New type of hollow point bullet

[They1]

Care to elaborate?? Cost, packaging, how supplied, etc.

Sure, as best I can...

The only real expense would be setting up the machinery to incorporate the ports into the bullets.

Variables of manufacturer would be; Molding at the time of pour, Laser cutting, Water jet, Plasma or Punch. There may be others worth exploring, but these come to mind.

I could see, this being a new product line, that costs for a box would be a little higher than conventional ammo by direct comparison, but it shouldn't be much.

Note that this is speculation on my part, as I am only the inventor, and seek to License to an existing manufacturer.
As such, packaging, supply and distribution would likely be through normal, typical channels.

[kayakersteve]

You can show me gel shots all day...but in the field, it can be a different story.
Frankly, I have yet to ever be attacked by a gel block, but if I do, I'll let you know.

You make this statement as if expansion shots from b-gel aren't the norm. They are used across the industry, and I highly doubt your expansion shots are from real tissues, such as you leg! B-gel serves as a medium in which all variables can be managed to compare different bullets and calibers on an equal playing field. But, please keep an eye out for that gel block - you just never know what may show up for real or on the internet!

[kayakersteve]

If you can make this available for $25-30.00 per 50 round box, people may try it. Just sayin'

[They1]

You make this statement as if expansion shots from b-gel aren't the norm. They are used across the industry, and I highly doubt your expansion shots are from real tissues, such as you leg! B-gel serves as a medium in which all variables can be managed to compare different bullets and calibers on an equal playing field. But, please keep an eye out for that gel block - you just never know what may show up for real or on the internet!

No, you're right...B-Gel IS the norm. There has to be some kind of baseline.

Interestingly enough, I've some trouble finding volunteers...

In the meantime, I do keep a wary eye out for any rogue B-Gels.

Wait a minute...I'M They! AND I'm on the internet! A paradox...

[Uncle Buck]

Interestingly enough, I've some trouble finding volunteers...

Uh... Could I volunteer my sister-in-law for these test? If the test proved inconclusive and needed to be redone, then I have some cousins I would be willing to part with, of course this would only be for testing purposes...

[sserdlihc]

I volunteer my MIL! She only weighs about 400 lbs. I believe in furthering the science of the firearms industry.

[They1]

LMAO!

Guess I should start a special "wish list" on the website for "volunteered volunteers"...

"I feel your pain"...

[Edward429451]

A new magic bullet? Horray! Of course the effectiveness will be judged by the price. If they are really good then they will be 49.95 per box of 20. Then I will stock up for zombies.

[They1]

"New "magic bullet"?
I'm afraid not. HC may represent a notable improvement in bullet performance, but there's no magic here...

You may have Hypercav confused with a Suppository.

[Al Norris]

Sometime back, Federal came out with their EFMJ. Regardless of the effectiveness of that particular projectile, you simply can't get it for reloading. Federal refuses to sell it as a component. A loss to all reloaders.

I suspect, your design, if proven, will go the same way.

But then, Golden Sabers aren't all bad.....

[They1]

I'd like to think that HC would be available to reloaders as well. Does'nt make much sense not to, IMHO...

[Tomas204]

I believe in thinking and improving things ,and when you do ,you either get praises or haters ,so be the world of inventors ,I being one who has designed and sold a couple of tools ,I have had haters and praise ,to you They1 go on with your endevore ,becasue like you ,I would rather fail trying than not try at all

[They1]

I believe in thinking and improving things ,and when you do ,you either get praises or haters ,so be the world of inventors ,I being one who has designed and sold a couple of tools ,I have had haters and praise ,to you They1 go on with your endevore ,becasue like you ,I would rather fail trying than not try at all

Is that a rule of life, or a backhanded compliment...lol

True enough...It's an interesting occupation to say the least...but I've been accused more than once, of marching to a different drummer, so I guess it's a resonable match.

Frankly, I can't worry about those who would criticize before the facts are in...what matters is that my work is accurate, and that it works. End results...

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Because knowledge tells us of what is and was...and imagination tells of what will be."
-Albert Einstien

[snuffy]

Is that hole only on one side of the bullet? Or is there another one 180 degrees from the one in the picture of the loaded round? May be a dumb question, but it would create an unbalanced bullet if on one side only.

Also the precision required to get them precisely 180 degrees apart AND at the same height, won't be easy.

[They1]

Is that hole only on one side of the bullet? Or is there another one 180 degrees from the one in the picture of the loaded round? May be a dumb question, but it would create an unbalanced bullet if on one side only.

Also the precision required to get them precisely 180 degrees apart AND at the same height, won't be easy.

On the sample round in the photo, there are three ports. Best calibration for that particular round.

Any other rounds that require 2,3,4, ect., MUST be concentric, or flight stability could be effected, and is not acceptable.

Adding ports under computer-controlled manufacturing processes, should remain within tolorances for mass production.

[Kyo]

here is my feedback. take it as you will.
I love my golden sabers 230g. I also enjoy +p rated hornady's in the 230g.
1. If you are going to be using this design, you will lose some weight right? Where will you make it up?
2. If these bullets have cut outs/vents like your website describes, does it not make the bullet more fragile and more likely to break apart instead of just expanding?
On a side note, I am really not sure what we are looking for in a hollow point. to expand and do the most damage? or to break apart in the body and do the most damage? Or does it really matter?
3. I have seen HP's split from the jacket before. will this design encourage that?
4. How will this design really prevent the plugging when you are firing through layers of clothes? Jean fibres and such surely can't be forced into the ports.
5. Would this design slow the bullet down in the barrel? Is it not creating a drag effect when the bullet is traveling down the barrel and air is traveling from the HP point through the ports on the sides of the bullet?
I think this needs lots of testing. I signed up for your "beta" testing on your website. send me some and I will give you some feedback.
Also a suggestion- try a pyramid bullet. Have one part of it solid, the other part of it hollow, like layers. multiple layers and see how it expands outwards with it.

[Swampghost]

I've always used and air to water density ratio of 784, not 150.

I began my career designing aerohydroplanes and built my first one at age 15. I went on to become a design and manufacturing engineer.

I do not believe that laminar flow will occur on a flat nosed or hollowpoint bullet.

Have you considered the RPM? I love this one, a PE and I were just messing around one day. 1:10 twist X 4200 ft/sec = 42,000 rev/sec. X 60 = 2,520,000 RPM! And we were wondering why the HP's were flying all over the place, they were opening up soon after leaving the bbl.

Depending on the size of the frontal area you will have jets coming out of the relief holes. If these are not absolutely perfect the bullet will destabilize and it's already flying in turbulence.

On switching densities upon impact, I can't envision the holes even being a factor. They will be blocked by a number of events.

[XD Gunner]

Question: If this design is so excellent, revolutionary, and astounding, why has Speer, Hornady, Nosler, Sierra, and Barnes not picked up on it already? Surely they have tried something like this?

Not saying that it won't be a good design, just thinking that if I was a bullet designer, trying to design and sell the next big thing in bullet design, I believe I would have looked into this design a few years ago, and if I could prove that it was in anyway superior to existing designs, I would push it like a black friday special. However, since that IS NOT the case, then I am VERY skeptical that this design will turn out to be anything lasting and revolutionary. Obviously, I have no authority on the bullet, as I have never shot one, but it just seems very theoretical and a lot of maybe at best.

Have you ever thought about sending some product to http://www.theboxotruth.com/?

[snuffy]

MV X 720/Twist Rate = RPM

1-10 twist X 4200 ft/sec = 302,400 RPM.

OR MV x (12/twist rate in inches) x 60 = Bullet RPM Same answer 302,400 RPM

You only have to worry about RPM of a bullet if you're pushing a very thin jacketed bullet too fast. As in the Hornady SX .224 bullets, do not exceed 3300 FPS.

Rotation of a bullet cannot exceed it's twist rate. It will make one full rotation per whatever it's twist rate is. 1 -10, then it will rotate once every ten inches. Rotation will assist a HP bullet to open, but it really doesn't count for much.

[Double Naught Spy]

Question: If this design is so excellent, revolutionary, and astounding, why has Speer, Hornady, Nosler, Sierra, and Barnes not picked up on it already? Surely they have tried something like this?

Maybe they have and maybe they have not. People do come along with new ideas and improvements all the time. Just because the big boys aren't doing it doesn't mean they have thought of the idea and discarded it. Apparently, they did not patent the idea.

----

Looking at the images, however, I have to agree that it appears the new rounds open and curl back too much, resulting in less expansion.

Based on the image here, http://www.hypercavbullets.com/tech.htm , by opening earlier, however, they get less penetration. Depending on your perspective, that may or may not be a good thing.

Personally, I was hoping the new bullets would whistle or "scream." Apparently, that isn't happening. Bummer.

[mongoose33]

I'm always a bit amused by these threads. The upshot--the always unspoken assumption--is that if a bullet doesn't perform *perfectly* that the BG will simply dust himself off, smile at the scratch, and kill us.

I took a RN bullet (no case, just the bullet) and pressed it into my shoulder--it hurt! And that was just from pressing it. I can't imagine how it would feel if it arrived at 850 fps, expansion or no.

I look at the SD rounds in my guns and I can't imagine it would feel good to be shot by one, regardless of how perfect the expansion was.

I'm not going to lie awake nights worrying about whether three tiny ports initiate expansion better than no ports; there are so many more things one can do to improve one's chances than simply worrying about the bullet. IMO, once you have a decent SD round, you've done what you need to do.

I can't imagine this would have any change to the outcome in a SD scenario except in less than 1 percent of all times used. And I can think of many things that *would* influence that outcome to the better, such as practicing shot placement and followup shots.

IMO, this is arguing about the last .3 percent variance in outcomes; there are so many other things that affect outcome that worrying about that tiny influence, even if it's true, isn't worth the effort.

[hoppes-no9]

Have you considered the RPM? I love this one, a PE and I were just messing around one day. 1:10 twist X 4200 ft/sec = 42,000 rev/sec. X 60 = 2,520,000 RPM! And we were wondering why the HP's were flying all over the place, they were opening up soon after leaving the bbl.

Swampghost,

I agree with you but you got your math wrong.

1/10" twist x 12"/foot x 4200 ft/sec = 420 rev/sec x 60 = 302,400 RPM.

[rogn]

Havent read through this whole thread, but one of the things thats quite apparent about this thread is the lack of questions being asked about some of the parameters. I have some mixed emotions about those who have definitve opinions with out any real broadening of knowledge of the test at hand. Lets get some good input on the material at hand before espousing free hanging opinions, please. From what I can see of the test results looks like both types of HP will be effective in the appropriate situation. BTW most of the data I see suggests that the usual range of defensive gun fights is abt spitting distance, but dont forget some folk can spit a watermelon seed 30 feet. ballistic performance may be inconsiquential in defensive situations, terminal ballistics being the real issue. Further testing seems inorder. Perhaps someone who is in the busines of controlling crop depredation can acquire some appropriate bullets (40 or 45 caliber) and use them at proper velocities, in both a legal and humane application. Some of these folk may terminate a 100 deer in a control season. These terminal results may be more information-productive than all the gelatin or test media trials run. Anyhoo, I do feel some of us should seek more info bfore popping a blanket condemnation, two pennies from the Eastern Shore of MD.

[They1]

Rogn,
Yours is one of the more lucid, well thought out statements I've seen in some time.

In due course, many aspects of "reality-based" test platforms should be performed. This will ultimately tell the story of HC performance. This will also end the debate as to the design...Talk is cheap, proof is absolute.

[Mal H]

Originally Posted by hoppes-no9

1/10" twist x 12"/foot x 4200 ft/sec = 420 rev/sec x 60 = 302,400 RPM.

You got the final figure correct, but the intermediate figure is too low. It would be 5040 RPS * 60 sec/min = 302,400 RPM