Vented bullets

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by northern-matelot, Dec 7, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Just an off the cuff remark, won't it reduce muzzle velocity?
  2. Not really. As the bullet will have near as damn it left the barrel by the time the vents work.
  3. Would have thought erosion might be a problem for non Chrome plated bores
  4. Venting round a bullet (or other projectile) would normally allow bypass of gas in the bore, resulting in lower muzzle velocity - this technique has been used before to launch two projectiles at different velocities.

    Unless of course they are also playing some tricks with the burn of the propellant itself...

    Edited to add: Just re-read the article, and it seems even more confusing - I can't see how it would act as a muzzle brake if the gases are acting on the bullet, not the muzzle!
  5. Would the (presumably minor) reduction in recoil be worth the stuffing around, and wouldn't the vents increase drag?
  6. Agreed! It would certainly increase the manufacturing costs and therefore the procurement cost. The British Army would then have even less recources for training and operations. It might be OK for specialist roles such as sniping, if accuracy is not affected, but as general purpose SA round, I don't see it.
  7. Not really sure the idea is even worth doing in those calibres. Maybe for .50 it might be worthwhile?
  8. jim24

    jim24 Book Reviewer

    Sounds a bit like the Gyrojet bullets used by James Bond in You only live Twice, I seem to remember they were tiny rocket projectiles though, with no recoil.
  9. I'd say that these bullets stand a good chance of being the shooters equivalent of snake oil.
  10. This looks like a load of bollox..

    The only effect of the perforations would be to bypass the breech seal and allow the venting of the charge. The only reason to do this would be to reduce the energy of the projectile. I suppose you could do this to reduce a supersonic round to subsonic for silencing purposes, but simply reducing the charge would do this just as well..

    Venting the charge sideways as the bullet emerges from the barrel could (I suppose) increase the velocity slightly as the exiting gas would act longer on the bullet base, but I would imgine this would not compenste for the loss of energy in the barrel due to gas leakage. If the holes were canted, you might be able to increase the spin rate, but again I would think this marginal as it would happen for only a fraction of a second. As someone has already pointed out, I would also suspect this would cause breech erosion problems..

    I suspect Little Jonny has been playing with his dad's CNC lathe...

    however if DS Ammo at Shriv is watching.. could be a good POTATO project!
  11. I may be totally off the mark here, but I thought the Geneva Convention banned certain types of round, including ones with holes in them due to the increased fragmentation when they hit bone and flesh?
  12. I think you mean the Haig protocalls...

    No - only rounds "designed to expand in order to increase wounding effect" are proscribed.. Any half decent lawyer could drive the proverbial coach & horse through if they want..
  13. There's a thread around here somewhere about various 'experimental' types of .303 ammo that was produced during WWII, partly IOT increase its terminal effect. Copperplated chalk, wooden-tipped rounds, aluminium-based rounds...all rather inventive.

    AUIU, the fact that these non-traditional cores were encased in a standard copper jacket made them quite legal, but their effect on target was rather more savage than usual ball ammo. That 'Box O'Truth' bloke test-fired some of this ammo, and it not only burst the water jugs, but blew the sides out of the box, IIRC (!)
  14. I think it is the Hague Convention. I suspect there is something more to this than is obvious. The claimed benefit, reducing recoil, doesn't seem to be achievable within any of the laws of physics that we know of. I'd suspect that there is some other feature that they're not publicising, e.g., maybe it yaws all over the place on impact with tissue, making it grotesquely lethal, but still legal if the claimed purpose of the holes isn't to cause the bullet to distort. I think some reading of the invisible print between the lines may be required.

    The holes would increase drag and reduce range


    That comment wasn't there when I started my reply, but yes, that seems to fit. So not ' designed to expand in order to increase wounding effect', oh no, M'lord, certainly not.

    Any tendency to tumble all over the place is purely an unintended by-product of the design.