goodgrouper
Well-Known Member
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!
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!
Last edited:
