Not Just A New Tip Color…

[antleredacres]

Yes sir. So far most everything has been running with a .9 form factor. So if our final bullet weight for an 8" twist 7mm comes in at 155gr, that would be a g7 bc of .305.

May be minor but I hope the tips come installed.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

May be minor but I hope the tips come installed.

We are still waiting on our tipping machine to come in. Was supposed to be here back in Aug. Hopefully soon. We are getting less patient.

 

[sambo3006]

What is the required twist rate for the 6.5 mm bullet?

 

[TheSouthpaw]

Yes sir. So far most everything has been running with a .9 form factor. So if our final bullet weight for an 8" twist 7mm comes in at 155gr, that would be a g7 bc of .305.

That's estimated. Perhaps customers will finally get Oehler or radar verified BC? You've said you would do it in years past, yet here we are.

 

[JayR01]

Not final on the 7mm yet. For 1-8" will be in the 150's range.

Looking forward to these, Thanks for the update

 

[snox801]

That's estimated. Perhaps customers will finally get Oehler or radar verified BC? You've said you would do it in years past, yet here we are.

You do know that both of those are still not "correct" hence why it's rare to punch in that number and it be correct?
I agree it's nice to be close but even extensively tested applied ballistics numbers are not spot on. You have to make adjustments to all your of them.

 

[JAYgs8163]

You do know that both of those are still not "correct" hence why it's rare to punch in that number and it be correct?
I agree it's nice to be close but even extensively tested applied ballistics numbers are not spot on. You have to make adjustments to all your of them.

Agree but… there are many MFGs of projectiles that are VERY, VERY close to being spot on with their stated BC's, some requiring no adjustment at all for me. Some have "estimated BCs" that are garbage, not even close to being accurate. Personally I've had experience with 2 and won't use their products anymore. For me if a MFG is moving into making a Precision Long Range hunting projectile, and going to market it as one, I sure hope it's been thoroughly tested with VERY accurate data in all categories, BC included!

 

[snox801]

Agree but… there are many MFGs of projectiles that are VERY, VERY close to being spot on with their stated BC's, some requiring no adjustment at all for me. Some have "estimated BCs" that are garbage, not even close to being accurate. Personally I've had experience with 2 and won't use their products anymore. For me if a MFG is moving into making a Precision Long Range hunting projectile, and going to market it as one, I sure hope it's been thoroughly tested with VERY accurate data in all categories, BC included!

Well the opposite can be true. In my applied app it has the hammer 124 gr so far on the low side it doesn't line up with anything I've shot. So by your means you would never use them? They are apparently done the right way. I agree I don't like when they overstate the bc as that lends to people making the wrong purchase based on what they think is the highest bc. But that show also falls on the other foot.
Line is yes I agree would be nice for them to be very close to help choose the correct bullet. But you still need to validate and that changes with rifles. Hence why the bullet you wanna shoot may not be what the rifle shoots. So many people have Berger bullets that simply won't shoot in a rifle Berger says they will. Only way to know is to test.

No one should take a rifle and load to the field "hoping" the bc is correct. No matter the bullet maker.
I want higher bc but to say you won't buy a product because you got lower bc than stated is ridiculous. If that was the fact I wouldn't be able to shoot many of the great products we have out. Or be able to use AB solutions cause they got the bc wrong for my rifle.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I wonder how anyone here knows what kind of testing we have done?

 

[WeiserBucks]

I wonder how anyone here knows what kind of testing we have done?

I don't. What kind of testing have you done?

 

[JAYgs8163]

Well the opposite can be true. In my applied app it has the hammer 124 gr so far on the low side it doesn't line up with anything I've shot. So by your means you would never use them? They are apparently done the right way. I agree I don't like when they overstate the bc as that lends to people making the wrong purchase based on what they think is the highest bc. But that show also falls on the other foot.
Line is yes I agree would be nice for them to be very close to help choose the correct bullet. But you still need to validate and that changes with rifles. Hence why the bullet you wanna shoot may not be what the rifle shoots. So many people have Berger bullets that simply won't shoot in a rifle Berger says they will. Only way to know is to test.

No one should take a rifle and load to the field "hoping" the bc is correct. No matter the bullet maker.
I want higher bc but to say you won't buy a product because you got lower bc than stated is ridiculous. If that was the fact I wouldn't be able to shoot many of the great products we have out. Or be able to use AB solutions cause they got the bc wrong for my rifle.

I never said I didn't verify the BC and I wouldn't ever take a firearm/load to the field without verifying load and my data. I said I won't use a bullet with a BC that's so far off from the "estimated bc" put out there by the MFG as in my opinion they didn't their work.

Point being as you said, "in my applied app it has the hammer 124 gr so far on the low side it doesn't line up with anything I've shot." If I'm not mistaken the data in their app is provided by the MFG of the projectile? I have no idea what testing is done but I just know it wasn't accurate for me!

I don't use Hammer Hunters as the stated BC provided for the 6mm I used didn't line up in any BC Calc I used. It was WAY off. I got tired of chasing it, or adjusting it, and just went back to what I knew worked for me. I'm not spending twice as much on a projectile and wasting components, time, and money when I don't have to, even if they do shoot in the same hole at 100 yards.

Now I really like the Hammer bullets and I am hoping the new bullet coming out has a better verified BC than what I've experienced in the past. If not, that's okay. I'll just move on.

I'm not Berger fan, a Hammer fan, or loyal to any one maker of bullets. I just want one that works!

 

[waspocrew]

I'll verify the BC of any projectile I'm using in order to make sure my corrections work. However, like mentioned above, the cost of Hammer projectiles does make it sting a bit more.

Interested to actually hear more information instead of more teaser pics/posts.

 

[dfanonymous]

I never said I didn't verify the BC and I wouldn't ever take a firearm/load to the field without verifying load and my data. I said I won't use a bullet with a BC that's so far off from the "estimated bc" put out there by the MFG as in my opinion they didn't their work.

Point being as you said, "in my applied app it has the hammer 124 gr so far on the low side it doesn't line up with anything I've shot." If I'm not mistaken the data in their app is provided by the MFG of the projectile? I have no idea what testing is done but I just know it wasn't accurate for me!

I don't use Hammer Hunters as the stated BC provided for the 6mm I used didn't line up in any BC Calc I used. It was WAY off. I got tired of chasing it, or adjusting it, and just went back to what I knew worked for me. I'm not spending twice as much on a projectile and wasting components, time, and money when I don't have to, even if they do shoot in the same hole at 100 yards.

Now I really like the Hammer bullets and I am hoping the new bullet coming out has a better verified BC than what I've experienced in the past. If not, that's okay. I'll just move on.

I'm not Berger fan, a Hammer fan, or loyal to any one maker of bullets. I just want one that works!

Assuming he's talking about AB, they have manufactures BC, Litz verified BC, and their own custom curve which is their own radar recorded curve of the actual bullet, not based on a model.


Because BCs are models, they are subject to change by mach, stability, and some other factors, it will always be different rifle to rifle, cartridge to cartridge, and distance to distance.

 

[snox801]

Assuming he's talking about AB, they have manufactures BC, Litz verified BC, and their own custom curve which is their own radar recorded curve of the actual bullet, not based on a model.


Because BCs are models, they are subject to change by mach, stability, and some other factors, it will always be different rifle to rifle, cartridge to cartridge, and distance to distance.

Yes that's what I was referring to. My point was simply to point out that bc can be off. Rifle to rifle, or company to company. He said he didn't use a company because bc was so far off. Stating also he wanted real testing.

Brian does all the real testing and I used his bullet library data which was supposed to do the said testing. I used his tested numbers and those were very low. Should I never trust brains numbers again? Or should I chalk it up as dang then get my own. I've personally had bullet go both ways. Not sure how his idea of testing is gonna change that fact.