Ported bullet instead of ported barrel !!!

Jerry my thoughts completely. Looking at this bullet the impression I get is that it is meant for ARs so that there would be no requirement for a muzzle brake - potentially reduce muzzle flash, perhaps work with a specific rifle/pistol. Likely the bullet isn't designed to fly far accurately just give operators an up close and personal fire that would be fast and controllable. I think it probably works really well with pistols (they have a greater selection of pistol bullets compared to rifle) and eliminates the need for a compensator. I would love to see this round in action...
 
I emailed them, and they only sell to law enforcement or military at the moment. Was going to check out the pricing to see if it was worth actually getting som to test out.
 
mysticplayer said:
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
Click to expand...

Wouldn't having the CG towards the front reduce the amount of spin the bullet needs to stay stable? Also wouldn't it yaw less when hitting flesh because it won't want to rotate and fly heavy side forward?
 
I predict little effect on muzzle rise, after all, the gasses are going both up, and down. Recoil? Yes, I think a bit, by redirecting some of the gasses, there should be a reduction.
Noise? Likely loud, but not as loud as a traditional brake.
Perfection would be best in the manufacture, although bullet spin should minimize most imperfections IMO.
Bet this little sucker is expensive.
I am concerned about barrel wear.
here's the 40 blown up for close inspection
44mg2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Throttle_monkey1 said:
Wouldn't having the CG towards the front reduce the amount of spin the bullet needs to stay stable? Also wouldn't it yaw less when hitting flesh because it won't want to rotate and fly heavy side forward?
Click to expand...

As long as the aerodynamic CG is in front of the mass CG in flight, it should fly. Otherwise, things may not go well no matter the spin rate.

Front CG on impact will cause the bullet to tumble. This is the main reason military bullets have a space in the nose of the bullet and a moveable core.

On impact, the core moves forward which upsets the balance, and the bullet yaws lots. This cause way more tissue damage then the bullet size dictates.

Look at the 5.45X39 Russian slug. NASTY by design.

FMJ's are most certainly not a kinder gentler bullet as they are presently designed.

Until someone can show me real world shooting results that isn't mired by corporate spin, I will consider these an infinite deal of nothing.

Now if they laser engraved an evil smiley face on the front of the bullet THAT will cause the enemy to tremble in fear and run away.

I called it first - its my patent.

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