New ELR bullet

Hi,

The question at hand is a rather interesting and tricky one.

1. There are guys that say they will pay for the increased cost but then they really won't.
2. There are guys that do not know they will pay the increased cost until the results are proven.
You have to remember that when Cheytac & Associates released the original 408 it was met with HUGE criticism and doubt EVEN though they released it with 2 years of testing and radar data. That **** was before people even knew what radar data for rifle projectiles even was. Now people "accept" anything someone says as long as they mention "radar data" lol. Not understanding that not all radar data is the same

From a business stance I would suggest the following:
1. You lay out a business plan that is specifically for the new "line" of projectiles. Do not take any of your other projectiles markets, sells, costs, etc etc into account.
2. You lay out a system analysis in which you list every other ELR projectile in existence today with ALL their details, specifications, attributes and negatives.
3. Also make sure you take into account where the .mil types are going in regards to cartridges and where a new projectile can assist them.
4. In your business plan be sure to take into consideration of the "educating" portion of the idea. When something changes they way things are commonly done and accepted it is going to take educating the consumers to get them to realize they actually want that new product
5. You lay out a customer journey to show everything from awareness, discover, purchase, use, and bond. Highlighting the goals, opportunities, challenges and touchpoints of each.

Sincerely,
THEIS

I see why you're not jumping in head first without asking about interest first. Looks like a 272 grain bullet is about .62 ounces. That's a little more than a $4-$5 projectile for sure!

couesaddict said:

I see why you're not jumping in head first without asking about interest first. Looks like a 272 grain bullet is about .62 ounces. That's a little more than a $4-$5 projectile for sure!

Click to expand...

What I am wanting to do is significantly more expensive than that. The more I work on it the more trouble I seem to cause.

Steve

THEIS said:

a business stance

Click to expand...

As a businessman, everything @THIES says.

RockyMtnMT said:

What I am wanting to do is significantly more expensive than that. The more I work on it the more trouble I seem to cause.

Steve

Click to expand...

We want it!
Some don't even know they want it.
I do and I've been working on it but I have the work with @hubel458 first.

RockyMtnMT said:

What I am wanting to do is significantly more expensive than that. The more I work on it the more trouble I seem to cause.

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve,

I would continue to compile your needed information because read between the lines of this article linked below from James Boatright.
People are craving projectile change..they just do not know what changes they want yet lolol.

Sincerely,
THEIS

tungsten is probably the most affordable metal that is significantly heavier than lead.
It's been used in bullets before, but can't imagine what it would cost to build precision elr bullets out of it.
They'd probably be worth looking for after you shoot them!!

nmbarta said:

They'd probably be worth looking for after you shoot them!!

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha. We look for the bullets after the URSA matches to learn how they were flying. The reference work article provided by @THEIS is supported by our findings.

THEIS said:

article linked below from James Boatright

Click to expand...

To me, this is a wealth of knowedge, formula, data and supporting documentation for my postulation that you need to fly monos fast and spin them a little more than a cup and lead core.

@THEIS and @nmbarta

Tungsten is still used in certain projectiles. I'm sure @THEIS knows more about them than I do. Depleted Uranium is used for similar reasons by those allowed to have it. Government organizations.

Tungsten in the "normal" "alloys" (actually complex sinterings) quickly fails at several needed attributes, malleability and lubricity among them.

While the tungsten "alloys" appear to be machinable without extreme considerations, they do require very hard tooling for most mixes. Note: my research indicates that pure tungsten is not machinable and the tungsten particles are not actually "cut" during the machining process. Instead the binder metal is "cut" or separated form the tungsten. Think ball bearings held together by thick grease parted with a butter knife. The knife does not cut the ball bearings, instead just parting the grease.

In low concentrations of the binder metal, often copper, tungsten quickly looses malleability even to the point of brittleness during deformation. This is not so good for a projectile. Depending on the binder and how it is sintered, the projectile could be considered "armor piercing". Not a good thing for a target bullet, fine for a military applications. @RockyMtnMT Steve does not appear to be heading toward military applications.

Tungsten is of course very very hard. In the "alloy", exposed crystals or even the more specialized spheres will contact the steel of the barrel. I am pretty sure this will cause premature and extremely unacceptable wear on the rifling.

I am looking into coatings and other preparations to shield the barrel from the tungsten particles. Several possibilities but nothing I like yet.

"Tungsten core" avoids wear issues and alloy "deformation". However, I believe, they are illegal.

Hi,

Why does everyone seem to think a tungsten core RIFLE bullet is illegal....The issue with "cored" 223 ammunition is that there are PISTOLS chambered for it.

https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/armor-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework

Some individual States may have regulations restricting it but per the above ATF link they have no regulations restricting it.

Sincerely,
THEIS

Didn't Barnes make some tungsten bullets for a while??

Got it!