Why Hammer Bullets Are Always Faster

[Hard rock]

Yup.

Berger openly admits that when they give you load data that it comes from QL.

That means it's no different than me running QL on Hammers.

That means my Hammer loads are no worse than any Berger load data I've ever received from Berger directly.

I'm not worried, if the gun doesn't blow up it's fine Bergers and Hammers, either or.

Agreed but I don't think quickload takes in consideration the difference of the way a Hammer bullet is designed . I have been loading over 50 yrs and have experienced a lot handloading , the Hammer bullets so far has always got higher velocities compared to other like weight bullets with the same powder charge before over pressure signs . I have blown a lot of Primer pockets and etched a few bolt faces , but not with Hammers when trying to achieve the maximum potential out of my loads. That may apply too Bergers too I don't know I don't load those .

 

[Lou270]

These are all nice theories until have some pressure tested data to back them up. Monos are longer and do not compress like lead/copper bullets. This tends to drive pressure up for ex. Also hardness of copper impacts things. As noted there are several factors at play. I am not a hammer negative person. Plan on running them in 3 rifles this year. Just want real data to back up claims. Until then just conjecture. Hammer does good job testing terminal performance for
Ex. There is no testing to back this claim I have seen published

Lou

 

[Hard rock]

These are all nice theories until have some pressure tested data to back them up. Monos are longer and do not compress like lead/copper bullets. This tends to drive pressure up for ex. Also hardness of copper impacts things. As noted there are several factors at play. I am not a hammer negative person. Plan on running them in 3 rifles this year. Just want real data to back up claims. Until then just conjecture. Hammer does good job testing terminal performance for
Ex. There is no testing to back this claim I have seen published

Lou

If you are an experienced hand loader and confident you will see for yourself . There is a lot of data some members here including myself that has been compiled over the years that may help you . If you are strictly , a reloading manual guy , the Barnes data will get you close but you will be leaving a lot on the table.

 

[Hard rock]

If you are an experienced hand loader and confident you will see for yourself . There is a lot of data some members here including myself that has been compiled over the years that may help you . If you are strictly , a reloading manual guy , the Barnes data will get you close but you will be leaving a lot on the table.

Another thing about published data , I have seen data that was too hot with max load data , so you still have too be able too read pressure as a hand loader , not too get yourself in trouble always start low and work up , most of the time you can exceed the max data , but still have too read pressure . If you are strictly a reloading manual guy once again stay with the data. Barnes data will work with Hammer bullets.There is less engraving pressure with Hammers compared too Barnes.

 

[adam32+P]

Is Weatherby or Pendleton ammo 100-200fps faster with Hammers compared to Barnes?

 

[Hard rock]

I've said this before, but remember the days 30 years or so ago when we wanted in the worst ways to get a decent chronograph for money we could afford.

Well, IMO that's where we're at now a days in terms of pressure testing equipment. I'm betting/hoping that in the next 5 or so that someone will come out with a reliable pressure testing system that is affordable (say sub 1K). Then it'll be interesting...all those I'm getting this triple X speed with no pressure signs may well have another story to it. Maybe..........

Kind of like all those pre LRF 500 yard shots that became 300 yarders after we had a good LRF

Is Weatherby or Pendleton ammo 100-200fps faster with Hammers compared to Barnes?

I have no idea , do you?

 

[adam32+P]

I have no idea , do you?

Yup.

300 Weatherby:

165gr Hornady interlock - 3390.
170gr Hammer - 3300.
180gr Barnes TTSX - 3232.

Seems about right to me. Definitely not "always" faster like the OP stated.

 

[choprzrul]

These are all nice theories until have some pressure tested data to back them up. Monos are longer and do not compress like lead/copper bullets. This tends to drive pressure up for ex. Also hardness of copper impacts things. As noted there are several factors at play. I am not a hammer negative person. Plan on running them in 3 rifles this year. Just want real data to back up claims. Until then just conjecture. Hammer does good job testing terminal performance for
Ex. There is no testing to back this claim I have seen published

Lou

Even published data requires the handloader to know how to read signs of pressure. Pretty much all 'published data' comes with statements such as this from Alliant's website that you have to agree to before accessing Alliant's online data. Reduce your loads and work up slowly looking for signs....even though none of us have fancy pressure testing equipment. Doing load development for Hammers is pretty much the same based upon my limited experience with them....

Vihta Vuori warning:

 

[Lou270]

If you are an experienced hand loader and confident you will see for yourself . There is a lot of data some members here including myself that has been compiled over the years that may help you . If you are strictly , a reloading manual guy , the Barnes data will get you close but you will be leaving a lot on the table.

Lol. That there is funny. An experienced reloader should know all this. Pressure tested data has shown many times that old school techniques of pressure signs (or lack thereof) are not reliable indicators of safe pressure. Whether cratering, case head expansion, bolt lift, etc.

I am sitting at bench right now waiting for barrel to cool and ran a string of hammers out of my 270:

Fed new brass

Fed 210m

2.813 (.03)

Rl17

54 - 3199

55 - 3252

56 - 3345

56.5 - 3406

57 - 3432

57.5 - 3467

Barnes 110tsx, 129lrx rl17 data extrapolates out to max charge around 56gr-57 @3400. Matches nearly perfectly. No pressure signs on anything. So i will go with 56 or 56.5 load and play with seating depth. I could keep dumping powder until I see a pressure sign and back off a grain but who knows what pressure that is. I dont really know what pressure my load is either but there is a refernce with a similar bullet

Lou

 

[Lou270]

117 HH by the way

 

[choprzrul]

Lol. That there is funny. An experienced reloader should know all this. Pressure tested data has shown many times that old school techniques of pressure signs (or lack thereof) are not reliable indicators of safe pressure. Whether cratering, case head expansion, bolt lift, etc.

I am sitting at bench right now waiting for barrel to cool and ran a string of hammers out of my 270:

Fed new brass

Fed 210m

2.813 (.03)

Rl17

54 - 3199

55 - 3252

56 - 3345

56.5 - 3406

57 - 3432

57.5 - 3467

Barnes 110tsx, 129lrx rl17 data extrapolates out to max charge around 56gr-57 @3400. Matches nearly perfectly. No pressure signs on anything. So i will go with 56 or 56.5 load and play with seating depth. I could keep dumping powder until I see a pressure sign and back off a grain but who knows what pressure that is. I dont really know what pressure my load is either but there is a refernce with a similar bullet

Lou

26fps increase from 56.5 to 57.0 makes me wonder if 57.0 is perhaps a node?

.

 

[Hard rock]

Yup.

300 Weatherby:

165gr Hornady interlock - 3390.
170gr Hammer - 3300.
180gr Barnes TTSX - 3232.

Seems about right to me. Definitely not "always" faster like the OP stated.

That what you said is not true in the , context you are describing the 170 gr is faster than the 180 gr Barnes just as it's Slower than the 165 gr Hornady . That example really means absolutely nothing . Maybe you should call Weatherby and ask why and how they load their ammo . I have not a clue how they achieve their load data , and I doubt you do either . If I had a guess it probably has more to do with free bore and accuracy , as we all know Weatherbys have a lot of freebore. I'm sure pressure may be a factor also .

 

[Hard rock]

That what you said is not true in the , context you are describing the 170 gr is faster than the 180 gr Barnes just as it's Slower than the 165 gr Hornady . That example really means absolutely nothing . Maybe you should call Weatherby and ask why and how they load their ammo . I have not a clue how they achieve their load data , and I doubt you do either . If I had a guess it probably has more to do with free bore and accuracy , as we all know Weatherbys have a lot of freebore. I'm sure pressure may be a factor also .

Would it have been better , if the OP said most of the time , instead of always or ,are you always this critical over a phrase and the word always . I personally can read in context what the OP meant . I always give the benefit of doubt.

 

[akmtnhnt]

Not that meaningless actually. I loaded the same exact charge of powder with a 140 ELDM and a 147 ELDM and the 147 went faster because it created more pressure. Learned something new that day lol. I ended up of course getting more speed out of the 140 eventually with more powder. But at the same exact charge weight, the heavier bullet, with longer bearing surface created enough pressure to make it faster.

But I do normally see faster speeds from hammers from a given weight range for what it's worth lol. Normally 80+ fps

If you loaded the 140 and 147 to the same COAL, you did create more pressure by seating the 147 deeper into the case since it's longer. If you're working close to max pressure you have to be careful of this because seating depth changes the peak chamber pressure dramatically. Not that a few kpsi over max actually blows things up, but it's something to be aware of.