Least fussy mono-metal bullet?

[Pdvdh]

Why is it a trade when you can shoot the meat saver shot with a hammer that doesn't need bone and have the best of both. Hence why I keep telling Barnes guys to give them a try. You get best of both worlds hit bone who cares don't who cares

This has been my experience with Badlands bullets also, so far. But my longest shots have been 525 to 620yds.

If I happen to hit muscle, meat loss is very minimal. Hit one animal in the rear ham and recovered it under the hide in front of the opposing shoulder. Pancaked that Dall ram. Very little meat damage even on the butt cheek that took the brunt of the bullet's energy. Had that bullet been a Burger? Leave that rear ham in the field for the birds...

I have a box of .308 Hammer Hunters, but I started with the Bulldozer bullets.
I like tipped bullets, and I will occasionally have shot opportunities from mountainside to mountainside. The higher BC value and retained velocity of the BD bullet can be beneficial. Badlands BD performance so far has not left me wanting. So have not yet shot the Hammers. But wouldn't hesitate based on all the positive Hammer reviews. What I've experienced with BD bullets mimics the performance I read from the Hammer bullet hunters.

Have had several broadside lung shot caribou run from 40 to 160yds before piling up with BDs. I consider those perfect shots, with perfect bullet performance. Salvagable and edible meat right up to the bullet entry and exits.

Have not shot any game with the SBD-2s yet. All my kills have been with their original BD bullets.

 

[Equalizer]

Why is it a trade when you can shoot the meat saver shot with a hammer that doesn't need bone and have the best of both. Hence why I keep telling Barnes guys to give them a try. You get best of both worlds hit bone who cares don't who cares

Oh I'm picking up what you're putting down! My sample sizes are not as great as many of you guys and gals here but after seeing the smack down a 35 cal mono does on a shoulder shot whitetail I want that emphatic thump every time!

Agreed! It is one of the primary reasons I followed @codyadams posts on Cayugas and Badlands is because of the 600Y+ tests and successes on game harvests. He is making my decision a lot easier. Choice, choices, choices ... GSC Customs, Cutting Edge, Hammer, Badlands, Cayuga, Peregrine, Maker, Lehigh Defense, Apex Outdoors (soon), etc., and major bullet manufacturers' monolithic bullet offerings.

I had no idea there were so many brands & offerings … WOW. Better sell the farm if I'm going to test em in all my rifles lol

 

[FEENIX]

I had no idea there were so many brands & offerings … WOW. Better sell the farm if I'm going to test em in all my rifles lol

Yes Sir! I have nothing but respect to all the ranchers and farmers. Please do not sell the farm.

ADDED:

My sincere apologies for being biased.

 

[Northkill]

Agreed! That's OK; as noted, I will be doing my own tests, esp. in LRH (up to 1K similar to @codyadams and @highdrum ). I have a few different monos on hand and inbound, including GSCs (I could be wrong, but IIRC, they are the first to explore the monos (1992?)).

Morning bud. It's hard not to feel your negative bias coming through. Why not wait till after your trials to chime in? Your push-back against "unsubstantiated claims" leads to indirect "unsubstantiated claims" on the inverse.

I have Barnes, Hammers, Badlands, and more recently some Cayuga's to try. There is no bias in my bones. I'm a nut when it comes to perfection and I'm always chasing improvement. I love the BC's of the Badlands, but it is abundantly clear to me that they do not run close to the Hammers in speed with all things considered. They have also been a lot more work to find a tight-shooting load. The best I've gotten so far with multiple rifles, calibers, and weights is 0.64 MOA. This is not good enough for me and basically cancels the value of a high BC. What I've seen with BC performance though, would make them my go-to projo - if they could just shoot tight. I need 0.3 MOA before I'm satisfied. And that is not hard to get with the Hammers in the same rifles if your willing to try another weight if one doesn't quite cut it.

Barnes have generally been ok, but nothing exceptional, and I've found not as speedy. Terminal results in my experience have been somewhat varied - likely depending on speed and target resistance. I've had plenty of very impressive terminal results with the Hammers at a wide range of speeds and impact variables. The little 52 gr .224 going 3,400 in our stock Rem 223 has blown me away with it's way out-sized performance on game as well as accuracy. Same story with the 124's running in my 6.5x284 and 6.5 Creed's. I'm going to try the Badlands on some deer in the next 3 weeks - hopefully that is. The rifle that's running them is a bit outside of normal performance range so maybe not the best test - launching the 7mm 150 BD-2's at near 3,700 fps. in front of 106 gr of RL-33, there's no question something violent is going to happen.

I got the Cayuga's a little late to get a load workup before season, so we'll wait to try those 122's in a 6.5 PRC next year, but I have high hopes they will meet expectations. I just can't honestly report anything on those as of yet.

They all have their pros and cons. No need to bash one to promote another, but my unbiased experience has been rather positive for the Hammers. I love working with the company and the old-world service they provide. If they can push the BC's up, we'll be in happy land. Just like everyone else, they are continually working on improving product and design, so we'll see.

But please do your test and let us know what happens. But honestly, with so many variables to consider, your expressed bias so far will have a bearing on our confidence in the results. Running the exact same components isn't necessarily a fair test with bullets of different design characteristics. I'm sure broader feedback will be forthcoming over time.

To the OP, if most of your game is taken at 600 yd and in (maybe further depending on your projo & speed), I can almost guarantee you'll be delighted with the Hammers. They will typically cost you less to find a load and will give you terminal results to take to the bank - or freezer rather. If you like trying things and don't mind exploring for full potential, buy samples of all of them and keep what works best for your rifle, your needs, and your expectations.

 

[FEENIX]

Morning bud. It's hard not to feel your negative bias coming through. Why not wait till after your trials to chime in? Your push-back against "unsubstantiated claims" leads to indirect "unsubstantiated claims" on the inverse.

I have Barnes, Hammers, Badlands, and more recently some Cayuga's to try. There is no bias in my bones. I'm a nut when it comes to perfection and I'm always chasing improvement. I love the BC's of the Badlands, but it is abundantly clear to me that they do not run close to the Hammers in speed with all things considered. They have also been a lot more work to find a tight-shooting load. The best I've gotten so far with multiple rifles, calibers, and weights is 0.64 MOA. This is not good enough for me and basically cancels the value of a high BC. What I've seen with BC performance though, would make them my go-to projo - if they could just shoot tight. I need 0.3 MOA before I'm satisfied. And that is not hard to get with the Hammers in the same rifles if your willing to try another weight if one doesn't quite cut it.

Barnes have generally been ok, but nothing exceptional, and I've found not as speedy. Terminal results in my experience have been somewhat varied - likely depending on speed and target resistance. I've had plenty of very impressive terminal results with the Hammers at a wide range of speeds and impact variables. The little 52 gr .224 going 3,400 in our stock Rem 223 has blown me away with it's way out-sized performance on game as well as accuracy. Same story with the 124's running in my 6.5x284 and 6.5 Creed's. I'm going to try the Badlands on some deer in the next 3 weeks - hopefully that is. The rifle that's running them is a bit outside of normal performance range so maybe not the best test - launching the 7mm 150 BD-2's at near 3,700 fps. in front of 106 gr of RL-33, there's no question something violent is going to happen.

I got the Cayuga's a little late to get a load workup before season, so we'll wait to try those 122's in a 6.5 PRC next year, but I have high hopes they will meet expectations. I just can't honestly report anything on those as of yet.

They all have their pros and cons. No need to bash one to promote another, but my unbiased experience has been rather positive for the Hammers. I love working with the company and the old-world service they provide. If they can push the BC's up, we'll be in happy land. Just like everyone else, they are continually working on improving product and design, so we'll see.

But please do your test and let us know what happens. But honestly, with so many variables to consider, your expressed bias so far will have a bearing on our confidence in the results. Running the exact same components isn't necessarily a fair test with bullets of different design characteristics. I'm sure broader feedback will be forthcoming over time.

To the OP, if most of your game is taken at 600 yd and in (maybe further depending on your projo & speed), I can almost guarantee you'll be delighted with the Hammers. They will typically cost you less to find a load and will give you terminal results to take to the bank - or freezer rather. If you like trying things and don't mind exploring for full potential, buy samples of all of them and keep what works best for your rifle, your needs, and your expectations.

Good morning to you as well. I am sorry you felt that way, about bias that is. I assure you as a continuous learner and analyst/researcher, I try to be objective and unbiased. My comment to @codyadams and @highdrum is a purpose sampling I am interested in, which is not the same as you are implying. Yes, I love to have the time to do my test but time is premium to me these days; it has been in the last 3.5 years. I have 4 rifles built in the last 2 years and have not done any load development.

My posts here are my stress reliever and comfort. Have a wonderful day Bud. Cheers!

 

[snox801]

Northkill no how I deal with the lower bc?
Bigger caliber.
I stopped trying to make a 6.5 creed a deer round out to 1000. I still would love to see higher bc's for sure but I just have different rifles for different jobs. I know some can't and that's ok but that part of the fun for me. Always the toughest choice of the hunt which one to bring.

 

[Northkill]

My posts here is my stress reliever and comfort. Have a wonderful day Bud. Cheers!

I suspect the same is true for quite a number who post on here. And that is good if we can do that, and are able to see that in one another.

We all have our biases. It didn't strike me as fair to the OP to directly, or indirectly by implication, steer him away from a certain worthy option on the basis of it being "in vogue". You and I (and others who've shown this in their postings) might share a similar personality trait in that we tend to be down on what "everyone else" is up on. That independent streak. I try hard not to let that tendency affect my postings and biases for or against products that I have not personally experienced and objectively tested.

You're a man of great accomplishment and experience in this field and I salute you for that. In this case, my concern is to the OP's original question which did not specify distance performance expectations, but rather inquiring as to the "least fussy" mono. It's hard, based on my experience and many others, not to recommend the Hammer on that premise alone. The Cayuga's may be similar in that regard, but I have no personal experience with them yet, and they do not have close to the level of in-field testing to-date that the Hammer's have received. This doesn't disannul the Cayuga's viability at all, but your demand for "empirical data" from others seems a little unfair when considered against the benefit of the doubt you seem willing to give some other projos based on limited testing/reporting.

Anyway, I won't extend my thoughts. I gave my personal experience without bias in my earlier post. I have also found there to be a lot more support and broader experience to draw from with the Hammers than the others. That may mean more to some of us than others. The OP will have to decide based on his priorities and expectations. For me, the jury is still out as I keep shooting, experimenting, and testing - always looking for that magic, silver bullet in the relentless quest for "perfection".

NOTE: in relation to my experience with the Bandlands, I've reached out to them after hearing that some of my lots may have been purchased over the time they were working with a bad lot of raw product. I was told that the only ones affected were the .224 and .338 bullets. This explains why my .224's were so bad but the 7mm and 6.5 mm versions I had tried were still fussy. They are going to replace my .224's with a new lot, so customer service is great. Was also informed that their new copper supplier is providing them a much better quality product, so I have hopes for improvement. I very badly want them to shoot good and will keep trying for now.

Happy thanksgiving everyone! So much to be thankful for. God bless you all.

 

[FEENIX]

I suspect the same is true for quite a number who post on here. And that is good if we can do that, and are able to see that in one another.

We all have our biases. It didn't strike me as fair to the OP to directly, or indirectly by implication, steer him away from a certain worthy option on the basis of it being "in vogue". You and I (and others who've shown this in their postings) might share a similar personality trait in that we tend to be down on what "everyone else" is up on. That independent streak. I try hard not to let that tendency affect my postings and biases for or against products that I have not personally experienced and objectively tested.

You're a man of great accomplishment and experience in this field and I salute you for that. In this case, my concern is to the OP's original question which did not specify distance performance expectations, but rather inquiring as to the "least fussy" mono. It's hard, based on my experience and many others, not to recommend the Hammer on that premise alone. The Cayuga's may be similar in that regard, but I have no personal experience with them yet, and they do not have close to the level of in-field testing to-date that the Hammer's have received. This doesn't disannul the Cayuga's viability at all, but your demand for "empirical data" from others seems a little unfair when considered against the benefit of the doubt you seem willing to give some other projos based on limited testing/reporting.

Anyway, I won't extend my thoughts. I gave my personal experience without bias in my earlier post. I have also found there to be a lot more support and broader experience to draw from with the Hammers than the others. That may mean more to some of us than others. The OP will have to decide based on his priorities and expectations. For me, the jury is still out as I keep shooting, experimenting, and testing - always looking for that magic, silver bullet in the relentless quest for "perfection".

NOTE: in relation to my experience with the Bandlands, I've reached out to them after hearing that some of my lots may have been purchased over the time they were working with a bad lot of raw product. I was told that the only ones affected were the .224 and .338 bullets. This explains why my .224's were so bad but the 7mm and 6.5 mm versions I had tried were still fussy. They are going to replace my .224's with a new lot, so customer service is great. Was also informed that their new copper supplier is providing them a much better quality product, so I have hopes for improvement. I very badly want them to shoot good and will keep trying for now.

Happy thanksgiving everyone! So much to be thankful for. God bless you all.

See post #94. BTW, if I have a bias on something, I normally let it known from the start.

 

[Northkill]

See post #94. BTW, if I have a bias on something, I normally let it known from the start.

We are interesting and complex creatures aren't we... Would enjoy the privilege to meet someday but we are pretty far apart. How far are you from my friend Blaine Painter at Unknown Munitions in ID? God bless your day.

 

[DoneNOut]

Northkill, FEENIX...get a room, GOSH

 

[xsn10s]

 

[FEENIX]

Northkill, FEENIX...get a room, GOSH

Brad,

You behave!

 

[FEENIX]

DDP

 

[vancewalker007]

Hey fellas, for those that shoot mono-metals exclusively; have you found a particular brand that isn't fussy when working up a load?

Yeah, broad-ish question; just needed to test the waters if those pills from PVA/Hammer/Badlands/Barnes etc where favored more over another.

Preface, looking to build a lighter weight 6.5PRC for using in a non-lead state (hint) and 24" tube.

I have loaded some TSX years back but had troubles getting the rifle to like the bullet.

Thanks!

I have had very good luck with the accuracy of the 127 LRX in my 6.5 PRC. My load is Hornady Cases, CCI BR2s, 60 thou off, 60.9gr IMR8133 from a 26in 1:8 Proof. With a faster powder like H1000 or RL26 I can likely get another 100fps or so. I have a lot of 8133 and wanted to experiment. One nice thing about the Barnes is it works fine with nominal barrel twists. This load is making 3100fps and shot 1/2 MOA at 100, 200 and 300 yards. I didn't have a chance to try it farther yet. The only draw back on the Barnes mono copper bullets that I can see is they need about 2000fps to get good mushrooming and they incur more wind deflection. The 2000fps limit provides a hard limit on range given your rifles muzzle velocity. Maybe for some folks this isn't an issue as they intend to limit themselves anyway.