Why Hammer Bullets Are Always Faster

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.
So if I understand your first post, you would like to see the same weight projectile and same powder and getting the same measured pressure to see if one bullet is faster than the others. Not going with signs of pressure but measured amounts of pressure
 
So if I understand your first post, you would like to see the same weight projectile and same powder and getting the same measured pressure to see if one bullet is faster than the others. Not going with signs of pressure but measured amounts of pressure
Not really. Just pressure tested data. It will sort itself out what works best with hammers. Just like any other bullet. It may be same or different.

Lou
 
I will make one more point. Velocity is the only thing we can measure that has a direct correlation with pressure. Velocity is proportional to the area under the pressure / time curve. If you are getting similar velocities as published load data the area under the pressure time curve is the same. It does not mean the shape of the curve is the same though is much more likely if using same compinents (mainly exact same powder). If you are getting higher velocity or lower velocity you have more or less area under the curve.

Primers, primer pockets, che, bolt lift, ejector swipe, etc.. at best are an indirect indicator of pressure. Metal hardness, tolerances and probably other things make these unreliable. Something will probably show up if way above pressure limits in any gun or you may get a surprise and pop a primer:).

Most bullets have pressure tested data. Using similar components (particularly powder due to burn rate) velocity along with conventional pressure signs you at best can assume the area under the curve is similar and similar curve shape

If you do not have pressure tested data you have no idea what the velocity potential is for a bullet with a given powder. You can:

A) Rely soley on traditional signs

B) Rely on velocity of similar bullets (or cases of equiv volume for wildcatters) and conventional pressure signs. This, for ex, is what Hodgdon recommends

Some folks infer that hammers have special design features that there is no "B". That is fine but it still does not make "A" reliable. So, I would recommend folks do "B" until we have real data to compare against.

Lou
 
I will make one more point. Velocity is the only thing we can measure that has a direct correlation with pressure. Velocity is proportional to the area under the pressure / time curve. If you are getting similar velocities as published load data the area under the pressure time curve is the same. It does not mean the shape of the curve is the same though is much more likely if using same compinents (mainly exact same powder). If you are getting higher velocity or lower velocity you have more or less area under the curve.

Primers, primer pockets, che, bolt lift, ejector swipe, etc.. at best are an indirect indicator of pressure. Metal hardness, tolerances and probably other things make these unreliable. Something will probably show up if way above pressure limits in any gun or you may get a surprise and pop a primer:).

Most bullets have pressure tested data. Using similar components (particularly powder due to burn rate) velocity along with conventional pressure signs you at best can assume the area under the curve is similar and similar curve shape

If you do not have pressure tested data you have no idea what the velocity potential is for a bullet with a given powder. You can:

A) Rely soley on traditional signs

B) Rely on velocity of similar bullets (or cases of equiv volume for wildcatters) and conventional pressure signs. This, for ex, is what Hodgdon recommends

Some folks infer that hammers have special design features that there is no "B". That is fine but it still does not make "A" reliable. So, I would recommend folks do "B" until we have real data to compare against.

Lou
Maybe we should all just stop repeating ourselves. I'll go first! 🤣
 
This is from Hodgdon's load data page online for a 25-06 shooting 90gr bullets using H4350

hpbt.JPG


1672352510734.png


10,000 psi more pressure with 26 LESS fps?

It is being posited that using published load data for same bullet weight and powder charge weight is ok.....but the starting weight for the Sierra is only 1/2 grain away from the listed max charge weight for the GMX. What's going to happen if someone uses the Sierra midpoint data (51.0gr) on some 90gr GMX they have laying around?

I mean, after all, there is published data showing 53.0gr of H4350 is ok in a 25-06 with a 90gr bullet? 51.0 should be fine.....

Not to mention....how in the world is 50,700 psi pushing a 90gr pill to almost exactly the same velocity as 60,600 psi???

Which one of those sets of published data is correct for a 90gr Absolute Hammer? Same weight of bullet, call it the same velocity, but wildly different psi.

At what point do we suppose the Sierra HPBT will show signs of pressure? +1%, +2%, ?? Would we run out of case capacity before ever reaching dangerous levels (65,267 max?) of psi?

Hat tip to Hodgdon....I used their published load data in this post.

.
 
This is from Hodgdon's load data page online for a 25-06 shooting 90gr bullets using H4350

View attachment 422876

View attachment 422877

10,000 psi more pressure with 26 LESS fps?

It is being posited that using published load data for same bullet weight and powder charge weight is ok.....but the starting weight for the Sierra is only 1/2 grain away from the listed max charge weight for the GMX. What's going to happen if someone uses the Sierra midpoint data (51.0gr) on some 90gr GMX they have laying around?

I mean, after all, there is published data showing 53.0gr of H4350 is ok in a 25-06 with a 90gr bullet? 51.0 should be fine.....

Not to mention....how in the world is 50,700 psi pushing a 90gr pill to almost exactly the same velocity as 60,600 psi???

Which one of those sets of published data is correct for a 90gr Absolute Hammer? Same weight of bullet, call it the same velocity, but wildly different psi.

At what point do we suppose the Sierra HPBT will show signs of pressure? +1%, +2%, ?? Would we run out of case capacity before ever reaching dangerous levels (65,267 max?) of psi?

Hat tip to Hodgdon....I used their published load data in this post.

.
One is CUP - copper units of pressure. One is PSI - pounds per square inch. Both ways of measuring pressure recognizes by saami and not same thing. Cartridges have different CUP and PSI limits. For ex 270 is 52k CUP and. 65k PSI. You can web search difference though most newer data is PSI these days

Lou
 
However though both max pressures with the respective measurement types you can see max velocities similar…

I would start with gmx data and see what it looks like. As noted both are max loads though use a different pressure measurement system

Lou
 
Last edited:
I will make one more point. Velocity is the only thing we can measure that has a direct correlation with pressure. Velocity is proportional to the area under the pressure / time curve. If you are getting similar velocities as published load data the area under the pressure time curve is the same. It does not mean the shape of the curve is the same though is much more likely if using same compinents (mainly exact same powder). If you are getting higher velocity or lower velocity you have more or less area under the curve.

Primers, primer pockets, che, bolt lift, ejector swipe, etc.. at best are an indirect indicator of pressure. Metal hardness, tolerances and probably other things make these unreliable. Something will probably show up if way above pressure limits in any gun or you may get a surprise and pop a primer:).

Most bullets have pressure tested data. Using similar components (particularly powder due to burn rate) velocity along with conventional pressure signs you at best can assume the area under the curve is similar and similar curve shape

If you do not have pressure tested data you have no idea what the velocity potential is for a bullet with a given powder. You can:

A) Rely soley on traditional signs

B) Rely on velocity of similar bullets (or cases of equiv volume for wildcatters) and conventional pressure signs. This, for ex, is what Hodgdon recommends

Some folks infer that hammers have special design features that there is no "B". That is fine but it still does not make "A" reliable. So, I would recommend folks do "B" until we have real data to compare against.

Lou
SMH
I mean no disrespect at all towards anyone but this is beating that same dead horse everyone else has been beating for the last year, just with a different stick. It's like a speed limit sign, thousands upon thousands of dollars spent, decades of research and information gathering to post the safest speed for any stretch of given road for your safety but I'll bet you drive 5 mph over but that's what makes the world go round
 
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

With the above posted, if you are a Christian I expect you to obey the New Testament commands, instructions, injoicings, and requests.
 
What in the world are the last couple of posts? I didnt quite get them, but I think they are cuts at me. If so, sorry if I made you feel bad with a rational discussion. Maybe the moderator will give you a "safe" forum. If not, sorry I took wrong way. Either case you can PM me to not take away from the post on loading hammers if want to trade insults or discuss something else

Lou
 
Last edited:
So I posted a thread about 280AI speeds and the hammer guys were saying they got 3400 with a 140 and H100v. Ok. Now I can maybe get that due to bullet design and engraving forces you can get higher velocity. But 100v is 200 fps slower than every other 140 with R26. So with R26 you can get 3600? No way. So by some mystery of physics hammers are faster with 100v than other powders in 140 class bullets which are known to be faster. That doesnt pass the smell test.
 
Top