Henson Aluminum tipped bullets test

[goodgrouper]

Goodgrouper:

My feeling is that dry newspaper is nothing like an animal. The newspaper, even packed fairly tight, moves with and ahead of the bullet, it's light and easily compressible. It lacks enough mass to hold it in place and allow the bullet to pass thru. It's the perfect bullet catcher. Sort of like a bullet proof vest. Flesh on the other hand is basically water, it's incompressible and high in mass. It doesn't move along with and ahead of the bullet, it's thrown to the side. Have you ever seen the slow speed video of a 180 gr TSX thru ballistic gelitin? A huge cavity forms behind the bullet. How much cavity do you think there is in dry newspaper, absolutely none!!! Once the nose of that bullet hangs up in 50 layers of paper, the bullet is going to turn sideways. Your catching the nose in a bullet proof vest of sorts.

At least that's how I see it. Thank you for sharing the results. I hope there are no hard feelings.

We'll see soon how they perform on game. If they won't open reliably at 1900 fps, they probably won't have much of a market at $1.50 a pop.

No hard feelings at all. But some of you are missing this point: This test would be useless if it was a single conclusion test. But being a COMPARISON of a bullet with known game killing qualities, it becomes relavent and gives a baseline to predict how a bullet will react when it hits game. The base line for the SMK was when I tested it side by side with the Accubond. The Accubond base line was Sciroccos. The base line for the Scirroccos was B-tips. The base line for the B-tips was half a dozen elk shot from 600 yards to 950 yards. Do you see how the pattern forms? It doesn't really matter what you think of the media I used, I use it and have formed all my baselines from it in relation to what I have seen on real game. It could be corn meal, it could be saw dust, it could be gelatin. It wouldn't matter. It is all in comparison! Barnes fires all their bullets into a water tank from the top to the bottom and it produces some really nice mushrooms. However, it fails to replicate game even worse than the saw dust or newspaper in my opinion but they use it as a baseline to compare their copper and production tolerances. When shot into real animals, I have never seen a Barnes mushroom like their water tank bullets. You see, the petals can't wrap around water and sheer off like they do when they get hair, sinew, or fat caught in them. But that's all besides the point. The point is, nothing is like the real thing but experiments can still be run in control testing methods with comparisons and be accurate enough to make predictions.

Make sense?

 

[goodgrouper]

GG, i think the one thing missing from your test is RPM's. in the beginning of this post Kirby asked how you were gonna duplicate this and i think he hit the nail on the head. in all of my tests there wasn't even one that penetrated as much as the Sierras. when spinning fast enough to hit straight, i still think these come apart every bit as fast if not quicker than the Sierras. i understand your argument about them tumbling and needing to come apart. i suspect this is much farther than i will ever shoot trying to kill ananimal.

So are we relying on a high rpm rate to help open a bullet or are we hunting long range?

I remember back to the days when I was testing 300 SMK's at a little over 2000 yards. The bullets were close to going transonic, the velocities were less than 1900 fps, the bullet was still opening up and fragmenting drastically. I doubt the HAT's in their current config would do the same. I could be wrong, but either way, I would just like to see a more frangible design for us Loooong Range Hunters!

 

[goodgrouper]

By the way, I think perhaps our understanding of terminology was messed up slightly. When I said the HAT's were not fully stabilized thus the lower BC than what they are rated at, I should have said that they were exhibiting yaw more than the SMK's. This doesn't mean bullets aren't stabilized. It simply takes awhile for the yaw of repose to dampen out and they can fly perfectly stabilized after this point. In fact, ALL bullets have initial yaw. SOme just dampen it quicker than others. The 300 SMK's did not have as much yaw, but I can guarantee you that they still had some as they were going through the chronos. By 100 yards, I would say both bullets had dampened it out some as they both left round holes in the paper and in the box of papers.

If the HAT's had keyholed through the target, obviously they wouldn't have provided much data. But they did not. ANd furthermore, they actually shot a pretty nice group!

 

[jwp475]

jpw475:

Water is very much noncompressible. An animal is mostly water. I don't see dry newspaper as being anything like an animal. Not trying to be a horses behind here. Guess we can all conclude whatever we want.

Water is also not a solid. You can not make a hole in water, shoot a bullet into water and after the bullet passes you are left with NO Hole. The next time that you field dress an animal notice that each time you grab a piece of meat that the pressure from your hand compresses the muscle. Dry paper is indeed hard and has no hydraulic effect on a bullets as does tissue, which is a soft solid. Tissue does have water in it and some of the fluid dymamics rules apply but not all since it is not in a total liquid state, but rather a soft solid, not a hard solid which is what dry paper and wood are.

 

[goodgrouper]

ANother point I just thought about after talking to Roll yur own:

This is the only HAT bullet that penetrated fairly deep into the media. As you can see, it HAD to go in straight as the wound channel was straight, and the bullet was not in a tumbled position when found. It went in point on, penetrated close to what the SMK's did, and is still deformed with the tip still intact. If these bullets had jackets thin enough to work for big game at long range, the tips would have acted like they were intended to and wedged the bullet open. But as you can see, the jacket is VERY thick where the tip meets it and the tip isn't deformed except for it's stem. So this bullet hit staight, penetrated straight and deep, but did not expand.

 

[Roll-Yur-Own]

If Berger starts making those 338 they have been talking about that might be a good source of Jackets for henson bullets.

 

[goodgrouper]

If Berger starts making those 338 they have been talking about that might be a good source of Jackets for henson bullets.

I'd agree although lightvarmint has informed me that the jackets on the Henson bullets are softer than the J4's that Berger uses already.

 

[goodgrouper]

This thread is starting to get that "spin" (pun intended) that things are going to get to the point where they start hurting people's feelings. I hope that doesn't happen. I started this thread biased TOWARDS HAT bullets as I fell in love with the idea of such a high bc "hunting" bullet. But I am too **** honest I guess. I always report my findings whether they agree with my pre-concieved ideas or not. And my intentions were not to derail the production of HAT bullets or hamper their saleability. I simply ran a test that has proven accurate and dependable in the past with other bullets and reported my findings like I promised I would. Believe me, I would have rather spent 5 hours shooting my 6ppc instead of digging through recycle bins in 100 degree heat, lugging a 100 pound box onto the range, and setting up all my gear just to shoot ten bullets for a test that seems to get people all riled up. But I figured if I'm going to launch these bullets at game, I owe it to them to make sure they are going to dispatch quickly. After all, I don't see the point in a high bc bullet that lets me hit an elk at 1500 yards if it won't kill it afterwords.

I encourage others to do tests on these bullets. And I pray your results are different than mine. I believe one test by itself is not as good as multiples from other guns in other locations. Please take this thread for what it is and I hope I can buy more of these bullets in the future if I so choose!

 

[Roll-Yur-Own]

I'd agree although lightvarmint has informed me that the jackets on the Henson bullets are softer than the J4's that Berger uses already.

I thought they said they use the same jackets a Richard Graves. And doesn't Richard use the Hairfield jackets? They are way heavier than Berger.

I know richards hollow points don't have any expansion problems. Has anyone tested Richard's aluminum tip bullets? I bet Kirby could help out here. I would like to test Richards against Hensons. I think that could lead to positive results.

I would also like to add that any critisism I offer is contructive. I realize that this is Mr. Henson's first generation. Version 1.0 as they say in the computer world. I wish him the best of luck and success and I'm happy to help any way I can.

 

[wildcat338]

Hmmm interesting thread, Roll-Yur-Own if im not mistaking I believe youre right about richards bullets using Hairfield jackets and maybe Kirby can chime in as he might know for sure.

The 338 Hairfield jackets that we used were either .030 ~.035 (pretty thick) if im not mistaken and what we did to overcome expansion issues was to use a "skiving die". Not sure if this would be a way for them to address any expansion problems but I know i'll be interested to see the results of anymore test people come up with.

As always Good Shooting!!!

 

[Varminator 911]

Thank you Goodgrouper!!

Goodgrouper:

I'm sorry for any negative spin I imparted to your post. I'm sure it seems that way from your end. But I think it has been an excellent discussion that will contribute to better long range bullets. I very much agree that a dedicated long range bullet like this should reliably expand at velocities below 1900 fps. Ideally there would be reliable expansion at the nose even down to 1200 fps but then a tough enough shank to the bullet that it won't blow up at higher speeds or with bone impact. We ask a lot of our bullet makers. These discussions should help them. I has helped me!!!

Thanks again!!

 

[eddybo]

I have learned a lot from this thread about bullet performance. It isnt something I have ever paid much attention to because I have never had a bullet fail. Thanks for a going the extra mile and performing the test GG. Your efforts are appreciated.

AJ Peacock, thanks for the info. I hadnt even considered the directional componant of the tumble, but your explanation makes perfect sense to me. I have always been a firm beleiver that you put any bullet in the heart lung area of an animal and the animal dies. I see now how a perfect shot, landing where you aim it, could still miss vitals if it took a wrong turn.

 

[royinidaho]

I really appreciate this thread. And I stand along side GG regarding the desire that feelings not be hurt. I doubt that anyone has that intention.

I do know what it feels like when the sirst time out of the chute things don't go as was expected, every time. This is where the men get separated from the boys.

I know what it's like bringing a product from and idea to public acceptance. The power of the internet medium and the implementation of Len's living room idea, make just about every thing public. Which is good for all of us.

When all of this stuff including the HAT bullets make it through the refiners fire (us) they will be like gold. I eagerly await their perfection.

However, I just have to make a comment about the compressibility of water. My experience as an old Navy Nuke says that water is compressible. At least at 545 degrees F and 2500 PSI.

Hang in there guys, i'm cheering for ya!

 

[Lightvarmint]

Hello,

Some folks seem to think the spin is insignificant when attempting to perform a test such as this. It may be, but I doubt it. When running the numbers here is how they come out.

GGs highest 280 initial velocity---> 2050 fps and that equals 147,600 rpm out of a 10" twist barrel.

My normal lauch speed for these bullets---> 3100 fps and that equals 223,200 rpm out of my 10" twist barrel.

The difference is 75,600 and that is over 50% of GGs initial spin and 38% or so of mine.

I personally do not think that 75,600 rpm is anything to sneeze at with respect to bullet stability.

The rotating bullet resembles the blades on a blender when it passes through an animal and you can bet your bippie that 75,600 rpm in a blender will make a difference.

Now think of the bullet jacket as blades on a blender. Will the thicker blades work better or the thinner blades? Which one will stay together longer at the same spin?

Just food for thought.

Have a nice day and good shooting.

James