New bullet: "hypercav"

[BADUNAME37]

Suppose the holes were set on an angle to correspond with the rotation of the bullet.

Air passing in the nose, being compressed in the V-Shape HP and then exiting -- not perpendicular to the centerline of axis, but, say on a 45 degree angle so as to assist in bullet rotation (muck like small jets of air spraying out the sides on an angle). This would mean that the hole lengths would be a bit longer which may or may not add to the plan of your design. Remember, the mass of air going out those holes is going to be greater than the hole size and should match the front opening of the HP, NO?

 

[KBintheSLC]

Its hard to tell from the image on your site's top banner, but are the bullets actually custom made? They appear to be a Speer Gold Dot bullet with some holes drilled in it. If that is the case, how did you manage to acquire a patent on it?

 

[They1]

Suppose the holes were set on an angle to correspond with the rotation of the bullet.

Air passing in the nose, being compressed in the V-Shape HP and then exiting -- not perpendicular to the centerline of axis, but, say on a 45 degree angle so as to assist in bullet rotation (muck like small jets of air spraying out the sides on an angle). This would mean that the hole lengths would be a bit longer which may or may not add to the plan of your design. Remember, the mass of air going out those holes is going to be greater than the hole size and should match the front opening of the HP, NO?

Actually, that was considered. However, there were several reasons why I didn't go that way;
1. The current design promotes an "aerodynamically neutral" flight path. In other words, nothing in this design should interfere with the original bullets flight path.

2. Altering the "pitch" of the ports to the trailing end could actually induce drag in flight by the "venturi effect".

3. The ports are designed to "plug" with target material once the air has been replaced, allowing the bullet to pressurize, and expand.

4. Changing the ports to accomodate any flight-mode characteristic function, would infringe on a french patent from 1922.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Actually, that was considered. However, there were several reasons why I didn't go that way;
1. The current design promotes an "aerodynamically neutral" flight path. In other words, nothing in this design should interfere with the original bullets flight path.

2. Altering the "pitch" of the ports to the trailing end could actually induce drag in flight by the "venturi effect".

3. The ports are designed to "plug" with target material once the air has been replaced, allowing the bullet to pressurize, and expand.

4. Changing the ports to accomodate any flight-mode characteristic function, would infringe on a french patent from 1922.

OK, that answers that!
Thanks!

 

[They1]

Its hard to tell from the image on your site's top banner, but are the bullets actually custom made? They appear to be a Speer Gold Dot bullet with some holes drilled in it. If that is the case, how did you manage to acquire a patent on it?

Good eye.
the prototypes are indeed Speers. But that brand isn't the only one relevant to this technology. Literally ALL makes and brands of HP ammo is applicable.

HC is applicable to all classes of HP, including JHP, Half-jacket, Lead, Copper rounds, etc..

In the end, you should be able to find HC-class ammo versions from every manufacturer out there. After all, who wouldn't want their ammunition to be better...by a wide margin?

I didn't patent the hollow point bullet, I patented the concept of "porting" a bullet to allow the trapped air to escape on contact with the target. "Burp" the bullet as it were...

The HC mod only makes very good bullets, more reliable over a much wider range of conditions.

 

[They1]

I was wondering about the accuracy of the ammo, do the holes do anything to change the trajectory of the bullet? Good luck with the invention. I look forward to your tests.

While we've not shot rifle rounds yet, I don't see the handguns having any problems...





Note the "zingers"...you can tell when the guy next to me was shooting...lol

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Published on the hypercav website;

It's well documented that law enforcement, military, the civilian population, as well as bullet manufacturers themselves, report upwards of 80% "failure-to-open" (FTO) scenarios in "in-the-field" conditions.

A question for They1: Can you cite these reports?

They1 writes:

FBI protocol testing will begin in a few days.

I suggest you also perform tests using the IWBA protocol with four layers of heavy denim cloth.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

They1

You might wish to also post your info on the Terminal Ballistics Information forum at M4carbine.net . It's a forum frequented by many who are knowledgeable about terminal performance and wound ballistics (medical professionals, bullet designers, law enforcement, military).

see: http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91

 

[They1]

They1

You might wish to also post your info on the Terminal Ballistics Information forum at M4carbine.net . It's a forum frequented by many who are knowledgeable about terminal performance and wound ballistics (medical professionals, bullet designers, law enforcement, military).

see: http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91

Thanks for the suggestion Shawn. I will.

 

[They1]

They1

You might wish to also post your info on the Terminal Ballistics Information forum at M4carbine.net . It's a forum frequented by many who are knowledgeable about terminal performance and wound ballistics (medical professionals, bullet designers, law enforcement, military).

see: http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91

I took your advice. Good folks there, and the chatter and questions have been helpful.
Thanks!

Also, Oleg Volk is working on some very detailed photos. This guy is good!

I'll post them on the website as soon as they're ready.

Here is one example;

 

[They1]

Wishing all of you a Merry Christmas, and a prosperous New year!

 

[Dannix]

^likewise.


On a side note, you offering these bullets to reloaders yet?

 

[hankdatank1362]

Just out of curiosity, and I haven't read the entire thread so it may have been answered; if air plugged up the cavity of a conventional hollowpoint, and then the bullet struck a "wet" target (human flesh), wouldn't the pressure exerted on the face of the bullet compress the air trapped in the cavity enought for the hollowpoint to still open via traditional hydraulic expansion?

And also, would the "ports" in your design not only allow air to pass through, but also blood and other soft material, lessesing the effectiveness of the cavity to aid in expansion?

Not knocking the design, I really am curious. I could be way of base here.... it's happened before

 

[They1]

^likewise.


On a side note, you offering these bullets to reloaders yet?

Hi Dannix,

To better answer your question, perhaps it's best to give you a project update;

I've not posted much lately, simply because so much has been up in the air. Currently, there are four 'major' manufacturers that have expressed interest, and two are actively testing sample ammo that's been provided by us, as well as ammo that's been modifyed by the specific manufacturers.

As you can imagine, more testing has been done since last posts, and there have been a few surprises. One of the more interesting has been, we're seeing deeper penetration from HC rounds than the original counterpart (Average so far is about 1~2").
Frankly, this one surprised me. I fully expected that since the HC round opened so agressively, that energy echange would have shown a slightly reduced penetration overall. We also noted that the rounds have a tendency to "rotate" as the bullet passes through the g-block medium.
Obviously, we're studying the "why" of this, but to date, the general consensus is that the expanded temporary cavity is actually reducing the bullets' overall friction, producing a deeper wound channel.
The rotation appears to be a result of the expansion. We're seeing the bullets open deeper into the shank. this is causing the bullet petals to open in a more "ragged", "outward" shape, rather than curling back in a more uniform configuration.
This is theorized to cause a "parachute-type" effect, causing the round to want to rotate on its axis.

Seems like the bullet overall path is 'normal', and again, these have been good, but unexpected results. Much more testing has yet to be done, and we'll have to confirm results with other calibers, repeated firing, etc..

To your specific question; To date, all HC ammo used for testing has been hand-made, both here and the manufacturers who are now testing at their facilities.
However, it's become obvious that HC manufacturing needs to evolve, and we're talking to a custom machine design company to develope an automated system to mass-produce HC rounds in several calibers (expect about 12 weeks +- from machine order to completion).

So, until that time, I won't have any ammo for anyone because hand-building just is'nt practical anymore.

To be perfectly honest, I never anticipated this response, at least this soon in the projects' development. Since I started the HC website in mid-october, we've had over a Quarter-Million hits, and over 4,000 orders, all from word-of-mouth only, and no Search Engine submissions! (oops...)

So, to all who have ordered HC ammo, please bear with me. I'm doing the best I can to get a system in place, and have every intention of getting you taken care of as soon as I can.

But also note that if a manufacturer decides to license this project, they will be taking over the reigns to produce HC-class ammo, and I would fully expect this to be made available as both completed ammunition and as bullets-only for all reloaders as well.

Hope you all had a great Christmas, and my best wishes for an even better New Year!

 

[They1]

Just out of curiosity, and I haven't read the entire thread so it may have been answered; if air plugged up the cavity of a conventional hollowpoint, and then the bullet struck a "wet" target (human flesh), wouldn't the pressure exerted on the face of the bullet compress the air trapped in the cavity enought for the hollowpoint to still open via traditional hydraulic expansion?

And also, would the "ports" in your design not only allow air to pass through, but also blood and other soft material, lessesing the effectiveness of the cavity to aid in expansion?

Not knocking the design, I really am curious. I could be way of base here.... it's happened before

The air in the cavity isn't 'trapped' in the cavity in its static state, but only after contact with the target. After that, the air is indeed compressed by the target flesh. this is what the porting does by allowing the air to escape.

The ports actually destroy themselves after bullet expansion, so any fluid passing is irrelevant.

HC ports only exist for that brief moment just after contact with the target.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Ahhh, gotcha! Sounds neat!

 

[Crawford]

Hay.... if you design 'em right, they should whistle as they fly... maybe with a couple of different tones?

Actually, the theory looks interesting. Eliminating the cushion of trapped air in the cavity should, depending on the type of surface initially contacted, provide a slightly greater initial shock to initiate bullet expansion. I would be curious to see how a padded, air filled surface like a goose down jacket or multiple layers of denim effect it though. They may provide their own 'shock absorber effect'. Either way, it could still provide a measurable level of improvement over standard hollow point design.

I wish you good luck with you endeavor...

(P.S.: If it's not already too late, stay as far away from venture capitalists as you can.)

 

[rgwalt]

One suggestion

Hi, great website design and you have a very interesting concept for your hollow points. I have a PhD in chemical engineering, and when I saw a few posts about all the equations on your site, I went running. I looked at the technology page, and my suggestion is to include more diagrams with an explanation of what you think the "problem" is with current hollowpoint designs and how your design solves the problem.

From what I can tell by reading your technology page, your claim is that the cavity of the bullet traps air and wastes energy. Your equations show that the energy wasted is less than 1%... is that really significant? Also, even for someone who has some experience in the field, your math is a little hard to follow. If you are trying to present the math to a lay-person, you will lose them with the first equation. If the math is presented for someone with a technical background, then it definitely requires a more verbose explanation with additional detail. I would recommend writing up the mathematical example in a format similar to one you would find in a peer reviewed scientific journal, with equation numbers, etc. I would also include references for any/all equations and physical constants. For example, where did you "get" your first equation? I'm sure it comes from a book on fluid mechanics, but you should cite a source so that the reader can verify if they want to.

You could break your technical explanation down to two parts, one for the lay person and one for someone with technical expertise. The highly-technical explanation could be made available as a PDF download from the website. The low-tech explanation (using diagrams and animations) could quote results from calculation from the high-tech explanation.

Best of luck with your bullet design!

 

[They1]

Hay.... if you design 'em right, they should whistle as they fly... maybe with a couple of different tones?

Actually, the theory looks interesting. Eliminating the cushion of trapped air in the cavity should, depending on the type of surface initially contacted, provide a slightly greater initial shock to initiate bullet expansion. I would be curious to see how a padded, air filled surface like a goose down jacket or multiple layers of denim effect it though. They may provide their own 'shock absorber effect'. Either way, it could still provide a measurable level of improvement over standard hollow point design.

I wish you good luck with you endeavor...

(P.S.: If it's not already too late, stay as far away from venture capitalists as you can.)

You have no idea how many folks have either asked or requested that my bullets "whistle"...at first, I really didn't get it. But in retrospect, I guess it would be kinda cool.
One thing for sure, if they did whistle, everyone, besides the bad guy, would know when a Hypercav was fired...lol

Not that I have, but what's the issue with venture capitalists? I have no experience with these folks.

 

[They1]

Hi, great website design and you have a very interesting concept for your hollow points. I have a PhD in chemical engineering, and when I saw a few posts about all the equations on your site, I went running. I looked at the technology page, and my suggestion is to include more diagrams with an explanation of what you think the "problem" is with current hollowpoint designs and how your design solves the problem.

From what I can tell by reading your technology page, your claim is that the cavity of the bullet traps air and wastes energy. Your equations show that the energy wasted is less than 1%... is that really significant? Also, even for someone who has some experience in the field, your math is a little hard to follow. If you are trying to present the math to a lay-person, you will lose them with the first equation. If the math is presented for someone with a technical background, then it definitely requires a more verbose explanation with additional detail. I would recommend writing up the mathematical example in a format similar to one you would find in a peer reviewed scientific journal, with equation numbers, etc. I would also include references for any/all equations and physical constants. For example, where did you "get" your first equation? I'm sure it comes from a book on fluid mechanics, but you should cite a source so that the reader can verify if they want to.

You could break your technical explanation down to two parts, one for the lay person and one for someone with technical expertise. The highly-technical explanation could be made available as a PDF download from the website. The low-tech explanation (using diagrams and animations) could quote results from calculation from the high-tech explanation.

Best of luck with your bullet design!

The equations were actually done by a PhD to show the scientific formula that verified my initial work. Since I am not a PhD, I can see you point to relate to us lay folks.

(Note: i never heard of anyone 'running' from an equation before...lol)

While 1% of energy loss seems rather minimal on the surface, look at the by-product; During that energy expenditure, the bullet is slowing as it passed through the target medium, while at the same time, the "cushion" effect is a porportional ratio to reach critical mass.
Sometimes a very small change can make all the difference. One example are airbags on cars. A 3' airbag can make all the difference to a person who walks away from a 50mph head-on crash.
Hypercav, with it's porting of the cavity, works just the opposite.

 

[gym]

After speaking with "They1", I must say that he has convinced me completely of the products ability to perform above and beyond anything that is on the market today. I look forward to getting my hands on them as soon as they become available. With all of the money we spend on weapons for protection and HD, the JHP should do the job that we purchased it to do, I have no doubt that these will take care of their end if we take care of ours. Sometimes you only get a chance for one clean shot, I for one want that bullet to do what it was designed to do. It doesn’t matter how much the gun cost if the bullet fails.

 

[Dravur]

The physics behind it is sound. I would be interested in trying it on some ballistic gel with some bones tossed in to see what the fragmentation would be like.

I too looked over the math, and without some explanations of variables, I was confused.

 

[zombienerd]

Personally, I can't wait to see the actual gelatin test results, and maybe get them on
Box of Truth and see how they do.

Edit: Thanks to the mods for cleaning up the stupid pictures

 

[GunsAmerica Fan]

If you want to do a video at SHOT you should PM me and I'll give you the girl's email who is scheduling the videos. All the major ammo manufacturers are doing video with us so when they all go look at theirs they will also see yours. It is pretty nifty.

 

[They1]

Personally, I can't wait to see the actual gelatin test results, and maybe get them on
Box of Truth and see how they do.

Edit: Thanks to the mods for cleaning up the stupid pictures

Skeptics are not an issue with me...I'm skeptical about most everything, until I have a reason to be otherwise. I just let facts take me in the direction I'm going, then I reach conclusions.

Always amazes me how those with the least information, operate at the highest volume...

*I've tried to contact the Box of Thruth folks several times. Never got a response. Couldn't register either. I have a lot of respect for those guys, and the information they provide. I'd really like to see BoT do some testing with HC.