Might be near an ideal choice vs. traditional hollow points.  Maybe not a one size fits all but what do you think?


Pat

The tests show a great new concept in bullet design. If it lives up to the test of time, it will be something.

I remember the hype about the truncated cone design in the 1980's.  It was going to replace HP ammo with a design that did the best of both worlds.  At the time the big issue was finding an auto-loader that would work reliably with hollow point bullets, and the TC design promised reliable function with better terminal performance than traditional FMJ round nose designs.  And it did deliver.

It's death was that newer generations of auto-loading handguns excelled at feeding hollow point bullets.  And by comparison the TC didn't deliver as well terminally.

This new design seems to deliver great wound channels, exceeding HP designs, while still able to defeat barriers.

The physics here is pretty interesting.  It takes a good bit of energy to deform a HP bullet into that perfect mushroom.  And it takes pretty ideal circumstances at pistol velocities.  That energy is defensive capability that is NOT being used to stop the target.  We are trading some of our energy budget early for a larger wound cavity and better exsanguination later.  And we are hoping the circumstances are close enough to ideal for that to all work.

The Lehigh bullet is designed to create better cavitation than a traditional bullet design.  The result is a large permanent wound cavity without having to trade energy for expansion.

Here is the question I don't see being addressed.  Is this special design markedly better than a simple 115 grain truncated cone traveling 1700 fps?  The reason this isn't addressed is pretty clear;  No one makes a 115 grain TC in .400 and no one loads it to 1700 fps.  Such a round would clearly be a defensive round, and they all have HP designs.  I guess I am asking if this is really the result of high velocity and sharp geometry regardless of shape, and the Lehigh edge is a distinctive, patentable shape? 

Looks like this would be a solid copper TC .400" diameter, .580" long with a 70% metplat and a couple of rifling expansion bands.  Should be between 115 and 120 grains, and have a similar load profile to the lehigh bullet.

The off-putting part for me is the price.  At $1.50 each, it would take a good bit of my ammo budget to fill all my mags. 

I just ordered some solid copper rod.  I guess I will see how hard it is to turn a bullet.

 I imagine Lehigh is getting rich making these bullets . It's not hard to press a bullet from a rod blank.

Is the price because copper is expensive? Not sure it is that expensive.

Buying short lengths like I did, which was two 10" sections, it works about to about $0.45 per bullet.

If I bought 8' sections that would drop to about $0.35 per bullet.  In production quantities I would expect another 33% drop.  Still pretty price when raw materials put you at that amount.

I've certainly been interested in the projectile since it's introduction.  I've watched every test on it I could find (many times).  I've even bought a few boxes in some of my carry calibers to function test. 

I've understood Raggedyman (and others) seem to deride the concept a bit on his YouTube channel and comments.  Of others like MAC and several others lauded it. 

While not ready to utilize it in my edc or home defense role; I'm certainly interested in learning more and seeing more testing.

Another similar unconventional recent entry is Velocity Tactic's "spun" copper projectile.  It's very different design uses velocity & shape to create yaw (nothing new in that concept) and tumble in terminal ballistics phase.  Made in 9mm, 40, 45 cal.  Some interesting tests available showing surprising results with even some apparent enhanced body armor penetration capabilities.

Since I cannot carry hollowpoints in NJ upon retirement from law enforcement, these will be my carry loads when the time comes.