New Bullet Design? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : New Bullet Design?


DanaT
11-14-2011, 16:50
Now sure how to incorporate this into reloading, but I got a strange call today.

A friend of a friend is involved with some interesting technology. I cannot tell where it is being used but I suspect military. Essentially they wanted me to see if I could figure out a manufacturing technique for a new type of bullet.

From what I can figure out that this is a multi-piece bullet that stays together until it strikes a target, but then comes apart in a controlled manner and mostly regardless of velocity.

I should see some samples in the next couple of days. This should be interesting.

-Dana

NavyMSU
11-14-2011, 17:17
Now sure how to incorporate this into reloading, but I got a strange call today.

A friend of a friend is involved with some interesting technology. I cannot tell where it is being used but I suspect military. Essentially they wanted me to see if I could figure out a manufacturing technique for a new type of bullet.

From what I can figure out that this is a multi-piece bullet that stays together until it strikes a target, but then comes apart in a controlled manner and mostly regardless of velocity.

I should see some samples in the next couple of days. This should be interesting.

-Dana
I know hollow points are not authorized for military use, and I suspect highly frangible rounds designed to break apart and cause excessive internal damage wouldn't be either: Geneva convention.

Colorado4Wheel
11-14-2011, 17:35
Hollow point pistol rounds are not allowed but the 50 BMG sniper rifle is. That is kinda funny really.

NavyMSU
11-14-2011, 17:47
From what I can figure out that this is a multi-piece bullet that stays together until it strikes a target, but then comes apart in a controlled manner and mostly regardless of velocity.

I should see some samples in the next couple of days. This should be interesting.

-Dana
Would this new bullet be anti-personnel or anti-material? Did they say?

If this guy is asking you about manufacturing possibilities, they're probably just entrepreneurs and not professional arms manufacturers.

As well, if it was for a govt/military project, they would require you to have a security clearance and a very scary NDA (non-disclosure agreement).

If it was for a foreign/overseas sales be careful of ITAR laws... Cannot sell weapons internationally with proper permits, as well as can't share technologies internationally (such as specific weapons manufacturing) without govt approval.

Given that it's weapons related I guarantee you need to be very careful in what you say or share with them without protecting yourself from legal repercussions.

I'm not a lawyer or weapons manufacturer, but I work for a defense contractor and have to take ITAR training every year!

trcubed
11-14-2011, 19:00
Sounds similar to the design intent of the original 55gr 223. Tip of the bullet yaws and disintegrates into 5-6 pieces, cylindrical base continues to create wound channel.

PCJim
11-14-2011, 20:47
Sounds similar to the design intent of the original 55gr 223. Tip of the bullet yaws and disintegrates into 5-6 pieces, cylindrical base continues to create wound channel.

Agreed. M193 design characteristics.

dkf
11-14-2011, 20:53
Sounds like a similar concept to CCIs Segmented HP .22lr ammo.


I know hollow points are not authorized for military use, and I suspect highly frangible rounds designed to break apart and cause excessive internal damage wouldn't be either: Geneva convention.Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III.

freakshow10mm
11-14-2011, 22:43
I know hollow points are not authorized for military use, and I suspect highly frangible rounds designed to break apart and cause excessive internal damage wouldn't be either: Geneva convention.
Actually, the Hague, not Geneva. Furthermore, snipers and DMs use OTM projectiles in the M118, M118LR, and MK262 ammunition.


If it was for a foreign/overseas sales be careful of ITAR laws... Cannot sell weapons internationally with proper permits, as well as can't share technologies internationally (such as specific weapons manufacturing) without govt approval.
Bullets are a defensive article and subject to ITAR.

cderk
11-15-2011, 06:59
Given that it's weapons related I guarantee you need to be very careful in what you say or share with them without protecting yourself from legal repercussions.

I'm not a lawyer or weapons manufacturer, but I work for a defense contractor and have to take ITAR training every year!

+1... if this is something new that hasn't gone through the patent process yet, you could have just ruined the ability for them by disclosing the information.

NavyMSU
11-15-2011, 10:19
+1... if this is something new that hasn't gone through the patent process yet, you could have just ruined the ability for them by disclosing the information.

Nope. Disclosure will only impact them if the specific and patentable designs are leaked and somebody else submits the patent application first.

Many entrepreneurial consultants recommend talking about your ideas to people or you might miss out of sales-killing flaws or great improvement ideas. (if somebody gives you an idea with requiring an NDA or other legal paperwork, then you can use it, but will have to pay a lawyer to defend yourself because they think they 'own' and idea.

As well, if OP designs a new manufacturing process that is patentable, they should protect their own intellectual property.

US is first to patent, not first to produce.

GioaJack
11-15-2011, 11:03
The concept of unintended consequences, we've all experienced it. See a good looking lady in a social setting and a physiological response kicks in. We have one goal in mind. Date the lady for a period of time and the nesting impulse becomes dominant. Make a wrong choice and sever the union through divorce... an unintended consequence of the first meeting.

Ammunition development is no different, unintended consequences can, and do occur, for better or worse.

When the 5.56 was first introduced in a military application all we heard about was the hydrostatic shock effect. "Hit Charlie in the hand and the hydrostatic shock will take his arm clean off!" "Accuracy isn't that important, hit Charlie anywhere and you'll put him down for good!" Well, it didn't work out quite that way. Turns out a 55 grain bullet traveling at some 3200 fps wasn't the magic combination that some thought it would be, not by a long shot.

There was, however, an unintended consequence to the combination. As is true with any pointed, (Spitzer design) bullet, driven at sufficient velocity it will tend to yaw in soft material such as flesh, (human or animal), or ballistic gelatin. This yawing effect causes a larger wound channel thus destroying or damaging internal organs and disrupting blood supply.

Taking advantage of the bullet design the combination of bullet profile and velocity also had the unintended consequence of causing the bullet to separate at it's weakest point... the cannelure. Technically this would not be considered 'fragmentation' where the bullet breaks up into many pieces but the results are close enough where the term tends to be used interchangeably.

These characteristics are not unique to the 5.56 since any like bullet/velocity combination acts in the same manner, i.e. 220 Swift, etc. Even larger caliber bullets of a Spitzer design will exhibit a yawing action but tend not to break at the cannelure due to heavier jacket construction although this can occur at higher velocities.

Although the theory is sound during Vietnam another unintended consequence arose. Apparent a rice based diet does not lend itself to large and robust adversaries leading to Charlie being rather slight in stature. This lack of body mass resulted in a high incidence of through and through wounds necessitating multiple hits to achieve the desired results.

Over the years the questionable stopping ability was enhanced as the M-16 was redesigned with shorter a barreled models. Velocity dropped and subsequently the yawing effect and 'fragmentation' effect was reduced. Heavier bullets, traveling at a lower velocity than the original 5.56 have been introduced to help counter this deficiency.


Jack

NavyMSU
11-15-2011, 14:13
(if somebody gives you an idea without requiring an NDA or other legal paperwork, then you can use it, but will have to pay a lawyer to defend yourself because they think they 'own' the idea.


Edit: corrected for errors made while typing/editing on a mobile device

DanaT
11-15-2011, 18:18
I got some more info but haven't yet seen product.

What it has been described as is three pieces machined and then they interlock and are held toegther while in the case and barrel. They then come apart when they leave the barrel and have some sort of string to hold them within an inch or so. Essentially, it sounds like a three piece buckshot idea held together. The difference is the pieces fit together like a bullet.

Yes. Good advice to be careful with weapons manufacture /design.

As far as patent. Doesn't seem worth the money. Doesn't seem to do anything buckshot tied togther wouldn't do to me.

-Dana

PCJim
11-15-2011, 21:37
Now it sounds like a Bolo shell, specifically identified as an illegal projectile in my state.

NavyMSU
11-15-2011, 22:57
Now it sounds like a Bolo shell, specifically identified as an illegal projectile in my state.
^^^and that's part of the legal repercussions I was referring to ;). It's a expensive business to get into, legally expensive that is.