Testing the 135gr Apex-Outdoors Afterburners

[can1010]

here is 137 HH for closer weight comparison
oal. 1.160
sm dia. .266
lg dia .308
length of taper .167
start pressure 2176

 

[can1010]

I'd suspect that the Hammer would have a lot less engraving pressure.

the hammers have the lowest of any other bullet on quickload. which until they were added it was pretty hard to model them in quickload

 

[mcdil]

Looking forward to your test results! In the end, I suspect velocities more in line with what @Varmint Hunter posted with Benchmark and the 130gr TTSX. We haven't ramped the 135gr to max with our Pressure Trace II in our 300 Win Mag, but what we have done with it, I predict 3650 fps to come at around 61-62 ksi in our 26" barrel. We saw an average of 3440 fps at only 56.3 ksi with Re-16.

 

[Petey308]

With respect, I don't want this thread to get derailed with Hammer discussing lol. I'll run the numbers and give a brief summary on how the 124 HH compares, and that's it, because it might at least be worth comparing those two.

I know that the bore rider will lower engraving forces and friction too, but will produce much less drag in flight vs the multiple drive bands of the Hammer. So even with a higher MV with the Hammer, the overall BC has the high potential of being better with the Afterburner and retaining more velocity as a result.

 

[mcdil]

As far as QuickLoad is concerned, to get powders to fit properly in pressure and velocity to the PTII, without trying to adjust burn rate too much, we've had to raise the shot start initiation pressure as high as 7200 psi and lower it to as low as 350 psi, and adjust the weighting factor from .55 to as low as .21 in our 300 WM just within the 4350 burn rate powders. It gets wonkier the more that's tested and deviated in bullet weight and/or powder burn rate.

In the end, QuickLoad is great for case fill comparison and starting loads. From there, physical testing is the proper validation, as you plan to do. Way too many contributors to the burn cycle that QuickLoad just can't account for. Real pressure testing is the only rock-solid solution, with observed load development being the traditional, but very good second option.

 

[can1010]

With respect, I don't want this thread to get derailed with Hammer discussing lol. I'll run the numbers and give a brief summary on how the 124 HH compares, and that's it, because it might at least be worth comparing those two.

I know that the bore rider will lower engraving forces and friction too, but will produce much less drag in flight vs the multiple drive bands of the Hammer. So even with a higher MV with the Hammer, the overall BC has the high potential of being better with the Afterburner and retaining more velocity as a result.

you asked for the numbers. for whatever reason people always want to compare everything to hammers. personally, they are not my cup of tea

 

[Petey308]

you asked for the numbers. for whatever reason people always want to compare everything to hammers. personally, they are not my cup of tea

Yep. Just trying to get ahead of it lol

 

[mcdil]

It's all good, gents. Lots of Hammer fans on this forum, and they make some great bullets. Folks will always be curious to see how things compare to what they're using when and where possible.

 

[Petey308]

you asked for the numbers. for whatever reason people always want to compare everything to hammers. personally, they are not my cup of tea

I appreciate you providing those numbers. Thanks. I didn't mean to come off like you were derailing this post. I just wanted to say other than that requested comparison, which I agree would be worth posting, I don't want this particular post to get cluttered with too much other bullet talk unless it's actually pertinent is all. I wasn't directing that towards anyone in particular. Just wanted to clarify that.

I do think part of this testing should be viewed as how this bullet compares to others, I just don't want any bickering going on, if it can be helped. I've seen it happen too much in other threads, unfortunately.

 

[Petey308]

A

As far as QuickLoad is concerned, to get powders to fit properly in pressure and velocity to the PTII, without trying to adjust burn rate too much, we've had to raise the shot start initiation pressure as high as 7200 psi and lower it to as low as 350 psi, and adjust the weighting factor from .55 to as low as .21 in our 300 WM just within the 4350 burn rate powders. It gets wonkier the more that's tested and deviated in bullet weight and/or powder burn rate.

In the end, QuickLoad is great for case fill comparison and starting loads. From there, physical testing is the proper validation, as you plan to do. Way too many contributors to the burn cycle that QuickLoad just can't account for. Real pressure testing is the only rock-solid solution, with observed load development being the traditional, but very good second option.

A Pressure Trace II setup is on my short list of things to acquire, after other discussions with you. I'm pretty good at QL though, for as good as it can be used for, so for now I'll use it along with real world results and make the best of it.

I fully understand how QL is only a calculation based on inputs. It's only as accurate as the data input, and it doesn't take many other variables into account. The PT2 setup at least takes actual readings along with calculations and gives you much better data to use as a result.

 

[can1010]

I appreciate you providing those numbers. Thanks. I didn't mean to come off like you were derailing this post. I just wanted to say other than that requested comparison, which I agree would be worth posting, I don't want this particular post to get cluttered with too much other bullet talk unless it's actually pertinent is all. I wasn't directing that towards anyone in particular. Just wanted to clarify that.

I do think part of this testing should be viewed as how this bullet compares to others, I just don't want any bickering going on, if it can be helped. I've seen it happen too much in other threads, unfortunately.

totally understand the thread being derailed so no problem here.
wish there was a bearing surface or a rifling contact patch measurement in quickload bullet profile to help aid in calculations. these newer monos have been difficult to predict over a variety of powders and/or even from start to finish during a load workup. good luck on these and will be waiting for your write up

 

[Petey308]

totally understand the thread being derailed so no problem here.
wish there was a bearing surface or a rifling contact patch measurement in quickload bullet profile to help aid in calculations. these newer monos have been difficult to predict over a variety of powders and/or even from start to finish during a load workup. good luck on these and will be waiting for your write up

I agree. There's a plethora of variables not accounted for in QL. Things just like you mentioned, primers used (and thus initial ignition and peak chamber pressures), shoulder bump, neck tension, free bore length, bullet jump to lands, type of rifling, etc, etc all are not calculated in the mix.

So without calibrating QL to actual velocities with a particular load, it's only ever going to be close at best. Without calibrating QL, it's kind of useless really on load development other than comparing case fills with a particular bullet and other load specs, and comparing other powders with all else being equal (like I've done here), and it's also useful for telling you a most likely safe starting load.

I've found very accurate methods to calibrate QL though after getting actual velocities and thus allow subsequent result data to be quite accurate with a particular powder and same load specs. It spits out a much more accurate pressure and barrel time. That can then be used to find potential OBT nodes very effectively with minimal components and shots fired after that. That's the next course of action with my testing- to get actual velocities and then calibrate QL for that powder, bullet, and other load specs/dimensions.

I wish I already had a Pressure Trace 2 setup, so I could use that to actually find node potential on the initial shots, and not have to add steps, but I'll work with what I have for now.

 

[Petey308]

137gr HH 308w

•H335 shows max 46.8gr at 2990fps and 95.1% fill

•Benchmark is max 45.0gr at 2932fps and 101.3% fill

•H4895 is max 47.2gr at 3021fps and 104.6% fill

•Varget is max 48.2gr at 2978fps and 110.4% fill

•BL-C(2) is max 50.5gr at 3033fps and 102.5% fill

•CFE223 is max 52.9gr at 3045fps and 107.5% fill

•aa2460 is max 47.7gr at 2970 and 98.2% fill

•aa2200 is 46.6gr at 2955fps and 101.7% fill

•aa2495 is 46.7gr at 3018fps and 105.8% fill

•aa2520 is max 49.1gr at 3016fps and 103.2% fill

•TAC is 49.5gr at 2964fps and 101.8% fill

•X-terminator is 47.7gr at 2950fps and 99.2% fill

•IMR 8208 XBR is max 46.4gr at 2981fps and 102.8% fill

•IMR 3031 is max 46.0gr at 3042fps and 109.1% fill

•Win 748 is max 48.6gr at 3038fps and 100.1% fill

•N140 is max 47.6gr at 2958fps and 107.6% fill

•N130 is max 42.6gr at 2889fps and 101.0% fill

•N540 is max 49.1gr at 2986fps and 107.7% fill

•N530 is max 45.6gr at 2989fps and 100.5% fill

•AR Comp is max 45.4gr at 3002fps and 104.0% fill

•RL-15 is max 48.9gr at 3029fps and 108.4% fill

•RL15-5 is max 49.4gr at 3041fps and 114.3% fill

•IMR 4064 is max 47.5gr at 2976fps and 111.5% fill

To compare potential external ballistics, I looked at the same powder as my data with 8208 and the 135gr Afterburner. With uncalibrated results, the node for the 137gr HH is 45.6gr at 2934fps (compared to 2922 with the AB). The G7 BC for the HH is .172 and the AB is .216 so even with slightly higher MV with the HH, the AB will retain more velocity and energy with distance. Here's the ballistic charts:

According to the preliminary results, the Afterburner beats it pretty significantly. Obviously real world results would need to confirm or dispute.

 

[Petey308]

124gr HH 308w

•H335 shows max 49.3gr at 3145fps and 95.9% fill

•Benchmark is max 47.4gr at 3085fps and 102.1% fill

•H4895 is max 49.7gr at 3174fps and 105.5% fill

•Varget is max 50.7gr at 3125fps and 111.2% fill

•BL-C(2) is max 53.1gr at 3181fps and 103.3% fill

•CFE223 is max 55.7gr at 3195fps and 108.4% fill

•aa2460 is max 50.2gr at 3120fps and 99% fill

•aa2200 is 49.0gr at 3100fps and 102.4% fill

•aa2495 is 49.2gr at 3176fps and 106.7% fill

•aa2520 is max 51.7gr at 3169fps and 104.1% fill

•TAC is 52gr at 3105fps and 102.4% fill

•X-terminator is 50.3gr at 3097fps and 100% fill

•IMR 8208 XBR is max 48.8gr at 3130fps and 103.6% fill

•IMR 3031 is max 48.5gr at 3204fps and 110.1% fill

•Win 748 is max 51.2gr at 3193fps and 101% fill

•N140 is max 50.1gr at 3110fps and 108.4% fill

•N130 is max 44.9gr at 3047fps and 101.9% fill

•N540 is max 51.7gr at 3139fps and 108.5% fill

•N530 is max 48.0gr at 3142fps and 101.3% fill

•AR Comp is max 47.8gr at 3261fps and 104.8% fill

•RL-15 is max 51.5gr at 3281fps and 109.3% fill

•RL15-5 is max 52.0gr at 3194fps and 115.3% fill

•IMR 4064 is max 49.9gr at 3119fps and 112.1% fill

Again, to compare potential external ballistics, I looked at the same powder as my data with 8208 and the 135gr Afterburner. With uncalibrated results, the top node for the 124gr HH is 48.2gr at 3094fps (compared to 2922 with the AB). The G7 BC for the HH is .169 and the AB is .216 so even with slightly higher MV with the HH, the AB will retain more velocity and energy with distance. Here's the ballistic charts:

And again, according to the preliminary results, the Afterburner beats the 124gr, even going faster, pretty significantly. And again, obviously real world results would need to confirm or dispute.