New bullet: "hypercav"

Status
Not open for further replies.
kludge said:
OK... I've been holding off... just looked at the latest brassfetcher results... and it's still there.

Why pick a bullet with notorious jacket failures to demonstrate your invention?
Click to expand...
A very good question...

The reason we chose that brand/design, as well as some other, well, 'debatable' performance brands, is for that very reason.

I figured if we can take a lower-end bullet design, and make that same bullet more reliable, then it's a given to think what porting would do for the top of the line ammunition. And in fact, that's been going on in our test sets; while we did our first test shots with cheesy ammo, we've also been poppin' Speer, Remington, Winchester, etc.(Go back to the Photo gallery on the website for those results), and we have another gel-test scheduled with brassfetcher, using Federal .40S&W LEO.
This will be 1-Control, 1-HC Bare Gelatin, 1-HC Gelatin w/4 layer Denim.
(sorry it isn't more shots folks, but we're working from a super-tight budget here. We test what we can, as we can)

He already has the bullets, just waiting for a chrono repair return...(reason the chrono is out for repair, is that John likes to shoot his chronographs (3rd one). He said it was a "ricochet" , so I of course believe him... ;/
it should be this week.
I'll post when I get the pix and report.
 
Last edited:
New test results

Tester shot a new water jug test yesterday. Photos and detailed report soon, but here is some prelim.;

Ammunition tested was Remington Golden Saber unbonded .380.

Control round expanded as expected, and punctured 2 jugs, and 'barely' into jug #3.

HC expanded as expected, and punctured 3 jugs, stopping 'just inside' jug #4.
Also sheared the bullet jacket.

*Special Note: We once again, have noticed Jacket "shearing" from unbonded HC bullet tests.
One of our initial concerns was that the ports themselves could weaken or otherwise effect the bullets structural integrity.

This appears NOT to be the case. On detailed inspection of the .380 HC bullets, it appears the jacket shearing point is BEFORE the ports.
(Detailed inspection of the first jacket-shear issue was not possible due to the extent of jacket damage)

This suggests/confirms two things;
1. The ports do NOT appear to weaken or otherwise negatively effect a given bullets base design.

2. Expansion characteristics of HC ported bullets DO exhibit a more 'aggressive' opening.

Brassfetcher will be testing Federal LEO .40S&W soon. 1-control, 1-HC Bare Gelatin, 1-HC Gelatin w/4-layer Denim. (Maybe this weekend?)

Obviously, more testing is needed...much more. But to date, 'project confidence' remains high.
 
380_GS-comparison-1.jpg

Analysis of .380 ACP Remington Golden Saber 102gr JHP, factory bullet vs. HyperCav

I fired one shot of factory ammunition and two shots of HyperCav 3-hole modified bullets. Each shot was fired into a stack of 1-gallon drinking water jugs, and the bullets were recovered.

The factory bullet expanded uniformly and widely, but only penetrated through two water jugs and barely entered the third. The entrance hole to the third jug was more of a dent/crack than a typical bullet hole observed in most other shots. The jacket was hung on the crack, having only barely entered the third jug (for a total of 13 inches of water penetration, equivalent to 6.5 to 8.1 inches of ballistic gelatin penetration). The jacket was still attached to the core with no sign of separation.

Both HyperCav bullets expanded, one was less symmetric. Both HyperCav bullets penetrated three full jugs and put a dent and cut into the fourth jug. The first HyperCav bullet core slightly separated from the jacket, but remained barely together. The second HyperCav bullet core completely separated from the jacket. This is notable in that core/jacket separation usually decreases penetration significantly – which is why the bonded bullet was introduced (Gold Dot, Golden Saber Bonded, Federal Tactical, Winchester Ranger Bonded, etc.).

The lead cores of the HyperCav bullets did not expand as deeply into the cavity as the factory bullet, but the lead “petals” were cracked. This indicates that while the expansion was not as far, it was more violent – the strain rate was so much higher that it actually fractured the lead instead of deforming it.

The jackets of the HyperCav bullets expanded farther back than the factory jacket, despite the lead petals not expanding as far. What I believe happened is the more violent impact peeled the jacket petals off faster, causing the jacket to expand without the lead core petals having to push the jacket petals out.

There had been some speculation that HyperCav worked by weakening the cavity walls. However, the HyperCav bullets did not expand down far enough to intersect the drilled vents. In fact, the drilled vents were mostly intact, if a tiny bit squashed. This can be plainly seen in the photographs. This demonstrates that the HyperCav does not work by weakening the cavity wall, because the wall was not deformed in any way that would have been changed by the holes or lack thereof. -Isaiah Kellogg
 
Last edited:
That appears to be very good news, especially for those using the .380 as a primary carry. I guess you plan on testing other .380 loads? If I was sure that the .380 would perform well as a 9mm for Defensivive carry. Right now I am carrying a 45 with 6+1, and although light in weight, it's still darn uncomfortable after a few hours. I can feel a huge difference even in changing ammo with some of the 9mm guns I own or owned. I switched from the 147 grain to the 110 grain rounds and it made a huge weight difference 37x8. Every little bit helps.
 
gym said:
That appears to be very good news, especially for those using the .380 as a primary carry. I guess you plan on testing other .380 loads? If I was sure that the .380 would perform well as a 9mm for Defensivive carry. Right now I am carrying a 45 with 6+1, and although light in weight, it's still darn uncomfortable after a few hours. I can feel a huge difference even in changing ammo with some of the 9mm guns I own or owned. I switched from the 147 grain to the 110 grain rounds and it made a huge weight difference 37x8. Every little bit helps.
Click to expand...
This test was good news. The .380 is one of the most popular calibers on the market. Folks who carry for protection must find that 'balance'/compromise of stopping power and convenience of carry.

The fact that this test showed good expansion AND an additional 5 inches of penetration may very well bring the .380 into its own.

Yes, I've got my small 'array' of self-defense guns, 9mm, 357, etc., but I find most often, I just plop my LCP in my pocket and go on.

I now relax a little bit, because I know that the .380 just moved up in performance, and my confidence.

We'll of course be testing a variety of .380's in the future, the biggest issue right now is finding the ammo to test.

Note: Brassfetcher will be testing Federal Tactical LE .40S&W HC on the 19th. Report will follow.
 
Have you done any high speed camera runs on the expansions ?

I think that would be absolutely imperative to learn how it truly is working before solidifying and going wide with claims
 
Are the expansion results measured from the lead core or the brass jacket?

The more pics I see the more it looks like the HC bullets hinder expansion and cause over-penetration. Not necessarily a bad thing on small calibers but not desirable on larger calibers.
 
according this picture you posted, the factory stock golden saber expanded more without your holes drilled in it.

like i said at the beginning of this thread, drilling holes in the hollow cavity reduces the pressure that builds inside of it, therefore inhibiting expansion.....and your pics here prove it. don't think there are too many folks that would be interested in jhp's that don't expand properly because they been altered....

plus, there are already 380 loads on the market that will penetrate 18 inches....

380_GS-comparison-1.jpg
 
Full Metal Jacket, I have to agree with you. The pics They1 posted in post #204 showed the same results. It seems that the HC bullets cause less expansion and therefor more penetration.

For me when I decide which defensive ammo I am going to use, I look for 3 things.

#1 Accuracy: I want my sd ammo to be very accurate out of my gun in case there has to be an accurate shot made, I know, highly unlikely but it gives me piece of mind. The HC bullets probably have little to no affect on the accuracy of a given bullet.

#2 Expansion: I want the bullet to expand to it's fullest potential. The HC bullets seem to hinder the expansion of the bullets.

#3 Penetration: I don't want my bullet to over-penetrate and risk killing an innocent bystander. If I carried a 25 or a 380 it (increased penetration) might be an advantage, but with your average 45 or 9mm, I want little penetration. The HC bullets seem to consistently have more penetration, which is a bad thing IMO, especially if the penetration is being caused by less expansion.

I'm sure there is a market for nearly any "new" bullet design and I wish They1 the best of luck, but at this point I see no advantage to a HC bullet and a couple of rather important disadvantages. I just don't see me buying them.
 
inhibiting expansion
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go that far.
Think back to number lines, or an X,Y graph.
The unmodified bullet appears to expand to the 3 value. That's it.
The hypercav appears to expand so violently that it rapidly expands to, say 5, but continues to violently open, that the petals are folded back to 2.75.
 
Full Metal Jacket said:
like i said at the beginning of this thread, drilling holes in the hollow cavity reduces the pressure that builds inside of it, therefore inhibiting expansion.....and your pics here prove it. don't think there are too many folks that would be interested in jhp's that don't expand properly because they been altered....
Click to expand...

The test results show that the bullet expanded 0.011"(or 1.6%) less(.675"-.664") and gained 5"(or 40%) more penetration (18"-13") out of a .380.

Seems to me like the penetration gains of 40% FAR outweigh the 1.6% loss in expansion diameter. I'm interested to see a similar test through clothing. I would also like to see all future tests using bonded bullets.
 
Seems to me like the penetration gains of 40% FAR outweigh the 1.6% loss in expansion diameter. I'm interested to see a similar test through clothing. I would also like to see all future tests using bonded bullets.
Click to expand...

Look at the pics, mainly the ones from the side. The jacket might have come close to the same expansion but judging from the pics the core of the standard bullet expanded MUCH more than the HC, and that is what counts because the jacket doesn't continue to penetrate once it has come off.

EDIT:
You might also want to conciser the life of the person that could be hit by an over-penetrating bullet.

I also vote for tests with bonded bullets, that will be the first real test IMO.
 
Last edited:
I would like to drill a few holes in a winchester 32 silver tip, and see what difference it makes
 
Has anyone competent ever determined what causes an expanding bullet to slow down and eventually stop penetrating? Is it that the new diameter retards progress? Does the bullet wobble like a top on it's last legs? Or something else? I think that most would agree that an expanding bullet is better than a non-expanding bullet in self defense. So if in fact expanding bullets don't always expand and HC promotes expansion, then there might be something to this. If on the other hand we find that most defensive rounds do as they are supposed to, I'd be loath to trust this new technology.
 
For whatever reason, my computer did not advise me of responses in the thread.

I'll try to address some very good questions;

Yes, the is an identifiable expansion difference noted in the comparison tests.
This is/was expected.

One of the key aspects of this project, is to determine how "current" bullet designs lend themselves to porting. How they react will set the path for new bullets, designed 'around' being ported. i.e., thicker bullet walls, re-distribution of wall material, depth/shape of cavities, general metallurgy, etc..

What I've provided all along has been raw data, in real time. As the project matures, we'll see bullets that are "calibrated" for optimum performance.

For instance, we want to look at how to strengthen the petals so they'll be strong enough to resist folding back on itself. We'll be looking at port diameter/placement relative to the various calibers. Changes in materials?

However, all in all, although you should expect to see different expansion numbers, there are NO tests that have put ANY round out of 'performance tolerances'. Would I accept an expansion difference from .675 to .672 for 5" of penetration in a .380? You bet I would.

Is the idea of making a .45 Magtech 50% more reliable just by porting worth it? (the actual goal of this project)
I think so...

Several folks have mentioned the notion/issues of "over-penetration".
Two thoughts;
1, If you want to minimize the innocent bystander thing, use Frangibles, or better yet, get the bad guy to leave you alone and you won't have to pull the trigger in the first place.
2, All of this 'over-penetration' talk is based on the premise that you're actually hitting your target in the first place...
I would be less concerned about over-penetration, than missing altogether.

How many documented cases do you recall of a bystander being hit by a stray round, vs. being hit by a bullet that over-penetrated?

I tend to see things just as they are. It's a fire fight, bad things are already happening, you're trying to shoot someone who is probably trying to kill you. You're using a gun. It's chaos. And no matter what you do, every time you pull that trigger, that bullet is going "somewhere".

It's somewhat academic to strain at a Gnat about over-penetration when most of the rounds ever fired in every firefight, have missed.

NOTHING equals shot placement.

No matter how fancy your gun, or special the bullet, you simply cannot "buy your fight". Ultimate responsibility for your outcome, will be your ability to put rounds on target.
There is no perfect gun, no perfect bullet. You just put the best combination together, and hope you never need it.

BTW: Gym- If you'll send me some silvertips, I'll port them for you.

Brassfetcher is shooting HC Federal tactical LE .40 today.
1-Control, 1-HC bare gelatin, 1-HC gelatin w/4-layer Denim.
I'll post when I get the stuff in.
 
I am highly confused on how losing the jacket, and having the lead core (which carries all the kinetic energy) barely expand at all is a good thing. If I looked at these three rounds pictured I would immediately want the stock, undrilled round.
 
However, all in all, although you should expect to see different expansion numbers, there are NO tests that have put ANY round out of 'performance tolerances'. Would I accept an expansion difference from .675 to .672 for 5" of penetration in a .380? You bet I would.

Is the idea of making a .45 Magtech 50% more reliable just by porting worth it? (the actual goal of this project)
I think so...

Several folks have mentioned the notion/issues of "over-penetration".
Two thoughts;
1, If you want to minimize the innocent bystander thing, use Frangibles, or better yet, get the bad guy to leave you alone and you won't have to pull the trigger in the first place.
2, All of this 'over-penetration' talk is based on the premise that you're actually hitting your target in the first place...
I would be less concerned about over-penetration, than missing altogether.

How many documented cases do you recall of a bystander being hit by a stray round, vs. being hit by a bullet that over-penetrated?

I tend to see things just as they are. It's a fire fight, bad things are already happening, you're trying to shoot someone who is probably trying to kill you. You're using a gun. It's chaos. And no matter what you do, every time you pull that trigger, that bullet is going "somewhere".
Click to expand...

I really wish I knew which part of the bullet you are measuring the Jacket or the lead core?

I think we would flatly disagree on the over-penetration issue. Keeping in mind that most SD rounds are 9mm,40, and 45's. Over-penetration = bad IMO.

I don't care if no one has ever been injured by a bullet that over-penetrated, I don't want to be the first. I have considered Frangibles but I don't think they have enough mass to be very effective "Man Stoppers" I understand there is no such thing as a "safe" fire fight, but anything I can do to lessen the possibility of unnecessary death or injury is my responsibility.

For the record there are hundreds of cases where people have been hit by over-penetrating bullets, read some of Massad Ayoob's books and do a little research on why NY went to HP's instead of FMJ's......It does happen.

I can see where HC bullets can be made to have an advantage if other aspects of bullet design are changed to get the expansion up and the penetration down to standard levels, but right now I don't see it. I would be much more interested in hunting rounds where under penetration is a common problem.
 
Re: Pics in post 303

The picture of the fired bullet in HyperCav #2 does not indicate to me that separation of the lead core from the jacket was a function of the hyper-cav feature other than handling of the cartridge during the modification might have caused it.

HyperCav #1 appears that separation might be beginning.

There should be more controls used of factory ammunition to determine if factory ammo might do the same thing occasionally.

They1,
Are you modifying these while a completely assembled cartridge, or are you pulling the bullet and reinstalling it?

Ah ha! I’ve got it! They1 is using water from his retention pond and that’s muddying the test results. :D
 
In all honesty, I'll have to agree with They1 about the over penetration argument. If you're shooting in a direction in which an over penetrating bullet could injure/kill an innocent civilian, missing said target will just make it that much worse. I'm no ballistics expert, but even a smaller expanding bullet would hypothetically dump a large portion of energy into said target, thus if it manages to exit said target, the chances of it having enough energy to go through any walls and inflict damage to somebody else would be minimal.

If at all possible, why not put the possibility of dangerous over penetration to the test? Maybe set up some ballistics gel(sized to the average male torso), with average clothing in front of it, a typical home wall directly behind it, and see if over penetration will become a problem?
 
DeepSouth said:
I really wish I knew which part of the bullet you are measuring the Jacket or the lead core?

I think we would flatly disagree on the over-penetration issue. Keeping in mind that most SD rounds are 9mm,40, and 45's. Over-penetration = bad IMO.

I don't care if no one has ever been injured by a bullet that over-penetrated, I don't want to be the first. I have considered Frangibles but I don't think they have enough mass to be very effective "Man Stoppers" I understand there is no such thing as a "safe" fire fight, but anything I can do to lessen the possibility of unnecessary death or injury is my responsibility.

For the record there are hundreds of cases where people have been hit by over-penetrating bullets, read some of Massad Ayoob's books and do a little research on why NY went to HP's instead of FMJ's......It does happen.

I can see where HC bullets can be made to have an advantage if other aspects of bullet design are changed to get the expansion up and the penetration down to standard levels, but right now I don't see it. I would be much more interested in hunting rounds where under penetration is a common problem.
Click to expand...
I checked with the tester; he confirmed the measuring standard was the jackets.

Although we don't have the video, the jackets that separated stopped just behind the core.

Personally, I really don't care too much for un-bonded bullets, but, better than nothing...

We would have done high-speed vids a long time ago, but can't afford the $1,500 per 1/2 day equipment rental.

The water jugs? They serve a purpose, show some 'basic' characteristics, but gels are next, and really, we need to shoot some people...LOTS of people. Any suggestions?
Frankly, I'm at my wits end on this one. The neighbors around here won't let me...thought about sending samples over to China, where they shoot people on a wholesale scale, but they only shoot people in the head. Pretty much ANY bullet will kill if you shoot them in the head...

All kidding aside, what these tests are showing is that porting works for its intended purpose...reliability. Next we address and enterprise on this new dynamic of 'energy of expansion'. That comes later with the R&D guys who end up Licensing this technology.

What we're seeing so far, is that a lot of bullets out there cannot withstand the higher energy expansion.

That being said, we're going to be concentrating on the bonded ammo lines. Also looking to use heavier bullets in shorter barrels.
 
ClayInTX said:
The picture of the fired bullet in HyperCav #2 does not indicate to me that separation of the lead core from the jacket was a function of the hyper-cav feature other than handling of the cartridge during the modification might have caused it.

HyperCav #1 appears that separation might be beginning.

There should be more controls used of factory ammunition to determine if factory ammo might do the same thing occasionally.

They1,
Are you modifying these while a completely assembled cartridge, or are you pulling the bullet and reinstalling it?

Ah ha! I’ve got it! They1 is using water from his retention pond and that’s muddying the test results. :D
Click to expand...
Some ammo was modified as a live round, some have been removed and re-seated.

I resent that comment about the retention pond. There's no mud in it. I keep a clean retention pond thank you very much...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Pitbullfirearms
Replies
0
Views
384
frenchbushmaster
F
T
  • Locked
Introduction and info about our new directory service.
Replies
0
Views
584
TTD2004
T
A
  • Locked
New Terminology~! (Many Laughs To Be Had)
Replies
12
Views
2K
rcmodel
R
S
  • Locked
Cool Shooting Video
Replies
7
Views
651
LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
L
L
  • Locked
EyePal
Replies
9
Views
2K
CountryUgly
C
Back
Top