Miracle invention, or total gimmick?

tootall

tootall

Moderator
Moderator
Rating - 100%
54   0   0
Location
BC
Someone told me about a shooting school in UT, and their website, https://www.thompsonlongrange.com
He is a Weatherby fan, so he likes the site.

I'm not so sure...

The school owner had a special bullet called the Twist-Match. https://www.thompsonlongrange.com/twist-match-bullet/
Apparently, the grooves machined into the bullet ogive are supposed to add extra spin stabilization, even beyond what the barrel rifling does.
Sort of like the Foster/Forster shotgun slug idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_slug#Foster_/_Rifled_slugs

The Thompson site makes some big claims, but is short on ballistic science.

I Googled Twist-Match and found a couple of threads on other forums.
They didn't address the bullet modification directly, but had an issue with the school business model. (Cannot bring your own rifle, only use their guns. Also, you can buy a Weatherby & Leupold package from them at a "discount", yet it costs US$4400 ! https://www.thompsonlongrange.com/long-range-hunting-rifles/30-378-weatherby-magnum/ )
Also, they DO NOT sell these bullet to the public, but you can use some if you take the course...


To me, these grooves sound like a snake oil salesman hustle. There is very little that hasn't been tried before with guns. I have to think that if this was legit, it would be in wide use already.

Thoughts?


Oh yeah, a few commented on the other forums about using Weatherby for ultimate precision long range work.
Wby are not poor guns, but they don't win medals.

My understanding is that Wby chambers are cut with longer leade/freebore to keep chamber pressure safe with magnum loads.
This extra freebore cuts into accuracy slightly.
Trading accuracy for power and safety, in effect.
 
Last edited:
So just how does a pre-grooved bullet match up with the rifling in the barrel when you squeeze the trigger? Sounds like snake oil to me. I don’t think I have ever seen a Weatherby rifle used in a match. Barrel life must be several hundred rounds.
 
If there is any merit to such a bullet design, I doubt it has anything to do with the rifling.

More likely if there is any performance gain it is based on the same principle as dimples on a golf ball.

I'm skeptical though to say the least from a physics perspective alone, never mind the manufacturing consistency and cost challenges.
 
I would be willing to try them. Why not? But to be only available to shooters at the school. Raises a red flag. If they were so good why not sell them?
 
maynard said:
So just how does a pre-grooved bullet match up with the rifling in the barrel when you squeeze the trigger? Sounds like snake oil to me. I don’t think I have ever seen a Weatherby rifle used in a match. Barrel life must be several hundred rounds.
Click to expand...

It doesnt... from the promo video, the 'fins' or grooves are put into the nose of the bullet. The bearing surface is the only part that contacts the rifling and it looked conventional in the pics and videos.

I assume the idea is that more fins ensures the forces to keep a bullet spinning are ensured.... Given the distances he is talking about, I am unaware of any LR centerfire bullet that can't make the trip as they are produced right now

We do know that for peak accuracy, cannelures and grooves don't always help. Also, at supersonic speeds, does the boundary layer over the nose even allow this concept to function?

About the only 'benefit' is trying to make a stubby lower BC bullet have less drag for its given planform. He says, these bullets 'hit higher' and thus must have less drag... less drag vs what?

If he has gone through the expense and actually has a patent, tooled up to actually make his dream bullet, good for him. I think that is very encouraging to invest that much time and money into a concept.

All he now needs is some time with a labradar or E target.

Jerry
 
Ruger007 said:
I would be willing to try them. Why not? But to be only available to shooters at the school. Raises a red flag. If they were so good why not sell them?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact same thing. The fact you can't buy them, and can't even try them in your own rifle to compare them with whatever berger/hornady/lapua/whatever bullet you're using normally raises a lot of red flags.

As for the comparison to Foster slugs in the OP, I'm not sure thats right either? Isn't a foster slug stabilized by its weight-forward design, not the "rifling" on the outside? Isn't that "rifling" primarily for swaging through chokes, not stabilization?
 
If enough people try them only to find out they are junk, he will make a nice profit.

Like fishing lures that catch more fishermen than fish.

What really does not make sense is that he states the test is pointless if the spin rate does not match between the barrel and the projectile.

This is fundamentally problematic because the spin rate is not constant during the flight of a bullet.

Spin rate per linear inch actually increases as the bullet velocity decreases.

That being said, the correlation between spin rate and the grooves in the bullet will significantly disassociate less than a couple hundred yards down range.

He also states the impact of the modified bullets was higher than not modified... Well the modified bullets are lighter so they go faster and should hit higher for that reason alone.

Seems like snake oil to me but I hope someone reports back on this in case this guy is not FOS.
 
Last edited:
maynard said:
So just how does a pre-grooved bullet match up with the rifling in the barrel when you squeeze the trigger? Sounds like snake oil to me. I don’t think I have ever seen a Weatherby rifle used in a match. Barrel life must be several hundred rounds.
Click to expand...

Mystic Precision said:
It doesnt... from the promo video, the 'fins' or grooves are put into the nose of the bullet. The bearing surface is the only part that contacts the rifling and it looked conventional in the pics and videos.

I assume the idea is that more fins ensures the forces to keep a bullet spinning are ensured.... Given the distances he is talking about, I am unaware of any LR centerfire bullet that can't make the trip as they are produced right now

We do know that for peak accuracy, cannelures and grooves don't always help. Also, at supersonic speeds, does the boundary layer over the nose even allow this concept to function?

About the only 'benefit' is trying to make a stubby lower BC bullet have less drag for its given planform. He says, these bullets 'hit higher' and thus must have less drag... less drag vs what?

If he has gone through the expense and actually has a patent, tooled up to actually make his dream bullet, good for him. I think that is very encouraging to invest that much time and money into a concept.

All he now needs is some time with a labradar or E target.

Jerry
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the magic grooves are not on the bearing surface, only on the ogive part, so do not engage the rifling.
It would seem to windmill thru the air.
As the spin of any bullet from any barrel doesn't decay much, certainly not at the rate forward velocity is lost, I can't see this being of any use.



Suther said:
As for the comparison to Foster slugs in the OP, I'm not sure thats right either? Isn't a foster slug stabilized by its weight-forward design, not the "rifling" on the outside? Isn't that "rifling" primarily for swaging through chokes, not stabilization?
Click to expand...

True, in fact the Wiki link does mention that. It compares Foster slugs to air rifle pellets.
My reason for mentioning them was that people believe they windmill too, gaining accuracy.
 
This video shows the bullet, for those who are wondering what they look like. Kinda reminds me of some of the unique offerings from Lehigh Defense.

 
Maple57 said:
If enough people try them only to find out they are junk, he will make a nice profit. #1

Like fishing lures that catch more fishermen than fish.

What really does not make sense is that he states the test is pointless if the spin rate does not match between the barrel and the projectile.

This is fundamentally problematic because the spin rate is not constant during the flight of a bullet.

Spin rate per linear inch actually increases as the bullet velocity decreases. #2

That being said, the correlation between spin rate and the grooves in the bullet will significantly disassociate less than a couple hundred yards down range.

He also states the impact of the modified bullets was higher than not modified... Well the modified bullets are lighter so they go faster and should hit higher for that reason alone. #3

Seems like snake oil to me but I hope someone reports back on this in case this guy is not FOS. #4
Click to expand...


#1 I suspect that it is a lure to get people to take the course.
#2 Do you mean that the rotational speed stays fast, even while the forward speed slows down? That is my understanding also.
#3 Yeah, my first thought was "Why not just buy slightly lighter bullets?"
#4 I went back and looked at some of the videos on the site. The guy does seem to know a lot about ballistics, so he is not a total putz! He also has an AWESOME shooting station.
It is an enclosed building, like an Atco building. The shooting bench allows the barrel to go thru a small hole in the wall to really reduce felt noise. And it has several old tires lines up on the outside to reduce outside noise as well. A large window allows the spotter to be inside and still view the shots. Nice.
 
Last edited:
Aircraft have devices that alter flight characteristics and change stall speed.

I wonder if these grooves are changing the bullet's flight characteristics, or the speed/time-of-flight at which it goes subsonic.
 
Last edited:
On the webpage I found the following:

How it started
For many years I wanted to try to make a bullet fly better and the best way was to see if I could improve on existing bullets by modifying them. I tried several different and exotic things. Some that were well beyond comprehension! Somewhere along the way I knew that if I could increase the surface of the nose or ogive of the bullet, I could reduce the resistance.
Click to expand...

Well beyond comprehension? To me, that sort of word choice makes me feel like hes trying to say "I'm way smarter than you, just trust me" and I don't buy into that sort of thinking.
 
tootall said:
#2 Do you mean that the rotational speed stays fast, even while the forward speed slows down? That is my understand also.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly what I mean.

The RPM takes a very long time to slow down, but forward velocity slows down quickly.

Essentially if you fire a bullet at 3000 FPS from a 1:10" twist barrel, the bullet will be spinning 1:5" by the time the velocity drops to 1500 FPS.

That means the grooves are not spinning in sync with the forward movement of the projectile.
 
Last edited:
If you have to take a propriety range coarse to play with this it’s smoke and mirrors, period.
He’s developed a product and, his concept aside, it is basic and the application of it is fully understood from the market segment it competes in.
I.e.: it’s a bullet, they’ve been around forever and just about everything about them has been done to death.
If it works, chances are we have it.
Military’s and governments, let alone sports shooters have spent lifetimes coming up with better options and very rarely does a game changing concept show up out of nowhere.
So if it had tangible results there would be no reason to indoctrinate the gullible with propaganda in a closed door training event, quite the opposite, it would get in the way of marketing and increasing production capacity to meet massive demand.
Think about it, even if it didn’t work you could sell a metric s#@t ton of them to shooters looking for the next thing to improve their performance, if it worked he’d be rich just from royalties off the patent.
Following this strategy suggests he’s milking a failed concept.
But kudos to him for chasing a dream.
Also, did Marvel do his video posted here? Seriously good production standards for start-up (which is one of my red flags as well).
 
A fellow I know who's got about a dozen (corporate) patents to his name explained to me in the past that you can get a US patent on pretty much anything regardless of its novelty/workability/applicability. You fill out the forms, pay the fee (around $10k), and a little while later you can own a 100% legitimate patent on "Method for combing hair to one side using a salad fork."

It isn't tested until someone sues, at which it becomes a "who has more money for lawyers" contest.

Canadian/EU ones are harder to get, as you have to show that it is new, workable, and has applications before they will issue a patent. In those jurisdictions the crown also takes a more active role in enforcing the patent.

This was some years ago, so I may have forgotten some of the nuances, but my takeaway understanding was that a US Patent does not require the idea/concept to have any merit.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, more surface area less resistance? Kinda goes against physics.
If anything they would be harmful to the BC of the bullet.
That's my 5 cents, why 5 because inflation.
 
coldfire said:
Hmmm, more surface area less resistance? Kinda goes against physics.
If anything they would be harmful to the BC of the bullet.
That's my 5 cents, why 5 because inflation.
Click to expand...
Same idea as a golf ball, Although I just can’t see the benefit on something as sleek as a high bc bullet
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom