Not Just A New Tip Color…

[JAYgs8163]

My point is that a MFG should be able to post a "stated BC" that's pretty close to working in a rifle with the recommended twist they state should be used. Not perfect, but not so far off it doesn't even come close to working! Anyways….. moving on and sorry to derail your thread @RockyMtnMT as it wasn't my intent. Looking forward to the new projectile.

 

[JakeC]

Hammer Bullets seems to have the most tip color dysmorphia than any other maker known.

nosler? Paging John nosler?

Why are you worried about that? Dysmorphia is a debilitating mental illness, this is a plastic tip that helps keep your life organized.

Hammer makes a black tip and people complain that it's boring and looks like xyz brand, make a blue tip. Blue tip: weird, and maybe it malfunctions, make it different. Pink tip: I'm insecure, make an orange tip. Orange tip: there's too many colors! They can't make up their mind!

I knew this was coming but it's still hilarious.

 

[dfanonymous]

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.

Most of it stems from peoples poor understanding of BC as it relates to dope. There's people who shoot only within supersonic distances where close enough is good enough. There are people who also use the wrong stability.

There are people on the other spectrum who want absolute precision from zero to subsonic.
In this case, you need multiple BCs for the same cartridge if that's how you want to do.

The most accurate way I'm aware of to test these days is done through Doppler radar to measure the true drag of a particular bullet. Even then, there tends to be exceptions for special barrels and twist.

Keep in mind, that drag significance is mostly a factor at longer distances. Meaning there's some room for error inside supersonic. Hence why you might seem people argue the extremes over them same bullet.

In monolithics case, you have a longer projectile anyways to make equal weight of lead. Automatically, you twist rate needs to be higher or your stability will deteriorate at these distance in which drag starts to significantly impact your bullets flight. It's not apples to apples.

 

[WYO300RUM]

If they shoot as good or better than the HH and HHT in 4 different calibers 7 different cartridges than I'm not against trying them . I'm sure can only be better yet

 

[JakeC]

it doesn't even come close to working!

Ive only used two but the estimates were low in both cases. Two rifles, two diameters, both were estimated slightly low. Roughly half the amount that I found nosler lrab to be estimated low. Less than I found the eldm stated "tested verified, etc" bc to he high in 7mm. (Off by about .015 in one case). But they were all close enough to hunt with past 500. So that kinda leads me to ask if you've tested them. Some people have had negative real experiences, but not nearly the number that flog the irreparable, unusably low bc myth.

The bottom line to me is that if you aren't comfortable treating any published data (for powder, brass, bullets, etc) as a starting point to verify with range time them yeah, custom bullets might not be for you so why stress?

 

[JAYgs8163]

Ive only used two but the estimates were low in both cases. Two rifles, two diameters, both were estimated slightly low. Roughly half the amount that I found nosler lrab to be estimated low. Less than I found the eldm stated "tested verified, etc" bc to he high in 7mm. (Off by about .015 in one case). But they were all close enough to hunt with past 500. So that kinda leads me to ask if you've tested them. Some people have had negative real experiences, but not nearly the number that flog the irreparable, unusably low bc myth.

The bottom line to me is that if you aren't comfortable treating any published data (for powder, brass, bullets, etc) as a starting point to verify with range time them yeah, custom bullets might not be for you so why stress?

I'm not stressing. I do plenty of loading and testing with 15 different rigs I have. Have used many "custom bullets" with fantastic results. I already said I tested the bullets. I ran them to 700 yards. I am very familiar adjusting BC, etc. Anyways…. Forgive me for bringing it up because now I'm getting an earful. The quote you took out of context was generalized to all MFG's but you make it sound like something completely different.

"My point is that a MFG should be able to post a "stated BC" that's pretty close to working in a rifle with the recommended twist they state should be used. Not perfect, but not so far off it doesn't even come close to working!"

 

[snox801]

Most of it stems from peoples poor understanding of BC as it relates to dope. There's people who shoot only within supersonic distances where close enough is good enough. There are people who also use the wrong stability.

There are people on the other spectrum who want absolute precision from zero to subsonic.
In this case, you need multiple BCs for the same cartridge if that's how you want to do.

The most accurate way I'm aware of to test these days is done through Doppler radar to measure the true drag of a particular bullet. Even then, there tends to be exceptions for special barrels and twist.

Keep in mind, that drag significance is mostly a factor at longer distances. Meaning there's some room for error inside supersonic. Hence why you might seem people argue the extremes over them same bullet.

In monolithics case, you have a longer projectile anyways to make equal weight of lead. Automatically, you twist rate needs to be higher or your stability will deteriorate at these distance in which drag starts to significantly impact your bullets flight. It's not apples to apples.

You are proving my point it's never gonna be apples to apples hence why we need to validate to your rifle. So I'm not sure what a Doppler tested bc is gonna do for you.

I think we all want them close but I do know that litz does all that and it's still has been way off for two of mine. Spot on for others.

 

[snox801]

I'm not stressing. I do plenty of loading and testing with 15 different rigs I have. Have used many "custom bullets" with fantastic results. I already said I tested the bullets. I ran them to 700 yards. I am very familiar adjusting BC, etc. Anyways…. Forgive me for bringing it up because now I'm getting an earful. The quote you took out of context was generalized to all MFG's but you make it sound like something completely different.

"My point is that a MFG should be able to post a "stated BC" that's pretty close to working in a rifle with the recommended twist they state should be used. Not perfect, but not so far off it doesn't even come close to working!"

To be fair your concern is warranted but the way it came off to at least me was wrong.

I agree it should be close but as I've pointed out what you want for testing was done for the 124gr hh 6.5 and was on the incredibly low side. So it's never gonna be a perfect world.

 

[dfanonymous]

You are proving my point it's never gonna be apples to apples hence why we need to validate to your rifle. So I'm not sure what a Doppler tested bc is gonna do for you.

I think we all want them close but I do know that litz does all that and it's still has been way off for two of mine. Spot on for others.

I'm not making any point. I'm just saying how it is.
Like I said, the biggest issue is people not knowing enough about how drag affects what they are trying to do.

They aren't "testing" the bullet BC with Doppler. They are making a whole entire curve all together.
Unless you're using a CDM, then you're stuck between a G1 or G7, and those numbers change with mach along its flight. Assuming everything else is correct.

So as to if Litz's team is off base or not, they aren't. They comparing apple to apples from the manufacture. Someone else running a subsonic load with a 16 inch 1:20 twist barrel isn't going to get those results.

 

[JakeC]

I'm not stressing. I do plenty of loading and testing with 15 different rigs I have. Have used many "custom bullets" with fantastic results. I already said I tested the bullets. I ran them to 700 yards. I am very familiar adjusting BC, etc. Anyways…. Forgive me for bringing it up because now I'm getting an earful. The quote you took out of context was generalized to all MFG's but you make it sound like something completely different.

"My point is that a MFG should be able to post a "stated BC" that's pretty close to working in a rifle with the recommended twist they state should be used. Not perfect, but not so far off it doesn't even come close to working!"

I may have excessively abbreviated the sentence but I responded to the full actual context. Your claim, implied, was that some stated bc somewhere, in a way that's relevant to Steve, was so wrong that one couldn't use "it". Can you provide an example of one that was so far off that it doesn't even "work"? If not then yeah, that's a non sequitur. That it is a very specific claim I've heard more than once about Hammer and nobody else ever, so I assumed you were talking to the owner of Hammer about a problem people claim exists with hammers in a thread about hammers. So if you're not talking about hammers or a problem, your statement about problems with BC to the Hammer company is objectively confusing.

Edit, I didn't read your middle post where you talked about having experienced this
Problem in 2 instances. But you're still worried about steve and Brian "verifying" the BCs for you when the form factor estimates have been a very good starting. Does that make sense? I mean you've posted about it 5 times to my count, it seems like you might be a tiny bit stressed. And for good reason apparently, even though you didn't elaborate on your bad experiences, leaving everyone to guess.

 

[JAYgs8163]

I may have excessively abbreviated the sentence but I responded to the full actual context. Your claim, implied, was that some stated bc somewhere, in a way that's relevant to Steve, was so wrong that one couldn't use "it". Can you provide an example of one that was so far off that it doesn't even "work"? If not then yeah, that's a non sequitur. That it is a very specific claim I've heard more than once about Hammer and nobody else ever, so I assumed you were talking to the owner of Hammer about a problem people claim exists with hammers in a thread about hammers. So if you're not talking about hammers or a problem, your statement about problems with BC to the Hammer company is objectively confusing"

Dispute anything about hammer and you go on trial, "excessively". So here you go, yes, the 243, 101HH stated BC was not even close, 6 years ago. 500 meters and 600 meters were not even close to on target using stated BC. 7twist, Creedmoor build I did with a Krieger 7twist 22" barrel running 3203 FPS. I don't have the hand written BC on the box from then. I sold what I had left. I'm sure "Steve" can pull up my purchase and show what I had since you want to start slinging mud! I've used the 264, 85 grain, in a 6.5 Grendel with great results. Y'all get very defensive when anybody questions anything about the Hammer product, if it's good feedback you're a rockstar and if it isn't, or even question it, well proof is in the pudding right here. It was never my intention to drag anyone down and I never said, I had a "bad experience", all I asked was, will there be a more accurate "stated bc" for the new higher BC bullet. Have a good night!

"My point is that a MFG should be able to post a "stated BC" that's pretty close to working in a rifle with the recommended twist they state should be used. Not perfect, but not so far off it doesn't even come close to working!"

 

[JakeC]

Dispute anything about hammer and you go on trial, "excessively". So here you go, yes, the 243, 101HH stated BC was not even close, 6 years ago. 500 meters and 600 meters were not even close to on target using stated BC. 7twist, Creedmoor build I did with a Krieger 7twist 22" barrel running 3203 FPS. I don't have the hand written BC on the box from then. I sold what I had left. I'm sure "Steve" can pull up my purchase and show what I had since you want to start slinging mud! I've used the 264, 85 grain, in a 6.5 Grendel with great results. Y'all get very defensive when anybody questions anything about the Hammer product, if it's good feedback you're a rockstar and if it isn't, or even question it, well proof is in the pudding right here. It was never my intention to drag anyone down, all I asked was will there be a more accurate "stated bc" for the new higher BC bullet. Have a good night!

"My point is that a MFG should be able to post a "stated BC" that's pretty close to working in a rifle with the recommended twist they state should be used. Not perfect, but not so far off it doesn't even come close to working!"

Asking you for details about why you're grilling someone yourself while being ostentatiously vague is not slinging mud. And you weren't disputing anything about hammers, you were asking them for something while others provided evidence that what you were asking for wasn't the best solution. The details are incredibly helpful. If you're interested in progress then that's exactly what's required. It was also likely statistically that you're someone who's worried about something you haven't experienced, with hammers or not, which is the kind of nonsense I'm trying to sort out. Nothings on trial but honesty. Unfortunately logic and complaints about hammers don't always overlap so it's hard to sift the pepper out of the fly waste. If you think hammer critics are treated harshly try being a user who likes them based on findings. I had people message me privately just to say that I shouldn't even try them! And that they were maiming machines because it was a known fact, as stated by the internet. But thankfully you're someone who actually did try without joy and do have something to say. Do you understand the distinction I'm making?

Now how far off is too far off? I know you don't have the exact data but it sounds like you have more than enough experience to approximate it, and I honestly would like to know. If we were in a bar and you stood up and said the 2004 red sox were a junk team that didn't deserve to win I would certainly be interested to hear your hypothesis after I made sure you actually watched some games and had insight.

 

[Brathany]

nosler? Paging John nosler?

Why are you worried about that? Dysmorphia is a debilitating mental illness, this is a plastic tip that helps keep your life organized.

Hammer makes a black tip and people complain that it's boring and looks like xyz brand, make a blue tip. Blue tip: weird, and maybe it malfunctions, make it different. Pink tip: I'm insecure, make an orange tip. Orange tip: there's too many colors! They can't make up their mind!

I knew this was coming but it's still hilarious.

It was a joke. Then again, you said you were looking for a fight, and alas here you are.

 

[Brathany]

Wait till you guys find out the velocities listed on the ammo boxes aren't 100% exact all the time for every cartridge. Because of the change amongst variables n such things.