Sierra Gamechanger bullets.

[LDHunter]

Sometimes you have to carefully read between the lines and nowhere did Hornady show a picture or video of a melted tip that I saw.

If I remember correctly the only proof that they offered was the unexpected slowing down of the bullet "that the drag of this projectile is changing rapidly at high velocity" then they said that "the tips are melting, they have to be melting" and later they said "something's changing, gotta be the tip".

I might not have the quotes exactly right but that seemed to be their ONLY proof that the polymer tips were melting and therefore deforming from heat.

I'm not calling BS but I don't necessarily trust their statement that actual unexpected speed degradation as evidenced by Dopler that didn't match computer modeling "had to be from tip deformation because of heat"...

They may well be right but just how hard would it be with all their incredible testing gear to put a fine mesh net a few feet under water in a lake and to let bullets fall into the water after they'd expended almost all their energy and then recover and examine the deformation of the tips and then have PROOF that tip deformation was happening presumably from heat?

I'm not from Missouri but SHOW ME tips that have been deformed from heat due to friction of the air it's passing through before you ask me to believe it. It shouldn't be that hard with all their resources.

I'm reminds of Sierra's wonderful BC charts that show BC's of their Match King (NO TIP!) bullets being reduced as velocity decreases along the bullet path. It kind of makes me wonder whether this might be happening to Hornady and either they don't realize it or chose to ignore it for marketing purposes.

Note that Sierra's Tipped Match Kings also show this lower BC as velocity decreases too.

I'm certainly not a scientist but I sometimes notice things that make me say hmmmmmm.....

 

[Deputy819]

@tbrice23
@den

Yep....sure enough. You fellas were right. God only knows what I did wrong the first time. Yikes....


Input Data
Caliber: 0.243 in Bullet Weight: 90.0 gr
Bullet Length: 1.162 in Plastic Tip Length: 0.140 in
Muzzle Velocity: 3185.0 ft/s Barrel Twist: 9.0 in
Temperature: 50.0 °F Pressure: 30.11 in Hg
Output Data
Stability: 1.565
18-Aug-18 17:24, JBM/jbmstab-5.1.cgi

 

[cohunt]

Im going to try to compare the 162 eldx to tje 165 GC tomorrow...i jave wet newspaper test media and I'll probably only get 1 shot of each....should I test at 100 yards or 50 yards? Our 600 yard range only allows approved targets so I can't do a long range test.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Im going to try to compare the 162 eldx to tje 165 GC tomorrow...i jave wet newspaper test media and I'll probably only get 1 shot of each....should I test at 100 yards or 50 yards? Our 600 yard range only allows approved targets so I can't do a long range test.

Place a 1 gallon milk jug in front of the news paper. You want to see that the bullet did what it was intended to do inside of the one jug. You can tell this by piecing the jug back together. Use the news paper to stop the bullet. I find that wet or dry makes no difference. Much less trouble if the paper is dry.

Steve

 

[cohunt]

Place a 1 gallon milk jug in front of the news paper. You want to see that the bullet did what it was intended to do inside of the one jug. You can tell this by piecing the jug back together. Use the news paper to stop the bullet. I find that wet or dry makes no difference. Much less trouble if the paper is dry.

Steve

I have a buddy that's done lots of expansion testing, he used to use the jug infront of the dry paper trap, then he compared live kill bullets to it and they weren't the same, he switched to all wet papers and it most closely represents flesh as he can find--- besides, the papers are already soaking in water in my cooler so no going back now ;-)

 

[jasonco]

Sometimes you have to carefully read between the lines and nowhere did Hornady show a picture or video of a melted tip that I saw.

If I remember correctly the only proof that they offered was the unexpected slowing down of the bullet "that the drag of this projectile is changing rapidly at high velocity" then they said that "the tips are melting, they have to be melting" and later they said "something's changing, gotta be the tip".

I might not have the quotes exactly right but that seemed to be their ONLY proof that the polymer tips were melting and therefore deforming from heat.

I'm not calling BS but I don't necessarily trust their statement that actual unexpected speed degradation as evidenced by Dopler that didn't match computer modeling "had to be from tip deformation because of heat"...

They may well be right but just how hard would it be with all their incredible testing gear to put a fine mesh net a few feet under water in a lake and to let bullets fall into the water after they'd expended almost all their energy and then recover and examine the deformation of the tips and then have PROOF that tip deformation was happening presumably from heat?

I'm not from Missouri but SHOW ME tips that have been deformed from heat due to friction of the air it's passing through before you ask me to believe it. It shouldn't be that hard with all their resources.

I'm reminds of Sierra's wonderful BC charts that show BC's of their Match King (NO TIP!) bullets being reduced as velocity decreases along the bullet path. It kind of makes me wonder whether this might be happening to Hornady and either they don't realize it or chose to ignore it for marketing purposes.

Note that Sierra's Tipped Match Kings also show this lower BC as velocity decreases too.

I'm certainly not a scientist but I sometimes notice things that make me say hmmmmmm.....

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I have a buddy that's done lots of expansion testing, he used to use the jug infront of the dry paper trap, then he compared live kill bullets to it and they weren't the same, he switched to all wet papers and it most closely represents flesh as he can find--- besides, the papers are already soaking in water in my cooler so no going back now ;-)

The wet newspaper will help aid in expansion more than the dry. I want to see the bullet fully deformed in the 1st 6". That is why we quit using wet paper. After 6" you are out the other side of many deer full broadside. I consider expansion after 6" of penetration too late.

Steve

 

[KyCarl]

Remember the old "Believe nothing you hear and 1/2 of what you see and you will be OK" They are selling bullets?Who pays for the advertising..We do!
When they prove theirs will out shoot JLK's from Swampy I'll take a look...But
I don't think they can!

 

[cohunt]

well-- here it is boys and girls!--for what its worth, its wet paper and not an animal, but it's a start!!

This is at 50 yards to see if the bullets would explode in the media at high speed---really WET newspapers.

Top left 162 eld-x--7RM--3050fps MV--38% retained weight
Top right 165 SGC-- 7RM--3030fps MV--43% retained weight
Bottom left 178 eld-x--30-06--2850 fps MV--47% retained weight
*dont flame me on the last one, its the super duty long range 300 BO--8.5" bbl
Bottom Rt--110 tac-tx--2150fps MV--98% retained weight

the 162eldx penetrated 10"
the 165SGC penetrated 14"
the 178 eldx penetrated 12"
the barnes 110 tac-tx penetrated 9.5"

In regards to the 2, 7 mag bullets (which is really what I was testing)

*the eldx started opening by 1/2" deep into the media, cavity was 3/4" wide-- by 1" deep the cavity was 1.25" wide-- and then by 3" it was back to 1" wide (so loosing energy already)--it penetrated 10" total

* the 165 SGC started opening by 1", cavity was again about 3/4" wide--its cavity was deeper into the media than the eldx, at 3" deep the cavity was about 1.5" wide--by 6" deep it was back down to 1" wide--total penetration was just under 14" deep

NOW-- the total penetration does not directly reflect the actual penetration on an animal, usually you would see greater penetration in an animal and a larger wound channel--but it gives us a comparason between the 2 bullets as to how they might perform.

the SGC clearly had a larger and deeper wound cavity than the eldx and lost less weight--now it did take longer to open than the eldx--so as we kinda assumed the SGC will be a slightly tougher bullet and may not expand quite as well when dealing with longer shots, but it holds up better than the eldx at close ranges and definitely had a superior wound channel

I tried 1 powder charge with the SGC (same exact charge and c.o.a.l. as the eldx) --it did not produce as good of accuracy as the eldx, but I have the eldx load worked up for this rifle--I did not test any further for accuracy as the wind increased to 17mph by the time I quite my range session today.


take it for what its worth, but it seems like a good bullet design

all 3 of the lead core bullets, the left over lead just popped right out of the jacket very easily, so you may see jacket/core separation at close ranges in an animal

 

[kiwikid]

Cohunt. Thank you for the time and effort you have put into this test not to mention the cost of the components, it is appreciated and great to see a comparison.
Kiwikid.

 

[lee31]

well-- here it is boys and girls!--for what its worth, its wet paper and not an animal, but it's a start!!

This is at 50 yards to see if the bullets would explode in the media at high speed---really WET newspapers.

Top left 162 eld-x--7RM--3050fps MV--38% retained weight
Top right 165 SGC-- 7RM--3030fps MV--43% retained weight
Bottom left 178 eld-x--30-06--2850 fps MV--47% retained weight
*dont flame me on the last one, its the super duty long range 300 BO--8.5" bbl
Bottom Rt--110 tac-tx--2150fps MV--98% retained weight

the 162eldx penetrated 10"
the 165SGC penetrated 14"
the 178 eldx penetrated 12"
the barnes 110 tac-tx penetrated 9.5"

In regards to the 2, 7 mag bullets (which is really what I was testing)

*the eldx started opening by 1/2" deep into the media, cavity was 3/4" wide-- by 1" deep the cavity was 1.25" wide-- and then by 3" it was back to 1" wide (so loosing energy already)--it penetrated 10" total

* the 165 SGC started opening by 1", cavity was again about 3/4" wide--its cavity was deeper into the media than the eldx, at 3" deep the cavity was about 1.5" wide--by 6" deep it was back down to 1" wide--total penetration was just under 14" deep

NOW-- the total penetration does not directly reflect the actual penetration on an animal, usually you would see greater penetration in an animal and a larger wound channel--but it gives us a comparason between the 2 bullets as to how they might perform.

the SGC clearly had a larger and deeper wound cavity than the eldx and lost less weight--now it did take longer to open than the eldx--so as we kinda assumed the SGC will be a slightly tougher bullet and may not expand quite as well when dealing with longer shots, but it holds up better than the eldx at close ranges and definitely had a superior wound channel

I tried 1 powder charge with the SGC (same exact charge and c.o.a.l. as the eldx) --it did not produce as good of accuracy as the eldx, but I have the eldx load worked up for this rifle--I did not test any further for accuracy as the wind increased to 17mph by the time I quite my range session today.


take it for what its worth, but it seems like a good bullet design

all 3 of the lead core bullets, the left over lead just popped right out of the jacket very easily, so you may see jacket/core separation at close ranges in an animal

The Gamechanger bullets I retrieved out of my backstop had no lead left in them.

 

[cohunt]

The Gamechanger bullets I retrieved out of my backstop had no lead left in them.

what is you backstop? dirt? the core will separate in dirt just like the eldx does in dirt

 

[lee31]

what is you backstop? dirt? the core will separate in dirt just like the eldx does in dirt

Dirt/sand. My Nosler BTs never separated like the sierras

 

[can1010]

thanks for the test results. when I find some time I want to test them in my 284 win should be in the 2850-2900 fps range might try and also do some lower velocity tests.