New bullet: "hypercav"

[gym]

Why would a rep from Federal knock his own product? I use them in all my carry guns. They are really difficult to get hold of, so I got some Hornaday sxt's which also work pretty well. I just like 45's, when it's impossible to carry one I will switch to a 9mm or a 38+p, but normally 45 is my weapon of choice.

 

[They1]

Why would a rep from Federal knock his own product? I use them in all my carry guns. They are really difficult to get hold of, so I got some Hornaday sxt's which also work pretty well. I just like 45's, when it's impossible to carry one I will switch to a 9mm or a 38+p, but normally 45 is my weapon of choice.

I don't know. he told me that when I told him how I got shot with their bullet, and it didn't do squat.

I'm a big fan of the .45 as well. Grew up with the big bore stuff.

I'm quite satisfied with my 9mm+P though...they're Hypercavs...hoo-ya

 

[DasFriek]

I have to admit ive heard the word "Gimmick" before being referred to Hydroshocks. But ive seen many other HP's that did a lot worse with expansion percentages.
If it was so great id say the LEO's wouldn't be using the HST's instead.
Id still rather carry the Hydroshock over the Magtech's you tested and many others out there. They are also pretty darned accurate.

They1, I wish you luck. Ive had several adventures similar to this in other fields that didn't work out, The idea and product was sound i just didn't have the drive.

If you believe in it stick with it and good luck! I know i wont put down something that has potential and doesn't sound like a farce right from the beginning.
IE i mean like .45acp at 2300 fps with a 95gr bullet.
Ive seen stuff like that several times and i always get a good read and its so easy to pick out the hype and BS they sprinkle it with. Just be real and back what you say and you'll at least have my attention and respect.

Just so you know i use Hornady Critical Defense in my .380 just for the reason your trying to develop this technique. You want to make a big hit in the market, Do it in the .380 caliber and do it at a reasonable price and you will be greatly rewarded.

 

[They1]

I have to admit ive heard the word "Gimmick" before being referred to Hydroshocks. But ive seen many other HP's that did a lot worse with expansion percentages.
If it was so great id say the LEO's wouldn't be using the HST's instead.
Id still rather carry the Hydroshock over the Magtech's you tested and many others out there. They are also pretty darned accurate.

They1, I wish you luck. Ive had several adventures similar to this in other fields that didn't work out, The idea and product was sound i just didn't have the drive.

If you believe in it stick with it and good luck! I know i wont put down something that has potential and doesn't sound like a farce right from the beginning.
IE i mean like .45acp at 2300 fps with a 95gr bullet.
Ive seen stuff like that several times and i always get a good read and its so easy to pick out the hype and BS they sprinkle it with. Just be real and back what you say and you'll at least have my attention and respect.

Just so you know i use Hornady Critical Defense in my .380 just for the reason your trying to develop this technique. You want to make a big hit in the market, Do it in the .380 caliber and do it at a reasonable price and you will be greatly rewarded.

Thanks Das! Yes, I'm sticking with this project simply because to date, I've had no reason to do otherwise. Everything we test is working, showing improvement, even some of the more 'questionable' bullets.

By your comments I gather you've had some project hiccups. I know what you mean. I have 16 patents to date, most of them never went anywhere. Not because of a bad design or product, but there are a million 'external' factors that can kill a project.

Back in the '80s, I invented the "Ground-Effect Neon" lights that went under cars. As the project started to take off, I thought I was going to make a fortune. Then the folks in Asia found a way around my patent, and came in w/their own, at pennies on the dollar. Blew me right out of the water. (I've learned a lot since then...)

Another project was the "Siesta Sleepmate" pillow; This was a 9' pillow that I actually halted myself. It wasn't that it didn't work, or that it wasn't comfortable.
Fact was it was TOO comfortable!
People I had testing it became 'addicted'. They were wrapping themselves up in it, and forgetting about their spouses! They never touched each other in bed.

I ended the project, calling my pillow design "The destroyer of relationships."

I've had other projects that had problems ranging from market share potentials vs. cost to build, unethical people, underfunding...the list goes on.

Other projects have reached measures of success, made 6-figure returns, etc., and you go on.

In retrospect, I'm reminded of an Edison quote; "I didn't fail 1000 times with the lightbulb, I just didn't succeed 1000 times before I got it right."

I don't get emotional about my projects...they are what they are.
After that "moment of inspiration", it's just another project, and you work it through in stages, checking at every phase to see if their are any issues or problems that have to be addressed. And at EVERY stage, you have to be able to shut the project down at any point, for any reason, if some part of the entire development process fails.

Hypercav is no different. Same standards apply.

This project now exists, because there have been no real issues with the entire formula;
The theory of function was explored, the laws of physics were valid, testing (by myself, independent testers and some manufacturers) has been verifying the initial concept, the manufacturing process is feasible (btw: the machine to drill bullets in a mass-manufacture process is already designed), cost to build bullets is VERY low, cost to the end-customer is low, and the market share potential is huge.

Lastly, and no less important, I don't invade my personal "laws of ethics". Meaning, this isn't a gimmick. It isn't a 'pet rock'. The product is useful, and the end-user will have a product that really works.
These standards are 'law' in my eyes, and I am NEVER willing to stand down from these values.
So, Hypercav moves forward.

FYI: We're starting work in earnest on the .380 as a high-priority.

 

[gym]

After speaking to They1, on 2 occasions, I find him to be an honorable guy. He has a good idea, but needs to decide how to proceed. "that's his business", In my humble opinion, either he licenses the design, or "patent pending", to a large manufacturer. Who will then take it from there, or raises capital from either Private Equity, Angel investors, or Venture Capital sources. My discussions with him included helping him write the business plan for investors to see, so he can get this out past the "gun community" and into the land of investment capitol. I also spoke to a couple great guys in here that agreed, and had the background to help with this endeavor. I offered my services for free, if it takes off, I would get paid, if not then it was time well spent.
I know that many of you come from legal and business backgrounds. What do you think?
I didn't tell "They1", that I was going to post this, but I think he will understand why I did. Brassfetcher seems to think it's a good idea, but you fellows who have played this game before know that you need all your ducks in a row, before an investor comes up with the startup capital. Also you need to show how to mitigate risk among other things. After that it's a matter of marketing. Unless They1, gets angry about me putting this up like this, perhaps we could get this idea off its butt.
We have all seen many gun related ideas make a lot of money, that did a lot less than this one does. Any ideas? we have the talent here to move this into the next phase if you guys think It is ready to go.
Again remember that all these tests cost money. So getting “seed” or”start up” money would be the next move if he doesn’t license it. Just my 2 cents.
If this post is off base, feel free to remove it, I just felt it was time for some direction here..
Gym

 

[They1]

After speaking to They1, on 2 occasions, I find him to be an honorable guy. He has a good idea, but needs to decide how to proceed. "that's his business", In my humble opinion, either he licenses the design, or "patent pending", to a large manufacturer. Who will then take it from there, or raises capital from either Private Equity, Angel investors, or Venture Capital sources. My discussions with him included helping him write the business plan for investors to see, so he can get this out past the "gun community" and into the land of investment capitol. I also spoke to a couple great guys in here that agreed, and had the background to help with this endeavor. I offered my services for free, if it takes off, I would get paid, if not then it was time well spent.
I know that many of you come from legal and business backgrounds. What do you think?
I didn't tell "They1", that I was going to post this, but I think he will understand why I did. Brassfetcher seems to think it's a good idea, but you fellows who have played this game before know that you need all your ducks in a row, before an investor comes up with the startup capital. Also you need to show how to mitigate risk among other things. After that it's a matter of marketing. Unless They1, gets angry about me putting this up like this, perhaps we could get this idea off its butt.
We have all seen many gun related ideas make a lot of money, that did a lot less than this one does. Any ideas? we have the talent here to move this into the next phase if you guys think It is ready to go.
Again remember that all these tests cost money. So getting “seed” or”start up” money would be the next move if he doesn’t license it. Just my 2 cents.
If this post is off base, feel free to remove it, I just felt it was time for some direction here..
Gym

Gym speaks the truth.
Franky, I didn't anticipate this post, but his base format of business theory is correct.

I have debated all along what the best course of action would be for this project. After the concept has been proven, I've tried to figure out, based on all facts and circumstances involved, how best to progress and bring Hypercav to market.

My first thought, and preferred, was/is to License this project to an existing manufacturer. This would be the most efficient means, given they already know the industry, have the network, the marketing, etc.. It's also the least expensive plan to implement.

Plan "B", is if I decide to modify bullets myself. Granted, I can make a much higher ROI, but I would have to secure a facility, fund the building of multiple "Porting Station" machines (said machine is already designed incidentally), establish contracts with the manufacturing, licensing, shipping, etc..
This would also take more time to bring product to market.
I have had some companies offer to send us bullets, we modify them and return for finish assembly, so that theory is valid.

Gym, is right. If I were to choose that path, I would have to take on a partner, or otherwise secure funding to get this rolling. It would take some serious bucks to move forward.

My hesitation to do so has been based on the conversations I've had to date with the manufacturers. Currently, there are five companies seriously considering this project.

Two have been testing HC samples for sometime now, and have reported that Porting HAS shown improvement in performance, even in their own ammo. One company has sent a 'Letter of Interest' as a result. I expect a second soon.
Another company, who specializes in green Frangibles has sent samples to be modified and tested. The other two, are still 'thinking' about it, but has to date only been looking at the test data as it becomes available.

Note that these are "very well-known companies", and I'm sure you'll understand that I cannot disclose who these folks are due to confidentiality reasons.

To be candid, I'm no fool. I know this is a potential gold mine. In the U.S. alone, we sell 14 BILLION bullets annually. 44% of those are Hollow Points. Even if if I get 10% of that market, Royalties alone will make a very good living.
Given that porting can be applied to literally every HP brand, caliber, handgun, rifle and shotgun (SABOT) out there, only increases that percentage.

Look at it this way; Out of all the auto manufacturers, how many offer power steering as an 'option'? Power steering is considered standard because it makes the fundamental, steering a car...better. Regardless of make, model or brand.

If porting an HP bullet makes a very good bullet more efficient, and it can be done inexpensively, why wouldn't 1, manufacturers not include it in their lines, and 2, why wouldn't the end-customers not want to have every advantage in their personal protection firearms?

I move very carefully with this project. And although I generally have the patience of a "snapping rubber-band", I'm keenly aware of the potential of this project, and must insure that there are no issues with the base concept, and that I secure the best possible (and fair) deal, where I get a reasonable return on my investment, that the project is implemented in the most efficient manner possible, the time-to-market timeline is minimized, and the end-users get the best possible product, without much additional cost.
I look for the very definition of 'good business'; where everyone wins.

 

[Lee Roder]

To be candid, I'm no fool. I know this is a potential gold mine. In the U.S. alone, we sell 14 BILLION bullets annually. 44% of those are Hollow Points. Even if if I get 10% of that market, Royalties alone will make a very good living.

I don't mean to rain on your parade dude but I think you may have shot yourself in the foot here. I'm not a lawyer but as a former research scientist I do recall that the First Rule of doing Science for Money is you don't talk about doing Science for Money. Your internet disclosure of your idea to the readership of this forum in fact may bar any patent application you file for your invention. No patent, no royalties. Just sayin'

 

[They1]

I don't mean to rain on your parade dude but I think you may have shot yourself in the foot here. I'm not a lawyer but as a former research scientist I do recall that the First Rule of doing Science for Money is you don't talk about doing Science for Money. Your internet disclosure of your idea to the readership of this forum in fact may bar any patent application you file for your invention. No patent, no royalties. Just sayin'

This project is already patent pending, internationally.

 

[Lee Roder]

OK, if an application was on file with the USPTO after your reduction to practice and prior to any of your disclosures here and elsewhere then I'd think you should be good to go. Best of luck.

 

[They1]

OK, if an application was on file with the USPTO after your reduction to practice and prior to any of your disclosures here and elsewhere then I'd think you should be good to go. Best of luck.

Thank you.

Yes, I was very careful not to disclose prior to patent status.

Of course, technically, in the U.S., the rule is 'first to invent' not 'first to file. So in effect, one can, after a Record of Invention filing, go ahead and disclose. but that doesn't apply to the international world.

Having said that, it's always better to be safe, and file for a patent anyway.

 

[strambo]

I'm thinking that "Brand-X bullets now with hypercav technology" will probably be better than "Hypercav, INC"...what the heck is that, like "Extreme Shok"

If Speer brought this out as a product improvement to my trusted Gold Dots...I would by them. I can see that tiny holes shouldn't make my Gold Dots less reliable...so I'll stay with the brand trusting their name and quality, hoping the hypercav is a real improvement not hype.

I don't see anyone leaving the brand over it, only potential to gain market share and maybe also license to other companies...with a lot less risk/capital.

 

[They1]

I'm thinking that "Brand-X bullets now with hypercav technology" will probably be better than "Hypercav, INC"...what the heck is that, like "Extreme Shok"

If Speer brought this out as a product improvement to my trusted Gold Dots...I would by them. I can see that tiny holes shouldn't make my Gold Dots less reliable...so I'll stay with the brand trusting their name and quality, hoping the hypercav is a real improvement not hype.

I don't see anyone leaving the brand over it, only potential to gain market share and maybe also license to other companies...with a lot less risk/capital.

That's the base plan strambo. I'm offering an exclusive Licensing agreement to a given manufacturer, with the inclusion that they can sub-license to their competition.

That way, everyone will be able to offer HC-class ammo, in their own name brand, and bullet products. Plus, with many companies producing HC's, it will make Hypercav available to the market much quicker.

A major advantage/incentive for the Licensee will be that they can get an almost instant return on their investment, and then some. The advantage for me is I'll get my royalty, no matter who's making them.

 

[They1]

I'm thinking that "Brand-X bullets now with hypercav technology" will probably be better than "Hypercav, INC"...what the heck is that, like "Extreme Shok"

If Speer brought this out as a product improvement to my trusted Gold Dots...I would by them. I can see that tiny holes shouldn't make my Gold Dots less reliable...so I'll stay with the brand trusting their name and quality, hoping the hypercav is a real improvement not hype.

I don't see anyone leaving the brand over it, only potential to gain market share and maybe also license to other companies...with a lot less risk/capital.

strambo, you hit the nail on the head!

That's EXACTLY what I envision for this product. A simple 'performance enhancement' that applies to all hollow point bullets, regardless of manufacturer, brand or caliber.

It just makes a good bullet...better.

i.e. SPEER Gold Dot JHP-HC, FEDERAL HST JHP-HC, Corbon DPX JHP-HC, etc.. Has a ring to it, don't you think? (hey, I invented it, I get to name it...lol)

 

[They1]

Test Updates

FYI: Just getting some new test results in.

http://hypercavbullets.com

New vids from NP's latest testing on the 'Marketing' page. There will be more to follow.

New pics in the Gallery, including our first, and very interesting rifle shots, 30-30 Copper and 7.62. (including some 4-layer denim.)

Also, BrassFetcher has completed another Gelatin test: Federal Tactical LEO 165gr .40. 1-control, 1-Bare gelatin, 1-Gel w/4-layer denim.

I'll post the results when I get them.

 

[gym]

Correct me if I am wrong. The more holes or the larger diameter hole that is drilled. Diminishes the integrity of the Bullet itself, thus causing it to "shred" and kind of disperse in different directions depending on what it encounters in it's path. This would kind of be similar to fragmentation, only more stable, as the path has been more pre ordained by the mass of the bullet itself rather than opposing forces working on different pieces of the shot or fragmentation material. Since I haven't spoken to you in some time, I would just like to see if my initial premise is correct? thanks, George

 

[They1]

Correct me if I am wrong. The more holes or the larger diameter hole that is drilled. Diminishes the integrity of the Bullet itself, thus causing it to "shred" and kind of disperse in different directions depending on what it encounters in it's path. This would kind of be similar to fragmentation, only more stable, as the path has been more pre ordained by the mass of the bullet itself rather than opposing forces working on different pieces of the shot or fragmentation material. Since I haven't spoken to you in some time, I would just like to see if my initial premise is correct? thanks, George

Don't know about the diameter, we've been just fine with 1/32 to date.

To be honest, I thinks too soon to draw any conclusions. What we can see is there are notably different behaviors between the control and HC. Differences that meet or exceed original design specs.

Testing just a few bullets really doesn't tell the story. In doing so, we'll figure out why everything is doing what its doing, and also, how best to enterprise on what we find.

 

[sonier]

I really would hate to read 12 pages to get this answer, will these bullets be availble to reload for the hand reloader? i wouldnt want to buy premade cartridges. It also seems that the depth in the wound channel would be ok for some animals such as cougars or coyotes.

 

[They1]

Hey all...

Latest videos from testing are in, and posted on the website. (Marketing page)

These include two rifle calibers.

*Note the results from the 30-30 Copper. With this and other Copper round testing, we're beginning to see that Copper and 'porting' are going to get along just fine!

Be sure to read tester's comments at the right of the page.

 

[Pharmacology]

Hey all...

Latest videos from testing are in, and posted on the website. (Marketing page)

These include two rifle calibers.

*Note the results from the 30-30 Copper. With this and other Copper round testing, we're beginning to see that Copper and 'porting' are going to get along just fine!

Be sure to read tester's comments at the right of the page.

Glad to hear that things are still moving along smoothly.

EDIT:

I just saw all of the new additions to the website, and that stuff looks great!

 

[They1]

Glad to hear that things are still moving along smoothly.

EDIT:

I just saw all of the new additions to the website, and that stuff looks great!

Thanks Pharm.

Wish I could take credit for all the 'coolness', but really, the bullets are doing all the work...

 

[eddism]

Did you tell your mom that you used her ironing board in your experiment?
Whats up with Blackwater? Last I heard a couple of them mercenaries are going to do some jail time for their antics in Iraq.

 

[AzBuckfever]

At first when I glanced at this on the webpage, I thought, HYDRASHOK. We used to use them as our issued ammo but there's a reason we don't anymore. Nope, not performance, as with any political marketing, they just found a cheaper bullet

Anyway, looking forward to more results.

 

[They1]

Did you tell your mom that you used her ironing board in your experiment?
Whats up with Blackwater? Last I heard a couple of them mercenaries are going to do some jail time for their antics in Iraq.

Nope...never said a word. lol
But we did have to get a new one, cause the test board broke. Seems Ironing boards don't cotton to being loaded with 5~6 jugs of water, then hit my that first round.

I haven't followed the Blackwater thing too close...sad deal all around though.

 

[They1]

At first when I glanced at this on the webpage, I thought, HYDRASHOK. We used to use them as our issued ammo but there's a reason we don't anymore. Nope, not performance, as with any political marketing, they just found a cheaper bullet

Anyway, looking forward to more results.

That's interesting...it was the Hydrashoks performance that started the HC project 10 years ago. FTO was a big problem then.

 

[kludge]

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?