Henson Aluminum Tipped Bullet Testing

[Michael Eichele]

Quite honestly noel, I have found this thread informitive and entertaining but you are really starting to cause this thread to loose its allure.

If you want to continue, please start your own thread, offer something real and stop the ****ing match.

James has been hounded enough.

 

[noel carlson]

Michael,

I accept at face value that I am causing the thread to loose it's allure for you. Accept my apology for that result, it was unintentional.

You raise a confusing solution however. Is it only in the context of "starting another thread" that you believe I can "offer something real"? If not, I would be happy to summarize a number of "real" "somethings" which I have posted in the course of the dialogue thus far, and additional implications of James claims can be highlighted if that would be of interest/entertainment to you.

The issue should never be one of how much "James has been hounded" (or ingratiated for that matter). The topic ought to be entirely about the filght properties of a physical object for heavens sake! There is a dearth of coherent field data, accompanied by alot of guarantees and promotional language. Possibly this is passing for entertainment.

Sincerely,
Noel

 

[Lightvarmint]

Bryan,

We shoot at a calibrated target board marked off in 1" gradients. The scope was calibrated when I returned it to the maintenance facility. We even use two other calibrated scopes to cross-check the impact points on the target.

Yes, the target board indicated right at 9.25" per moa gradient on the scope reticle.. The interesting part is that it is predictable and repeatable.... This is not the first time we have seen the data.... Believe me we checked and double checked prior to putting out the RAW DATA.

We shoot these the same way and fashion that we have been testing bullets for the last 10 years and all on the same private range.

We have shot some big groups and we have shot some tiny groups.... We even did a repeatablility experiment where we took one gun loaded with a certain bullet and zeroed it at 400 yards.

Then, we shot two shots for record..... We then packed up the gear until the next day and we shot another shot for record on the same target using the same hold at exactly the same time of the day. When we got done on the fifth day, the group measured 3/8" at 400 yards. This experiment is a testament of the equipment, friendly shooting conditions and consitent loading data.

It is tough enough to shoot that group in a string at a match, but over a 5 day period, it is a miracle that the results were as they were..... But, they were. Unfortunately, when we tested them out beyond 400 yards, the bricks on your house were more aerodynamic than those bullets... We were very disappointed since this was on the heels of a year where we found out that the very accurate Lost River Bullets would not expand as necessary to use them for hunting.... So, we had two very accurate bullets.... One flew well and did not expand and the other expanded well but flew poorly.

Looking for the best LR bullets for hunting is how we got here today...

FWIW, I am not a compensated employee. I have never even met RG face to face. However, we have logged literally thousands of hours over the phone. However, I do have a company phone.

I use my facility, barrel life, powder, primers, cases, fuel, time, vehicle wear and tear and time free of charge. I am helping RG out of friendship since I have the time, experience, desire and resources available to me for this project..... I am merely an end user and in the grand scheme of things, I am probably going to be the most unbiased because I have ZERO financial stake in this or any other bullet company. I am just interested in some good projectiles for use on our LR hunts. I am just like the tester of all bullets, the customer is the final tester. Without satisfactory customer tests, you have no product... So far we have many repeat orders and to me that is a measure of customer satisfaction..... They feel safe with RG due to his policy of a refund if the bullets do not work for you. I have not seen or heard of any other company stand behind a bullet in this manner....

I realize it is hard to swallow from a scientific standpoint. But, it is hard to argue with raw data when all the detectable variables have been accounted for.. Not to mention that other shooters have seen similar results during their testing and long range hunting....

Again, I have made no BC claims.... I have put out the raw data and I shared the values that I and some others have used.... I did however post my PREDICTION but that was only the prediction and it matched almost exactly with a customers testing.

Keep up the good work and to all who have sent PMs of support, thanks for the kind words and encouragement.

James

 

[Lightvarmint]

Michael,

I accept at face value that I am causing the thread to loose it's allure for you. Accept my apology for that result, it was unintentional.

You raise a confusing solution however. Is it only in the context of "starting another thread" that you believe I can "offer something real"? If not, I would be happy to summarize a number of "real" "somethings" which I have posted in the course of the dialogue thus far, and additional implications of James claims can be highlighted if that would be of interest/entertainment to you.

The issue should never be one of how much "James has been hounded" (or ingratiated for that matter). The topic ought to be entirely about the filght properties of a physical object for heavens sake! There is a dearth of coherent field data, accompanied by alot of guarantees and promotional language. Possibly this is passing for entertainment.

Sincerely,
Noel

Noel,

You have been invited to go away several times by more than one person. You choose not to and that is your perogative.... Most of the comments I am getting indicate that the folks are enjoying Bryan's posts but have fallen out of love with yours.

However, I have not seen you "offer" anything at all other than to skillfully get your bullets into the conversation and then shift to a "damage control" sort of posture with your postings. That is why I invited you to start your own thread so that you could pontificate all you wanted to all your interested parties.

Several readers have sent me PMs and seem to have you pegged as one with sour grapes.... I don't know if this is the truth or not but that is the impression that you are giving other folks....

As far as my opinion, I thought you were just being a jerk. But then again, I may be incorrect and you may not be a jerk. You may be a nice guy that acts like a jerk.

Or, you just may really may have a case of sour grapes as has been pointed out several times to us. Or, it might be a combination of both. Who knows.

But if you don't want to continue to get flamed, you might want to change your approach.

James

 

[BryanLitz]

.....

 

[noel carlson]

James,

Per "interested parties", as mentioned earlier, I am aware of this thread only because of the questions posed to me by others.

There is no way my business would have been raised as a topic of discussion, but for the fact that you brought up the issue. If this was not done to marginalize my participation, then I misinterpreted your intent. I am neither skillful enough, nor was I inclined, to manipulate you into that action. I dare say that no specific information has appeared on this thread regarding anything which I do. That is as it should be.

I can tolerate the "flaming", if it indeed exists. I am willing to assume the best of intentions on your part (although I do believe you are fooling yourself regarding your impartiality).

You must understand, my qualm is not about apparent scientific conflicts with your field data. I simply do not believe the data, which you have presented, supports your claims regarding drop, windrift, and delivered energy. Correlating all three, as you seem to be doing, requires an unreasonably high value for BC, and that is precisely the point at issue. In order to maintain your "established facts" it is necessary to vacillate in an argument which is, ultimately, circular.

If a bullet generates an unusual amount of lift, it will come with increased drag, and will be reflected in a compromised BC. The revised BC will increase drift, and reduce delivered energy. There is no free lunch (even in nuclear physics).

You appear to have the facilities to do some good science. Complete the work. As I said, there is a place for a bullet which performs as you say this one does, in fact a ring-airfoil does exactly that by design.

Best,
Noel

 

[Lightvarmint]

At 928 yards, 1 MOA is 9.72".

This is important because in your original post, you said there was 10.4 MOA of drop (average) at 928 yards. I converted that to inches using true MOA:
9.72" times 10.4 MOA = 101.1" of drop at 928 yards.

If you're saying now that 1 MOA in your reticle is 9.25" at 925 yards (works out to 0.95 MOA), then that is equivalent to:
9.25" times 10.4 MOA = 96.2" of drop at 928 yards.

If that is the case, then the implied BC is 1.425.

See how sensitive a derived BC can be to minor errors in drop tests?

This isn't a gotcha post, it really doesn't change anything, the bottom line is that I'm still eager to learn how the bullet can have such a high apparent BC, be it 1.161 or 1.425.

I would appreciate it if you would verify the 9.25" per MOA that you stated for your scope reticle. If that's accurate, I'll revise the advertised performance in my previous chart to reflect a 1.425 BC.

Thanks,
-Bryan

Bryan,

The target board is actually tilted back somewhat probably 10 degrees plus the aiming square is 1" thick and one could be anywhere on the aiming square since the reticle partially subtends the aiming square.. Additionally, the target markers are 1" round and they could cause a slight variation.... Like I said, I use 1.0 for my 265 calculations. When I test the 280s, I am going to use 1.0 for the model as well to see how close we are.

I could have been incorrect about the 9.25 and it may have been 9.75... I really did not pay that close attention to it since the board is tilted. I relied heavily on the other two calibrated scopes to back up my indications.. I did however check the drops with two other calibrated scopes and they all yielded the same value. That is probably more accurate to say it that way. I was more confident the three calibrated scopes yielding the same values indicated true trajectory reality when we viewed the shot indicators on the target.

Since the board is tilted back slightly, we did not measure the drops with a rule as that would be highly inaccurate with the the hypotenuse being the angle of the board.

James

 

[Lightvarmint]

James,

Per "interested parties", as mentioned earlier, I am aware of this thread only because of the questions posed to me by others.

There is no way my business would have been raised as a topic of discussion, but for the fact that you brought up the issue. If this was not done to marginalize my participation, then I misinterpreted your intent. I am neither skillful enough, nor was I inclined, to manipulate you into that action. I dare say that no specific information has appeared on this thread regarding anything which I do. That is as it should be.

I can tolerate the "flaming", if it indeed exists. I am willing to assume the best of intentions on your part (although I do believe you are fooling yourself regarding your impartiality).

You must understand, my qualm is not about apparent scientific conflicts with your field data. I simply do not believe the data, which you have presented, supports your claims regarding drop, windrift, and delivered energy. Correlating all three, as you seem to be doing, requires an unreasonably high value for BC, and that is precisely the point at issue. In order to maintain your "established facts" it is necessary to vacillate in an argument which is, ultimately, circular.

If a bullet generates an unusual amount of lift, it will come with increased drag, and will be reflected in a compromised BC. The revised BC will increase drift, and reduce delivered energy. There is no free lunch (even in nuclear physics).

You appear to have the facilities to do some good science. Complete the work. As I said, there is a place for a bullet which performs as you say this one does, in fact a ring-airfoil does exactly that by design.

Best,
Noel

Noel,

It is hard to disbelieve impacts on animals at exact distances by more than one person on several different occassions. It is hard to disbelieve impacts on targets. Proving them via coputer models is one thing, but accepting the reality of the events is another thing entirely. You can sit a say you don't believe the raw trajectory data, but that does have any bearing on the fact that it was presented as it happened.... Again had this been on blip on the screen it would be a different story. Had it been two occassions it could have been a coincedence. Actually the reverse is true..... They have never failed to indicate extremely flat trajectories.....

Yes, I am very unbiased. I shoot many different brands of projectiles. I have just chosen to give these thorough evaluation. I believe that one should not be committed to just one product. Specifically, custom bullets.... A rough turn of events could cause folks to be left in the lerch if the company is delayed in making products for any myriad of reasons..... That is why I recommend to folks to have either a cache of supplies or either have alternate bullet of choice for their use...... For instance, I have a cache of 6mm bullets in both Berger and Sierra. I am ready for what ever any barrel I get chambered prefers.

I have presented the raw data and if you want to do your own testing feel free to contact the bulletsmith at [email protected] and try them yourself. You seem to be forgetting that there are other shooters that have gotten very similar results in thier independent field trials.

I don't understand why you cannot realize that we are not the only ones shooting these bullets and reporting the results.

If we were the only ones seeing this, this thread would not have been started by me. It would have been like Kirby and questioning the results like he did when he tested a different projectile.

I believe you have succinctly presented your case that you do not believe the data. So be it and remember that you have laid that foundation for not believing the trajectory data as presented.... You can believe that the sun in not shining but that does not change the fact that it is.

With that being said, I see no other reason for you to address any posts to me since you do not believe what I(we) tell you..

James

 

[noel carlson]

James,

If available, would you supply me the with impact data, in 200 yard increments out to 1,600 yards.

Multiple five-shot groups would be good for each given range, but I would be genuinely interested in whatever you can provide.

-Noel

 

[AJ Peacock]

James,

...
You must understand, my qualm is not about apparent scientific conflicts with your field data. I simply do not believe the data, which you have presented, supports your claims regarding drop, windrift, and delivered energy. Correlating all three, as you seem to be doing, requires an unreasonably high value for BC, and that is precisely the point at issue. In order to maintain your "established facts" it is necessary to vacillate in an argument which is, ultimately, circular.

If a bullet generates an unusual amount of lift, it will come with increased drag, and will be reflected in a compromised BC. The revised BC will increase drift, and reduce delivered energy. There is no free lunch (even in nuclear physics).

You appear to have the facilities to do some good science. Complete the work. As I said, there is a place for a bullet which performs as you say this one does, in fact a ring-airfoil does exactly that by design.

Best,
Noel

Noel, James, I thought I had read the entire (length thread), but didn't see where any downrange velocities where listed (maybe in a different thread?). That is the only way that the downrange energy can really be calculated (correct?).

In my reading of this thread, I think the data presented regarding the BC of the 265gr bullets is around .9 or .91. The .5moa less winddrift at 928yds than the SMK's would match that value very closely according to my Exbal calculations.

I've learned a lot reading this thread. It has become very apparent to me that calculating a BC by measured drop data is a task that is prone to small errors that can radically affect the results. Even the thickness of the scopes reticle and where it is held on the aimpoint can add a tremendous amount of error.

I think that along with the bullet drop data, velocity drop data would shed a ton of light on this entire discussion. Even if 1/2 the bullets 'sneak' through a cronograph at longer distances (I still have no comprehension of how this can be), I would think the other 1/2 would yield some valid data. I personally hope that the actual BC is .9 or higher and that velocity is not being shed by some 'lift affect'.

AJ

 

[BryanLitz]

.....

 

[Lightvarmint]

James,

If available, would you supply me the with impact data, in 200 yard increments out to 1,600 yards.

Multiple five-shot groups would be good for each given range, but I would be genuinely interested in whatever you can provide.

-Noel

Noel,

Maybe you did not read what I wrote.... I was serious. You really have no reason to address me.

If you want to do your "independent" testing, contact RG Henson at [email protected] and get some bullets for your very own testing sessions.....

I will not waste my time to provide you with any more data since you do not believe it.

One session with a five shot group per yardage does not provide enough data to statistically prove it anything but the ability of the shooter and the gun. You have to shoot many groups in different lighting conditions to get the feel for the true trajectory. You cannot "cherry pick" a condition and claim it to be the standard. In reality, they should be shot by different people to eliminate any "bias" toward improper aiming points...

For instance, ten three shot groups over ten days is more statistically significant than six five shot groups over six days. You are not testing the accuracy of the gun, you are attempting to define a curve (trajectory) of a bullet that is used out in the elements (not in the lab) that cannot be always controlled or accounted for. Five shots test the shooter and the gun.... It takes many shots define the trajectory path. Specifically, wind conditions cannot be accounted for unless data is taken along the bullet path. You might want to order say 1000 bullets to conduct some testing to ensure you can "believe" your data....

If you want range data you can "believe", get it yourself.

Your posts really prove my theory about your bias. Had I reported negative findings you would have believed it and probably not been interested in the event correct? However, since the event is postitive in nature you are interested and "don't believe" the data.

That my friend is bias coupled with professional inconsistency. You might want to spend some time evaluating yourself and your postition on the topics you engage to ensure you are not inconsistent and unwilling to accept facts as provided. If you do not believe what folks tell you, then you have set up a system that discourages anyone from exchanging information with you.

If the only person you believe is yourself, you are in for a very lonely life.

James

PS, I would like to see 10-shot groups of your bullets at 100 yard intervals out to say 3000 yards performed 5 days in a row with different shooters each day. All from the same barrel with the shots spaced less than 10 seconds apart.

You can send the photos to me at [email protected]

 

[Fiftydriver]

Has anyone considered that perhaps the use of the aluminum tip to shift the center of gravity to the rear of the bullet more then a conventional match HP may have something to do with the increase in BC? IT really does not shift the center of gravity all that much but it does greatly increase bullet length without adding much weight at all.

The Hornady 750 A-Max is basically this same type of bullet but with a conventional boat tail design, not rebated. They list a BC of 1.050 for that bullet. In my testing, I get closer to .960, about what I got when testing a prototype similiar to the 265 gr AT RBBT.

I read studies on 50cal bullet trajectories many years ago about how different ogive design and different twist rates effected trajectory. They were not concerned with BC as they were referring to 1000 yard BR rifles. No need to really even know your BC, you take your sighter shots, get on target and then punch your group. But, they did say they noticed at extreme range shooting that different Ogive designs made a difference as to the relationship of the bullet concerning the ground as it flew.

If I recall correctly, the faster the twist rate, the more nose up the bullet was after reaching its peak trajectory, in fact on impact with the ground, it was found that the bullets body just ahead of the BT touched down on the ground first with the nose being last. Basically landing like a jet liner with no gear down.

They also mentioned that bullets with center of gravity farther back then average resulted in a nose up landing as well.

Bullets fired from barrels with min twist to stabilize the bullets tended to show the bullets nose fallowing the trajectory line, not going nose up after peeking. THey also found that bullets with center of gravity at center or ahead of center would also have nose on trajectory line behavier.

They found that the bullets with nose up behavior often flew farther then bullets that had their nose fallow the path of trajectory.

They came to two similiar conclusions.

1. Because the bullets were nose up, they did not produce lift but they did seem to ****** bullet drop to some degree....

2. There was a slight breeze into their face and they felt the nose up bullets may have been effected by updrafts more dramatically then bullets that had their nose follow trajectory line.....

These were not rocket scientists but they were shooters that have shot an extreme amount of long range 50 BMG rifles. One was Skip Talbot and I believe he knew as much about ballistics as anyone in the 50 cal shooting sports.

Remembering these tests, it got me thinking, is it possible that down range breezes were effecting results?

I know when I tested the 265 gr AT RBBT prototype bullets. I had one day that about made me pull my hair out. Come to find out, a mid range updraft that I was not aware of was really throwing my 1000 to 1500 yard drops WAY out of wack compared to the rest of the trajectory curve.

Even slight rolls in terrain can cause this and shooting over open air can also do this dramatically and even worse, very inconsistantly making it nearly impossible to figure into your drop chart.

Generally, when I would see this, I would either move to a different location or hold off tests for another day.

Just some possible ideas to consider.

 

[Lightvarmint]

With the target board at a 10 degree angle, you're now talking about:
96.2*cos(10) = 94.7" of drop.

This information now implies a BC of 1.535



If you're now saying that there can be up to 1" of error in your MOA at 928 yards, then your MOA can be anywhere from 8.25" to 10.25". If that's the case, then 10.4 of your MOA can mean anything from:

10.4*8.25" = 85.8" of drop => BC of 3.10
to
10.4*10.25 = 106.6" of drop => BC of 0.98

Or if you were mistaken and your scope actually has does have true MOA (9.72" at 928 yards), applying the same +/- 1" of error per MOA:

10.4*8.72" = 90.7" of drop => BC of 1.96
or
10.4*10.72" = 111.5" of drop => BC of 0.855

In light of your uncertainty regarding the scopes actual calibration, the leaning drop board, and the huge impact these variables have on an apparent BC, I have to ask if you think it was responsible to advertise the performance of the bullets in this way? Just based on the uncertainties you've given so far, the actual BC of the bullets could be anywhere from 0.855 to 3.10. All you can really say is: there was some drop, and you know where to aim your rifle to hit targets.

Regardless of the enormous uncertainties involved in your advertised performance, I will continue my modeling efforts because I've already put a lot of time into it. However, I'm quickly losing interest in this project. If the modeling doesn't reveal anything out of the ordinary regarding lift, I don't know if I'll still be compelled to keep spending my time on this.

-Bryan

Bryan,

When viewing the impacts on the target board, the impacts are in the vertical plane and not at an angle. If you look through your scope, the drops are vertical.... You go to the aiming point and measure where the bullet impacts intersect the reticle.The true drops were viewed through three calibrated scopes as I have previously stated.

If I would have had the board 90 degrees vertical, I could have measured them and converted to moa. But since it was not 90 degrees vertical, the reticle had to be used for the trajectory values.

You are twisting some facts about my scopes.... Very calibrated...... All three..

Yes, it is responsible and it matches the impacts on deer that were vertical until there were hit with these hammers.

How many bullet samples did you disect?

Were there enough to be statistically accurate?

Were they randomly selcted or "cherry picked"?

What instrument model and brand were you using to conduct measurements?

Digital or mechanical?

When were and by whom were your measuring instruments calibrated?

What is the due date for thier subsequent calibration?

How much pressure are you applying to your measuring instruments during readings?

Is the pressure exactly perpendicular to the object being measured?

How are you ensuring that you are applying the exact same pressure for each and every measurement?

Are you using measuring devices that have thier own pressure springs to apply even pressure on the objects being measured?

What sort of gage blocks did you use in your facility to verify the instruments ability to accurately duplicate the values....

What are their grades of calibration and accuracy?

Did you wear gloves when handling the gage blocks?

Did you clean off the anvils and the gage blocks to prevent any material interferrence in your measurements?

All these above questons of mine are typical questions and evaluation points used by quality control inspectors.

Measure twice, cut once.

James