From Italy, with Holes — The Radical Ported CompBullet
An Italian company, CompBullet, has produced a radical new line of CNC-machined projectiles with a cavity in the bullet base connected to ports (holes) placed radially around the bullet’s circumference. Currently CompBullet offers six bullet types: 9mm (100 gr), .40 cal (155 gr), .44 Cal (200 gr), .45 Cal (200 gr), and .30 Caliber Rifle (125 gr). CompBullet’s pistol projectiles have one row of radial ports, while the longer rifle bullets have two rows, resembling the porting on a muzzle brake.
Italy’s CompBullet makes many claims about its new, patented ported bullets. Supposedly the ported, cavity-base bullets go faster than conventional bullets, yet generate less recoil. CompBullet also claims that its radical projectiles produce less smoke and reduced flash on exiting the muzzle. We are skeptical of many of CompBullet’s claims. We also have some concerns about bullet integrity and potential safety issues — at least when used in high-velocity applications.
Velocity
Compbullet claims that gases exiting the radial ports “lubricate” the bullet as it travels down the bore, yielding enhanced velocity. However, if any gas is actually able to exit the holes while the bullet is in the rifling (it’s not clear that in-barrel venting really occurs), then this will simply serve to REDUCE the gas pressure pushing on the base of the bullet. If anything, the bullet should go slower than a conventional projectile, not faster.
Jet Effect
CompBullet projectiles have a cylindrical cavity in the base. CompBullet claims that hot gases will shoot out the bottom of the bullet (like a rocket) and this increases velocity. But this runs contrary to the bullet-maker’s claim that the hot combustion gas moves forward and out the vents. But what, you might ask, if there are powder kernels that have migrated into the cavity and ignite inside the bullet? That might indeed cause gas to move both forward and rearward. However, the force of any rearward gas jet would be minimal compared to the main pressure flow pushing from behind, at least while the bullet is in the barrel.
Reader’s Comment: Hope the holes are small enough so the powder doesn’t fall out if the round is tipped over or something. It’s a good idea for custom salt and pepper shakers though!” –Josh
Recoil Reduction
Muzzle brakes reduce felt recoil and muzzle lift, on both pistols and rifles. However, they are attached to the gun. We’re not sure how gas blowing out the sides of a bullet is going to have any effect on recoil, because that action occurs after the bullet has left the muzzle. It IS possible that some in-barrel venting from the bullet’s ports may occur (if the ports aren’t blocked by the rifling), but that, as explained above, will only serve to reduce pressure pushing on the base of the bullet and hence reduce velocity. To the extent CompBullet projectiles deliver less felt recoil (if they do), it’s probably because they have lower velocity. If CompBullet projectiles actually fly faster (than do conventional bullets), that would be easy to demonstrate with chronograph tests. However, CompBullet provides NO CHRONOGRAPH DATA on its website. Without such data, we remain unconvinced.
Safety Issues
With a CompBullet projectile, there is the potential for powder to shift from the cartridge case into the bullet’s central cavity, prior to ignition. If this occurs, and the kernels inside the bullet do not fire off prior to the bullet leaving the barrel, there is the possibility of an explosive fragmentation of the bullet once it leaves the muzzle. We don’t know if this could actually happen, but there’s a word for a small, metal container filled with gunpowder — a grenade.
Bullet Integrity
A conventional jacketed bullet can fly apart when the combination of heat, friction, and spinning force stresses the bullet’s construction. With the CompBullet projectile, you have a bullet that is heated from the inside out, with numerous weakening holes drilled in the structure.
Accuracy
We discussed the effect of radial ports on a bullet with Bryan Litz, chief Ballistician for Berger Bullets. He said: “this ported bullet design is interesting, but I can’t see how it would have any usefulness for precision shooting. If flaming gas really jets out the ports, and the outflow of every port is not perfectly uniform, then this will quickly cause a reduction of bullet stability, which won’t help accuracy at all.” Bryan also wondered if drag from the gas out-flowing from the ports might slow down bullet spin-rate. With less rpm, spin-stabilization would be reduced. “Unstable bullets are not accurate”, Bryan added.
Flash Signature
There does appear to be some evidence of a smaller smoke “cloud” on bullet exit and a reduced flash signature, if the photos on the CompBullet website can be believed. We would like to see an actual comparison between conventional ammo and CompBullet ammo, using identical powder charges. CompBullet’s photos do not provide a comparison with ammo loaded with non-ported bullets. We cannot confirm that flash is reduced unless we can see photos of both ported and non-ported bullets, shot with the same powder loads, in the same lighting conditions. See sequence below with 9x21mm pistols:
The inventor of the CompBullet ported projectile is Alain Della Savia, a IPSC Grand Master and 6-time Italian National Revolver Champion. He was inspired by the recoil reduction offered by ported handguns. He hoped to develop a new kind of ammo that had reduced recoil, while still satisfying the IPSC “power factor” requirements. His solution was to build ports in the bullets themselves, using CNC-machining methods: “After a year of experiences, [Alain] found the right balance between materials and internal compensation system inside the bullet.”
Similar Posts:
- Hornady Announces NEW Superformance Ammunition — Claims 100-200 FPS More Velocity
- Smith & Wesson Performance Center Ported M&P Pistols
- Hornady Introduces Superformance Varmint Ammo
- Muzzle Brake Performance Tests by Bertalotto
- TECH TIP: Optimizing Muzzle Brake Accuracy and Effectiveness
Share the post "From Italy, with Holes — The Radical Ported CompBullet"
Tags: Alain Della Savia, bullets, Comp Bullets, Italy, Jet, Muzzle Brake, Port, Recoil
What a load of BS!!
Just like golfball dimple bullets…Right?
About the most ludicrous thing I’ve seen in a long time!
thought for a minute it was April 1st!
Should have been a 1rst of April announcement somewhere?
Wait. What? Um. No.
For a good laugh, read the English language version of their website.
How did The Editor come across this gem?
They should stick to making pizza and shotguns. It’s bad enough we are stuck with the Beretta 9mm in our military, now this!
I agree there’s a lack of data to back their claims, however, I’m not sure why the idea was greeted with such disgust here? It’s a new/radical idea… it’s good to see people thinking outside of the box, and following through with their ideas. Maybe a revised design based on this radical idea will be the next advance in bullet design – you never know. Bryan Litz gave some good info about why the design is potentially flawed, but he didn’t say that it won’t work.
in regards to laughing at the English version of the website – they probably used translation software. If you had a website in English, and used software to translate it to Italian, how would you know the Italian version was grammatically correct? And, would you care if your primary market speaks English? The answer is, you probably wouldn’t even provide an Italian translation.
I’d bet a paycheck that if the designer of these bullets asked anyone here to test them, none of you would hesitate to do so, even though you’ve said that it’s a terrible idea.
just sayin’…
queen_stick,
I agree with your sentiments, in general, but some ideas are so farcical that they deserve to be ridiculed. There’s thinking outside the box, and then there’s snake oil.
This would have made a great April 1st gag. Everyone would have assumed it was crap and then it would have turned out to be true!
Rather than all this huffing & puffing, why not just wait for the data?
Hope the holes are small enough so the powder doesn’t fall out if the round is tipped over or something….
Its a good idea for custom salt and pepper shakers though!
@ old shooter –getting to the Beretta issue. . .the 1911 couldn’t hold a candle to the M9 in the reliability dept. and that is from carrying the 1911 in combat. Nuff said.
Another golf bullets, nice!
“in regards to laughing at the English version of the website – they probably used translation software. If you had a website in English, and used software to translate it to Italian, how would you know the Italian version was grammatically correct?”
Using translation software for a website is lazy. I would imagine the R&D, or at least the machining involved, was at some cost. But to not get a native English-speaker to write your copy?
Then again, I doubt they’re marketing this anywhere. What (little) I know about physics makes me doubt the bullet’s effectiveness. Maybe Litz will buy some and test ‘em for us.
Oddly, I did find some interesting articles at one of their Partner company’s websites. Some neat reads on powder and barrel design.
!use your Google Translator to convert the page to English) http://www.armiestrumenti.com/blog
Interesting. I wonder if exiting gas thru the holes inside the bore reduses friction due to supercavitation.
Like submarine launched missles are ejected from the sub in a “bubble” of air.
Sounds like supersonic torpedos.
John
@ Benny, the only reason the Beretta is still made is for our military is still using it. Wasn’t for them that archacic design would have been dumped long ago.The trigger pull and grip ergonomics are not even close to a 1911. But I digress to a more hands on time of era. I have talked to people that have never even fired the 1911 but ridicule it. Keep it simple is a addage I use and the Beretta isn’t with all of those usless levers hanging off it, the pistol is made for non shooters if anyone needs to know.
With the holes seated below the case mouth the powder can not fall out.
At the point of bullet exit, freeze frame the image in your mind. Bullet sticking half way out with a row of holes letting gas exit at right angles to the barrel. Just like a radial brake!
Hollow bullet full of powder as well as the case. More powder capacity = higher velocity! A fast burning powder should have been completely burnt befor the bullet exits the barrel so this is not a problem.
Safety issues? Can’t see any. The walls of the bullet look quite think. Much thicker than a standard copper jacket bullet.
Sorry oldshooter but you make no sense. The 1911’s reliability numbers were surpassed 100x over by the Beretta in its reliability testing. Both conducted by the Army. All those useless levers? Have you even seen a Beretta? Have you ever fired a pistol at all? As an armorer for the 82nd MP co I can tell you we had 220 1911A1 pistols which is probably more than any other unit in the entire Army, Navy, Marine Corp or Airforce. They were all JUNK !!!!! We prayed for the arrival of the Beretta M9!!!! Our qual-scores skyrocketed and we had ZERO alibis unlike the 1911 where we spent more time on alibi shoots than actual qualify time. Those levers are safety, slide stop and disassembly levers since you cant seem to figure them out. Only 1 lever more than the 1911. Welcome to the modern era where a single lever seems to give you a nervous breakdown. It seems you just hate Italians and like calling them pizza boys, I feel we need to give your racist, incoherent comments a crayola font so they get the proper weight and attention they deserve.
On armiestrumenti.com there is also a test about 9mm CompBullet projectiles:
http://www.armiestrumenti.com/blog/2010/04/01/nuovi-proiettili-compensati/
Maybe the design without holes has a place in the no lead hunting arena. I think this is a good project for someone to test. For the US market this bullet will be a premium item unless it has a great advantage over current offering in the marketplace. -RJS
here’s the English translated version of the testing done…
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armiestrumenti.com%2Fblog%2F2010%2F04%2F01%2Fnuovi-proiettili-compensati%2F
You’ll read in that testing that the increase in velocity may actually be from increased pressure, as a result of decreased case capacity. The CompBullets are longer than a traditional bullet, so seating both types of bullets to the same OAL creates two different load densities. The statement from that article:
“This increase in performance, albeit of limited scope, we do not believe this is random. It is mainly due to different densities of loading between the two types of ammunition.”
These bullets tests have show that recoil, muzzle flash and the reactions after the shot are reduced, but the accuracy is not affected (only with handgun. I haven’t see test of .30 cal. rifle bullet in Italian magazine).
Those appear to be brass, which would qualify as armor piercing.
These are considered Armor Piercing and therefore illegal to 99% of US Citizens….
Any one who knows anything about aerodynamics would think static port like on the side of an aeroplane. Those ported bullets would more than likely create a vacuum sucking air through the base of the bullet which would decrease velocity and accuracy.
A better design would be angled ports near the front of the bullet leading to a hollow core. This would releave the vacuum created behind the bullet. I’ll stick to my browning P-35s