Gen II Henson .338 265 grain project and performance test #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lightvarmint

Guest
Hello interested shooters,

Mr Henson shipped me some of the Generation II .338 265 grain aluminum tipped bullets for both instrumental testing and hydraulic testing.

First let me say that we decided not to perform the instrumental velocity BC testing on the 265gr HATS until after our hunting season(s) were over (in January) to allow us maximum time in the woods to collect hydraulic data at longer ranges.

We went about the load development of these bullets in the same fashion as we have in the past will all the bullets we have tested (ie GS customs, Lost Rivers, Sierras, Noslers, Swifts, Wildcats and Bergers). Specifically, we conduct a pressure test of the selected powder charges at -.030 off the lands and then slowly increase the powder charges until we reach the point that satisfies us and provides good brass life. We call this the -.030 pressure test.

After the pressure testing, we take that EXACT same powder charge and then test it for ACCURACY at -.030, -.040, -.050, -.060, and -.070 off the lands (with Davidson Ogive Tool and micrometer seating dies) and as a side note, we ALWAYS use a mirage shade to minimize mirage influences due to the barrel rejecting heat. So far in the many tests of all of the above bullets, a load or loads have surfaced that would allow the harmonics of the barrel to work in concert with the powder charges, cases, primers, bench equipment and shooter to yield tiny groups.

Note: when we identify a loading, we then shoot it several times to verify the results. Additionally, when a seating depth is identified, we then shoot it again along with bullets seated +.005 and -.005 from the identified seating depth and that will give us the range of the sweet spot so we can load for the center of it vice just the extreme edges. The final loading is tested for accuracy at 400 yards as well during the 400 yard zero process.

So, with the 265s, we settled on a loading that produced 3237 fps with velocity deviation of 6 fps on our Oehler equipment. Since we were comparing the max hunting load 265gr HAT trajectories to the max hunting load 300 SMK (2988.5 fps), we decided to set the 100 yard impact up at the exact same point as the 300 SMK to allow us to see the difference at 400 yards and beyond. What we found out was that we had to LOWER the impact point 4.7" at 400 yards to obtain a true 400 yard zero. AFTER we obtained the true 400 yard zero, we then shot at 600 yards just to get a mid range trajectory reference and got the pleasant suprise that the 265 HAT impact point was 1.4 moa (8.4") higher at 600 versus the 300 SMK. To us, this is significant in that we do not have the luxury to range, collect atmospheric data, compute, dial and then shoot. We typically only have the time (due to shorter windows to place shots) to range and hold for elelvations and/or windage prior to placing a shot. So with that being said it is important to us that we have the most ballistically friendly bullet available. Based on the trajectory information (ie., mid-range drop testing) and velocity, the HATS will have approximately 38.9 inches LESS drop with 3.6" less drift (with 90 degree agle 10 mph wind), approximately 465.6 ft-lbs MORE impact energy and approximately 309.6 fps MORE velocity at 1000 yards than our max 300 SMK hunting load.

Enough on the load development..........

We actually performed a CLOSE RANGE hydraulic test yesterday evening (with three minutes of legal shootime left) to verify that the bullet would not blow up with short range targets by taking one of our population control does and below is the rifle and target data:

.338 Lapua Improved on Hall Express Action barrelled by Carolina Precision Rifles, McMillan McHale Stock, Hart 1-10" twist barrel, Harrell muzzle brake, Jewell bottom safety trigger, .338 265 grain Henson Aluminum tipped bullet fired at a range of 202 yards to the target with an elevation difference of 21 feet.

As before, we will not place gore photos on the net but here is a vivid description of the results of the shot:

Lung shot with a perfect small entrance hole, round 2" exit hole in the hide with about a perfectly round 3" to 3.5" hole in the actual body. Pieces of lung and other organ matter were launched 20 feet behind the deer. Additionally, the bushes were covered with thick covering of bloody mist. Deer went 20 yards and died. No evidence of fragmentation as the holes were very round in symmetry and there was only one exit hole in the hide.

Finally, some folks have scoffed at the idea of using our smallish deer to test these bullets, but I will remind you that the general concern in the feedback we have gotten is "will they expand properly" and since we are using specimens with minimal resistance, shooting smaller targets will provide us a safety margin when determining expansion in the forthcoming longer range hydraulic testing. When they expand in the smaller cross section specimens, then when one shoots a specimen with more cross section, the expansion will even be more significant and devastating.

As always, the deer was delivered to a processing facility who will process it for a needy family.

Hopefully we can get those longer range tests done that you guys are requesting. But in case we do not get a chance on a long range animal, there is always the long range phone book test. Thanks for your interest.

As always, contact me at [email protected] for testing questions and the bulletsmith at:

[email protected] (remember 2 t's in bullett) for orders and bullet information.

Lightvarmint
 
haha all this HAT banter is becoming amusing :D

The main concern with these bullets has always been what goodgrouper originally found... Failure to expand well due to a thick jacket. This so called test doesnt address that, same as everything else youve ever posted...

Why cant you do a long range test with these 'control doe' you seem to have such easy access to? Next time, why dont you take the doe you killed at close range, and set him up 1000yds away and do a second test? Is it because that be too conclusive for you? Or is it becasue you cant seem to hit anything beyond 1000yds with this bullet?
 
Last edited:
Thanks again for not posting pictures, as most hunters are a bit squeamish at the sight of blood, and they are much too stupid to decipher for themselves any information from the actual wound pictures :(

edge.
 
Could you email photos to individuals? That might be helpful.

Hello,

Sorry, since most of our kills are in the evening close to dark, we don't even bother taking photos. We probe the wound channel with instruments and fingers and then we just deliver the game to the processor for distribution.

However, the portion of the lung and other organ material being blown out of the animal a distance of 20 feet or so was very impressive. Equally impressive was the remannts of the bloody mist dripping off the leaves, branches and tree bark.

Lightvarmint
 
What were the changes made to gen II?

Hello,

The Gen I bullets were tested and found to have basically the same instrumental BC of the 300 SMK (.770 as compared to .768) and the major advantage to the 265s over the 300 SMK was the ability to push the same BC 200+ fps faster than the 300 SMK out of my 30" 338 Lapua Improved.

Now, the Gen IIs have a much less bearing surface and they can be pushed about 249 fps faster than the 300 SMK AND as a bonus they have a much higher BC as indicated by the significant differences in drop we saw during our 400 zeroing and 600 yard mid range drop test session the other day.... We knew it was significant when we set up the 100 yard impact points the same as the 300 SMK loads and then had to LOWER the 265gr impact point 4.7" to obtain a true zero at 400 yards. Then we got some additional validation to the 400 yard data when the drop was 1.4 moa LESS at 600 yards than the 300 SMK.

Finally, the bulletsmith modified the bullets to use some of the aerodynamic design and technology employed on our Submarine launched ICBMs that I moved around the ocean for 30 years. Very discreet, but present.

When our hunting season is over and the ballistic testing season begins in January, we will be shooting instrumental velocities.

Thanks for your interest and let me know if you have any additional questions.

Lightvarmint
 
haha all this HAT banter is becoming amusing :D

The main concern with these bullets has always been what goodgrouper originally found... Failure to expand well due to a thick jacket. This so called test doesnt address that, same as everything else youve ever posted...

Why cant you do a long range test with these 'control doe' you seem to have such easy access to? Next time, why dont you take the doe you killed at close range, and set him up 1000yds away and do a second test? Is it because that be too conclusive for you? Or is it becasue you cant seem to hit anything beyond 1000yds with this bullet?

Hello Groper/grouper or whoever you are,

Before anything else let me say that we are very pleased that you are interested in the HATS and we would like to know what rifles/calibers you have so that we may be of assistance in helping you select the correct bullet for your needs and shooting applications.

As originally stated, this test was not designed/intended to prove adequate expansion at longer ranges, it was aimed at proving that it does not detonate at close range. A huge difference to say the least.

Our intentions are to take one at longer ranges now that we know the bullet works well up close. The tests that your friend did on the phone books was with the generation I bullets and these are generation II as per the title. Finally, your friends test results were basically shown to be less than accurate when game started falling with the Gen I bullets. Not to mention the standard set of conditions used for the test by starting the bullet out slow creating a slow rotational velocity....... Anyway, what we have always wondered is why was the phone book test conducted by your friend not conducted at full velocity and at 1000 yards? Was it because (as you say) of it being too conclusive? The way we look at it is that if you can't shoot well enough to hit phone books at 1000 yards, then maybe that distance is a little too far for your expertise as a tester. Heck, shooting phone books is not hard at longer distances if the equipment will shoot less than minute-of-phone-book accuracy........ All you have to do is set up the drop board along side the phone book and then shoot a sighter into the drop board and make the correction on the phone book. I don't see what is so extremely hard with that. Whatever the case, the only conclusive method of proving adequate expansion on game at longer distances is to actually shoot live animals at longer distances.

Shooting dead aniimals for expansion testing being conclusive? Sorry, they are not. If you would have followed this subject for some time and would have read the reference material that I recommended and used as a source for our testing, you would have seen that shooting dead animals is significantly different than shooting animals with blood pressure present. Specifically, Army testers found that shooting dead animals was akin to shooting blocks of clay since the blood settles in the animal due to gravity. So shooting one already dead does not answer your questions about proper expansion at longer ranges...... Actually, shooting dead animals would indicate more expansion than one would see in a live animal and we want to be accurate as possible with our testing results.

Your questons about shooting game beyond 1000 yards......... I do not currently have the adequate facility in SC to do that yet. We can shoot 2000 yards, but the area is subject to extreme influences of conditions and it would be more akin to trick shooting than hunting. However, my private range is very protected and "friendly" for testing and it is not hard to shoot some good groups and it is also a great place to test rifles, scopes, bullets etc. But, my yardage limits are 978 on my private range for target testing and the extreme longest shot on game that we can make is 925 if one presents itself and then usbequently poses for the shot......

Additionally, shooting dead animals would waste the meat as well as ruin the opportunity to donate the meat to needy families.

The invitation is always open to all comers from January to March 15 to come out and show us what you got...... Maybe you would like to put on a demonstration and show us how it is done? BTW, have you ever got to shoot something like uh, say a Don Powell return to battery rail gun at 1000 yards....... If not, it is a blast to say the least.

Hopefully, I addressed all of your concerns........... Anyway, whatever you have as a motivation for your interest, thanks for your interest in the HATS. Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Lightvarmint
 
Thanks again for not posting pictures, as most hunters are a bit squeamish at the sight of blood, and they are much too stupid to decipher for themselves any information from the actual wound pictures :(

edge.

Edge,

It is not an issue about your stupidity, squeamishness or lack of either or even both. Initially, we were going to post photos of all the entrance and exit wounds (with dowel rods inserted to indicate path through the animal), but since we were told that they would not believe a photo, we saw no benefit at all in going throgh the aggrevation of taking or posting them and then ultimately having to defend them against naysayers..... So, it is a policy that we will not take or post photos that could wind up somewhere else and fuel an anti-hunting agenda. Again, the skeptics/conspiracy theorists would not believe a photo anyway and they have stated that. I cannot understand why you do not understand that we are not going to post photos.... We have said it many times.

If you cannot visualize a picture from what we have described, then you will just have to get some bullets and conduct your own testing just like you would do with any other projectile. Furthermore, if you take all the variables into account, no two wound channels and exits are the same. Just way too may possible/potential angles and shot aspects. On one hunting lease that we had, we were taking between 400 and 600 deer per year and that gave us the opportunity to see and participate in may "autopsies" over the years and there are not any two wounds exactly the same on game animals. In Gelatin block yes, animals, no. However, the most conclusive shot aspect (to me) is the perfect right to left or left to right shot, but rarely can you get the animal adjusted to 90 degrees with respect to bullet flight.

Anyway, thanks for your interest in the HATS and sorry we could not help you with the photos. Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Lightvarmint
 
Lightvarmit,

I understand how southeastern deer have a tendency to move very late and understand why you wouldnt have pictures normally. I very seldom get pictures myself. What I do not understand is why you wouldn't come out and say that to begin with, rather than saying we are not posting pictures. Sometimes when you dance around legitimate questions you lose credibility. With a loss of credibility you lose buyer confidence. You are representing a good guy IMO, and I am keeping an open mind as to his product.

Goodgroupers tests are given a lot of credibility because they come from a credible source. It doesnt always mean I agree with his results, but he lays everything out there so anyone reading his tests can make an informed decision as to the conslusiveness of his testing. Maybe you should take a lesson from from GG. Post your results and the paramaters of your testing including some data (ie...some pictures) and let us make our own conclusions.

I have a bunch of the HAT bullets sitting around and havent had a chance to test any, other than the 240 subsonics. I must say that the subsonic bullets are the cats meow. I will try and work up loads for the 180gr 30 cal bullets in my 30/06AI and for the 265gr 338s in my 338AM and shoot something. If they work well I will post my results. If they flop I will post that also. (probably I will end up not shooting anything if my luck doesnt change)

I have talked to the bullet maker at least twice on the phone. He is good folks IMO. I am not going to let his association with you lessen my opinion of his product although many seem willing to do this. Not that I think you are a bad guy or anything, and I understand that the typed word sometimes does not convey a persons true personality, it is that loss of buyer confidence I referred to earlier. Probably if we spoke on the phone or in real life my opinion of you would change, but right now I think you are a little too prone to dazzle us with BS. That isnt to say that I am disputing one word you have said about the benefits of this product, just shoot straight with us man. We can make our own choices if given some reliable data. I do like your enthusiasm for the product which leads me to beleive that you do beleive in these bullets.
 
SNIP

If you cannot visualize a picture from what we have described, then you will just have to get some bullets and conduct your own testing just like you would do with any other projectile.

SNIP

Unfortunately you can not be cajoled into doing what is in your own best interest!
You claim to be doing testing, and I believe you, but would suggest some more reliable methods of recording your results!

I have no dog in this fight, but from a scientific standpoint to NOT take pictures is negligent on your part!

You are on Gen II bullets, but except for your notes and your memory you have no, none, zero way to compare actual wound data from animals that were taken earlier.

Let me give you a hypothetical example:

Last year you shot a 115 pond doe which you noted broke two ribs entering and one exiting, the heart was severely damaged as well as both lungs, but the deer ran 100 yards before collapsing.

Fast forward to your "new and improved" Gen II bullets. This year a similar shot was taken on a similar deer and once again two ribs were hit going in, the lungs were mush two ribs were broken going out. The deer was DRT.

You surmise that the new jacket design has helped with expansion, but if you compared the actual photos, this years shot centered the entrance rib whereas last years was toward the front edge which sent shrapnel rearward instead of in a uniform blast pattern.

IMO, you do the manufacturer a disservice by not collecting as much data as is reasonably possible, and a digital camera records about as faithfully as is feasible.

edge.

PS If someone is not willing to believe a picture, then they certainly won't believe a rendition based on memory!! When I test, I try to show as much as is needed for clarity!

A few years ago I was testing some 8mm bullets. Here are some photo results from the autopsy:

Entrance wound from the outside.

EntranceWoundOutside.jpg


Entrance wound from the inside.

EntranceWoundInside.jpg


Exit wound from the inside.

ExitWoundInside.jpg


Exit wound from the outside.

ExitWoundOutside.jpg


Newest sabot version and the one used on this deer.

8mmSabot2.jpg


edge.

PPS this particular deer was shot from a 505 Gibbs barrelled muzzleloader at around 3150 fps
 
Last edited:
Apparently Thomas is forcing my hand.
If we send pictures how many here will belive them?
SHOW OF HANDS PLEASE....
YES OR NO..........................
RG...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top