Henson Aluminum Tipped Bullet Testing

[Michael Eichele]

ME,

Other than affirmation, I am not certain how "Bingo" should be interpreted.

Your order of emphasis appears to favor a "magical" preference. I do agree with FD's final point in a significant way... there are surprises all the time in my work. I will be the first to embrace the proposition that a problem is interesting, by virtue, of a level of unpredictability.

That said, this thread is akin to the "cold fusion" discovery of a few years ago. Many, otherwise thoughtful, people bought into it. Physical laws are not violated in the course of discovery.

there is nothing to interpret. He hit the nail on the head. Physics are physics. The problem is the human element. WE DONT KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT PHYSICS! I know we like to think we do but we dont. Without a proper understanding of the physics behind any topic, the results of that said topic are unpredictable.

Remember we are dealing with bullets of a totally difefrent design than anything previous. It can be hard to predict any reponses this bullet will offer simply due to the fact that there are unkown and unproven variables at work here. A magical preference? No. An unproven and undocumented one.


And your point is......?

I am not sure what your purpose here is.

 

[Lightvarmint]

James,

Am I misunderstanding what you just wrote. You measured the drops from 928yds through your scopes?
What type reticles do you have? For that matter, what kind of glass are you using to see the holes at 928yds?
You said the drops where from -10.3 to -10.5 moa. Was that the center of the groups?
How many shots where in each of the groups?
How many groups where shot?

I don't understand why the center of the group wasn't found at the target and actual measurement with a caliper was used from the center of the groups to the aim point? This is how I always measure my drops and it's much easier than trying to see the holes at nearly 1000yds and then estimate the MOA using a reticle.

Hopefully I just misunderstood your posting.

AJ

AJ,

We shoot the target and then we travel to the target an paste the holes with a hi viz 1" dot.

We do this on each hole. We then return to the firing line and use three calibrated scopes on the correct power and read the drops in the reticle.

Where the dots intersect the reticle is the drop value. Very simple and the only true way to do it since it is hard to get a target perfectly at a 90 angle.

Reading the drops in the reticle eliminates errors by measuring on the target board and then converting.... The errors would be caused by less than perpendicular targets....

Almost forgot to mention that we shoot one shot at a time..... All of our long range groups we use for drops are shot over a 30 minute period.

Additionally, we just got a new order for some additional bullets from a gunsmith in Washington state. He is excited about the bullets and his group took a big elk at 700 yards with the 265s one shot one kill with a large exit wound. They were so impressed, they ordered some more projectiles.....

He was one of the original interested parties and he actually was using the Gen I free test bullets that were sent out to folks who requested them..... In other words, he used a sample lot of bullets (less than 20 per customer) developed his loads and went hunting and harvested his quarry. This indicates fairly simple load development is possible when the recommendations are followed.

Here it is again..... Predictable trajectory and another dead Elk.

James

 

[AJ Peacock]

AJ,

We shoot the target and then we travel to the target an paste the holes with a hi viz 1" dot.

We do this on each hole. We then return to the firing line and use three calibrated scopes on the correct power and read the drops in the reticle.

Where the dots intersect the reticle is the drop value. Very simple and the only true way to do it since it is hard to get a target perfectly at a 90 angle.

Reading the drops in the reticle eliminates errors by measuring on the target board and then converting.... The errors would be caused by less than perpendicular targets....

Almost forgot to mention that we shoot one shot at a time..... All of our long range groups we use for drops are shot over a 30 minute period.

Additionally, we just got a new order for some additional bullets from a gunsmith in Washington state. He is excited about the bullets and his group took a big elk at 700 yards with the 265s one shot one kill with a large exit wound. They were so impressed, they ordered some more projectiles.....

Here it is again..... Predictable trajectory and another dead Elk.

James

Thanks for the clarification. I don't think that process is how I would do it, as it's not that hard to build a target backer that stands perfectly 90 degrees using a $40 carpenter's level.

Wouldn't the 1" high viz dots make it a little tough to figure exact drops?

Since they are 1" instead of .338", wouldn't that add some error.

Also, how do you gaurantee you are always measuring from the center of the hi viz dot at nearly 1000yds?

Also, you never said what type of reticle you are using in the scopes to measure to within 1/10 moa at nearly 1000yds?

Or what type of scopes you are using. I have a tough time seeing .338 bullet holes at anything further than 650-800yds (depending upon conditions) with my Leupolds, Nightforces or in fact any scope I own, including my 20-60x 66mm Kowa ED spotting scope. I'm sure the high viz dots help a lot, but with any mirage at all, it would be very tough to see them exactly.

Measuring around 100" from a distance of nearly 1000yds within 1" is pretty impressive.

Once I get the above info, I think I'll have learned about all I am capable of absorbing about this particular subject.

Thanks and Good luck,
AJ

 

[Lightvarmint]

there is nothing to interpret. He hit the nail on the head. Physics are physics. The problem is the human element. WE DONT KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT PHYSICS! I know we like to think we do but we dont. Without a proper understanding of the physics behind any topic, the results of that said topic are unpredictable.

Remember we are dealing with bullets of a totally difefrent design than anything previous. It can be hard to predict any reponses this bullet will offer simply due to the fact that there are unkown and unproven variables at work here. A magical preference? No. An unproven and undocumented one.


And your point is......?

I am not sure what your purpose here is.

ME,

Based some information recently discovered, Noel seems to have some issues with his bullet project. That is unless he has recently corrected the problems....

I think if you revert back to my previous posting, I will have to agree with the masses that it really seems to be a sour grapes situation with him....

It is a pity because he has potential but the potential is askew as an "in your face" type of delivery and that does not sit well with most folks.....

Another thing that I think is under his skin is that HATS work with conventional barrel twists and I think his require some radical custom barrel twist values....

Ask him what twists his bullets require.


James

 

[Tyler Kemp]

How come the 30 caliber BC's seem much more "normal"?

For example I received some 180 grain HATS from a member on here, and they are indeed sleek. They are almost the same length as a 240 grain SMK. The BC is almost the same as a 240 grain SMK.

The 338 bullets are not much longer than other bullets of a similar weight yet the BC skyrockets. For example...the 265 HAT is close to the length of a 300 grain SMK but the BC is way higher. I understand it "looks" more streamlined, but gaining several tenths of a BC point is a big jump.

 

[Lightvarmint]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't think that process is how I would do it, as it's not that hard to build a target backer that stands perfectly 90 degrees using a $40 carpenter's level.

Wouldn't the 1" high viz dots make it a little tough to figure exact drops?

Since they are 1" instead of .338", wouldn't that add some error.

Also, how do you gaurantee you are always measuring from the center of the hi viz dot at nearly 1000yds?

Also, you never said what type of reticle you are using in the scopes to measure to within 1/10 moa at nearly 1000yds?

Or what type of scopes you are using. I have a tough time seeing .338 bullet holes at anything further than 650-800yds (depending upon conditions) with my Leupolds, Nightforces or in fact any scope I own, including my 20-60x 66mm Kowa ED spotting scope. I'm sure the high viz dots help a lot, but with any mirage at all, it would be very tough to see them exactly.

Measuring around 100" from a distance of nearly 1000yds within 1" is pretty impressive.

Once I get the above info, I think I'll have learned about all I am capable of absorbing about this particular subject.

Thanks and Good luck,
AJ

AJ,

We are using three NXS NP1RR reticles and two NP1RR Benchrest scopes. All five have been back to the maintenance facility for adjustment and calibration.

We are shooting custom benchrest Express actions (Hall). Barrels are K&P, Kreiger and Hart for the 338s and Hart, Broughton, Kreiger for the .30s.. Test barrels are all straight 1.250 out to the muzzle brake.

The bottom dot was just above the .5 moa point. The dots are very easy to see on the black and green background. Center of the dot is also easy to detect and ascertain. Unless the holes are touching and then the dot turns into a bigger mark but the bigger mark is a good sign of consistent accuracy.

This target board is very similar to the one that Bruce Baer used and the one that was here on the website when I think it was Ian was doing some testing....

Measuring the drop is just like measuring the distance between two pencil dots with a Starrett rule.

Shooting the drops is just like shooting an animal.... Nothing special or difficult.

I don't think you will have any problems except shooting over the chronograph at that distance.

James

 

[Lightvarmint]

How come the 30 caliber BC's seem much more "normal"?

For example I received some 180 grain HATS from a member on here, and they are indeed sleek. They are almost the same length as a 240 grain SMK. The BC is almost the same as a 240 grain SMK.

The 338 bullets are not much longer than other bullets of a similar weight yet the BC skyrockets. For example...the 265 HAT is close to the length of a 300 grain SMK but the BC is way higher. I understand it "looks" more streamlined, but gaining several tenths of a BC point is a big jump.

Tyler,

The 180s have an istrumental BC of .716 and they are the original nose design. The 180s are probably not going to be manufactured in the Gen II configuration because they work so well and are very accurate....

The Gen I 265 had an instrumental BC of .770 and the 280s were .878 but those are not made anymore. The Gen II is much more sleek and it impacts the target board much higher than the Gen Is.

Yes it is a big jump, but if you read Kirbys post, he had a .8 for the Gen IIs so it is not that big of a jump. It is an interesting situation to say the least, but the raw data we have reported is very accurate. These results are not really suprising since we had an indication of this back in December during some customer testing and my own testing for an upcoming hunt.

I think Bryan is onto the source of the lack of drop at the various ranges....

The BC will not be exactly the same for anyone..... The BC will be affected by the number of lands in the barrel, barrel wear, barrel internal dimensions, barrel land twist etc, ..... BC is not a concrete number. Some of it is equipment dependent. I suspect as a barrel wears that it will tend to strip jacket material due to throat roughness and that could cause a shift in trajectory as well.....

These are interesting times in the bullet world.

I am really interested to see how the 300 grain and 280 grain fly out to 928.

James

 

[noel carlson]

Now James,

You have been protesting, throughout this dialogue, that I have been slipping in information on my projectiles, which has never occurred, and by the way... constitute only a portion of what I am working on.

... Then you go off with some "recently discovered information" which is "causing issues with my bullet project". One would think I would be aware of such "issues".

You just can not have it both ways.

The twist requirements for my systems are not a limitation, they are a means by which, I believe Bryan will confirm, the door is opened to greater aerodynamic efficiency.

From a marketing standpoint, it would be to my ultimate advantage that all other barrel/projectile manufacturers design within current limitations. That will never be the case however, because others know the same things I do. It is not a secret.

One thing this revelation should tell you, is that the HAT is no competitive threat to me... and it never will be. Even if it was possible to produce equivalent profiles with your bullet construction method, the rpm's I am working at will spin the jackets clean off of lead cores!

As to the "what is he doing here" query, I am participating in this dialogue at the suggestion of others.

ME,

"WE DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT PHYSICS."...

I hate to be the bearer of disconcerting news, but nothing we are talking about falls outside the domain of classical physics, and the science at that level has not held any surprises for us since Newton. Fluid dynamics came later, but that is secondary to the fundamental points at issue in this thread.

Best,
Noel

 

[grit]

Some time ago I was unable to purchase the Wildcat bullets I wanted. It seemed timely Henson offered a suitable replacement. Consequently I have been an interested reader of the Henson bullet threads.

Unfortunately, Mr. Henson, "Grey Ghost", is or is affiliated with "Light Varmint", or James. LV has answered all skepticism, open questioning, and reasonable hesitation with innuendos, attacks on ones intelligence, and attacks on ones character. LV is abrasive, evasive, and passive aggressive.

I have to say, whatever product Mr. Henson has developed will never be shot through my rifles. As a promoter, salesman, (or whatever your affiliation is to the bullet maker) LV, you have turned away this, and I dare say many, potential customers.

 

[GREYGHOSTt]

Some time ago I was unable to purchase the Wildcat bullets I wanted. It seemed timely Henson offered a suitable replacement. Consequently I have been an interested reader of the Henson bullet threads.

Unfortunately, Mr. Henson, "Grey Ghost", is or is affiliated with "Light Varmint", or James. LV has answered all skepticism, open questioning, and reasonable hesitation with innuendos, attacks on ones intelligence, and attacks on ones character. LV is abrasive, evasive, and passive aggressive.

I have to say, whatever product Mr. Henson has developed will never be shot through my rifles. As a promoter, salesman, (or whatever your affiliation is to the bullet maker) LV, you have turned away this, and I dare say many, potential customers.

please allow me to clairify one thing..
these bullets flat out work..
usem and love them or sit and jeer and do with out.
those that choose to use them i appricate their business and input.
bottom line i ant kissing nobodys *** to sell them some great bullets!!!!!

 

[Lightvarmint]

Some time ago I was unable to purchase the Wildcat bullets I wanted. It seemed timely Henson offered a suitable replacement. Consequently I have been an interested reader of the Henson bullet threads.

Unfortunately, Mr. Henson, "Grey Ghost", is or is affiliated with "Light Varmint", or James. LV has answered all skepticism, open questioning, and reasonable hesitation with innuendos, attacks on ones intelligence, and attacks on ones character. LV is abrasive, evasive, and passive aggressive.

I have to say, whatever product Mr. Henson has developed will never be shot through my rifles. As a promoter, salesman, (or whatever your affiliation is to the bullet maker) LV, you have turned away this, and I dare say many, potential customers.

Grit,

Production is limited to the capabilities of both the equipment and the personnel. That is not to mention the time to make production runs.

Limiting yourself is not going to hurt anyone but you. But you already know that anyway and since you have no interest, good luck in your endeavors.

James

 

[Lightvarmint]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't think that process is how I would do it, as it's not that hard to build a target backer that stands perfectly 90 degrees using a $40 carpenter's level.

Wouldn't the 1" high viz dots make it a little tough to figure exact drops?

Since they are 1" instead of .338", wouldn't that add some error.

Also, how do you gaurantee you are always measuring from the center of the hi viz dot at nearly 1000yds?

Also, you never said what type of reticle you are using in the scopes to measure to within 1/10 moa at nearly 1000yds?

Or what type of scopes you are using. I have a tough time seeing .338 bullet holes at anything further than 650-800yds (depending upon conditions) with my Leupolds, Nightforces or in fact any scope I own, including my 20-60x 66mm Kowa ED spotting scope. I'm sure the high viz dots help a lot, but with any mirage at all, it would be very tough to see them exactly.

Measuring around 100" from a distance of nearly 1000yds within 1" is pretty impressive.

Once I get the above info, I think I'll have learned about all I am capable of absorbing about this particular subject.

Thanks and Good luck,
AJ

AJ,

One more point that I forgot to mention...

When one uses shoulder fired weapons for testing, it does insert a degree of aiming error within the limitations of the scope.

I do have a return to battery rig, but it will not be able to shoot the larger calibers. It will be perfect for the .22 and the 6mm HATS.

We did invest in an 86 lb 1000-yard gun that can be shot using the free recoil method.... For us this is the closest we will come to a return to battery setup for larger calibers. We will still have errors due to scope subtention of the aiming point, but will be able to shoot it free recoil.

At least we will be able to eliminate the variable of pressure on the stock during testing.

I suspect that both Bryan and Noel have some type of universal recievers set up for their testing and If not then I am suprised that they are getting legitimate scientific data from standard shoulder fired weapons.

After all the shoulder fired method is the most crude of test platforms one can use.

Now, I am interested in their test platforms and methods.... This is getting more interesting as I peel back more layers of questions (onion).

James

 

[Lightvarmint]

Now James,

You have been protesting, throughout this dialogue, that I have been slipping in information on my projectiles, which has never occurred, and by the way... constitute only a portion of what I am working on.

... Then you go off with some "recently discovered information" which is "causing issues with my bullet project". One would think I would be aware of such "issues".

You just can not have it both ways.

The twist requirements for my systems are not a limitation, they are a means by which, I believe Bryan will confirm, the door is opened to greater aerodynamic efficiency.

From a marketing standpoint, it would be to my ultimate advantage that all other barrel/projectile manufacturers design within current limitations. That will never be the case however, because others know the same things I do. It is not a secret.

One thing this revelation should tell you, is that the HAT is no competitive threat to me... and it never will be. Even if it was possible to produce equivalent profiles with your bullet construction method, the rpm's I am working at will spin the jackets clean off of lead cores!

As to the "what is he doing here" query, I am participating in this dialogue at the suggestion of others.

ME,

"WE DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT PHYSICS."...

I hate to be the bearer of disconcerting news, but nothing we are talking about falls outside the domain of classical physics, and the science at that level has not held any surprises for us since Newton. Fluid dynamics came later, but that is secondary to the fundamental points at issue in this thread.

Best,
Noel

Noel,

I am just the "bird dog" that has flushed the "unbiased scientifically interested" parties out into plain sight so that everyone can see their true colors and motivations about the topic at hand.

You are burning a lot of calories up with this little insignificant project of ours. I would have thought that this little air foil would have been far under the scientific community radar. I guess it was except for the ones that worked for companies with potentially similar products...... We must have struck a nerve somewhere with our RAW DATA REPORT. Specifically, since you have been invited to depart as an unwelcomed guest and yet you still remain with a project that is "insignificant".

I suspect that Bryan can handle himself and field questions on his own without assistance.

From the layman perspective, you guys (Noel and Bryan) appear to have a minimum of two sets of standards.... One for the masses and then one for yourselves.... It is very interesting to say the least. All this discussion about data gathering, statistical significance and properly calibrated equipment.... However when the questions are reversed, it gets very quiet and the game of dodge-the-question starts.

I (and others) get the feeling that you guys are more tuned into asking the questions than answering them straight up and outright.

So far, you have dodged all my pointed questions, but that in a way does reveal your motivations.

Noel, you truly revealed yourself in less than five posts and many folks read between the lines and contacted us about it.....

Have a nice day.... I am off to the range to develop some 280 grain loads for both mid and longer range tests. After that the wife and I are off to the "tea parties" to protest the US tax system.

Hopefully you can get something significant accomplished today.

James

 

[AJ Peacock]

AJ,

One more point that I forgot to mention...

When one uses shoulder fired weapons for testing, it does insert a degree of aiming error within the limitations of the scope.

I do have a return to battery rig, but it will not be able to shoot the larger calibers. It will be perfect for the .22 and the 6mm HATS.

We did invest in an 86 lb 1000-yard gun that can be shot using the free recoil method.... For us this is the closest we will come to a return to battery setup for larger calibers. We will still have errors due to scope subtention of the aiming point, but will be able to shoot it free recoil.

At least we will be able to eliminate the variable of pressure on the stock during testing.

I suspect that both Bryan and Noel have some type of universal recievers set up for their testing and If not then I am suprised that they are getting legitimate scientific data from standard shoulder fired weapons.

After all the shoulder fired method is the most crude of test platforms one can use.

Now, I am interested in their test platforms and methods.... This is getting more interesting as I peel back more layers of questions (onion).

James

James,

I'm not overly concerned with the aiming error for any individual shot, as a group of shots can be shot that will mathematically smooth out those errors in the data. Simply shoot a group, find the center and measure the vertical distance to the aimpoint. This is how I test loads and have documented this process with associated spreadsheets correlating velocity spreads with the vertical dispersion.

The thing I wonder about is the measurement method used to find the actual drops. I looked at the reticle you said you are using "NP-1RR" and couldn't figure out exactly how you were measuring 10.3-10.5 MOA since the Nightforce reticle pdf doesn't show a spacing that would easily allow you to measure to that precision.

In my estimation, this measurement method along with the aiming error could easily introduce more than 1moa of error into the the entire drop board/measurement process.

According to Exbal, a 1moa error in measuring a 300SMK at 338Edge speeds at 928yds is equivalent to a BC variance of .13. If the actual BC of the HAT bullets is .9, this measurement error could more than account for the reported BC's of >1.0. Even a 1/2moa error in drop measurements would account for the BC variance that some very knowledgable ballisticians on this board have questioned.

I don't doubt that these bullets have a BC of .9 or even .93 given the math that I've studied over the last couple of days (although it's been a couple decades since I've done any serious math). I also don't believe there are free lunches in physics. I expect that one of the following 2 reasons, or a combination of the 2 are responsible for the measured drops of these bullets.

1) They have a high BC (around .9+) and the math should be pretty easy to understand.
2) They are flying with a nose up attitude that causes them to shed velocity to support their better drop numbers. I hope this is not the case, as this will cause them to be more sensitive to headwinds/tailwinds/updrafts than other bullets. This will also cause them to impact the target with less than expected downrange velocity. Some downrange Chrono numbers would be a great help in determining if this is indeed the case.

AJ

ps: Noel, I read some of the stuff you've been focusing on with super high twist barrels and lathe turned bullets. Very interesting and complicated stuff. I for one appreciate your opinions on this board.