Michael Eichele
Well-Known Member
noel, I agree with you that this thread isnt devoid of facts. I just meant it doesnt neccesarily meen that all the facts are present.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
- Status
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
Michael,
Then we are in complete agreement.
Best,
Noel
Then we are in complete agreement.
Best,
Noel
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
Michael, you're a solid contributor to this forum and I respect your opinion. Don't take anything I say as a flame because it's not intended to be.
First, I haven't bashed anyone and done everything I can to keep this business and non-personal including no jokes although I did smile at a couple. My attitude about this is very matter-of-fact and unemotional although it might be misinteprted on an internet forum. This isn't about life and death or anything close. My interest in this is peaked by the fact that LV badgered Gerard Schultz to no end about his GS bullets and as I said earlier, LV represents GG so they are the same in my eyes. In that light I dont see why LV or GG should be surprised or upset about scrutiny of their bullets if they are critical of other bullet makers.
Next, LV and GG bring this on themselves. They get defensive and abrasive when quetioned about their claims and when anyone makes these kinds of claims they should be prepared for some skepticism and a lot of questions. And why shouldn't questions be asked? And then there are statements like this...
I think GG will regret that statement. I hope he already does.
I must have missed this....
Originally Posted by Michael Eichele
Nobody makes this many waves about the 177 grain 30 cal GS bullet advertised at over .620 That seems like it is too good to be true right?
This is a totally differnet deal. Gerard Schultz did not come into these forums and make claims about his bullets. Members, including myself asked questions and made speculations about his bullets. He joined a couple of those threads and answered questions about his bullets, including saying that his bullets BCs were based soley on calculations and not tested. LV, joined in and hounded him in those threads. As Jon already mentioned, the GS claimed BC's may be overly optimistic but are not completely out to lunch. my personal opinion about the 177 is that it is probably very close to what is published based on it's comparison to others of similar size and shape. But that's a whole different topic.
Finally, I dont feel I should refrain from questioning or commenting on something just because I haven't bought and tried it. I simply dont have the resources to try something just to try it. I expect a munufacturer to provide some reasonable assurance of performance so I can make a decision and go from there. If you or others want to do that kind of experimenting, then by all means go ahead and if you could share your results, that would be great. That IS what this site is all about. I'm not anyone's "side". I'm interested in LRH and how best to do it. And if someone makes big claims relating to that, they can probably expecrt some questions from me and if their answers are good, I'll probably buy their product and give it a go.
I'm sure Len is reading this so I have a comment. I know this site is a business and I completely respect and accept that. One thing about heavily sponsered sites like this that open and honest criticism can get a little touchy and cause a conflict of interest. I hope that doesn't happen in this site because one of it''s strengths is you get the real down to earth experiences and opinions in these threads and when that stops, this site is on it's way out. I stopped reading Field & Stream and Outddor Life many many years ago because it became apparent to me that their "objective" articles on things were really just marketing.
I've said my piece here and am all for moving on if we can do that. Again, this is nothing personal, but when someone says...
... yoiu can probably guess I'll bite.
Best,
Mark
Last edited:
Michael Eichele
Well-Known Member
No problem Mark. No flame taken and no flame was meant towards you either. You are also well respected here.
M
M
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
This should be good.
This thread's turned into a sorry example and excuse of a 'righteous' effort to improve the quality of this Forum or business practices in general.
There's only one GG I've ever known on this Forum and that was 'goodgrouper'. Hope he comes back. Hard enough to follow all the whining going on here without having to guess who GG is. The manufacterer of the HAT's will be identified as Mr. Henson in this Post.
Time for some of the members to swallow their pride and stop crowing like roosters. Mr. Henson doesn't owe anyone here a BC any more than Richard owed anyone a BC for his custom Wildcat bullets. You don't wanna buy Mr. Henson's HATs without a BC proven to your satisfaction then don't buy'em. If Mr. Henson feels he needs to provide a BC then I suspect he will - when he's good and ready. Richard never saw the need. I don't pretend to speak for him, but Mr. Henson may never feel the need either, no matter how much muscle and pressure is applied in this Forum.
Bryan - In response to your counter-interrogation of Mr. Henson I will say I fully believe it's possible for a gun that's shooting poor groups to provide a longer 'time in flight' derived BC than a rifle with a different barrel that shoots the bullets lights out. Take it to the extreme of bullets tumbling end over end and the "cause and effect" cannot be denied. You or anyone else can hypothesize to what extent different barrels, twist rates, rifling styles, bore diameters, etc. might affect a bullet's BC until the sun sets. How could one know the poor groups weren't being caused by bullets that weren't gyroscopically stable. You wanna argue about whether it's a 0.25% difference or a 2.5% difference, it won't matter because we're talking about a "cause and effect" factor than no one has the time, equipment, or money to quantify with absolute accuracy or precision. My point is there's an excessive amount of tit-for-tat being generated here in the frontal assault. When Berger bullets was first marketing bullets did you insist that they generate and provide BCs using the same methods you now promote? Do you really expect every innovative custom bullet manufacturer to incur the time, energy, and financial resources to BC development preferentially to bullet accuracy testing, production, and sales? Is this what Berger did? If not, maybe it's time to lighten up, in light of the fact that you do have a financial interest with Berger bullets. Tit-for-tat. If you're gonna go there you're gonna get it. There's a higher ground here for all involved.
I recall LV and Mr. Henson repeatedly stating they are not providing BCs. Same thing Richard said. Same old complaints. No different than Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. Another day of the same old riff-raff. The turntable 33 or 45 skipping over and over again. Accept the drop data, reject the drop data, question the drop data. Do with it as you please. But don't delude yourself into the belief you have some right to demand BC development from a small custom bullet manufacturer for each bullet manufactured.
The Forum members that demand a BC? Didn't Bryan Litz just provide his BC determination? Isn't this the same Bryan Litz that authored and marketed a book on Ballistics? What more do you need? The members beating the Bryan Litz drum - you believe Bryan and therefore you've now got your Bryan BC - end of story. Not satisfied with the Bryan Litz BC then move on to another bullet. Or does crowing like a rooster warm the heart?
My first hand experience with Mr. Henson: I purchased some 180 grain HATs for my 300 Win Mag. I couldn't get the accuracy I required for LRHunting in my completely custom rifle. I didn't begin a thread on LRH and throw a tissy. Just figured my barrel didn't lik'em. Then 4 months later I coincidentally PM'd LightVarmint and discussed my experience. He said these HATs had shot well in virtually all other rifles tested with 1:10 or faster twist barrels. LV asked me about my twist rate. I told him it was a 1:10. Asked if I'd verified 1:10 twist by measurement. No, I hadn't. So now Lightvarmint's got me wondering. I measure a 1:10.55" twist by rotating my cleaning rod through two complete revolutions and halving the total distance travelled. Next I measure every other barrel in my arsenal to determine if I am able to accurately determine twist rate. All my other barrel's are basically measured dead nuts on with their 'represented' twist rates. Now I check with my smith, who checks his records and confirms he ordered and was invoiced for a 10-twist barrel. This was a custom button-rifled barrel and I'm told that twist rates on button-rifled barrels are sometime off a bit in one direction or the other. I'm thinking a button-rifled custom barrel maker who's been in the business for more than 20 years ought be able to rifle a barrel with a precision better than 5% error - but it is what it is. I didn't begin a thread on LRH and throw a tissy. I get back to Lightvarmint and tell him I've got a 1:10.5 twist and he says that's a bummer for sure. Confirms that I would need a twist rate of no slower than 1:10 based on their tests to date. Suggest that I check with Mr. Henson. I had no other faster twist 30 caliber rifle but I did have a 10 twist 338 Edge. So I check with Mr. Henson and he offers to exchange my remaining 180 gr HATs for some .338 265 grain HATs. Never expected that since Mr. Henson was blameless. Anyhow, Lightvarmint, Mr. Henson, and Richard always treated me fair and square.
Person goes looking for a fight, it's pretty easy to find. Try to force another person to do something for your personal benefit against their inclination? Good luck. So good luck to all Forum members on a mission to force Mr. Henson to incur the costs of providing a BC for your benefit. Crow crow crow. Whine whine whine. I wouldn't blame him if he said up yours.
There's only one GG I've ever known on this Forum and that was 'goodgrouper'. Hope he comes back. Hard enough to follow all the whining going on here without having to guess who GG is. The manufacterer of the HAT's will be identified as Mr. Henson in this Post.
Time for some of the members to swallow their pride and stop crowing like roosters. Mr. Henson doesn't owe anyone here a BC any more than Richard owed anyone a BC for his custom Wildcat bullets. You don't wanna buy Mr. Henson's HATs without a BC proven to your satisfaction then don't buy'em. If Mr. Henson feels he needs to provide a BC then I suspect he will - when he's good and ready. Richard never saw the need. I don't pretend to speak for him, but Mr. Henson may never feel the need either, no matter how much muscle and pressure is applied in this Forum.
Bryan - In response to your counter-interrogation of Mr. Henson I will say I fully believe it's possible for a gun that's shooting poor groups to provide a longer 'time in flight' derived BC than a rifle with a different barrel that shoots the bullets lights out. Take it to the extreme of bullets tumbling end over end and the "cause and effect" cannot be denied. You or anyone else can hypothesize to what extent different barrels, twist rates, rifling styles, bore diameters, etc. might affect a bullet's BC until the sun sets. How could one know the poor groups weren't being caused by bullets that weren't gyroscopically stable. You wanna argue about whether it's a 0.25% difference or a 2.5% difference, it won't matter because we're talking about a "cause and effect" factor than no one has the time, equipment, or money to quantify with absolute accuracy or precision. My point is there's an excessive amount of tit-for-tat being generated here in the frontal assault. When Berger bullets was first marketing bullets did you insist that they generate and provide BCs using the same methods you now promote? Do you really expect every innovative custom bullet manufacturer to incur the time, energy, and financial resources to BC development preferentially to bullet accuracy testing, production, and sales? Is this what Berger did? If not, maybe it's time to lighten up, in light of the fact that you do have a financial interest with Berger bullets. Tit-for-tat. If you're gonna go there you're gonna get it. There's a higher ground here for all involved.
I recall LV and Mr. Henson repeatedly stating they are not providing BCs. Same thing Richard said. Same old complaints. No different than Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. Another day of the same old riff-raff. The turntable 33 or 45 skipping over and over again. Accept the drop data, reject the drop data, question the drop data. Do with it as you please. But don't delude yourself into the belief you have some right to demand BC development from a small custom bullet manufacturer for each bullet manufactured.
The Forum members that demand a BC? Didn't Bryan Litz just provide his BC determination? Isn't this the same Bryan Litz that authored and marketed a book on Ballistics? What more do you need? The members beating the Bryan Litz drum - you believe Bryan and therefore you've now got your Bryan BC - end of story. Not satisfied with the Bryan Litz BC then move on to another bullet. Or does crowing like a rooster warm the heart?
My first hand experience with Mr. Henson: I purchased some 180 grain HATs for my 300 Win Mag. I couldn't get the accuracy I required for LRHunting in my completely custom rifle. I didn't begin a thread on LRH and throw a tissy. Just figured my barrel didn't lik'em. Then 4 months later I coincidentally PM'd LightVarmint and discussed my experience. He said these HATs had shot well in virtually all other rifles tested with 1:10 or faster twist barrels. LV asked me about my twist rate. I told him it was a 1:10. Asked if I'd verified 1:10 twist by measurement. No, I hadn't. So now Lightvarmint's got me wondering. I measure a 1:10.55" twist by rotating my cleaning rod through two complete revolutions and halving the total distance travelled. Next I measure every other barrel in my arsenal to determine if I am able to accurately determine twist rate. All my other barrel's are basically measured dead nuts on with their 'represented' twist rates. Now I check with my smith, who checks his records and confirms he ordered and was invoiced for a 10-twist barrel. This was a custom button-rifled barrel and I'm told that twist rates on button-rifled barrels are sometime off a bit in one direction or the other. I'm thinking a button-rifled custom barrel maker who's been in the business for more than 20 years ought be able to rifle a barrel with a precision better than 5% error - but it is what it is. I didn't begin a thread on LRH and throw a tissy. I get back to Lightvarmint and tell him I've got a 1:10.5 twist and he says that's a bummer for sure. Confirms that I would need a twist rate of no slower than 1:10 based on their tests to date. Suggest that I check with Mr. Henson. I had no other faster twist 30 caliber rifle but I did have a 10 twist 338 Edge. So I check with Mr. Henson and he offers to exchange my remaining 180 gr HATs for some .338 265 grain HATs. Never expected that since Mr. Henson was blameless. Anyhow, Lightvarmint, Mr. Henson, and Richard always treated me fair and square.
Person goes looking for a fight, it's pretty easy to find. Try to force another person to do something for your personal benefit against their inclination? Good luck. So good luck to all Forum members on a mission to force Mr. Henson to incur the costs of providing a BC for your benefit. Crow crow crow. Whine whine whine. I wouldn't blame him if he said up yours.
Last edited:
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
Paul,
I appreciate that you believe all the "crowing" is gratuitous. If it was simply a matter of forcing someone to bear an expense, which they were unwilling to add to the price of their product, I would tend to side with your assessment.
In this particular case, Mr. Henson invited a field test. The "conservative BC" which is being supplied to the "unwashened masses" need not remain speculative. I will provide details later, but if the HAT 338 stabilizes, objective third party certification of the empirical BC, with a high degree of precision, will be the outcome... at no cost to Mr. Henson, and a cost benefit to potential buyers.
I will run my product through the same instrumentation, at the same time, for the same reasons.
There is no downside to this arrangement.
I appreciate that you believe all the "crowing" is gratuitous. If it was simply a matter of forcing someone to bear an expense, which they were unwilling to add to the price of their product, I would tend to side with your assessment.
In this particular case, Mr. Henson invited a field test. The "conservative BC" which is being supplied to the "unwashened masses" need not remain speculative. I will provide details later, but if the HAT 338 stabilizes, objective third party certification of the empirical BC, with a high degree of precision, will be the outcome... at no cost to Mr. Henson, and a cost benefit to potential buyers.
I will run my product through the same instrumentation, at the same time, for the same reasons.
There is no downside to this arrangement.
Noel,
Your input in this thread has been very limited and reasonable unless I've missed some posts.
We'd all like all the beneficial information we can obtain. That's what keeps everyone reading the Forum.
Not sure what you've got in mind, or if it even matches what Mr. Henson has in mind with his "invitation", but if the parties are agreeable and willing, then let's continue in a cordial fashion, rather than the tit-for-tat one-upsmanship being bantered about in the cause of righteousness.
I'm all for it. A refreshing and welcome change of pace.
Your input in this thread has been very limited and reasonable unless I've missed some posts.
We'd all like all the beneficial information we can obtain. That's what keeps everyone reading the Forum.
Not sure what you've got in mind, or if it even matches what Mr. Henson has in mind with his "invitation", but if the parties are agreeable and willing, then let's continue in a cordial fashion, rather than the tit-for-tat one-upsmanship being bantered about in the cause of righteousness.
I'm all for it. A refreshing and welcome change of pace.
Jon A
Well-Known Member
LV did provide BCs. Repeatedly. That's what started all this. Even in this very thread.
If lack of stability was the only cause of poor groups, that would be true. But that's a very specific case (and not a very common one) that in no way supports the contention that had Bryan "taken the time to work up an accurate load" his results would have been any different.
I don't recall him ever demanding that. But he and other here have demanded fantastic/incredible (or plainly false) claims not be made without supporting data.
I'm not sure why you sound so defensive. I really don't think the forum members want anything more than to not be fed BS that causes them to waste their money.
In case you're wondering, I have spent hundreds of dollars on HAT bullets already. Not because I believed the BCs advertised, but because I thought they might be good bullets with a decent BC.
Unfortunately, few members here have the knowledge, equipment and ability to test BC's that I do so they rely on manufacturer's claims more than I do and are more likely to spend a bunch of money thinking they're getting something they are not.
That's why the fantastic claims bothered me. Certainly not for any "personal benefit" to me.
nddodd
Well-Known Member
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
GREYGHOSTt
<strong>SPONSOR</strong>
roaddog1m
Well-Known Member
GG,
VERY impressive piece of artillery you've got there! I'd sell a kidney for a rifle like that! "that brings a thought to mind..."
Anyway, I've been having some computer problems lately so help me out. Is that wall really pink and the box of klenex purple? lol
I'm just sayin'... Good shooting and good luck!
Tom
VERY impressive piece of artillery you've got there! I'd sell a kidney for a rifle like that! "that brings a thought to mind..."
Anyway, I've been having some computer problems lately so help me out. Is that wall really pink and the box of klenex purple? lol
I'm just sayin'... Good shooting and good luck!
Tom
- Status
