Another Henson Aluminum tipped Bullet Test

[Lightvarmint]

Why would you even question the type of elk he shot? Seems like you have a serious burr under your saddle.




So, please explain YOUR standard set of conditions and please post some pictures of the wound channels as well as the recovered bullets.

If it's tough to get a "standard set of conditions" when shooting animals, and I expect this will be your response. Maybe you could shoot a carpenter deer, or maybe a telephone deer and then we can compare those tests to other 'documented and standard' tests we have seen on this forum.





AJ

When I was in Colorado elk hunting several years back we had many opportunities at spike elk and they really did not do anything for me or anyone in our hunting party and at that point, I could not fathom why someone would want to shoot one of them over a much larger cow elk if one wants the meat because the horns are not anything to boast about on the spikes.... I would rather let the spikes grow up and try again for a trophy the next year. We don't have to kill them to have fun. But, I just figured that since you are living the general locale, one would rather them grow up and be representative of a trophy from the area versus a spike. On our hunting lease, we don't shoot spikes either. We shoot adult male animals and mature does. And, that is why I asked the question about the spike(s). We are not accustomed to shooting animals that are not fully mature. However, some mature animals are butt ugly and we call them culls and I like to remove them.

On the standard set of conditions, the bullets are tested both for accuracy and hydraulic effect by accelerating them to full speed for the cartridges used in the testing. We weigh each and every charge to .02 grain and we seat the bullets to +.001 and -.000 seating depth. BTW, without this initial speed the bullet spin on impact will be much lower than from a full throttle test. This completely invalidates legitimate expansion testing no matter who does it.

The interesting and beneficial aspect of hunting the state(s) that we use for testing is that we can wait and are not rushed to get the data and we can set up for the desired shot vice having to resort to some sort of comprimise. We have a little over 5 months of available animal testing. Then again, we already know that the results should/will mirror other jacket expansion tests performed for the last several years by the shooters of Wildcat bullets when they take game with the same sized bullets using the same jackets. But we test anyway just so that we can say that the specific bullet was out of the manufacuring facility of RG Henson.

As previously posted, we will not post photos of wound channels and exit wounds as it serves no purpose as proof of anything. The only way for a shooter to really know for sure if his equipment will work in concert with certain projectiles is to try them. As you well know, anyone can alter a photo so it would serve no purpose. I don't waste my time and resources shooting sand, wood, phone books when the real subject of the test is available as a specimen. The problem here is that folks have an idea of what has worked for some projectiles in the past and they expect the same testing to hold true with all projectiles. Sorry, it just does not work that way. Especially since the tip composition and geometry are so ratically different from anything else out there.

And, if a specific bullet fails to meet the required standards, they will not be recommended for hunting until they are corrected. But then again, the ability of the jackets to reliably expand and to behave after expansion has already been performed by those who shot animals with the wildcat bullets. Interesting how one company has acutally done some of the testing for another with respect to jacket expansion. All you have to do is find some photos of those kills and they are very similar. It is the same as if you purchased som Sierra, J4 or any custom jacket for use in manufacturing projectiles...... Once the jacket has been proven under many different conditions and actual kills, you have a reasonable expectation of satisfactory performance. Specifically, that is why these jackets is use were selected.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Lightvarmint

 

[Lightvarmint]

The fouling is a minor point, but your words were:

"The really cool thing about them is that they do not copper foul barrels and cleanup is a quick and easy task."

No mention of the specifics of how you cleaned just that they do not foul, when you make claims like this it hurts your credibility.

On that note, the reason good grouper's test results are not being questioned by anyone except you is again, credibility. You as a tester for the company that produces the bullets can not be considered objective by any standard. Add to that, your posts make great claims with only your word to back them up. GG has no reason to be anything but objective and his credibility on this board is outstanding.

That credibility is earned over time, not given freely or owed to anyone. The best thing you could do is do what people are asking for and provide some pictures. The thing about advertising (which is what you are doing) is that peoples perception of your product is the only thing that matters. Right now the perception is that the product you are pushing has questionable performance, a poor representative, and a high price. You can solve those issues, but not by continuing the way you have been.

All that said, I hope these bullets can be shown to work, I would buy some for sure if I had some independent evidence that they will function on game.

Hello,

Again, we checked for copper fouling using chemicals and none was present and (to me and most) that meant that a reaction did not take place between the ammonia based chemicals and copper (because we could not find any copper sulfate residue on the cleaning patches). If you don't have indication of copper sulfate with ammonia based chemicals it is safe to say thay you do not have copper. If someone argues that point, then they are obviously not willing to accept standard cleaning practices as proof and are more interested it arguing versus pressing forward with more important topics.

As I have stated on many occassions, pictures will not be posted since they serve to prove nothing at all. We can't take pictures to prove beyond any point the skeptics can make that the correct bullet was fired and that the picture is a valid one of an actual kill with a HAT bullet. Picutures do not prove anything. I think Good Grouper even referenced that a few weeks back that he would not even believe a photo. We thought that he made a valid point, so we decided not to take any and not to provide any gore for the anti-hunting crowd to jump up and down about.

So in reality, we took Good Groupers viewpoint on photos and applied it to this sitiation. We don't even believe his photos that he took of his bullet testing.

Lightvarmint

 

[Lightvarmint]

It amuses me in a sad way that you are so blind to your obtuse social skills. Someone asks a straightforward question, and you launch off on a mostly unrelated and long response that doesn't even address the question.

Then you respond to me, calling me "unprofessional and basically juvenile" for daring to question the results of you, Oh Mighty One.

I don't think I'm the one being unprofessional and basically juvenile here. I'd never buy these bullets if they had a BC of 2.000, I don't do business with companies that represent themselves with people like you.

ATH,

You intially questioned me about my opionions of someone elses test results. I merely gave you my opinion and did not aim any of those statements toward you. I was just answering your question about test sessions that were performed by other folks. I amsure you are a highly professional person and are extremely objective and unbiased.

Lightvarmint

 

[uncleB]

Hello,

Again, we checked for copper fouling using chemicals and none was present and (to me and most) that meant that a reaction did not take place between the ammonia based chemicals and copper (because we could not find any copper sulfate residue on the cleaning patches). If you don't have indication of copper sulfate with ammonia based chemicals it is safe to say thay you do not have copper. If someone argues that point, then they are obviously not willing to accept standard cleaning practices as proof and are more interested it arguing versus pressing forward with more important topics.

As I have stated on many occassions, pictures will not be posted since they serve to prove nothing at all. We can't take pictures to prove beyond any point the skeptics can make that the correct bullet was fired and that the picture is a valid one of an actual kill with a HAT bullet. Picutures do not prove anything. I think Good Grouper even referenced that a few weeks back that he would not even believe a photo. We thought that he made a valid point, so we decided not to take any and not to provide any gore for the anti-hunting crowd to jump up and down about.

So in reality, we took Good Groupers viewpoint on photos and applied it to this sitiation. We don't even believe his photos that he took of his bullet testing.

Lightvarmint

Lightvarmint,
I have been reading this and trying to stay out of this debacle, but you obviously dont know when to say "when" !!!!!!!!
This is a forum that deal's mostly with text and a few pic's when it is prudent, your text has painted you as a clown with wires running from your optic nerve to your anal orofice, and all you can see is fecal material.
If you have any hope of trying to be legitimate on LRH first apologize (sincerly) then try and state your case in a way that does not offend everyone and mix in a pic from time to time even if it is you sitting on a cactus.
UB

 

[Lightvarmint]

LV,
Since you seem to have selective reading problems, I will try to make this as clear as possible so please try and pay attention.

One: Why shoot a spike elk? Because I was hunting in a spike only unit. If I shot anything besides a spike, I could be thrown in jail. The biologists set this up to grow more trophy class bulls in certain areas. And why would you even ask this? It makes you look like what AJ said.

Two: I think since I was lied to and insulted that that constitutes getting screwed. The fact that I never bought any bullets is irrelevant. I was sent bullets by friends on this board who wanted me to test them because they were interested in what I would find.
All in all, dealing with you has been a VERY negative experience and it would seem that since Greyghost doesn't object to the way his company is being represented by you, he must be in the same mindset as you which means more than myself will be screwed by you two.

Three: You say that the new dies were on order for a year and showed up just as I was testing the old ones. Then you say that Mr. Henson has the right to improve his product. You are mixing two things into one. Why was I told that the bullets I was testing were the going to stay at the time and there was no mention of new dies or the fact that the old ones were instantly obsolete?

Four: On fouling, I have several barrels that do not produce blue patches too. However, there is copper in there as I can SEE it with my own two eyes. How this is, I honestly don't know. But obviously, a guilding metal cannot be grooved off into a another metal and not be there.

Five: PAY REAL CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS ONE as you seem to have missed this point several times already. I tested the HAT bullets in a media that works perfectly fine when used in comparison on a known baseline of which I had many controls in my baseline. When other bullets are directly compared to HAT's, the test WAS relevant, and it showed that the HATS were made with too thick of jacket.
Secondly, I ran them at REDUCED velocity to simulate a long range impact. Shooting them at high velocity as you did only replicates a close range impact of which I'm not interested in. If I was going to shoot nothing over 400 yards, I would simply buy an Accubond or something and save myself $1+ per bullet!


Six: Check your facts before you bring them up. I never was on record for saying that the Wildcat bullets don't expand. I have never tested them, never even held one in my hand. But Fiftydriver has tested them up and down and has shown me that they have way thinner jackets around the meplat than HAT'S. And many guys here have tested them in media and on game and there have not been any complaints that I've heard.

Seven: My lack of objectivity you say? I'm not the one trying to sell these bullets. The fact that you would even say that is amazing. Then again, knowing you, it's not all that amazing.

Eight: I could quote you volumes of research for you to read on military ammunition testing but it would be useless. You wouldn't read it and even if you did, you would just read what you wanted and skip the rest. But I will say that the isolated test you referred to was done for the purpose of testing ball ammunition (FMJ) of which is quite insignificant in this case as we are dealing with hunting bullets that are more frangible and rely less on hydrostatic shock to kill.

In closing I would just like to add this: Since it is apparent that I'm playing cards here with someone who doesn't have a full deck, I think it's time I go shooting and forget this garbage.

1-Good answer on the spike question and I was hoping that that was the answer that would come forth.

2-First, who lied to you and what was the lie? Secondly it is a shame that you are a poor victim in this whole mess of testing free bullets. However, if you want some of those bullets you tested then you can get them anytime. They are available, but we really did not think anyone would want them over the higher BC offerings. On the insult part, I started discussing your testing methods in a private messege setting with just you and I and then all of a sudden you saw fit to post it for all to read and at that point it became fair game to poke holes in your methods and joke about your processes not to mention your velocity instruments from two totally different manufactureres that you used for diagnostic testing. Next, you initiated another thread calling me out and insinuating that were hiding some test results and saying that our deer season was over and such..... You did all that without doing your homework and that indicates lack of objectivity. That isn't insulting, it is childish. Again that was a thread you started. Then when you did not get the response you wanted, you started called me a liar when I posted actual results of my testing of the .30 caliber bullets. Again, a very childish act.

3-Once again, you can still get the bullets you tested and they are not obsolete, but they are not preferable to the ones produced on the new die. Lots of Bearing surface reduction with the new die. But #2 above explains why we had not planned on offering them. Mr Henson does have the right to put new and improved products on his bullet line. Unfortunately he has been at the mercy of die manufacturers and based on your statements here in #3 you might not understand how long it takes to get orders shipped from those specific die manufacturers. They are running on long lead times and he is currently awaiting 7mm, 6mm dies as well that were on the original order. Who knows when they will ship out from Oregon to Georgia. Mr Henson cannot control what you were told when you got your bullets as you did not get them from the manufacturer. We were getting ready to test the older version of the 265s on some deer and when the new die got delivered, I actually had to unload some ammo that was setup for hydraulic testing. You see I did not see any credibility at all in testing the older version bullet when most of the interest would be on the newer models and that is why they have not been tested on game by me as of yet.

4-We can't see copper with the eyes or on the patches. These are not the first bullets that have exhibited this either. It is just one of the fringe benefits. Just for your information in the same barrels, obvious fouling is present with 300gr SMKs and Nosler Accubonds.

5-Again, we differ on the tests for the same reasons other testing facitlities abandoned the same sort of tests and the true results on live game will be forthcoming soon. As far as the bullets you choose, it seems as you have already made up your mind and have found the ones that work great for you and your applications. Good luck in your hunting applications with those bullets. Sounds like you don't need the HATS.

6-Facts checked. Listen real close. I never said you tested Wildcat bullets. The Hairfield jackets advertised on Mr Graves' website as an option in his bullets (Wildcat bullets) are the exact same jackets the HATS are made from. So, since we have not heard one foul word about the Wildcat bullets having expansion problems in Hairfield jackets they must work satisfactorily. After all, several years ago, Mr Graves (Wildcat bullets) said they would work for my applications.

7--GG don't flatter yourself, you don't know me or Mr Henson. You are not objective at all. Instead of testing them at normal speed and spin while shooting a target at longer range, you flubbed the test by not giving the bullets the rated spin and initial speed and tested them at shorter ranges and that might seem like the same conditions, but it is not. Seems as though you would know this and since we think you do, it looks like the test was a little jaded...... How many sample bullets did you test for expansion? Anyway, the 30 caliber 180grain ones that I tested are not the ones that you tested. And, that makes my second objectivity point. If you are using your testing of the few bullets you tested in phone books and of a totally different caliber and weight to say that the 180s do not work that is not objective either. In the near future we should be able to add another bullet weight (265 grain) to the successful test set.

8-Quote the references and articles..... Not for me but for the entire readership it would be interesting reading and informative. It should make for some interesting reading and yes these bullets that we are discussing use hydrostatic shock as well as a cone shaped wound channel and tissue destruction as methods to dispatch targets.

With respect to your last statement, you must be playing solitaire cause your not playing with me. It is a shame (but refreshing) to learn that you have found alternative bullets to use in your hunting endeavors and we wish you all the luck.

I shot benchrest on and off for about 10 years and mothballed it due to not being able to practice while on Submarine deployments but I did keep the equipment. Even when we shot in those matches, some guns did not provide copper sulfate when cleaning. Those barrels usually shot better than the ones that fouled with copper.

Maybe I will see you at the Cactus or even the Nationals.

Lightvarmint

 

[Forester]

"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience."

I am going to take this advice at this point, this whole discussion has gotten pointless and I could care less about these bullets anymore.

LV: I think it is safe to say that the bottom line in all of this is that your behavior and demeanor on this and other forums has likely cost the manufacturer of the product thousands of dollars in future sales.

 

[Lightvarmint]

Lightvarmint,
I have been reading this and trying to stay out of this debacle, but you obviously dont know when to say "when" !!!!!!!!
This is a forum that deal's mostly with text and a few pic's when it is prudent, your text has painted you as a clown with wires running from your optic nerve to your anal orofice, and all you can see is fecal material.
If you have any hope of trying to be legitimate on LRH first apologize (sincerly) then try and state your case in a way that does not offend everyone and mix in a pic from time to time even if it is you sitting on a cactus.
UB

I am not on a campaign for acceptance at all and initially set out only to provide information but sometimes we get side tracked and have to address some hair brain theories that are put out as gospel. When questions are asked or misinformation is published, we feel the need to set the record straight. If you will go to the initial messege on this thread you will see it is information only. After that, it is responding to barbs and misconceptions.

Most of the folks who read the website and inquire about these bullets have not even posted other than an email to the me or the manufacturer. Initially, we said that we would provide the perfomance information as it becomes available and that is what we do. Unfortunately, you and some of your friends try to shoot the messengers of information when you do not like the messege. Additionally, when data and or information is presented and not understood some of your friends take a less than objective position that is far beyond their expertise and qualifications. Instead of letting misinformation sit out there possibly confusing some folks, we address it. The other alternative is for you and your friends to use the email system as requested and then we can prevent these posts. But as long as they are questions asked/stated on the forum, we will address it.

The main reason I respond on the forum when not providing information is because I am addressed and questioned about something. Basically, I am tired of misinformation being spread about this particular topic..... Many of you guys are interested and ask good questions while others spend most of their time trying portray themselves as someone they are not and pontificate rubbish in an obvious attempt to poison the waters.

In short we do not feel it prudent to place photos on the website of wound channels and/or exit wounds (maybe you missed that?). I am not going to apologize for my responses when being questioned or verbally attacked. I take the postion that if someone does not want a reaponse, then they will not ask a question or make an open ended statement indicating the need for a reqponse. When you guys quit asking questions and having misconsceptions, I quit typing until the next bullet test........... Afterall, we did provide two email addresses for those with questions to use and to keep it off the threads.

If you really need a photo to understand a bullet wound channel or exit wound, sorry, you won't get it from us, at least not at this time. Thanks anyway for your concern and opinon. Have a nice day.

Lightvarmint

 

[uncleB]

Lightvarmint ,I am guessing that you did not read my reply first, or mabey you are just that ignorant or selfrighteous........ check yourself,take some time and re-evaluate before you shoot yourself in the aaaassss again, you are doing yourself and your employer harm by chasing away customers acting like a ballistic Bully(without a clue).
UB

 

[goodgrouper]

LV,

Your selective reading is as amazing as your selective memory. Your "facts" are wrong, and your imagination is as deviod of truth as your character is deviod of merit.

I think anyone reading this thread can see who is what and I really don't need to say anymore. You have pretty well proven my point. Thank you.

See you at the Cactus.

Sincerely, GG

Len, sorry about your toast!

 

[goodgrouper]

"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience."

I am going to take this advice at this point, this whole discussion has gotten pointless and I could care less about these bullets anymore.

LV: I think it is safe to say that the bottom line in all of this is that your behavior and demeanor on this and other forums has likely cost the manufacturer of the product thousands of dollars in future sales.

Well said. Well said indeed.

 

[tillroot1]

lightvarmint, I may be on the ignore list but I know you read what I type so think on this,
a good number of people has stated my thoughts of you openly, does that carry any weight with you? if you had any customer skills it would have sunk in a long time ago. You will be under water before you know it! good job and thanks for exposing more and more of yourself.
Ron Tilley

 

[ATH]

ATH,

You intially questioned me about my opionions of someone elses test results. I merely gave you my opinion and did not aim any of those statements toward you. I was just answering your question about test sessions that were performed by other folks. I amsure you are a highly professional person and are extremely objective and unbiased.

Lightvarmint

Perhaps you were just too primed to launch off into another insulting post before you actually read mine, because I did not question your opinions of others' test results. I pointed out how silly it is to shoot 2 -- count them, TWO -- deer and claim this to be the gospel. And since I WAS questioning placing so much weight on the results of TWO animals, you most certainly WERE aiming your insults directly at me, since it is, by your own professed opinion, "unprofessional and juvenile to question your results" -- backed up by the awesome and unquestionable sum of TWO (TWO!! WOW!!) measurements.

If you cannot see what an *** you come across as, and that you are doing nothing here except driving away business, you are too clueless to be in a business where you must deal with people.

When everyone around you seems turned off and hostile, it's time to look in the mirror for the reason why.

 

[redstater]

These bullets could be the best thing since sliced bread, but if I were "Mr. Henson", I would ask LV to please go away!

 

[GREYGHOSTt]

These bullets could be the best thing since sliced bread, but if I were "Mr. Henson", I would ask LV to please go away!

the man has told no lies or made any untrue boasts.
he has handled the nay sayers with kid gloves as far as i am conserned.