It's for those who's lives (including mine) that may depend on one bullet to stop an attack, that Hypercav exists.

The guys mentioned above happened along after-the-fact.
I think it's cool/interesting that these guys like the project, and want some ammo...but nothing would change if these guys never heard of Hypercav.

They1
01-25-10, 09:09
I am interested in seeing the brass-fetcher results.

So am I.
I don't expect any rude surprises, but at least it'll be some qualified independent test results I can share...

worldskipper
01-25-10, 17:00
Did you ever get a copy of Bullet Penetration? Did Shawn still have any?

They1
01-30-10, 11:27
Well, a lot of folks have been waiting for this...and the results came in this morning.

Some very interesting results...beyond our expectations considering the S&B product.

Hypercav Bullet Test


Commentary:

Gelatin Block test results from Brass Fetcher.



Rounds tested: S&B 9mm, 115gr JHP (Un-bonded Jacket)

Shots #1, #3: JHP-HC

Shot #2: JHP (Control)



Note that HC rounds expanded with enough energy to literally shear the Jacket into 3 and 4 separate pieces respectively, vs. 1 piece for the control round.



You’ll also see the triangular shape of the HC bullets, with six “knife-edges”.



HC rounds also tumbled/rotated with notable force without loss of penetration. (Potentially 2~3 times wound channel tissue damage)



*Further test analysis pending.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/26109301


Nothing like a 9mm bullet turning into an almost 60cal. three-headed 'anvil' with six cutting edges, that tumbles, rotates and spins to give a bad guy a bad day!

gaucho1
01-30-10, 13:32
Thank You

They1
01-30-10, 13:36
Pictures or videos?

Pictures and data sets for each are in the link above.

glockshooter
02-02-10, 22:10
I have got to say there does not seem to be very much difference between the control and the modified bullets. I also am disappointed that you chose such an obscure bullet. Why not use a bullet with more of a reputation for performance and jacket retention? In the end the test seems like a waste, because there is really no true comparison to a proven bullet.

Matt

They1
02-03-10, 21:32
I have got to say there does not seem to be very much difference between the control and the modified bullets. I also am disappointed that you chose such an obscure bullet. Why not use a bullet with more of a reputation for performance and jacket retention? In the end the test seems like a waste, because there is really no true comparison to a proven bullet.

Matt

Since the main purpose of porting is reliability, using a mid-performance bullet was mostly the point.

Brass Fetcher should be receiving some Speer Gold Dots, Corbon, and Federal LE loads for testing, as well as Copper and Frangibles.

I'll post those results when we get them. However, did I not post water jug results w/SPGD's?

smokey0118
02-03-10, 23:50
question...the whole point of the holes is to remove the air from the cavity of the hollow point, so why don't you just plug it with a polymer tip like critical defense loads have? there'd be no air to get in the way of expansion then right? it'd probably be faster and cheaper to make too. I want you to do tests using your method on 147 gr hst's in 9mm and 230 +p hst 45's.

MK108
02-04-10, 06:43
HC rounds also tumbled/rotated with notable force without loss of penetration. (Potentially 2~3 times wound channel tissue damage)



...mmmh....it's not possible...unless something magic happened...

All the best
Andrea

They1
02-04-10, 11:52
question...the whole point of the holes is to remove the air from the cavity of the hollow point, so why don't you just plug it with a polymer tip like critical defense loads have? there'd be no air to get in the way of expansion then right? it'd probably be faster and cheaper to make too. I want you to do tests using your method on 147 gr hst's in 9mm and 230 +p hst 45's.

1. Any 'medium' like a Polymer insert, is still indroducing another force to be overcome by the tissue exchange. Frankly, inserts have the most positive effect on plugging issues.

2. Many inserts do not fill the cavities entirely, leaving a static air pocket.

3. An small-scale automated version of porting can produce bullets at a rate of 1 per second. A high-end machine can procuce in less time than that.

4. Cost of an insert is around .06 per bullet (Factor in; cost of material and molding, then assembly). Cost of HC porting is estimated at .01 (dependent on volume produced).

They1
02-04-10, 12:27
...mmmh....it's not possible...unless something magic happened...

All the best
Andrea

"It's not possible?" That's an interesting statement, considering you're looking at the actual photos...

It's not 'magic' either. Just physics.

Look at the tumble cycle rate of shots #1 & #3, compared to the control round (shot#2) You can see them, you can count them!

It's the re-shaping of the expanded bullets (#1&#3)...it's flatter. That will inherently be more unstable.

smokey0118
02-04-10, 21:29
1. Any 'medium' like a Polymer insert, is still indroducing another force to be overcome by the tissue exchange. Frankly, inserts have the most positive effect on plugging issues.

2. Many inserts do not fill the cavities entirely, leaving a static air pocket.

3. An small-scale automated version of porting can produce bullets at a rate of 1 per second. A high-end machine can procuce in less time than that.

4. Cost of an insert is around .06 per bullet (Factor in; cost of material and molding, then assembly). Cost of HC porting is estimated at .01 (dependent on volume produced).

nother question then. you claim the energy going in to compressing the air in the hollowpoint cavity is a net loss of 2.45J. compressed gasses tend to spring back to normalize when outside forces are removed. Wouldn't the compressed gas normalize at the first opportunity(either through sliding to the side and around the front of an expanded projectile or just towards the end of a bullet's path assuming the compressed bubble you make such a big deal over stays inside the cavity) and dump that energy back into the material being shot really making no difference whatsoever? it's not going to be wasted energy limiting penetration in any way. If a bullet has a certain momentum to start and it must crush a bigger wound channel than another bullet of equal momentum, how would it have similar penetration? physics basically say that a bullet is capable of doing so much work with so much energy. it seems you're claiming that the bullets somehow do more work with the same emount of energy...i'm interested in your perspective on this.

in the instance of the gold dots fired, it appears the modifications have weakened the bullet to split into a three-leafed clover shape rather than a nice symmetric mushroom. the extra penetration is probable due to the material slipping between the 3 gaps in these petals similar to a broadhead. why not just use an HST that does this better and more reliably?(i've experienced gold dots tend to lose petals and take off in one direction or the other tumbling sideways in tests at the range)

MK108
02-05-10, 09:50
"It's not possible?" That's an interesting statement, considering you're looking at the actual photos...

It's not 'magic' either. Just physics.

Look at the tumble cycle rate of shots #1 & #3, compared to the control round (shot#2) You can see them, you can count them!

It's the re-shaping of the expanded bullets (#1)...it's flatter. That will inherently be more unstable.

...the problem here is that your statement is against Newton's rules....that's physics...

...and the pics and related numbers you posted clearly show what I mean...

All the best
Andrea

They1
02-05-10, 12:31
...the problem here is that your statement is against Newton's rules....that's physics...

...and the pics and related numbers you posted clearly show what I mean...

All the best
Andrea

With all due respect, I have no earthly idea how you are arriving at the conclusions you are...

If ANY fundemental laws of physics were broken, you and everyone else would have never seen the Hypercav project in the first place, as it would have failed before it ever got started.

Having said that, I also have neither the time nor inclination to get into an OT debate about Newtons' Laws, either from Isaac Newton (A brilliant individual), or Harold a.k.a."Bubba" Newton, who has his own "theories" (fyi: he's a less-than-savory neighbor down the street from me...).

Of course, while the science behind this or any other product must be established, I think everyone would agree that this forum is NOT the place to discuss such details. Some of that information is disclosed on the website.

The bottom line is quite basic; See the obvious. Independent tests were conducted, the test results have been posted, the photos are un-altered proof of HC performance, and further tests are on-going.

I'm not here to shove this project down anyone's throat. if you like the concept of an improved class of hollowpoint, great!
If not, when Hypercav-class ammo comes available to the market...simply don't buy them.
The choice will ALWAYS be with the end-user.

MK108
02-08-10, 02:10
...I have no earthly idea how you are arriving at the conclusions you are...

maybe it's better for you to read your previous statement....


HC rounds also tumbled/rotated with notable force without loss of penetration. (Potentially 2~3 times wound channel tissue damage)

...and decide by yourself if it follows Isaac Newton's laws or "Bubba" Newton's odd theories...

All the best
Andrea

BuckskinJoe
02-08-10, 04:40
I cannot, for the life of me, even begin to understand why this thread continues. Talk about beating a dead horse!

WS6
02-10-10, 01:21
This is your first post in this thread, red accent added for emphasis:


Hi all.

This is my first post here, and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join this distinguished group.

Coudn't help but notice the chatter related to the Hypercav bullet project, and I'd be happy to answer any reasonable questions you may have.

One point I'd like to stress right off:

The HC round is NOT intended to be the "golden bullet". HC is not perfect...nothing is.

The porting of the cavity simply removes the "compressible factor", the trapped air, that all HP rounds fired must overcome before expansion can begin.

The fundemental factor of the HC concept, is to add additional reliability to existing HP rounds, many of excellent design, to work as intended over a much broader spectrum of conditions.
Work is currently underway to repeat our test results by independent entities, and those results will be published as we get them.

For those who would be critical, bravo. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
I ask no more or less of you than I'm willing to do myself. Of course be skeptical.

I would ask that you delay judgement until all the facts are in. Fair enough?

I would also point out that currently, there are several very talanted folks working on this project as you read this, and aside from a few minor adjustments, everyone agrees with the concept potential, and the physics behind it.

Much work is still to be done...this is a new concept, and as such, a lot of tweaking is still forthcoming.

For the record, we're not the only ones who believe in the project; currently we're begining talks with one major manufacturer, and I've been contacted by two other so far.

After all is said and done, and proven, wouldn't you want your ammunition to work as designed...only better?

Thanks for your time. Pleasure to be here.

___________

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

To paraphrase, your goal(s) would appear to have been: shorter penetration until full expansion, and more reliable expansion.

I saw evidence of neither in the gelatin test, nor the bullet-tube test that you posted. In the water-test, I saw numerous examples of the HyperCav bullet performing poorly compared to the OEM, un-modified projectile

We can go on and on about tumbling and "hammer-head" shape and so on and so forth, but based on the original statement of the purpose of this product, I do not feel that the goals have been met, or if they have, their evidence of being met, is lacking.

Your analysis of this performance seems to have changed gears in this post (again, red emphasis added) from your original direction.


Well, a lot of folks have been waiting for this...and the results came in this morning.

Some very interesting results...beyond our expectations considering the S&B product.

Hypercav Bullet Test


Commentary:

Gelatin Block test results from Brass Fetcher.



Rounds tested: S&B 9mm, 115gr JHP (Un-bonded Jacket)

Shots #1, #3: JHP-HC

Shot #2: JHP (Control)



Note that HC rounds expanded with enough energy to literally shear the Jacket into 3 and 4 separate pieces respectively, vs. 1 piece for the control round.



You’ll also see the triangular shape of the HC bullets, with six “knife-edges”.



HC rounds also tumbled/rotated with notable force without loss of penetration. (Potentially 2~3 times wound channel tissue damage)



*Further test analysis pending.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/26109301


Nothing like a 9mm bullet turning into an almost 60cal. three-headed 'anvil' with six cutting edges, that tumbles, rotates and spins to give a bad guy a bad day!

You weakened the jacket. Of course it is more prone to coming apart than the non-perphorated jacket in the OEM product. All this means is less weight-retention through barriers--reducing over-all reliability of the product, also, not a factor using bonded ammunition.

Further, "six cutting edges" have not proven to be of any benefit as relates to their efficacy in the Ranger-T line according to any study I have ever read. The Ranger-T line works because it expands reliably and penetrates well, in most calibers. The talons are more of a "CDI" factor.

On another point, if the HC bullet were destroying more tissue simulant, penetration would suffer. This is simple physics. The more it crushes, the more resistance it meets, the sooner it will stop. Since the bullets all penetrated roughly the same (with the Hypercav appearing in one-case to penetrate further, possibly as it layed over sideways reducing drag (and tissue destruction), weighed nearly the same, and expanded to roughly the same, it can be surmised that they crushed--roughly the same amount of tissue simulant.

Once again, I will state: Your original goal was claimed to be more rapid/reliable expansion. Failing to show this, you have fallen back on claims of sensationalism reminiscant of the news-clips that played during the media onslaught of the "evil black talon".

I view this re-direction as admission of failure to meet the primary objective and an attempt to salvage time and energy invested.

Just my .02 at 0200hrs because I have a hell of a cold and cannot sleep.

They1
02-18-10, 15:24
New test results:
Magtech .45+P 165gr Copper (SCHP)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b0bK9xmxPs


*Analysis and discussion on the results: (Isaiah Kellogg-PhD)

First and foremost, the Magtech SCHP doesn't appear to work well at all. Only 1 out of 4 of the factory bullets expanded - and that's in water! Water tends to induce a bit more expansion than ballistic gelatin does. But even with water, the Magtech factory SCHP only manages to expand 25% of the time. Not very good odds.

The purpose of HyperCav was to increase the reliability of expansion of a hollowpoint bullet. In this case, we see that very well. The HyperCav modification about doubled the probability of expansion.

That wasn't particularly unexpected. What was unexpected, is that the impact of the HyperCav bullets was significantly more violent than the factory bullets - even when they didn't expand! Why is that?

For a simplified demonstration, go into your bathroom, and turn on the cold water, full blast. Then, with one quick motion, slam the valve closed all the way. You might hear a bang and then your pipes rattling. That's called "water hammer."

Water is an incompressible fluid, which means that the volume of water can't change (well, there are minor volume changes with temperature, but squeezing water can't compress it). When you turn on your faucet, all the water in the pipe is moving. When you shut off the faucet, the water suddenly stops. All that kinetic energy has to go somewhere - it turns into pressure.

In fluid dynamics, pressure and kinetic energy are interchangeable. A rocket turns pressure into kinetic energy by using a nozzle. An object flying through a fluid causes kinetic energy to turn into pressure where the fluid hits the front of the object, that pressure is known as drag.

So in your water pipes, suddenly turning all that kinetic energy into pressure isn't a good thing. The fix for that is to install a small vertical section of capped pipe near the faucet. This vertical pipe, maybe six inches long, is full of air. When the faucet is suddenly turned off, the sudden pressure increase is cushioned by compressing that air. Let's see a diagram:

Where else have we seen an air cushion?

That's right, in the cavity of a typical hollowpoint bullet. Remove that air cushion and what happens when something suddenly increases the pressure of the water?*

New gelatin tests are pending w/Federal .40 HST

WS6
02-18-10, 17:11
New test results:
Magtech .45+P 165gr Copper (SCHP)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b0bK9xmxPs


*Analysis and discussion on the results: (Isaiah Kellogg-PhD)

First and foremost, the Magtech SCHP doesn't appear to work well at all. Only 1 out of 4 of the factory bullets expanded - and that's in water! Water tends to induce a bit more expansion than ballistic gelatin does. But even with water, the Magtech factory SCHP only manages to expand 25% of the time. Not very good odds.

The purpose of HyperCav was to increase the reliability of expansion of a hollowpoint bullet. In this case, we see that very well. The HyperCav modification about doubled the probability of expansion.

That wasn't particularly unexpected. What was unexpected, is that the impact of the HyperCav bullets was significantly more violent than the factory bullets - even when they didn't expand! Why is that?

For a simplified demonstration, go into your bathroom, and turn on the cold water, full blast. Then, with one quick motion, slam the valve closed all the way. You might hear a bang and then your pipes rattling. That's called "water hammer."

Water is an incompressible fluid, which means that the volume of water can't change (well, there are minor volume changes with temperature, but squeezing water can't compress it). When you turn on your faucet, all the water in the pipe is moving. When you shut off the faucet, the water suddenly stops. All that kinetic energy has to go somewhere - it turns into pressure.

In fluid dynamics, pressure and kinetic energy are interchangeable. A rocket turns pressure into kinetic energy by using a nozzle. An object flying through a fluid causes kinetic energy to turn into pressure where the fluid hits the front of the object, that pressure is known as drag.

So in your water pipes, suddenly turning all that kinetic energy into pressure isn't a good thing. The fix for that is to install a small vertical section of capped pipe near the faucet. This vertical pipe, maybe six inches long, is full of air. When the faucet is suddenly turned off, the sudden pressure increase is cushioned by compressing that air. Let's see a diagram:

Where else have we seen an air cushion?

That's right, in the cavity of a typical hollowpoint bullet. Remove that air cushion and what happens when something suddenly increases the pressure of the water?*

New gelatin tests are pending w/Federal .40 HST

Looks like in this case the modification did have an effect. I am suprised at the poor performance of this projectile, though. Is it the same as DPX, or is it Magtech's own?

They1
02-18-10, 17:22
Looks like in this case the modification did have an effect. I am suprised at the poor performance of this projectile, though. Is it the same as DPX, or is it MagSafe's own?

According to Dr. Roberts, the Magtech Copper is a "knock off" of Barnes product design.

I was surprised as well with their poor performance. These rounds were fired from a full size 45 no less...

I have some Magtechs in my inventory. I'll be relegating them to the range...

WS6
02-24-10, 14:07
They told me to put my money where my mouth was, and since I have told him as much, I am up for it. I am sending him 50 rounds of 357SIG in GDHP, and will test them when they return.

My plan?

Get 4 layers of denim and some soaked phone-books and go shot-for-shot with OEM ammunition, adding a layer of denim every shot, until one chokes, and then continue and see how long until the other JHP chokes. I feel sure that if the modification does anything, a trend will emerge, one way or the other. If not, they will both end up choking on the same layer of denim.

Any other, better ideas for a poor guy with no lab equipment or gello?

PS. Dr. Roberts, are you due to test anything on denim/gel any-time soon. If so, would you be willing/curious to test 10 rounds of OEM vs. 10 of the rounds They is porting for me? The penetarion disparity in denim covered gel vs. bare gel with the 357SIG Gold-Dot with OEM ammunition is rather large. I think this would be a good test for They's product. With you testing it, if it works, They's product would win some much-needed support around here and other forums. If it proves ineffective, then we can be done with it and not wonder...what if?

Also, did you ever shoot the RA45T I sent you, or has that test not occured yet?

They1
02-27-10, 12:50
FYI: Just getting some new test results in.

http://hypercavbullets.com

New vids from NP's latest testing on the 'Marketing' page. There will be more to follow.

New pics in the Gallery, including our first, and very interesting rifle shots, 30-30 Copper and 7.62. (including some 4-layer denim.)

Also, BrassFetcher has completed another Gelatin test: Federal Tactical LEO 165gr .40. 1-control, 1-Bare gelatin, 1-Gel w/4-layer denim.

I'll post the results when I get them.

They1
03-02-10, 12:22
Hey all...

Latest videos from testing are in, and posted on the website. (Marketing page)

These include two rifle calibers.

*Note the results from the 30-30 Copper. With this and other Copper round testing, we're beginning to see that Copper and 'porting' are going to get along just fine!

Be sure to read tester's comments at the right of the page.

TiroFijo
03-02-10, 13:11
Would it be too much to ask, after several months of this infomertial, for real, professional, independent third party gel tests performed according to FBI standards? You know, including barrier penetration, etc. The world is full of seemingly good ideas and interesting calculations and concepts, but nothing sells like real world results.

Water jugs over an ironing board are entertaining, but don't look too professional or authoritative, and neither does the "bullet test tube". The "staff@hypercavbullets.com" contact tries to suggest it is not a one man operation from a basement, but it really looks like it.

BTW, the naked gel test of the unmodified .30 coper HP shows less penetration (24") than your modified one (30"), suggesting bigger/earlier expansion.

WS6
03-02-10, 15:15
Would it be too much to ask, after several months of this infomertial, for real, professional, independent third party gel tests performed according to FBI standards? You know, including barrier penetration, etc. The world is full of seemingly good ideas and interesting calculations and concepts, but nothing sells like real world results.

Water jugs over an ironing board are entertaining, but don't look too professional or authoritative, and neither does the "bullet test tube". The "staff@hypercavbullets.com" contact tries to suggest it is not a one man operation from a basement, but it really looks like it.

BTW, the naked gel test of the unmodified .30 coper HP shows less penetration (24") than your modified one (30"), suggesting bigger/earlier expansion.

I will have some ported 357SIG rounds here soon and am willing to ship 10-15 of them to anyone who can do a professional test. I am not capable of such at the time. Just PM me.

They1
03-12-10, 10:58
Tester shot a new water jug test yesterday. Photos and detailed report soon, but here is some prelim.;

Ammunition tested was Remington Golden Saber unbonded .380.

Control round expanded as expected, and punctured 2 jugs, and 'barely' into jug #3.

HC expanded as expected, and punctured 3 jugs, stopping 'just inside' jug #4.
Also sheared the bullet jacket.

*Special Note: We once again, have noticed Jacket "shearing" from unbonded HC bullet tests.
One of our initial concerns was that the ports themselves could weaken or otherwise effect the bullets structural integrity.

This appears NOT to be the case. On detailed inspection of the .380 HC bullets, it appears the jacket shearing point is BEFORE the ports.
(Detailed inspection of the first jacket-shear issue was not possible due to the extent of jacket damage)

This suggests/confirms two things;
1. The ports do NOT appear to weaken or otherwise negatively effect a given bullets base design.

2. Expansion characteristics of HC ported bullets DO exhibit a more 'aggressive' opening.

Brassfetcher will be testing Federal LEO .40S&W soon. 1-control, 1-HC Bare Gelatin, 1-HC Gelatin w/4-layer Denim. (Maybe this weekend?)

Obviously, more testing is needed...much more. But to date, 'project confidence' remains high.

WS6
03-12-10, 21:41
A small footnote, I will not be having any 357SIG Gold Dots modified by They1. He assessed the ones I sent and determined the cavity unsuitable for this modification. I figured that would be the case, as any of you who are familiar with the round would likely concur with.

They1
03-19-10, 10:29
A small footnote, I will not be having any 357SIG Gold Dots modified by They1. He assessed the ones I sent and determined the cavity unsuitable for this modification. I figured that would be the case, as any of you who are familiar with the round would likely concur with.

That is true. the 357sig SPGD basically has no cavity. there's nothing to port...

Here's the latest test results as promised.

http://www.hypercavbullets.com/380gs.pdf

TiroFijo
03-19-10, 11:30
Again, the unmodified bullets show less penetration (13") than your modified one (18"), suggesting bigger/earlier/more durable expansion. In a gel test you could measure the permanent cavity left behing, but not with water jugs...

It seems the holes weaken the petals a little so they fold back earlier.

The #1 modified bullet has less diameter than the unmodified one, that explains the deeper penetration.

The #2 modified bullet has jackect/core separation, and the core has less diameter than the unmodified expanded bullet, that's why it penetrates deeper.

They1
03-26-10, 11:56
FYI: Latest test results are posted on the HyperCav website. ('Marketing page')

This was Gelatin block from Brassfetcher.

Round tested was Federal Tactical LE .40S&W 165gr.
(1-Control, 1-HC bare gelatin, 1-gelatin w/4-layer denim)

In the 'Photo gallery' page, are drawings of the automated machine to port bullets.
(kinda cool...)

You can also find Remington .380 Golden Saber results there as well.

WS6
07-14-12, 10:22
How is..."Project Confidence"?

Still high?

Anyone know what happened to They? He "wasn't going anywhere", but I have not seen him or Hypercav around. Just curious, whipping out the "way-back-machine" this morning and necro-posting. Apologies.

BufordTJustice
07-14-12, 15:14
How is..."Project Confidence"?

Still high?

Anyone know what happened to They? He "wasn't going anywhere", but I have not seen him or Hypercav around. Just curious, whipping out the "way-back-machine" this morning and necro-posting. Apologies.

I'll dogpile. I'm curious too.

481
07-15-12, 11:28
How is..."Project Confidence"?

Still high?

Anyone know what happened to They? He "wasn't going anywhere", but I have not seen him or Hypercav around. Just curious, whipping out the "way-back-machine" this morning and necro-posting. Apologies.

Looking around, I can't help but notice that all activity (tests, videos, ads) surrounding this purported "ballistic break-through" seems to have come to a screeching halt around the first quarter of 2010.

It does not portend well being that it is over two years between "then" and "now".

Littlelebowski
07-15-12, 12:11
Website is defunct.

Fail-Safe
07-15-12, 13:50
I could swear I read a post, here or arfcom, that they decided it did not do what they had hoped, and they shut down. Some said "I told ya so" while other atleast gave them props for trying.

WS6
07-15-12, 18:06
I could swear I read a post, here or arfcom, that they decided it did not do what they had hoped, and they shut down. Some said "I told ya so" while other atleast gave them props for trying.

I would have given props for trying, but having spoken to "They" on the phone. He was very "I'm secret squirrel and I know people and they demand my product and I have contracts in the works with big-wigs and you'll all see my glory and I'll retire off this!" It was almost religious/manic.

DocGKR
07-15-12, 18:12
That is a MAJOR problem in the firearms industry these days--it might be smarter to develop, test, perfect, and validate an item before publicly unveiling it and starting the advertising hype...

J-cat
07-15-12, 19:56
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv218/They1/38spl125SGDP_4inbbl.jpg

Looks to me like the holes vent air AND fluid out of the hollow cavity resulting in slower expansion, less expansion, and greater penetration. All these HC bullets look underexpanded.

The only benefit I see to all this is you can get 2-3" more penetration out of a lighter bullet by slowing the rate of expansion.