I really have no dog in this fight. I read through the first 6 pages of posts and wanted to make some comments about the topic. As I am sure there was not alot of meaningful debate thereafter, I will just comment on what I have read on.
I have tested the Gen 1 HAT 265 gr bullets. In my testing a 338 AM, I loaded them up to well over 3500 fps. I had some old TTI cases and I was able to hit 3350 fps with tight primer pockets but accuracy was not the best of the test session. Around 3380 to 3440 fps were the most consistant loads as far as velocity as well as group size.
My opinion of BC, I do not look at it as a value dependant on a bullet but more importantly, a value produced by a bullets drop over distance and drift by the wind. Now this is certainly not a scientific bases opinion as several on this post could write books about BC and its scientific meaning. What does this mean to the average shooter, even the serious shooter, very little to be honest.
What does matter, being able to predict where the bullet is over its entire trajectory and being able to predictably estimate where the bullet will be in relation to wind conditions during its time of flight.
For me, I had alot of trouble getting ballistic charts to match up with what the bullet was actually doing after it left the muzzle. If a paper BC says a bullet will be 10.5 moa low at 900 yards but its actually 11.5 moa low, whats more important, using the paper BC or figuring what the bullet is actually doing in flight. To me its the later.
Again, I have no care what the BC is. I just want a number I can plug into my exbal program and have it give me reliable values for where my bullet will be over its trajectory. If that number is .450 or 1.100, it really does not matter. Knowing where that bullet is in flight is far more valuable to me then having a the highest BC around.
Do not get me wrong, everyone wants high BC values. That is because, if its true, it means their rifle/load combo is producing great drop numbers and low windage drifts but in the real world the "BC" number really means nothing as long as our ballistic program generated drop chart matches actual trajectory.
How can you do this. Easy. Shot at several ranges, the more the better. When I develop a drop chart for a new bullet, I generally zero at 500 yards and then measure drop at 800, 1200 and 1600 yards. Sometimes even stretching out to 2000 yards if conditions and the rifle combo allows it.
If your ballistic program matches up with all five of those actual drop numbers, your generated drop will be accurate with your actual drop. Then test in varying enviornmental conditions and record your adjustments if needed and correct your chart accordingly.
It takes some range time but that is never a bad thing, in fact its a good thing and in the end, your program will be dead on with your trajectory. again, the actual number you plug into your BC box is really not as important as many make it out to be, its the actual drop and drift that are important and if you know exactly what those real values are, you have pretty much won the war.
Back to bullets. When I tested the Gen 1 265 gr HAT bullets, they produced a BC just over .800. Which at a velocity of well over 3400 fps, is still quite impressive.
I have never had any experience with the Gen 2 HAT bullets so have nothing to offer there. I have however tested the old Wildcat 265 gr AT RBBTs extensively at velocities of 3050 fps and also 3400 fps levels.
This may really start a fuss but at the lower velocity, I had to use a BC value of .980 to get the programs drop to match up with the actual trajectory. At the faster muzzle velocity, I had to use a BC of .920 to get predicted drop to match up with actual trajectory. Why???? Not really sure but that was what was needed to be able to predict bullet trajectory accurately.
I can not say if LVs numbers are right or not, again, I have never shot these bullets being tested. 1.100 seems high for a BC but I got ran over the coals when I posted my information about the Wildcat bullets, nearly all of them to be honest so I have no desire to do the same thing.
I will also say I have alot of respect for those that have the minds to understand ballistic calculations but I also would like to say that sometimes if you plug all the numbers in, the value that comes out of the computer is not always exactly the number you need to accurately predict bullet trajectory.
Obviously the Gen2 HAT bullets have great drop and drift numbers. If you want to, get some and test them and see what you get. If the numbers are real or even close, it will come out when others test them and report similiar results.
I got hammered with the BC values I came out with with many of the Wildcat bullets. That was until dozens of shooters and hunters tested these same bullets and came back with identical numbers time and again. If LV numbers are close, that will play out in the end as more and more shooters and hunters get them and get them in the air. That will get us the real solid data.
So, if your interested, get some and get them in the air.
As far as sending bullets to another bullet maker to do BC testing on, PLEASE. No one in their right mind would offer their products to be tested by a commerical competitor. It has nothing to do with trusting what the other tester would say about the bullets, its just silly to recommend.
There is no one on LRH that would have a competitor inspect their work just because someone else demanded it. No disrespect to anyone here but lets get realistic. If you want to prove or disprove these results, buy some of these bullets and test them and let the world know what you honestly get for results.
If the bullets do not meet expectations, report that, FACTUALLY and politely. If they do match expectations, report that as well just as honestly and politely. Its all information that is valuable to us and in the end, its the most useful data we could get. The more that test, the larger the data base, the more valuable the information is.
Just my opinion, simply from being raked over the coals for the same thing MANY, MANY TIMES!!!!
You can call BC values into question, but there is no way, NO WAY one can discount accurate honest bullet drop numbers, especially if they come from a mass of shooters.
Allen Precision Shooting
Home of the Allen Magnum, Allen Xpress and Allen Tactical Wildcats and the Painkiller Muzzle brakes.
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Re: Henson Aluminum Tipped Bullet Testing
That was a very good post.
Dont take this as an argument. Just food for thought.
Using a given BC number to calculate your drops is great for just that. Drops. It can be done reliably and predictably. My thoughts on simply using a number for a BC only this purpose has its flaws. I am pretty sure with the calibers you tote around are of little concern due to the very high impact velocities at most any range, but for the calibers most of us tote drop is only part of the issue.
Let me expound on this. I try and test every bullet I take to the field to be used on game for reliable expansion. What I meen is I try and determine at what velocity a given bullet expands on game and when it doesnt. Now once I establish this number, I try and figure out where my bullets meet up with this velocity down range. This gives me a BC number I can plug into my software for impact velocities. You can come up with a BC for use to find drops but that number doesnt always work with impact velocities. Software almost needs two BC inputs. One to match your drops and one to match your downrange velocities so you KNOW when it is too far to responsibly shoot that critter. Most software will only get you so close with calculating velocities in relation to the actual drops. Now with even higher tech bullets hitting the scene, heaven only knows what that will do to the drop/impact velocity issue.
Again, no flame intended, just thinking out loud.
Long range shooting is a process that ends with a result. Once you start to focus on the result (how bad your last shot was, how big the group is going to be, what your buck will score, what your match score is, what place you are in...) then you loose the capacity to focus on the process.
We have had guys try them in barrels that were the incorrect twist and they got their money back....
We even had guys totally ignore the printed directions on the reverse of the invoice that outlines in specific detail how to be successful with them.... These guys were offered their money back but were more interested in whining and belly-aching and they kept them....
It really made us wonder if they were being dishonest and they were working correctly all the time. I mean if you offer a refund and someone does not accept it, then either something is grossy wrong with the decision making process or they were as described.
The guys that seem to have the easiest time are the ones that follow the directions precisely. A lot of them are new shooters.....
There is a little more to load development than cramming into the lands and pulling the trigger..... We have found that they shoot the best -.030" to -.060" off the lands. This really helps out the magazine shooters since they can usually load them to fit into the magazine well.
Finally, they tune fairly easily. But the guys that get them have got to follow the directions.
littlevarmnint, you are still making friends and new customers, (not) you have the mentality of a 4 year old, and still spread vomit in your ramblings. Will you ever grow up? Just think how sales would be if you were a good representation of your product that you are touting,but its sure fun watching you gargle. I know, I know, you have me on the ignore list and added some more than me, but you still read this and that is good enough for me. Forever a thorn in your arse, Ron Tilley
If my questions, and comments, were among those which came across as "raking over the coals", then I am faced with something of a dilemma.
Less promotional rhetoric, and more numbers, would obviate most of the dialogue. There is undoubtedly something to be learned here. Even if the bullets, in question, fall out of the air abruptly at some less-than-extreme range, there is application for a design that performs, as this one is purported to, in real world conditions.
I have not yet read a "test" account in this thread which combines reasonable control, structured protocol, and coherent reporting. You can not just throw it out to the consumer and say "If they do not work, you can have your money back." Spent bullets, even if they could be collected, are not subject to refund, and the manufacturer has yet to make the time/material investment which it is asking the customer to invest in proving the design(s). Dies do not provide much latitude for developmental adjustment even if the inclination was present. Do you see the problem?
In a nut shell, evidence equal to the claim is not an unreasonable standard. Other manufacturers, myself included, have a stake in both the up, and the downside of the consumer experience within such a limited market niche. My attention was drawn to this thread by friends, and associates, who did not know what to make of it. Careful product development benefits everyone.
It's funny to me that the naysayers haver very little posts. In the internet world it may mean nothing, but to most that have read several threads by intelligent people it means alot. To come on a forum and complain about some new bullet makers claims is absurd. In kirby's post the same issue is mentioned. Go shoot them and then tell. Anybody can type, it doesn't mean crap. Get with the program and start helping the community not destroying it. Geez.
ummmm once again a reminder to check any load data I give out as my mind is dyslexic but I have spread some misinformation in this thread.
I am using .9 as the BC on these bullets not .96 as I stated earlier. Sorry if I created any false expectations of these bullets. I opened exbal on my phone today to show it to a friend who does not know anything about long range shooting. I was showing him how to plug in the velocity and BC and pulled up my 338AM as an example. I saw that it was .9. I thought maybe that was wrong, but checked it on my old phone that I primarily use when hunting. I was mistaken, maybe it was wishful thinking. I guess I just have too many numbers running around in my head since I have taken up this hobby gun smithing.
At .96 it would only be 7 MOA at 800 yards. I know for a fact that it takes 9 MOA to be deadon at 800 yards. I still have not figured out where I came up with .96.
Anyway, I sent some bullets to Bryan. I did that not as any type of slam to the bullet maker or even to lightvarmit. As I understood the situation they had no problem with him buying some to test. I sold him some just to save him some time. I do not expect that he is going to turn up anything out of the ordinary.
I will say this, the bullets shoot very well. From my limited experiance with them they kill stuff very well. I will continue shooting them BUT...the BC aint nowhere near 1.1. and I am pretty darn sure it is not .96 either. I am not disputing lightvarmits data, just saying that it does not match my own which could be from a myriad of reasons including my ignorance.
Once again I am sorry for spreading misinformation or creating any confusion. I think that I posted .9 as the BC on these bullets several months back, it has not changed. Maybe I started with .86 and went to .9 I just cannot say, but would have sworn to my posts until just a little while ago. I am sincerely sorry for my mistake and hope that I did not cause anyone any problems. I should have checked my phone as I have it with me at almost all times and should have not have relied upon my faulty memory.
I admit that I know just enough to be dangerous.....but dangerous at ever extending distances.