quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:
And: RPM in the abstract will increase with velocity ONLY because the bullet, in theory, will travel farther in one minute. It doesn't "spin faster", it would just cover more distance --> more 10 inch units ( Wink ) <-- allowing the RPMs to add up.
RPM means dick.

Actually, now. The rate of rotation, which is revolutions per minute, increases with increased speed. The bullet traverses the same distance, with the same number of revolutions, but over a shorter time durations. This means more revolutions per a given time interval, which is a. higher RPM.

If the bullet rotates 50 times in one second to go distance X, but at a higher speed rotates 50 times to go the same distance but does it in half a second, the rotation per distance unit has not changed, but the RPM has doubled. If the bullet were to be in flight for the same period of time, 1 second, then it would be 100 revolutions. Faster is a higher rate of rotation.
RPM does not mean "dick." Revolution is inherent to accuracy. The rate of revolution necessary for accuracy dependson bullet weight and velocity.
The bullet in question is a gimmick, and there's redneck junk science involved in the article, but a lot of misunderstanding here, too.

Holy cheeseandrice!
This is different than what I've posted more than once in this thread how?
- -
Quote: I stated rather clearly in the post above:
It's going to turn 1 revolution in 10 inches no matter what speed you drive it at. It can reach that 10 inches of distance *faster* (if you love time measurements like RPM), but it will still only *turn* ONCE. Unquote.
- -
RPM in a defensive bullet, a bullet that is designed to damage a torso, means absolutely dick.
I'm well aware of how twist rates and velocity can act on bullet stabilization and accuracy. That's not what the bullet designer is stating.
He stated that the "higher the RPMs" due to velocity was responsible for increased tissue damage.
Had he only said increased *velocity* caused more damage he may have had a case but he didn't -> he added RPM into the statement.
That's the part I disagree with -> that RPM in and of itself has anything to do with increased damage.
The amount of ROTATION in the target's torso remains the same "no matter what speed you drive it at".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FishOn:
This is a very interesting review. I imagine we'll be hearing more about this new ammunition.


FWIW.....I've shot this ammo in 380,9mm and 45acp. It's pleasant to shoot, reliable and accurate. Does it do everything they claim, in all calibers ??? Who knows.....I did attend a class where a fellow gave a demo and shot through a windshield and through the side of an old mini van ( in 5.56). Compared to standard 5.56 loads it penetrated better and shot straighter.

Time will tell....mike

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

Holy cheeseandrice!
This is different than what I've posted more than once in this thread how?

Well, you have a definite reading comprehension problem, and it's very different. You clearly stated that a faster bullet velocity does not make the bullet spin faster. You've also stated that rotational velocity doesn't mean "dick." Both of these are falsehoods. Further, you continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the concept, and you do not understand the replies that have been given you, and that have patiently explained it to you, from multiple posters.

You have a distinct failure to grasp the fact that for a given twist rate, a higher bullet velocity will result in a higher RPM. You keep attempting to refute it by regurgitating the same misunderstood information. The misunderstanding is yours. This has rapidly become a matter of wisdom dictating that one ought not teach a pig to sing, given the waste of time and annoyance to the pig.

Point of fact, though you fail to grasp this either: the rotational rate of the bullet once it leaves the barrel does NOT match the twist rate of the barrel: that ration in revolutions per inches travelled applies ONLY when the bullet is in the barrel and in contact with the barrel. Bullet velocity changes throughout the flight, as does the rate of rotation. Further, the rate of rotation is directly influenced by the bullet velocity.

You've clearly stated that velocity does not affect the RPM, and this is wrong. It absolutely affects RPM. How do you not understand this?

Further, you keep quoting yourself. Do you understand the significance of this?

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

Holy cheeseandrice!

Quote: I stated rather clearly in the post above:
It's going to turn 1 revolution in 10 inches no matter what speed you drive it at. It can reach that 10 inches of distance *faster* (if you love time measurements like RPM), but it will still only *turn* ONCE. Unquote.

Yes, you keep saying it, and you keep quoting yourself (good god). Your comment is theoretical, doesn't work in reality once the bullet leaves the barrel, but completely misses the point: RPM is a function of both twist rate AND velocity.

Furthermore, you keep repeating the same intellectual observation that "RPM doesn't mean dick." It does, actually. The point of rifling is to spin-stabilize the projectile with gyroscopic forces which is inherent to accuracy. Otherwise we'd use a smoothbore or one single twist rate, and we don't. You understand why?

Yes, you clearly said something you didn't understand, and that's wrong. Repeating yourself and reiterating that you clearly said it doesn't change the fact.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:
RPM in a defensive bullet, a bullet that is designed to damage a torso, means absolutely dick.

See? You clearly said it again, but you're also clearly still wrong. What you have here is a case of a teen foot hole in which you're standing, and still digging.

That bullet, incidentally, is designed to traverse a line in space, whether it intersects a head, auto glass, a torso, arm, leg, buttock, or left elbow. Spinning helps get it there accurately.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:


Had he only said increased *velocity* caused more damage he may have had a case but he didn't -> he added RPM into the statement.

As did you, and you won't let it go.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:


Had he only said increased *velocity* caused more damage he may have had a case but he didn't -> he added RPM into the statement.
That's the part I disagree with -> that RPM in and of itself has anything to do with increased damage.
The amount of ROTATION in the target's torso remains the same "no matter what speed you drive it at".

That remains to be seen, but that wasn't your statement. You clearly stated that rotation doesn't change with the speed of the projectile, and that's patently false. Whether increased rotation has an impact on the terminal effect of the projectile may depend on various factors that I'm not qualified to comment on, though it's reasonable to infer that a projectile that cuts as it spins, with petals, leaves, or edges designed for that purpose, may have the potential to do more damage if it rotates more, or faster (either one).

Your assertion that the bullet maintains the barrel twist rate upon impact and subsequent travel has no basis in science or reality.

Maybe the design will progress to FBI gelatin tests and live game hunting with more objectivity than a gunzine puff piece.

Couple things on the ballistics.
Spin rate decays much less with distance than velocity. This matters at long rifle range where a bullet going less than half of muzzle velocity is still stable. Not so much at pistol ranges.

There were once some tests done on spin vs terminal effect. They really did show a difference in expansion of a soft lead hollowpoint from Colt 14 twist vs Smith 18.75 twist.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Well, you have a definite reading comprehension problem

Pot--->Kettle--->Black

quote:

Furthermore, you keep repeating the same intellectual observation that "RPM doesn't mean dick." It does, actually. The point of rifling is to spin-stabilize the projectile with gyroscopic forces which is inherent to accuracy. Otherwise we'd use a smoothbore or one single twist rate, and we don't. You understand why?

Ya know, as a matter of fact I do! You keep harping on external ballistics when my beef was with the designer's statement about terminal ballistics. Do you understand the difference? Maybe in another lifetime we can discuss the coriolis effect on pistol bullets.

quote:

That bullet, incidentally, is designed to traverse a line in space, whether it intersects a head, auto glass, a torso, arm, leg, buttock, or left elbow. Spinning helps get it there accurately.

Thank you Capt Obvious. Rifling has been doing that for 499 years.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:
Had he only said increased *velocity* caused more damage he may have had a case but he didn't -> he added RPM into the statement.
- - -
guppy: As did you, and you won't let it go.

When I questioned the designer's statment, I quoted the designer's statement.
This a foreign concept to you?

quote:

Your assertion that the bullet maintains the barrel twist rate upon impact and subsequent travel has no basis in science or reality.

Really? Then how do you calculate the RPM?
(big hint: you need to know the twist rate and velocity)

Okay there, brightspark. Everyone is wrong but you. Have a nice day.

This thread as a GIF.

With all this new hyper velocity, rapidly expanding, dynamic opening, high rpm ammo available to us . . . I've got to wonder how a poor little company like Speer keeps selling Gold Dots.

Looks interesting, I'd love to see more investigation of it. G9 better than G2? (yesterdays "wonder" ammo.) https://g2rammo.com/

Is G9 the same concept as Inceptor ammo? They look similar and there are several reviews on the Inceptor ammo.