(HAT) Henson Aluminum Tipped Bullet 338 Rum Test

[RockZ]

I just posted an excerpt from a BC/Drop Report I've come across.
Please go to the new thread with that title .
PLEASE -READ and COMMENT on that thread.

 

[elkaholic]

On the topic of finding BC's. My take is that for average LRH ranges say 0-700 yards, the 2 chrony method works rather well most of the time. When you exceed that, it can still work decently but you cannot get a drag model from the typical 2 chrony method. The drop test (IMHO) is better for determining a drag model versus a BC.

Twice last year I ran different bullets over 2 seperate chronies. After gathering the data and examining the numbers I was able to set up at 700 yards and both times make first round hits in the center of the X ring. When I say the center of the X ring I meen the center of the X ring. 2 different bullets, two different months at 2 different locations. One bullet was off by .015 from published and the other was .009 from published. It was simple, easy and obviously VERY effective. Sight in, double chrony, verify zero, shoot 700 yards, life is good.

It should be noted that both chronies were fired over together at 100 yards lined up with eachother perfectly. One is 32 FPS faster than the other. Several bullets were fired over both several different times at 100 yards and close up. The verdict was always 32-33 FPS. I simply would fire over both (600 feet apart CL to CL) and would deduct 32 FPS from the faster chrony. At times when the lighting, wind and mirage cooperate, I will set them up 900' apart. Most of the time however, 600' (200 yards) has to do.

Is doppler rader the best way? I think so. Are double chronies effective? Absolutely. I have worked in the past with pressure transducers and a high speed clock for time of flight and it is a royal pain in the *** as well as expensive with all the hardware, software, cables etc..... I dont mess with it any more due to the simplicity of the double chrony method. It may not give you first round 1000 yard X's but sure will get you on paper.

Good stuff Michael! My only question would be is the 32 fps consistent or is it a percentage at a given velocity? i.e. 32 at 3200 would be 1% but ould it be 32 at 1600 or 16 fps? I realize that's a little nitpicky, but just curious. Thanks/Rich

 

[Pdvdh]

Wow Paul, you really have gone off the deep end here. But I'll play along so that it may benefit others.

Can you not read? I'll speak slowly for you. Yes, the BC claims made by LV are total, complete and utter BS. Fantasy. Was that clear enough for you?

Jon,

Nothing off the deep end in my post. You're the one that took it there. Talk of reasonable people (versus unreasonable), a feigned threat of false advertising, a lecture on false advertising laws in this country, the arrogance to believe you speak the minds, and on behalf, of all other Forum members, and the petty creation of nicknames. You made these choices and statements and took the first step. That post had nothing to do with anything other than an expression of frustation. I hope you don't classify that as teaching.

It took me four posts, but I'll give you credit for speaking your position clearly now, no matter that it's after the fact. If you said this from the beginning, and conditioned it with the 'in my opinion' clause, I could have at least classified your posts as straight talk versus half-hearted sniping. Then I'd have asked you for the correct BC for this bullet. Logic here would dictate absolute knowledge of the "correct" BC with associated limits of precision. Haven't heard that yet unless you concluded that Bryan's BC is the correct BC with the same conviction you dismiss LVs - and failed to mention it.

 

[Pdvdh]

This does not mean the bullets have low BC's or are bad bullets. In fact, I'm sure they have very good BC's and enough people have had good luck with them accuracy and terminal performance wise to conclude they are good bullets. As mentioned I bought a bunch of them and if my barrel had liked them better I would have used them with whatever BC I measured--which I'm sure would have been quite good.

But that, or even if you assume for the sake of argument they're the best bullets in the world does not justify furthering the BC fantasy that has been presented. That benefits nobody. In fact, it harms readers by misinforming them.

Jon,

FYI and to help ensure others don't misunderstand, I've never claimed the HATs bullets were good or bad. I've never stated I liked them or disliked them. I've never stated I hunted with them or didn't hunt with them. I've never inferred you stood to gain financially from your posts in this thread. I'm stating now, only in response to the tone of your posts: I have absolutely no financial ties to HATs bullets, other than I sent money and I received some HATs at the normal going rate about 12 months ago. I have only stated that I was treated fairly by LV and Mr. Henson.

Is it your position that LV and Mr. Henson are knowingly misrepresenting the HAT bullet on this forum for financial gain? Care to elaborate? The tone of your posts and the posts of some other members suggest that you do believe that to be the case, but I won't be so arrogant as to pretend to speak on your behalf. Would you like to speak clearly to this issue, as you have regarding your opinion of the FANTASY BC?

 

[Pdvdh]

An effort to help people. I come from a family of teachers, I guess it's in my nature. I want to help people understand. Long range enthusiasts reading this will buy a ton of bullets over the years. Helping them understand the hows and the whys of what bullets do what they do so they can understand the subject matter better and make good choices in the future is something you can try an demonize if you want, I guess, but I don't think it's very helpful to anybody here.

You can tell from the posts here there is still a great many people who think that longer bullet = higher BC! A large percentage of HAT bullet buyers likely use that as a reason to believe the BC's because that's what LV has told them. This bullet is X long compared with a 300 SMK therefore its BC must be Y! The sooner these people understand what gives a bullet BC, the better off they'll be.

The overwhelming majority of the drag on a bullet happens at its nose and its tail. When you have a nose and a tail shape that are not much different than many other bullets out there, you simply can't get a form factor radically different from those other bullets either.

So when you're stuck with a certain level of form factor, you can only realistically expect so much BC for a certain sectional density. There is no trick. There is no magic way around it. You can increase the aluminum percentage in the bullet and make it longer, and longer, and longer....but unless you change the shape of the nose or the tail or make the bullet HEAVIER, you will not increase the BC.

These are simple facts of exterior ballistics. Hunters and LR shooters are often very resistant to accepting them because getting something for nothing always sounds like more fun--a light bullet that still works through your magazine (same nose length) but has the BC of a much heavier bullet but you can launch it much faster! Doesn't that sound great?

The sooner people understand how things work and recognize what aspects of bullet design do and which ones don't increase BC the sooner they'll be able to make choices that suit them best and spend their money wisely and the more they'll demand from bullet makers bullets that work better for their application.

Jon,
Now this rings of teaching. Present the information for digestion, consideration, understanding, and the benefit of others. This fits right in line with the vast majority of the posts you've contributed on this Forum. Why did you save the teaching until now?

I don't have access to my LoadBase ballistics program, but I was under the impression that BC increased with bullet length - all other bullet parameters remaining constant. I'm a registered engineer with a decent understanding of mathematics. I have not specialized in the field of exterior ballistics, but when I read the theory I have some capability of understanding. I've played with Patagonia Ballistics LoadBase ballistics software (a commercially sold ballistics program) and I was quite certain inputting a longer bullet increased BC. Is there no affect, or are you simply saying there is very real limit to the benefit of a longer bullet?

 

[Pdvdh]

Now if that is a purpose you feel deserves continued attack; a purpose you feel is somehow for the sake of my own personal gain (what on earth would that be?), I feel sorry for you. The only thing you're shining a light on is yourself.

If I started sending you bills for my time in providing these consultations at my hourly rate, then you might have a case I was attempting to exact some sort of personal gain.

Jon,
You're locked on the characterization of my posts as 'attack'. My blood pressure's normal, as is my pulse. I'm calling some members out of the shadows. I've never claimed you were financially gaining anything. Honestly never even considered it. I've hinted you might be posting for the thrill of the ride - due to the fact I hadn't seen any clear consensus expressed in your posts and some others I would characterize as stirring of the hornet's nest, pointing the finger, and all manner of negative allegations - justs shy of a clear speaking of the mind.

I will counterattack. You start petty creation of nicknames and name calling and more often than not you'll receive return fire.

It looks like Noel and Mr. Henson may have reached some agreement that could be beneficial to both of their business efforts. Let them manage their own business. The odds they'll be force fed are low. An expert bullet maker isn't necessarily an expert ballistician. These businesses are built one step at a time. No one ever field-drop tested a bullet before the bullet was made. If Noel's bringing in a cost-effective means of determining BC to the shooting community - cool. Maybe we'll get back to a positive exchange of information - teaching - rather than one-ups-manship.

 

[edge]

SNIP.

I've played with Patagonia Ballistics LoadBase ballistics software (a commercially sold ballistics program) and I was quite certain inputting a longer bullet increased BC. Is there no affect, or are you simply saying there is very real limit to the benefit of a longer bullet?

A longer bullet with the same composition will have a higher BC.

Two bullets of identical proportions but one made from Aluminum and one made from Tungsten will have grossly different BC's......most likely in the ratio of about 6 :1

edge.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Jon,
Now this rings of teaching. Present the information for digestion, consideration, understanding, and the benefit of others. This fits right in line with the vast majority of the posts you've contributed on this Forum. Why did you save the teaching until now?

I don't have access to my LoadBase ballistics program, but I was under the impression that BC increased with bullet length - all other bullet parameters remaining constant. I'm a registered engineer with a decent understanding of mathematics. I have not specialized in the field of exterior ballistics, but when I read the theory I have some capability of understanding. I've played with Patagonia Ballistics LoadBase ballistics software (a commercially sold ballistics program) and I was quite certain inputting a longer bullet increased BC. Is there no affect, or are you simply saying there is very real limit to the benefit of a longer bullet?

Paul,

I've learned a lot in my "dicussions" with both Jon and Noel on the subject as well as reading posts and articles by Bryan and a discussion with him on the JLK bullets and their difference of advertised BC vs the Bergers. These guys, especially Bryan, know what they are talking about and for the most part it's fairly basic stuff. To put it simply BC is mostly affected by bullet SD (weight) and shape. If you have a bullet such as the .338 300 SMK with a known BC of .768 then you have a good reference point. If you take the same shape bullet and cut 36.5 gr from the weight you are going to loose a significant amount of BC. No way around it. The only way to gain that BC back is to change the shape of the bullet. The 265 HAT is slightly longer and of "similar" shape to the 300 SMK. In my layman's opinion, there is no way the slight change in shape will make up for that loss of SD, let alone far exceed it. Either the 300 SMK is greatly under rated or the 265 HAT is greatly over rated. There is just no way around it and for some reason people just dont want to believe that. And then if someone confronts such claims the confronter becomes a bad and mean person. Very sad.

The question you ask Jon, is very well explained in great technical detail by someone who has spent thousands of hours studying, calculating BCs and actually shooting them. Thousands of hours. It is his profession and not just a hobby. Here's a link to Bryan's report that I posted back in post #30 that answers the question you're asking Jon in great detail.

http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/HATS_Report.pdf

PS. I am glad to see the field shooting that Greyghost and Noel are going to do. I think it would also be be helpful to shoot some 300 SMK's under the same conditions for comparisom. Noel or Mr Henson, if you're reading, just some food for thought.

-Mark

 

[Jon A]

Then I'd have asked you for the correct BC for this bullet. Logic here would dictate absolute knowledge of the "correct" BC with associated limits of precision. Haven't heard that yet unless you concluded that Bryan's BC is the correct BC with the same conviction you dismiss LVs - and failed to mention it.

Two things:

1) Yes, I have complete faith in Bryan's testing. Any bullet he tests is one I don't have to because I know he will do a better job than I can.

2) Your premise that one needs to know an exact value before he can know another specific value is incorrect is a false one. If I tell you I am 12 feet tall, you can feel pretty secure in saying I'm full of crap without knowing my exact height.

I was under the impression that BC increased with bullet length - all other bullet parameters remaining constant.

You were under a false impression. The BC does not change significantly. It can even go down a tiny bit due to increased skin drag.

This illustrates my point very well. The claims made only seemed credible enough to you that you'd attack anybody questioning them due to your lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Your time may be better spent doing less attacking and more learning.

 

[edge]

WOW, 12 feet tall!!!

Hard to believe it, but if its on the Internet it must be true.

edge.

 

[noel carlson]

Jon,

I would add one qualification to the wave/skin drag trade-off. There are no VLD projectiles, currently manufactured, that have reached the threshold of skin drag exceeding shock wave drag.

In theory, the tipping point falls somewhere between 4-5 calibers on the nose. A ZA/7.0 has only a 3.5 caliber nose. The practical constraints deal with material properties, and mechanical limits. For example, the high spin rate required to stabilize a hypothetical optimum shape, place extreme shearing stress on engraving bands even in LGT barrels of conventional length. At those rpm's and nose cantilever lengths, any physical imperfections are exponentially exaggerated. The issue of mass distribution, and gyroscopic moment, also begins to effect the projectile's ability to track.

I believe that bullets longer than seven calibers are possible, but the real limits will be determined by some relatively complex design work, offset by manufacturing precision/efficiency. We may never be able to justify anything longer in a spin stabilized projectile.

 

[Pdvdh]

Two things:

1) Yes, I have complete faith in Bryan's testing. Any bullet he tests is one I don't have to because I know he will do a better job than I can.

2) Your premise that one needs to know an exact value before he can know another specific value is incorrect is a false one. If I tell you I am 12 feet tall, you can feel pretty secure in saying I'm full of crap without knowing my exact height.

You were under a false impression. The BC does not change significantly. It can even go down a tiny bit due to increased skin drag.

This illustrates my point very well. The claims made only seemed credible enough to you that you'd attack anybody questioning them due to your lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Your time may be better spent doing less attacking and more learning.

Jon,

I gave you the chance to step out of the muck and you've launched yourself straight back into it. You might stick to teaching. Where did the teacher go now? You've responded as if licking some wounds. Are you ready to continue the tit-for-tat?

I ask the teacher to teach and receive a re-vitalized counter attack. Opened the door for you and you've slammed it shut. Do you really teach for a living?

1) OK. Correct me if I misrepresent your post. Bryan's BC is correct. Correct? And the limits of precision associated with Bryan's BC is what? Is it 1%? Is that your statement Jon? Now if you believed that all along, why didn't you state it from the start? Why not clarify right after Bryan's post that Bryan's BC is the only correct BC and the issue is finally resolved, once and for all - for the sake of teaching us. And why continue to peck, probe, and prod over the LV BC? End of issue - no? We've got the one and only correct BC - end of story. End of story. For the third time - End of Story. But it wasn't the end of the story for the duration of the derogatory allegations and posts because you never stuck your neck out far enough to express your position. How do you expect to teach if you don't speak with clarity.

You've found it more comfortable to hang back and snipe from the shadows. An allegation here and a pot-shot there. So why the continuing rhetoric when in your own mind, the BC was established as soon as Bryan posted? .... long silence.... ....no answer... Is this how you teach? Why the continuing effort to slam the bullet manufacturer, unless you're on an unrelenting mission to force yourself on the man?

2) My premise is correct in the context presented. Your claim that my premise is incorrect when taken out of context may or may not be correct. Can you stand the bullets up on a table and identify their BC by visual observation? No. Are there bullets with BCs greater than 0.9? Yes. You're doing your best to identify a flaw in my post. Switching from ballistic coefficeints to the height of human beings doesn't cut it.

Have you concluded the bullet manufacturer is knowingly and intentionally presenting false drop data for profit. You've as much as said it - but again not quite. Just enough spark to create some smoke. The clear talk too risky?

I asked you the question on bullet length versus BC Jon to offer the peace pipe. Give you the chance to teach. I could have researched and obtained my answer on Google in short order. You failed. Miserably. Instead you've returned to one-upsmanship for the sake of preserving your ego. Those wounds will heal - give it some time.