Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics


Reply

my method

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-15-2008, 09:51 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: on the rifle range in Utah
Posts: 2,723
my method

Due to the many emails I have recieved and the constant jaw flapping of one of our lesser loved members here, I have decided to make this thread.

Many of you have asked about how I do my method of bullet testing for terminal performance of bullets and why I do it. Well, that's easy. My method is firing full muzzle velocity and reduced muzzle velocity rounds into dry and wet media paper and then making comparisons to known values of other bullets that I have personally used on the real thing (big game) to come to a conclusion. For those of you with scientific backgrounds, you will recognize this as standard scientific procedures using controls or "baselines" for the layperson. WHy I do it is even easier. Because I don't believe in testing unknown bullets on live game that doesn't belong to me and especially not at long range where recovery of a wounded animal is less probable. Also, no matter how accurate a bullet flies, no matter how high the bc might be, when dealing with HUNTING we are (or should be) more concerned with TERMINAL BALLISTICS. Exterior ballistics are secondary in hunting. They are first in target shooting, but second when dealing with the third parameter of kill power. In other words, you could have a gun that shoots 1" groups at 1000 yards and be able to put five shots in the X ring at that distance and then go out and put all five rounds into the vitals at 1000 yards, but if the bullets don't have good TERMINAL properties, that animal can survive for any amount of time. And out here in the west, where a shot might be taken across a canyon or two, if that bullet doesn't cause enough damage to put the animal down immediately, it can be HOURS before you can cross the canyon and BEGIN to look for the animal. So immediate and destructive damage is the only thing we can count on.

Now, back to the testing. Kirby and others have asked how I overcome the RPM problem of reduced muzzle velocity in a short range test. That is also easy. It all goes back to the control bullet. In my testing of 300 grain SMK .338's, I have shot them into media at 100 yards at full velo, reduced velo, and then compared that info to full velo tests in the same media at 1000 yards plus, and then finally compared them to recovered bullets from long range big game kills. And when I say LONG RANGE, I AM NOT talking about 600 yard kills. That is mid range at best in my book . I'm talking 800, 900, 1000, 1200, 1500 yards. These are distances where any bullet is reduced to low enough velocities that it becomes hard for a stout bullet to open.

So by comparison, I can deduce what I need to see in testing to make it work at long range. The jaw flapper here who can't seem to comprehend this cannot be blamed. He has not killed anywhere near the amount of long range game I have or at anywhere near my distances. I'm not tooting my own horn here, just simply explaining the facts.

From these comparisons, I can see what bullets should work, what bullets might work part of the time, and what bullets aren't going to work anytime. From my tests of the 338 SMK, I saw that it opened up WITH REDUCED RPMS, REDUCED VELOCITY, AND SLIGHT YAW. And, it looked exactly like the mushroom I pulled out of a moose at over 900 yards and an elk over 900 yards.
ANd it was not the only one. Accubonds and Scirroccos had similar results even when fired down to 1500 fps muzzle velocity! The SMK has been fired down to 1200 fps velocity and 100 yard impact in media and STILL OPENED SOME. Why would the HAT bullet be any different? Our beloved salesman says they are. He says they need more RPMS. Well, they might. But WHY DOESN'T the SMK or the Accubond or the Scirrocco need higher RPMS? And why can't a comparison be made?

In my original thread, I said this:
So, on to the media test. I fired three SMK's and three 280 HATs into the phone books at 100 yards with reduced velocities to simulate long range impact speeds. Since I already know what the 300 smk's do to animals at 1000 yards, I used it as the control. In this manner, I can make a comparison of the two bullets and I know what the minimum performance level is that can be accepted.

I also commented how both bullets had some initial yaw. I also took pictures of the SMK and showed how even though it was yawing and had low RPM's, it still opened up some and jacket was found everywhere. If you look closely at the pic, you can see how the SMK was bent in one direction just like the HAT's were and went through the paper diagonally but the difference was the SMK ruptured and the core had started to come out and the HAT had not. I also commented on how the jacket of the HAT looked twice the thickness of the SMK.

Now, after talking to several bullet manufacturers lately, they seem to use similar testing methods. Sierra has a 300 yard tunnel and they load down to replicate long range ballistics.
Brian Litzer was on here last week where he said they do the same thing at Berger. 600 yards is as far as his range goes so they load down. So if it is good enough for these reputable manufacturers, why can't it work for a home experiment too?

What it boils down to is that our Bright Vermin got teed off because I reported a test to the public without clearing it or reviewing it with him first. Had he simply said, "can you re-test at longer range because we think our bullet needs high RPM to work", I would have said, "sure, no problem". But despite his beliefs that you can just load these bullets up and go hit a phonebook at 1000 yards with no prior load development, I know and you guys know, that that isn't how it works. But I would have tried to do it regardless if the company hadn't turned so nasty. At that point, I didn't care how the bullets performed because I had been treated so badly. And it just seems to be getting worse. But I care even less now. I hope their Gen II bullets do better. NOt for their sakes, but fot the sakes of the quarry and the hunters who truly shoot long range.
NOt that I have any ill will to these guys. I have dealt with ignorant, rude, internet jockies before and they are their own worst enemies. I simply don't care what people think of me or my methods when I know they are a few fries short of a happy meal. My success in this sport is real whether the ants comprehend it or not. In the end, it all boils down to whatever floats your boat.

Now for those who have all their fries, feel free to email me your questions anytime.

GG out for now.........

Everyone have a Merry Christmas! And I'm not just saying that to sell you booolits!
__________________
Find it
Range it
Click it
Pull it
Dump it

If it's not far, it's boring.

Last edited by goodgrouper; 12-15-2008 at 10:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-15-2008, 10:37 PM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canterbury, New Zealand
Posts: 675
Re: my method

Well put GG. From what I can see you have a very thourough method of testing, that could only be improved by tethering a cow at 1000 yds and shooting it.
The photographic evidence was excellent!

Stu.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-15-2008, 11:17 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: MS
Posts: 1,652
Re: my method

I agree with your testing methods and you have my respect. I am going to be testing some of these bullets this weekend. I have learned one thing about these bullets...they do shoot very well.

If they perform well or not we should have some more pics of the wounds they create. I am going to be hunting in a situation where the owners are very interested in reducing thier doe population by whatever means necessary. I will do everything I can to make sure that any shots bring a quick end to them, but to be honest I am looking at this as more of a bullet test than a hunt. In fact I am more interested in taking the does than I am of taking a 150 or so inch whitetail buck. You can bet that I will test these bullets on a couple of does before I even consider shooting a buck with them. Frankly, I am not convinced they are a viable long range hunting bullet, this trip should convice me one way or the other.

I also agree that you were jumped on with no provacation for sharing valuable information that you went through a lot of trouble to bring to us. I hope that his actions do not keep you or anyone else from experimenting and sharing truthful results. I also think these things might be powerful medicine if they work.
__________________
I admit that I know just enough to be dangerous.....but dangerous at ever extending distances.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-16-2008, 12:05 AM
Lightvarmint
 
Posts: n/a
Re: my method

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodgrouper View Post
Due to the many emails I have recieved and the constant jaw flapping of one of our lesser loved members here, I have decided to make this thread.

Many of you have asked about how I do my method of bullet testing for terminal performance of bullets and why I do it. Well, that's easy. My method is firing full muzzle velocity and reduced muzzle velocity rounds into dry and wet media paper and then making comparisons to known values of other bullets that I have personally used on the real thing (big game) to come to a conclusion. For those of you with scientific backgrounds, you will recognize this as standard scientific procedures using controls or "baselines" for the layperson. WHy I do it is even easier. Because I don't believe in testing unknown bullets on live game that doesn't belong to me and especially not at long range where recovery of a wounded animal is less probable. Also, no matter how accurate a bullet flies, no matter how high the bc might be, when dealing with HUNTING we are (or should be) more concerned with TERMINAL BALLISTICS. Exterior ballistics are secondary in hunting. They are first in target shooting, but second when dealing with the third parameter of kill power. In other words, you could have a gun that shoots 1" groups at 1000 yards and be able to put five shots in the X ring at that distance and then go out and put all five rounds into the vitals at 1000 yards, but if the bullets don't have good TERMINAL properties, that animal can survive for any amount of time. And out here in the west, where a shot might be taken across a canyon or two, if that bullet doesn't cause enough damage to put the animal down immediately, it can be HOURS before you can cross the canyon and BEGIN to look for the animal. So immediate and destructive damage is the only thing we can count on.

Now, back to the testing. Kirby and others have asked how I overcome the RPM problem of reduced muzzle velocity in a short range test. That is also easy. It all goes back to the control bullet. In my testing of 300 grain SMK .338's, I have shot them into media at 100 yards at full velo, reduced velo, and then compared that info to full velo tests in the same media at 1000 yards plus, and then finally compared them to recovered bullets from long range big game kills. And when I say LONG RANGE, I AM NOT talking about 600 yard kills. That is mid range at best in my book . I'm talking 800, 900, 1000, 1200, 1500 yards. These are distances where any bullet is reduced to low enough velocities that it becomes hard for a stout bullet to open.

So by comparison, I can deduce what I need to see in testing to make it work at long range. The jaw flapper here who can't seem to comprehend this cannot be blamed. He has not killed anywhere near the amount of long range game I have or at anywhere near my distances. I'm not tooting my own horn here, just simply explaining the facts.

From these comparisons, I can see what bullets should work, what bullets might work part of the time, and what bullets aren't going to work anytime. From my tests of the 338 SMK, I saw that it opened up WITH REDUCED RPMS, REDUCED VELOCITY, AND SLIGHT YAW. And, it looked exactly like the mushroom I pulled out of a moose at over 900 yards and an elk over 900 yards.
ANd it was not the only one. Accubonds and Scirroccos had similar results even when fired down to 1500 fps muzzle velocity! The SMK has been fired down to 1200 fps velocity and 100 yard impact in media and STILL OPENED SOME. Why would the HAT bullet be any different? Our beloved salesman says they are. He says they need more RPMS. Well, they might. But WHY DOESN'T the SMK or the Accubond or the Scirrocco need higher RPMS? And why can't a comparison be made?

In my original thread, I said this:
So, on to the media test. I fired three SMK's and three 280 HATs into the phone books at 100 yards with reduced velocities to simulate long range impact speeds. Since I already know what the 300 smk's do to animals at 1000 yards, I used it as the control. In this manner, I can make a comparison of the two bullets and I know what the minimum performance level is that can be accepted.

I also commented how both bullets had some initial yaw. I also took pictures of the SMK and showed how even though it was yawing and had low RPM's, it still opened up some and jacket was found everywhere. If you look closely at the pic, you can see how the SMK was bent in one direction just like the HAT's were and went through the paper diagonally but the difference was the SMK ruptured and the core had started to come out and the HAT had not. I also commented on how the jacket of the HAT looked twice the thickness of the SMK.

Now, after talking to several bullet manufacturers lately, they seem to use similar testing methods. Sierra has a 300 yard tunnel and they load down to replicate long range ballistics.
Brian Litzer was on here last week where he said they do the same thing at Berger. 600 yards is as far as his range goes so they load down. So if it is good enough for these reputable manufacturers, why can't it work for a home experiment too?

What it boils down to is that our Bright Vermin got teed off because I reported a test to the public without clearing it or reviewing it with him first. Had he simply said, "can you re-test at longer range because we think our bullet needs high RPM to work", I would have said, "sure, no problem". But despite his beliefs that you can just load these bullets up and go hit a phonebook at 1000 yards with no prior load development, I know and you guys know, that that isn't how it works. But I would have tried to do it regardless if the company hadn't turned so nasty. At that point, I didn't care how the bullets performed because I had been treated so badly. And it just seems to be getting worse. But I care even less now. I hope their Gen II bullets do better. NOt for their sakes, but fot the sakes of the quarry and the hunters who truly shoot long range.
NOt that I have any ill will to these guys. I have dealt with ignorant, rude, internet jockies before and they are their own worst enemies. I simply don't care what people think of me or my methods when I know they are a few fries short of a happy meal. My success in this sport is real whether the ants comprehend it or not. In the end, it all boils down to whatever floats your boat.

Now for those who have all their fries, feel free to email me your questions anytime.

GG out for now.........

Everyone have a Merry Christmas! And I'm not just saying that to sell you booolits!
GG (good grouper and not GreyGhost),

We are very, very, very sorry that you are a victim and did not get any free bullets to conduct stability tests as some other folks did. However, one cannot just ship free bullets to everyone...... Just ask any bullet maker.... It is a free country (for now at least) and you are free to purchase some to test your methods and ideas (these bullets in no way resemble any bullets in external design or cross section that you referenced). Even better yet, if you are a good lad for the next few days, maybe Santa will bring you some!

Of course our 1000 yard phone book test is just around the corner (as soon as the season closes on the testing volunteers). Shooting your test target of choice at 1000 yards still seems the best test to me and also to the multitudes of people who have commented on this to us..... The more variables that you can eliminate the more believable the tests. And, if a phone book is too much of a challenge at 1K then I am sure that most game would be too much of a challenge as well. But, you would have to admit that it is hard to argue with live animal results that have more devestating effects with the HATS at the same ranges as your "control" 300 SMKs.

We too use the 300gr SMK as a control bullet (since it is considered the current standard) and compared the results from last years 300gr SMK kills to this years results with the HATS. Same range, distance, aspect and elevation to the target. I thought we had made it clear but maybe not. So again, the HATS were tested at the same ranges on kills this year that the 300gr SMKs were used on kills last year.

The most interesting failure of the 300gr SMK last year was the 405 yard shot that did not expand and left an exit wound the size of your little finger. We were extremely lucky to retrieve the animal. Then at 600 yards with the 300gr SMKs, we had a bullet blow up on exit and really made a big mess. Needless to say, we have not had any issues like that during any of our testing of the HATS. Almost forgot, the first 400 yard test last year with the 300gr SMK was a textbook success. I guess the differing results of the 300gr SMKs are due to the variances in the meplat size, heels, heel geometry, boattail radii and temperature at the time of impact. Additionally, we think one of the reason that the HATS perform better is because they are more ductile (less brittle) and can basically be pushed roughly 200 to 250 fps faster in a given case than the 300gr SMKs. They also have a significantly higher BC as compared to the 300 gr SMKs (per 400 yard zero testing and the informational 600 yard drop test) so they do not "shed" their velocity and associated energy as quickly as the 300gr SMK. The additional velocity and rpm also help in terminal performance.

These bullets are not for everyone. They are sort of like the Allen Magnums and other larger-cased specilized rifles..... They resemble the highly-specialized top fuel nitro methane dragsters and they have a specific purpose and that is to fly with a flatter trjectory, faster, farther and to hit harder on impact than anthing that is available with a lead-core bullet.

Once the instrumental BC testing of the GEN IIs are completed, the numbers will speak for themselves. But until then we still have the eye-opening comparison at 600 yards of 1.4 moa (8.4 inches) less drop with the HATS as compared to the 300gr SMKs when both are zeroed at 400 yards. Other shooters have reported similar results of 2 moa differences (16 inches) at 800 yards. Until we have the instrumental numbers, all of the drop information is just considered rough data.

But enough of the above, I am very glad and thankful that we finally had some volunteers (deer and elk) who also became victims of the HATS and agreed to pose for some post event photos.

Again, thanks for your interest in the HATS and allowing me the opportunity to discuss them.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Lightvarmint
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-16-2008, 01:03 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Posts: 3,500
Re: my method

You know what? That wasnt very nice of me. So, I have decided to delete this post.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broz View Post
Please just answer one very simple question. Why would anyone shooting long range load a low BC , low SD 168 gr offering in a 300 win???????

My answer to this is. The only reason is to make the 7 RM look good. There is no other reason.

Jeff.

Last edited by Michael Eichele; 12-16-2008 at 01:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-16-2008, 01:14 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Posts: 3,500
Re: my method

On second thought, LV you really need to step up to the plate. Put up or shut up.

A phone book test just around the corner?????? You are preaching about your bullets performance and you havent tested them??????????????????
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broz View Post
Please just answer one very simple question. Why would anyone shooting long range load a low BC , low SD 168 gr offering in a 300 win???????

My answer to this is. The only reason is to make the 7 RM look good. There is no other reason.

Jeff.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-16-2008, 01:31 AM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: buffalo, OK
Posts: 354
Re: my method

Goodgrouper

I for one believe you or the others did nothing wrong asking for proof, pictures, etc.
I think he should not have been offended by anyone asking for proof of how well a product performs other than his word. Most people on this forum post some kind of proof of the claims they are making, willing to take and answer questions about test or products without any belittling of the person asking. Most if not all people on this forum would not take an untested product out in the field and just start shooting "live" animals with it without some idea of its terminal performance. I for one really like reading about your bullet tests and your findings and find them to be very accurate in what i have found. Many people on this forum respect your test, your knowledge of ballistics, your willingness to help others, and you as a person. I am a real easy going kinda guy, the kind of guy that can get along with anyone ( so I've been told) and I have to admit i really dont like his attitude or the attitude of greyghostt. I would like to shoot the best bullet out today but I wouldn't even considerate it at the excpence of being belittled for asking a simple question. You did nothing wrong, don't fret it, everyone who actually read it knows what a moron he was being to everyone, even fellow LRH who were trying to help him out and being curtious. Some people just have to be the best under any circumstance and go so tied up in it dont realize what a moron they are becoming to others.

Lightvarmit you need to ease up, answer question without being a smart ass, post some pictures of the performance. You will find most hunters on here won't just buy a bullet and start shooting live animals without knowing what kind of performance to expect from it, hence all the questions and request for pictures of perfomance. If not from your ******* contest do it for the hunters who were intersted in trying it. If you dont a LRH will and you might not like his outtake on performance. So test it the way you think it should be done, post it, take pictures, and let us make up our own minds if we want to use it. If not, don't bitch about the way a fellow LRH tested its performance. Hell I (and many others) have gotten berger, nosler, hornady, speer and others to email me pictures, videos, data sheets, or pretty much anything else I have ask for to help me in my endevors of LRH. So you see its pretty suspicious that you will not back your claims. Anyway enough rambling I hope your bullets do turn out the way you say they perform.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: my method
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Method of Reforming .308 Win to .250 Sav dmickey Reloading 1 08-28-2011 11:49 PM
What is your method of working up a load? locotrician Reloading 11 02-26-2009 09:24 PM
ladder method mo Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 5 03-20-2006 08:59 AM
HELP!!!! "I need the McCoy method." 3sixbits Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 4 05-04-2005 04:45 PM
Ladder Method c east Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 2 02-13-2003 08:53 PM

Current Poll
Do you watch outdoor shows live or by recording them?
Always recorded - 13.33%
109 Votes
Mostly recorded - 24.21%
198 Votes
Sometimes recorded - 14.18%
116 Votes
Rarely or never recorded - 48.29%
395 Votes
Total Votes: 818
You may not vote on this poll.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC