Henson Aluminum tipped bullets test

[AJ Peacock]

GG,

Nice test and report. I really like the way you noted the problems with the test prior to reporting.

If one of the other folks on this thread wants to get some of these bullets and load them to around 3400fps and do a ballistic gelatin test at 1000+yds to eliminate the known issues, I'll be the first to congratulate them.


GG, again, nice job and thanks for taking the time and sharing.


AJ

 

[Varminator 911]

GG:

Did the bullets, both SMK and HAT, leave a round hole where they entered your test media? Or were they running sideways. If the bullets were point on then the test means more to me than if they were running sideways.

Thank you for all the work and the interesting report!

 

[edge]

GG:

Did the bullets, both SMK and HAT, leave a round hole where they entered your test media? Or were they running sideways. If the bullets were point on then the test means more to me than if they were running sideways.

Thank you for all the work and the interesting report!

Hmmm...IMO GG would have noticed that

On the same vein though any bullet on the verge of stability can tumble even if it hits point first! What is important is whether the bullet will shoulder stabilize before it has a chance to tumble. What we know is that at low RPS the Aluminum tipped bullets will not!
What we don't know is if they had been spinning at the correct RPS whether they would have performed better!

I thank GG for his honest test. IMO, the MAKER needs to perform this test!
If it shows different results, then he should supply someone that can shoot these at long range with free bullets to confirm the results.
If the maker does not do this, then I am convinced that the results that GG got are valid at the correct RPS for this bullet.

edge.

 

[goodgrouper]

A bullet that never stabilized in the first place will not perform the same as a bullet that was stabilized before going transonic. Even if velocities are equal.

QUOTE]

Are you talking about exterior ballstics performance or terminal ballistics performance?

 

[goodgrouper]

GG,

Nice test and report. I really like the way you noted the problems with the test prior to reporting.

If one of the other folks on this thread wants to get some of these bullets and load them to around 3400fps and do a ballistic gelatin test at 1000+yds to eliminate the known issues, I'll be the first to congratulate them.


GG, again, nice job and thanks for taking the time and sharing.


AJ

You're welcome!

 

[goodgrouper]

GG:

Did the bullets, both SMK and HAT, leave a round hole where they entered your test media? Or were they running sideways. If the bullets were point on then the test means more to me than if they were running sideways.

Thank you for all the work and the interesting report!

Yes, both bullets made a round hole going into the box and into the sheet of paper I used as a target for chrono alignment. And, in fact, they both shot about 1/2" groups!

 

[goodgrouper]

What we don't know is if they had been spinning at the correct RPS whether they would have performed better!

edge.

True. If Mr. Henson wants to send me a few more bullets, I would sacrifice a few more rounds of barrel life to shoot them again at a higher MV. But I don't think the test would be too valid if I went much over 2500 or 2600 fps.

 

[davewilson]

when i tested these bullets, my take on their terminal performance was opposite of what GG has reported. the problem with my test was i probably used material that was "too tuff" by some peoples evaluation. GG and i agreed to a test where i would shoot the 265 HAT's against the 250 SMK's and he would shoot the bigger versions of each. i actually shot the bullets into "media" at 300 and 700 yards with a reduced load that only started them out at a bit under 2800 instead of around 3100 which would be the approximate MV. my media consisted of a 7/16" thick particle board, a milk jug,another board, then several more jugs. i shot 5 bullets into this at 700 yards and 2 at 300. i only shot 2 SMK's at 700 because i've tested 250SMK's last year out to 1k and already had a feel for how they work.

in every case, the HAT's had complete jacket and core seraration with heavy fragmentation. only one out of 5 went past the 3rd jug and this was a small piece of lead. the same for the MK's but they always had a chunk of something go through at least 5 jugs. i've heard the boards are "too tuff" for testing bullets, i thought they would be about like smacking an elk bone. i need to come up with something that i can test with every time, as GG has stated to get "apples to apples" type of comparison.

in summary, i felt the HAT's were a bit more frangible than the MK's.

 

[Roll-Yur-Own]

GG, I'm not trying to be an A-hole. I was just offing my opinion. In regards to your question. I think both would be off.

I do appreciate your test. I would be happy to test some in my lapua as well and spend some of my time and barrel life..

On another note I have seen other bullets where they have great potential but problems in actual shooting. Quite often a few small tweeks in the design can fix things. Many times the designer is enamored with ultra high BC's on paper but the design is too agressive.
I also do not like rebatted boat tails, they have lower a BC. I have spoken with Richard Graves about this. Richard was told by Corbin that the RBT has a higher BC, but Corbin says this because it is easier for him to make dies for RBT's that standard BT's. So with the loss of BC from the RBT the designer overcompensates in other areas that make the bullets less stable.

Does anyone have the dimensions of these bullets? Ie. Ogive radius, bearing surface length, ogive lenght, BT lenght.

 

[goodgrouper]

Dave,

I think the plywood was a good choice. It is got to be pretty close to simulating bone and it might just be what these bullets need. I always shoot for the shoulder blade anyway so maybe these bullets would work just fine. My only fear is if I miss the shoulder and get a heart/lung hit with them.............

 

[goodgrouper]

GG, I'm not trying to be an A-hole. I was just offing my opinion. In regards to your question. I think both would be off.

I do appreciate your test. I would be happy to test some in my lapua as well and spend some of my time and barrel life..

On another note I have seen other bullets where they have great potential but problems in actual shooting. Quite often a few small tweeks in the design can fix things. Many times the designer is enamored with ultra high BC's on paper but the design is too agressive.
I also do not like rebatted boat tails, they have lower a BC. I have spoken with Richard Graves about this. Richard was told by Corbin that the RBT has a higher BC, but Corbin says this because it is easier for him to make dies for RBT's that standard BT's. So with the loss of BC from the RBT the designer overcompensates in other areas that make the bullets less stable.

Does anyone have the dimensions of these bullets? Ie. Ogive radius, bearing surface length, ogive lenght, BT lenght.

It's all good Roll yur own. I don't think you're being an ahole at all. It's good to get different viewpoints and I think it's great you brought them up.

I don't know about the wildcat bullets as I have never been able to get any, but I too have seen many people get too concerned with high bc and forget about terminal effects for their hunting bullets.

As for the bullet stabilization question, many tests have been done showing negative effects of unstable bullets and their trajectories. But I have yet to see any equations proving how an unstable bullet could react differently terminally at the ends of it's trajectory exept for a study that showed a markedly larger possiblity of tumbling at the transonic level of velocity at the end of it's flight which would further suggest the need for a bullet to be made more frangible to handle this problem.

 

[Roll-Yur-Own]

GG, at real long range I only shoot at paper so I'm more concerned with hitting the target than terminal damage. I only shoot at game out to 500 so I don't have the dilemma that you and others have of finding a bullet to hit consistenly at long range and put the animal down clean. Inside of 500 yards my accubonds work fine.

I make machined solids that are great for paper but would be useless on game. In designing solids I've learned that solids have better exterior ballistics because you can get BC's higher than jacketed bullets with less weight due to the lower specific gravity of the solid material.

It funny how many people correlate BC with bullet weight. There are many other factors involved such as bullet length, boattail length, boattail angle, and ogive radius. But, these factors also affect stability so it becomes a balancing act. A balancing act that is tougher in a jacketed bullet than a solid.

And that is the problem you guys have. You need bullet construction beneficial for good terminal ballistics AND bullet design for exterior ballistics.....In the same bullet! I also want to add that it is harder to do in larger calibers above 7mm.

As far as wildcat bullets, I only have the 250 and 325 grain flat base bonded bullets (338 cal) that Richard sent me. They are super accurate and I would not be worried going after Grizz with these bad boys, but I've never shot them long range nor have I tried his RBT bullets.

 

[jwp475]

I was not aware that a Rebated boatail had a lower BC than a standard boatail bullet, if fact I have always heard that a rebated boatail was about 5% higher BC than a standard boatail

 

[Roll-Yur-Own]

JWP, it does in fact have a lower BC. Richard Graves told me the same thing because that is what Corbin told him. Fact is Corbin pushes the RBT dies because they are easier to make.

BC is definately lower.