Full Metal Jacket
member
gates didn't invent windows. he bought it from a programmer for about $33,000, and then took it to microsoft and made $90 billion.
he's an excellent business man, not programmer.
New bullet: "hypercav"
- Thread starter They1
- Start date
- Status
gates didn't invent windows. he bought it from a programmer for about $33,000, and then took it to microsoft and made $90 billion.
he's an excellent business man, not programmer.
Nate1778
Member
and this guy ain't claiming to invent the hollow point, he is simply trying to improve it, and with any luck sell it to Hornady, sound familiar.
All I am saying is cut the guy some slack, it may bite your pride in the end.
All I am saying is cut the guy some slack, it may bite your pride in the end.
Full Metal Jacket
member
what happens when you contact him through his site, or have him add you to his "mailing list"? is he asking for investors? 
Nate1778
Member
No clue, but if he is asking for investments, then I would guess one would have to make a choice, like any other investment. As a possible investor I would like to see real data, but I am not, so thus far I am simply an observer observing from a distance.
JamisJockey
member
Okay so did you get the FBI tests done? Was the bullet compared in several calibers against bullets of the same weight and charge?
How does it penetrate a clothed target vs. other similar bullets?
I failed High School Geometry; all your mathmatetical equations mean jack diddle squat to me.
The reason you're facing alot of skeptacism is your major marketing blitz, before fully testing the product to see if it actually does what you think it will do.
Count me as a respectful skeptic.
Microsoft hyped Vista, but it failed miserably when they foisted it upon the world.
How does it penetrate a clothed target vs. other similar bullets?
I failed High School Geometry; all your mathmatetical equations mean jack diddle squat to me.
The reason you're facing alot of skeptacism is your major marketing blitz, before fully testing the product to see if it actually does what you think it will do.
Count me as a respectful skeptic.
Microsoft hyped Vista, but it failed miserably when they foisted it upon the world.
84B20
Member
I just signed up. Does being a former employee of Wash U, make a difference in my priority in getting some of your ammo for testing?
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
uh, the Spruce Goose did fly.
My problem is that his own calculation show such a minor improvement...less than the shot to shot variation. Also, considedring the way bullets are made, his three litle holes are going to be very, very, expensive.
My problem is that his own calculation show such a minor improvement...less than the shot to shot variation. Also, considedring the way bullets are made, his three litle holes are going to be very, very, expensive.
JamisJockey
member
Outsource production to China, they love putting lead in products anyways....
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
from post#56
I just figured the zingers were well off target because they were imbalanced or otherwise destabilized due to the modification to the round. I can't imagine any reason why you would present an image of a target showing accuracy that had errant rounds from another shooter on it. That would be awfully poor presentation.
I just figured the zingers were well off target because they were imbalanced or otherwise destabilized due to the modification to the round. I can't imagine any reason why you would present an image of a target showing accuracy that had errant rounds from another shooter on it. That would be awfully poor presentation.
EvanWilliams
member
That is the key, IMHO.
crasen
Member
Keep up the good work THEY. I know I am looking forward to Hypercav coming to market, even if it is a slow process. As you expected there will be many skeptics. There are enough people who's opinion I respect that think the Hypercav bullet will lead to improvements in commercially available hollowpoints.
JamisJockey
member
Poor analogy on my part. The Goose took a very short flight. It was intended to be a transcontinental transport. Lots of hype for a short one mile flight.
Same as these bullets. Lots of hype based on some math and theories.
I'll be interested to see what the actual tests show.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
Let me ask a bunch of you automatic supporters this:
If the hypercav bullets went on the market tomorrow, with no reliable scientific testing (FBI penetration tests, etc) as to its penetrating ability, would you buy it and keep it for self defense based on the math and theories?
zombienerd
Member
Nope... I'd do the same thing I do with all new ammo that I buy... I'd shoot a few wet phonebooks, a few buckets of water, a few hard objects, and compare penetration and expansion... If it fed reliably in my gun, and had effects that were similar or better than my current carry ammo, at a similar or lower price, then I would carry it every day.
Unlike some of the chest beaters in the thread, I give the benefit of the doubt.... Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Until I see the ballistic tests, that would prove/disprove claims done by INDEPENDENT shooters and labs, I reserve any calls of Shenanigans... Unlike some people.
It's not automatic "Support"... It's fairness. Let the product come out before you call the BS flag on it.
Enachos
Member
...You have my attention
Sounds like it has the potential to be a great bullet. Ballistics, gelatin test results please!
Sounds like it has the potential to be a great bullet. Ballistics, gelatin test results please!
As far as buying and using goes, it is much the same with any new product. When Mag Safe came out, many of us felt and some may still feel, that the round had its place in the locker. I still stack them in my 45 as a second shot. Some feel they don't work well with heavy clothing, but living in a warm climate, that means little. So in theory I would give these the same chance that I gave Mag Safe, or Super Vel, before it.
I use Federal Hydrashock 230 grain in my 45, I also use Hydrashocks, in other calibers. I found that since the hydrashock was getting harder to get, I just picked up some Hornaday 200 grain XTP ammo that I want to try. But if the hypercav, can equal the reliability of the Federal ammo that I rely on, by providing better expansion, while keeping the same or better penetration, then why would I not want to use it, “after the tests of course”. We develop new technology as we go forward, just look back at what we used 20 years ago. I don’t see why anyone would not welcome something that did a better job of expediting the threat to a close, if such technology did what it claimed to do. As far as the tests go, I believe that They1 fully intends to have those results for us to see, from my understanding.
I use Federal Hydrashock 230 grain in my 45, I also use Hydrashocks, in other calibers. I found that since the hydrashock was getting harder to get, I just picked up some Hornaday 200 grain XTP ammo that I want to try. But if the hypercav, can equal the reliability of the Federal ammo that I rely on, by providing better expansion, while keeping the same or better penetration, then why would I not want to use it, “after the tests of course”. We develop new technology as we go forward, just look back at what we used 20 years ago. I don’t see why anyone would not welcome something that did a better job of expediting the threat to a close, if such technology did what it claimed to do. As far as the tests go, I believe that They1 fully intends to have those results for us to see, from my understanding.
JamisJockey
member
I haven't tossed the BS flag out.
Far from it, I'm just asking for a good reason to be on the new toy bandwagon. Pardon my skeptasisim, but I'm not betting my ass on some math formulas I don't even understand.
I shouldn't have to go shoot wet phone books. Firstly, I don't have anywhere to do that. Secondly, a good manufacturer should have reliable penetration tests available for review.
I welcome the test results. If the bullet does all the things they hype it up to do, I might consider buying it myself.
Far from it, I'm just asking for a good reason to be on the new toy bandwagon. Pardon my skeptasisim, but I'm not betting my ass on some math formulas I don't even understand.
I shouldn't have to go shoot wet phone books. Firstly, I don't have anywhere to do that. Secondly, a good manufacturer should have reliable penetration tests available for review.
I welcome the test results. If the bullet does all the things they hype it up to do, I might consider buying it myself.
Brass Fetcher
Member
They - would you like me to shoot the HC bullets into ballistic gelatin, and post the results to THR?
They1 has not asked anyone on this forum, that I know of, to invest in his product development nor to buy a gross of his bullets.
He has a new idea and wanted to share it with us, as I see it.
There are many inventions I would have liked to have seen from the very beginning as they were developed and They1 has given us the opportunity to do that with his.
It might be a flop; or we might one day be able to say, “I saw the info on those bullets before Hornady even thought about buying the patent. I even chatted with the inventor on a gun forum while he was developing it.”
He has a new idea and wanted to share it with us, as I see it.
There are many inventions I would have liked to have seen from the very beginning as they were developed and They1 has given us the opportunity to do that with his.
It might be a flop; or we might one day be able to say, “I saw the info on those bullets before Hornady even thought about buying the patent. I even chatted with the inventor on a gun forum while he was developing it.”
ljnowell
Member
Good posting. Come on people ease up a little!
They1
Member
Thank you sir, I appreciate that!
crasen
Member
I have not seen him ask anyone for investors on a local forum that he has been a part of for some time either. I have no reason to believe that he is doing anything other then trying to market his design to ammunition manufacturers.
They1
Member
Well, this is interesting...
I had no idea that simply sharing an idea, and hoping to gather information/input from experienced folks, would start such a hoo-yah. That wasn't my intent.
I know many folks here don't understand the process of product development, but know this; it's costly, timely, and if done right, a difficult process at best.
I will not rush this project. I know lives are at stake as this is a defensive ammunition improvement, and if I get it wrong...at ANY point, some innocent person may die as a result. Failure is unacceptable.
Note, once again, I am only the inventor of this project. My intention is to license this technology to an existing, established manufacturer.
Among other points, you can bet your a$$ that these folks know what they're doing. And you can also bet they will do their homework when it comes to testing and evaluating the HC project, side-by-side, with its conventional counterparts, BEFORE ANY contract is signed.
My responsibility, before that takes place, is to insure to the best of my ability and resources, that my 'claims' closely match the reality, in my presentation to these folks.
I have done this to date, by theory of the processes involved in the concept, modeling by computer, prototyping and physical testing, verification via scientific formula (independent of my own), and lastly to re-verify all collected resultants with independent ballistic test personnel and related facilities.
For the record, two main entities for independent testing are Brassfetcher, who I'm talking with now to work out schedule, ammo choice, and test criteria, and Dr. Gary Roberts (DocGKR), as soon as his current test schedule is cleared. That will include an exhaustive test-set, to say the least.
Again, I've tried on several occations to contact Box of Truth, but to date, I've had no response, and I cannot even register on their website.
I will post that information on the website as soon as it's available.
I fully realize none of you have had the opportunity to see what few have seen to date. I'm working this project on a very tight budget, and I seek no 'investors' or special favors from no one.
In the end, the bullet results will prove out, one way or the other. But I'm not stupid, I realize the ramifications of getting this wrong, or otherwise "embillishing" any performance reports, so I'm not interested, or willing, to do either...I don't need to.
Originally, I posted this idea on these forums, after getting clearance to do so from the USPTO, to share, and gather input...nothing more. I also thought it made logical sense to offer samples of this ammo to many, so the results would be collected by a wide spectrum of shooters...real shooters, in real-world conditions.
I didn't anticipate over 4,500 orders. So I've met with a specialty machine manufacturer to develop an automated system to mass-manufacturer HC rounds. This will take some time of course, but in the end, it'll be an asset, as I'll be able to one, get samples out to those who've requested it, but also to not only show the end manufacturer licensee the project itself, but give them the methodology to make it...in other words, not only offer the "can you" or "should you", but also the "how to".
This is indeed a new technology. I don't pretend to have all the answers (only fools know everything). There will be many things discovered as this new process is tested, and the technology is developed.
What I CAN report to date, is that porting a bullet cavity is a simple, inexpensive modification that can be applied to virtually all HP-class ammo, and that the physics behind it is sound.
If it were any other case, my personal carry guns wouldn't be loaded with HC's right now. (Sorry folks, inventors privilege!
)
There's an aviation mechanics saying: "Never work on a plane, unless you're willing to fly on it yourself."
Don't mean to be so windy, but I do intend to be thorough.
I had no idea that simply sharing an idea, and hoping to gather information/input from experienced folks, would start such a hoo-yah. That wasn't my intent.
I know many folks here don't understand the process of product development, but know this; it's costly, timely, and if done right, a difficult process at best.
I will not rush this project. I know lives are at stake as this is a defensive ammunition improvement, and if I get it wrong...at ANY point, some innocent person may die as a result. Failure is unacceptable.
Note, once again, I am only the inventor of this project. My intention is to license this technology to an existing, established manufacturer.
Among other points, you can bet your a$$ that these folks know what they're doing. And you can also bet they will do their homework when it comes to testing and evaluating the HC project, side-by-side, with its conventional counterparts, BEFORE ANY contract is signed.
My responsibility, before that takes place, is to insure to the best of my ability and resources, that my 'claims' closely match the reality, in my presentation to these folks.
I have done this to date, by theory of the processes involved in the concept, modeling by computer, prototyping and physical testing, verification via scientific formula (independent of my own), and lastly to re-verify all collected resultants with independent ballistic test personnel and related facilities.
For the record, two main entities for independent testing are Brassfetcher, who I'm talking with now to work out schedule, ammo choice, and test criteria, and Dr. Gary Roberts (DocGKR), as soon as his current test schedule is cleared. That will include an exhaustive test-set, to say the least.
Again, I've tried on several occations to contact Box of Truth, but to date, I've had no response, and I cannot even register on their website.
I will post that information on the website as soon as it's available.
I fully realize none of you have had the opportunity to see what few have seen to date. I'm working this project on a very tight budget, and I seek no 'investors' or special favors from no one.
In the end, the bullet results will prove out, one way or the other. But I'm not stupid, I realize the ramifications of getting this wrong, or otherwise "embillishing" any performance reports, so I'm not interested, or willing, to do either...I don't need to.
Originally, I posted this idea on these forums, after getting clearance to do so from the USPTO, to share, and gather input...nothing more. I also thought it made logical sense to offer samples of this ammo to many, so the results would be collected by a wide spectrum of shooters...real shooters, in real-world conditions.
I didn't anticipate over 4,500 orders. So I've met with a specialty machine manufacturer to develop an automated system to mass-manufacturer HC rounds. This will take some time of course, but in the end, it'll be an asset, as I'll be able to one, get samples out to those who've requested it, but also to not only show the end manufacturer licensee the project itself, but give them the methodology to make it...in other words, not only offer the "can you" or "should you", but also the "how to".
This is indeed a new technology. I don't pretend to have all the answers (only fools know everything). There will be many things discovered as this new process is tested, and the technology is developed.
What I CAN report to date, is that porting a bullet cavity is a simple, inexpensive modification that can be applied to virtually all HP-class ammo, and that the physics behind it is sound.
If it were any other case, my personal carry guns wouldn't be loaded with HC's right now. (Sorry folks, inventors privilege!
)There's an aviation mechanics saying: "Never work on a plane, unless you're willing to fly on it yourself."
Don't mean to be so windy, but I do intend to be thorough.
I'm no PhD...but I'm pretty sure there is a difference between air pressure and hydraulic pressure.
Geez, we've got all the skeptics here talking about "hype" and "investments" and not "trusting" stuff. Newsflash; THERE IS NOTHING TO TRUST!!! The ammo isn't fully developed, it isn't available yet.
I think it's really cool to get some advanced info on a potential new design that may (or may not) be picked up by a major manufacturer and may (or may not) actually be an advancement in performance (thankfully, I don't have to depend on 80's HP technology in my 9mm carry gun).
I think it's great to follow this along from the early stage and see how it pans out. In any case, nobody is going to sneak in and empty out your gold dots and replace them with Hyper-cavs in all your carry guns.
For me, I'll follow along interestedly and not have anything to critique or applaud until more testing is done, which is the whole point.
Full Metal Jacket
member
here's the link to the satellite photo, it doesn't even look like there's a trailer there, looks like the address if for a retention pond! lmao
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=96+Cedar+Hill+Estates+Cedar+Hill,+MO+63016&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=96+Cedar+Hill+Estates,+Cedar+Hill,+MO+63016&gl=us&ei=Q0M7S7S-G9GLnQf2tpzcDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ8gEwAA
Last edited:
- Status