It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => 2nd Amendment/Firearms => Topic started by: Libertas on November 15, 2015, 01:44:06 PM
-
http://www.polycaseammo.com/project/inceptor-arx (http://www.polycaseammo.com/project/inceptor-arx)
I read about this in American Rifleman, sounds interesting.
And not much more expensive as other defense rounds.
http://clarkarmory.com/products/polycase-inceptor-45-acp-arx-ammunition?variant=1163918335 (http://clarkarmory.com/products/polycase-inceptor-45-acp-arx-ammunition?variant=1163918335)
I am dubious of long range performane with this design, so any rifle round application will have to be fully tested, but the pistol results seem impressive.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/10/polycase-arx-inceptor-ammunition-tested-results-surprised-me/ (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/10/polycase-arx-inceptor-ammunition-tested-results-surprised-me/)
I don't know how this copper/nylon binding works, I would think nylon could cause some sort of buildup in barrels, one comment posted in the above link asked the same, a person commenting on that didn't think so but I would like that tested, especially under numerous shots when the barrel gets hot.
Interesting technology though.
-
It seems to operate on a similar theory as the Lehigh Xtreme Defender, which is a solid copper bullet that looks a lot like a Phillips screwdriver bit. In both, the theory is that the geometry of the bullet uses the rotational force to impart hydrostatic pressure. I remain skeptical of the principle, because the bullets remain at bore size throughout penetration of the target, which means the permanent crush cavity is no different than FMJ. I know the advocates of these types of bullets say the hydrostatic pressure crushes tissue in a wider path than the diameter of the bullet, but all research (and there's been a lot of it conducted by the Army over the years) shows pistol velocity bullets cannot create enough hydrostatic pressure to tear elastic tissue. Rifle rounds are a different story, due to their much higher velocity.
I'm all for innovation though, and maybe they're onto something that will yield results, but me? I'm sticking to Federal HST.
-
That makes sense to me.
If the argument was centered on the penetration being greater with these than with FMJ then that is the niche they should be shooting for, but they are not doing that, they are trying to challenge the defensive rounds niche. The theory of cavitation is swell, just going to need a lot more evidence. Maybe they need to fire into some pig carcasses and dissect them and compare to other rounds, that perhaps would settle the issue.
In a rifle round I wonder where in the velocity continuum instability begins?
I like innovation and often times failures point people in directions that lead to real breakthroughs. I'm not ready to jump on board...yet, but I am willing to be convinced with independent evidence regarding all the above issues. I hope people keep at it.
But for now the tried and true will suffice.
-
Why does the ammo have to be fancy when you can kill somebody with a wad cutter?? If I still had a gun.
-
Darn boating accidents!
I feel another accident coming on...it is getting near new toy season... :D