Hammer bullets

[VTbluegrass]

The question is whether the 30-06 1/10 twist barrel will stabilize the 124 gr bullet. I've never tried it. Has anybody?

Yep. I ran the 124s in a Kimber 30-06 over all the varget it would hold at 3450. It was a point blank beanfield rifle for me.
BUTTERBEANS posts lead me down the path

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Each Hammer bullet is listed with a minimum required twist for proper terminal performance. The minimum twist rate is much more about terminal performance than ballistic performance. You can get marginally stable bullets to shoot quite well. Problem is they will have a much higher potential for poor performance after impact due to yaw or tumbling. This is true with all bullets not just Hammers. We just happened to be the first ones to beat the terminal performance stability drum. Stability is simply physics. The length of the bullet x the weight of the bullet x the amount of twist. With mono's (at least ours) there really is no max twist. We have yet to find too much. The more twist the better everything works.

I wonder if the OP thought that a bullet listed for a min of 1-12" twist would not work in a 1-10" twist? That is a common mistake. The lower the number the faster the twist. Extra twist is a good thing.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

A 108gr .257 cal bullet with a g7 bc of .283 would require a form factor of .83. That is simply amazing! I think the best form factor that a Berger bullet has is about .90. Which is exceptional. Really a form factor of 1 is pretty darn good.

 

[fruitnut]

A 108gr .257 cal bullet with a g7 bc of .283 would require a form factor of .83. That is simply amazing! I think the best form factor that a Berger bullet has is about .90. Which is exceptional. Really a form factor of 1 is pretty darn good.

Are you working on bullets with a lower form factor? If not, can you say why? Thank you for your time!

 

[jessej]

Either way the 124s in a 30-06 are lasers…

You should try them on top of a hundred grains of h4350.

Wow, that seems hot even for a 300 RUM. Roy Weatherby supposedly killed a cape buffalo with the 257 bee. Your load blows away the bee. I'd take on anything with that.



Does anyone sell a tight twist 300 RUM?

Yep

 

[Muddyboots]

The 117's out out the 270 is hard to beat. I'm curious why so many think they need to go heavy. It's not necessary with Hammers.

Unless you build a .270Win to specifically shoot the 156HH on a 700LA, 0.290 freebore, 1:8tw, 5R, 3.67" maximum magazine COAL, 27" brl. The advantage of Hammers is two fold, laser light and heavy fast. This rifle shoots the 156HH @3225 with RL26 pixie dust as hunting load. The 156HH has 0.292G7 and so far been spot on past 600.

If a rifle has the right twist, the magazine maximum COAL capacity, sufficient freebore jump, heavy fast may be another option.

I do have another golden oldie Savage 110 .270 that rocks with the 117HH.

 

[Mark37082]

Unless you build a .270Win to specifically shoot the 156HH on a 700LA, 0.290 freebore, 1:8tw, 5R, 3.67" maximum magazine COAL, 27" brl. The advantage of Hammers is two fold, laser light and heavy fast. This rifle shoots the 156HH @3225 with RL26 pixie dust as hunting load. The 156HH has 0.292G7 and so far been spot on past 600.

If a rifle has the right twist, the magazine maximum COAL capacity, sufficient freebore jump, heavy fast may be another option.

I do have another golden oldie Savage 110 .270 that rocks with the 117HH.

That 156 load is amazingly fast. Very impressive!

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Are you working on bullets with a lower form factor? If not, can you say why? Thank you for your time!

Good morning! We are. We have several prototypes in 224, 257, 264, and 284 that are pretty much done. They are showing a form factor of about .90.

Our focus has always been geared toward hunting bullets. Terminal performance is the primary focus for our hunting bullets. Everything else is meaningless without delivering the best results on game.

Starting a company with bullets that have a very aggressive design didn't seem like a good idea. Bullets that are potentially harder to tune and have difficulty fitting into common factory rifles never seemed like a good place to focus our efforts. We have now pretty well covered the common calibers and platforms with the best and easiest to use lines of hunting bullets for pretty much any style of hunting. Now it's a good time to push a more aggressive design.

Copper bullets are 20% lighter by volume than lead bullets. Weight makes bc. It is the most significant factor. Aggressive bullet designs lose weight by design. So, you gain bc from a better form but lose bc because of the trimmed weight. Also the trimmed weight results in more twist required to stabilize the aggressive design. Copper bullets already have a marketing hurdle built in because they are lighter by volume. "I've always run 200gr bullets in my win mag. Why can't I run 200gr bullets from you?" We deal with this scenario daily. If we had started with a more aggressive design the disparity in weight between our bullets and conventional lead bullets would have been even greater. There was no compelling reason to stack the deck against ourselves to go after a niche market that thinks they need high bc. Very few hunters actually need higher bc. Most that think they do, really don't. They are just victims of marketing telling them they need it.

We are now willing to design and market bullets that will have great bc but may not be usable for the average off the shelf slow twist, short magazine, factory rifle.

 

[Shane Lindsey]

Unless you build a .270Win to specifically shoot the 156HH on a 700LA, 0.290 freebore, 1:8tw, 5R, 3.67" maximum magazine COAL, 27" brl. The advantage of Hammers is two fold, laser light and heavy fast. This rifle shoots the 156HH @3225 with RL26 pixie dust as hunting load. The 156HH has 0.292G7 and so far been spot on past 600.

If a rifle has the right twist, the magazine maximum COAL capacity, sufficient freebore jump, heavy fast may be another option.

I do have another golden oldie Savage 110 .270 that rocks with the 117HH.

Yupp. I have a 214 Hammer going over 3100 FPS in my 8 twist 300 RUM.

 

[jessej]

Very few hunters actually need higher bc. Most that think they do, really don't. They are just victims of marketing telling them they need it.

Brother, you slobbered a bib full right there!

 

[fruitnut]

Good morning! We are. We have several prototypes in 224, 257, 264, and 284 that are pretty much done. They are showing a form factor of about .90.

Our focus has always been geared toward hunting bullets. Terminal performance is the primary focus for our hunting bullets. Everything else is meaningless without delivering the best results on game.

Starting a company with bullets that have a very aggressive design didn't seem like a good idea. Bullets that are potentially harder to tune and have difficulty fitting into common factory rifles never seemed like a good place to focus our efforts. We have now pretty well covered the common calibers and platforms with the best and easiest to use lines of hunting bullets for pretty much any style of hunting. Now it's a good time to push a more aggressive design.

Copper bullets are 20% lighter by volume than lead bullets. Weight makes bc. It is the most significant factor. Aggressive bullet designs lose weight by design. So, you gain bc from a better form but lose bc because of the trimmed weight. Also the trimmed weight results in more twist required to stabilize the aggressive design. Copper bullets already have a marketing hurdle built in because they are lighter by volume. "I've always run 200gr bullets in my win mag. Why can't I run 200gr bullets from you?" We deal with this scenario daily. If we had started with a more aggressive design the disparity in weight between our bullets and conventional lead bullets would have been even greater. There was no compelling reason to stack the deck against ourselves to go after a niche market that thinks they need high bc. Very few hunters actually need higher bc. Most that think they do, really don't. They are just victims of marketing telling them they need it.

We are now willing to design and market bullets that will have great bc but may not be usable for the average off the shelf slow twist, short magazine, factory rifle.

Thank you. True we mostly don't need higher BC. But we want it anyway. If one looks at the tailend of the big Badlands thread, you'll know there's demand. After that company's unfortunate demise, it's a mad scramble to find any remnants of peoples favorite Super Bulldozers.

But partly it's a matter of education. With monos one can get the needed penetration on game with a much lighter bullet. Lighter means faster and flatter. Combine that with a low form factor, high BC, and they're fun and effective inside 500 yards and beyond.

Hammer will have a market for lower form factor bullets. And with the demise of Badlands now seems like a good time.

 

[WYO300RUM]

Just a side note. When I shoot hammers only in a rifle, copper removal is a snap compared to Barnes, Nosler, Berger and Hornady when I do.
My most accurate loaded in 300 wm, 6.5 PRC and 257 Weatherby are either Hammer Hunters or HHT. Working on when get time in 7RM , 6.5x284, 6.5 Needmore and have a good one with 180 HH in 300 RUM. Buddy's 300 wm is loving my load with 180 HH also. Just saying

 

[WYO300RUM]

Thank you Alan for Hammer file. I have saved file 3 times and it disappears
Has anybody found a good load/Hammer bullet for 243 win. ? The only caliber I haven't tried a Hammer in yet.
Thanks

 

[Reemty J]

Wyo300, I shoot the 75hht in my 6XC @ 3600 fps 5/16" 3 shot works fine, it is close to 243. I use Varget