Henson Aluminum Tipped Bullet Testing

[Eaglet]

Do you have their web link?

 

[Lightvarmint]

Do you have their web link?

Hello,

Here is the email address:

[email protected]

James

 

[BryanLitz]

.....

 

[jwp475]

My sentiments exactly, as Brian has pointed out weight is an important part of BC.

The claim that I've had the most trouble with is the "competitors bullet that has a lower BC yet requires a faster twist, that is no logical IMHO

 

[Lightvarmint]

Before I start, please don't take this as a negative attack or criticism of one companies product by another company. This is just my reaction to a situation that I believe deserves some careful inspection.

The drop data for this bullet results in a G1 BC of 1.1. Several people including myself have run the numbers and come up with this figure. Let's take a second and reflect on what a BC of 1.1 means for a 265 grain .338 caliber bullet.

The Ballistic Coefficient is a bullets sectional density divided by its form factor.

* Sectional density is bullet weight in pounds/diameter squared.

* The form factor is a multiplier that relates the drag of the bullet to the drag of some standard projectile. For this example, I'll stick with the G1 standard projectile.

The sectional density part of the BC is dependent on weight and caliber, whereas the form factor is only related to the bullets profile. In other words, a 90 grain .224 caliber bullet and a 300 grain .338 caliber bullet can have the same form factor, but will have drastically different sectional densities.

Here are some examples of sectional densities and form factors for some well known bullets:
22 caliber 80 grain Sierra Match King
Sectional Density = 0.228 lb/in^2 (it's = 80/7000/.224^2)
G1 form factor = 0.554 (measured average from 3000 fps to 1500 fps)
G1 BC = 0.228/0.554 = 0.412 lb/in^2

6mm 115 grain Berger VLD
Sectional Density = 0.276 lb/in^2
G1 form factor = 0.501
G1 BC = 0.551 lb/in^2

6mm 115 grain DTAC
Sectional Density = 0.276 lb/in^2
G1 form factor = 0.511
G1 BC = 0.540 lb/in^2

6.5mm 140 grain Berger VLD
Sectional Density = 0.287 lb/in^2
G1 form factor = 0.482
G1 BC = 0.595 lb/in^2

6.5mm 142 grain Sierra Match King
Sectional Density = 0.291 lb/in^2
G1 form factor = 0.495
G1 BC = 0.588 lb/in^2

7mm 162 grain Hornady Amax
Sectional Density = 0.287 lb/in^2 (same as 6.5mm 140 grain bullet)
G1 form factor = 0.479
G1 BC = 0.599 lb/in^2

.30 caliber 190 grain Sierra Match King
Sectional Density = 0.286 lb/in^2
G1 form factor = 0.543
G1 BC = 0.527 lb/in^2

.30 caliber 190 grain Berger VLD
Sectional Density = 0.286 lb/in^2
G1 form factor = 0.502
G1 BC = 0.570 lb/in^2

.338 caliber 300 grain Sierra Match King
Sectional Density = 0.375 lb/in^2
G1 form factor = 0.494
G1 BC = 0.760 lb/in^2 (advertised average BC)

Take a look at the G1 form factors of these bullets. They vary from a low of 0.479 to a high of 0.554 with an average of 0.507. Remember, lower is better. The form factor is a multiple of each projectiles drag compared to the G1 standard (short nose, flat based bullet). So a bullet with a form factor of 0.500 has 0.500 times the drag of the G1 standard. A bullet with a form factor of 0.600 has more drag, etc.

I've deliberately selected relatively low drag bullets for the 9 examples above. G1 form factors can easily go over 0.6 for lead tipped, flat based bullets. The lowest G1 form factor I've ever measured on any bullet is 0.456. This was a 6.5mm VLD type bullet made by an individual in PA.

This information gives you a sense for what G1 form factors are, and what you can expect their values to be.

Now let's consider the 265 grain .338 caliber bullet.

This bullet has a sectional density of 265/7000/.338^2 = 0.331 lb/in^2.

In order for this bullet to have a G1 BC of 1.1, it would have to have a G1 form factor of 0.301!

Once again, out of the 100's of bullets I've tested for BC, the lowest G1 form factor I've ever observed is 0.456. The average form factor of the 9 popular long range bullets above was 0.507 with a range of +9% -5%. A G1 BC of 0.301 is 59% less than the average.

Now let's take a step back.

I know these bullets have aluminum tips that are longer and sharper than conventional tips which will reduce their drag. A drag reduction of 10% to 15% is certainly believable, even 20%... maybe. But 59%?

Increasing nose (ogive) length reduces drag about 12% per caliber, meaning that for every caliber the nose is lengthened, drag is reduced by 12%. From the image in post #18 of this thread, the aluminum tipped bullet (I realize it's not the 265, but assume it's representative) appears to be at most 3/4 of 1 caliber longer than the conventional bullet. This means it could reasonably be expected to have 8% less drag (8% lower form factor).

Is it possible to have a bullet with a G1 form factor of 0.301 (59% lower than average long range bullets)? Maybe, probably, if it's long enough, and this is the final unsettling observation.
One thing is for sure. IF it is possible for a bullet to have a G1 form factor as low as 0.301, it would have to be extremely long. As we all know, extremely long bullets require faster than standard twists yet this bullet is stable in a standard 1:10" twist.

We all arrived at the 1.1 BC from the same drop data. As much as I don't like to criticize others for gathering and sharing information, I'm afraid I have to suggest that perhaps an error was made in this case of collecting the drop data. It simply implies an impossible form factor.

Take care,
-Bryan

Bryan,

The tests were done by not one group of folks but by several and on several different occassions and locations.

I understand that taking one set of data and then running to the computer with it poses a threat of getting errors. However, when you do it over and over again and others do it and they get the same or similar numbers, the results tend to point into the direction of reality and the true values for comparison.

That is specifically why everyone has to shoot them and develop the numbers out of their own rifles. Shooting bullets that are engraved is a lot different than shooting bullets on a keyboard and on a design table or even in a design program.

The long range target board is where theory meets reality. Additionally, these BCs are on bullets that were engraved by the lands and not on a computer program.

I never said they were 1.1 (but other folks have stated that number). I said to use 1.0 for evaluating and shoot your own drop charts.

Additionally, they have been shot on several different ranges by several folks. Some by customers and some by testers and they are getting very similar results.

Like I said before, the numbers I quote are the worst case scenario that we see. It is not the average or the best, it is simply the lowest that anyone should see when using them when the gun is tuned for peak accuracy and performance.

We will be testing the 280s and the 300s later this week.

Better yet, they are not that expensive when folks look at all the options.

James

 

[jmason]

Bryan,

Does what Eddybo is seeing make sense? He's a third party with no dog in the race that I'm aware of anyway.

 

[BryanLitz]

.....

 

[jwp475]

Lightvarmint, why not send a few bullets to Brain and then we will have an accurate BC number derieved by shooting to 600 yards with equipment designed for such measurement.

Brain, I believe will gladly test theses bullet and report the truth about the BC numbers

 

[Lightvarmint]

Lightvarmint, why not send a few bullets to Brain and then we will have an accurate BC number derieved by shooting to 600 yards with equipment designed for such measurement.

Brain, I believe will gladly test theses bullet and report the truth about the BC numbers

We have already had other folks test them and we conduct our tests as "blind" tests to prevent the results from not being achievable to everyone. Other testers came up with very similar numbers to ours.

It is poor form for a competitor to hijack a thread to shift the thread focus to another subject (him).

As far as sending him any bullets, he is free to order some but he is not an unbiased opion and therefore his results would not be considered valid. Nothing against his equipment or resources, but I think we have the perfect test facility down here to test in as close to "zero" conditions as possible. Also our guns that are used to test specimens can be equalled but are hard to beat. Agan, Based on Dr Oehler shooting the low profile, low drag bullets over chronographs are not as accurate as shooting them on a drop board for determining BCs and predicting bullet flight.

He could send me some of his 338s and I could test them on the same range in the same gun and provide side by side comparisons out to 928 yards (I can go way farther than that but the shooting conditions will not be as sanitary as out to 928 which is entirely protected on all four sides). But, I am not really interested in his bullets at all. I really see no need in wasting barrel life and reloading components to shoot something that is not as up to par in performance aspects as what we already have. Now, if he comes up with some higher BC bullets that push the envelope, then, that would be worthy of a look..... But for now, the Berger "mystery" .338 is not even the least bit tempting. I know what we have in the BC department, I know how accurate they are and I know how devastating they are on game. Basically, with those three knowns, I see no reason to be interested in anything else. BTW, the Henson's were tested at both 600 and 928 and we got virtually the same numbers from each test.

Other shooters have tested them out farther and they are getting similar numbers as well. We have found that the more accurate the load is and how firm the zero is at the intermediate ranges greatly influences the longer distance BC values.. For instance, if you are not tuning the loads to achieve the most hair-splitting accuracy or if you do not get the zero to inside the adjustment capability of your scope, then you are not ready to shoot long range BC testing shots.

JWP, basically here you go again inferring and causing friction. If you want to test some of Brians .338s feel free to (if he actually ever makes any for general consuption). Anyone can make a run of "test" or "sample" bullets. The real litmus test is to make production bullets and dip your hand into the box and test what is in the palm of you hand. If you want to test some of the Henson's, pay 1.65 each for them and get some to test.

FWIW, I do take offense when you infer that my/our numbers are not accurate. We have gone to great lengths to prevent from putting out bad BC information. As I said before, they are a worst case scenario..... If you want to try to create some friction, just go somewhere else. Or even better yet, put your money where your mouth and keyboard are and buy some bullets to send to Brian if you want him to have some.

Lastly, "We" (you) are not interested in them anyway and it only seems as though you are interested in causing first trouble and then more trouble. You would probably "disappear" under a rock when Brian's unbiased results confirmed our findings. Actually from the BC standpoint, other folks have confirmed our findings and we do not "need" Brian. It seems to me that your sole interest in this is trying to stir up trouble and friction.

I/we have nothing to hide. We have actually deflated the results when we take the worst case vice the average. These are real world results shot in close to sanitary shooting conditions. The only thing better for a testing facility would be a huge warehouse or a tunnel.

JWP, it is a very simple processs, if you don't want to shoot the HATS, then go get some other bullets. If you want some HATS then order some.

Our 265 BC testing is completed for the current die and recipe that is used. We will be testing the 280s and 300s later this week. Once the .338s are completed then we will be testing the BCs of the 210s 215s and 220s in .30 caliber.


James

 

[jwp475]

Brain has in the past given out the BC numbers that he has tested no matter who manufactured them.

I see that you are afraid that the actual BC testing equipment will show that the bullets do not defy the Laws of Physics and are not magical.

All your double talk will not change the fact that you are afraid to have them tested by a very reputable individual, with the equipment to do so over a 600 yard spacing


The Berger 338 bullets will stabilize in a 10 twist, you'll have to do better than this.

 

[Lightvarmint]

Brain has in the past given out the BC numbers that he has tested no matter who manufactured them.

I see that you are afraid that the actual BC testing equipment will show that the bullets do not defy the Laws of Physics and are not magical.

All your double talk will not change the fact that you are afraid to have them tested by a very reputable individual, with the equipment to do so over a 600 yard spacing

JWP,

Here you go again with your "laws of physics". Which law ar you referring to?

No one claims they are defying the laws of physics. Actually these bullets have very similar BCs to what was produced by Wildcat bullets and I imagine the same die maker made both sets of dies. Or at least that was the numbers that Kirby sent to me stating the BC ranges for the different weights. I don't recall Kirby indicating the need for special twist barrels to shoot the Wildcats....

We are not afraid at all to have them tested.

They get sold to consumers who test them for themselves.

Remember HATS come with money back guarantees.

If you don't like them, simply return them for a refund. I know of no other company that offers this.....

Every bullet shot is being tested by the end user.

James

 

[jwp475]

Brain laid it out very clear...

 

[jwp475]

JWP,



Every bullet shot is being tested by the end user.

James

At their expense, Sierra, and Berger do all of the testing so the end user doesn't have to. Your claims are high why are you afraid to get them substantiated?

 

[BryanLitz]

.....