Gates Extreme Meplat Bullets

[.357]

I would love to see the .357 in a group buy i would get really excited about that.

[Dannix]

James, got another question for ya. How greatly is terminal performance effected when the metplat is somewhat modified from a pure flat nose? In the context of non-expanding bullets, how inferior would a very shallow 'disk/cup' hollow point be? Or for that matter how about a very flatish but round nose?

Maybe the flatish RN would be no good because there is no edge, but the cup/dish HP would be OK? Some rough drawings attached.

[Dixie Slugs]

Quite frankly, I have not tested the other designs you show. In various conversations with Todd Corder (part of the Linebaugh group), we found some interesting facts about flat meplats. It seems the meplat design (about 70% or so) cause the nose of the bullet to Rivet instead of mushrooming. it appears the flat meplat forches the lead back toward the center instead of outward. this causes the mid point of the bullet to expand out, causing a rivet type of expansion.......hard to descibe! The more maplat area/velocity.....the more the rivet. Of course, the hardness of the alloy will vary the size of the vivet.
Just what these other designs will do, I just do not know. At present, all our field testing is done with the flat meplat.....Regards, James@Dixie

[BOOM BOOM]

HI,
To further corroborate what Dixie & 44man have said , I also have moved from the 158-160gr. 357 bullets to the 180 gr. , really like it.
In the 44 I have moved from the 240-250 gr. bullets up to the 265gr. bullet.
Did try the 325grlee in the 44 but ouch- did not like it.

[Dixie Slugs]

I certainly do not want to stir things up...however, we do field testing and in-house testing all the time.
Taking everything into consideration, velocity, recoil, and performance on deer/hogs.....we feel the ideal cast bullet weight in .357 to be 170/180 gr.
In the 44 mag - hard cast 265 gr. In the 45 Colt - hard cast 285 gr. All shold have plenty of meplat area.
I know this runs crossgrain with the present leaning to super heavy bullets, but it's just we have found......James

[Dannix]

Thanks for the response James.

It seems the meplat design (about 70% or so) cause the nose of the bullet to Rivet instead of mushrooming. it appears the flat meplat forches the lead back toward the center instead of outward. this causes the mid point of the bullet to expand out, causing a rivet type of expansion.......hard to descibe! The more maplat area/velocity.....the more the rivet. Of course, the hardness of the alloy will vary the size of the rivet.

Interesting. The 'rivet type of expansion' reminds me of the Federal EFMJ.



Federal 9x19mm EFMJ +P 124gr
Pics by GoldenLoki

[Dixie Slugs]

I think the sample shown is a good example of what I am trying to describe....ergo Rivet vs Mushroom-thanks!..James

[onesonek]

Being new to casting and the use of cast bullets for hunting, I found all this thread a very interesting read, and informative as well!!
Thanks to all !!

I think also,,, there is no such thing as the "perfect bullet". There are just way too many variables. I think and agree that there is always some evolution or room for improvement, but generally it still all boils down to a degree of compromise, to "what will work" in a variety of conditions. There is an "ideal situation" somewhere in the performance range,,but all else is a compromise.


Dave

[Oyeboten]

Hi Dixie Slugs, all...


Very interesting Thread.


Your original blueprints of the three Bullets look supurb for accuracy and penetration and mushrooming, in higher FPS conditions.

They are elegent.



I have been brooding on Bullet Shape for Revolver for a while now, and the 'Riveting' bulge you mention is what I was thinking would occur with a flat wide-as-possible Meplat, in a harder Alloy.

My expectation is that it would not happen with a softer Alloy, or that it would be matched and then passed up, by the mushrooming of the front.

I have been brooding on Bullets for .45 Colt ACP 'Snubby' Revolver.

Bullets/Boolits, of say around 230 Grains, and maybe a Brinel of 12 or so, with a FPS of around 850 FPS...

Where, the Bullets would be like the bottom half of an Aerosol Can in shape - Cylinderical, a couple Lube Griives, and a dished front ( like how the bottom of an Aerosol Can is 'dished' in).


Maybe a small bevel to the edge of the 'dish' to even out some of the forces, so it would not overly mushroom too soon.


In my imagination, this might penetrate well, while, mushrooming well...and the rate of either could be regulated by how large the bevel is, of the edges of the 'dish', with respect to the Alloy, or Hardness, of course.


This would be a prospctive SD condition Bullet, and not a Hunting Bullet, so it's aerodynamics with respect to Air resistance at upper sub-sonic Speeds would not be an issue for the distances involved.


What do you think?

[Dixie Slugs]

I think the basic design could be carried over to a lighter bullet for the 45 ACP revolver (around 250 or so grains. I see no reason the cup the nose though.
Regards, James

[Oyeboten]

Probably a flat front would be fine.

I had imagined a 'cupped' front might 'cut' a little better, and encourage mushrooming at the speeds it would have, but, probably, would make no difference in the actual dynamics of things.

I'd have to try some of each in some testing medium to find out.

[Dannix]

Something you may be interested in James: non-expanding, reverse-taper, cup-point. This may prove to be an effective way of achieving FN-like terminal performance at higher velocities than those where the FN is effective.

Hydrostatically Stabilized Boolits

[Dixie Slugs]

Those are excellent looking bullet designs indeed! However. I think we are talking about two different designs....one being a non-expanding bullet (or maybe a rivet design) vs a mushrooming hollow point design.
both are great, but it depends on the caliber, penetration, and velocity.
Regards, James

[Dixie Slugs]

And I might add for thougts! With the hollowpoint design, he bullet must be softer so the nose does not breal up/fragment....James

[Dixie Slugs]

Looks like we have had a pile of people running this thread indeed! And....That is excellent!
We have brought forward many excellent points! I think it is starting to dawn on all of us that the meplat Area is very important in bullets (now-expanded and expanded).
What we seem not to be settled on is what % meplat is best! That can not be calculated, but seen in the field...and over quite a period.
dixie's Extreme Meplat bullets were designed for brush guns and never designed for much over 100 yards. Witin that envelope we never saw that acuracy fall off.
And we ststed that we were dealing only with bullets designs of .357" and up. We also ststed what weight withing our designs that we felt were at a balance of meplat area, weight, and velocity....and those factors are important!
Now.....a bullet in the air does not know what gun it came from...so, the discussion can cover all matters of firearms. What is important is the discuss bullet designs within the yardage they were designed for. This is where the bullet's BC comed into play!
Thyose that have read in detail what Keith said.....he watched the animal travel a distsnce before it fell. That;s fina and dandy in open country that he hunted in.......but in heavy cover0 or swamp), that can lead to a lost animal unless you use dogs.
Back in the late 50's we tried is famous 44 bullet, only to see deer/hogs that we hit well travel some distance. The original bullet has a meplat of .280". Those that have calculated the Area of a meplat know that it takes only a small incerase in the Diameter of the meplat to make quite an increase in the Area!
Regards, James

[82nd airborne]

Im not trying to be argumenative, just bring up my experence. Have you ever done any testing with "brush guns"? Heres a test I did.
make a barrier out of 1"x1" pine pickets driven into the ground, to where the bullet must hit 3 at different, but set locations for each caliber. The guns that people call "brush guns" did worse than the faster, sleeker bullets. I tested .270, .260, ,308, .45/70, and 30-30. Each caliber hit the same amount of pickets at the same distances, so the only variable was caliber.

The first three cartridges did far far better than the 30-30 or 45-70. These two deflected much more than did the .270,.260, and .308. Very few tests can be completely conclusive, as there is always something that could have been different, but I ran ALOT of ammo through each on this test and every time, the three faster calibers with spitzers, (Not FMJ) came out on top.

I also did the same test with a pile of actual brush in front of the target at various distances. Once again, the non traditional "brush guns" came out on top.

Just to reitterate, I am not trying to debunk anyones ideas on brush hunting, I just thought someone may find my test results interesting.

[Old Ironsights]

Because rarely (if ever) will anyone encounter "brush" where a bullet will be forced to hit 3 separate, offset 1x1 bits of brush?

Most "brush" is considerably smaller than that, and you hit far less of it.

A better "test" would be to shoot through a rose bush or hedge... or if one must "replicate" "brush" then maybe a pile of... Brush (or christmas tree branches) loosely (so you can see through it) interposed between you and the target...

So, just how thick was the "brush pile" you created, and what size branches were included?

If you are shooting through "brush" you can't see through - i.e. an unsafe shot in the real world - what good is the test?

[Dixie Slugs]

Just for clarification.....What I consider a Brush Gun is one that is best in heavy cover......not one to shoot through brush, limbs, vines, or whatever.
Now....I do not agree that the stated calibers do indeed shoot through brush piles without breaking up....all factory tests do not show that. However, if that is what you think, then by all means go for it.
This thread was started to show how well extreme meplat area bullets perform...period!
Most so-called brush gun calibers have a modest velocity, compared to the faster long range items that have a great BC....that's anothr discussion indeed.
What we were dicussing is non-expanding bullets (hard cast), somewhat heavy (high sectional density) with a large meplat area for tissue damage.What is in question that most are interested in is just what % is the best all around meplat?
Some state that there is a % meplat area that causes the bullet to wobble (not accurate). Smith stated that wad cutters were not accurate....but what was he describing? Pistol target wad-cutters velocity vs twist is on the very edge of being stabile. They were slowed down for the shooter's comfort in a long match. However, when they have an increased velocity.....there seems to be an arguement as to what distance they become un-stable (if they do/?) Some believe that air pressure builds up on extreme area meplats that caused tumbling. What we have seen is even meplats running 80% to 90% remain accurate within what is considered the hunting range these firearms/bullets are designed for. If we are to believe Keith in his 500/600 yard pistol shot....a .430" bullet with a 280" meplat was still accurate. We are still testing Meplat Area (% meplat) and have not seen accuracy fall off as some have described.
So...where does that get us? Most say a 73% meplat will be acurate....until where? Our deigns have a larger % and are being used every day
Regards, James

[Dannix]

Aaron,

When hitting an object square on, it makes since to me a spitzer would fair far better than any other type. Like AP ammo. However, I think the idea of a FN being the choice for a brush gun is that when an object is not hit square on, the bullet path being only partially obstructed, as is more likely the situation encountered in brush, a FN is more likely to plow through the obstruction and a spritizer is more likely to be deflected and/or destabilized.

That's where my admittedly abstract thinking takes me anyway.

[Dannix]

Something you may be interested in James: non-expanding, reverse-taper, cup-point. This may prove to be an effective way of achieving FN-like terminal performance at higher velocities than those where the FN is effective.

Hydrostatically Stabilized Boolits

Those are excellent looking bullet designs indeed! However. I think we are talking about two different designs....one being a non-expanding bullet (or maybe a rivet design) vs a mushrooming hollow point design.
both are great, but it depends on the caliber, penetration, and velocity.
Regards, James

Just to clarify, that's a non-expanding, non-mushrooming cup-point. It's an interesting looking animal. On my maybe-someday project list, I'd like to get a custom mould made up based on the 311-165 RD and featuring this new nose design, and compare it to the 311-165, FN and HP, at higher velocities.