New bullet: "hypercav"

[They1]

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



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.

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

That's just neat.

So the ports give off the air and gasses before the bullet completely even enters the target?

 

[They1]

That's just neat.

So the ports give off the air and gasses before the bullet completely even enters the target?

Yep. Just as designed.

 

[They1]

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.












*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!

 

[herohog]

Again, it seems to add to penetration my reducing expansion thereby lessening transfer of energy to the target. What am I missing? I see the opposite of an improvement in performance in the original.

 

[They1]

Again, it seems to add to penetration my reducing expansion thereby lessening transfer of energy to the target. What am I missing? I see the opposite of an improvement in performance in the original.

You could look at it that way, or you could consider that the added effeciency would allow manufacturers to reduce the powder charge, thus reducing recoil for the same effect.

 

[rodensouth]

I don't understand how it would have the same effect with less ft/lbs delivered to target if you download.

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

Again, it seems to add to penetration my reducing expansion thereby lessening transfer of energy to the target. What am I missing? I see the opposite of an improvement in performance in the original.

I think they explained why there is increased penetration earlier in the thread, and it didn't have to do with decreased penetration (where do you see decreased penetration?)

 

[They1]

I don't understand how it would have the same effect with less ft/lbs delivered to target if you download.

Well, the thought is, if HC is expanding the bullet, AND penetrating further, one could consider that reducing the charge would bring penetration in-line with conventional JHP's, giving the same wound channel, with less recoil.

Or, it could be applied to small calibers like .380, that would give expansion AND penetration. Imagine a .380 expanding w/11+" penetration.

Mind you, there's much to explore in further testing. What we're reporting here is as much "real-time" results as we get them. But we're seeing 'trends' developing in the test results.

Please remember, the porting approach is a brand-new entity. It's changing bullet behavior and performance. We test, study, tweak, do it again. And then, we learn how to enterprise on these new-found dynamics to make a better bullet for everyone...except the bad guys.

 

[Balog]

If they significantly enhance penetration while leaving expansion the same I would buy them in a heartbeat. After proper independent testing, that is. Speaking of proper independent testing, have you contacted the people at "Gun Tests" magazine? They're one of the few groups I trust to do unbiased testing.

 

[They1]

If they significantly enhance penetration while leaving expansion the same I would buy them in a heartbeat. After proper independent testing, that is. Speaking of proper independent testing, have you contacted the people at "Gun Tests" magazine? They're one of the few groups I trust to do unbiased testing.

Brassfetcher should be receiving test ammo today(?). Gel-Blocks are ready to go.

I didn't know about 'Gun Test', I'll get in touch w/them, see if they're interested.

Frankly, I'm open to ANY qualified testers who want to run HC's around the block...nothing to hide here...
...talk is cheap.

I'll be attending SHOTSHOW in Vegas the 19th. I suspect we'll ALL learn much after that!

 

[Steve Marshall]

I hate to be the one who asks this. If you are constantly experiencing results you didn't expect, how do you justify/rationalize the existing hole size? Mayhaps a larger hole would be more beneficial? What about 2,4,5,6 holes?
What if the holes were angled? Either towards the front or towards the rear?
What if the holes were put in off-center? What if you started the hole in the hollow point and then out the sides? Maybe square holes would work or star shaped holes? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[They1]

I hate to be the one who asks this. If you are constantly experiencing results you didn't expect, how do you justify/rationalize the existing hole size? Mayhaps a larger hole would be more beneficial? What about 2,4,5,6 holes?
What if the holes were angled? Either towards the front or towards the rear?
What if the holes were put in off-center? What if you started the hole in the hollow point and then out the sides? Maybe square holes would work or star shaped holes? Inquiring minds want to know.

Steve,
Go back and re-read the thread where 'calibration' was discussed.

 

[herohog]

I think they explained why there is increased penetration earlier in the thread, and it didn't have to do with decreased penetration (where do you see decreased penetration?)

Say what? That 1st sentence makes no sense and I don't see decreased penetration. I see less uniform expansion resulting in deeper penetration and less energy transfer to the target. I simply don't see any real, if any improvement in what has been presented so far. I would be happy is I did but I don't. I am all for anyone trying to improve the performance of most anything, I am just not seeing it here so far.

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

Say what? That 1st sentence makes no sense and I don't see decreased penetration. I see less uniform expansion resulting in deeper penetration and less energy transfer to the target. I simply don't see any real, if any improvement in what has been presented so far. I would be happy is I did but I don't. I am all for anyone trying to improve the performance of most anything, I am just not seeing it here so far.

LOL, I had a massive brain fart when writing that post.

What I was telling you is that earlier in the thread, They1 said that the increased penetration is likely due to some phenomenon with gas or something, and not decreased expansion.

 

[ontargetstl]

actually folks, it does not expand less, it expands roughly the same in total diameter. if you notice, however, the expansion on the hypercav leaves the bullet with a fractured look to the open petals. the reason is the bullet is expanding much more rapidly and the speed of the expansion is fracturing the lead in the expanded petals of the bullet. this expansion is happening so rapidly that it is causing a violent shock wave that moves the test medium rapidly out of the way. this effect causes the bullet to run through a cavity or void thus resulting in higher penetration. because the bullet opens upon contact instead of after compressing the air in the hollow point cavity the energy dump is occurring at 300 to 400 fps faster speed than the same bullet with out the hypercav treatment.

the problem with any new technology is not just gathering the data, but interpreting the data. just because a bullet penetrates farther, does not mean it is dumping less energy. it is not the total energy dump that occurs by a projectile, it is also the way that the projectile transfers that energy. by hypercaving the bullet we are acheiving an energy transfer in much less time and at much more velocity than any of these bullet designs have ever been able to do before.

 

[flrfh213]

i still see it as interesting And would love to see side by side videos of both types of ammo as well as ball ammo, lets compare apples to apples, and toss an orange in for color...

 

[herohog]

actually folks, it does not expand less, it expands roughly the same in total diameter. if you notice, however, the expansion on the hypercav leaves the bullet with a fractured look to the open petals. the reason is the bullet is expanding much more rapidly and the speed of the expansion is fracturing the lead in the expanded petals of the bullet. this expansion is happening so rapidly that it is causing a violent shock wave that moves the test medium rapidly out of the way. this effect causes the bullet to run through a cavity or void thus resulting in higher penetration. because the bullet opens upon contact instead of after compressing the air in the hollow point cavity the energy dump is occurring at 300 to 400 fps faster speed than the same bullet with out the hypercav treatment.

OK, I can buy that explanation IF we see good controlled side-by-side tests against the exact same ammo less the holes and we can see the ballistic gelatin results. That would go a long way to reducing the doubt.

 

[ontargetstl]

the testing is being done now. i am not sure if it will get completed before the shot show or just after. probably after, it just seems to be the way things work. we have a very limited budget, so the tests are not as extensive as we would like. the hope is that the promise these hypercav modifications show will raise the interest of a large bullet maker. it is difficult to bring a new product to market when the old product is being made seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day and there is a six month backorder awaiting production. that condition means that it is hard to make a company like olin care whether or not your product is better. they will only care if they receive enough requests and or cancelations from a major purchaser to get their attention.

karl

 

[ClayInTX]

ontargetstl (or Karl),

Manufacturers look at the market predicted by their marketing people, not at the current market.

A year or more down the road will be different than today. The current demand for ammo will probably slacken and they’ll need a new item for sales.

I suggest you direct your sales pitch to what might be needed, or sell good, in 2011 or 2012.

I’m still not convinced your bullet will do all that’s claimed but am pulling for you and hoping it does.

Clay

 

[ontargetstl]

we are not sure either. that is why we are having it tested by an independent third party. the science is sound, but the proof is in the actual shooting. everything we have done has been interesting. the modification has done more than expected and has created some surprises that were pleasant when analyzed. hopefully the gel testing will be enough to prompt a few manufacturers to jump on this and take over the production.

karl

 

[jon_in_wv]

pressure is pressure, it makes no difference what is causing it. tissue would simply add more pressure to the air that is already trapped inside the jhp cavity.

This isn't true at all. The pressure caused by the amount of air in the HP as it is compressed would be negligible against the walls of the HP as compared to fluid. Fluid, DOESN"T compress (or compresses and turns to gas at high velocity) and the amount of pressure working against the HPs walls is greater. Pressure is pressure yes but that really dumbs down the equation. If you want to make it simpler, fill a syringe with air and stop the end of it. You can push in the plunger a fair bit as you compress the air in the syringe. If you fill it with fluid you will find it MUCH harder as the fluid will not compress. This may explain the deeper penetration also. If the bullet expands more efficiently or take less energy to complete expansion it will retain more energy to complete other tasks like penetration of tissue.

I'm a little disappointed too by some of the comments on this thread. New ideas should be encouraged. The hypercav idea may or may not work out in reality as it does in theory but its ignorant to discourage someone from at least trying.

 

[gym]

When the tests come back, we will all know.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Thats what I would like to see. I'm also wondering if the differences in expansion could also be cause by the differences in structural integrity caused by drilling holes in the bullet? Its hard to say without some testing. It would be interesting to shoot the ballistics gel in a vacuum. It seems that would answer a lot of questions about the air dynamics.

 

[Balog]

They1: I was referring to these fellows. http://www.gun-tests.com/ Good folks.

I'm looking forward to the BrassFetchers testing results, though I am not overly familiar with that group.

Have you tried this modification on some of the all copper HP's out there?