Henson Aluminum Tipped Bullet Testing

[jmason]

James- I can understand that it's difficult not to take Bryan's findings to heart since you have your blood, sweat, and tears involved in the data you've provided. I think your seeing the glass as half empty though. The HAT is 35 grains lighter than the SMK and has a HIGHER BC (based on his modeling). If that's not a bonus I don't know what is. If there's a trend here the heavier bullets later to come would be even more impressive. You should be embracing this data and asking Bryan if you could use it for marketing, not finding errors in it.

Who cares if his modeling doesn't predict the same drop values as you (and others) have witnessed? This is a never ending battle for you until a wide enough cross section of people actually use your bullets and provide the validation you are getting beat up for (like the Wildcats). The fact that Eddybo has seen similar results to yours is good proof to me. It should be for others as well as I know his word is valued by others here. The ridiculing will never stop for you untill some others use them. I guess what I'm trying to say is try not to be on the "defensive" so much. I clearly can understand why you are but it's not neccessary. Please don't take offence to this message as none was inteneded. I think that comming from me you already realize that though.

 

[edge]

jmason, excellent post!

Lightvarmint has a certain way of measuring drops that is foreign to most of us. While it may be accurate, most of us would not use that method.
It certainly does not make it wrong, just different. I think that one of my biggest complaints is the difficulty in someone else duplicating this method.

Another problem that I have is a target board that is grossly out of square! If in fact it is 10 degrees out, then I would have to ask why?
Certainly your eye would tell you that it is not square unless the ground is rolling.
If the ground is rolling then is there a significant elevation difference between the shooting position and the target board?

Once again, these are questions and not accusations.
Almost most importantly these question arise mainly because of your unorthodox method of measuring drops!

edge.

 

[Lightvarmint]

James- I can understand that it's difficult not to take Bryan's findings to heart since you have your blood, sweat, and tears involved in the data you've provided. I think your seeing the glass as half empty though. The HAT is 35 grains lighter than the SMK and has a HIGHER BC (based on his modeling). If that's not a bonus I don't know what is. If there's a trend here the heavier bullets later to come would be even more impressive. You should be embracing this data and asking Bryan if you could use it for marketing, not finding errors in it.

Who cares if his modeling doesn't predict the same drop values as you (and others) have witnessed? This is a never ending battle for you until a wide enough cross section of people actually use your bullets and provide the validation you are getting beat up for (like the Wildcats). The fact that Eddybo has seen similar results to yours is good proof to me. It should be for others as well as I know his word is valued by others here. The ridiculing will never stop for you untill some others use them. I guess what I'm trying to say is try not to be on the "defensive" so much. I clearly can understand why you are but it's not neccessary. Please don't take offence to this message as none was inteneded. I think that comming from me you already realize that though.

Hello,

Thanks for your interest.... For those of us who write and have read many evaluation reports on a myriad of subjects, it really doesn't take much more than a skim through the document to notice the accentuation of the negative the omission of some facts and the errors in some of the facts stated..... Nothing against Bryan (Berger), but I do refer you to the post that Kirby made earlier.... If you think that he can do this in an unbiased manner, you are kidding yourself.... In the interest of full disclosure, I have about 300 HATS bullets in my posession and I have over 4500 Berger bullets in my posession. I have them to use in the 6.5 and 6mm barrels for both 600 and 1000 yard matches..... I also Have 3000 Sierras for the 6mm as well and for the same purpose. Additionally, I am not currently compensated by any bullet company.

Professionals who write reports (on both personnel and material products as well as engineering processes) and read them can spot what I am talking about..... Sometimes the omission speaks louder than the postitive or the negative....

Remember, this started for him (Berger) to "prove" his initial theory. It was not started out as a middle of the road evaluation report from an unbiased authority. This type of report is akin to negative advertisement and you really have to know the answers before you read the document.....

Had other shooters not experienced what I have seen, then reading this report would make one wonder and question real life results.....

Again, if a shooter or customer uses the data in the report, he WILL NOT impact his intended target. The error is so large that with a 400 yard zero you will miss your targets at 600 yards. This is a specific example of how this report can lead folks astray and away from reality. The computer and evaluator is not as close to reality on this as they should be to draw conclusions without firing projectiles.

I realize that this is not the final version since ALL the data is not available yet..... For an evaluator to publish on the a report on the internet and draw conclusions prior to all the data being available is not an unbiased approach to an evaluation.

If I had done this when I was a Nuclear inspector in the Navy and for the Navy, I would have been fired from my job vice promoted..... When one authors documents that are puported to be written in an unbiased manner and without biased information and from an unbiased position, you will not see omissions such as you see here. Additionally, you will not see information reported in a skewed manner. Furthermore, when folks ask questions that could lead to the revealing of some standards that are not accepted in the evaluation process they should not be ignored....

For a layman it is hard to understand this, but for folks who have been in the evaluation process for many years, this sounds more like an attack on both the product and the data vice an evaluation of the same.....

It is strange to me to how folks could expect any report from Berger bullets (or any other company) to be less than negative on the subject of another bullet maker who has a product that some companies do not have available to them.

I would like to write an evaluation and deficiency report of Bryan (Berger's) report, but it would not be taken as unbiased and therefore I will not do it. Brian's (Berger's) report is more of a deficiency report than an unbiased evaluation report of a product from purely a "scientific" interest as intially claimed..

When I write my report on the Berger tests along side both the Sierras and the HATS, it will not be 15 pages of information that contains information that is in error. It will be one page and it will state the atmospheric conditions, firearm and scope geometry, the speed of the projectiles tested, the group sizes of the projectiles and their relative impact points on an object at a fixed distance. All on the same day using the same equipment and the 8 windflags will be out for use by the evaluator.

Almost forgot, one of the parts of Brians (Berger's) report that I consider to be valid is the fact that the bullets tend to fly like conventional projectiles.... We have seen this and we agree with it. After all, this is how all the hunters who used these bullets last year to take their animals accomplished their one shot kills..... We have no reports of any wounded animals that got away or lost animals. Had the HATS not flown predictably, then the targets would have been missed and/or maimed without recovery.

Finally, if Bryan (Berger) had not chosen to attack the data and the data collector in an effort to explain the trajectory reports or had chosen to include and address all information available prior to drawing a conclusion, and woulld have offered full disclosure information when requested, then you would not be reading this.....

If it is spring time and it is not raining, it is probably not a warm spring rain running down your back.

James

 

[Lightvarmint]

James,

I was wondering if you would point out the glaring errors, assumptions assertions that aren't true. You probably read it more closely than I did, and I didn't notice any glaring errors or assumptions/assertions that appeared wrong.

AJ

AJ,

I have made a posting that will probaly answer your questions.

James

 

[edge]

Lightvarmint,

IMO, I would like to edit your post in reply to jmason.

Delete everything between Hello and James and you will find that it will get a much better reception!

Other than tears falling there was no substance to the middle portion. Perhaps have someone proof read your post so you don't come off sounding like you have a chip on your shoulder!

It sounds like you have a great product, but your attitude turns people off.
I also would suggest a more mainstream method of calculating drops.

Since you were a Nuclear Inspector with the Navy, you should understand the need for accurate readings. I suspect that the measurements you made were mainly with direct reading instruments ( where applicable ), and not from a significant distance.

edge.

 

[Lightvarmint]

I have read this entire thread and find it very interesting.

However the machinist in me is very uncomfortable with the way the drops are measured!

A target board that was 10 degrees out of square and measuring a drop of 100 vertical inches would measure 101.5 inches on the board.
Any angle would be very easy to compensate for and I don't understand your complicating the drop measurements unnecessarily.

Even a tape measure would be more accurate than using a scope ( even three scopes ) and interpolating MOAs !

edge.

Edge,

When you view objects in a scope, the heights of target impacts in the scope are plumb in the vertical plane.

The reason we used the reticle in the scopes is the same reason surveyors do not use tape measures to mark off property lines. Additionally, if we are going to use the reticle as a "rule" to measure the amount of hold over on the target animal, then we should be using it to measre the impact points on the target to remain as consistent as possible.

I did not throw away the target board and it is still in the shed. If you think the ruler will yield better results than the calibrated reticle, then I will measure it for you. However folks who are going to ignore results from other parties and my data results will not believe any measurement they are presented... Just because you cannot prove it with a program or an equation, does not mean that it is not true and accurate.

The amount of bullet drop or the apparent amount of bullet drop does not change on an angled target when using the reticle to measure the impacts...... However it does have an effect on measurements taken with tape measures and rulers.

As long as your aiming point remains the same, the projectile does not care if the boad is vertical or laying on its edge....

Additionally, we chose moa as the unit since most of the long range shooters would be able to quickly relate to the values instead of having to conduct conversions and such.... Also, it was somewhat selfish on my account since all my scope reticles that I use for this longer range stuff is in moa units of measure..... I don't know of any longer range scopes that are calibrated in inches.

You are incorrect in your assumption about the accuracy of the reticle.... Go do it both ways and publish your results.

Remember it is the exact same reticle that is used to harvest the animals..... Funny how it is accurate for that and not at all accurate for measuring drops..... That theory does not hold water since it does not match acutal field data..

James

 

[Lightvarmint]

Lightvarmint,

IMO, I would like to edit your post in reply to jmason.

Delete everything between Hello and James and you will find that it will get a much better reception!

Other than tears falling there was no substance to the middle portion. Perhaps have someone proof read your post so you don't come off sounding like you have a chip on your shoulder!

It sounds like you have a great product, but your attitude turns people off.
I also would suggest a more mainstream method of calculating drops.

Since you were a Nuclear Inspector with the Navy, you should understand the need for accurate readings. I suspect that the measurements you made were mainly with direct reading instruments ( where applicable ), and not from a significant distance.

edge.

Edge,

Some measurements were indirect some were direct some were indirect using comparators to measure deviation from the calibrated gage blocks....

Of course Berger has not answered any calibration questions and they are advertising the use of a hobby lathe with un-published runout to take readings along the axis of the lathe and without properly ground centering collets... For you the machinist, how can you hold a projectile that has a pressure ring slightly larger than the shank diameter perfectly straight in a chuck without deforming the specimen and not be using a properly ground centering collet to accept the pressure ring diameter?

That is not accurate whatsoever unless the instruments are calibrated and the lathe is properly aligned..... You know that better than anyone here.... Lots of error there.... But then again it may not affect results..... However, it is error.

When putting ships on those tiny drydock blocks, many optical instruments are used in concert to prevent any misalignment that could crush hull penetration attachments and sensitive electronic sensors... Measuring tapes to not get it for that application since angles are always involved and the optics are plumb in the vertical plane..

As for the tears, I suspect when the Sierras, HATS are tested again and this time with the Berger .338s (if and when they ever get produced) are all tested at the same time with the same method, that is when you will see the big ones roll down the cheeks of the big boys. However, if the results are not as we suspect, they will be reported as well and I will order the bullets that have the best characteristics..... That my friend is what this journey is all about.


Additionally if the HATS do not prevail, RG Henson will then go back to the drawing board and come up with something that will be the best.

It is much easier for the smaller companies to respond quckly than the behemoths.

As far as me and my attitude, my attitude is in direct proportion to the messages, questions, and inuendos I recieve. From the inpsectors perspective we are always the bad guys and we accept it. Folks who point out errors and inaccuracy don't get Christmas party invitations to the organization who is being evaluated.

Good inspectors and evaluators anticipate all the potential possibilities and do their best to eliminate all possible variables before taking data and publishing resports. Rushing to conclusions prior to actual field testing is premature and it shows bias. Performing measurements without cross checks and calibration is amateur at best.

Nothing more or less. My facts are as they happen and not skewed or conducted one time.

Measure twice, thrice, quattro and cut/report once.


James

 

[noel carlson]

If the credibility of Bryan's contribution was ever in question, the modeling projections should put those concerns to rest... period.

It is fair, methodically sound, detailed, and affords the benefit of a doubt, to a much greater degree, than I would be inclined to allow given the equivocal claims by a putative "disinterested" party. There is more time, and trouble involved thus far, than HAT has elected to invest in documenting it's own product (and he is still planning of performing range tests!).

What I see, is free verification of his earlier assessment, in a large public forum, and to the detriment of his employer... Berger.

To challenge him at this stage based on anecdotal animal hits borders, frankly, on the disingenuous. HAT should be paying him for professional services.

Well done Byran (my quasi-competitor).

Best,
Noel

 

[edge]

SNIP

You are incorrect in your assumption about the accuracy of the reticle.... Go do it both ways and publish your results.

SNIP

What is the smallest measurement that you and three other observers can measure using your scope from over 900 yards in a blind study?

Define your accuracy!

edge.

PS By the way hitting an animal to kill it does nothing to prove accuracy!
It could mean that it was accurate, it could mean that you are great at doping the wind, but it only shows that you hit the animal and made a mortal wound......unless your animals run around with little fluorescent dot glued to their sides.
But then of course you could not measure how far the bullet hit from the dot without standing it back up and moving back to your firing location and estimating the MOA from your reticle

 

[AJ Peacock]

AJ,

I have made a posting that will probaly answer your questions.

James

Nope,

You just said you see errors/omissions that the layperson wouldn't see. I wish you would point them out to me.

What I read in the report, was a report on how the HAT bullets geometry would be expected to fly if they followed the G1 mathematical model that most bullets follow. I also read some supposition from Bryan that tried to explain the difference between the real world data (gathered by you and Eddybo) that MIGHT explain the difference between his simulation and the data that was gathered. I also read where he refused to accept some 'magical' explanation for the superior flight characteristics that have been seen by you and Eddybo. And then finally, I read his expectations that they would OUT PERFORM other conventional bullets in their class.

What I didn't see was any type of slam toward you or the HAT bullets. I also did not see any negative comments regarding the HAT's and how he 'expects' them to perform based on his 6 DOF simulation. Here are some quotes from the report to support my reading of his report. Please point out the errors / omissioins etc. that a layperson such as myself would miss.

First, after introducing the type of modeling and some basics of BC and form factor that has been done, Bryan states his Hypothesis:

"... To begin the investigation of possible explanations for the advertised performance, we should ask the question: is it possible for the bullet to exhibit the advertised performance while flying with a realistic BC? In fact there might be a way for this to take place.
Hypothesis: If the bullet flies with a nose high orientation, it will create lift which could cause it to fly with a flatter trajectory than predicted by a normal ballistics program. The bullet could be flying with a normal BC (~0.7 for this bullet), but shoot extraordinary flat.
There are many interesting things to think about if this hypothesis is true including the challenge of modeling a projectile that doesn't fly as predicted by normal ballistics programs. Before we think too much about the possible consequences, let's put the hypothesis to the test. ..."

After an indepth description of his measurements, Bryan restates his objective.

"... It's important to remember the objective of the modeling effort, which is to determine if a bullet with the mass properties and aerodynamics of the 263.5 grain .338 caliber HATS bullet exhibits an unusual amount of lift. ..."

Later in the report after a lot of technical explanation of the simulation and it's results:

"... The simulation results are very clear. Although there is some lift effect, it amounts to less than ½ inch at 1000 yards. According to the 6-DOF simulation, there's simply no way that the bullet is producing enough lift to account for the advertised performance. ..."

Further discussion regarding the results and the impact on balance that the Aluminum tip has when compared to hollow point bullets:

"...As a (not surprising) result, the HATS bullet flies with about the same angles and lift as a conventional bullet. The behavior that's modeled and presented in the previous examples is consistent with the well understood nature of spin stabilized flight. ..."

And then after a bunch of reasons that the simulation might not match the reported drop numbers, Bryan states the following:

"It is noted that the 263.5 grain .338 caliber aluminum tipped HATS bullets are well designed, well fabricated, and according to the modeling they are expected to perform marginally better than other conventional bullets in their class (250-300 grain .338 caliber). There's nothing wrong with the bullets, but there's probably nothing magical about them either."


So, Bryan says that the HATS are well designed, well fabricated and are expected to outperform other conventional bullets in their class.

From LightVarmints response to the report:
"For a layman it is hard to understand this, but for folks who have been in the evaluation process for many years, this sounds more like an attack on both the product and the data vice an evaluation of the same....."

Bryan, you are indeed the master of the written word. And I am clearly a Layman, since I didn't see the attack. Ending your report with a compliment about how the HAT's would be expected to OUTPERFORM other bullets in their class is an extraordinarily sneaky way to attack a product. I am definitely taking notes.


AJ

 

[edge]

AJ, thanks for pointing out that sneakiness!

All of those subliminal messages would account for my going out for popcorn a soda halfway through the article

edge.

 

[Pdvdh]

Picky, picky, picky. It must still be winter. It's obviously much easier for the naysayers to pontificate on the potential errors and flaws of another's test procedures than it is for them to go test the bullets using the very standards, means and methods they judge appropriate. Plenty of armchair experts here putting out no further effort than their own judgements from the keyboard.

There isn't anyone that's put more time and effort into producing and sharing ballistic information on the HATs (that has posted on this forum), than Lightvarmint. Many of the posts here carry a negative slant towards that effort, and the smiley faces tacked on at the end of the posts don't convert the negative slant to a positive.

We can theorize till the next solar eclipse. The best information Bryan could bring to the thread isn't the theoretical modeling, but rather the field measured ballistic performance from range testing. Modeling and theorizing is a good alternative if you can't directly measure and collect the data. Modeled data will almost always be field proofed, if it's possible and cost effective to do so. It's my contention that modeled data, no matter how complicated, is never better than the actual collection of the data. Forget the modeling. Let's get on with the range testing and the measured/collected data. I'd rather read one field test result then 10 sets of modeled (predicted) results.

If you don't think Lightvarmint collected his data carefully enough, go shoot the bullets and collect the data yourselves. Then share it with the rest of us... if you dare. If you're willing to expose yourselves to endless judgemental after-the-fact criticism.

 

[jwp475]

Nope,

You just said you see errors/omissions that the layperson wouldn't see. I wish you would point them out to me.

What I read in the report, was a report on how the HAT bullets geometry would be expected to fly if they followed the G1 mathematical model that most bullets follow. I also read some supposition from Bryan that tried to explain the difference between the real world data (gathered by you and Eddybo) that MIGHT explain the difference between his simulation and the data that was gathered. I also read where he refused to accept some 'magical' explanation for the superior flight characteristics that have been seen by you and Eddybo. And then finally, I read his expectations that they would OUT PERFORM other conventional bullets in their class.

What I didn't see was any type of slam toward you or the HAT bullets. I also did not see any negative comments regarding the HAT's and how he 'expects' them to perform based on his 6 DOF simulation. Here are some quotes from the report to support my reading of his report. Please point out the errors / omissioins etc. that a layperson such as myself would miss.

First, after introducing the type of modeling and some basics of BC and form factor that has been done, Bryan states his Hypothesis:

"... To begin the investigation of possible explanations for the advertised performance, we should ask the question: is it possible for the bullet to exhibit the advertised performance while flying with a realistic BC? In fact there might be a way for this to take place.
Hypothesis: If the bullet flies with a nose high orientation, it will create lift which could cause it to fly with a flatter trajectory than predicted by a normal ballistics program. The bullet could be flying with a normal BC (~0.7 for this bullet), but shoot extraordinary flat.
There are many interesting things to think about if this hypothesis is true including the challenge of modeling a projectile that doesn't fly as predicted by normal ballistics programs. Before we think too much about the possible consequences, let's put the hypothesis to the test. ..."

After an indepth description of his measurements, Bryan restates his objective.

"... It's important to remember the objective of the modeling effort, which is to determine if a bullet with the mass properties and aerodynamics of the 263.5 grain .338 caliber HATS bullet exhibits an unusual amount of lift. ..."

Later in the report after a lot of technical explanation of the simulation and it's results:

"... The simulation results are very clear. Although there is some lift effect, it amounts to less than ½ inch at 1000 yards. According to the 6-DOF simulation, there's simply no way that the bullet is producing enough lift to account for the advertised performance. ..."

Further discussion regarding the results and the impact on balance that the Aluminum tip has when compared to hollow point bullets:

"...As a (not surprising) result, the HATS bullet flies with about the same angles and lift as a conventional bullet. The behavior that's modeled and presented in the previous examples is consistent with the well understood nature of spin stabilized flight. ..."

And then after a bunch of reasons that the simulation might not match the reported drop numbers, Bryan states the following:

"It is noted that the 263.5 grain .338 caliber aluminum tipped HATS bullets are well designed, well fabricated, and according to the modeling they are expected to perform marginally better than other conventional bullets in their class (250-300 grain .338 caliber). There's nothing wrong with the bullets, but there's probably nothing magical about them either."


So, Bryan says that the HATS are well designed, well fabricated and are expected to outperform other conventional bullets in their class.

From LightVarmints response to the report:
"For a layman it is hard to understand this, but for folks who have been in the evaluation process for many years, this sounds more like an attack on both the product and the data vice an evaluation of the same....."

Bryan, you are indeed the master of the written word. And I am clearly a Layman, since I didn't see the attack. Ending your report with a compliment about how the HAT's would be expected to OUTPERFORM other bullets in their class is an extraordinarily sneaky way to attack a product. I am definitely taking notes.


AJ

You are spot on AJ. Thanks, Bryan for the simulation

 

[noel carlson]

Phorwath,

If LV had not started a public report with the disclaimer of an underestimated "1.0" BC on a 265 grain 338 caliber projectile with a conventional contour and CG, then prepare with a "flack jacket", and "firesuit" for the anticipated onslaught of disbelief, finally to take refuge in a hollow defense of simply saying people shot animals with it... what exactly is it which you believe the "naysayers" are saying nay to at this juncture?

I believe him when he says animals have been shot with the HAT.

You tell me exactly what he is claiming beyond that, and this whole thread can be started over again based on "test" results that he is willing to stand behind.

My feeling is that this is a cynical bait, and switch ploy, in which consumers purchase a grossly hyped, but essentially sound, product. Unfortunately, "James" traded on the good-faith of someone else to do his research, and advertising. That is very bad form in my opinion.

Is there a semi-mystical sensibility I am inadvertently offending among the "yea" sayers?

You tell me Phorwath... what is LV claiming? I am here because some people wanted me to find out.

There is a silver lining to all this for me. As mentioned previously, the HAT does not pose a competitive threat to anything I am working on. Neither does the Berger product line for that matter, and for the same reasons. Bryan has graciously offered to aid in my projectile evaluation, and I accept his offer wholeheartedly.

Best,
Noel