Gen II Henson .338 265 grain project and performance test #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
After my last post I re-read my earlier accounts of this test and it makes even more sense that you take more time!

From the evening of the shot:

8mm Savage Barks
« Thread Started on Nov 25, 2005, 6:26pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First test of the 8mm 150 grain Sierra bullet proved too much for a Doe. Velocity is on the high side and zero yards to recovery.

I had hoped to get a lengthwise shot but it did not present itself. I hoped for an under 50 OR over 200 yard shot but that was not to happen today. Right at sundown 3 Does and a Buck left the woods at about 180 yards but tall grass made shots impossible. I lost sight of them for another 90 yards and the went into some shorter grass at about 90 yards and presented a quartering/ almost broadside shot.

Top of heart and the lungs were turned to mush. It is too dark to get a good view of the wound, but it is small going in and big going out. I'll review in the morning.

edge.

FYI, i have gone to a dry swab between shots and it does make for a reduced group size.


NOTICE: I WROTE THAT THE UN-AUTOPSIED ENTRANCE WOUND APPEARED SMALL!!

Then I autopsied the deer and wrote this:

« Reply #5 on Nov 26, 2005, 8:03pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good news, bad news!!

I de-boned my deer and will relate my observations:

The entrance in the hide was barely visible and actually took some time to find among the bloodshot tissue that was attached.

The bullet hit the upper foreleg in the bicep(for lack of correct anatomical term ). No bone was hit however about 4 inch diameter of the meat was destroyed.

The chest wall had an opening that my closed fist would almost enter. Three ribs were missing in this area.

As mentioned earlier, when I field dressed the animal, the lungs were completely destroyed as well as the top of the heart was missing.

The exit wound in the ribcage involved two broken ribs leaving a hole about 1 1/4 across.

The hole in the hide was about 5/8 in diameter.

Clearly impact at high velocity will cause massive damage when using expanding bullets, but despite the speed the bullet appears to have exited intact.

The load involved lots of N110 and at 90 yards would have impacted in excess of 2600 fps. With a little luck I will get results on a longer range impact. I have a field which gives many shots in the 220 - 240 yards and a very small zone at the 275 range. Since at 275yards the bullet velocity should have dropped to about 2100 fps I expect to see a much smaller wound channel than I saw with this animal.

To be continued.....

edge.



Do as you see fit, but if you are testing, you owe it to yourself and the manufacturer to do the best job possible.

Good luck on your business endeavor.

edge.
 
Lightvarmit,

I understand how southeastern deer have a tendency to move very late and understand why you wouldnt have pictures normally. I very seldom get pictures myself. What I do not understand is why you wouldn't come out and say that to begin with, rather than saying we are not posting pictures. Sometimes when you dance around legitimate questions you lose credibility. With a loss of credibility you lose buyer confidence. You are representing a good guy IMO, and I am keeping an open mind as to his product.

Goodgroupers tests are given a lot of credibility because they come from a credible source. It doesnt always mean I agree with his results, but he lays everything out there so anyone reading his tests can make an informed decision as to the conslusiveness of his testing. Maybe you should take a lesson from from GG. Post your results and the paramaters of your testing including some data (ie...some pictures) and let us make our own conclusions.

I have a bunch of the HAT bullets sitting around and havent had a chance to test any, other than the 240 subsonics. I must say that the subsonic bullets are the cats meow. I will try and work up loads for the 180gr 30 cal bullets in my 30/06AI and for the 265gr 338s in my 338AM and shoot something. If they work well I will post my results. If they flop I will post that also. (probably I will end up not shooting anything if my luck doesnt change)

I have talked to the bullet maker at least twice on the phone. He is good folks IMO. I am not going to let his association with you lessen my opinion of his product although many seem willing to do this. Not that I think you are a bad guy or anything, and I understand that the typed word sometimes does not convey a persons true personality, it is that loss of buyer confidence I referred to earlier. Probably if we spoke on the phone or in real life my opinion of you would change, but right now I think you are a little too prone to dazzle us with BS. That isnt to say that I am disputing one word you have said about the benefits of this product, just shoot straight with us man. We can make our own choices if given some reliable data. I do like your enthusiasm for the product which leads me to beleive that you do beleive in these bullets.

Eddybo,

You are melling two issues into one. First I don't TAKE the photos for the reasons previously stated (skeptics lack of belief of the photos and the fact that I believe that they are not necessary due to the many variables associated with shot angles). Additionally, taking those photos are not impossible, but a hassle since most are in significant twilight. We do have flash photography in SC.

Second issue is that IF I took the photos, that I would not post them since they are not beyond tampering and the gore will potentially fuel anti-hunting groups. Really two seperate issues and not dancing around subject.

Test creditibility is a wide open subject. But a credible 1000 yard test needs to be conducted at 1000 yards and not at reduced velocities (both downrange and rotational). Anything less than this is not a credible 1000 yard test and really calls into question the credibility of the persons logic in publishing reduced velocity test results..... Not necessarily the credibility of the tester. Come one RG is not going to redesign his bullets because someone conducted a low velocity test without the proper spin and then subsequently announced them flawed. I am sure if you had such a report that you would not if you were the bulletsmith.

If you like the 240gr expandables then you will like the 265s and the 180s.

None of the reports are from memory and they are all logged into the bulletsmiths logs.

You could shoot some of those MS deer and post your photos.

Lightvarmint
 
Hand raised.

I have absolutely have no reason to disbeleive anything you say greyghost. I for one would welcome photos, but did not think any were taken by the tester because of the animals moving so late. Is he now claiming that there where no pictures taken to sidestep posting pictures. I am confused I guess, are there pictures or not? I do not want to put you on the spot but am getting conflicting info here. If there are any pics post away, I will definately give you the benefit of any doubt.

I see absolutley no reason for you not to post them if there are any available. This is a site for hunters I do not think anyone is squimish here....if they are they have already passed out from seeing that headshot picture that was posted here a few days ago.:)
 
After my last post I re-read my earlier accounts of this test and it makes even more sense that you take more time!

From the evening of the shot:

8mm Savage Barks
« Thread Started on Nov 25, 2005, 6:26pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First test of the 8mm 150 grain Sierra bullet proved too much for a Doe. Velocity is on the high side and zero yards to recovery.

I had hoped to get a lengthwise shot but it did not present itself. I hoped for an under 50 OR over 200 yard shot but that was not to happen today. Right at sundown 3 Does and a Buck left the woods at about 180 yards but tall grass made shots impossible. I lost sight of them for another 90 yards and the went into some shorter grass at about 90 yards and presented a quartering/ almost broadside shot.

Top of heart and the lungs were turned to mush. It is too dark to get a good view of the wound, but it is small going in and big going out. I'll review in the morning.

edge.

FYI, i have gone to a dry swab between shots and it does make for a reduced group size.


NOTICE: I WROTE THAT THE UN-AUTOPSIED ENTRANCE WOUND APPEARED SMALL!!

Then I autopsied the deer and wrote this:

« Reply #5 on Nov 26, 2005, 8:03pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good news, bad news!!

I de-boned my deer and will relate my observations:

The entrance in the hide was barely visible and actually took some time to find among the bloodshot tissue that was attached.

The bullet hit the upper foreleg in the bicep(for lack of correct anatomical term ). No bone was hit however about 4 inch diameter of the meat was destroyed.

The chest wall had an opening that my closed fist would almost enter. Three ribs were missing in this area.

As mentioned earlier, when I field dressed the animal, the lungs were completely destroyed as well as the top of the heart was missing.

The exit wound in the ribcage involved two broken ribs leaving a hole about 1 1/4 across.

The hole in the hide was about 5/8 in diameter.

Clearly impact at high velocity will cause massive damage when using expanding bullets, but despite the speed the bullet appears to have exited intact.

The load involved lots of N110 and at 90 yards would have impacted in excess of 2600 fps. With a little luck I will get results on a longer range impact. I have a field which gives many shots in the 220 - 240 yards and a very small zone at the 275 range. Since at 275yards the bullet velocity should have dropped to about 2100 fps I expect to see a much smaller wound channel than I saw with this animal.

To be continued.....

edge.



Do as you see fit, but if you are testing, you owe it to yourself and the manufacturer to do the best job possible.

Good luck on your business endeavor.

edge.

Edge,

No one has posted a test of the Gen I 265 grain HATS. I know I haven't. However, I posted results of the Gen I 180gr Hats in .30 caliber and currently Gen I is the plan for the future on that bullet.

The gent who killed the elk used a Hat Gen I 265 and as far as I know, it is the only blood drawn with those bullets. I elected not to test the Gen I since they are not planned for production unless under a special request since the Gen IIs are so much more efficient.

None of the reports are from memory. They are all logged into the bullesmiths logs for future reference.

If you guys are really wanting some photos, then you need to respond to Mr Hensons post that is requesting a show of hands. Photos are a possibility on future shots based on your responses to his post.

Lightvarmint
 
Hand raised.

I have absolutely have no reason to disbeleive anything you say greyghost. I for one would welcome photos, but did not think any were taken by the tester because of the animals moving so late. Is he now claiming that there where no pictures taken to sidestep posting pictures. I am confused I guess, are there pictures or not? I do not want to put you on the spot but am getting conflicting info here. If there are any pics post away, I will definately give you the benefit of any doubt.

I see absolutley no reason for you not to post them if there are any available. This is a site for hunters I do not think anyone is squimish here....if they are they have already passed out from seeing that headshot picture that was posted here a few days ago.:)

Eddybo,

Zero photos have been taken to date.

We are not withholding any photos whatsoever.

Taking photos and posting photos are two seperate issues.

This next paragraph explains why I don't actually take photos:

Again, I don't take them for reasons that I have previously stated. Specifically, I really see no need for them since there are so many possible variables and again that it is somewhat of a hassle to get them after legal shooting time. Furthermore, why waste time and go through the hassle of taking pictures that most would believe anyway, and in reality, photos actually prove nothing but that an image is present.

This next paragraph explains why I would not post them:

First, the reason I don't post them is because there are not any to post. Furthermore, IF (BIG IF) I took them for my own records I would still not POST them and again it is for the reasons I have stated previously (ie., not posting gore photos and not willing to go through the hassle when no one would believe them anyway since they really prove nothing except that an image is present).

So, given that I am not going to post them, why would I through the hassle of taking them?

I really think that I have explained both of these issues (my feelings on taking photos and my feelings on posting photos) as simple as I can. If you feel that there is a need for pictures, kill something and take some.

This thread was started by me to verbally document a short range test with a .338 265 grain HAT and nothing else. There is no photographic evidence and if you need it then as of right now out are out of luck since pictures do not exist.

I was raised down in Hattiesburg MS and am challenged at times to convey multiple ideas.... Maybe that is why I confused you. My apologies for your confusion.

Lightvarmint
 
Show the pics.

Unfortunately, the deterioration of the personal relationships here pertaining to HAT bullets has left no other way to go in order to keep a large number of folks here interested/happy. Some how we have gotten to a point of dis-trust, by both sides, through poor communication.

I hope the pics will help. I just want to hear and see everything I can about these bullets, and get away from the insults and useless bantering.

Steve
 
In the interest of bandwidth, who does NOT want pictures???
It is probably safe to say that most will want them :)

edge.

PS perhaps we could set up a committee to study the question of pictures!!
 
Lightvarmit,

Sorry if I was confused but I thought Greyghost said ther were pictures....my bad I guess, or maybe yall need to get on the same page. Maybe he has pictures that he took I dunno. Whichever it is I would like to see some pics.

If there are none I guess I will have to do it myself. It is too bad that it is primitive weapon season here. I just walked in from shooting some of the 180s, there were 2 nice bucks standing on my range during most of the shooting.

If they perform as well on game as they do paper I will be satisified. I was shooting basically a carry gun. It is a Nesika V in a mcmillan general purpose stock with a kreiger N0.6 and a jewel trigger. It is topped with a VX7 4-14 in some talleys and chambered in 30-06AI and throated pretty long for shooting heavy bullets. With the 208 A-Max it takes me 17 MOA to reach my 800 yard target using 65grs of VV560. I started the 180s at 65grs and wasnt too impressed went up to 65.5 grs and felt like I was as hot as I wanted to get, so backed down to 64grs.

I was just fooling around trying to get a starting point and lucked up on what may be a pretty good load. I only fired 11 rounds, nine out of this gun and two out of my 300wsm. (300wsm didnt like them, keyholes) got a lot of verticle out of the hotter loads but 64 grs gave me 2 side by side w/n 1.5 inches at 800. I drove back to the reloading room loaded another round and put it within an inch of the other 2. I suspect that a 1.5 inch group at 800 is about as good as I will ever shoot with basically a sporter weight gun. So yes I will say the bullets will probably shoot, it may have been luck I will let you know tomorrow, with a bit more powder burned.

My group was at least 1 MOA POI below my POA I attributed it to the lower velocity (and much less pressure if you put any stock in reading primer cratering )than I am running with the 208 AMAX. When I finished I decided to fire one round at 100 yards. My POI was 1.5MOA below my POA. So even with what I suspect to be a much lighter load it should only take 16.5MOA to reach my 800 yard target. I didnt put up the chronograph because of the weather and the fact that I have been under the weather, but right now I suspect that that the BC of these bullets is a bit higher than the 208 A-Max.

I am fairly convinced that the BC is off the charts and that the bullets will shoot accurately despite looking dinged up. I will hopefully feel well enough to set up the chrono to confirm what I am thinking. It still remains to be seen by me how they perform on game. I am heading back out to run a patch through the bore to see if they copper bad, which is concerning me more than thier accuracy potential right now.

I was running the 208s pretty close o 2950 according to my old chronograph which is about as accurate as guessing, since it was one of the old chronos. I will run both loads through my new CED to see whats up try and figure a guesstimate on the BC.

BTW I took a pic of the group but am not posting it as I fear some one will say it is photoshopped......J/K I will post it if I can get it outta this new phone and into photobucket.
 
Following quote from LV

"Now, the Gen IIs have a much less bearing surface and they can be pushed about 249 fps faster than the 300 SMK AND as a bonus they have a much higher BC as indicated by the significant differences in drop we saw"

"the bulletsmith modified the bullets to use some of the aerodynamic design and technology employed on our Submarine launched ICBMs"

question.....

I don't really care about subs shooting BM's.... other than bearing surface length was there any jacket/core/tip changes made that will make this a reliable hunting bullet with suitable expansion at lower velocities?

I recieved some gen I test bullets and shot them in my 338/378, with the limited amount of testing I did not find any horrific change in group size, I also did not shoot them at a distance to test drop against the SMK. I am sure everyone would like to have a working 265 but the combative nature of these threads makes it hard...... What alloy is the AL tip? If it was a softer AL maybe it would flatten instead of turn sideways? What has been tested? Have you tried different jacket thicknesses? Just hoping to get back to a technical solution for some lighter 338's!!!!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top