Aerospike 300 BLK 146 Lulu adventure begins

[HappyHellfire]

Thank you for clarification

@HappyHellfire serious question that's puzzled me from the beginning...
If tipping and pointing bullets is a real thing for more uniform BC numbers equating to less vertical stringing, how come your design has a flat meplat??
I get the fact that they have to be parted from the bar stock, but wouldn't a carbide cutter kinda like a pencil sharpener aid in pointing your bullet effectively giving you a tighter BC tolerance and better down range performance?
OK that was 2 questions

That is a couple of great questions. I use a meplat for two reasons.

The first is that BRL has shown in a few studies that a 0.1 caliber meplat has lower drag (higher BC) than a pointed nose.

The second is that it is really hard to get uniform pointed ogives on a lathe. They get too pointy and tend to break off while cutting.

I use the tightest radius profile tool I could find to get as close as possible to the theoretical model that I came up with.

 

[dellet]

Page 2 is a oval hole, page 5 is a round hole.
I may have misread something or my reading comprehension is lacking, but I believe @dellet had a baffle strike, or was stating the out of round projectile would cause a baffle strike.

I believe that it took out his suppressor..

Hell no! At this point it seems as if it’s more about kicking the guy as much as possible

Sorry to be misleading, a lot has gone on in a short time.

Because of the time spent checking bullets, the one I shot, was one that otherwise would have gone to the garbage can.

I shot it in a fast twist that is common for 300 BLK, but the bullet had never been tested in, 1/5. The bullet did exactly what I expected,

I did not shoot that with a suppressor on, not that dumb.

It was to prove a point. I am confident that if some one does shoot some of these bullets straight out of a box, through a suppressor, they will be sorry.

In fairness is shot the best bullet in the box and shared that the next day.

The reason to document and post all the little details and theory, is exactly what I have found so far. Most people will load and shoot. With this product that will
Be a problem. I can’t even count on the bullets exiting the barrel straight and true, why go on to targets at 1000 yards.

Sorry that bores some of you, but it’s important, and I really don’t feel I’m presenting this in a way that is overly out of line. Not trying to kick him in the face, but don’t mind kicking him in the butt to provoke a thought.

 

[HappyHellfire]

Why not stop responding to the personal attacks. It’s not getting you any closer to your professed goal. Surely you have enough sense and thick enough skin to do that.

Try responding to the substantive responses and ignoring the rest. There are no prizes but maybe a stupid patch for keyboard warrior winners.

Less than a caliber at 100 yards is totally unacceptable for most of us. To have that built in from the start is a non starter.

I hear you on the accuracy. I have no background in commercial or competitive ammunition design and I'm trying to learn the culture and needs as fast as possible.

I really wish I could just not give a damn. I try to answer all serious questions and collect all serious criticism.

I'll try to be better at ignoring the comments.

 

[WSnyder]

I'll try to be better at ignoring the comments.

There’s this little thing known as an ignore button. It can work wonders for your sanity at times. I’m not implying or saying I’m ignoring you specifically (I am not) I’m just using your profile as an example. I try not to use it but sometimes….

 

[davidjoe]

Happy, beneath the scrum, guys admire what you’re trying, here. I actually do know how hard it is to remove every “step” on a lathe, and I can see untold hours in your efforts. A manufacturing plant was my maternal grandfather’s life, and I worked there as a kid.

The funnel to this spear tip looked like this,

1) most people don’t own guns;
2) most gun owners aren’t absorbed in the hobby;
3) most ardent gun types still don’t reload;
4) most reloaders don’t regularly compete at matches;
5) most regular match shooters have never shot a solid;
6) most people who have shot a solid do so in low volume, either at great distance, or on a very expensive hunt.

You’re in extremely rarified atmosphere here with solids and people interested in them.

I ventured into an international general and special relativity forum this year. It was well-more than just toe-dipping. I have a real problem with bending rules of the whole world around the precept that light is observed at the constant C in ALL reference frames. They sensed that without me saying it.

Extremely similar result when a 52 year old pragmatic lawyer is surrounded online by theoretical physicists and their “apprenti” all paid to learn a logically arcane script and hypothesize in the language of maths on unprovable and even untestable dogma.

You don’t actually “need” to own a lot of guns, have wide experience with guns, or even to have shot a lot to understand bullet deign or manufacture, but everyone here does have them and generally in VAST quantities. You were very candid about that early on, but there probably aren’t 10 members in 75k in your position and I’d say the other 9 never revealed a peep about that.

So that’s a difference, but you “could” design better golf clubs and golf balls without access to golf course or, or even, well, hands and arms. It’s just much harder, - but the prevalent rests we use were developed and are made in Indonesia by a huge student of shooting, against all the odds of shooting components and ranges being available. It’s remarkable.

I gleaned that your goal long-term isn’t manufacturing. What is the general goal of the design approach, overall?

Bullets fall into basically two camps. By sheer volume, the goal of MOST bullets sold is to repeat a hit like the one before and the one after, for no other reason that to see who can do it the best.

The other camp is the performance, or real “weapon” camp. There isn’t a bullet before or after, necessarily. Ruth can hit one over center and a hour later the next over the fence in left, the part of the fence it crossed doesn’t matter.

What are these bullets primarily thought to be for, if I may ask?

 

[Kracken McGraw]

I think I found the mean girls clique.

Sir you have turned on various good members here that have tried to help you and they also have put money in your pocket. Plus you have blatantly called them out and insulted them.
There has been constructive criticism on your product and you can’t handle that. Surprisingly this bunch is still willing to give you a third shot, please let some common sense sneak by that PHD. Attitude.

 

[TTE]

That makes two of us.

yeah, ... but one of us lost $ and the other gained $.


(with your PhD ..... pretty sure you can figure out which is which)

 

[TTE]

Any shooting results that I may have missed as of yet?

so far there is a pic of an excellent 1 shot group

 

[wwbrown]

"Pride in workmanship"? I wonder if the first guy to put rifling in barrels caught this much shit? I'm done. If you don't want to test them then fine but I'm done with your arrogance. Did you really try to use a folk tale to tell a PhD that he needs to be willing to learn? Do you have any idea what a PhD even means? "Love of learning". I've dedicated my life to learning. I shift through the shit on this forum to learn. I have never asked for respect but I'll be damned if I put up with this disrespect any longer.

Wow! I imagine your response to reviewers of papers that you have submitted to peer-reviewed have been unique. I did look at the CV you have posted on LinkedIn and only found one publication, a book you wrote, thus not peer-reviewed. I guess it takes a thick skin to submit to peer-reviewed venues and from your responses here I see no evidence of a thick skin.

I imagine your book is an interesting read but at $350 for 120 pages I take a hard pass. I am always interested in adding to my library of ballistics references although for close to 20 years I have found Robert McCoy hard to beat. I am interested in external ballistics at the technical level having done work for defense-related activities in both internal and external ballistics. I do have to admit that my understanding of internal ballistics makes me that field as one of magic, i.e. my skills are weak on the internal side.

How does one achieve a PhD with no peer-reviewed papers? I always thought someone had to demonstrate original work to get a PhD, it is hard to claim originality in a bubble. I would guess your CV is lacking as you must have demonstrated your academic achievement via peer-reviewers. At the institutions I did my graduate work the rule of thumb being first author on three papers before the PhD is even considered.

I did a little deeper dive and found a conference paper you gave last year and two paragraphs you were co-author of in a NASA Ames Tech Report. Given your work at national/defense labs I checked DTIC for publications you may have written, and found nothing.

The academic arrogance you project on this forum may be worthy of a highly accomplished academic researcher that have demonstrated their capabilities to their peers. One usually demonstrates their prowess as a academic researcher through the list of peer-reviews papers and number of citations. In fields like computer science and engineering conference papers given the rapid rate of change in these fields. Beating one's chest on a forum is not the way most PhD's demonstrate their acumen and accomplishments.

I don't envy you trying to do research as a lecturer at a school that has no visible graduate program in your area. I know from experience that teaching a full load does not leave much time for research. Maybe a more research-oriented (say Tier I or II) would provide you an arena that would better suit your claimed abilities. Oh I forgot the issues identified above.

I understand a good portion of your work has been at national/defense labs and publishing all of your work is rarely possible in fields like yours/ours but usually one publishes tech reports that show up on DTIC or conference proceedings. I apologize in advance if I have missed the main body of your academic work but I did a pretty decent scrape of the web, but admit I easily could have missed something.

I held off with my academic spanking but the arrogance in the post I replied to encouraged me to perform a deeper dive into your background and accomplishments. I hope the bullets work out for you it would help your CV immensely and it is always nice to show you have accomplished something in your field. I do find your repeated attempts of attempting to brow beat shooters with PhD cap and gown highly offensive. Many of the people you are trying to brow beat, while at the same time asking same for help, are highly trained and skilled professionals in their particular fields. In addition, some (or at least one) of us done have technical work in your field. Maybe you misread your audience.

You are the one that came to this forum asking for help for tasks (within the field of ballistics) that you have admitted you have limited experience. There are some on this forum who have spent more time on the applied side of ballistics than you have on the theory side, maybe you should take note and listen. After seeing people get pilloried on forums I don't think you have been treated internet bad.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar might be a good thought of the day for you, for every day.

Have a good day,
wade

 

[Bill Norris]

BY ALL MEANS, IF YOU DON’T WANT TO PUT UP WITH THIS DISRESPECT ANY LONGER……PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE. Nobody is forcing you to be on the forum, you should be more grateful that people here are doing the work the YOU should have already done.

Don't you just love it when a know it all jumps on here throwing his so called education around and trying to tell all these first class shooters and experimenters what to do? He would have done himself a favor long ago to just leave and forget he ever was here. If his so called renown bullet was really that good as he claims then he has now lost most if not all support here. Way to go know it all.

 

[Dave M.]

Dave, you can go to hell for all I care about your opinion. I won't sell you bullets if you were the last shooter out there.

lol. Super professional John. You already sold me bullets and I can’t wait to test the 60 I have; and I guarantee you’d sell me more in a New York minute. The product I received from you looks like they were whittled with a dull butter knife. That being said, and considering your extremely unprofessional nature, I STILL intend to test your bullets and give them a fair shake. My review will be 100% impartial and not in any way based on your ridiculous posts and utter unprofessionalism. Dr. John, as a scientist and inventor, your knowledge of product development and design of experiments is severely lacking. I don’t come on this site and flaunt my degrees because the good people on this forum are here for one sole purpose, to be more accurate shooters and reloaders. There are some incredible minds on this site that have more bullet making knowledge than you could possibly imagine. Guys that have easily sold millions of dollars of bullets to competition shooters, you my friend, I fear, will never realize their tremendous success. Your interpretation of criticism from several folks on this site is not well reasoned. You should be taking in the knowledge being passed on to you and using it to make your product better. Contrary to what you may think, the entire forum is not against you or out to get you. Perhaps you have created the new wonder bullet, and again, I intend to give them a fair shake.
Best regards John and I truly hope your business succeeds, because true innovation is what allows us to continue to break records and make the strides we have. This will be my last critical comment for you Dr. John, but you could learn a lot from other proven bullet making experts like Bart’s, BIBs, and Hottenstein.

Dave

 

[dellet]

I skipped over a few pages...Any shooting results that I may have missed as of yet?

so far there is a pic of an excellent 1 shot group

That’s not actually true. There are two, one shot groups, shot two different days at 10 yards.

If you are talking excellent groups, that would be correct, only one.
There was a group in the 0’s and the first one in the .700’s

 

[Dave M.]

Wow! I imagine your response to reviewers of papers that you have submitted to peer-reviewed have been unique. I did look at the CV you have posted on LinkedIn and only found one publication, a book you wrote, thus not peer-reviewed. I guess it takes a thick skin to submit to peer-reviewed venues and from your responses here I see no evidence of a thick skin.

I imagine your book is an interesting read but at $350 for 120 pages I take a hard pass. I am always interested in adding to my library of ballistics references although for close to 20 years I have found Robert McCoy hard to beat. I am interested in external ballistics at the technical level having done work for defense-related activities in both internal and external ballistics. I do have to admit that my understanding of internal ballistics makes me that field as one of magic, i.e. my skills are weak on the internal side.

How does one achieve a PhD with no peer-reviewed papers? I always thought someone had to demonstrate original work to get a PhD, it is hard to claim originality in a bubble. I would guess your CV is lacking as you must have demonstrated your academic achievement via peer-reviewers. At the institutions I did my graduate work the rule of thumb being first author on three papers before the PhD is even considered.

I did a little deeper dive and found a conference paper you gave last year and two paragraphs you were co-author of in a NASA Ames Tech Report. Given your work at national/defense labs I checked DTIC for publications you may have written, and found nothing.

The academic arrogance you project on this forum may be worthy of a highly accomplished academic researcher that have demonstrated their capabilities to their peers. One usually demonstrates their prowess as a academic researcher through the list of peer-reviews papers and number of citations. In fields like computer science and engineering conference papers given the rapid rate of change in these fields. Beating one's chest on a forum is not the way most PhD's demonstrate their acumen and accomplishments.

I don't envy you trying to do research as a lecturer at a school that has no visible graduate program in your area. I know from experience that teaching a full load does not leave much time for research. Maybe a more research-oriented (say Tier I or II) would provide you an arena that would better suit your claimed abilities. Oh I forgot the issues identified above.

I understand a good portion of your work has been at national/defense labs and publishing all of your work is rarely possible in fields like yours/ours but usually one publishes tech reports that show up on DTIC or conference proceedings. I apologize in advance if I have missed the main body of your academic work but I did a pretty decent scrape of the web, but admit I easily could have missed something.

I held off with my academic spanking but the arrogance in the post I replied to encouraged me to perform a deeper dive into your background and accomplishments. I hope the bullets work out for you it would help your CV immensely and it is always nice to show you have accomplished something in your field. I do find your repeated attempts of attempting to brow beat shooters with PhD cap and gown highly offensive. Many of the people you are trying to brow beat, while at the same time asking same for help, are highly trained and skilled professionals in their particular fields. In addition, some (or at least one) of us done have technical work in your field. Maybe you misread your audience.

You are the one that came to this forum asking for help for tasks (within the field of ballistics) that you have admitted you have limited experience. There are some on this forum who have spent more time on the applied side of ballistics than you have on the theory side, maybe you should take note and listen. After seeing people get pilloried on forums I don't think you have been treated internet bad.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar might be a good thought of the day for you, for every day.

Have a good day,
wade

Very well thought out response and even use of the internet to locate research work.

 

[358WCF]

Dave, you can go to hell for all I care about your opinion. I won't sell you bullets if you were the last shooter out there.

 

[TTE]

Wow! I imagine your response to reviewers of papers that you have submitted to peer-reviewed have been unique. I did look at the CV you have posted on LinkedIn and only found one publication, a book you wrote, thus not peer-reviewed. I guess it takes a thick skin to submit to peer-reviewed venues and from your responses here I see no evidence of a thick skin.

I imagine your book is an interesting read but at $350 for 120 pages I take a hard pass. I am always interested in adding to my library of ballistics references although for close to 20 years I have found Robert McCoy hard to beat. I am interested in external ballistics at the technical level having done work for defense-related activities in both internal and external ballistics. I do have to admit that my understanding of internal ballistics makes me that field as one of magic, i.e. my skills are weak on the internal side.

How does one achieve a PhD with no peer-reviewed papers? I always thought someone had to demonstrate original work to get a PhD, it is hard to claim originality in a bubble. I would guess your CV is lacking as you must have demonstrated your academic achievement via peer-reviewers. At the institutions I did my graduate work the rule of thumb being first author on three papers before the PhD is even considered.

I did a little deeper dive and found a conference paper you gave last year and two paragraphs you were co-author of in a NASA Ames Tech Report. Given your work at national/defense labs I checked DTIC for publications you may have written, and found nothing.

The academic arrogance you project on this forum may be worthy of a highly accomplished academic researcher that have demonstrated their capabilities to their peers. One usually demonstrates their prowess as a academic researcher through the list of peer-reviews papers and number of citations. In fields like computer science and engineering conference papers given the rapid rate of change in these fields. Beating one's chest on a forum is not the way most PhD's demonstrate their acumen and accomplishments.

I don't envy you trying to do research as a lecturer at a school that has no visible graduate program in your area. I know from experience that teaching a full load does not leave much time for research. Maybe a more research-oriented (say Tier I or II) would provide you an arena that would better suit your claimed abilities. Oh I forgot the issues identified above.

I understand a good portion of your work has been at national/defense labs and publishing all of your work is rarely possible in fields like yours/ours but usually one publishes tech reports that show up on DTIC or conference proceedings. I apologize in advance if I have missed the main body of your academic work but I did a pretty decent scrape of the web, but admit I easily could have missed something.

I held off with my academic spanking but the arrogance in the post I replied to encouraged me to perform a deeper dive into your background and accomplishments. I hope the bullets work out for you it would help your CV immensely and it is always nice to show you have accomplished something in your field. I do find your repeated attempts of attempting to brow beat shooters with PhD cap and gown highly offensive. Many of the people you are trying to brow beat, while at the same time asking same for help, are highly trained and skilled professionals in their particular fields. In addition, some (or at least one) of us done have technical work in your field. Maybe you misread your audience.

You are the one that came to this forum asking for help for tasks (within the field of ballistics) that you have admitted you have limited experience. There are some on this forum who have spent more time on the applied side of ballistics than you have on the theory side, maybe you should take note and listen. After seeing people get pilloried on forums I don't think you have been treated internet bad.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar might be a good thought of the day for you, for every day.

Have a good day,
wade

where is the 10k "likes" icon ?

 

[jelenko]

I swear it's like middle school in here.

Maybe. But it's not like you haven't contributed.

 

[jelenko]

OK. I did.
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.

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.


In some ways I am superior. I will put my knowledge of the math behind external ballistics against anyone on here. In other ways I am inferior. I have never shot a target at 1000 yards. My longest practical shot was about 300 yards on my first elk.

Oh no. Don't go. How will I carry on without you. sniff.



I would rather my bullets never hit the market than listen to this any longer. If you or anyone else want to work with me to develop these bullets then fine but if you want to get your kicks in humiliatingly a "nerd" online then go pack sand.

Dave, you can go to hell for all I care about your opinion. I won't sell you bullets if you were the last shooter out there.

Cool!

 

[jelenko]

Don't you just love it when a know it all jumps on here throwing his so called education around and trying to tell all these first class shooters and experimenters what to do? He would have done himself a favor long ago to just leave and forget he ever was here. If his so called renown bullet was really that good as he claims then he has now lost most if not all support here. Way to go know it all.

Yeah. Like, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!

 

[wwbrown]

where is the 10k "likes" icon ?

Glad you liked, I was concerned that I have sounded a little over the top that is why I referred to it as an academic spanking. I did get a little nasty with some points that an academic will see and in this case just gloss over as we are all wrong and he is right. Evidence his bullet's amazing ability is in the computer sims and not on the target where we are concerned about.

I received a patent years ago for an idea that worked out fantastically in the computer sims, but failed miserably when we tested and tested and retested ... The world is littered with physical ideas that worked out so well inside the computer but failed miserably outside, I claim ownership of more than one of those. We filed that patent before we could get our hands on the equipment to test it was not our intent to patent an idea that we knew failed in the field.

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

Any prize for making it through this traffic accident of a thread? It sure picked up pace today, I wonder if it's going viral?

Good thing I wasn't expecting a prize...LOL