Ported bullet instead of ported barrel !!!

I see a key flaw in the concept. By the looks of the design they seem designed to vent gases the instant they leave the muzzle. In theory it should work the same as a muzzle break. However, I think that they might not seal as they spin through the rifling due to the land being higher than the groove. As a result gases would escape back and forward through the grooves. if this is the case you might assume a significant loss of velocity and possibly accuracy as well.

Also according to Newton third law of equal and opposite forces a muzzle break reduces the backward force of the gun which is what you feel being attached to the gun. A break on the bullet reduces the backward force on the bullet and since you are not attached to the bullet once it is fired then you should not feel reduced recoil.

Just my take on it for what it's worth. I'm curious to here more opinions from anyone who knows more about these things
 
their site says that the 147gr bullet out of a 3006 shoots at 854 m/s, which is almost an even 2800 fps with 50 grains of N140

ive never used the powder so i dont know if thats fast for it or slow

interesting though!
 
If there are vents through the bullet, wouldn't the gases from the ignition want to go through those same ports and out the muzzle?

Would you just have alot less acceleration?

Alot more fouling?

How affective would the bullet vent once the bullet has left the muzzle? The brake channels ALL the expanding gases even when the bullet has left the bore.

How well can a bullet spinning at a horrendous rate vent gases?

Let's see some real shooting cause it sure flies in the face of things we try to avoid in a bullet.

Jerry
 
Jerry, I am pretty certain that the gases only vent out of the brake when the bullet passes through the muzzle after the bullet is gone, only some of the gases would vent through the brake. I believe that the key time when the brake "works" is the bullet is passing through the muzzle and the gases vent. If I am correct this bullet accomplishes that as well. As well, in theory the gases shouldn't go past the bullet - it should form a gasket as it travels through the bore - so I think this bullet should work. I noticed that the bullets are also cut like the barnes TSX bullets to minimize fouling.

I think this would work, the question I would ask is how well would it work but based on the design I am going to guess that these bullets were meant to be used up close and personal. They definitely don't look like they would perform well at distance. If I had to guess the rifle bullets were probably meant for some Assault Rifle...
 
I could see it working, but in a weird way and I may be completely out to lunch.

If recoil is from the pressure of gases leaving the barrel, would that barrel not vent the gases at two times? Once when the ports leave the barrel and again when the bullet leaves the barrel? Maybe it would make it a longer less mild recoil? But then again the time the ports leave the barrel to the time the bullet leave the barrel would be about .000000001 of a second.

My opinions some times are about as accurate as I shoot, see avatar (it's a mosin).
 
for some reason im thinking that if the holes were not made at perfect 90 degree angles to he bullet, the escaping gasses might make the bullet spin in a different direction or at least hindering the spin on it, which would lead to lack of accuracy and bad balancing in the bullet after? i have no idea if this would happen or not but thats my logic.
 
Any kind of escaping gasses from the bullet port holes when it leaves the barrel, will hinder the spinning movement and reducing stability during flight as a result assuming the holes are drilled at a 90*. Sure it would work if what they claim it does is just softer recoil, but accuracy would suffer greatly I would think based on laws of physics, not experience. On the other hand if the holes were angled to follow the spin on the rifling, then they might be on to something.
 
An original idea. Did no-one think that the manufacturer might have actually tested it? If the concept does not work, then they'd have a short run.

I'm going to try it out myself by drilling some holes in 45 cal bullets.
 
Something about those just ain't right. I'd bet they'd increase gas cutting of the frame.
"...Did no-one think that..." The small manufacturers usually don't have the facilities to do much testing.
When pin shooting was big, there were all kinds of bullet concepts that were supposed to make a bullet knock the pins off the table better on marginal hits. Mostly daft marketing ideas. One was an HP with 'teeth' around the cavity. Didn't work any better than any other bullet.
 
the velocity they get is 2800 fps, easily achievable with a conventional bullet of that weight, I am not going to throw mine out.....
 
Andy said:
Did no-one think that the manufacturer might have actually tested it?
Click to expand...

Most likely the testing consisted of Bob and his cousin Neil firing a few hundred rounds and saying "yep, less recoil".

Instrumented testing showing less torque (say, on a ransom rest) or - even better - less total recoil (say, on a pendulum mount) with published numbers would be interesting - nothing like that appears on the website. This type of testing can be done at very little cost.

I think the idea is flawed just on the physics, but the bottom line is no verifiable testing.
 
In theory (perfect world), it'll work, in practice - gases coming out thru the holes will offset bullet's path. Recoil will get defeated some, accuracy will suffer a lot. And bullets' price will make you cry too.
 
Glock4ever said:
Jerry, I am pretty certain that the gases only vent out of the brake when the bullet passes through the muzzle after the bullet is gone, only some of the gases would vent through the brake. I believe that the key time when the brake "works" is the bullet is passing through the muzzle and the gases vent. If I am correct this bullet accomplishes that as well. As well, in theory the gases shouldn't go past the bullet - it should form a gasket as it travels through the bore - so I think this bullet should work. I noticed that the bullets are also cut like the barnes TSX bullets to minimize fouling.

I think this would work, the question I would ask is how well would it work but based on the design I am going to guess that these bullets were meant to be used up close and personal. They definitely don't look like they would perform well at distance. If I had to guess the rifle bullets were probably meant for some Assault Rifle...
Click to expand...

Your thought on the venting occuring while the bullet is passing through the brake is sound. There is high speed footage of this. The bullet acts as a seal to some degree.

But the design goal of any brake is to make it 'better' for the gases to vent in any direction except forward.

Between larger vents (lower pressure), big sails (gas smashes into these and is redirected) and small exit port (easier to go sideways then forward), the gas vents sideways.

The amount of gas that a bullet could vent would be peanuts vs the total gas column that is following so if it did anything, it would be of neglible benefit.

The one area that is really puzzling, most bullet designs want the mass to be in the rear of the bullet. with all this porting, the CG now moves way forward.

Is the bullet going to fly properly?

Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom