Andy Blozinski
New member
Please be specific and detail why it is a fraud.
Can this 9mm claim be true?
- Thread starter br1dge
- Start date
Like I mentioned earlier, I think the Lehigh is worthy of consideration in .380. We know that hollow points don't function reliably from the popular small .380 carry pistols and that FMJ's will seriously over-penetrate. The Lehigh seems like a viable solution to a real problem in this caliber.
I don't see the point in 9mm or larger calibers though.
I don't see the point in 9mm or larger calibers though.
Andy, haven't you ever seen the infomercials that make enormous claims that miraculous results are going to be had if you buy the right detergent? Do you take them at face value?
This thing is totally unproven. Gel results are meaningless for judging incapacitation. There's no reason to believe that the concave slope will cause any extra tissue displacement. The thing will not hit and turn into a drill bit of Doon. It appears to me that it will create a long, bore diameter, and wholly ineffective channel. As throughout all of history, a mediocre product is being touted beyond its capabilities.
This thing is totally unproven. Gel results are meaningless for judging incapacitation. There's no reason to believe that the concave slope will cause any extra tissue displacement. The thing will not hit and turn into a drill bit of Doon. It appears to me that it will create a long, bore diameter, and wholly ineffective channel. As throughout all of history, a mediocre product is being touted beyond its capabilities.
Andy Blozinski
New member
Fraud means you are claiming they are fabricating results. Literally that's what it means. Since you called them liars, please point out how you know they fabricated the gel tests.
Please refer back to the original post and tell me exactly when and where I called them liars. I said in these exact words,
"This appears to be just another fraud."
Gel is meaningless, it does not make anything but a close approximation of lethality. Holes in goop are a good research tool. To take unproven ammunition, shoot it into gel, and then promote the product as extremely effective and sell it for a premium price comes awfully close to a legal case for fraud.
But,whatever. Buy them if you want. Promote them if you want. Disagree if you want to. When they allow me to examine cadavers and I find evidence that the are incredibly effective, then I'll endorse them.
"This appears to be just another fraud."
Gel is meaningless, it does not make anything but a close approximation of lethality. Holes in goop are a good research tool. To take unproven ammunition, shoot it into gel, and then promote the product as extremely effective and sell it for a premium price comes awfully close to a legal case for fraud.
But,whatever. Buy them if you want. Promote them if you want. Disagree if you want to. When they allow me to examine cadavers and I find evidence that the are incredibly effective, then I'll endorse them.
Andy Blozinski
New member
I think you need to look up the definition of fraudulent. If you use that term you are calling them liars. I think you need to look up legalities on fraud as well.
I don't know about you, but I don't see any evidence they fabricated that gel test. What makes you think that gel test evidence was doctored to give dishonest results?
I don't know about you, but I don't see any evidence they fabricated that gel test. What makes you think that gel test evidence was doctored to give dishonest results?
Show me genuine results of combat shootings. Show me what happens when a genuine, living, breathing, mammal with a pulse is hit with one of those things.
Special lucky bullets like this have come and gone for centuries. I guess that the first "new and improved" was when a guy used a lead ball instead of a pebble. Offhand,I can't think of even a single one of those new and improved pistol bullets that made it, for example the arcane or the thunderzap. The two absolute
Before I risk the lives of myself, my family, friends, bystanders, by using a new round, I demand EVIDENCE that it performs in combat far better than my current round, using accuracy, reliability,functionality, and potential for stopping the target.
Nobody should depend on gelatin tests. Saying that caution is called for when looking at those tests isn't being a hater.
When I tell you to pass on those things, it's the kindest thing I'm ever going to do. I don't want you carrying ammo that isn't proven in battle and by neutral testers. The two groundbreaking designs, the hollow points and semi wadcutter have stood the test. Currently, the hollow point with internal skiving, petals,bonding, or other bonuses are still the absolute leader.
As a person who just wants you to stay alive, I suggest that you carry the best possible combat proven hp rounds, and not grasp at unproven designs that may offer only a tiny improvement over standard rounds, but may fail you miserably.
Special lucky bullets like this have come and gone for centuries. I guess that the first "new and improved" was when a guy used a lead ball instead of a pebble. Offhand,I can't think of even a single one of those new and improved pistol bullets that made it, for example the arcane or the thunderzap. The two absolute
Before I risk the lives of myself, my family, friends, bystanders, by using a new round, I demand EVIDENCE that it performs in combat far better than my current round, using accuracy, reliability,functionality, and potential for stopping the target.
Nobody should depend on gelatin tests. Saying that caution is called for when looking at those tests isn't being a hater.
When I tell you to pass on those things, it's the kindest thing I'm ever going to do. I don't want you carrying ammo that isn't proven in battle and by neutral testers. The two groundbreaking designs, the hollow points and semi wadcutter have stood the test. Currently, the hollow point with internal skiving, petals,bonding, or other bonuses are still the absolute leader.
As a person who just wants you to stay alive, I suggest that you carry the best possible combat proven hp rounds, and not grasp at unproven designs that may offer only a tiny improvement over standard rounds, but may fail you miserably.
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
It's not purported to be, nor is it, a "special lucky" bullet. It is purported to be, and initially appears to be, a "superior design", resulting in superior performance.
If you meant to say:
Then yes and no. Many have "come and gone", but some have "come and stayed" because they are in fact a genuine improvement, such as the one YOU mentioned, the lead ball over a rock. Are you saying since the lead ball, there have been ZERO improvements to bullets since then?
Can't; hasn't happened yet. If you choose to wait, that's your prerogative and not a bad idea. But that has nothing to do with the illogic in stubbornly denying the visually demonstrated results of an objective test, with a material closely approximating flesh, accepted by the FBI after oodles of research. Not saying you did that, but some have in this thread.
Nothing wrong with waiting til it's proven. But it looks promising. More testing needed. Someone get some Strasbourg goats, stat.
My problem with this is that this is an incredibly radical design that is completely, totally different than the current designs. Gel testing has been created and used to test expanding bullets, not something like this. this design is not going to give results that can be properly interpreted when comparing to living flesh, rather than a straight up comparison. If the standard for ballistic testing wasn't gelatin, but bars of hard soap, as it was in the past, what would this actually score on that?
The reason a SWC works better than a round or conical ball is that there is a tiny, but significant outward push of the fluids from both the flat point and the flat ring. the reason that this creates a wide PWC is that the fluid is channeled into four blades, for lack of a better term, that fractures the gelatin. Tissues are not gelatin. It is going to be misleading, and may not be as effective in muscle as it would in testing.
That's really all the point. It is for all practical purposes just a solid round nosed projectile with flutes, and those flutes may or may not make a huge difference by disturbing the water in the tissues. No matter what, it's going to work at least as well as a FMJ of similar energies, so really, it makes very little difference to me. A standard ball round is a lethal round, and we spend too much time trying to quantify exactly what the most lethal design is, pursuing that holy grail, and clutching at it like a talisman to ward off evil. Chaotic physics and events will throw it all into question for every shooting, and for probably most of the shootings, as long as premium ammunition is used, the actual cartridge used will have little effect on the eventual results.
The best thing anyone can do is to follow the advice of the FBI. They put years of research, performed by the best physicists and researchers in the world, created a whole new science and several new cartridges, even. They had what they believed to be the best rounds available; 9mm and .38 +p. all of that testing led them to choose not just different cartridges, but a completely new set of testing protocols and standards. During the testing, the manufacgurers used all of that research to redesign their lines, creating what are now probably the most perfect hollow point designs possible. they have been designed to fulfill the criteria set by the fbi of penetration depth, resistance to obstacles, and so forth, while still expanding, at specific velocity ranges. Anyone can make a bullet expand. soft lead hard copper high velocity. The gold standard for the first hundred years of jacketed bullets. These things now have been refined to the point that the measurements are made in thousandths.
Elmer keith wrote a story regarding he remington bronze point. Way back when, he was on a hunt with a bunch of guys carrying 30-06 rifles loaded with BP bullets, newly created, and field tested. He told a story about a spectacular failure, embellishing it beyond comprehension, and ending it with the declaration that the thing would never work. How many tipped bullets do we have now? One of the best ideas in the history of shooting needed about sixty years before it was refined enough to become the new gold standard of hunting performance.
The reason a SWC works better than a round or conical ball is that there is a tiny, but significant outward push of the fluids from both the flat point and the flat ring. the reason that this creates a wide PWC is that the fluid is channeled into four blades, for lack of a better term, that fractures the gelatin. Tissues are not gelatin. It is going to be misleading, and may not be as effective in muscle as it would in testing.
That's really all the point. It is for all practical purposes just a solid round nosed projectile with flutes, and those flutes may or may not make a huge difference by disturbing the water in the tissues. No matter what, it's going to work at least as well as a FMJ of similar energies, so really, it makes very little difference to me. A standard ball round is a lethal round, and we spend too much time trying to quantify exactly what the most lethal design is, pursuing that holy grail, and clutching at it like a talisman to ward off evil. Chaotic physics and events will throw it all into question for every shooting, and for probably most of the shootings, as long as premium ammunition is used, the actual cartridge used will have little effect on the eventual results.
The best thing anyone can do is to follow the advice of the FBI. They put years of research, performed by the best physicists and researchers in the world, created a whole new science and several new cartridges, even. They had what they believed to be the best rounds available; 9mm and .38 +p. all of that testing led them to choose not just different cartridges, but a completely new set of testing protocols and standards. During the testing, the manufacgurers used all of that research to redesign their lines, creating what are now probably the most perfect hollow point designs possible. they have been designed to fulfill the criteria set by the fbi of penetration depth, resistance to obstacles, and so forth, while still expanding, at specific velocity ranges. Anyone can make a bullet expand. soft lead hard copper high velocity. The gold standard for the first hundred years of jacketed bullets. These things now have been refined to the point that the measurements are made in thousandths.
Elmer keith wrote a story regarding he remington bronze point. Way back when, he was on a hunt with a bunch of guys carrying 30-06 rifles loaded with BP bullets, newly created, and field tested. He told a story about a spectacular failure, embellishing it beyond comprehension, and ending it with the declaration that the thing would never work. How many tipped bullets do we have now? One of the best ideas in the history of shooting needed about sixty years before it was refined enough to become the new gold standard of hunting performance.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Gel testing has been created and used to test all bullet types, not just expanding bullets.
Gel is also the test medium that most closely approximates what is seen in actual shootings using the same bullets -- rather closely, in fact.
That's why it's the accepted standard test medium for the manufacturing industry, the military, and law enforcement.
A lot of people poo poo it -- it doesn't have bones in it, it's not a live critter, so forth and so on -- but once again, it is the medium that most closely approximates what is seen in actual shootings.
Nothing else comes close.
The data that gel returns for FMJ type bullets is going to be little to no different from what these bullets return.
It is perfectly interpretable, and it is going to provide an indication of what this bullet form is going to do if it's used in an actual shooting.
There's no such thing as a magic stealth bullet -- energy in, energy out, with the shape form affecting the permanent wound cavity.
Hydrostatic shock has been proven to be a non player at handgun velocities. The hydrostatic shock magnification effect only happens at rifle velocities -- around 2800 fps and above, IIRC.
The little flutes on the front of this bullet aren't going to do squat except possibly chew up a bit more flesh in the direct wound path.
The required energy simply isn't there otherwise.
Mike Irwin
Staff
In reading the information tab for this bullet, I came across this...
"CNC machined from solid copper to overcome barriers to penetration."
Uhm... aren't solid copper handgun projectiles illegal?
"Radial flutes that force the hydraulic energy inward to build pressure"
Uh.... WHAT?
I also would want to see far more than 1 test block/video before I'd ever put it in my gun.
I'm sorry, but impressive claims require even more impressive backing. Until I see a lot more, I remain unconvinced and rather confused by their claims.
"CNC machined from solid copper to overcome barriers to penetration."
Uhm... aren't solid copper handgun projectiles illegal?
"Radial flutes that force the hydraulic energy inward to build pressure"
Uh.... WHAT?
I also would want to see far more than 1 test block/video before I'd ever put it in my gun.
I'm sorry, but impressive claims require even more impressive backing. Until I see a lot more, I remain unconvinced and rather confused by their claims.
Mike Irwin
Staff
OK, I'll give them one thing...
Their prices are not nearly as bad as I expected them to be.
They're on the high side but actually comparable with some of the other high-end defensive ammunition that's out there right now.
Their prices are not nearly as bad as I expected them to be.
They're on the high side but actually comparable with some of the other high-end defensive ammunition that's out there right now.
The November 2015 issue of American Rifleman has a review of a new type ammo called "Interceptor" by Polycase. The review is worth a read and the ammo shows some potential. Time, testing and experience tells on these type developments. The ammo has an association with Ruger.
The ammo is shaped like ball but has an exterior fluted design. They call it an Arx bullet. The flutes are deep and have a twist to them that seems to promote rotation. They resemble a misshapen 3 flute Philips head screw driver bit.
They are made by a process of high speed injection molding and "are comprised of a heated mixture of powered copper and epoxy/polymer resins," the article explains. The bullets are light for caliber (a 114 gr. 45acp for example) and travel fast. They are available in a variety of rounds at present with more to come.
The review says they do well in ballistic gel but broke up when hitting a class 2 vest.
So as more folks have experience with them their strengths and weaknesses come forward. They may have some applications.
Here is a link...
http://www.polycaseammo.com/home
tipoc
The ammo is shaped like ball but has an exterior fluted design. They call it an Arx bullet. The flutes are deep and have a twist to them that seems to promote rotation. They resemble a misshapen 3 flute Philips head screw driver bit.
They are made by a process of high speed injection molding and "are comprised of a heated mixture of powered copper and epoxy/polymer resins," the article explains. The bullets are light for caliber (a 114 gr. 45acp for example) and travel fast. They are available in a variety of rounds at present with more to come.
The review says they do well in ballistic gel but broke up when hitting a class 2 vest.
So as more folks have experience with them their strengths and weaknesses come forward. They may have some applications.
Here is a link...
http://www.polycaseammo.com/home
tipoc
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
Interesting. Mine came the other day but I've not cracked the cover yet.
Rifleman1952
New member
I'm interested in extreme penetration type rounds in .380 acp because typical hollow points seem to underperform in this caliber. As a law abiding citizen, I'm not going to fire at a bad guy who has threatened my life, if he is standing in front of innocent bystanders. Better to move, take cover and try for a better angle.
I'm also interested in Lehigh's Extreme Penetrator .45 acp 200gr +p round in areas with wild pigs and black bear for defensive woods carry. It seems to me, that extreme penetration is what one wants when encountering a critter with thick muscle and bone.
For defense against 2 legged predators, when carrying a 9, 40, or 45 acp, a modern hollow point like Federal's HST is still the way to go.
I'm also interested in Lehigh's Extreme Penetrator .45 acp 200gr +p round in areas with wild pigs and black bear for defensive woods carry. It seems to me, that extreme penetration is what one wants when encountering a critter with thick muscle and bone.
For defense against 2 legged predators, when carrying a 9, 40, or 45 acp, a modern hollow point like Federal's HST is still the way to go.
Mike, unless I am mistaken, the ruling on copper wasn't specifically copper. I remember bronze, and specifically a beryllium copper alloy being illegal to own.
Myself, I think that a solid copper handgun bullet with a tungsten base care, much like a partition bullet would be great. No chance of breaking up, and dead certain controlled expansion on tissues can be engineered. A solid copper
round would diminish powder space, the tungsten core would allow the bullet to take up much less space.
Myself, I think that a solid copper handgun bullet with a tungsten base care, much like a partition bullet would be great. No chance of breaking up, and dead certain controlled expansion on tissues can be engineered. A solid copper
round would diminish powder space, the tungsten core would allow the bullet to take up much less space.Limnophile
New member
Unlicensed Dremel,
You may want to leave the sound on when you watch the video. Then you'll hear the guy admit that he doesn't understand ballistics and is learning as he goes. An enlightened man chooses to learn from those who possess knowledge, not from an uninformed novice.
With the sound off you missed the fact that some of his gel blocks are out of spec, that he fails to calibrate the blocks, and that he doesn't know the difference between a temporary wound cavity and a permanent wound cavity, and he presumably is ignorant of the fact that the temporary cavity in living tissue, produced by most service caliber handguns, is an insignificant and unreliable factor in wounding a human.
Do yourself a favor and acquaint yourself with the IWBA's ammo specification and the FBI's bullet terminal ballistic performance criteria. Both organizations specify maximum gel penetration depths because:
- the human body is of a finite size, and after reaching vital tissues further penetration does little to no good;
- a bullet that penetrates so deeply as to pass through your target offers no significant benefit, but puts innocent people downrange at risk; and,
- a round that penetrates too much produces excess recoil, which degrades accuracy and slows down your rate of fire while producing no benefit.
Nice strawman argument, Obama's favorite rhetorical fallacy, which is only effective on pozzed postmodernists. Sorry, I'm a modernist and not pozzed; thus, save your bogus arguments for the chumps.
The video is not doctored. It merely shows an admitted ignorant amateur learning as goes and offering poor recommendations.
Read my first, second, and this third post I've offered in this thread and it is clear that I have pointed out much more than the touted round's overpenetration. Overpenetration per se is not a flaw; it simply offers little to no benefit and poses a safety concern to innocent bystanders. I carry FMJs in my .32 Auto, my .380 Auto, and my 9 Makarov, because it's either impossible or very hard to find rounds that penetrate adequately while expanding reliably in these calibers. Per both the IWBA and the FBI, penetration trumps expansion. I'd rather carry an FMJ that does not expand and overpenetrates than a JHP that underpenetrates while expanding minimally if at all.
The FBI doesn't necessarily eschew rounds that overpenetrate, but they don't give a round credit for more than 18 inches of penetration. Judging by the reported performance of most premium JHPs likely to be used by law enforcement, the manufacturers are designing rounds that typically expand dramatically while penetrating far short of the FBI maximum spec.
Then the burden is on you to explain 1) why the IWBA and FBI have specified maximum penetration depths, 2) the benefits of overpenetration, and 3) if you offer a response to #2, then explain why no one is trying to design a handgun round that will penetrate 10 yd of ballistic gelatin (because if a little overpenetration is good, a lot of overpenetration must be great!).
Keep slaying that strawman! I'll admit the guy is honest in this video because he admits his ignorance. One day he may become informed, but anyone who listens to anything he says about terminal ballistics at this point is a fool.
The volume of the permanent wound cavity is virtually immaterial unless penetration is deep enough to reach vital tissue where the intersection with the permanent wound cavity can cause meaningful damage. A large shallow wound cavity, as produced by a frangible round, may have a large volume, but with shallow penetration it cannot be counted on to produce a physiological stop.
We live in a postmodern era where reason and empiricism is routinely ignored by many in favor of pseudoscience or mysticism. Your buddy's video falls squarely into the realm of pseudoscience. If you want to buy the ammo he's peddling, be my guest. But, can I then ask you to send me a large sum of cash so I can get my inheritance out of a Nigerian bank? I'll gladly return the money you loan me along with half my inheritance.
You may want to leave the sound on when you watch the video. Then you'll hear the guy admit that he doesn't understand ballistics and is learning as he goes. An enlightened man chooses to learn from those who possess knowledge, not from an uninformed novice.
With the sound off you missed the fact that some of his gel blocks are out of spec, that he fails to calibrate the blocks, and that he doesn't know the difference between a temporary wound cavity and a permanent wound cavity, and he presumably is ignorant of the fact that the temporary cavity in living tissue, produced by most service caliber handguns, is an insignificant and unreliable factor in wounding a human.
Do yourself a favor and acquaint yourself with the IWBA's ammo specification and the FBI's bullet terminal ballistic performance criteria. Both organizations specify maximum gel penetration depths because:
- the human body is of a finite size, and after reaching vital tissues further penetration does little to no good;
- a bullet that penetrates so deeply as to pass through your target offers no significant benefit, but puts innocent people downrange at risk; and,
- a round that penetrates too much produces excess recoil, which degrades accuracy and slows down your rate of fire while producing no benefit.
Nice strawman argument, Obama's favorite rhetorical fallacy, which is only effective on pozzed postmodernists. Sorry, I'm a modernist and not pozzed; thus, save your bogus arguments for the chumps.
The video is not doctored. It merely shows an admitted ignorant amateur learning as goes and offering poor recommendations.
Read my first, second, and this third post I've offered in this thread and it is clear that I have pointed out much more than the touted round's overpenetration. Overpenetration per se is not a flaw; it simply offers little to no benefit and poses a safety concern to innocent bystanders. I carry FMJs in my .32 Auto, my .380 Auto, and my 9 Makarov, because it's either impossible or very hard to find rounds that penetrate adequately while expanding reliably in these calibers. Per both the IWBA and the FBI, penetration trumps expansion. I'd rather carry an FMJ that does not expand and overpenetrates than a JHP that underpenetrates while expanding minimally if at all.
The FBI doesn't necessarily eschew rounds that overpenetrate, but they don't give a round credit for more than 18 inches of penetration. Judging by the reported performance of most premium JHPs likely to be used by law enforcement, the manufacturers are designing rounds that typically expand dramatically while penetrating far short of the FBI maximum spec.
Then the burden is on you to explain 1) why the IWBA and FBI have specified maximum penetration depths, 2) the benefits of overpenetration, and 3) if you offer a response to #2, then explain why no one is trying to design a handgun round that will penetrate 10 yd of ballistic gelatin (because if a little overpenetration is good, a lot of overpenetration must be great!).
Keep slaying that strawman! I'll admit the guy is honest in this video because he admits his ignorance. One day he may become informed, but anyone who listens to anything he says about terminal ballistics at this point is a fool.
The volume of the permanent wound cavity is virtually immaterial unless penetration is deep enough to reach vital tissue where the intersection with the permanent wound cavity can cause meaningful damage. A large shallow wound cavity, as produced by a frangible round, may have a large volume, but with shallow penetration it cannot be counted on to produce a physiological stop.
We live in a postmodern era where reason and empiricism is routinely ignored by many in favor of pseudoscience or mysticism. Your buddy's video falls squarely into the realm of pseudoscience. If you want to buy the ammo he's peddling, be my guest. But, can I then ask you to send me a large sum of cash so I can get my inheritance out of a Nigerian bank? I'll gladly return the money you loan me along with half my inheritance.
Last edited: