Originally Posted by J E Custom
Not to be sarcastic but everyone that is concerned about the HAT or any other bullets BCs
should just buy some and test them themselves in there rifle.
Bullets shoot differently in each barrel and the only way to find out is to test them your self.
I have never found any bullet that perfectly matched the listed BCs they have been + or -
the listed BC.
I have been around for a long time and seen the method for measuring BCs change but
the bullet shot the same no mater what changes were made.
No matter what claims are made by any manufacture about there product ultimately The
consumer will find the truth and with all bullets some work better than others for different
So let's encourage people to continue to develop new products that may benefit us and let
the "Chips Fall Where They May''.
Just my opinion
J E CUSTOM
JE, I have absolutley no problem at all with people buying them and testing on their own which is something I've said several times now. But tell me... what is wrong with asking for an independendant verification of these bullet's performance? Not everyone wants to spend the money, time and effort to find out for themselves. Mr Henson has offered a very good guarantee but there is a lot more to testing bullets than just the cash spent on them. I myself have considered trying his .308 cal 180's and in fact, bought some of the first generation bullets from another member. If however, a credible source, such as Bryan Litz, tested these bullets for their BC and found them to be less than the high .6 range I simply would not try them because they wouldn't provide me with enough advantage over current offerings. It would save me a lot of time, trouble and expense, not to mention barrel life although I'm not real concerned with burning out my factory 300 RUM. But if i had a custom match grade barrel in a throat torching cartridge it would be nice to know what the actual performance potential of the bullet was before sending 50-100 rounds down the tube.
It's true that shooter's will find variations in listed BC's, but is that because the listed BC is wrong or the shooter's method and equipement are inadequate? The individual effects of a rifle on a bullet's BC are so minimal as to be insignificant. I generally believe published BC's, and I put a great deal of faith in Bryan's work above any other source. Having accurate BC data is a very useful tool for LR work.
So I ask again... why not conduct these tests? There is just no good reason why not. These will be open tests for all the world to see and judge the results and bullets for themselves for what they are or are not. We have a chance to put to rest all the specualtions and get the facts.
I've said it once and I'll say it again. If I was a bullet maker with a bullet that can do what is claimed of the 265 HAT, I would be chomping at the bit to show the world what it can do in a very public and open demonstration. Instead, what I see is a very shadowy figure void of transparency and openess trying make this all as difficult as possible and on top of everything, suggesting that the results not be published. That just blows my mind. Can you imagine? Why on earth would he not want the results published? The only possible reason I can think of is because the results may be unfavorble to his bullets.
In any case, his efforts to muddy the waters and hide the truth have been trumped. The decision to participate is totally his now, but that will not stop his bullets from being fired. I hope he does participate, but in the end it wont change what the bullet can or can not do.