New Faster Bullet?

Has anyone seen these? I'm curious, do they really travel faster?

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/12/06/bullet-compensator-compbullet/

 

I have heard of them, but they don't make a lot of sense to me. By having those holes, you are actually losing pressure behind the round to "push" it out of the barrel. This would make for a slower muzzle velocity from my point of view. I would also question how the holes affect aerodynamics..........Just my .02 cents.

 

It could make a cool whistle, but I'm not sure about its effectiveness as ammunition..

 

Commiefornia approved for the time being?

 

Copper is lighter than lead, and drilled out copper is lighter still. I bet they don't penetrate as well as lead at any range, and they probably have a significantly shorter effective range due to their lack of mass. Copper is also very expensive--perhaps papier-mache would be a more cost-effective solution.

 

Never overestimate the terminal ballistics of marketing.

 

"Holey" bullets claimed to go faster
This story has been out more than 5 years. Supposedly they do work as advertised.
There is another company even making laser guided bullets, that can correct themselves in flight.
Self-guided bullet could hit laser-marked targets from a mile away

 

I can see a problem with this design at least in my mind.
Picture the bullet just as it peeks out from the muzzle.
if those holes aren't the exact same size, chamfered the same and located the exact same distance from the nose of the projectile and equally space around the circumference. The internal pressure of the gas passing though these holes hitting the atmosphere are going to impart an unbalanced force upon the projectile causing it to completely miss it's target within a very short range.

Don't think so, just imagine a long projectile with only 1 hole in it.

Machining is not exact. There are tolerances 0.1mm (0.0039") are typical. maybe they have shrunk it down to 0.05mm. Toss in tolerance for perpendicularity and radial location. There is going to be some tolerance stackup and there is no way that each projectile is going to behave the same way.

But that's just my opinion.

 

Well the article was fairly good at pointing out that there is lots of hype and little to no light, exactly as are the posts here are. Does it work, well or at all? I got no idea, and until someone gets some and tries them, like Boxobullets or some other test site, then commenting on them is silly if not stupid and a waste of space as no one knows anything about them and no one has a clue. Uninformed opinion is useless as far as shedding light, but when has that stopped anyone?

 

So, I've no clue 'eh? 16 years of Manufacturing, College level education in physics. Yep, I must be stupid.

 

Well I hate to disagree with people when I agree with what they say. So you are saying you have tried these bullets and they didn't work, or are you admitting you never tried these bullets and have no idea or not if they work as claimed? If you haven't tried them, then you don't actually know if they work or not. Try getting some and try them out and then report back. THAT I would like to read, not "I think...", "In my opinion...", etc., especially if/when the poster doesn't and doesn't have an informed opinion, only speculation. Do they work? I got no idea! More facts, less uninformed opinion because it was never tried by the poster. Like the guy who watched the first paddlewheeler getting launched, "It'll never float and never work!" when it floated and worked it became "He'll never be able to stop it!" Turns out both uninformed opinions were wrong. I prefer to wait and see. You might be absolutely right (I actually agree with you), but then again maybe the guy figured it out, as I said, I got no idea and so far no one else here does either.

 

Limiting the choices to 2 is a bit disingenuous. What I'm claiming there is an issue with consistency in the manufacturing process that when applied to a side ported high speed projectile will cause unbalanced forces thus causing ballistic issues. It's the maths, only the maths. Ok that and Newton's Laws.

I was just pointing out that in MY Opinion, these projectiles are quite suspect. Sure they may go faster based on the fact that given the same powder charge, maximum case pressure they should come out way faster than a solid lead projectile but if it's not up close and personal, I'd not bet my life on it.

 

As far as i can tell, there has been a lot of talk, and speculation, but no production run or professional testing of these rounds. (Nothing i have found, anyways)
I can not see why the holes themselves, would give any increase in speed, as i would expect them to deform due to the rifling.

 

I would expect them to start flipping/going sideways.

 

Lots of opinions, no testing. Jaws will flap until the data is real.

 

Why Hell yeah, Kellory you and I will not even consider loading one of the new Yuppie designs and test firing it, I'm focused on pressure behind the projectile.
Perhaps some brave soul on here will step forward and give it a bang?

 

There is some theory that the holes effect the shock wave size, after it leaves the barrel. Until someone chronographs them, and the target results are tabulated, no one will really know.
Heck yes, I'd fire em. But i would do it in a bench vice, and by remote.

 

Well there isn't going to be any projectiles available unless someone machines their own.
company's last website update was December 2012 and currently their domain has been up for sale since May 2014.
the inventor Alain Della Savia videos on YouTube are now 5 years old.

Sorry folks, no empirical data going to be coming.
We are going to have to trust our own estimation on if this was a better mouse trap or not.

I'm still sticking with .. GD&T and tolerance stack-up (manufacturing variability) making this a poor idea.