Originally Posted by noel carlson
"I think that this is all very interesting ..... specifically the only ballistics experts that have commented are the ones that either own another company, or are employed by another company....."... I actually think this is actually all very predictable.
We are competing for a similar consumer market niche, and any publicized competitive advantage will be quickly identified, and swiftly discounted if not credible, or emulated in the event a given modification is not legally protected.
For example, your two upcoming heavyweights have already been pre-empted, and you will not become aware of it until published claims run smack into field data.
But this is your thread, so I will not hijack it with competing information. My point is this, the time for speculation is prior to release of a product, not after.
Like I have said before, this is not the first generation or first design of Henson's bullets. This current model is the improvement over the original design. We had very good BC numbers based on both trajectory and instrumental velocities at both close and distant ranges..... We even validated the testing process by using some control samples from another company to verify our testing process.
Manufacturing the individual pieces is quite simple.... It is even simple to make some "special" ones that have so much tender loving care that it cannot be duplicated in a production environment. The devil is in the details to get the production line products to work, fit and ultimately perform as designed.
We should have some "field data" shortly on the larger ones. The testing specimens are in shipping as I write this. We do not sort them to test them. We just load them straight out of the box.
All of our 265 models that we ran data on was based on a BC of .910. We figured that .910 in a 265 would do well. We were suprised that the trajectories were better than the anticipated BC of .910.
Even if the true BC is what we predicted, it is still better than any other lead core copper cupped 338 in that weight. I would consider predicable and repeatable lift to be an added benefit. We already know they group well.
Again this is the smaller version and we will be getting some data on the 280s and 300 shortly.