Nathan D Fenderson said:
I am new person on the site asked to look in all the dialog on the MDM Dyno- Core Bullet .
Asked?
Surely any
respectable company would welcome questions concerning what is so loudly claimed. There are some obvious questions.
If there actually is a patent pending, what is the application number?
Since "higher velocity" is stated, higher than what?
Flatter trajectory than what? No trajectory data?
Superor accuracy compared to what?
The "Nitro Detonation Tip" improves ballistic coefficient, at least that is what it says. What is the ballistic coefficients of these bullets? A flat nose ballistic tip makes no sense.
How can you "trademark" a term like non-discarding?
What is the "optimum" weight retention spoken of?
How does "the controlled air space" increase ignition? By how much?
Why should a rational person believe that this bullet is anything than a cheap Maxi-ball with a flat plastic nose and plastic base added?
There may be a market for a expensive plastic flat nose bore-sized Maxiball that flies worse than most any saboted bullet, needs lube, fills your barrel with bore butter that runs off in hot weather, and is subject to the same velocity limitations of all lubed conicals, but it is not readily visible.
Why would anyone think for one second that this bullet could possibly NOT have
less terminal velocity, weight retention, terminal performance, terminal energy, etc., when compared directly to a 250 gr. or 300 gr. .452 Hornady XTP or a Barnes MZ-Expander?
It is off by 5 calibers, or bubbles as the case may be. There is nothing deeply technical about sticking some plastic on a Maxi-Ball and smearing it with bore butter. There is not one single design feature present that is new at all, much less potentially valuable. It is a long, very long way to go just to try to sell Maxi-Balls.