Lehigh Bullet Flutes vs No Flutes

[41magfan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM2t8Lq3geU

[Navin Johnson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM2t8Lq3geU

Curious which police agencies or .gov agencies use Wilson combat for ammunition testing?

[OlongJohnson]

Since the argument around here for the stuff is that it's good when you need penetration to get through a lot of meat and bone with a wimpy little pistol round, can I get the no-flutes version? And a discount for reduced machine time? And maybe not drill out the back, so it has even more mass? That would be awesome, Mr. Wilson.

[the Schwartz]

While it is nice to see testing conducted in 10% ordnance gelatin (assuming that it has been shear-validated), there's really nothing new to see in the video.

All that the folks at Wilson Combat and Lehigh Defense have done is re-discover that flat nose bullets with large meplats are capable of creating significant cavitation that reduces frictional drag by forcing the gelatin test medium to separate from and lose contact with the side of the projectile as it passes through the test block. The resulting cavitation forces the separation point to move farther forward towards the unfluted projectile's nose and eliminates contact (friction) of the gelatin along the length of the bullet reducing drag in the process. The stagnation pressure acting upon the unfluted bullet's wide meplat also causes it to remain oriented in a nose-forward attitude as it passes through the block. Because the unfluted bullet does not yaw or tumble during its passage through the gelatin blocks, deep penetration results.

In the case of the ''fluted'' bullet, its nose geometry increases drag and introduces steering forces that clearly cause it to yaw and tumble during penetration which limits its maximum penetration depth as observed in the test. During the video, Guy Joubert manages to mistakenly attributes the effects of the increased drag and tumbling to wounding with the ridiculous and ill-informed statement at 2:50 in the video that,''...this shows me everything I need to know about how important those flutes are in dumping that energy, slowing that projectile down and not having to worry about over penetration...''

Not surprisingly, Wilson Combat and Lehigh Defense go as far as to ''double down'' (in the YouTube video's description) with the same old worn-out marketing ploy that claims ''energy dump'' to be some sort of wounding mechanism.

We tested the Lehigh Defense Xtreme Defense 90-Grain Bullet in a 20 inch FBI Calibrated Gelatin Block. We wanted to show how important the Fluid Transfer Monolithic Flutes are to the bullet. We shot a bullet with and a bulet [sic] without the flutes to prove that the FTM creates a massive energy dump that stops the bullet in 18 inches of gel.

ENERGY DUMP!

What's old is new again.

Hard pass.

[the Schwartz]

Since the argument around here for the stuff is that it's good when you need penetration to get through a lot of meat and bone with a wimpy little pistol round, can I get the no-flutes version? And a discount for reduced machine time? And maybe not drill out the back, so it has even more mass? That would be awesome, Mr. Wilson.

Sure. Here you go.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.ph...t_detail&p=224

[Navin Johnson]

While it is nice to see testing conducted in 10% ordnance gelatin (assuming that it has been shear-validated), there's really nothing new to see in the video.

All that the folks at Wilson Combat and Lehigh Defense have done is re-discover that flat nose bullets with large meplats are capable of creating significant cavitation that reduces frictional drag by forcing the gelatin test medium to separate from and lose contact with the side of the projectile as it passes through the test block. The resulting cavitation forces the separation point to move farther forward towards the unfluted projectile's nose and eliminates contact (friction) of the gelatin along the length of the bullet reducing drag in the process. The stagnation pressure acting upon the unfluted bullet's wide meplat also causes it to remain oriented in a nose-forward attitude as it passes through the block. Because the unfluted bullet does not yaw or tumble during its passage through the gelatin blocks, deep penetration results.

In the case of the ''fluted'' bullet, its nose geometry increases drag and introduces steering forces that clearly cause it to yaw and tumble during penetration which limits its maximum penetration depth as observed in the test. During the video, Guy Joubert manages to mistakenly attributes the effects of the increased drag and tumbling to wounding with the ridiculous and ill-informed statement at 2:50 in the video that,''...this shows me everything I need to know about how important those flutes are in dumping that energy, slowing that projectile down and not having to worry about over penetration...''

Not surprisingly, Wilson Combat and Lehigh Defense go as far as to ''double down'' (in the YouTube video's description) with the same old worn-out marketing ploy that claims ''energy dump'' to be some sort of wounding mechanism.



ENERGY DUMP!

What's old is new again.

Hard pass.

So would a round nose projectile of the same diameter (as a flat nose no flutes) damage more tissue do to more drag given a penetration depth the round nose could achieve?

So another words like in a SD event where both would likely perforate the target. Which would do more damage?

[Clusterfrack]

Since the argument around here for the stuff is that it's good when you need penetration to get through a lot of meat and bone with a wimpy little pistol round, can I get the no-flutes version? And a discount for reduced machine time? And maybe not drill out the back, so it has even more mass? That would be awesome, Mr. Wilson.

https://shopwilsoncombat.com/BULLET-...fo/04400190SP/

[OlongJohnson]

https://shopwilsoncombat.com/BULLET-...fo/04400190SP/

Currently only available for handgun cartridges of 10mm and .44. Surprisingly, not .451. Wonder whether they had trouble getting it to feed in their 1911s? Not promised for the future for anything smaller, either.

Cutting Edge at least has .357 and .45 Auto offerings.

My idea when posting was a 9mm (or even a .40) that would drill deep. I filled out there contact form with the suggestion.

[Clusterfrack]

Currently only available for handgun cartridges of 10mm and .44. Surprisingly, not .451. Wonder whether they had trouble getting it to feed in their 1911s? Not promised for the future for anything smaller, either.

Cutting Edge at least has .357 and .45 Auto offerings.

My idea when posting was a 9mm (or even a .40) that would drill deep. I filled out there contact form with the suggestion.

I'm guess is that the focus is as a hunting bullet. The XD flutes are supposed to help penetrate bone without deflection, and I still like them as a grizzly defense load.

[the Schwartz]

So would a round nose projectile of the same diameter (as a flat nose no flutes) damage more tissue do to more drag given a penetration depth the round nose could achieve?

So another words like in a SD event where both would likely perforate the target. Which would do more damage?

In a perfect world, the round nose bullet (FMJRN) would produce slightly greater damage than the flat nose bullet (FMJFM).

FMJFNs create larger stagnation pressure fields ahead of the bullet's nose than FMJRNs. The FMJFN's larger stagnation pressure field ejects soft tissue radially away from its path more forcefully than would an FMJRN. The increased radial displacement of the soft tissue moves the boundary flow separation point farther forward towards the nose of the bullet so less soft tissue makes direct contact with only a small portion of the bullet's leading surface area producing a narrow permanent cavity.

In stable, nose-forward flight, a very slight edge goes to the FMJRN. Because FMJRNs produce smaller stagnation pressure fields than FMJFNs, the boundary flow separation point moves to a point farther back along the FMJRN's length towards the base of the bullet. This allows more soft tissue to make direct contact with, and to be crushed by, the FMJRN's slightly larger leading (presented) surface area and produces a slightly wider permanent cavity. On a ''per unit of distance traveled'', a FMJRN in stable, nose-forward flight produces slightly more soft tissue damage than an FMJFN.

The small difference between the two configurations is unlikely to matter in human bodies because soft tissues surrounding the path of the bullet tend to embolize (a fancy $25-word meaning ''to swell and obstruct'') and restrict—or even completely stop—blood loss.