My thoughts on solid copper bullets and in comparison to other bullet types.

[Petey308]

As long as we all keep learning, that's a win!

 

[Northkill]

I've been a casual reader here. Maybe I posted before and forgot. Didn't look. From my perspective, the sword cuts both ways, no doubt. It's hard for us to see in ourselves what we think we see in others. I like how you guys are coming together here in the last couple posts. We are all better than we sound on here sometimes. We would do well to heed the words of the wise man in Prov 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

I don't like to get on bandwagons because you're committed to the wagon even if it runs into the ditch. For me, I like the principle of the monos but use whatever the rifle eats the best. The 7-LRM really likes the Berger Hybrids so that's what she gets. The 7 Allen Mag took to the 150 Badlands (after a good bit of work), so that's what she gets. The 6.5 Sherman Max likes the 123 Hammers and runs them nice and speedy. All good medicine.

I am not out to prove or disprove any projectile. Had good terminal results with ELD-M's and Berger's, but also with the monos. The one thing that monos have going with me is speed capabilities and penetration. With the ideal broadside behind-the-shoulder impact and at longer ranges the ELD-M and Berger type usually perform very well.

Here's a real-world case in point from this past season. My son was using the 7-LRM with the 180-Hybrids and had to take a stern to stem shot on a wounded SMALL deer. Impact was in the driver's side ham. Penetration didn't reach the heart/lung area. Took another shot later to sink it.

A week later I took a LARGE deer from the same angle with the 6.5 Sherman Max and the 123 Hammer. Same range at 200 yds. Impact center of rear ham. Full penetration. Exit out near the shoulder of opposite side. Much bigger-bodied deer. One and done.

This is personal experience. I'm still learning but am so far impressed by the performance of the 123 & 124 Hammers we've used. They seem to punch pretty far above their weight class.

As to being in a class of their own...it depends on the parameters. If defined too broadly, then no. But in all fairness, from what I've seen, they do have terminal advantages over the other monos I've used - Barnes and Badlands. So, in my humble opinion and small understanding, I get the claim. There is a difference. The claim can be fought over all day, and each be right if assuming different parameters. This is what gets us bunched up too often. In real life we probably aren't so far apart.

Now other factors such as BC disadvantages with some monos come into play when getting way out there. That's why I really wanted the Badlands to work. I like them but have mixed feelings based on personal results. Still not sure what to think. The Hammers held together better at hyper-velocity, as in doing what they were designed to do. While I love BC, from what I've found, the increased velocity potential with the Hammer does give it some wiggle room on the BC depending on the cartridge and projo of choice. They are usually very accurate for me and consistent. That I like. As are the Badlands.

As to the petal design, my personal experience seems to indicate that with the larger peeled off petals that break off quickly and leave a flat nosed shank, I typically get straighter penetration, faster, and deeper. A peel-back mono or C&C mushroom would seem to create a larger wound channel, but what it overlooks is the fact that the flat-faced shank maintains much higher velocity over the full path of tissue-displacing penetration. When you scale that factor, you get a picture of a longer and effective (sometimes dramatic) trauma path. Also, at high velocities with the monos designed to petal/star out, some petals will break off while others do not. This immediately redirects the bullet, and that redirection can be quite dramatic.

(I got 14" penetration in gel with the 139 Scenar at 2800 fps and around 36" with the 150 Badlands at 3650 fps. The Badlands shredded its petals (small bits) quickly at that speed and acted more like the Hammers. The wound channel vs full travel was quite a bit longer with the mono in proportion to the Scenar)

Just personal observations from a nonprofessional. Take it or leave it. I'm still in the school of life.

May your Lord's Day be blessed tomorrow.

 

[Hard rock]

And you would be incorrect in that assumption, it's actually the exact opposite but i apologize that's that's the way you see it

I'm kinda scratching my head on that one too . Maybe it has something too do with taking something said out of context

 

[bigngreen]

@Northkill That was a great post and perspective, Thank you for posting it!!

 

[Hard rock]

I've been a casual reader here. Maybe I posted before and forgot. Didn't look. From my perspective, the sword cuts both ways, no doubt. It's hard for us to see in ourselves what we think we see in others. I like how you guys are coming together here in the last couple posts. We are all better than we sound on here sometimes. We would do well to heed the words of the wise man in Prov 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

I don't like to get on bandwagons because you're committed to the wagon even if it runs into the ditch. For me, I like the principle of the monos but use whatever the rifle eats the best. The 7-LRM really likes the Berger Hybrids so that's what she gets. The 7 Allen Mag took to the 150 Badlands (after a good bit of work), so that's what she gets. The 6.5 Sherman Max likes the 123 Hammers and runs them nice and speedy. All good medicine.

I am not out to prove or disprove any projectile. Had good terminal results with ELD-M's and Berger's, but also with the monos. The one thing that monos have going with me is speed capabilities and penetration. With the ideal broadside behind-the-shoulder impact and at longer ranges the ELD-M and Berger type usually perform very well.

Here's a real-world case in point from this past season. My son was using the 7-LRM with the 180-Hybrids and had to take a stern to stem shot on a wounded SMALL deer. Impact was in the driver's side ham. Penetration didn't reach the heart/lung area. Took another shot later to sink it.

A week later I took a LARGE deer from the same angle with the 6.5 Sherman Max and the 123 Hammer. Same range at 200 yds. Impact center of rear ham. Full penetration. Exit out near the shoulder of opposite side. Much bigger-bodied deer. One and done.

This is personal experience. I'm still learning but am so far impressed by the performance of the 123 & 124 Hammers we've used. They seem to punch pretty far above their weight class.

As to being in a class of their own...it depends on the parameters. If defined too broadly, then no. But in all fairness, from what I've seen, they do have terminal advantages over the other monos I've used - Barnes and Badlands. So, in my humble opinion and small understanding, I get the claim. There is a difference. The claim can be fought over all day, and each be right if assuming different parameters. This is what gets us bunched up too often. In real life we probably aren't so far apart.

Now other factors such as BC disadvantages with some monos come into play when getting way out there. That's why I really wanted the Badlands to work. I like them but have mixed feelings based on personal results. Still not sure what to think. The Hammers held together better at hyper-velocity, as in doing what they were designed to do. While I love BC, from what I've found, the increased velocity potential with the Hammer does give it some wiggle room on the BC depending on the cartridge and projo of choice. They are usually very accurate for me and consistent. That I like. As are the Badlands.

As to the petal design, my personal experience seems to indicate that with the larger peeled off petals that break off quickly and leave a flat nosed shank, I typically get straighter penetration, faster, and deeper. A peel-back mono or C&C mushroom would seem to create a larger wound channel, but what it overlooks is the fact that the flat-faced shank maintains much higher velocity over the full path of tissue-displacing penetration. When you scale that factor, you get a picture of a longer and effective (sometimes dramatic) trauma path. Also, at high velocities with the monos designed to petal/star out, some petals will break off while others do not. This immediately redirects the bullet, and that redirection can be quite dramatic.

(I got 14" penetration in gel with the 139 Scenar at 2800 fps and around 36" with the 150 Badlands at 3650 fps. The Badlands shredded its petals (small bits) quickly at that speed and acted more like the Hammers. The wound channel vs full travel was quite a bit longer with the mono in proportion to the Scenar)

Just personal observations from a nonprofessional. Take it or leave it. I'm still in the school of life.

May your Lord's Day be blessed tomorrow.

Northkill that is exactly what the Hammer user's keep saying and it is hard too digest when someone insinuates otherwise , so yes let's have civil discussions on the performance of other bullets . I have been keeping up with posts made about Hammer bullets and can remember only one incident where the bullet was in question of Terminal Performance . Steve went out of his way too find out what might have gone wrong and didn't hesitate too respond with respect and concern . The opposite of what some posters are saying.

 

[FEENIX]

@Petey308, it's that time, cheers!

 

[Petey308]

Northkill that is exactly what the Hammer user's keep saying and it is hard too digest when someone insinuates otherwise , so yes let's have civil discussions on the performance of other bullets . I have been keeping up with posts made about Hammer bullets and can remember only one incident where the bullet was in question of Terminal Performance . Steve went out of his way too find out what might have gone wrong and didn't hesitate too respond with respect and concern . The opposite of what some posters are saying.

To be fair, this post did not start out as a post on Hammers (even though they were mentioned). It was made to discuss mono bullets in general, which would include Hammer. It's definitely heavily leaned on Hammer though from a lot of the comments since, by many. @FEENIX was kind enough to create a post after this one was made to show just how many mono options are out there.

Once again, I have zero, nothing, nada, against Hammer bullets. I'm not out to get them and I'm not telling anyone not to use them. I'm merely sharing my own personal thoughts on monos, right or wrong. We can all learn from each other with such a discussion. It didn't have to turn into a huge debate or argument. It can still be salvaged even now. It took a good turn already.

I didn't originally want to even post this, but I was asked to. Go look at the thread I made on bullet construction. In the comments I was asked to post this after I said I had thoughts to share on monos too, so I reluctantly did. And even the first couple of comments had me feeling like I was right to be reluctant.

I've tried my best to keep up with the comments, debate, and I've tried really hard to keep it professional. My intent has never been, and still isn't, to talk trash on any particular bullet. They all have merits and they all work well when used appropriately, and that includes monos- end of story.

I just really don't want anyone to take my intent wrong here. I wish you all the best success on your future hunts, with whatever bullets, cartridges, and rifles you choose.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Since we are all clearing up our intent. My intent here was nothing more than brining in my perspective on terminal performance and how it happens. I bring this perspective as one of the manufacturers listed in the OP. Our bullets are designed to achieve the terminal performance that I outlined. What our bullets do is different than other bullets, so I want to make sure that the blanket statements about copper bullets are not applied to Hammers.

No discussion on my points took place. Only that I was was trying to shut down the thread. That was not my intent. Somehow I draw anger and then I am willing to give it back. I will check this going forward.

 

[Petey308]

Since we are all clearing up our intent. My intent here was nothing more than brining in my perspective on terminal performance and how it happens. I bring this perspective as one of the manufacturers listed in the OP. Our bullets are designed to achieve the terminal performance that I outlined. What our bullets do is different than other bullets, so I want to make sure that the blanket statements about copper bullets are not applied to Hammers.

No discussion on my points took place. Only that I was was trying to shut down the thread. That was not my intent. Somehow I draw anger and then I am willing to give it back. I will check this going forward.

First off, I do really appreciate your insight, and that you do interact with the hunting community, even after having your own successful business in the industry.

Perhaps the tone and behavior from other posts and comments made (not just by you), your first comment here unconsciously got a bit dismissed. That's unfortunate. After making a post regarding mono bullets, I've experienced similar things by some even posting about other things like reloading. Because it's been perceived that I don't like monos, what I have to say about anything else is dismissed now by some.

A lot of discussion took place before you commented here.I went back just this morning and read through the first 4 pages and was pretty happy with how I conducted myself and how the discussion was progressing.

Like you said in your first sentence, you arrived here late. The tone had been set already. I tried to clear things up quite a bit in the first few pages of this thread, and I've remained consistent from the beginning. I've also learned a lot. This thread started off well and even got a lot of praise about how civil the discussion was. It eventually took a bad turn though. That's the tone that was set that I was referring to when you joined the thread.

I wish we could keep all these discussions civil and as actual discussions. We're not always going to agree on things either. You and I still do not agree on many things regarding terminal ballistics. I didn't agree with a lot of what you said in your first comment here in this thread, and rather than argue about it, I chose not to even go there with most of it. I guess the only thing I couldn't let go was the claim that Hammers are in a class of their own. I don't care to reignite that fire either. I get your intent with that statement, and I'm willing to drop it. I've had debates even with you in other threads about our differing opinions regarding terminal ballistics. It appears we're at a stalemate with certain things. I really don't want to continue arguing about it. I'd rather agree to disagree at this point.

Again Steve, I have nothing against you, Brian, your company, and what you guys are trying to accomplish. I wish you the best and I hope you thrive. I myself am pursuing a business manufacturing hunting bullets, ammo, etc and I would hope to take any criticism, constructive or not, and use it to better my product. The community can be harsh. Some want to hate just to hate. You'll never please everyone. I'm finishing up a book about bullets and terminal ballistics and I know darn well there will be a lot of harsh criticism come from it. That's just the nature of the beast. And I'm doing my best to keep any bias out of it. My intent is not to trash any company or any bullet, only to talk about the differences and considerations. They all have merits. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Some are more well rounded than others. I appreciate that you are trying to make a well rounded lead free bullet.

I really don't know what else to say.

 

[asd9055]

Needed a big one today...

 

[xsn10s]

Needed a big one today...

 

[Varmint Hunter]

I shoot many different bullets from a variety of manufacturers. For many years it was one of the cup & core bullets or Barnes X bullets. It didn't seem like there was much else. While all the bullets have improved over the years there have only been a few significant improvements IMO. "Bonding" bullets, in one way or another, seemed revolutionary and was a big step forward. Then really high BC hunting bullets came along and provided another improved bullet style, which solved a different problem.

The Hammer bullets seemed to have resolved several issues in a single bullet without creating any issues of their own. I won't get into their attributes because that will only start a 90 page controversial thread on its own. While I would only put a few bullets into the category of "revolutionary" in overall design; Hamers would be one of them.

No - I'm not a Hammer supporter but I do like them for hunting biggame. However, I haven't abandoned my old favorites. I'm still shooting V-Max bullets at small critters, Bergers at paper, Partitions at some really big stuff and even use some fat Speers in my 45-70 for hunting bears over bait.

Thankfully, we have so many good choices today that's it's hard to settle on just 1 or 2 bullets. The only issue that we really have is finding what we want, when we want it.

 

[Varmint Hunter]

Interesting - in my post above I typed " I'm not a Hammer f-a-n-b-o-y" but it automatically changed the word f-a-n-b-o-y to supporter.

If I try to edit it back to the original word, it just auto corrects. That's a shame because I am a Hammer supporter, I just don't consider myself a f-a-n-b-o-y. LOL

 

[Petey308]

I won't get into their attributes because that will only start a 90 page controversial thread on its own.

It's already been done before . I get your point though. I was never interested in that either. Having a discussion and sharing thoughts and experiences should just be all it really is.