Henson Aluminum Tipped Bullet Testing

[Pdvdh]

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?

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

Best,
Noel

To the best of my knowledge, LV has told you what he's found out. It's not up to me to judge what he's claiming, and you're more than able to make up your own mind along those lines. If you want to find out something more about the ballistic performance of the HATs on behalf of the people that asked you to find something out, or if you want to find out something more because of your own curiosities, then what's wrong with the concept of buying some bullets and "finding it out" on your terms and conditions. Then you'll either have 1) perfect test results and data, or 2) no one to criticize other than yourself.

If you test the bullets on your own dime and time and decide to post your results, then we can go on, and on, and on, and on..., nit-picking your test procedures to death. Based on the layers of QA/QC control you've tossed out in critiquing LV's methods, I won't expect to read your post for a month or more, because that's how much time you'll have to donate to meet your level of QA/QC to end up with valid, un-questioned data. But don't forget, it will only be valid and unquestioned by you. For others that want to poke holes in it, it's open season.

LV's shot the bullets and posted the results. To my knowledge, that's more than you, and just about any other poster critiquing the data, has done.

I sincerely hope the best for your bullet manufacturing efforts. Can you say you feel the same for RG Henson's efforts? That's pretty unclear.

If you really want to pronounce truths on the ballistic performance of the HATs, how do you propose to do so - by harassing LV? For the fourth time, I would propose you buy some bullets, shoot them, measure & collect the data, then share your results. Shy of that, you and the rest are largely simply contributing to the background noise.

But maybe "background noise" is all you need to perpetuate your goals and objectives, whatever they be.

 

[noel carlson]

"It is not up to me to judge what he is claiming."... Then excuse yourself from the dialogue. That is the wrong answer.

 

[Pdvdh]

"It is not up to me to judge what he is claiming."... Then excuse yourself from the dialogue. That is the wrong answer.

By exclamation of the God of the Thread? Noel himself? Ask LV what he's claiming if you want to know. Who am I to speak for another man. Oh yeah, I just suffered a momentary lapse of memory. You've already decided what LV is claiming and have spent nearly every post trying to tell us all what LV is claiming - the Noel perspective. I guess you're quite comfortable speaking for other men. I've never felt it was my business. Even if I was so proud of myself, why bother when there's plenty of others that feel annointed to speak for others. The chosen ones.

The second good reason for you not to ask LV directly - you refute more or less anything and everything he states. That's why he's not wasting time responding to you, and why I won't after this thread either. So here's your chance to have the last word. I'm pretty sure you NEED that.

Maybe you should invest your parting shot explaining to us one more time how your posts here are constructive, innocent, and objective. No hidden motive. Might as well end it on a humorous note.

Noel, you did say dialogue? Your posts are better defined as monologues.

 

[noel carlson]

"By exclaimation of the God of the Thread?"... No, by explicit concession of Phorwath that he suffers from a complete lack of curiosity.

What are you doing here if your only interest is to buy something for which no defensible assertions have been made?

 

[noel carlson]

I neglected to stipulate,

I do believe hat's will kill animals. That does tell me something specific about, at least, terminal performance.

 

[Pdvdh]

Phorwath,

The answer is yes, and it would be poor form to hijack this thread.

Sorry, but keep an eye out.

Best,
Noel

For the readers. If my count is correct, 28 of Noel's 29 posts on LRH all appear in this thread. Get this. The motive is pure and simple - nothing more than curiousity. Guess it's OK to be in poor form if you're only curious.

 

[noel carlson]

And here I thought you were finished.

 

[ss7mm]

Guys, and that is plural, try and keep it civil and to the original subject of this thread. If you have some data available or a different/better way to do something then argue/debate but don't hijack the thread and turn it into personal attacks.

If what you have is so important to say, and you have so much data to share, then start your own thread but let this one run it's course as originally intended. Data is good for all of us but personal finger pointing gets us nowhere.

 

[noel carlson]

ss7mm,


Agreed.

 

[edge]

SNIP

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.

SNIP

Lightvarmint, here I am intrigued by your product, and I come away from almost every post of yours shaking my head!

You attack the testing based on the fixture certification!

The Bryan was using the lathe to get dimensions that he showed to 0.001 inch!
For this test the part does not even need to be in "perfect" alignment! Rotating the bullet and taking several measurements at the same location will yield sufficient results for an accuracy of 0.001

I did not read that he rotated the bullet and found it to wobble, he listed his dimensions and you did not dispute a single one, so most of your complaint is specious.

IMO, it is this type of argument that you continually make that makes you sound so defensive all of the time.
IMO, let Bryan do his testing, and if he comes up with something that you disagree with then post ONLY the part that you don't agree with and show why.
You are basically saying you don't like the car he drives when talking physics...just apples and oranges!

edge.

As a note to Bryan, if roundness or profile are more important as Lightvarmint seems to allude to I will be happy to measure one on a Federal Formscan for you....we do cutoff our readings at 10 millionths of an inch so that may not satisfy Lightvarmint, however I do have the certifications

 

[edge]

I do have a thought that may or may not make sense, and I would like to throw it out to those more knowledgable with Nightforce scopes.

If what i hear is true about the rock solid workings of the NightForce scopes wouldn't it be possible to fire your group at 928 yards, estimate your MOA drop using the reticle, then spin the knobs up 10.4 MOA ( MOA Average ) and fire another group.

Now your estimated measurement should be near zero!

Just a thought.

edge.

 

[Lightvarmint]

Hello guys,

Since yesterday morning, I have not been back to the site. I have not read any comments or responses posted after my comments and responses of yesterday.... However I do have a few announcements that should interest those who are routinely reading this thread.

--First, I think that we have pointed out the flaws in the evaluation process, the premature conclusions and the published report (up to this time). RG understands that our measuring limitations are 25-millionths of an inch. If someone (unbiased person) could conduct measurements more accurately feel free to do so and properly amend the report that included the crude measurements and procedures by uncalibrated instruments that could not indicate to the necessary number of significant digits.

--We will refrain from further commenting and/or responding until the last bullet is fired and the final keystroke is completed by Byan (Berger) and/or Noel. We will then provide a field report that uses the information that Bryan (Berger) publishes and apply it to actual field conditions. You see, we understand that Bryan (Berger) cannot fully develop tack-driving loads and shoot enough projectiles to have an "accurate" assessment of the performance with the limited number of bullets he has.... So, we will help with the application of his conclusion(s) by using loads that are on good days less than .2 moa and .3 moa on the worst days that we shoot.

--We feel that all the germane information that one needs for direct product comparisons by an end user was provided way before page (whatever page number this winds up being assigned to). Personally, I think page one was about all that is needed to come to a conclusion for hunting applications at the ranges where the average shooter on this website limits himself.

--There is a line that goes something like this "me thinks you protest too loudly". This is certainly the case as of today. Based on the esteemed ballisticians (Bryan Litz (Berger) and Noel Carlson) protests about this product (which defy the actual field testing that end users have accomplished and reported), have attracted the attention of a multi-national company in Europe who has entered into fast track negotiations with RG Henson for rights of importation into the European Union. One of the things that we came up with to support this European company is the ".338 test pack" which contain any number or combination of bullets.

--Any customer or interested individual could purchase a .338 "test pack" which includes 265s, 280s and 300 grain projectiles for use in their own testing, in their own guns, under their conditions and to ultimately evaluate which is better suited for their barrel, cartridge and firearm needs...

We think it is a good idea and RG will be offering it to USA customers as well. If you are interested, contact him at:

[email protected]

Again, as previously stated, since we feel all pertinent data for a reasonable product evaluation for the 265 grain HATS by an end user is already available on the thread, we will not be posting on this thread again in response to questions or posts until Bryan (Berger) and Noel have completed their final key strokes on the report. Once that is accomplished, we will publish the field data that we get using their final conclusions.... After all the thread is not about Berger's tests, it is about my testing results.

Again with an update, Berger has refused to respond and RECIPROCATE RG Henson's willingness to provide projectiles for testing.... This seems as an indication to me that they do not want their products tested side by side the HATS. Anyway, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they are not cooperating........

If you have any questions for me, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]

Since RG is now so busy, I will speak for him.... RG would like to thank everyone for the kind words and encouragement and he would also like to thank both Bryan (Berger) and Noel for their methods of attracting the interest of the Finnish company.....

I suspect New Zealand, Australia and Canada will be forthcoming shortly...

REMEMBER, the only bullet company that stands behind their products by offering refunds to those that cannot get them to work in their equipment is RG Henson bulletsmith of the HATS.

As for me, I also appreciate ALL the product interest, encouragement and kind words...... Don't be a stranger and please feel free to contact me via email with any question that you may have.... If I don't know the answer, I will get it for you!

On a last note, one of our new customers (Rocco) has been tuning his gun at 565 yards and he is getting 1.5" groups with the HATS..... Great shooting Rocco keep it up. The animals are in trouble now!

James

 

[eddybo]

Lightvarmit
I do not think anyone will contest these bullets abilities to shoot little groups. If they do, then those biases that some perceive are really real. I wish I could afford to use these things in f-class matches, especially the .30 180gr. If they want to challange that they shoot I have a gun and am willing to travel. I am outta my depth with all this science stuff, but can measure groups well enough
I have not seen any data thus far produced that makes me want to find another source, only confirmation that the HATs are good bullets.

I think some of the guys just have a problem with your syrupy sweet demeanor. Face it dude some times your abrasive, but you also have a hell of a thick hide. I guess it all evens out. I am getting used to it I guess since I just gave up sending you snide retorts.

BTW thanks for letting me know about these bullets, and thanks to RG for building them. No matter the BC derived from any testing what counts is what gets you on target. They shoot as well any bullet I have ever used and they kill stuff. The price is the limiting factor for me or I would shoot more of them. I guess I will just save them for hunting season.

Hopefully, time allowing, I am going to chamber up a .30 cal 8 twist kreiger in 30-338AI this weekend to shoot some of the 220s. I will probably not post my results but will send them to you or anyone who is interested.

I am waiting on Bryan's results also. I have not seen any posts from him and wonder if he is scratching his head wondering why the BCs are not as modeled I beleive that Bryan is going to be as fair as his position will allow. From all I have seen or heard he is one of the good guys.

I am not much of a politician and do not understand forum politics. Looking back on the situation and some of the posts here I realize I should have probably just hoarded the bullets and kept my mouth shut. Kirby made me realize this with his post.

 

[noel carlson]

Eddybo,

In order to regain some pespective here, you should know that I have no problem signing off on the basic content of your comments.

I believe you contributed significantly to the usefulness of this thread by making projectiles available for evaluation.

-Noel