<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shawn Dodson:
Tom Burczynski:
I was intending to send this to you via private e-mail, but your profile doesn't include it.
I occasionally get requests from law enforcement agencies or individual law enforcement officers to advise them about a good shotgun slug. I tell them to check out the Quik-Shok slug.
As for being skeptical of your HydraShok design, I feel that at the time (when HydraShok first came out) while others were designing JHP handgun bullets, you applied actual engineering effort into HydraShok. With or without the post, the bullet performed well. In reviewing the FBI's test of modified and unmodified HydraShok bullets, I came away with the conclusion that the post aided slightly in two things: 1) slightly better accuracy and 2) better terminal performance after passing through automotive windshield glass. As for bare gelatin and heavily clothed gelatin, the modified HydraShoks appeared to demonstrate better overall performance. This is why I feel that the HydraShok post is a gimmick. The bullet design is sound, with or without the post, in my opinion. In current generation HydraShok bullets, the post is so small and slender that it leaves me with the impression that it's there for cosmetic purposes versus functionality. I don't want to leave you with the impression that I'm critcizing HydraShok in general, it's just that the post appears to be a gimmick to me. In most cases, HydraShok seems to perform as well both with or without the post.
As for Starfire, I just don't see an innovative design (fluted cavity) that genuinely contributes to improved expansion performance. Speer's Gold Dot bullet uses a similar process when the cavity is punched, and Gold Dot bullets exhibit similar ribs on the expanded petals. The function of the flutes is to produce weak spots in the lead core to facilitate expansion, similar to the serrations in a copper jacket. I see the Starfire's fluted cavity as something that simply distinguishes its appearance from other bullets. I'm not being critical of your Starfire design. I'm critical of the marketing hype that was used to promote these bullets when they first came out. In my opinion the significance of the fluted hollowpoint was overly exaggerated as a marketing ploy.
As for the Quik-Shok handgun bullet, I just don't see the value of using a handgun bullet that breaks into smaller segments as it penetrates. Why take a something like a 9mm or a .45 ACP handgun bullet and turn it into the equivalent of three .22/.32 caliber FMJ slugs? While I feel Quik-Shok is an ingenious, innovative and cost effective pre-fragmented design, the exaggerated marketing hype of the bullet's ability to repidly transfer energy and the resultant effects on blood pressure and nerve tissue is not supported by any valid medical research that I know of.
As for Quik-Shok .223 and .308 rifle bullets, I haven't really formed an opinion about them yet. Who knows? I might end up recommending them like I do Quik-Shok shotgun slugs.
Please don't take any of my opinions as an attempt to ignite a flame war. I value the opportunity to share my opinions with you. Hopefully you (and others) will view my comments as dispassionate objective opinions instead of a personal attack on you and your inventions.
As for your new EFMJ bullet design, as I said before, I honestly believe it looks like a winner, especially if it performs as described. Consistent, reliable bullet expansion through clothing, especially from ultra-compact carry guns, is sorely needed. Especially if the shooter doesn't have to pay a high price in recoil and muzzle flip while sacrificing penetration to obtain this kind of expansion performance.
[/quote]
Sean:
The original Hydra-Shok, as produced by the Hydra-Shok Corp. had a very large post as compared with Federal’s current post. Note: I don’t know if the early ammo was before your time or not. Most of the early ammo was driven to low-to-moderate velocity. If driven to high velocity, the ogive would shear away, leaving behind a trailing ring of lead.
Several years ago, my machinist meticulously removed the posts from Federal-made Hydra-Shok bullets (pulled bullets) AND factory ammunition using a vertical mill and a tiny, custom-ground boring tool. This was done to determine just how much of an effect the Federal post had on expansion. Bullets were pulled using a cotton-filled, kinetic-type bullet puller. To remove the posts from the loaded ammo, an aluminum fixture was machined to precisely hold the cartridge - a dial indicator revealed less than three-thousandths of run-out.
There was a reason that loose bullets _and_ bullets in loaded ammo were modified. When the post was removed from loaded ammo, the bullet became lighter in weight and the velocity was higher than the post-in-cavity bullet. The higher velocity could (theoretically) give the hollow point version an unfair expansion advantage which could skew the results. To correct for this, another batch of h.p. bullets were re-seated and crimped back in their original cases after laboriously removing several granules of propellant in order to match the velocity of the original factory Hydra-Shok round. As it turned out, the difference in velocity was not great, but it existed.
The method I chose to determine the rate at which the bullets expanded was to fire them through identical slices of calibrated 10% gelatin (bare gel). To establish the optimum thickness required to obtain mature expansion, the bullets were fired through progressively thicker slices of gel. The gelatin ranged in thickness from ¼-inch to 2 inches (¼-inch increments). The required dimension arrived at was 1.50 inches (which was actually somewhat thicker than necessary). High-speed still photos (1-2,000,000th sec. Flash duration) and digital calipers were used to measure the difference in expanded diameters directly from the photographs. In the final analysis, scale measurements concluded that there was an average increase in diameter of 8.1% for the post-in-cavity Hydra-Shok as compared to the post-removed hollow point.
*(50 rounds of each were fired in two calibers (9mm & 10mm}.
While 8.1% might not seem like a lot, one must bear in mind that an increase in _diameter_ translates to a very meaningful increase in square area -- whenever the diameter is doubled, for instance, the square area is quadrupled (area = pi x radius squared). This, of course, has a direct bearing on the diameter of the crush cavity.
If one takes the time to thoroughly analyze the differences between the two bullets tested, it becomes apparent that the post-in-cavity design _should_ have actually been operating at a *disadvantage because of it’s reduced cavity volume. The hollow-point version had a greater cavity volume because it lacked a post. This stood as additional proof that the simple-machine-based post expedited expansion.
*All else being equal, the larger the cavity in any hollow point, the faster the rate of expansion.
While I like the concept of a large post, the Federal version was scaled down in order to thicken the cavity walls so the bullet could be driven to higher velocities without fragmenting.
While different tests were conducted by the FBI and others, I prefer the scale measurement method above because of the absoluteness of the results. The methods used by others were based on final recovered diameters after the bullets attained maximum penetration. The problem I see with this method is that one runs the risk of hyper-curling the ogive area with the more rapid-expanding bullet (this could manifest itself as a seeming _loss(!)_ in diameter). On average, however, hyper-curling wasn’t a major problem -- the post-in-cavity version was still larger in diameter than the hollow point version but at higher impact speeds, hyper-curling _could_ lead one to an incorrect assumption.
Starfire:
Besides an electroplated jacket, the main difference between the two bullets (Gold Dot and Starfire) is that an unfired Gold Dot has a smooth-walled, h.p. cavity while Starfire has an interrupted cavity comprising sharp-edged ribs and flutes. When fluidic material enters the Starfire cavity, it is immediately divided by the ribs and redirected into the flute areas. If one draws a sketch of a Starfire bullet (end view) showing its 5 wedge-shaped ribs, it’s much easier to visualize what’s happening in there. The hydraulic pressure within the flute areas is increased (doubled, for simplicity’s sake) because they are forced to accept the material flowing over TWO adjacent ribs. This forces the flute areas to stretch and tear, facilitating expansion.
Starfire actually has a mechanical advantage in that the ribs are wedges (simple machines). Simple machines make work easier. EXAMPLE: We have a single-bit ax (one side, wedge-shaped, the other side, wide and flat). We swing the ax (wedge-shaped edge down) at 45 fps and a piece of wood splits into. We reverse the orientation of the ax (flat side down) and swing it at 45 fps. The wood remains intact and we quickly understand the term “sympathetic vibrations”. If what I’m saying about Starfire is wrong, then I concede that an ax is a gimmick.
Regarding the simple machine concept, Hydra-Shok operates on a similar principle (the cone-shaped post is a form of the wedge - the main difference being that it is concentrically positioned as opposed to the eccentric positioning of the 5 Starfire wedges).
Sean, don’t get me wrong, the Gold Dot bullet is a very good design because the core is pre-weakened in a very substantial way. Aside from the general hydraulic action taking place in a smooth-walled hollow point cavity, there is no initial mechanical advantage involved. Interestingly, the Starfire patent preceded the Gold Dot patent by almost seven years. Engineers at ammo companies don’t thumb through the Patent Gazette for naught.
As far as advertising goes, once licensed this was out of my hands.
QUIK-SHOK:
Quik-Shok pistol bullets produce greater tissue damage and a LOT more hemorrhage in deer-sized game animals than any single-mass hollow point I’ve ever used (I’ve killed 89 deer with various bullets). At this juncture I think it would be futile for me to rehash previous points. I think the only way you can be convinced is to blast a deer.
As for .308 Quik-Shok rifle bullets, the easiest way to form an opinion is to test them when they are available. I think you’ll be impressed with their dynamic performance. One thing that will really help us out in the rifle bullet area is the use of 6% antimony -- the much harder alloy really slows down the rate of break-up which provides greater penetration.
EFMJ:
I think will serve L.E. well. Again, the proof will be in the testing.
Opinions from every source are welcome and I value yours as well as any suggestions you think might improve any product that I am connected with.
Sean, I’ll be sending you a personal e-mail within the next day or two.
Tom Burczynski
PS
Any recommendations to L.E. (Quik-Shok shotgun slugs) are appreciated.
