Posted: 2/12/2010 9:37:45 AM EDT
|
Hi all,
FYI: We've updated the website Photo Gallery to show some additional test results, and on the 'Marketing Page' (scroll down), includes a video of a water jug test. (*You'll note the impact force difference of the HC round, vs. the control (the entire stack of jugs are moved back about 3". Watch the cardboard back-stop) http://www.hypercavbullets.com More test results are pending, and I'll post them as they become available. |
|
Interesting. I hope that the members here can make this a mature discussion. Okay help me out. Do you make the entire bullet yourselves or are these modified GD HPs and other factory HPs? Your 115gr probably don't penetrate enough but a lot of 115s don't. I'm interested to the what your 124gr does in Ballistics gel. I'm reserving judgment for more testing. EDIt: That jacket separation seems likes bad juju in the 115 S&B rounds. Both control and "modified" |
|
I have watched, over time, on several forums, as you have pedalled what at first I took as a possible good idea, and become more and more the snake-oil salesman. The culmination of this can be seen in your video.
Here I see what appears to be nothing other than you DELIBERATELY skewing your test results to make your product seem like something it is not. If one watches the video, it is VERY easy to note that the milk-jugs are barely touching each other in the first shot, especially noted should be the gaps between jug 1, and jug 2. If you watch it several times, you can see how the first jugs bump into each other, eating up "slack", so to speak, in the stack. For your "modified" bullet, you pushed the front jugs togather much tighter, again, review jug 1 and jug 2. There is no daylight between them for this shot. The rest of the jugs readily appear to be stacked tighter as well. They can be seen to be pressed togather quite a bit tighter than when the "unmodified" bullet was fired. Of course the rear-jug will move more. Anyone who has played a game of pool where someone didn't rack the billiards tightly can tell you what would happen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaceFLFI9l0 You didn't even bother being clever in this video. You just had the un-modified bullet pushing them up-hill. Jeez. |
|
Keep it civil, guys. As long as it's just informative and not selling, I'll let this thread run, but will be on the lookout for anyone trying to go overboard. [ETA] There is a long-running thread on the Hypercav over on M4Carbine already is anyone wants to read up: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=41081 |
|
Quoted: Interesting. I hope that the members here can make this a mature discussion. Okay help me out. Do you make the entire bullet yourselves or are these modified GD HPs and other factory HPs? Your 115gr probably don't penetrate enough but a lot of 115s don't. I'm interested to the what your 124gr does in Ballistics gel. I'm reserving judgment for more testing. EDIt: That jacket separation seems likes bad juju in the 115 S&B rounds. Both control and "modified" We're not making any bullets, only the technology that any current manufacturer can integrate porting into their existing product lines (factory HP's) The photos on the website do include 124gr, but these are from water jug tests. My understanding is Brass Fetcher shot a gel w/a 124gr, but I'll have to confirm this. Nevertheless, additional tests are planned with a variety of rounds, including 124gr. We're starting work on .40S&W and .45 Copper as well. Rifle rounds are also in the works. The S&B's properties (un-bonded jacket) were one of the primary reasons for testing this round as an HC. i figured if we could improve a 'mid-quality' bullets performance, that it would reciprocally improve the high-end stuff... Personally, I kind of like the idea of having "shrapnel" as part of the wound channel(s), if you don't sacrifice base bullet channel damage and penetration. just a thought, but I'm not convinced I'd use that particular round as self-defense just yet.. |
|
Quoted: Keep it civil, guys. As long as it's just informative and not selling, I'll let this thread run, but will be on the lookout for anyone trying to go overboard. [ETA] There is a long-running thread on the Hypercav over on M4Carbine already is anyone wants to read up: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=41081 I appreciate the civility mention Zhukov. no, I'm not selling anything (there's nothing to sell), just sharing info... If I were, I'd gladly become a commercial sponsor, and do it the right way. However, if you would prefer, I will halt any more posts here. Thank you. |
|
From HyperCav website:
As effective as the hollow point bullets is, in design, the overall performance of this class of bullet is actually, quite lacking. It's well documented that law enforcement, military, the civilian population, as well as bullet manufacturers themselves, report upwards of 80% "failure-to-open" (FTO) scenarios in "in-the-field" conditions. It certainly depends on what bullets were used. Federal, for instance, still makes the Hi-Shok JHP which is a Genration 1 JHP. JHPs back then didnt have a penetration requirement, werent tested against clothing, and the test medium was either water or duxseal. Note however Mr Wolfberg's study on the 147gr Winchester JHP as used by San Diego PD in actual shootings(a round cursed since its inception by gunwriters of dubious character, intellect, and knowledge) expanded far more often than not. That said with the current crop of JHPs, the results should be flipped, at the very least, with 80% of these new JHPs opening(percentages may be higher). Most departments now issue robust performing JHPs, and savvy citizenry look to the testing performed by Dr Roberts and the FBI-FTU. |