Why Hammer Bullets Are Always Faster

[nralifer]

Which Hammer and what caliber was the test bed ?

The 151gr HH .308 in a 24" 1/9 twist Bartlein barrel vs the 150 gr BD2.308 and a max load of 53 gr of LVR

 

[choprzrul]

Why on earth would one assume that a single powder is the optimal choice for 2 very different bullet designs? Then, make the assertion that one projectile is superior without doing optimal load development for both projectiles regardless of both being the same weight?

I'm very confused why this path was chosen?

 

[Reemty J]

Choprzrul you are spot on, it's unappealing

 

[Mike Matteson]

First and foremost I'm glad you are ok, I do want folks to understand when I say I'm pushing it means any load I shoot deemed safe in my rifle is perfectly fine as deemed by the MAN, no hard bolt lift primers are slightly flattened and the brass holds up for 5 or so firings which is fine for me.
They greatly increased speed and flattened trajectory plays perfectly into the way I hunt, once again I want everyone to be safe but as I said before if no one colored out side of the the lines nothing would have ever happened and we'd sill be pounding rocks together trying to make a spark to start a fire, I mean no disrespect to any engineer anywhere ( and I know a bunch of them) but for the most part if it hasn't already been done and wrote down some it's just blasphemy to them.
Hammer Bullets have opened up avenues once thought far fetched or impossible but yet the " Believers" who have cleared their minds and grasped the new technology are enjoying the fruits of their labor.
If it's not for you I get it but I said earlier all these fact and figures, book maxes and so on mean little to nothing concerning Hammers as the drag reduction is so significant,

It didn't take me a few second to see that how Hammer make their bullet, that less materials being push against the lands, which in turn makes them easier to push down the tube. If that doesn't point to easier and faster I don't what does. Over 20 years ago I tried to push some Barnes all copper bullets down a tube. Found to be hard to drive and and accuratic wasn't what I wanted. So up on shelve and they have stay there. I feel that Hammer did one hell of a job in coming up with those bullets. I presently have one rifle with the proper twist build and having another one being built. If I could get my reloading shack built and finished I would be happy camper. It's mostly done now. Weather and location change over the year has really slowed me up.
I develop my loads much the same way as ButterBean does. I'll start at the low load in the manual and work my way up. If the cases hold about 70grs, I go up at .0.5gr per load. Some of my loads are over 5+grs over manual. NO HEAVY BOLT LIFT, NO CREATORING, NO EJECTOR MAKERS. Flat primers yes. I know that they say that creatoring isn't a spot to stop at, but I do. I know all the reason why also. I also stay away from temp semsit powders. Those powders can get you into big problems, when pushing the envelope. Been there once and and so far I haven't cross that bridge again.
Hodgdon has a new temp semit powder chart out that you can down load. I have included it here.
I do have some temp semit loads that are 5+ grs over book top load. They were develop in the hot weather. So I don't have to worry about the chamber pressure going up. Yes I have to take in low temps for additional dope or elevation hold..

 

[Mike Matteson]

Why on earth would one assume that a single powder is the optimal choice for 2 very different bullet designs? Then, make the assertion that one projectile is superior without doing optimal load development for both projectiles regardless of both being the same weight?

I'm very confused why this path was chosen?

Maybe your arrow is pointing the way. Yes they are two different stile of bullets. That's what makes the world go around.

 

[ButterBean]

The 151gr HH .308 in a 24" 1/9 twist Bartlein barrel vs the 150 gr BD2.308 and a max load of 53 gr of LVR

I have no words but other than the test proves absolutely nothing other than you wasted a bunch of components time and energy and posted the results for absolutely nothing, I think you make a great bullet but as I said earlier you continue to amaze me, SMH

 

[ButterBean]

I'm still at a loss

 

[nralifer]

Why on earth would one assume that a single powder is the optimal choice for 2 very different bullet designs? Then, make the assertion that one projectile is superior without doing optimal load development for both projectiles regardless of both being the same weight?

I'm very confused why this path was chosen?

It seems intuitive that reduction of bearing surface through the use of multiple groves should improve MV. This effect of reduced friction should be seen with virtually any powder. That is exactly what I thought before doing the testing. The result was quite different. Repeated the test three times. The point was not necessarily to demonstrate superiority of one bullet over the other, but rather to see if reduced friction resulted in higher velocity. It did not. I welcome anyone to repeat this test. The multiple groves along the shank do have a potential penalty and that is to increase skin drag and thus reduce BC. We have known that for many years. Our early BC testing of prototype bullets with multiple groves showed that we were not obtaining the BCs we wanted. It wasn't until I found a Schlieren image of a bullet that had a crimp grove showing a shockwave from it that I realized that changes in surface curvature increased resistance to air passage creating shockwaves at supersonic speeds. When we minimized the groves and made the one or two groves more aerodynamic did we easily get the BCs we wanted. The current generation of bullets have one grove to break up the bearing surface more to prevent copper fouling than increasing MV.

 

[ButterBean]

It seems intuitive that reduction of bearing surface through the use of multiple groves should improve MV. This effect of reduced friction should be seen with virtually any powder. That is exactly what I thought before doing the testing. The result was quite different. Repeated the test three times. The point was not necessarily to demonstrate superiority of one bullet over the other, but rather to see if reduced friction resulted in higher velocity. It did not. I welcome anyone to repeat this test. The multiple groves along the shank do have a potential penalty and that is to increase skin drag and thus reduce BC. We have known that for many years. Our early BC testing of prototype bullets with multiple groves showed that we were not obtaining the BCs we wanted. It wasn't until I found a Schlieren image of a bullet that had a crimp grove showing a shockwave from it that I realized that changes in surface curvature increased resistance to air passage creating shockwaves at supersonic speeds. When we minimized the groves and made the one or two groves more aerodynamic did we easily get the BCs we wanted. The current generation of bullets have one grove to break up the bearing surface more to prevent copper fouling than increasing MV.

Wrong again, reduced bearing surface equals less power ignition dwell time which in conjunction with less bearing surface in touch with the lands all will give less velocity so what your test actually proved is your bullet has a substantially larger bearing surface producing more drag therefore giving better velocity with the same powder charge, the powder you were using is way to slow of a burn rate to propel the Hammer with its reduced drag

 

[Mike Matteson]

Wrong again, reduced bearing surface equals less power ignition dwell time which in conjunction with less bearing surface in touch with the lands all will give less velocity so what your test actually proved is your bullet has a substantially larger bearing surface producing more drag therefore giving better velocity with the same powder charge, the powder you weee using is way to slow of a burn rate to propel the Hammer with its reduced drag

Interesting! I will have take that to account.

 

[nralifer]

Wrong again, reduced bearing surface equals less power ignition dwell time which in conjunction with less bearing surface in touch with the lands all will give less velocity so what your test actually proved is your bullet has a substantially larger bearing surface producing more drag therefore giving better velocity with the same powder charge, the powder you weee using is way to slow of a burn rate to propel the Hammer with its reduced drag

Did try StaBall Match whose burn rate is faster more like Varget. Got the same result. What powder would you suggest?

In looking the data over SB-M caused the BD2 to flatten primers at 51 gr (3110 fps) and the HH to flatten primers at 52.5 grains (3133 fps). Only a difference of 23 fps. Both were clearly over pressure.

 

[ButterBean]

Did try StaBall Match whose burn rate is faster more like Varget. Got the same result. What powder would you suggest?

StaBall is best for starting campfires and It makes no difference anyway, two entirely different bullet designs and will require two entirely different load developments.
I have no powder suggestions as I don't shoot bullets that heavy, now with that being said I'm going to the test myself with the same bullets in 308 and I'll post the results in a separate thread so you can advertise your products in you own thread and once again you amaze me

 

[fordy]

Gday window
May you keep those daisies @ bay for many decades to come

When I first started down this rabbit hole over four decades ago, I pushed the limits on everything until I had a failure. Needless to say, I was lucky that only thing damaged was the rifle and a $500 pair of glasses. I no longer push the limits with any combo and stay on the conservative side now. That was years ago and hope to be continuing on this journey of love till I'm pushing daisies.

Oh & hammer a few along the way
Cheers

 

[sturner]

Let me just say Bless your heart
Dang I need to read the dang date before replying