143 Hammer Hunter vs 169 Hammer Hunter

[JakeC]

All I have for experience with the 143's is at the "range" shooting out to 1000. No issue on the wind holds I was just wanting to weigh the options of a slower/heavier projectile at distance vs a faster/lighter projectile. I really like the hammer performance and I am trying to minimize wind hold (mostly my poor calculation of wind in a hunting situation) as much as possible and still get the performance that I have seen thus far with these projectiles.

Well it aounds like you've tested it a lot better than me! I can see why you're after it though, and like I said I bet you can still get some excellent velocity, I wouldn't sweat performance. The numbers didn't add up for me because my action is a little on the soft side and only 3" so I just can't drive them as hard. The result is that the light ones will pass the 155+ around 700. With yours though, why not. You'd still get what 3100+ with the 170-ish hammers?

 

[Skeeter05]

What is your velocity with the 143? I can make some assumptions and run the numbers in a calculator and let you know how much wind you will gain. If any

3416 with the 143's. Still some left of the table but that's where I stopped.

 

[Taylorbok]

3416 with the 143's. Still some left of the table but that's where I stopped.

Ok so lets guess you get the 169gr going about 3200
at 1000 Yards the 169gr gets you .7 moa per mph of wind the 143 gr is .6 moa per mph of wind so it is better but it's only gaining you .1 per mph which is roughly 1" at 1000 yards. Either way you need to be able to call wind within 1 mph for a good ethical shot.

 

[Bob Wright]

FYI Hammer advertises minimum twist rate for 170 HHT is 1 in 8.5.

Yep, I am right on the edge and decided to stay with a guaranteed spin/stability rate no matter which altitude I found myself in. I found friends here with the lighter/faster methodology so I shied away from the heavier pill. Otherwise, I have a great 180 vld load to get farther.