I will state I have never not achieved higher velocities with Hammer bullets versus comparable other bullet weights I have tested thus far. Kind of sums it up for me.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Why Hammer Bullets Are Always Faster
- Thread starter HammerBullets
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Hard rock
Well-Known Member
Well said muddy boots .
Hard rock
Well-Known Member
Hope you two get it sorted out , we do all have a common interest.
There's nothing to sort out as far as I'm concerned. I liked this guy's replies to other threads. He's just earned an ignore, end of the issue. There's no call for writing such a reply.
Muddy - not apples to apples. Far as I know none of the others are advertising substantially higher velocity. That is a bold claim. One that needs backed up with pressure tested data. Cutting edge /
Badlands says their bullets get similar velocity of other bullets of same weight, which is consistent with hodgdon
Velocity is as much if not more of a "pressure sign" as all the other measures. If it is high, pressure is high. You can have high pressure signs at lower than max velocity as well. Tney may or may not be because over pressure. You can also reach max velocity at below published charges. All of this is moot point to conversation.
There is no proof hammer bullets get higher velocity at similar pressures as other bullets. Nothing you are doing proves this one way or other because you have no idea what the pressure is except the load met your "safe pressure" criteria. I have my own but dont pretend they are exact enough to make specific claims about pressure.
Ken Waters pushed CHE for many years. Subsequent tests shown it was not reliable. In some cases close, in others not. Better than nothing but Ken also never used it to justify marketing claims either
Lou
Badlands says their bullets get similar velocity of other bullets of same weight, which is consistent with hodgdon
Velocity is as much if not more of a "pressure sign" as all the other measures. If it is high, pressure is high. You can have high pressure signs at lower than max velocity as well. Tney may or may not be because over pressure. You can also reach max velocity at below published charges. All of this is moot point to conversation.
There is no proof hammer bullets get higher velocity at similar pressures as other bullets. Nothing you are doing proves this one way or other because you have no idea what the pressure is except the load met your "safe pressure" criteria. I have my own but dont pretend they are exact enough to make specific claims about pressure.
Ken Waters pushed CHE for many years. Subsequent tests shown it was not reliable. In some cases close, in others not. Better than nothing but Ken also never used it to justify marketing claims either
Lou
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
You are loading Hammers to the same velocity grain for grain with like weight bullets compared to Barnes? A Barnes bullet load and a Hammer load with same weight bullets would likely result in low velocity for the Hammer. Engraving pressure is much lower in the Hammer which would result in it needing more powder to get to pressure.
Ed's test with conventional lead core bullets in comparison is more realistic. He was able to hit higher velocity with less pressure and probably had room to increase to equal the same pressure.
Steve
Extrapolated 110/129 barnes tsx data since no equvalent weight to 117. I did same for 110 hh in 6.5 creedmoor and varget with similar results. The powder charge / velocity went right along with the barnes tsx data I am about to do same with 174 HH in 300 Win. I did not keep adding powder beyond where the barnes extrapolated to. Apparently I am velocity Grinch compared to some folks
Lou
Extrapolated 110/129 barnes tsx data since no equvalent weight to 117. I did same for 110 hh in 6.5 creedmoor and varget with similar results. The powder charge / velocity went right along with the barnes tsx data I am about to do same with 174 HH in 300 Win. I did not keep adding powder beyond where the barnes extrapolated to. Apparently I am velocity Grinch compared to some folks
Lou
Fiftydriver
Official LRH Sponsor
So in my testing with Hammer bullets my test procedures went as follows. These tests were done in my 257 Allen Magnum, 270 Allen Magnum and 7mm Allen Magnum.
i would take freshly formed brass, using a corn meal forming method. With a batch of test brass prepped and ready to load, i would enter the test with full expectation to destroy this brass in the testing process. The reason is because my goal was to find the absolute max velocity for my wildcats using one uniform source of brass for whatever bullet tested.
would start with a very safe starting load and then increase powder charge 0.5 grains at a time shooting each load over the chronograph and recording velocity readings. I would continue increasing powder charge until i went from the primer pocket on the once fired case being tight to the first hint of primer pocket loosening with a simple 0.5 gr increase in powder charge.
once i reached this point i would take the last four powder charges and repeat at least three times to make sure the results were the same in that the primer pockets would show first hint of loosening at that same 0.5 gr increase point, if it was different, i would repeat an additional two times to get a good average.
with this point found, i would record the data and velocity results.
then would repeat with a slightly slower powder. repeat the entire test process and get the same data to the same point in brass strength. If max velocity was higher with the slower powder, i would then test an even slower powder and repeat the process until i reached a point where the maximum velocity started to drop off telling me i was out of the useful burn rate for that wildcat.
i found quickly with the hammer bullets that a slower powder rarely increased this maximum velocity so i would step down to a slightly faster powder repeating this same test procedure to find max velocity. usually finding that velocity would increase significantly as the powder burn rate increased. Something not common with my large capacity magnums using lead core/cup jacketed bullets.
This was the common result with every test i performed with the hammer bullets, in every single test, using faster the conventional powder, velocity was significantly faster then with same weight lead core bullets when loaded to that same primer pocket fail point.
not only that but with the lighter bullet weights, velocity spreads were tighter then with conventional bullets with slower powders. Now these tests were not designed to find top USABLE velocities out of my rifles, it was to compare bullets loaded to their max limits in chamber pressure determined by same brass tested in same barrel. Certainly a pressure barrel would be more accurate finding exact pressure levels but this is more then accurate enough to compare how bullets compare to each other as far as max pressures are concerned.
to find my max usable load for my customers rifles, i use a load that offers a minimum of 8 firings per case. Using lapua or peterson brass, this is consistently a similar percentage off this absolute max velocity limit. At this point, i could care less if the pressure is 75,000 psi as long as the brass will offer a minimum of 8 firings per case but i know my pressures are well south of 70k.
in every one of these tests, the Hammer bullets were significantly faster then any lead core bullet design of same or similar (+/- 5 grains) weights. To that point, they were also faster then the barnes tsx or lrx when tested the same way with a variety of powders tested.
i also tested some conventional chamberings with the Hammer bullets and in my testing, the velocity advantages increased as the case capacity of the round tested decreased. By that i mean, a 284 with the 177 gr hammer would show more of a velocity advantage over conventional bullets then the in my 7mm AM testing the 177 gr hammer would over conventional bullet weights. My big 7mm would certainly still have a 75-100 fps velocity advantage but the smaller round would be in the 150+ fps range compared to conventional bullets.
one can not say these results are meaningless when all bullet designs are tested to the same exact case failure point, in repeated tests to confirm that failure point. Then all bullets would be retested with a variety of powders, some faster, some slower, all to the same case failure point.
again, i was not testing for usable velocities and pressures, i was loading to the same pressure failure point and comparing the results bullet to bullet so as close to apples to apples as possible.
once again, please to not read this as me saying i recommend loading to this level of pressure. This was simply for testing purposes in EXTREMELY strong rifles, those being my Raptor LRSS platform which has a receiver strength on par with most cheytac class receivers. Still, my recommended loads to customers are far lower then the test results obtained during these tests.
and i repeat, in every test, the Hammers produced the highest velocity levels ranging from 75-150+ fps velocity advantages over conventional lead core bullets of same or similar weight and on average 50-100 fps gains over barnes tsx and lrx bullets.
all that said, i use hammer bullets, i use nosler bullets, i use hornady bullets, i use berger bullets. All have pros and cons, all have situations they may or may not be the best choice. Point being, if you need a hard fast bullet option, give the Hammers a try and see what they do out of your rifle. If your not happy, dont use them, if you are happy, great!!
i would take freshly formed brass, using a corn meal forming method. With a batch of test brass prepped and ready to load, i would enter the test with full expectation to destroy this brass in the testing process. The reason is because my goal was to find the absolute max velocity for my wildcats using one uniform source of brass for whatever bullet tested.
would start with a very safe starting load and then increase powder charge 0.5 grains at a time shooting each load over the chronograph and recording velocity readings. I would continue increasing powder charge until i went from the primer pocket on the once fired case being tight to the first hint of primer pocket loosening with a simple 0.5 gr increase in powder charge.
once i reached this point i would take the last four powder charges and repeat at least three times to make sure the results were the same in that the primer pockets would show first hint of loosening at that same 0.5 gr increase point, if it was different, i would repeat an additional two times to get a good average.
with this point found, i would record the data and velocity results.
then would repeat with a slightly slower powder. repeat the entire test process and get the same data to the same point in brass strength. If max velocity was higher with the slower powder, i would then test an even slower powder and repeat the process until i reached a point where the maximum velocity started to drop off telling me i was out of the useful burn rate for that wildcat.
i found quickly with the hammer bullets that a slower powder rarely increased this maximum velocity so i would step down to a slightly faster powder repeating this same test procedure to find max velocity. usually finding that velocity would increase significantly as the powder burn rate increased. Something not common with my large capacity magnums using lead core/cup jacketed bullets.
This was the common result with every test i performed with the hammer bullets, in every single test, using faster the conventional powder, velocity was significantly faster then with same weight lead core bullets when loaded to that same primer pocket fail point.
not only that but with the lighter bullet weights, velocity spreads were tighter then with conventional bullets with slower powders. Now these tests were not designed to find top USABLE velocities out of my rifles, it was to compare bullets loaded to their max limits in chamber pressure determined by same brass tested in same barrel. Certainly a pressure barrel would be more accurate finding exact pressure levels but this is more then accurate enough to compare how bullets compare to each other as far as max pressures are concerned.
to find my max usable load for my customers rifles, i use a load that offers a minimum of 8 firings per case. Using lapua or peterson brass, this is consistently a similar percentage off this absolute max velocity limit. At this point, i could care less if the pressure is 75,000 psi as long as the brass will offer a minimum of 8 firings per case but i know my pressures are well south of 70k.
in every one of these tests, the Hammer bullets were significantly faster then any lead core bullet design of same or similar (+/- 5 grains) weights. To that point, they were also faster then the barnes tsx or lrx when tested the same way with a variety of powders tested.
i also tested some conventional chamberings with the Hammer bullets and in my testing, the velocity advantages increased as the case capacity of the round tested decreased. By that i mean, a 284 with the 177 gr hammer would show more of a velocity advantage over conventional bullets then the in my 7mm AM testing the 177 gr hammer would over conventional bullet weights. My big 7mm would certainly still have a 75-100 fps velocity advantage but the smaller round would be in the 150+ fps range compared to conventional bullets.
one can not say these results are meaningless when all bullet designs are tested to the same exact case failure point, in repeated tests to confirm that failure point. Then all bullets would be retested with a variety of powders, some faster, some slower, all to the same case failure point.
again, i was not testing for usable velocities and pressures, i was loading to the same pressure failure point and comparing the results bullet to bullet so as close to apples to apples as possible.
once again, please to not read this as me saying i recommend loading to this level of pressure. This was simply for testing purposes in EXTREMELY strong rifles, those being my Raptor LRSS platform which has a receiver strength on par with most cheytac class receivers. Still, my recommended loads to customers are far lower then the test results obtained during these tests.
and i repeat, in every test, the Hammers produced the highest velocity levels ranging from 75-150+ fps velocity advantages over conventional lead core bullets of same or similar weight and on average 50-100 fps gains over barnes tsx and lrx bullets.
all that said, i use hammer bullets, i use nosler bullets, i use hornady bullets, i use berger bullets. All have pros and cons, all have situations they may or may not be the best choice. Point being, if you need a hard fast bullet option, give the Hammers a try and see what they do out of your rifle. If your not happy, dont use them, if you are happy, great!!
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Alibiiv,
You posted that we should respect what others say even if we disagree. I looked up the word "respect". The dictionary defines "respect" as "admire". That is why I posted about not understanding the word.
You posted that we should respect what others say even if we disagree. I looked up the word "respect". The dictionary defines "respect" as "admire". That is why I posted about not understanding the word.
Maybe we can all benefit. Usually, words like this have various dimensions to the meaning. #2 probably being most often applicable in that we choose to regard another as a fellow human in spite of our differences. 
re·spect [rəˈspekt]
NOUN
re·spect [rəˈspekt]
NOUN
- a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements:
"the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"
SIMILAR:
esteem
regard
high regard
high opinion
acclaim
- due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others:
"young people's lack of respect for their parents"
SIMILAR:
due regard
consideration
thoughtfulness
attentiveness
- a particular aspect, point, or detail:
"the findings in this respect have been mixed"
Fiftydriver
Official LRH Sponsor
Apparently we are back in grammar school now and the topic has run its course. If you are interested in Hammer bullets, try some for yourself and see for yourself what they offer. Steve and Brian are great guys, trying hard to provide a good product and he honest with their customers. Have known them for well over a decade and they are stand up guys all around. If you dont want to use Hammer bullets dont. If you have solid factual data to offer for or against, go for it but leave it at that. Likely there will be some anomaly out there, legit or manufactured supporting or not supporting a specific product. Learned long ago if your bringing a new product to the market, you better never exaggerate your product as the public will eat you alive if you do, especially on the web.
when i released my 7mm Allen Mag to the public back nearly 20 years ago now, there were vicious, heated arguments here on LRH. I was flat out called a liar about the performance and ballistic numbers we were getting with my new cartridge and the 200 gr Wildcat bullets we were using. I only offered real world test results though and over time, as more rifles got out in the field, and my posted numbers were proven time and time again, those that were screaming at me for being a flat out liar were proven WRONG. Now with hundreds of 7mm Allen Magnums out in the field, its performance is accepted by most.
in having conversations with Brian and Steve early on when they were just starting their business, i believe we had exactly this same conversation, only post tested proven results and data. To my knowledge that is all they have done and never exaggerated their products like most large companies do which most simply fully believe and support when a large company exaggerates their products, sometimes dramatically, yet when a small shop pushes the envelope in any way, they are hounded by criticism for daring to do something new.
first time i posted the 7mm AM was getting 3400 fps with a 200 gr bullet and the actual bullet drop to 1000 yards and the very minute wind drift in a 10 mph wind at 1000 yards, i was attacked constantly from that time onward for years. History will prove the truth.
be part of that truth, try for yourself and see what happens, or not. Just dont attack because a new idea is getting traction in the industry….. i am sure not EVERY rifle will shoot hammer bullets faster then conventional bullets, but experienced handloaders with a solid understanding of internal ballistics will generally, the vast majority of the time, be able to get significantly more velocity with the Hammers then conventional bullets.
why are weatherby numbers less then what is expected, dont know. Maybe they actually hit their advertised numbers with hammer bullets. Why can hornady not get within 100-150 fps of their advertised numbers yet no one flames them like this. They get the, "well they are testing in match grade test rifles and we are shooting in factory rifles, its expected to have a velocity drop"….. thats acceptable??
how can nosler claim their long range accubonds have no velocity ceilings but anyone that has shot them over 3000-3200 fps depending on caliber know all to well their accuracy drops off dramatically over these velocity levels, still they are given the benefit of the doubt by most customers saying they are great bullets, my rifle just does not like them……. No, they are flawed in design for speeds over 3000-3200 fps in spite of noslers claims they can handle any speed. Nosler should be honest about this but they are not because they want you to buy a box and try them in your 7mm RUM even though they know likely they will not work well. They Get to sell a box of bullets anyway…….
i could go on and on about large companies being deceptive or flat out lying about their products and the general shooting public giving them a pass but a small shop starts up, trying to push the envelope and they are hounded by people challenging their reported results. This does bother me because i lived it for many years having to defend FACTUAL real world data that was presented in good faith to the public only to be called a liar and a fake over and over. Again, history will side with facts and real world results, just let that happen. Hammer bullets are being user by many, many thousands of hunters, if they were not getting good results they would not have lasted this long.
they are continually trying new designs to offer better performance all around. This is a good thing.
again, i do not shoot Hammer bullets exclusively. I do not shoot any one bullet maker exclusively but there are applications where Hammer bullets could be arguably they best choice for that application and for that application i fully endorse giving them a try and confident that the results will be very impressive! Take that endorsement for what it is. In the end, prove for yourself and see for yourself.
nitpicking about someones use of certain words really shows the conversation has lost all meaningful purpose……
when i released my 7mm Allen Mag to the public back nearly 20 years ago now, there were vicious, heated arguments here on LRH. I was flat out called a liar about the performance and ballistic numbers we were getting with my new cartridge and the 200 gr Wildcat bullets we were using. I only offered real world test results though and over time, as more rifles got out in the field, and my posted numbers were proven time and time again, those that were screaming at me for being a flat out liar were proven WRONG. Now with hundreds of 7mm Allen Magnums out in the field, its performance is accepted by most.
in having conversations with Brian and Steve early on when they were just starting their business, i believe we had exactly this same conversation, only post tested proven results and data. To my knowledge that is all they have done and never exaggerated their products like most large companies do which most simply fully believe and support when a large company exaggerates their products, sometimes dramatically, yet when a small shop pushes the envelope in any way, they are hounded by criticism for daring to do something new.
first time i posted the 7mm AM was getting 3400 fps with a 200 gr bullet and the actual bullet drop to 1000 yards and the very minute wind drift in a 10 mph wind at 1000 yards, i was attacked constantly from that time onward for years. History will prove the truth.
be part of that truth, try for yourself and see what happens, or not. Just dont attack because a new idea is getting traction in the industry….. i am sure not EVERY rifle will shoot hammer bullets faster then conventional bullets, but experienced handloaders with a solid understanding of internal ballistics will generally, the vast majority of the time, be able to get significantly more velocity with the Hammers then conventional bullets.
why are weatherby numbers less then what is expected, dont know. Maybe they actually hit their advertised numbers with hammer bullets. Why can hornady not get within 100-150 fps of their advertised numbers yet no one flames them like this. They get the, "well they are testing in match grade test rifles and we are shooting in factory rifles, its expected to have a velocity drop"….. thats acceptable??
how can nosler claim their long range accubonds have no velocity ceilings but anyone that has shot them over 3000-3200 fps depending on caliber know all to well their accuracy drops off dramatically over these velocity levels, still they are given the benefit of the doubt by most customers saying they are great bullets, my rifle just does not like them……. No, they are flawed in design for speeds over 3000-3200 fps in spite of noslers claims they can handle any speed. Nosler should be honest about this but they are not because they want you to buy a box and try them in your 7mm RUM even though they know likely they will not work well. They Get to sell a box of bullets anyway…….
i could go on and on about large companies being deceptive or flat out lying about their products and the general shooting public giving them a pass but a small shop starts up, trying to push the envelope and they are hounded by people challenging their reported results. This does bother me because i lived it for many years having to defend FACTUAL real world data that was presented in good faith to the public only to be called a liar and a fake over and over. Again, history will side with facts and real world results, just let that happen. Hammer bullets are being user by many, many thousands of hunters, if they were not getting good results they would not have lasted this long.
they are continually trying new designs to offer better performance all around. This is a good thing.
again, i do not shoot Hammer bullets exclusively. I do not shoot any one bullet maker exclusively but there are applications where Hammer bullets could be arguably they best choice for that application and for that application i fully endorse giving them a try and confident that the results will be very impressive! Take that endorsement for what it is. In the end, prove for yourself and see for yourself.
nitpicking about someones use of certain words really shows the conversation has lost all meaningful purpose……
I'm not going to continue this conversation ad-in-infinitum!!! There is also a second definition for "respect" in that same dictionary, " (2) due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others" The "due regard for the feelings of others" is what I was writing about. And....I was trying to make light of your comment about something someone wrote as meaningless. I do not follow too many people on this forum, you have been one of those people that have followed for a very long time because I respect your opinions and thoughts on different matters. I did not deserve the belittling/disparaging reply that you threw out there and I have lost a lot of respect for you as a result. If I disagree with someone's post I skip past it or simply ignore it, everyone is entitled to their opinions. As I originally wrote in my first reply about your comment, I do not usually reply to such remarks, this one of yours really "----ed" me off!!!! Enough already, I am sure the forum members have better things to read this this stuff!!!
