Why Hammer Bullets Are Always Faster

[Muddyboots]

Cutting edge /
Badlands says their bullets get similar velocity of other bullets of same weight, which is consistent with hodgdon

Their bullet construction is substantially different than Hammers. You are assuming all bullets of same weight ignoring alloys and construction to yield similar pressures. Hodgdon still maintains evaluate every load for pressure so nothing different there.

This is simply a Merry Go Round of different opinion on pressure. I stand with 45 years of experience understanding pressure indicators. Once I determine I am approaching pressure, I back off. Every experienced reloader does the same no matter what bullet, powder, brass or primer you are shooting.

If you choose to lump Hammer bullets into all other bullets of same weight, and load from that perspective, no problem. Your choice, enjoy.

 

[Northkill]

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……

Yep Kirby, your wildcats have proven themselves. I'm super happy with my 7 AM. And my experience with Hammer has been the same as yours and is consistent with their claims. In my view, a counterclaim that something doesn't meet its claims must also produce valid evidence to support the denial. Have doubts? Go try it and see. Oh, and don't put "diesel" in a "gas" motor then say it doesn't work.

 

[Northkill]

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.

The OP was fine in context. There will always be folks out to parse words to promote their cause or case. Don't worry about it. "most of the time" wouldn't be an accurate statement either if in all their testing "always" is the true result. We can argue the parameters and the details, etc, but until you try it yourself and load properly for the design, any denial of the claims is also conjecture. Some of the doubters have used absolute verbage too... When bullets become a personal ego issue, hair triggers start going off.

 

[Calvin45]

I notice whenever something legitimately new (we'll sort of, there truly is nothing new under the sun) comes out it's controversial

Berger wasn't the first match bullet but they were the first to market thin jacketed vlds explicitly as suitable for big game hunting (and this in response to real field data from guys who'd been using them not according to their stated target purpose)

The fury has died down but people still have really strong opinions for and against.

Same with Barnes. They were the first mono or at least the first to make it big. People still have such strong opinions. They're either a death Ray or an overpriced fmj.

Even Nosler…Nosler wasn't the first to use a polymer tip, not by a long shot (CIL sabretip anyone?….OH CANADA! - and it ain't polymer but y'all remember the Remington bronze point no doubt) but they were the first to really get big with it. To this day I know people who are so so so emotional about b tips being the best thing since sliced bread or a grenade that can't be trusted.

Hammer has done something legitimately new territory for many - they may not be the first to have done what they're doing but they're the first to make it for real in America like this and they are not a Barnes clone in the slightest, that makes no more sense than to say every premium bullet is a partition rip-off or every bonded core is just copying the original bitterroot valley bullets.

But you can tell it's new territory cuz of all the fuss being raised about it.

Nobody is up in arms to the point of being emotionally hysterical about whether or not hornady interlocks are suitable for hunting. They're boring, we all know what they do, use them or don't, no one's offended, no one cares!!! The vanilla ice cream of bullets, they get the job done but no one walks a mile for them

 

[ButterBean]

Absolutely 100 percent meaningless without pressure testing results. Not saying hammers do not get more velocity but this proves nothing. different bullets often get higher or lower velocity with same charge weights. Does not mean pressure is the same nor does "no pressure signs" means ok.

Lou

As Mr Coyle said ^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^
Is meaningless

 

[Muddyboots]

"Those who have open mind, prosper."
Muddyism

 

[ButterBean]

It is well documented that traditional pressure signs do not correlate to anything and may only show up well after exceeding pressure limits. Do web searches if interested. Hornady has some recent podcast out on this I think.

If want something useful , I load hammers to published barnes tsx since It is also a banded mono. Data and velocities and charges have roughly matched barnes data in 3 cartridges so far (6.5 creed, 270 win, 300 win). Leads me to believe they are similar but dont know until hammer or some powder company publishes pressure tested data with hammers

Lou

The Barnes Bullets are no where near similar to the Hammers, two different critters altogether

 

[Lou270]

For the record I hope nothing but the best for hammer and am in process of switching over several rifles to them. I would use them if they acheive higher velocity or not. Does not matter to me

However I am trying to point out that you cannot say a bullet gives higher velocity without pressure tested results. No matter how good one thinks their "load work up" is, it is not telling you what pressure the load is at nor that loads are at equivalent pressure. No amount of understanding of internal ballistics changes this and an experienced reloader should know that. There is a reason ballistic labs stopped doing this in the 50s and 60s. People complained manuals got conservative after that but sometimes reality hurts.

Doing load work up only is like shooting 2 different deer with a hammer and a different bullet and saying the deer shot with hammer died faster so hammer has better terminal performance. It doesnt mean anything. Just that you have a dead deer. You did not autoposy the deer to see how the bullet performed or do gel tests at many distances to show the bullet performs as expected. All the things hammer does for terminal performance. You are just reporting a result without the real facts that says the bullet is actually doing what it is supposed to. The only way to prove hammers give higher velocity is with pressure measurements. Until then it is an unproven claim.

For me I will load them to velocities acheived with similar bullets. If eventually Hammer gets pressure tested data or somebody likes Hodgdon includes them and shows faster loads, great. Will use that data. Either case I expect will be happy with results

Lou

 

[choprzrul]

How many ways are there to measure 'pressure'? If 1 method of measuring 'pressure' is used, does that observed value extend to every rifle? Can inverse results be observed from one rifle to another.....or are results observed in a laboratory pressure testing platform always a foundational truth to be used in every rifle in existence?

IMHO this is all academic in nature until a laboratory type of method is available to measure 'pressure' in MY RIFLE. I can use other's results to extrapolate a reasonably safe starting point, but the destination is completely unique for each and every rifle. If I travel the path by eliminating as many variables as I can, and using similar components and testing methods, I arrive at the discovery that one bullet safely gives me more fps in MY RIFLE, then I am satisfied.

There's a reason why published load data implies that their numbers should be taken as a guide and you should work your way up slowly while watching for signs of pressure. I doubt they are assuming we all have pressure test equipment....

Just my $0.02.....

.

 

[Northkill]

For the record I hope nothing but the best for hammer and am in process of switching over several rifles to them. I would use them if they acheive higher velocity or not. Does not matter to me

However I am trying to point out that you cannot say a bullet gives higher velocity without pressure tested results. No matter how good one thinks their "load work up" is, it is not telling you what pressure the load is at nor that loads are at equivalent pressure. No amount of understanding of internal ballistics changes this and an experienced reloader should know that. There is a reason ballistic labs stopped doing this in the 50s and 60s. People complained manuals got conservative after that but sometimes reality hurts.

Doing load work up only is like shooting 2 different deer with a hammer and a different bullet and saying the deer shot with hammer died faster so hammer has better terminal performance. It doesnt mean anything. Just that you have a dead deer. You did not autoposy the deer to see how the bullet performed or do gel tests at many distances to show the bullet performs as expected. All the things hammer does for terminal performance. You are just reporting a result without the real facts that says the bullet is actually doing what it is supposed to. The only way to prove hammers give higher velocity is with pressure measurements. Until then it is an unproven claim.

For me I will load them to velocities acheived with similar bullets. If eventually Hammer gets pressure tested data or somebody likes Hodgdon includes them and shows faster loads, great. Will use that data. Either case I expect will be happy with results

Lou

I think we all get what you're saying my friend. But the reasoning you are using is rather circular and some faulty premises. If you use the same careful methods for determining pressure in a particular rifle with various loads, you'll find more velocity with the Hammers. If you keep going, you'll eventually come to understand the OP. If you find it otherwise, we'd be glad to hear the details of your experience. Doesn't mean they are the best at everything. We're just talking velocity here.

 

[ButterBean]

I think we all get what you're saying my friend. But the reasoning you are using is rather circular and some faulty premises. If you use the same careful methods for determining pressure in a particular rifle with various loads, you'll find more velocity with the Hammers. If you keep going, you'll eventually come to understand the OP. If you find it otherwise, we'd be glad to hear the details of your experience. Doesn't mean they are the best at everything. We're just talking velocity here.

He's gonna need to clear his head first

 

[Lou270]

How many ways are there to measure 'pressure'? If 1 method of measuring 'pressure' is used, does that observed value extend to every rifle? Can inverse results be observed from one rifle to another.....or are results observed in a laboratory pressure testing platform always a foundational truth to be used in every rifle in existence?

IMHO this is all academic in nature until a laboratory type of method is available to measure 'pressure' in MY RIFLE. I can use other's results to extrapolate a reasonably safe starting point, but the destination is completely unique for each and every rifle. If I travel the path by eliminating as many variables as I can, and using similar components and testing methods, I arrive at the discovery that one bullet safely gives me more fps in MY RIFLE, then I am satisfied.

There's a reason why published load data implies that their numbers should be taken as a guide and you should work your way up slowly while watching for signs of pressure. I doubt they are assuming we all have pressure test equipment....

Just my $0.02.....

.

Exacrly right. However velocity is a pressure sign as well. If you are exceeding velocity significantly of published load data you are likely at higher pressures. Looking at primers, etc is only part of it.

Lou

 

[Quintus]

Exacrly right. However velocity is a pressure sign as well. If you are exceeding velocity significantly of published load data you are likely at higher pressures. Looking at primers, etc is only part of it.

Lou

This is the flaw in your argument. If you are using velocity as your pressure indicator, then by definition any similar/same weight bullet that goes faster than your published data control bullet, it is going over 'safe' pressure. Every rifle is different just like every lot of powder and every brand of brass and so on. Load books are an educated guess on where to start with given components.

 

[Calvin45]

Exacrly right. However velocity is a pressure sign as well. If you are exceeding velocity significantly of published load data you are likely at higher pressures. Looking at primers, etc is only part of it.

Lou

Well I think we'd all agree on that BUT it's still not apples to apples. Jacket thickness and bearing surface!!! I was never able to drive the 200 grain woodleigh weldcore, for example, as fast as I could drive the 208 hornady amax. It has a way thicker jacket and a longer total contact surface with the barrel. This is why you can not just use different bullets of the same weight interchangeably regarding load data, always drop down and work up again when changing something. I've already mentioned the Barnes x/tsx difference. It IS POSSIBLE to have bullets of equal weight hit equal pressure peaks and not have equal velocity, in fact it's the norm.

Another thing is that it's a matter of the maximum pressure spike more than the total "area under the curve".

Bullets like hammers do not spike as abruptly because of less initial engraving pressure. They're not the only ones either. This is also why in my experIence HBN coating bullets and barrels does allow for higher velocities (with more powder) - less spiky at the start. This is also why progressive burn rate powders like rl17, rl26, and superformance can do things most others simply can not do velocity wise without showing pressure signs (which are meaningful) - they allow more total area under the curve without the peak being as high.