• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

How to get into competition with Aerospikes?

As soon as I get permission from the shooter I'll post them.
What ? aaaaa ... say what ?

I think all this is turning into my own personal Twilight Zone episode

The deal was to test the bullets and supply the data *TO YOU ....... not the other way round.


* e.g. - it's yours
 
Last edited:
What ? aaaaa ... say what ?

I think all this is turning into my own personal Twilight Zone episode

The deal was to test the bullets and supply the data *TO YOU ....... not the other way round.


* e.g. - it's yours

That is not how research works in academia. Researchers show each other data all the time and I would never consider taking and presenting it without their approval. I know that y'all aren't academics (there may be a few hiding out there) but I don't see why I shouldn't treat y'all with the same respect.
 
@HappyHellfire I get your frustration. I also completely get other forum members frustrations.

I think we all see a disconnect in communication. "Testing" for example. "Testing" for forum members mean actually shooting enough to get statistically significant results. Your testing appears to mean something different. So, there is a loss of credibility when you say you've done a bunch of testing but don't have results that forum members would expect. The loss in credibility is exacerbated by forum members' experience with others who, from time to time, make extraordinary claims but have no results to back it up.

Different points. [Recognize that I have direct experience only in shooting at targets at known distances from 100 to 600 yards]
Personally, I would not pursue making my bullets more accurate through the consistency from bullet to bullet. There are several custom bullet makers already filling this need very well. And, if I've got it right, there's nothing about your design that would make it easier to have bullet to bullet consistency.
If anything, the advantage of your design is in wind drift and drop at longer distances. That said, the drop numbers that you posted don't appear to me to be significantly different from what's already commercially available. But, since what you posted appeared to be just drop, I'm not certain what they would be if calculated assuming a scope/sights that are above the centerline of the bore and zeroed at 100 yards.

Things to keep in mind/consider:
For disciplines that shoot at targets at known distances, the amount of drop is not a big consideration. If the bullet did retain more velocity and/or wasn't affected in the transonic region AND this enabled a competitor to use a sufficiently significantly reduced so the felt recoil was significantly less, it could be an advantage to the shooter. Palma and long range competitions come to my mind.

For disciplines that shoot at targets that are different distances within the same stage [PRS comes to mind], if the drop and/or wind drift were significantly reduced, this would seem to be an advantage.
 
So I was thinking about getting into a competition to prove that the aerospike bullets could be better. The question is which competition. Of course I want to pick the one that the aerospikes will do the very best. So here is what they have to offer:

They fly like regular bullets out of the muzzle but when the bullet slows to a certain speed (based upon the aerospike design) the drag dramatically drops. This means that the time of flight should be less for longer ranges and thus less wind error. They are also solid copper if there are competitions for that.

I know it is not valued around this forum, but I have 20 years of ballistics experience and can write custom ballistics apps for my phone. Although I have never shot in long range competitions I have shot a hell of a lot. Maybe 10K shots a year? This is my business after all.

I'm bootstrapping this whole process so a $10K entrance is not doable. Maybe an off the shelf gun competition to remove the expensive custom mods?

What would y'all recommend?
I believe you said the bullets require a barrel twist that isn't normally used. Is everyone supposed to spend $700 for a new barrel to test bullets? You should do the testing. 10,000 shots a year really?
 
@HappyHellfire I get your frustration. I also completely get other forum members frustrations.

I think we all see a disconnect in communication. "Testing" for example. "Testing" for forum members mean actually shooting enough to get statistically significant results. Your testing appears to mean something different. So, there is a loss of credibility when you say you've done a bunch of testing but don't have results that forum members would expect. The loss in credibility is exacerbated by forum members' experience with others who, from time to time, make extraordinary claims but have no results to back it up.

Different points. [Recognize that I have direct experience only in shooting at targets at known distances from 100 to 600 yards]
Personally, I would not pursue making my bullets more accurate through the consistency from bullet to bullet. There are several custom bullet makers already filling this need very well. And, if I've got it right, there's nothing about your design that would make it easier to have bullet to bullet consistency.
If anything, the advantage of your design is in wind drift and drop at longer distances. That said, the drop numbers that you posted don't appear to me to be significantly different from what's already commercially available. But, since what you posted appeared to be just drop, I'm not certain what they would be if calculated assuming a scope/sights that are above the centerline of the bore and zeroed at 100 yards.

Things to keep in mind/consider:
For disciplines that shoot at targets at known distances, the amount of drop is not a big consideration. If the bullet did retain more velocity and/or wasn't affected in the transonic region AND this enabled a competitor to use a sufficiently significantly reduced so the felt recoil was significantly less, it could be an advantage to the shooter. Palma and long range competitions come to my mind.

For disciplines that shoot at targets that are different distances within the same stage [PRS comes to mind], if the drop and/or wind drift were significantly reduced, this would seem to be an advantage.

I believe you said the bullets require a barrel twist that isn't normally used. Is everyone supposed to spend $700 for a new barrel to test bullets? You should do the testing. 10,000 shots a year really?
Nope, I'm using standard twist rates. It is just really hard to stabilize for the older calibers like 243, 308, and 30-06 with the slower twist rates. That is why I'm focused on the new ones like the 6.5 Creedmoor, 300 blackout, and 300 PRC.
 
@HappyHellfire I get your frustration. I also completely get other forum members frustrations.

I think we all see a disconnect in communication. "Testing" for example. "Testing" for forum members mean actually shooting enough to get statistically significant results. Your testing appears to mean something different. So, there is a loss of credibility when you say you've done a bunch of testing but don't have results that forum members would expect. The loss in credibility is exacerbated by forum members' experience with others who, from time to time, make extraordinary claims but have no results to back it up.

Different points. [Recognize that I have direct experience only in shooting at targets at known distances from 100 to 600 yards]
Personally, I would not pursue making my bullets more accurate through the consistency from bullet to bullet. There are several custom bullet makers already filling this need very well. And, if I've got it right, there's nothing about your design that would make it easier to have bullet to bullet consistency.
If anything, the advantage of your design is in wind drift and drop at longer distances. That said, the drop numbers that you posted don't appear to me to be significantly different from what's already commercially available. But, since what you posted appeared to be just drop, I'm not certain what they would be if calculated assuming a scope/sights that are above the centerline of the bore and zeroed at 100 yards.

Things to keep in mind/consider:
For disciplines that shoot at targets at known distances, the amount of drop is not a big consideration. If the bullet did retain more velocity and/or wasn't affected in the transonic region AND this enabled a competitor to use a sufficiently significantly reduced so the felt recoil was significantly less, it could be an advantage to the shooter. Palma and long range competitions come to my mind.

For disciplines that shoot at targets that are different distances within the same stage [PRS comes to mind], if the drop and/or wind drift were significantly reduced, this would seem to be an advantage.
Don't I know it! Ballistics is odd in that it is the only field of research where there is a giant gap between the people doing the research and the users of that research. That gap leads to distrust and misunderstanding. If I use big words I'm talking down to the shooter. If I simplify it I'm an idiot for not knowing the correct terminology. Did you know there is only about 10 PhD level external ballistics researchers in the country? The anti-academic shooters are one of the reasons for that. I can't find PhD students who stay in the field when I take them to the range and they get chewed out by paw-paw for not knowing the number of clicks to zero at 100 yards while trying to solve a non-linear partial differential equation to estimate bullet stability.

To get this thing off the ground I need people who know how to shoot and reload to try them and give me practical feedback. This seems like the place to find people like that. I just have to dredge through the ignorant haters to find the few that are willing to help me out.
 
dredge through the ignorant haters to find the few that are willing to help me out.
Statements like this are not going to help you.

You also need to clarify what the actual advantages should be. To me, it's not clear if there are any. You need to at least show what the calculated drift and drop would be using a sight that is above the centerline of the bore by a couple inches and assume the rifle has been zeroed at 100 yards.
 
Statements like this are not going to help you.

You also need to clarify what the actual advantages should be. To me, it's not clear if there are any. You need to at least show what the calculated drift and drop would be using a sight that is above the centerline of the bore by a couple inches and assume the rifle has been zeroed at 100 yards.
Sorry. I have not been treated kindly by this forum overall. I tend to get bitter when insulted over and over again. My favorite was when I was called a transgender Biden supporter and had my education compared to Jill Biden.

I hope to have some data to present soon by other shooters to show the practical advantages. In short, they fly like a regular bullet until the velocity slows down to the point where the aerospike "activates" at which the drag is drastically reduced.

For bullets like the 300 blackout that is fired near the "sweet spot" of the aerospike it just flies with lower drag. For most full-velocity calibers, you don't see the aerospike bump in performance until around 500 yards. The lower drag causes shorter time of flight to the target and thus reduces wind error for these long shots.

I'm working on more aggressive aerospike bases that engage closer to the muzzle velocity but that is still a work in progress.
 
That is not how research works in academia. Researchers show each other data all the time and I would never consider taking and presenting it without their approval. I know that y'all aren't academics (there may be a few hiding out there) but I don't see why I shouldn't treat y'all with the same respect.
I've been an academic/clinical researcher in a former life. When evaluating clinical devices in animal and human models the company that manufactures/distributes the product would provide the implantable device being tested gratis. I suggest you do the same with your product. If a company expected us to purchase a new device and perform clinical studies that may help market their product, I would tell them to pound sand. Of course, many times our results were contrary to the desired results of the product developer. Perhaps you should consider providing the same to those who would be testing your bullets while consuming expensive and hard to acquire components. To have testers buy your bullets and provide to you test results that you can use to potentially market your for profit product is unreasonable.

You get the respect you give. Best of luck in your endeavor.
 
Last edited:
That is not how research works in academia.
This is a forum where results matter.

So, from this uneducated shooter, this is what you are saying to me -
I have had my bullets tested. I have the data, I have the photos of a impressive group sizes
But I'm not going to show you anything ....... just trust me.

Additionally, (IMO) if your testers are not from this forum and/or not well know shooters, posting results here is close to useless*.

*I have a pic of a world record group shot by Jose Gonzalez, shot on a windless day in Brazil.
 
I have been reluctant to get involved with this topic, but...

Here are TWO threads that asked shooters to test some components, and in my simple mind, did it the right way.


See? Easy-peasy.

You could duplicate that invitation to test as a first step.

Frank
 
I'm sorry that my "claimed" degrees hurt your delicate sensibilities. Maybe you should start a petition to get me kicked off the forum for discussing my research into external ballistics? OR maybe you should stop being an ignorant simpleton and kindly ignore my posts if they hurt your feelings?

It has been my life's work to develop aerospike bullet theory and I have reached a point where I need others to begin shooting them to find any issues that I have missed. If you want to be a part of this then feel free to join in. If not then kindly piss off.
You would think if it was your life’s work to develop the Aerospike bullet, that you would have at least a shred of actual real fire evidence….targets at various distances, etc. People on this site are literally bending over backwards to test your product for you, but instead of taking them up on the offer, you have chosen to claim you have all the testers you can handle at this point. WHO ARE THE TESTERS YOU HAVE LINED UP TO TEST YOUR BULLETS? Have you discussed a suitable test plan/process with any of them?? By your own admission, your social skills are severely lacking, but the true problem here is your are proposing to start a new business and your business acumen is even more lacking than your social skills. On one hand you are saying you have all the testers you need and can handle, then above you ask the poster if they want to be a part of the testing. Unless you can name the people you have lined up to test your bullets, I’m going to assume you don’t have any. Somehow your credentials are legit and I even reached out to your email through the university to see if it was indeed you posting on this site (because I had my doubts that someone trying to sell a new bullet could have such little knowledge of the industry he was trying to enter), and I verified it was you. This whole experience has likely turned off the vast majority of shooters on this site that you might find it difficult to even give your bullets away, which ironically I what several shooters told you was required from day 1. Do you even understand how difficult it would be to properly tune a load at 100 yards for your bullets with only have 20 bullets??? Let alone to tune is at 600 or 1000 yards???
Dave
 
I'm sorry that my "claimed" degrees hurt your delicate sensibilities. Maybe you should start a petition to get me kicked off the forum for discussing my research into external ballistics? OR maybe you should stop being an ignorant simpleton and kindly ignore my posts if they hurt your feelings?

It has been my life's work to develop aerospike bullet theory and I have reached a point where I need others to begin shooting them to find any issues that I have missed. If you want to be a part of this then feel free to join in. If not then kindly piss off.
Very professional response Dr. John, super classy and very much indicative of someone who is on the verge of completely failing to establish rapport with his/her target customers in a very small niche industry. Good luck with your endeavors Dr. John, because you will certainly need it.
Dave
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,900
Messages
2,206,071
Members
79,207
Latest member
bbkersch
Back
Top