Ever hear of bullets with holes in them, and what's claimed for them? Neither did I until today. Their effects in shooting are controversial, but they are innovative.

You can read about them here.

John

"Holey" bullets claimed to go faster

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Interesting ,I dont know if that would work or not?
i believe we are going to see more and more copper projectiles though.
already seeing some on the market.
too light in my opinion but i guess well see

__________________
the rules? there are no rules

I don't know if they'll work or not, but I'm reminded of Homer Simpson taking a pickax to the hood of his car to put "speed holes" in it.

__________________
Lounge Lizard Extraordinaire

Well that is a new one on me. I don't know what to think about it.

__________________
James
On the Llano Estacado

first thing i thought too haha

__________________
the rules? there are no rules

All that article and not one single loading tested?

I guess at least people are still trying to improve.

They go faster than what?,,the same bullet with no holes in it?
It'd be lighter in weight, I'd guess it'd go faster.

Why don't they just plunk a few test rounds past a chronograph & into a target and show the results. Seems simple enough to prove or disprove the velocity and accuracy claims.

I'd settle for a few pounds of powder or a brick of .22s myself.

or a pickup load of lead ingots...

__________________
the rules? there are no rules

And they probably whistle chords in flight.

Can you say "Betamax"?

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

haha Zagged, buzz bombs right? you can hear em coming

__________________
the rules? there are no rules

interesting ...
of course its faster due to weight reduction, but theres no mention of B.C.
I do wonder, however, its more legitimate claims of recoil reduction.
In fact, it may be something of a godsend with a suppressor

__________________
it just needs more voltage

If we put a restriction in the hole, squirted a shot of JP5 through it, it would really go fast!

__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner

The two ringers means-they are Confederate bullets:


These are just the new version:

I think it's another solution in search of a problem. I've liked comment by gentleman 'Ethan Brush' and I don't see any "holes" in his criticism

Now there's an idea. A bullet that whistles through the air. If the holes were at an angle similar to the twist from the rifling what would that do? Maybe make the bullet spin faster? We really need a physicist here to analyze these things.

Bullets made of copper alloy with concentric cavity and radial vents. No lead core, and considerable mass removed in creating the cavities, so the bullets will be much lighter in weight than anything of similar profile. Not surprising that they are faster, as lighter bullets can be accelerated more quickly and achieve higher velocities than heavier bullets.

As for usefulness, these can be expected to perform like any "solid" bullet. Expect no significant deformation unless striking bone or other hard materials. Penetration is likely to be rather extreme.

The "rocket effect" of the holes increasing velocity is BS. Once it leaves the barrel it has all the energy it will ever have. Unless you add rockets.

This has to be a joke?? OK.??

How will the propellant gas exit the holes when the propellant fell out through the holes before you even had a chance to fire it?!

I mean, looks to me like the hollow base leads to the holes. What keeps the powder in the case?

Made by an Italian company. Possibly inspired by their holey soldiers.

Sorry, I couldn't pass it up.

Story posted bu OP from 2011, about the time this bullet died.

If there was any rocket effect wouldn't be holes need to be canted rearward? Gas going out sidewise isn't going to help forward velocity.

How is has coming out the side while in the barrel "lubricating"? Doesn't the bullet need to be in contact with the barrel in order to maintain the pressure behind it and to engage the rifling?

Meant to do an multi quote here as I was also thinking how does the powder stay in the loaded round? Must be using some sort of wad or glue or some thing as a cap which gets burned up or punched through when the propellant ignites.

We also need a psychiatrist to analyze the inventor of these things, and the people at the ad agency, and...

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

In real practice, these would be quicker out of the hole, but the stability in flight would come into question as the range increases. Effective hit power will drop significantly as distance increases.

The dimpling effect on a golfball, and the threads on a baseball are designed specifically to increase their flight characteristics. Done wrong, there are very negative flight characteristics. In the world of high speed propulsion, whether flight, sailing vessels on or under water, and rolling over land- how you 'finish' is just as important as how you lead. As I can recall, there is no successful plane, sub, car, or artillery that has a gaping hole in the rear with no propulsion purpose. Once the fire is out..... the hole forms a vacuum, and the speed is literally sucked into the rear of the object. Look no further than the tail/ trunks on cars from the 50's to 70's, and contrast with vehicles from the 90's to present. The 80's was where the transition was made over entire fleets of cars rather than purely sport models.

Powder is meant for burning, not lubrication. At least they tried something new. They should make sure it works next time before allowing any articles to be written.

"The "rocket effect" of the holes increasing velocity is BS. Once it leaves the barrel it has all the energy it will ever have. Unless you add rockets."

Truth can be so simple. I don't care how many marketing buzz words you use, you will not change the laws of science. No bullet is ever going to go faster after it leaves the barrel.

Now if you make it a hollow point and add a miniature scram jet...................

Anyone remember the Gyrojet rocket pistol? Another dead on arrival design.

If you do a bing or google on Compbullet you will find articles on this dating back to early 2011, yet no big publicity dealing it the bullet being better or worse than standard projo's. AND- of course- if given tha same charge as a heavier bullet - a lighter one will go faster. Couldn't find anything dealing with accuracy except for manufacture claims. There was no data to support the claims listed.

In short- another gimmick until battle proven!

__________________
Thanks,
Steve

I remember that one. As I recall, the rocket projectile accelerated so slowly down the "tube" that you could stop its progress by putting your finger in the muzzle of the thing as it ignited. This concept wound up, and properly so, on the trash heap of history.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -