Do you guys check your comments? I'm wondering if CFD software was used in the design of the solid monolithic projectiles. If so, what kind of velocity requirement is there for the flutes to cause cutting beyond the physical reach of the projectile?
Please comment between difference if any between Underwood vs Lehigh besides the cost. This bullet design will replace on my opinion the old JHP technology. LS
I don't see HPs going away anytime soon. As the video alluded to, the idea of a monolithic bullet isn't old. Not only are SC (solid copper) bullets an old idea, but musket and arquebuse balls were monolithic too: they penetrated and could physically expand as well, depending on what they hit. I'll repaste what I wrote to someone else in this comment section, a guy who asked why SC, fluted cartridges seem like they are always loaded at higher velocities: Because the SC (solid copper), fluted design is relying on purely hydraulic effect as a function of relative speeds (ie. speed with which fluids are pushed away from the bullet) much more so than a HP, which means velocities must necessarily be higher to achieve the intended (cavitation) effect. With a HP (whether jacketed, semi-jacketed, bonded or unbonded, etc.), hydraulic effect is of course in play; but the size of the cavity generated is a function of projectile expansion, which, in turn, is a function of the hydraulic force **and** the physical properties of the projectile, ie. how much force is required to deform or "petal" the projectile. This later factor - force required for deformation - can be influenced by construction of the projectile, eg. composition (eg. how much antimony or other additive in the lead), how hard lead is cast, how much jacket is present, the strength of the jacket, and other factors. With a SC or monolithic projectile, both the composition and construction of the projectile is effectively homogeneuous and uniformly preset, respectively. Thus, for the SC projectile, hydraulic force is (for a given amount of surface area that is fluted) essentially a function of velocity only. In other words, a HP creates cavitation beyond the base force of impact through projectile expansion, and that expansion can be influenced by other factors so as to happen at a range of velocities: a HP can be made to expand at a range of velocities, thus achieves effect at a range of velocities. SC projectiles are, by contrast, relying almost purely on relative speeds for cavitation, thus must be moving above certain velocity thresholds to achieve effect: a SC, fluted bullet must therefore be moving relatively fast to achieve cavitation effect. Then there is the aspect about what the nature of that cavitation is: with a HP bullet, there may be temporary cavitation (from fluid dynamics as a function of relative speeds), but there is a permanent cavitation potential because the bullet simply "gets bigger" in frontal area relative to its un-fired state; with SC/monolithic bullets, the cavitation beyond base circumference is all temporary, from fluid dynamics, at least at handgun or any normal rifle velocities. This is a big reason why I wouldn't imagine the monolithic/SC bullet altogether replacing HPs: HPs are simply more versatile and allow more options for expansion at a range of velocities, whilst also achieving reliable (permanent) cavitation, as opposed to relying on hydraulic effect more or less exclusively, the later of which is debatable as to 1) its overall efficacy to begin with, and 2) especially with regards to handguns, ie. bullets moving below ~ 2,300 feet-per-second.
They’re trained from infancy onwards. Some leave the institute before they’ve full grown & they are known as the “semi-jacketed soft point”. Still effective, but failed to be taught as well as a fully grown Hollow point. Hope that helps.
Because the SC (solid copper), fluted design is relying on purely hydraulic effect as a function of relative speeds (ie. speed with which fluids are pushed away from the bullet) much more so than a HP, which means velocities must necessarily be higher to achieve the intended (cavitation) effect. With a HP (whether jacketed, semi-jacketed, bonded or unbonded, etc.), hydraulic effect is of course in play; but the size of the cavity generated is a function of projectile expansion, which, in turn, is a function of the hydraulic force **and** the physical properties of the projectile, ie. how much force is required to deform or "petal" the projectile. This later factor - force required for deformation - can be influenced by construction of the projectile, eg. composition (eg. how much antimony or other additive in the lead), how hard lead is cast, how much jacket is present, the strength of the jacket, and other factors. With a SC or monolithic projectile, both the composition and construction of the projectile is effectively homogeneuous and uniformly preset, respectively. Thus, for the SC projectile, hydraulic force is (for a given amount of surface area that is fluted) essentially a function of velocity only. In other words, a HP creates cavitation beyond the base force of impact through projectile expansion, and that expansion can be influenced by other factors so as to happen at a range of velocities: a HP can be made to expand at a range of velocities, thus achieves effect at a range of velocities. SC projectiles are, by contrast, relying almost purely on relative speeds for cavitation, thus must be moving above certain velocity thresholds to achieve effect: a SC, fluted bullet must therefore be moving relatively fast to achieve cavitation effect. Then there is the aspect about what the nature of that cavitation is: with a HP bullet, there may be temporary cavitation (from fluid dynamics as a function of relative speeds), but there is a permanent cavitation potential because the bullet simply "gets bigger" in frontal area relative to its un-fired state; with SC/monolithic bullets, the cavitation beyond base circumference is all temporary, from fluid dynamics, at least at handgun or any normal rifle velocities. This is a big reason why I wouldn't imagine the monolithic/SC bullet altogether replacing HPs: HPs are simply more versatile and allow more options for expansion at a range of velocities, whilst also achieving reliable (permanent) cavitation, as opposed to relying on hydraulic effect more or less exclusively, the later of which is debatable as to 1) its overall efficacy to begin with, and 2) especially with regards to handguns, ie. bullets moving below ~ 2,300 feet-per-second.
@@thetexasrat Talking about the SC fluted, not the HP. The FTM round, or "Fluid Transfer Monolithic," is what I'm referring to regards the SC bullet, and the fluted design of such, not that it's composed of copper.
@@LibertysetsquareJack I re-read your previous comment, and now I see that you were strictly speaking of the Fluted bullets, even though you kept saying "SC" instead of "Fluted SC". And the subject of the video was about fluted SC.
Draw back is when, when someone doesn't hit their attacker the bullet will continue traveling and possibly hit someone in the background whether they behind something or not.
@@jason200912sir no one will always hit their target!! This bullet is better for hunting and not personal defense, it behave just like a fmj and not a hollow point.
@@jason200912 I do not do indoor shooting ranges. Too many other's close by that I have no clues as to their gun safety consciousness. What I mean is they let idiots in with guns! I prefer the woods.
I believe because a human usually ranges 9-12 inches from chest to back, the projectile really just needs to get far enough to hit the vitals. The 12-18 inches is measured in plain clear ballistics gel with 4 layers of cloth
What happens when the attacker turns laterally into a sideways profile? 12 inches minimum to penetrate the heart depending on ribs hit or not. Attackers don’t square up with their arms to the side.
@@jason200912 He was misspeaking all over the place! It would seem as if he only half way knows what he is talking about, whereby jumbling points together that do not belong.
I completely disagree about your monolithic Bullet when compared to hollow points, when this monolithic his its target many times it acts like a full metal jacket and thats the issue. Why are ammo companies not investing in new hollow point bullet technology? When is the last time anyone made a new hollow point? The Lehigh defense monolithic bullet scares me for over penetration.
People like you worry about over penetration way to much, the Xtreme defender does not "over penetrate" as they said in the video, the 10mm version of this ammo will go through 17 inches of gel which is in the 12-18 inch range. The downside to any hollow point is that they are not very good at penetrating hard barriers you might face in a defensive situation. The extreme defenders and penetrators are perfect and they do everything better than any hollow point. For handguns, rifles might be a different story.
I'm definitely on the extreme defender side but can't decide 68 or 90 grain. I like the 68 but it seems so light from what I'm used to
Great explanation guys, thanks for making this video.
Just one question - who is your barber??
Do you guys check your comments? I'm wondering if CFD software was used in the design of the solid monolithic projectiles. If so, what kind of velocity requirement is there for the flutes to cause cutting beyond the physical reach of the projectile?
The bullets are made by Lehigh Defense so you would be better suited to email them, as they will answer back.
Just wish we had on the street stats to show how they actually stop a threat
Please comment between difference if any between Underwood vs Lehigh besides the cost.
This bullet design will replace on my opinion the old JHP technology. LS
I don't see HPs going away anytime soon. As the video alluded to, the idea of a monolithic bullet isn't old. Not only are SC (solid copper) bullets an old idea, but musket and arquebuse balls were monolithic too: they penetrated and could physically expand as well, depending on what they hit.
I'll repaste what I wrote to someone else in this comment section, a guy who asked why SC, fluted cartridges seem like they are always loaded at higher velocities:
Because the SC (solid copper), fluted design is relying on purely hydraulic effect as a function of relative speeds (ie. speed with which fluids are pushed away from the bullet) much more so than a HP, which means velocities must necessarily be higher to achieve the intended (cavitation) effect.
With a HP (whether jacketed, semi-jacketed, bonded or unbonded, etc.), hydraulic effect is of course in play; but the size of the cavity generated is a function of projectile expansion, which, in turn, is a function of the hydraulic force **and** the physical properties of the projectile, ie. how much force is required to deform or "petal" the projectile. This later factor - force required for deformation - can be influenced by construction of the projectile, eg. composition (eg. how much antimony or other additive in the lead), how hard lead is cast, how much jacket is present, the strength of the jacket, and other factors.
With a SC or monolithic projectile, both the composition and construction of the projectile is effectively homogeneuous and uniformly preset, respectively.
Thus, for the SC projectile, hydraulic force is (for a given amount of surface area that is fluted) essentially a function of velocity only.
In other words, a HP creates cavitation beyond the base force of impact through projectile expansion, and that expansion can be influenced by other factors so as to happen at a range of velocities: a HP can be made to expand at a range of velocities, thus achieves effect at a range of velocities. SC projectiles are, by contrast, relying almost purely on relative speeds for cavitation, thus must be moving above certain velocity thresholds to achieve effect: a SC, fluted bullet must therefore be moving relatively fast to achieve cavitation effect.
Then there is the aspect about what the nature of that cavitation is: with a HP bullet, there may be temporary cavitation (from fluid dynamics as a function of relative speeds), but there is a permanent cavitation potential because the bullet simply "gets bigger" in frontal area relative to its un-fired state; with SC/monolithic bullets, the cavitation beyond base circumference is all temporary, from fluid dynamics, at least at handgun or any normal rifle velocities.
This is a big reason why I wouldn't imagine the monolithic/SC bullet altogether replacing HPs: HPs are simply more versatile and allow more options for expansion at a range of velocities, whilst also achieving reliable (permanent) cavitation, as opposed to relying on hydraulic effect more or less exclusively, the later of which is debatable as to 1) its overall efficacy to begin with, and 2) especially with regards to handguns, ie. bullets moving below ~ 2,300 feet-per-second.
@@LibertysetsquareJack You know that they make SC HP too?
The difference is underwood loads Lehigh to the maximum. Lehigh loads it to the minimum
Hollow points are taught to expand on impact???
They’re trained from infancy onwards. Some leave the institute before they’ve full grown & they are known as the “semi-jacketed soft point”. Still effective, but failed to be taught as well as a fully grown Hollow point.
Hope that helps.
Why supersonic?
Because the SC (solid copper), fluted design is relying on purely hydraulic effect as a function of relative speeds (ie. speed with which fluids are pushed away from the bullet) much more so than a HP, which means velocities must necessarily be higher to achieve the intended (cavitation) effect.
With a HP (whether jacketed, semi-jacketed, bonded or unbonded, etc.), hydraulic effect is of course in play; but the size of the cavity generated is a function of projectile expansion, which, in turn, is a function of the hydraulic force **and** the physical properties of the projectile, ie. how much force is required to deform or "petal" the projectile. This later factor - force required for deformation - can be influenced by construction of the projectile, eg. composition (eg. how much antimony or other additive in the lead), how hard lead is cast, how much jacket is present, the strength of the jacket, and other factors.
With a SC or monolithic projectile, both the composition and construction of the projectile is effectively homogeneuous and uniformly preset, respectively.
Thus, for the SC projectile, hydraulic force is (for a given amount of surface area that is fluted) essentially a function of velocity only.
In other words, a HP creates cavitation beyond the base force of impact through projectile expansion, and that expansion can be influenced by other factors so as to happen at a range of velocities: a HP can be made to expand at a range of velocities, thus achieves effect at a range of velocities. SC projectiles are, by contrast, relying almost purely on relative speeds for cavitation, thus must be moving above certain velocity thresholds to achieve effect: a SC, fluted bullet must therefore be moving relatively fast to achieve cavitation effect.
Then there is the aspect about what the nature of that cavitation is: with a HP bullet, there may be temporary cavitation (from fluid dynamics as a function of relative speeds), but there is a permanent cavitation potential because the bullet simply "gets bigger" in frontal area relative to its un-fired state; with SC/monolithic bullets, the cavitation beyond base circumference is all temporary, from fluid dynamics, at least at handgun or any normal rifle velocities.
This is a big reason why I wouldn't imagine the monolithic/SC bullet altogether replacing HPs: HPs are simply more versatile and allow more options for expansion at a range of velocities, whilst also achieving reliable (permanent) cavitation, as opposed to relying on hydraulic effect more or less exclusively, the later of which is debatable as to 1) its overall efficacy to begin with, and 2) especially with regards to handguns, ie. bullets moving below ~ 2,300 feet-per-second.
@@LibertysetsquareJack Again, they do make SC HP.
@@thetexasrat Talking about the SC fluted, not the HP. The FTM round, or "Fluid Transfer Monolithic," is what I'm referring to regards the SC bullet, and the fluted design of such, not that it's composed of copper.
@@LibertysetsquareJack I re-read your previous comment, and now I see that you were strictly speaking of the Fluted bullets, even though you kept saying "SC" instead of "Fluted SC". And the subject of the video was about fluted SC.
Draw back is when, when someone doesn't hit their attacker the bullet will continue traveling and possibly hit someone in the background whether they behind something or not.
Why is it called drawback and not bad aim
@@jason200912sir no one will always hit their target!! This bullet is better for hunting and not personal defense, it behave just like a fmj and not a hollow point.
@@organicmaterialsciencecorp6115 seems like this two things are the same thing
I only shoot Solid Copper bullets now a days. Some hollow points and some fluid dynamic cavitater types.
It's better for your health too indoors as an added bonus
@@jason200912 I do not do indoor shooting ranges. Too many other's close by that I have no clues as to their gun safety consciousness. What I mean is they let idiots in with guns! I prefer the woods.
“It’ll blow out your lungs” 😂 Only 9mm says Biden
9-12 inches? Everyone else says 12-18 inches.
I believe because a human usually ranges 9-12 inches from chest to back, the projectile really just needs to get far enough to hit the vitals. The 12-18 inches is measured in plain clear ballistics gel with 4 layers of cloth
What happens when the attacker turns laterally into a sideways profile? 12 inches minimum to penetrate the heart depending on ribs hit or not. Attackers don’t square up with their arms to the side.
Rep had his info wrong
@@jason200912 He was misspeaking all over the place! It would seem as if he only half way knows what he is talking about, whereby jumbling points together that do not belong.
@@thetexasrat yeah they should have written down some notes to look at during video or at least have a laptop on the table
WAITING ON MY LAST ORDER!
I completely disagree about your monolithic Bullet when compared to hollow points, when this monolithic his its target many times it acts like a full metal jacket and thats the issue. Why are ammo companies not investing in new hollow point bullet technology? When is the last time anyone made a new hollow point? The Lehigh defense monolithic bullet scares me for over penetration.
People like you worry about over penetration way to much, the Xtreme defender does not "over penetrate" as they said in the video, the 10mm version of this ammo will go through 17 inches of gel which is in the 12-18 inch range. The downside to any hollow point is that they are not very good at penetrating hard barriers you might face in a defensive situation. The extreme defenders and penetrators are perfect and they do everything better than any hollow point. For handguns, rifles might be a different story.