The only ways you can increase a bullet's muzzle velocity is to make it lighter, increase pressures or a longer burn in a longer barrel. Shape has little to do with it.

I agree if it were ball shaped there would be less drag in the barrel, but not enough to make a difference.

On the other hand, round ball shapes are terrible for external ballistics once you go over a certain velocity (just before hitting speed of sound) ....

I was only stating that removing friction is a way. Could be football shaped, not that it would help anything.

Reducing barrel friction is a proven way to lower pressures and increase velocities. Us cast bullet shooters have been enjoying the advantages of this all along. My revolver loads, for example, use less powder and achieve higher velocities than the same weight jacketed bullet. My .45-70 loads with cast bullets exhibit the same advantages.

Even jacketed bullets are sometimes designed with features to reduce bore friction. One of my favorite hunting bullets is the Lapua Mega, a very heavy for caliber and therefor necessarily quite long bullet. Here is their 6.5mm 155 grain version. Note the relief bands on that long bearing surface. They do this so that loading data actually more or less tracks with other 160-is grain bullets. Otherwise we would be faced with substantially reducing loads to keep pressures within limits.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1636416287.jpg

There are limits to this approach, however. The benefits really are pretty minimal, like on the order of a few percentage points increase in velocity. Certainly nothing like these clowns are claiming. Like I said, I would like to see a serious evaluation by the shooting press. I'll guarantee, however, that just ain't gonna happen.

Maybe the bullet shape is manufactured using a turbo encabulator.

I used to write a fair amount of technical material regarding tool engineering and AOG applications for my former employer. I always needed some mythical tool name for some of it that was not tool specific. I utilized "Turbo Encabulator" and "Retro Encabulator" in a fair number of my publications.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ac7G7xOG2Ag" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RXJKdh1KZ0w" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This new ammo strikes me as every bit as legitimate.

So what?
 

The reason I posted this in the first place was to get some insight perhaps on "so what" if there's a faster round? What difference would it make? I really don't care whether the claims are legitimate. Like I say, I know very little of the hobby.

Well that's BS because speed out the barrel, crudely speaking is a function of
Barrel length<>bullet weight <> pressure (pressure being powder burn<>initial resistance)

You can shape em however you want.. a flathead or spitzer will, give or take a few fps, come out the same speed if all else considerd they were loaded the same

Shape is only relevant for how much speed the bullet looses AFTER it leaves the muzzle.

So you can't magically go from 1000 fps to 2000 fps by changing the shape of the bullet


The only way such a story could be true, is if they use a sabot, but then you won't have a 9mm bullet anymore. you'll have a 3-5 mm diameter flechette in a 9mm sabot.

A faster round will generally have a much flatter trajectory if it has a good ballistic coefficient, but sometimes you give up accuracy. Speed also penetrates so if you are up against people with class III vests this may penetrate where a normal 9mm (or just about any other handgun round) will not penetrate.

All that said, you canna change the laws of physics.

Maybe it is a paper bullet, that would come out really fast.

Higher velocities means less bullet drop and wind deviation

Neigher are all that important on a pistol round cause for the most part nobody can aim that well past 50 meters with a pistol, due to short distance between front post and rear post of the sight, and the fact that a handgun isn't as stable to aim/shoot as a rifle.

Higher velocities for same bullet weight on the other hand, would be relevant because it means higher energy on impact

Every bullet looses energy the further out it flies
So every joule of energy at the muzzle means more energy down range at the target.

heavier bullets "can" carry more energy, potential
but typically don't go as fast in short barrels so they might not live up to it..
there's a sweet spot to having a heavier vs faster bullet for each barrel length.

Unlikely as there's no initial resistance so it would blow out along with unburned powder.

Also can anybody clarify to me
what is a "standard U.S. Navy round" ??!?

Last time I checked the Navy uses plain old 9×19 mm Parabellum, to NATO standard
Caliber 9mm NATO
Bullet Weight 124
Bullet Style Full Metal Jacket
Muzzle Velocity 1260 fps
Test Barrel Length In 4

So the 1,454 FPS they claim NAVY 9mm does, is already out of spec if they tested it with the right barrel length..

Sounds like the Canadians are pulling a fast one with longer barrels and other tricks

joker is using a long rifle barrel


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1636490152.jpg

He probably has 9mm copper solid spitzers , bolt action, seated in the lands , with an overall length that faaar exceeds 9mm parabellum, so it wouldn't fit in any kind of handgun , revolver or pistol magazine..

Then yes, he might get the speeds.. but they aren't 9mm pistol rounds, they won't fit in any handgun, and they'll cost 20 bucks a pop.

There would be absolutely no tactical advantage to the gains they claim to have made. None. The 9mm is primarily a handgun round, often used in sub machine guns as well. Both are very short range weapons where this sort of velocity advantage will never been useful in practical terms with regards to the trajectory. In other words, it makes no difference if the bullet drops an inch or two less over the course of 100 yards than it would from a standard 9mm. The targets they are engaging are a lot bigger than that and, usually, a lot closer.

I'm assuming this velocity increase is achieved through the use of a much lighter than standard bullet. That really about the only way to do it. There is no "free lunch" ballistically speaking. There is a pretty linear relationship between increasing bullet velocity and decreasing bullet weight, or conversely, increasing bullet weight and decreasing bullet velocity. We try to strike a balance between weight and velocity, with the industry having settled on that balance for each cartridge. There is a range of "standard" bullet weights for each cartridge, and "standard" velocities at which they can be fired.

This round's velocity is well outside of those standards. They do not state bullet weight, which is immediately suspicious. To remain within industry standards for allowable gas pressure in the chamber and barrel when fired, the bullet has to be extremely light to achieve their advertised velocity. If it is, indeed, of one of the standard weights for this cartridge, that in and of itself would drastically change its application and usefulness. Recoil would increase substantially, to the point of rendering most current 9mm firearms uncontrollable by the shooter. Right now, however, standard weight bullets at these velocities is a ballistic impossibility. Gas pressures would simply destroy the firearm.

So, it has to be a very light bullet. As such, it would decelerate at a far higher rate than a heavier bullet upon firing, thereby losing a great deal of its energy. It simply won't "hit as hard" as a heavier bullet. This characteristic would further negate any tactical advantage.

Lots of downsides to this, with no real world upsides. No tactical advantage.

Probably made out of something soft like sodium or potassium. :) You know, something that reacts well with flesh.

I hear form some reputable people that subsonic 9mm out of a suppressed MP5 is relatively not loud.

If all you want is speed, the CCI Mini-Mag .22LR has 1240 FPS but not much value at 40 gr. There has to be some knockdown.

CCI Velocitor is 1435 feet per second.

Not trying to out do you gun fellas, but

CCI Stinger 1,640 feet per second.

Girl scouts.

I launch my 3006 155 grains at bout 2850 fps and i'm sure there's plenty of 22 zipper magnums that'll go 1000 fps over my 3006 :)


I wrote an email out to the editor askiung more intel, stated that the article as is was a bit of a joke..And those speeds don't matter much out of a long rifle barrel
Got reply from the original gangster cc editor

<andre.d.milne@unicornaerospace dotcom>
"The only idiot here is you.

No where in the article
is it claimed a hand gun
was used in the test.

The FPS when using the
current issue US Army side
arm was 5097

Go fuch your self loser."

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1636529272.jpg

Note, I didn't call him an idiot at all, so he's really sensitive and flies off the handle right away , I bet he's been challenged a lot and has a short fuse now.

Wow, it even got faster out of a shorter barrel ?!?!
This guy is a lying sack of chiiiiiit
He'll show everything except the bullet and bullet being shot... his FPS readout can be anything (and gated fps readers are notoriously bad anyway)

Told him he's got zero credibility if he doesn't at the bare minimum reveal bullet weight and i'm looking forward to having his work looked at and results verified by a reputable gun journalist

5097 fps with a 9mm, out of a handgun, that would be faster then .220 Swift, which is a magnum .22 caliber designed just for speed out of a rifle with a propellant content in the case 3 times bigger then 9mm.