Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
- Status
L
Lightvarmint
Guest
Bryan,
Remember, we know that they will not follow the normal G1 BC profile. Using the G1 profile for these is just for comparison purposes and for the shooters to have a general idea of what to expect.... Again, we know they do not follow G1 profiles (normal bullets).
Using the Don Miller Java-based program you sent me last year, here are the following SG values:
265 grain 1.765" @ 3245------> 1.67
280 grain 1.845" @ 3150------> 1.54
300 grain 1.935" @ 3000------> 1.41
In reality, the Generation I bullets were a few thousanths longer than the associated Gen II offerings.
like I said before, they followed the G1 profile with great predictability.
Do you actually think the .004 increase in SG in the current Gen II 265s is causing a possible nose up when the Gen Is being .004 lower were spot on with the G1 profiles?
James
Last edited by a moderator:
jmason
Well-Known Member
Eddybo- did your windage calculations match the BC that exbal gave you? I was just thinking about this "lift" thing and weather or not it would have any effects on the lateral movement of the bullet? If I understand correctly the theory is that when the bullet is in flight the tip is at a slightly upward angle lending to a flatter trajectory, but I don't see how that helps windage. I'm not trying to be argumantative, I'm just thinking out loud
.
.
L
Lightvarmint
Guest
Eddybo- did your windage calculations match the BC that exbal gave you? I was just thinking about this "lift" thing and weather or not it would have any effects on the lateral movement of the bullet? If I understand correctly the theory is that when the bullet is in flight the tip is at a slightly upward angle lending to a flatter trajectory, but I don't see how that helps windage. I'm not trying to be argumantative, I'm just thinking out loud
JM,
They move way less laterally than the 300 SMK.
James
jmason
Well-Known Member
That's what I understand, but what I don't get is if the BC people are getting is not really the true BC but is somehow scewed by by the "lifting effect" (in Bryan's theory) of the aluminum tip than the lateral effect should be that of a lesser BC right? My thought is that if Bryan's theory is correct that the flatter trajectory(elevation) may reflect a Higher BC but the windage would not. I'm not doing real well here trying to put my thoughts into words, But I'll keep trying until it makes sense to someone besides me.
The 50 cal 750 grain A-Max has a BC of 1.05 meaning that if the 265 grain HAT bullet at 1.1 has a higher BC with less mass than a 300 grain 338 bullet is outside the realm of the norm for sure and for certain.
If 1.1 is correct then we have discovered the magic bullet
If 1.1 is correct then we have discovered the magic bullet
L
Lightvarmint
Guest
Brian,
Of course they were shot at the same time. Without that it would have been a totally useless and invalid evaluation. You cannot perform quality control and T&E comparisons with a host of variables and heresay. You have to eliminate the variables and that makes the results more consistent and accurate. I surely hope that you minimize your variables when you do your testing.
I am going to repeat myself here on something.....
These are the .338 Gen II HATS and that is all that is planned for now in .338.
We fully tested the Gen I HATS and they followed the G1 drag profile very predictably. However their BCs were low (.770 for the 265s and .878 for the 280s) and since we wanted something that was better than anything else, we pursued the Gen II bullet profiles. FWIW, the tips on the Gen IIs were designed by a Lockeed Aeronautical Engineer.... These are not just something thrown together in the Georgia swamps by some drunk hillbillies............
The 265s are the entry weight in the Gen II product line and they are not intended to carry the banner of the HATS into the upcoming bullet battles. They were specifically designed for smaller cartridge cases like the RUM and the standard .338 Lapua in an effort to allow those cases to have the capability of something special........
However, the real Marquee bullets in .338 are going to be the ultra sleek 280s and the 300s. We know the BC of the current Gen II 280s is much higher than the advertised Gen I value of .878. We did not think that .878 was high enough to venture into this with the 300 SMK being at an advertised .768.
Anyway with the Gen I 280s being a paltry .878 we needed something much more impressive and now we have the Gen II 280s and 300s. The 300s are .225" longer than a 300 SMK and they look more like missles than bullets.... You can develop some rules of thumb and have a good prediction for what their BC should wind up being.
Again, we test these bullets against the industry standard and when the industry standard changes we will test them against that as well.... That even includes the new Berger .338 if and when they ever get produced in mass quantities.
I am currently awaiting my test bullet shipment and will report the results when they become available.
Some folks are referring to these as magic bullets and for child-like minds who desire nothing else but to jeer and question methods and results, I guess they do seem to be magic, but they are real and I am not the only one who has witnessed their superior qualities.... Heck, if Brian cannot find the mathematical explanation for these things, "magic" may be the best explanation that can be found...........
I do believe that Eddybo shot some deer in somewhat unfriendly conditions and his shots were where he wanted them using the bullet data he derived from shooting his rifle to get his data for his Texas hunts... I am sure he had to dial in both windage and elevation due to the winds he was encountering and ultimately reported to the readership here on the website. Maybe he can more fully elaborate on this as I was not there and only remember what was posted here on the site.
Nobody associated with the HATS have ever claimed a 1.1 BC. We have just reported the data and the number crunchers came up with that.... I use a number that works for my barrel and that is my number. It will be slightly different for each and every barrel. Barrel groove and land orientation are not the same on any two barrels and that is going to affect the performance you see. Also twists are not the exact same for any two barrels and with all the barrel variables, data should be close, but it will not be exact. Everyone will need to find out what his equipment produces in the form of trajectory results. Also, the better tuned loads and finer tuned zero points at the mid ranges will yield more accurate results as well.
Finally, the .338s are not going to be the marquee bullets in the HATS line of bullets.... I fully suspect that once you get away from this website you will find that there are a whole lot more .30s and even 7mms than .338s. Many shooters out there are wanting something that is smaller and does not have the recoil that the bigger .338s exhibit... Some even want to shoot without muzzle brakes.... The 30s and 7mms are the bullets that I think will probably wind up taking up most of the production time.
As I have posted here on the website, I have a new XP-100 in 300 Dakota and we are getting right at 3000 fps with the 210s and that is with them shooting bugholes. The 210 is a fantastic bullet choice for the large pistol cases. Since they work well in the pistol, I can't wait until I get some more for the standard 300 RUM.
I fully expect that the 180s (that can be shot in the 10" twist barrels) with a BC of .716+ will be a huge hit Don't forget about the 210s and 215s for those with faster than standard twist barrels.
Anyway, thanks for all the interest.
James
L
Lightvarmint
Guest
JWP,
BC is also a function of length, diameter with of course the heel and nose geometry taken into account....
BTW, How do you know that RG has not already done this in his 50 BMG for comparison? I sold mine so I could not do it. But RG has one.......
*** U ME...... Don't do it and don't bank on it.
James
Michael Eichele
Well-Known Member
I am sure I am going to get alot of flack for this post. I dont meen any flame here either but as an observer of these threads over and over, I really have yet to see any hard evidence that these bullets BC's are as great as they appear.
All we are getting are occasional drop values performed by HAT. I am not calling anybody BS or a liar. What I am concerned with is premature speculation from a a few simple tests. Where are the TOF test resuls? What about doppler radar? How about two chronographs? It seems as if a bullet this "magical" and mystifying needs much more scruitiny than it is getting. If you can have a Lockeed Aeronautical Engin design your bullet tips, I am posotive you can use doppler to get some concrete results. At the very least 2 chronies. Dont get me wrong, I am a fan of drop test methods, but I dont soley rely on them. I am not an engineer nor a professional ballistician but I have enough experience to have also had the same thoughts as Litz. With the longer demension and extra twist needed I felt like the possibility of a nose up enviornment could exist. Bryan also brought up a good point I never thought of, and that is beings that the tips are much lighter than traditional, this could increase the nose up potential and give the bullet a bit of lift. If this theory proves true then Litz hit the nail on the head. All you would have is a percieved ultra high BC. This BC used for drop would not work for wind, energy or impact velocities. You NEED to test these using other methods. Traditional methods may not work for untraditional bullets. You may just have the next greatest bullets since the boat tail but it needs more evidence.
These bullets are so freakin expensive I am not interested in purchasing any just so I can see if they really are magical. Now if there was some real evidence aside from a few drop tests, I may be inclined to drop the $$ at least once to try them for myself. The fact is between the cost and the little testing that has been done, I for one cannot justify buying them.
Honestly, if you want to sell these bullets on a large scale, we need more real results. For the coin these things cost, we need something in return. That return appears to be a very high BC. I say appears because on the surface, they appear to be very high. I am not concerned with the surface. I am concerned with reality.
Get us some alternative data, present it in a way we can understand it, and I and I am sure alot of others will buy your product. Untill then it is all speculation presented in a less than convincing method. All in all. I think there is a lot of interest in your product. The problem is the way you are trying to sell it. You have gone to alot of effort to create it, now put some of that effort into convincing us.
Please accept this post as a no BS tell it how I see it from the heart approach. You can look at it as constuctive criticizm or an insult. I dont meen any insult here. Just constructive criticizm for a potential up and coming bullet supplier.
All we are getting are occasional drop values performed by HAT. I am not calling anybody BS or a liar. What I am concerned with is premature speculation from a a few simple tests. Where are the TOF test resuls? What about doppler radar? How about two chronographs? It seems as if a bullet this "magical" and mystifying needs much more scruitiny than it is getting. If you can have a Lockeed Aeronautical Engin design your bullet tips, I am posotive you can use doppler to get some concrete results. At the very least 2 chronies. Dont get me wrong, I am a fan of drop test methods, but I dont soley rely on them. I am not an engineer nor a professional ballistician but I have enough experience to have also had the same thoughts as Litz. With the longer demension and extra twist needed I felt like the possibility of a nose up enviornment could exist. Bryan also brought up a good point I never thought of, and that is beings that the tips are much lighter than traditional, this could increase the nose up potential and give the bullet a bit of lift. If this theory proves true then Litz hit the nail on the head. All you would have is a percieved ultra high BC. This BC used for drop would not work for wind, energy or impact velocities. You NEED to test these using other methods. Traditional methods may not work for untraditional bullets. You may just have the next greatest bullets since the boat tail but it needs more evidence.
These bullets are so freakin expensive I am not interested in purchasing any just so I can see if they really are magical. Now if there was some real evidence aside from a few drop tests, I may be inclined to drop the $$ at least once to try them for myself. The fact is between the cost and the little testing that has been done, I for one cannot justify buying them.
Honestly, if you want to sell these bullets on a large scale, we need more real results. For the coin these things cost, we need something in return. That return appears to be a very high BC. I say appears because on the surface, they appear to be very high. I am not concerned with the surface. I am concerned with reality.
Get us some alternative data, present it in a way we can understand it, and I and I am sure alot of others will buy your product. Untill then it is all speculation presented in a less than convincing method. All in all. I think there is a lot of interest in your product. The problem is the way you are trying to sell it. You have gone to alot of effort to create it, now put some of that effort into convincing us.
Please accept this post as a no BS tell it how I see it from the heart approach. You can look at it as constuctive criticizm or an insult. I dont meen any insult here. Just constructive criticizm for a potential up and coming bullet supplier.
Last edited:
I understand the length and form factor of BC. I also understand that the mass of a bullet is also an important part of BC as well
*** U ME You should not either
Any questions about the reported results and you turn to attack mode. Not very helpful or professional are you. When I buy bullets from Sierra or Berger I get an BC that the company has established for the bullet. Those bullets have been thoroughly test for BC with proper equipment and I can get multiple BCs for different velocity ranges. You report droops that equate to a 1.1 BC and when called on this phenomenal number back peddle and say "no one at HAT has claimed a 1.1 BC'. So WHAT IS THE BC of these incredibly expensive bullets.
You want people to simply believe that you have bullets that are outside the realm of every other bullet in the world. Metal tips on bullets are not new by the way
Last edited:
L
Lightvarmint
Guest
ME,
Please don't take offense but these projectiles are just not for everyone. If folks are satisfied with the status quo in their bullet selction, then they are wasting thier time on this thread. However, we started this thread for folks who are not satisfied with the current bullet selection they have available to them and who also wish to push the envelope and pursue new components.
Specifically, they are not for folks that are on strict budgets that would have to sacrifice family necessities to buy them. They are not for folks that do not have disposable incomes to support hobbies like this. They are aimed at folks that want to use components that push the envelope and that can readily afford them. These bullets are sort of like race cars and boats.... You have to pay to play.
As far as the data you request, please send me a link to the websites for Hornady, Sierra, Speer, Wildacat, Berger, Saubier, Lapua, Carterucci, Bart Sauter, Lazzeroni and any other company that offers published doppler radar results of their projectiles. I am anxiously wanting to read the data.
All one can do is shoot them, gather the data and crunch the numbers and that is what we have done.
If you think they are expensive without us using doppler radar, just wait till you see the price if and when we do use that resource. Doppler radar testing is cost prohibitive for smaller companies.
If you require doppler radar results, you need to go somewhere else, visit another thread and use another company that has done that testing....
This is my thread and it is specifically about the testing results that we reported..... It is not for bickering, questioning character, complaining about prices or anything else that does not have to do with HAT 265 grain trajectories and BCs. If folks cannot legitimately contribute useful information and ask reasonable questions, they and everyone else are better off if the keyboard is not used.
We have found that a lot of people ask the same questions over and over without reading the previous posts in the threads and that just does not contribute to this or any process.
If you don't like the results or don't believe the results, refer to the paragraphs above where I reminded folks that they are not for everyone. If you are interested please read and ask pertinant questions..... If you are not legitimately interested please go to another thread since we do not want to bore you with facts and data about something that you have absolutely no interest in being a part of.
James
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Eichele
Well-Known Member
I also said I would settle for double cronies. Is that out of the question too? I am pretty sure most traditional manufacturers use at least this method. In fact I know some that do. Maybe it was my bad for assuming that if you could afford a lockeed engineer to develop the most soffisticated bullet to date, that maybe you could afford to test them with the most soffisticated methods. Youre right, doppler is expensive and I dont know any manufactures that use this method with any regularity. However, your product doesnt cost what others do either. Again, I will still settle for double chronies. Just something more than the drop tests youre feeding us. Is that too much to ask or is it easier to assume? Surely a man in your position has access to an Oehler 43 or at the least 2 chronographs.
Well.....The ball is in your court. I am just trying to help you sell bullets by explaining to you what a consumer is seeing. If you have a handfull of customers and that is all you want, then I will shut up. If you would like a few more than you should put yourself in our shoes first. Surely if your 180 30 cal bullet had a true BC of .7+ you would have nearly every 30 cal nut in the world ordering your bullets. Me included. Granted, true BC's will differ from rifle to rifle but they are usually within a certain percentage. Most published BC's are an average. All I and others are asking is more proof than you are giving us. Is that too much to ask?
For the record, I am genuinely interested in your products but for what they cost, and the methods you use to try and sell them, it is hard for me to feel like justifying a purchase. Now I can over look the cost if you can convince me using more than a few drop tests.
Again, just constructive criticizm here.
Well.....The ball is in your court. I am just trying to help you sell bullets by explaining to you what a consumer is seeing. If you have a handfull of customers and that is all you want, then I will shut up. If you would like a few more than you should put yourself in our shoes first. Surely if your 180 30 cal bullet had a true BC of .7+ you would have nearly every 30 cal nut in the world ordering your bullets. Me included. Granted, true BC's will differ from rifle to rifle but they are usually within a certain percentage. Most published BC's are an average. All I and others are asking is more proof than you are giving us. Is that too much to ask?
For the record, I am genuinely interested in your products but for what they cost, and the methods you use to try and sell them, it is hard for me to feel like justifying a purchase. Now I can over look the cost if you can convince me using more than a few drop tests.
Again, just constructive criticizm here.
Last edited:
- Status
