Least fussy mono-metal bullet?

[ButterBean]

I'm with you on the Absolutes. Don't think he had much if any experience with them before trying them in my rifle. I think the powder being too slow was the reason for the lower velocity than the 169 HH. I'll discuss this more with Kirby before trying something new, but we got plenty of time till next season to tune and play. I'm not quite as bold as some guys and will play from the safe side to get the feel of things and go easy into it.

Just be safe Brother

 

[Prieto9000]

I'm currently loading barnes LRX on 4 rifles, 4 different calibers and they all shoot great.
6.5 creedmoor 127 LRX
.270 WSM 129 LRX
28 Nosler 168 LRX
308 win 175 LRX

I'm loading them far from the lands and @ max powder charge in all of them with very good groups. I was about to rebarrel my 270 WSM because it wouldn't shoot SUB-MOA with any bullet/powder combo I've tried in the past until a came across a couple boxes of this bullets and decided to give them a try.

 

[Northkill]

Barnes are decent and many times can be gotten to shoot good. At least that's my experience. However, they are lower BC than the Hammers, all things compared. I'm not out to cut for bias, but that is what puzzled me about some guys promoting Barnes while casting shade on the Hammer's for their BC's. Add in the fact that Hammers will typically run faster and the choice even becomes easier for me. Not to mention availability.

 

[Hard rock]

Barnes are decent and many times can be gotten to shoot good. At least that's my experience. However, they are lower BC than the Hammers, all things compared. I'm not out to cut for bias, but that is what puzzled me about some guys promoting Barnes while casting shade on the Hammer's for their BC's. Add in the fact that Hammers will typically run faster and the choice even becomes easier for me. Not to mention availability.

When Barnes first came out I thought they were the best thing since sliced bread but dang they fould the bore and seemed like there was always a flyer in my group I guess you could say a little finicky l kind of gravitated away from Barnes until I discovered the Hammer bullets and still just can't believe how easy they are too load for and how little they foul the terminal performance is outstanding etc.etc. I will be shooting and loading Hammers from now on

 

[ButterBean]

When Barnes first came out I thought they were the best thing since sliced bread but dang they fould the bore and seemed like there was always a flyer in my group I guess you could say a little finicky l kind of gravitated away from Barnes until I discovered the Hammer bullets and still just can't believe how easy they are too load for and how little they foul the terminal performance is outstanding etc.etc. I will be shooting and loading Hammers from now on

X-2

 

[Trigger24]

The 177 HH is listed with a G7 @ .313, which actually is a bit over the 150 BD-2 listed BC of .309. Not sure what the velocity differential would be since the Hammers pressure up different. Add in the factor of case design and capacity since that can influence some of those norms as well. What would you Hammer guys give as an educated guess for velocity out of the 177 HH based on 3,665 for the BD-2? Would you still run RL-33 or switch to Retumbo? I would prefer the Retumbo, but it didn't do as well with the Bergers or the Badlands as the RL-33.

AB lists the G7 of the 177 HH at .237. I'm obviously probably biased, but doesn't shooting a heavier bullet with a lower b.c. to slow it down negate the whole purpose of the build? What's causing the ridiculous damage is velocity. Which was the purpose of the AM to begin with.

 

[Northkill]

AB lists the G7 of the 177 HH at .237. I'm obviously probably biased, but doesn't shooting a heavier bullet with a lower b.c. to slow it down negate the whole purpose of the build? What's causing the ridiculous damage is velocity. Which was the purpose of the AM to begin with.

Hammer lists it as .313 G7, but that is estimated I see. Not sure about the .237 you came up with, but their 169 HH has come out better than that for me. Anyway, your point about the purpose of the build is valid. My point is to find a projo that will hold up to the velocity a little better. I'm really liking the BD-2 overall. I think the tip, while a great expansion initiator at the low-end velocities, is a little too much for the level where this cartridge runs. I may be better off running the 195 EOL load at 3,300, but might play with the mono's some more. Any chance my experience had something to do with copper quality issues you've had? (Lot #030221-1) I'd still like to try them past 600 yd and see if the terminal results are more controlled.

And just to clarify - my thoughts on going heavier/slower were not given in the context of lower velocities as a result of lower BC. The options I gave to try were all listed higher BC than the Badlands, precisely because they were heavier... As to whether their claimed BC's hold out...that's another story. Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Trigger24]

The copper quality issue was limited to .338, .224, and .243 bullets, as it was only in 1/4" and 3/8 bars. I do think the results would be much more controlled at a more reasonable impact velocity. Only time we've ever seen crazy damage was from a guy running a light bullet in a RUM at 3700. Once they expand, and going that speed, the hydraulic pressure is enormous.

 

[Northkill]

Gotcha. Sounds similar to my experience. Is that what happened on this photo? I didn't recover anything from my two deer, but I had saved this photo from someone else's post on here. Sorry, I can't remember who/where that was, but it is quite a result! Appears as if the petals didn't break off at the base of the hollow tip, but rather pealed the whole way down. Kinda cool looking.

 

[Trigger24]

That is the result of impact with AR500 steel. In an animal impact, expansion would stop at the end of the hollow point. That bullet is expanded all the way at to the boattail.

 

[Northkill]

That is the result of impact with AR500 steel. In an animal impact, expansion would stop at the end of the hollow point. That bullet is expanded all the way at to the boattail.

Yeah, that looks wild. Could pass for a work of art

 

[tacosupreme]

Yeah, that looks wild. Could pass for a work of art

It is a work of art! I'm not sure exact range of the target. It was far enough out my rangefinder wouldn't pick it up. Ended up using my 6.5 Creedmoor for hunting this year and didn't get a chance to test them on game. At least not yet, still have a valid elk tag to punch.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Interesting idea. I know it's dangerous to stick a neck out, but any guesstimate on velocity potential if Kirby got 3,300 MV on the 195 EOL w/RL-33?

I would guess 3400ish.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

We have found that the Absolutes hit what I call a point of diminishing returns when running cartridges over 80g of powder. The vel gains of the lower engraving pressure become less with the big cartridges. Also we have seen less gains with very efficient cartridges. Seems the less efficient the cartridge the more vel gain we see from the Absolutes. @ButterBean is correct when he says that the Absolutes are hard to predict what they will do in the big cases. He and a few others have messed with what I consider very fast powders with them with good results. The first trigger pull can be exciting, to say the least. Maybe more excitement than I am looking for. QL did profile all of our bullets this summer, but I have not heard from anyone how the Absolutes work out compared to their profile. If someone has the latest QL update and wants to run the numbers on the 172g AH in the 7mm Allen Mag it would be interesting to see what comes of it.

I agree with what has been said earlier, that high load density is the best. I always try to shoot for full case capacity at pressure. This is where we always find the best loads.

As far as the bc on the 177g Hammer Hunter. From my last conversation with AB, they calculate their bc value all the way to the transonic and then give an average bc that will get you there. When I asked why would you do that with a hunting bullet, I was told that is how they do it. Maybe their drag curve works out, but their single bc value to the transonic does not work for me to hunting range. All I can say is shoot your own drops to the range that you are intending to use whatever bullet you have, and figure out what bc gets you there. Every gun is different and every day is different and every location is different. Calculating bc of a bullet and expecting it to be accurate from one rifle to another is a crap shoot at best. This is why Ohler developed their bc calculation system. They have seen the same things that we have. Twin rifles on the same range session shooting 4' difference at 1000y. We bought one of these systems but have not had time to try it out. I am anxious to use it. Hoping that this year we will have time to spend with it with as many bullets that we can possibly shoot through it. Our biggest concern with hunting bullets is terminal performance. bc takes a very back seat to that. I have said many times that we will not sacrifice terminal performance for anything. Not bc or production cost. If we can find a way to get better bc without sacrificing terminal performance we will be all over it.

We run a tangent ogive because it gives us more weight for the length of the bullet than a secant ogive does. Because of this I think we see more variation in bc from rifle to rifle with the same bullet. Tighter bore rifles engage the ogive of the bullet farther in front of the shoulder causing a decrease in the bc. Weight makes bc and form makes bc. We have not seen the form of the secant ogive to create more bc than the added weight of the tangent ogive. It is less effected by the tightness of the bore though.

So after all of that, if I were loading a 172g Absolute Hammer in a 7mm AM, I would start out with powders that I know are going to be comfortable with the weight of the bullet. Load them as far as I can to see if I can reach pressure. Off of that data I would decide where to go with the next fastest powder and run the same kind of latter. Use that data to look at faster yet powders and determine if we can use a faster powder and maintain enough case fill to be safe. Chances are if you can reach pressure with a slower powder before you max the case capacity a faster powder is not going to get you anything better. Each powder has it's own burn characteristic and will perform differently. Even if they are close on the burn chart or not. This is the beauty of working with wildcats.