Copper Monos - How to choose the right weight(and maybe caliber)?

[WYO300RUM]

Steve, this may be the clearest and most concise explanation of your design philosophy I've seen.

Elmer Keith believed in big, heavy bullets at moderate speeds. He knew from experience they create a deep, large diameter wound channel. Seems to me that you've accomplished the same result in a different way, with the additional advantage of working over a wide velocity range (1800 fps >> at least 2X).

Separation of the nose petals, opposed to the textbook 'mushroom' is counter intuitive. Shows that our mental model of how something works often doesn't correspond to reality. You're saying that the individual petals and their wound channels PLUS the blunt-faced rear of the bullet create a 'larger' and more incapacitating wound.

Multiple reports on Hammer bullet performance mention individual exit perforations from the petals around that of the main portion of the bullet. Good evidence that reality often corresponds with your design intent.

I like the idea that your bullets allow us 'eating right up to the hole' without concern about lead ingestion, or loosing an entire quarter to massive damage - while dropping the prey authoritavely.

Your post provides, for me at least, a clear explanation how that happens.

 

[fordy]

Gday franko21

I'll come to the points that Steve tagged me in on his last post but for now let's get back to hopefully give a little more clarity

The following is from critters & observations on my own not anyone else's & throughout this thread I've got a good idea who the real deal people are on here & the info gathers from others that sound impressive but real life results dispute their position & I think you can work those guys out

Seeing the thread appears to be on monos I'll stick with that side & try not to muddy the waters with Steve's post/s

Overall a lot of pills regardless of brand have showed that a faster twist offers no detrimental effects & increased preformance is observed by going with a faster twist
Not all monos are equal just like cup & core & it's hard to put a figure on a % to drop weight as some brands can go way lighter than others due to design but a 15% is a nice rule of thumb I've seen others mention

SD is a term where in reality its different to what we were taught yes once again actual results dispute theories as there is more going on than one understands & i for one don't understand how or why but I will call crap when time after time it shows up to be the opposite to what I read or was taught & terminally no comparison

Ive tested a lot of brands / bullets on a lot of critters of various resistances & my first goal is to find a line where that pill will fail ( all on critters with situations that are encountered in the field & these days it dosent take me long to find lines in the sand as I can usually get a really good idea if a pill will fail or not (2 resistances that show up so often as bullet killers ) within a very short number of critters but I still keep testing to confirm it's not a one off ) or @ a minimum terminal preformance drops off as I want the best terminal pill for the greatest number of angles /resistances velocity impacts we encounter in field conditions it's that simple

A couple of things to watch for on searching a brand out that preformance drops of is when a company uses 2 process to try & sell their bullet eg if they are the mushroom varieties all pretty sound until you see the petals shear then weird things happen on a more consistent base as their main terminal way of killing is compromised & a different form that has weaknesses start to show up especially on big critters
The petal shed variety that leaves petals still attached @ a lower impact ( generally as twist also can leave them on ) will also show inferior results than the way they were designed to optimise their process for greater terminal results
More to it than this just showing a couple examples


The greatest pill will be the one that holds its form on the widest range of parameters we can potentially encounter in the field & not have 2 or 3 forms of killing systems that to me has shown to be a less potent pill in the field than a 1 system design yep kiss works best & 1 is on its own
All will kill just some better mousetraps out there

On caliber I'm a fan of a bigger frontal just does more damage & kills quicker if we keep this to the same velocity & pill design can handle it but some smaller calibers have showed me this also not to be true when a superior pill is used
My 7-08 with its best pill ( mono ) outperforms my 300 rum with 200 gr accubond ( impact to tipping on multiple species & angles ) so it's also matching the hatch to the catch

Energy dump I've drank that for a long time & no longer Pursue that as the greatest number of lost animals I've witnessed are from this system

The rest I'm sure you will sort out & once you delve a little deeper & look past the new shinny toys that are promoted or coming out you will look @ where the preformance issues will arise & if these are in your parameters keep a searching as you havent found the one mousetrap that has no equal yes copper isnt just copper along with design but I'm also happy that that company I love so much is still pushing the envelope in the name of potential better terminal results & they also look forward if someone can produce a better mousetrap than they have as I think I recall correctly one of them said
" it would be the best for the industry/hunters&animals & welcome it "

Thanks for taking the time to read & I apologise for my lack of writing skills
Cheers

 

[2buffalo]

There is a balance of retained shank length and retained rpm's that keeps the retained bullet traveling in a straight line. Yes momentum matters but it is lost rapidly during expansion. If there is no shedding of weight the forces to tumble become greater because the base is compelled to pass the large frontal area. This is why we would consider not shedding the nose to be nearly failure. It is better than not opening for sure, but really only about half way done. Looks pretty in pictures though. Along with the large frontal area creating force to tumble it also slows the velocity down too rapidly resulting in poor permanent wounding. Now combine that with a hard raking shot on ribs or shoulder bones and you are very likely to lose straight line penetration and possibly not get to vitals. If a bullet opens rapidly and sheds, leaving a flat frontal area, then momentum has a role in getting all the way through the animal maximizing permanent wounding. If a bullet is dependant on velocity dictating how much weight is retained then the effective range of velocity that the bullet will work effectively at is greatly reduced. Most materials are greatly effected by the velocity at impact. Lead blows up needing a jacket to try and contain it. Too much jacket performs poorly at low velocity. Too light a jacket can't handle high velocity close range impacts. Most typical copper looks like the photo you posted, also giving a narrow velocity window for good performance. Other coppers are too brittle and will tear too much and can't be controlled at low velocity resulting in a retained shank that comes to a newly pointed frontal area resulting in poor permanent wounding. This happens if the hollow point is to deep or shallow depending on the impact velocity. I know this because we tried these coppers. The copper we use in Hammers will retain the same weight at high velocity and low velocity. Bone or no bone with nearly the same frontal area.

Sectional density does play a role in terminal performance, just not in the way you describe. Higher sectional density bullets will deform more rapidly and completely at lower velocity. Basically they have more poop in their butt to drive the bullet through the expansion process.

With your bullets in the same caliber but different grain say .284 143g vs 169g once the petals shed do both shanks weigh about the same and the petals weigh less on the lighter bullet or do the petals weigh the same and the shank weights less on the lighter bullet?

 

[Lou270]

We have proven this with deforming bullets that shed the nose. Rotational velocity is a significant contributor to length of penetration and straightness of penetration. Take it a step further to a bullet that is marginally stable for ballistic flight. A marginally stable bullet will fly very accurately consistently enough to compete in bench rest. This marginally stable bullet will likely have issues when impacting an animal. This where we see bullets do not expand at all. Plenty of impact vel for full expansion, so to say that stability plays no role in terminal performance is simply wrong. Or to say that it only matters for a non expanding spitzer is also wrong. No offence intended.

Another scenario that proves this it testing dangerous game solids. A shorter lighter solid that is designed not to lose any weight or expand will out penetrate a longer heavier one impacted at the same vel. Reason is that the longer shank will upset sooner and begin to tumble causing it to lose velocity sooner and penetrate less as well as going off track and changing direction. Give the longer heavier solid a higher rate of twist and it will improve the depth of penetration. The only time I would say that higher stability does not aid in straight line penetration is with a bullet has poor integrity and comes apart on impact. This really doesn't count, because bullets like this are bound for failure on tough animals or large animals requiring deep penetration. They are simply unpredictable.

While we are at it, let's blow up the theory that higher sectional density bullets will always have better penetration. I mentioned earlier that the amount of time that a bullet spends deforming and shedding weight will directly effect it's ability to penetrate. The longer this takes the more of the rotational vel and forward momentum is robbed. Let's take our 30 cal 124g Hammer Hunter with a sectional density of .187 will out penetrate other bullets of ours with much higher sectional density. Proven in media and lots of animals, big animals like water buffalo. @fordy was the first guy to take this little pill out and shoot animals way too big for it's weight. It outperforms .375 caliber bullets in it's penetration and stopping power. At this point I only have theories on how this can happen. According to conventional wisdom it can't, but it does. Not just once, but hundreds of times. I believe it comes down to a perfect balance of shed weight, length of retained shank, and form of retained shank that creates a pressure wave in front of the bullet as it passes through the soft tissue creating a scenario where very little material is actually touching the bullet. Along with that an incredibly high stability factor. Along the same lines, we have our 137g 30 cal Hammer Hunter. Designed proportionally the same as the 124g Hammer Hunter 30 cal. It was under performing to what we anticipated. Still outperforming conventional bullet, but not what we expected. We changed the hollow point depth by 2mm and gained 18" of penetration. Now it is running with the 124g Hammer Hunter, maybe slightly better. It has not had the chance yet to test on very many bovines and such. We will see after a proper number of animals are taken with it. One more. I am pretty sure that no one here would bet that a 248g .375 cal Hammer Hunter fired from a 10" twist rum would out penetrate a 281g Hammer Hunter fired from the same rifle. I lost that bet. Both bullets loose proportionally the same amount of weight on impact. As of right now the heavier higher sectional density bullet is overlooked by the Ausies when headed out to cull water buffalo. Sectional density of the two bullets is .252 and .285. Now, that same 375 rum has a new barrel with a 7" twist. I think this will make the 281g outperform the 248g. I'm not sure though. We will soon see. I used the 281g Hammer Hunter in Africa last April and flat decked everything I shot, including a giraffe. Shoulder shot he only made it 52y. That is like three jumps for a giraffe.

So, much of the information out there about bullet performance based on sectional density and energy was written by magazine writers back in the 50's and 60's and passed on as fact, simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Repeating it and stating it as fact without your own testing to back it up doesn't hold water. I don't claim to be an expert, or the smartest guy in the room, but I have set out to figure it out, in the process of producing the best bullet possible. We assumed a lot of stuff when we started making bullets, and when it didn't work, like we assumed, we set out to figure it out so we could correct it. Terminal performance in a hunting bullet is everything. Everything else is secondary.

Don't disagree at all that a bullet should be stable. I didn't say anywhere that it should not be. So long as a bullet is stable in flight you should get good performance on game if designed properly. All bullets are designed to be stable for the common twist rates and if not are generally clearly marked so it is a moot point for this discussion. I will contend that if you have to use a substantially higher twist then needed for gyroscopic stability to get good bullet performance there is probably something wrong with the bullet design.

As to twist vs. penetration in flesh I don't know why this is controversial. A change in elevation can make a bullet not stable let alone going from air to flesh. Terminal shape is the overwhelming factor here assuming bullet hits straight to begin with. It seems in the past people applied magical properties to velocity or energy, now it seems it is twist. It is a system that all works together.

While I appreciate 'expert' testimony and anecdotal evidence I always think back to an old Jack O'Connor article titled something like 'Pick Your Expert'. This was back in the days of big bore vs high velocity trash talk so you can guess the content. There is another popular internet expert who shoots and guides to thousands of animals who says monos are cruel and in particular does not like petal shedders. Point being I take all expert anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt

As to really light monos at really high velocity - John Lazzeroni did this years ago. 130s at 4000 fps. Didn't really catch on though I see he is still around. Maybe if you keep preaching the gospel it will

Lou

 

[fordy]

Gday
In response to Steve's post I've quoted I'll clear a couple things up as his fat fingers @ it again lol

The 375 first off was a 12 twist ok that's about it lol
Yes a 375 cal 248 hh is the go to pill for a camp gun for my mates clients buff to dogs & a lot of critters in between nothing fancy just facts from the fur calculator that showed what killed superior & all of the pills on buff we tried in 375 that trip with hammers equaled (1 pill ) or out preformed ( multiple pills ) Barnes 270/300&350 gr pills used extensively in the past trips among a lot of other brands

So for the smart ones out there's please explain to this dumb farmer how a 30 cal 124 gr pill @4 k impact can smash the knuckle joint on a bovine yet still make the far side destroying lungs heart like the bigger pills would be proud to achieve
I'll get photos & I replicated this also on a number of bovines yet every other brand I've tested failed & some a lot heavier than 124 ( yes every other brand I've tested as composition of metal usual becomes brittle or splats @ these velocities or approaching them ) also other velocities are tested

Moving on a bit Velocity is usually key with monos & around 2200 on average preformance drops off pretty quickly but 2400 is a safer limit a few work lower but not many & if they do velocity limits usually apply so no free lunch it's using that velocity window to the best advantage that serves us best

Then we have !!! get ready feenix & Petey & the other hammer lovers

Yep Hammers I have not been able to kill these pills & believe me I've tried & just think how crazy I am a 2000lb asiatic with a 30 cal 124 hh & walk in on them to just see if it can be done yep that's me ( I did test on other smaller bovines prior to this ) & how much faith I have in them

Yet I also test on very minimal resistances as that's where monos usually fail although some new brands that come out lately address this pretty well with good results but I've also got data over a lot of years & brands on certain angles / resistances these same pills show a less than ideal preformance base , all the new ones really are doing is refining a old process but hammers are different & in their own league ( 2 key areas show up & a guy from my home forum finally got it through my thick skull )
Yes I'm extremely fussy & this is not done / put out to suck up to Steve it's to hopefully help others in the journey & get that critter on the wall or in the freezer with a little more certainty add that to individuals results & a wealth of knowledge is gained by all yep it's this simple

What Steve done with the 137hh has been nothing short of outstanding on a subtle change can have such a big increase in preformance ( yet the old 137 killed well just not like the 124 ) & this testing isn't just theory based it's put through critters time & time again to see if it works
& I think the 137 has slightly got the 124 but time will tell if this thought holds true yep more critters to come

I've got to go & will get pics when I can ,
no proof read so accept my apology & on my writing skills once again yep they suck I no

I live by the fur calculator as that shows what's real , well to a dumb farmer anyway

Look forward to learning from the smart ones
Cheers

We have proven this with deforming bullets that shed the nose. Rotational velocity is a significant contributor to length of penetration and straightness of penetration. Take it a step further to a bullet that is marginally stable for ballistic flight. A marginally stable bullet will fly very accurately consistently enough to compete in bench rest. This marginally stable bullet will likely have issues when impacting an animal. This where we see bullets do not expand at all. Plenty of impact vel for full expansion, so to say that stability plays no role in terminal performance is simply wrong. Or to say that it only matters for a non expanding spitzer is also wrong. No offence intended.

Another scenario that proves this it testing dangerous game solids. A shorter lighter solid that is designed not to lose any weight or expand will out penetrate a longer heavier one impacted at the same vel. Reason is that the longer shank will upset sooner and begin to tumble causing it to lose velocity sooner and penetrate less as well as going off track and changing direction. Give the longer heavier solid a higher rate of twist and it will improve the depth of penetration. The only time I would say that higher stability does not aid in straight line penetration is with a bullet has poor integrity and comes apart on impact. This really doesn't count, because bullets like this are bound for failure on tough animals or large animals requiring deep penetration. They are simply unpredictable.

While we are at it, let's blow up the theory that higher sectional density bullets will always have better penetration. I mentioned earlier that the amount of time that a bullet spends deforming and shedding weight will directly effect it's ability to penetrate. The longer this takes the more of the rotational vel and forward momentum is robbed. Let's take our 30 cal 124g Hammer Hunter with a sectional density of .187 will out penetrate other bullets of ours with much higher sectional density. Proven in media and lots of animals, big animals like water buffalo. @fordy was the first guy to take this little pill out and shoot animals way too big for it's weight. It outperforms .375 caliber bullets in it's penetration and stopping power. At this point I only have theories on how this can happen. According to conventional wisdom it can't, but it does. Not just once, but hundreds of times. I believe it comes down to a perfect balance of shed weight, length of retained shank, and form of retained shank that creates a pressure wave in front of the bullet as it passes through the soft tissue creating a scenario where very little material is actually touching the bullet. Along with that an incredibly high stability factor. Along the same lines, we have our 137g 30 cal Hammer Hunter. Designed proportionally the same as the 124g Hammer Hunter 30 cal. It was under performing to what we anticipated. Still outperforming conventional bullet, but not what we expected. We changed the hollow point depth by 2mm and gained 18" of penetration. Now it is running with the 124g Hammer Hunter, maybe slightly better. It has not had the chance yet to test on very many bovines and such. We will see after a proper number of animals are taken with it. One more. I am pretty sure that no one here would bet that a 248g .375 cal Hammer Hunter fired from a 10" twist rum would out penetrate a 281g Hammer Hunter fired from the same rifle. I lost that bet. Both bullets loose proportionally the same amount of weight on impact. As of right now the heavier higher sectional density bullet is overlooked by the Ausies when headed out to cull water buffalo. Sectional density of the two bullets is .252 and .285. Now, that same 375 rum has a new barrel with a 7" twist. I think this will make the 281g outperform the 248g. I'm not sure though. We will soon see. I used the 281g Hammer Hunter in Africa last April and flat decked everything I shot, including a giraffe. Shoulder shot he only made it 52y. That is like three jumps for a giraffe.

So, much of the information out there about bullet performance based on sectional density and energy was written by magazine writers back in the 50's and 60's and passed on as fact, simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Repeating it and stating it as fact without your own testing to back it up doesn't hold water. I don't claim to be an expert, or the smartest guy in the room, but I have set out to figure it out, in the process of producing the best bullet possible. We assumed a lot of stuff when we started making bullets, and when it didn't work, like we assumed, we set out to figure it out so we could correct it. Terminal performance in a hunting bullet is everything. Everything else is secondary.

 

[Lou270]

So for the smart ones out there's please explain to this dumb farmer how a 30 cal 124 gr pill @4 k impact can smash the knuckle joint on a bovine yet still make the far side destroying lungs heart like the bigger pills would be proud to achieve
I'll get photos & I replicated this also on a number of bovines yet every other brand I've tested failed & some a lot heavier than 124 ( yes every other brand I've tested as composition of metal usual becomes brittle or splats @ these velocities or approaching them ) also other velocities are tested

Fordy,

Good stuff. Monos are very tough even the old school ones. While I dont think it would do as much damage as big 30 cal at 4k these guys killed buffalo possibly in your neck of the woods with the failsafe in the wsms:


Funny thing is I got the Spomer videos in my youtube feed after watching the Hammer video. Now I am not saying the kills would be as good on average but point is these guys were smashing shoulders and neck bones with 140 failsafes in the 270 wsm and sounds like 7mm and 300wsm - at least according to video. I have no personal experience on buffalo but does not surprise me that if they can do it with a 270, should be able to do it with a 30 cal. Monos are hard bullets that penetrate a lot is my personal takeaway. Increasing the velocity only increases the damage.

Lou

 

[fordy]

Gday lou

Thanks
I'll watch the link fully later when time permits but it will be hard to pin down a location but definitely sounds interesting & love to swap notes with those guys but I'm also a realist

The old failsafe definitely worked a treat on big critters just struggled on little critters with a lot of small wound channels especially once velocity dropped off but I could never get them to 4 k & I actually think they may have struggled a little on those big knuckles Just assuming off results I've witnessed

Some cool looking shank bulges occurred with the failsafe I'll see if I can find them

On a lot of buff culling , head , neck or high shoulder spine shots were the norm ( choppers a bit different ) & a 308 used in this manner with a stout pill usually gets the job done with fairly common results ( not advocating a 308 is adequate) these critters are extremely hard to put down with non cns shots then inferior pills add to the excitement
Move to a hunting scenario & the dynamics change somewhat & that once in a lifetime opportunity is only a small window in the bamboo or cane grass will sort out the good from the bad quickly & I don't mind admitting I've been scared $h-tless tracking a wounded bull & all hell broke loose in a split second
I just don't ever want to get into that position ever again it's so scary

The hard thing is to get a pill to handle such a wide variety of game I can encounter in a few hours let alone days a lot like in Africa & guess you guys if in big bear country
& I'm never one for substitution of a lesser terminal pill just in case but now I've found a pill I don't need to run a solid ( still like solids though) or worry about oh that's a bit close keep off bone or even I need the critter to square up a bit more etc as hammers have the best makeup of any pill kinda the ballistic tip initial impact & a woodleigh hydro penertration
Yep they are my cuppa tea , other peoples not so much which is cool & until they can show me a better mousetrap ( I also don't trust the market hype or shinny new toy same as I treated hammers initially ( yes I was very wary ) I watch other respectable peoples results & ask questions & why I ended up joining my home forum then I'll delve a little deeper & watch the fur calculator work out what's going on ) today I know what number 1 is but no closed mind here & a testing I continue to do just to confirm a little more

So many good pills on the market today that will serve the consumer well but if it's that little bit more insurance one would like in the bank , there is only one pill so far that covers more bases across the largest velocity window than any other ( I also still search for the holy grail so come on Steve pull your finger out & make that magic bullet )
IMO of course & it maybe I'm just that terrible shot who needs insurance on the squeeze of the trigger As I have trouble reading wind , holding steady off hand , being able to brace myself against a gusty wind , controlling my breathing or heart beat after a physical climb or walk ,cold fingers or sweaty palms trying to get a steady rest on uneven ground among a few other things that this muppet has in the field I call hunting
So ea to their own
Cheers

Fordy,

Good stuff. Monos are very tough even the old school ones. While I dont think it would do as much damage as big 30 cal at 4k these guys killed buffalo possibly in your neck of the woods with the failsafe in the wsms:


Funny thing is I got the Spomer videos in my youtube feed after watching the Hammer video. Now I am not saying the kills would be as good on average but point is these guys were smashing shoulders and neck bones with 140 failsafes in the 270 wsm and sounds like 7mm and 300wsm - at least according to video. I have no personal experience on buffalo but does not surprise me that if they can do it with a 270, should be able to do it with a 30 cal. Monos are hard bullets that penetrate a lot is my personal takeaway. Increasing the velocity only increases the damage.

Lou

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Fordy,

Good stuff. Monos are very tough even the old school ones. While I dont think it would do as much damage as big 30 cal at 4k these guys killed buffalo possibly in your neck of the woods with the failsafe in the wsms:


Funny thing is I got the Spomer videos in my youtube feed after watching the Hammer video. Now I am not saying the kills would be as good on average but point is these guys were smashing shoulders and neck bones with 140 failsafes in the 270 wsm and sounds like 7mm and 300wsm - at least according to video. I have no personal experience on buffalo but does not surprise me that if they can do it with a 270, should be able to do it with a 30 cal. Monos are hard bullets that penetrate a lot is my personal takeaway. Increasing the velocity only increases the damage.

Lou

Stay tuned. Ron and his wife are on Safari in Africa as we speak.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Don't disagree at all that a bullet should be stable. I didn't say anywhere that it should not be. So long as a bullet is stable in flight you should get good performance on game if designed properly. All bullets are designed to be stable for the common twist rates and if not are generally clearly marked so it is a moot point for this discussion. I will contend that if you have to use a substantially higher twist then needed for gyroscopic stability to get good bullet performance there is probably something wrong with the bullet design.

As to twist vs. penetration in flesh I don't know why this is controversial. A change in elevation can make a bullet not stable let alone going from air to flesh. Terminal shape is the overwhelming factor here assuming bullet hits straight to begin with. It seems in the past people applied magical properties to velocity or energy, now it seems it is twist. It is a system that all works together.

While I appreciate 'expert' testimony and anecdotal evidence I always think back to an old Jack O'Connor article titled something like 'Pick Your Expert'. This was back in the days of big bore vs high velocity trash talk so you can guess the content. There is another popular internet expert who shoots and guides to thousands of animals who says monos are cruel and in particular does not like petal shedders. Point being I take all expert anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt

As to really light monos at really high velocity - John Lazzeroni did this years ago. 130s at 4000 fps. Didn't really catch on though I see he is still around. Maybe if you keep preaching the gospel it will

Lou

I also once thought that if a bullet was stable enough to fly accurately it would be good for hunting. This was back when I had no idea what twist my rifles had. I just knew rifles had rifling to spin a bullet like a football, so they would fly.

 

[Franko21]

Gday lou

Thanks
I'll watch the link fully later when time permits but it will be hard to pin down a location but definitely sounds interesting & love to swap notes with those guys but I'm also a realist

The old failsafe definitely worked a treat on big critters just struggled on little critters with a lot of small wound channels especially once velocity dropped off but I could never get them to 4 k & I actually think they may have struggled a little on those big knuckles Just assuming off results I've witnessed

Some cool looking shank bulges occurred with the failsafe I'll see if I can find them

On a lot of buff culling , head , neck or high shoulder spine shots were the norm ( choppers a bit different ) & a 308 used in this manner with a stout pill usually gets the job done with fairly common results ( not advocating a 308 is adequate) these critters are extremely hard to put down with non cns shots then inferior pills add to the excitement
Move to a hunting scenario & the dynamics change somewhat & that once in a lifetime opportunity is only a small window in the bamboo or cane grass will sort out the good from the bad quickly & I don't mind admitting I've been scared $h-tless tracking a wounded bull & all hell broke loose in a split second
I just don't ever want to get into that position ever again it's so scary

The hard thing is to get a pill to handle such a wide variety of game I can encounter in a few hours let alone days a lot like in Africa & guess you guys if in big bear country
& I'm never one for substitution of a lesser terminal pill just in case but now I've found a pill I don't need to run a solid ( still like solids though) or worry about oh that's a bit close keep off bone or even I need the critter to square up a bit more etc as hammers have the best makeup of any pill kinda the ballistic tip initial impact & a woodleigh hydro penertration
Yep they are my cuppa tea , other peoples not so much which is cool & until they can show me a better mousetrap ( I also don't trust the market hype or shinny new toy same as I treated hammers initially ( yes I was very wary ) I watch other respectable peoples results & ask questions & why I ended up joining my home forum then I'll delve a little deeper & watch the fur calculator work out what's going on ) today I know what number 1 is but no closed mind here & a testing I continue to do just to confirm a little more

So many good pills on the market today that will serve the consumer well but if it's that little bit more insurance one would like in the bank , there is only one pill so far that covers more bases across the largest velocity window than any other ( I also still search for the holy grail so come on Steve pull your finger out & make that magic bullet )
IMO of course & it maybe I'm just that terrible shot who needs insurance on the squeeze of the trigger As I have trouble reading wind , holding steady off hand , being able to brace myself against a gusty wind , controlling my breathing or heart beat after a physical climb or walk ,cold fingers or sweaty palms trying to get a steady rest on uneven ground among a few other things that this muppet has in the field I call hunting
So ea to their own
Cheers

Based upon your experience, do you have any thoughts about caliber and it's relationship to performance for copper monolithic bullets? Is a bigger (say .308 vs .264) projectile just plain better, assuming that you can handle the recoil? Also, do you have a personal "cut off" velocity for using a projectile or do you use them up to the manufacturer's recommended minimum velocity?

Also, thank you for taking the time to help me understand this.

 

[fordy]

Gday Steve oh I'm a waiting on their results
My comment on sharing notes & reality was more along the lines of sitting around a campfire chewing the fat
Yes I'd love that but not very likely to ever happen
I'm more than happy to get you guys & the others coming out here around that campfire
Got a few critters tied up already

Cheers

 

[StumpyJohnson]

Following this thread for future reading.

I've shot hammers, Lehigh's, makers, cutting edge, tsx, ttsx, lrx, gmx, and lastly CX. Oh and nosler e-tip.

In my experience through 5 calibers 4 rifles and all the monos above there hasn't been one bullet that is consistently accurate for me. Meaning they're the same as lead, some rifles just don't like some bullets. Solid bullets seem to take that a step farther as far as finicky-ness. The tsx and now the CX have been top performers accuracy wise. Then Lehigh and hammer. Then the rest in a pile...

Really liking the 139 and 150 CX lately in my 28 nosler.

I have no opinion about terminal performance, I do have a far amount of empirical data and expensive lessons learned.

All I can say is get yourself some freebore and a quick twist rate. The bullets get long, they like jumping to the lands, and spinning extra fast.

Wish me luck I got California's G1 this year...


P. S. Building a lead based target rifle to step away from mono madness for a while.

 

[Hard rock]

Following this thread for future reading.

I've shot hammers, Lehigh's, makers, cutting edge, tsx, ttsx, lrx, gmx, and lastly CX. Oh and nosler e-tip.

In my experience through 5 calibers 4 rifles and all the monos above there hasn't been one bullet that is consistently accurate for me. Meaning they're the same as lead, some rifles just don't like some bullets. Solid bullets seem to take that a step farther as far as finicky-ness. The tsx and now the CX have been top performers accuracy wise. Then Lehigh and hammer. Then the rest in a pile...

Really liking the 139 and 150 CX lately in my 28 nosler.

I have no opinion about terminal performance, I do have a far amount of empirical data and expensive lessons learned.

All I can say is get yourself some freebore and a quick twist rate. The bullets get long, they like jumping to the lands, and spinning extra fast.

Wish me luck I got California's G1 this year...


P. S. Building a lead based target rifle to step away from mono madness for a while.

It seems there is a lot of talk about fast twist rates , which I understand . Hammer bullets has a bullet for a every conventional twist rate for every cal on the market , plus heavy bullets for custom faster twist rates that work equally well with bullets for the slower twist rates. There is no other bullet manufacturer that I know that offers something for about any application. Bottom line you do not have too have a special fast twist barrel too shoot hammer bullets , just match the bullet too the rifle and twist rate you have . There is something there for anyone who would like too shoot Hammer bullets.

 

[StumpyJohnson]

It seems there is a lot of talk about fast twist rates , which I understand . Hammer bullets has a bullet for a every conventional twist rate for every cal on the market , plus heavy bullets for custom faster twist rates that work equally well with bullets for the slower twist rates. There is no other bullet manufacturer that I know that offers something for about any application. Bottom line you do not have too have a special fast twist barrel too shoot hammer bullets , just match the bullet too the rifle and twist rate you have . There is something there for anyone who would like too shoot Hammer bullets.

Agreed on all points.