The Fast And Accurate Absolute Hammer 🔥🎯

[snox801]

I have and do use the 162 absolutes in my 3006 and didn't get an appreciable speed increase unless I ignore the ejector swipes and progressively flatter primers.
Which is why I'm really skeptical of the claims, because I can't repeat them and would love to see some quantifiable data.

So either I'm a complete liar and so are a ton of others or you had an odd ball.
I've posted plenty of pics of mine. You are making a broad claim with a Sample base of one. I also didn't bother with doing them in my 30 Sherman because Steve from hammer told me they would gain nothing. Sometimes it works other times. I load the same everyone no matter the bullet.

 

[snox801]

You have to do more than simply swap bullets. You will have to experiment with fasters powders, too. When you start off with the mind set that it can not possible work, then, yeah, it is not going to work for you. Plus, it is being narrow minded to try one bullet in one rifle, and then claim it won't for everyone else in all other rifles. Experienced reloaders know that each rifle is different. Not to mention doggedly requiring "quantifiable data", when reloaders for decades have found the best load by looking at visual pressure signs. Thinking Quickload is some form of real-world "proof", when all it is is a man-made computer approximation doesn't help your position.

But, it is only you losing out on the benefits of the AH design. So "you do you" while everyone else enjoys the free bump in speed. There's lots of people who still claim the Earth is flat, and, fortunately, the rest of us can ignore them and enjoy the benefits of an ellipsoid Earth.

One moment, please...

JMHO

This
I gained nothing with same powders. 8208 in my grendel got 30gps slower. Rl10 that made the difference.

 

[akmtnhnt]

You have to do more than simply swap bullets. You will have to experiment with fasters powders, too. When you start off with the mind set that it can not possible work, then, yeah, it is not going to work for you. Plus, it is being narrow minded to try one bullet in one rifle, and then claim it won't work for everyone else in all other rifles. Experienced reloaders know that each rifle is different. Not to mention doggedly requiring "quantifiable data", when reloaders for decades have found the best load by looking at visual pressure signs. Thinking Quickload is some form of real-world "proof", when all it is is a man-made computer approximation doesn't help your position.

But, it is only you losing out on the benefits of the AH design. So "you do you" while everyone else enjoys the free bump in speed. There's lots of people who still claim the Earth is flat, and, fortunately, the rest of us can ignore them and enjoy the benefits of an ellipsoid Earth.

One moment, please...

JMHO

Could you point to where I claimed quickload is proof?

Or did I point to the video in the OP that has every single sign of pressure, and his quickload data says it's over pressure. This is what I'm talking about. Even when every possible non-quantifiable sign of pressure is present you guys come out of the woodwork and somehow decide that too is not over pressure and it's just the AH doing it's thing.

And I'm glad my mindset somehow has an effect on the physics of internal ballistics. I'll have to dust off the physics textbook and see where I missed that part. I assure you I did not start off with that mindset. I wanted the speed, because monos need speed and it helps makes up for the crap BC most monos have. And I can get that speed if I lean real hard on some quality brass, have pressure signs and get 2-3ish reloads per piece. It doesn't and won't damage anything, but I'm not telling myself the reason it's going faster is the bullet and not the extra 2 grains of powder.

It's really what has turned me off loading them for anything else. Whenever I see this much group think going with no actual evidence, I get real skeptical and start backing away.
Although anytime anyone takes a non-scientific approach to something and then makes extraordinary claims, you have to take a bowl of salt with it.
I was unable to repeat results and I've seen nothing to prove the hypothesis true. If either of those change, I'm more than willing and happy to change my position.

 

[Northkill]

I think you'd be surprised what some of the guys who are experienced with the projo could do with some changes in components. I've found I need to take a leap on the burn rate to find the gold in velocity with these. Also, we were getting pressure signs with our Creedmoor at 2850+/- fps with the 124 HH until we did the LCD thingy which bumped it up to 3k with no pressure signs and much more consistent accuracy (0.37 MOA). Try different things - I'd start by reaching out to Hammer or BB or others with experience. It's a different animal. You might be surprised. Leastways, I've been. I wish you guys could see the terminal results of this 124 HH combo vs the 135 Classic Hunter we used side-by-side on deer this past season. They both are very accurate in the rifle, they both kill fine, but those 124 HH's are some pretty bad stuff...

Guess I'm off-topic a bit? Realizing this thread is about the Absolutes. The burn rate factor is even more applicable with those. We are running 3,500 fps on the 123 AH from a 24" Sherman Max and H1000 @ 0.5 moa. I have a feeling we could do better if we played with powders and tried the LCD. Don't have one for that case yet... But it's a bad enough hombre the way it sits...

 

[shinbone]

Could you point to where I claimed quickload is proof?

Or did I point to the video in the OP that has every single sign of pressure, and his quickload data says it's over pressure. . . . .

First you deny saying Quickload is proof, then, in the very next sentence you cite to Quickload as confirmation that a load is over-pressure.

I agree that the OP is running his loads on the ragged edge as shown by the beginning of an ejector mark at 30.5gn. His magnum primers still have rounded shoulders and his primer pockets are not expanding. So it is not a case of "every single sign of pressure . . . "

It is a known practice that some people will ignore a light ejector mark with brass that is known to be soft, such as Hornady, when other pressure signs are still okay. Especially when primer shoulders are still rounded. Obviously, it is a personal choice whether one wants to do that. However, you rely on a flawed Quickload analysis (despite the OP noting why Quickload currently doesn't work for AH bullets) and having tried only one bullet in one gun to assert that all Absolute Hammers never run faster without over-pressure. And this despite the numerous examples of people finding faster speeds with AH's with no pressure signs. It appears you have an axe to grind with Hammer Bullets.

JMHO

 

[epoletna]

Some posters here need to stop attacking each other. It really doesn't add to the overall conversation to say "you said," "no I didn't." 'Nuff said.

 

[cajun]

Some posters here need to stop attacking each other. It really doesn't add to the overall conversation to say "you said," "no I didn't." 'Nuff said.

You know thats one of the problems I have with these threads. If someone questions their results folks come out the woodwork calling them a " flat earther" lol. It's like you can't question the concept that their is no free lunch in physics or ballistics without being called out personally. It happens in EVERY thread. Don't take it so personal. I dont have to believe what you do and you have no obligation to convert me.

 

[cajun]

I think this is a good point.

To put it another way; people were handloading for many decades before Quickload became available - are folks saying all those people were unsafe and blowing up guns all the time? IOWs - Ken Waters, who increased powder until he saw pressure signs, was an unsafe idiot?

Amazon product ASIN 1879356643

The thing is we didnt know any better and chronographs and software programs didnt exist. I also remember that in the 70's nobody wore seat belts, kids werent put in car seats and everybody smoked. That all seems really stupid now because we know better.

 

[Northkill]

It's like you can't question the concept that their is no free lunch in physics or ballistics without being called out personally. It happens in EVERY thread. Don't take it so personal. I dont have to believe what you do and you have no obligation to convert me.

Right. Have you considered yourself in this? I think what they are trying to say is in line with this "no free lunch" philosophy. There are physical (observable) differentials here that impact the "scientific" equation that adjusts the balance of inputs that affects the outcome. They are feeling some scientific denial here - fairly or unfairly. We probably all say/write things to make a point (i.e. "flat-earthers") that are taken more personally than intended as well.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Maybe some of you guys remember the engineers back in the 1950's told us the maximum speed any vehicle could atain in 1/4 mile was 165 miles per hour. And yet weekly we see vehicles hitting twice that speed.

It seems it's the same here. G.S.Custom and Hammer bullets have shown higher velocity is available for those who do testing. It goes back to Bob Nosler's statement, "Peak pressure destroys gun. Average pressure produces velocity."

 

[Mrvmax]

I have only one thing to say about this thread. I know you are but what am I…………,

 

[snox801]

Could you point to where I claimed quickload is proof?

Or did I point to the video in the OP that has every single sign of pressure, and his quickload data says it's over pressure. This is what I'm talking about. Even when every possible non-quantifiable sign of pressure is present you guys come out of the woodwork and somehow decide that too is not over pressure and it's just the AH doing it's thing.

And I'm glad my mindset somehow has an effect on the physics of internal ballistics. I'll have to dust off the physics textbook and see where I missed that part. I assure you I did not start off with that mindset. I wanted the speed, because monos need speed and it helps makes up for the crap BC most monos have. And I can get that speed if I lean real hard on some quality brass, have pressure signs and get 2-3ish reloads per piece. It doesn't and won't damage anything, but I'm not telling myself the reason it's going faster is the bullet and not the extra 2 grains of powder.

It's really what has turned me off loading them for anything else. Whenever I see this much group think going with no actual evidence, I get real skeptical and start backing away.
Although anytime anyone takes a non-scientific approach to something and then makes extraordinary claims, you have to take a bowl of salt with it.
I was unable to repeat results and I've seen nothing to prove the hypothesis true. If either of those change, I'm more than willing and happy to change my position.

By your way of thinking Roy Weatherby could never have done what he did.
You are missing the science part of pressure curves. Again I loaded my absolute hammers following the exact same steps I do my 147eld, 124hh, and cutting edge.
The absolute hammers were the only ones to break 3k in my creedmore before showing pressure. So unless you are telling me that somehow the brass knows that an absolute hammer is loaded into it and refuses to flow at a given pressure I clearly must be way over pressure.
Your point falls apart because you keep calling it cool aid. When if that was the fact why can I get anywhere near the speed with the 1gr heavier hammer hunter? Seems to me for a guy that's insisting on data that you could simply look at all the compiled data from very good Reloaders that all come to the same conclusion about absolute hammers.
Or maybe call the hammer guys and let them explain how it works.

 

[snox801]

The thing is we didnt know any better and chronographs and software programs didnt exist. I also remember that in the 70's nobody wore seat belts, kids werent put in car seats and everybody smoked. That all seems really stupid now because we know better.

And somehow millions survived only to win a Darwin Award later in life for something else dumb. Keep in mind millions still load without all that stuff today and shot millions of rounds and never have an issue.

 

[snox801]

You know thats one of the problems I have with these threads. If someone questions their results folks come out the woodwork calling them a " flat earther" lol. It's like you can't question the concept that their is no free lunch in physics or ballistics without being called out personally. It happens in EVERY thread. Don't take it so personal. I dont have to believe what you do and you have no obligation to convert me.

It's not that you can't question which happens a lot. People make mistakes the problem is when something does work and for many people they say it can't. Physics works. Say you give said load a short freebore that's way over pressure. Then same load only extend the throat very far out. Reduce initial pressure spike and then use the bulk of the burning charge to propel bullet at lower pressure allowing more powder. Seems most can't grasp a pressure spike from average pressure
. Because you know "physics"