You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
James,
Thanks for the kind words. I figure I should post my results and thoughts.
1. Load development was very easy. I used the same method as you suggest and it took me no
time to get a one hole group at 100yds.
2.I finally got out to shoot at longer range and was able to thoroughly test the bullets at 565 yds. Next thurs I will test them at 1000yds.
I tested them as most of you would. How much moa must I dial in to be on at a certain range.
I zeroed my rifle at 100yds.
My data is as follows:
338Lapua Improved w/20moa base Nightforce scope.
265 HAT
103gr Retumbo
3.785"OAL- .055 off lands
2970fps
100 zero
565 ---8MOA
I shot numerous clay birds at that range just to see what the bullets would do and then shot a nice triangular 3shot group of 1.5"
The bullets flew very consistently.
I only had 3 shots left and shot them at 1000yds, but not enough to do a fair evaluation.
I shot 2 sighters and then shot 1 at a 3" target dot.
I missed the dot by only 3" and it took me 22MOA of adjustment from my 100yd zero. I will shoot some more at 1000yds just to make sure of the data. I just don't think 3 shots is enough to say that is accurate drop data.
On the other hand my 565 data is very accurtate and reliable.
I may even get a 400yd zero and then hold over and see if my reticle data is similar to yours.
I am also going to try another chrono just to make sure of the velocity.
Thanks for the kind words. I figure I should post my results and thoughts.
1. Load development was very easy. I used the same method as you suggest and it took me no
time to get a one hole group at 100yds.
2.I finally got out to shoot at longer range and was able to thoroughly test the bullets at 565 yds. Next thurs I will test them at 1000yds.
I tested them as most of you would. How much moa must I dial in to be on at a certain range.
I zeroed my rifle at 100yds.
My data is as follows:
338Lapua Improved w/20moa base Nightforce scope.
265 HAT
103gr Retumbo
3.785"OAL- .055 off lands
2970fps
100 zero
565 ---8MOA
I shot numerous clay birds at that range just to see what the bullets would do and then shot a nice triangular 3shot group of 1.5"
The bullets flew very consistently.
I only had 3 shots left and shot them at 1000yds, but not enough to do a fair evaluation.
I shot 2 sighters and then shot 1 at a 3" target dot.
I missed the dot by only 3" and it took me 22MOA of adjustment from my 100yd zero. I will shoot some more at 1000yds just to make sure of the data. I just don't think 3 shots is enough to say that is accurate drop data.
On the other hand my 565 data is very accurtate and reliable.
I may even get a 400yd zero and then hold over and see if my reticle data is similar to yours.
I am also going to try another chrono just to make sure of the velocity.
Last edited:
Bryan,
As one of the interested shooters you spoke of, I feel inclined to comment. First, you owe no apology to anyone! Very much the opposite is true!
Thank you for showing us how a professional should and does behave.
My interest in the Hat bullets has died with yours. It would have been interesting to read your findings after testing. However, I don't believe there is any danger of you having to subject yourself to that. It is clearly evident the manufacturer doesn't want these bullets tested by someone with the skills and abilities to do an accurate job.
Regards
As one of the interested shooters you spoke of, I feel inclined to comment. First, you owe no apology to anyone! Very much the opposite is true!
Thank you for showing us how a professional should and does behave.
My interest in the Hat bullets has died with yours. It would have been interesting to read your findings after testing. However, I don't believe there is any danger of you having to subject yourself to that. It is clearly evident the manufacturer doesn't want these bullets tested by someone with the skills and abilities to do an accurate job.
Regards
L
Lightvarmint
Guest
Bryan,
Thanks for your offer.... However, RG will have to delcine for three general reasons
--First, we think that it would not be fair to you, Berger bullets nor Henson Bullets to join the three together through a common thread without a business agreement between the three companies.
--Secondly, we do not feel that your attention to detail is keen enough to provide us with data that would be useful at this phase of bullet develpment.
--Thirdly, we do not feel that you would work well in an environment that is demanding.... Since you would be working directly for me, that would not be a good fit.... Specifically, your skin is not thick enough to work with me..... Remember I am the nice one of the duo.
Finally, I need to clear up something for you. It was NOT your body of work nor was it Noel Carlson's body of work in this that attracted the attention of the EU company. Specifically, it was the loud and continuous protesting by two competing companies that got their attention. If you and Noel had not been so staunch in your approach to the data gathered by myself and others, this would not have been any interest to them....
In short your negativity is what piqued thier interest. "Me thinks you protest too loudly"
The last item on the agenda here is to let you know that the data that you have gleened so far has been known for over a year by us..... We knew through actual testing where these bullets stood in relationship to the other premier .338 bullets.... After all, we maintain an inventory of Sierra 300 SMKs to use as our control and comparison product.
You have an email coming to you that breaks the above down into finer detail for your consideration and application..... There is not any charge for your personnel evaluation and your process evaluation..... I just hope you can apply it and get some benefit from it.
James (for RG Henson)
Thanks for your offer.... However, RG will have to delcine for three general reasons
--First, we think that it would not be fair to you, Berger bullets nor Henson Bullets to join the three together through a common thread without a business agreement between the three companies.
--Secondly, we do not feel that your attention to detail is keen enough to provide us with data that would be useful at this phase of bullet develpment.
--Thirdly, we do not feel that you would work well in an environment that is demanding.... Since you would be working directly for me, that would not be a good fit.... Specifically, your skin is not thick enough to work with me..... Remember I am the nice one of the duo.
Finally, I need to clear up something for you. It was NOT your body of work nor was it Noel Carlson's body of work in this that attracted the attention of the EU company. Specifically, it was the loud and continuous protesting by two competing companies that got their attention. If you and Noel had not been so staunch in your approach to the data gathered by myself and others, this would not have been any interest to them....
In short your negativity is what piqued thier interest. "Me thinks you protest too loudly"
The last item on the agenda here is to let you know that the data that you have gleened so far has been known for over a year by us..... We knew through actual testing where these bullets stood in relationship to the other premier .338 bullets.... After all, we maintain an inventory of Sierra 300 SMKs to use as our control and comparison product.
You have an email coming to you that breaks the above down into finer detail for your consideration and application..... There is not any charge for your personnel evaluation and your process evaluation..... I just hope you can apply it and get some benefit from it.
James (for RG Henson)
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
"... we maintain an inventory of Sierra 300 SMK's to use as our control and comparison product."... James, you could have saved yourself, and others, a great deal of speculative effort if this detail had been included in your very first post.
Why have you neglected to report the comparative results?
What are they?
Best,
Noel
Why have you neglected to report the comparative results?
What are they?
Best,
Noel
What a waste of a thread! Thanks Lightvarmint!
Boy I sure wish someone would shoot these through a few chronographs to settle the BC once and for all.
Quite frankly for all of Lightvarmint's ridiculous behaviour I can't wish you good luck in your business endeavour!
edge.
Boy I sure wish someone would shoot these through a few chronographs to settle the BC once and for all.
Quite frankly for all of Lightvarmint's ridiculous behaviour I can't wish you good luck in your business endeavour!
edge.
James,
Your dishonest 'baiting' tactics and misleading performance claims will only sell so many bullets. In the end, shooters want information that will help them hit targets. Your approach of representing the bullets with data based on a certain scope reticle in random atmospheric conditions and not with standardized accurate BC's won't cut it in the long run.
I suspect it's only a matter of time until your new EU customers learn that your marketing hype is BS and that will be the end of that.
People like you who report magical performance and claim to be scientific is what shakes peoples confidence in science. The responsible application of science is a very good way to learn accurate information. You exploit the credibility of science for your own personal gain at the expense of collective genuine understanding, progress, and confidence in the scientific process. Some people won't be able to see you for what you are, but we both know what you're doing. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I've deleted my posts to this thread and will be avoiding this website for a while.
Your dishonest 'baiting' tactics and misleading performance claims will only sell so many bullets. In the end, shooters want information that will help them hit targets. Your approach of representing the bullets with data based on a certain scope reticle in random atmospheric conditions and not with standardized accurate BC's won't cut it in the long run.
I suspect it's only a matter of time until your new EU customers learn that your marketing hype is BS and that will be the end of that.
People like you who report magical performance and claim to be scientific is what shakes peoples confidence in science. The responsible application of science is a very good way to learn accurate information. You exploit the credibility of science for your own personal gain at the expense of collective genuine understanding, progress, and confidence in the scientific process. Some people won't be able to see you for what you are, but we both know what you're doing. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I've deleted my posts to this thread and will be avoiding this website for a while.
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
Comparative result thus far;
300 grain SMK- $.63 each
265 grain HAT- $1.50 each
I await the rest...
300 grain SMK- $.63 each
265 grain HAT- $1.50 each
I await the rest...
GREYGHOSTt
<strong>SPONSOR</strong>
Why have you neglected to read all of the threads about these bullets?
Any time in the past when we posted comparason results it has always been with the 300 SMK'S
because they were considered the industy standard...
That information has been posted in the past threads and some of it in this thread..
FYI James keeps a stock of 338/378's loaded with pet loads using the 300 SMK'S
for daily comparason with the HATS in my test rifle.
Additionaly he also keeps the 300 SMK'S loaded in his test rifle a 338 Lapua improved... for use in HAT comparason testing ..
The reason for two rifles is two fold,to test the controll bullets and my bullets in barrels from different maunfactures.
Once the 86 pound .338 1000 yard benchrest rifle arrives we will be using a Lilja barrel for testing as well.
The current barrels are K&P [cut rifled]and HART [button rifled]
For future refrence the 30 cal bullets will be 210 Bergers and 210 HATS.
The barrels will be Krieger [cut rifled] and Hart[buttoned rifled]
The 7mm will be Pacnor barrels. testing Berger bullet and the HATS.
The 6mm will be Bartlien [cut rifled[ and Rock [cut rifled] and Hart[ button rifled]. Using Berger and HAT bullets.
The 224 will be tested against Berger bullets in Hart barrels.
Finally the 375/408/416 will be tested with Weatherby cases and Lilja barrels. Using which ever bullet that is considered the industry standard as the controll bullet.
Please file this away for future refrence.
Any time in the past when we posted comparason results it has always been with the 300 SMK'S
because they were considered the industy standard...
That information has been posted in the past threads and some of it in this thread..
FYI James keeps a stock of 338/378's loaded with pet loads using the 300 SMK'S
for daily comparason with the HATS in my test rifle.
Additionaly he also keeps the 300 SMK'S loaded in his test rifle a 338 Lapua improved... for use in HAT comparason testing ..
The reason for two rifles is two fold,to test the controll bullets and my bullets in barrels from different maunfactures.
Once the 86 pound .338 1000 yard benchrest rifle arrives we will be using a Lilja barrel for testing as well.
The current barrels are K&P [cut rifled]and HART [button rifled]
For future refrence the 30 cal bullets will be 210 Bergers and 210 HATS.
The barrels will be Krieger [cut rifled] and Hart[buttoned rifled]
The 7mm will be Pacnor barrels. testing Berger bullet and the HATS.
The 6mm will be Bartlien [cut rifled[ and Rock [cut rifled] and Hart[ button rifled]. Using Berger and HAT bullets.
The 224 will be tested against Berger bullets in Hart barrels.
Finally the 375/408/416 will be tested with Weatherby cases and Lilja barrels. Using which ever bullet that is considered the industry standard as the controll bullet.
Please file this away for future refrence.
Well at least the gloves have come off and the competitive/business nature of the information, participation, interaction, and posting is now front and center. The emotions have now spilled the beans. No more pretending.
I'm sure RG can make a go of it without immediately incurring the costs associated with developing BCs for each of his bullets. After all, Wildcat Bullets did. We get reasonable drops posted here and that's good enough for me. I HAVE to go shoot them in my rifle before I'm long-range capable no matter the BC published by the manufacturer, and I'm going to use BCs that match my drops, rather than a published BC should it not meet my drops.
Didn't Berger just change their BCs since Bryan came on board. How in the world did we manage with the Berger bullets all those prior years using errant BCs before they were just recently "corrected"?
I'll stick my neck out here and venture a guess that Mr. Berger didn't develop and post BC's for his bullets in the first year or two of his bullet making business. If Mr. Berger comes back and corrects me, I'll bite my tongue since I've completed absolutely no research on the topic. In fact, he may be the only one that knows. But I'll venture a guess that there were higher priorities - like making sure the bullets shot well enough to win competitive matches.
I'm sure RG can make a go of it without immediately incurring the costs associated with developing BCs for each of his bullets. After all, Wildcat Bullets did. We get reasonable drops posted here and that's good enough for me. I HAVE to go shoot them in my rifle before I'm long-range capable no matter the BC published by the manufacturer, and I'm going to use BCs that match my drops, rather than a published BC should it not meet my drops.
Didn't Berger just change their BCs since Bryan came on board. How in the world did we manage with the Berger bullets all those prior years using errant BCs before they were just recently "corrected"?
I'll stick my neck out here and venture a guess that Mr. Berger didn't develop and post BC's for his bullets in the first year or two of his bullet making business. If Mr. Berger comes back and corrects me, I'll bite my tongue since I've completed absolutely no research on the topic. In fact, he may be the only one that knows. But I'll venture a guess that there were higher priorities - like making sure the bullets shot well enough to win competitive matches.
Last edited:
Why have you neglected to read all of the threads about these bullets?
Any time in the past when we posted comparason results it has always been with the 300 SMK'S
because they were considered the industy standard...
That information has been posted in the past threads and some of it in this thread..
FYI James keeps a stock of 338/378's loaded with pet loads using the 300 SMK'S
for daily comparason with the HATS in my test rifle.
Additionaly he also keeps the 300 SMK'S loaded in his test rifle a 338 Lapua improved... for use in HAT comparason testing ..
The reason for two rifles is two fold,to test the controll bullets and my bullets in barrels from different maunfactures.
Once the 86 pound .338 1000 yard benchrest rifle arrives we will be using a Lilja barrel for testing as well.
The current barrels are K&P [cut rifled]and HART [button rifled]
For future refrence the 30 cal bullets will be 210 Bergers and 210 HATS.
The barrels will be Krieger [cut rifled] and Hart[buttoned rifled]
The 7mm will be Pacnor barrels. testing Berger bullet and the HATS.
The 6mm will be Bartlien [cut rifled[ and Rock [cut rifled] and Hart[ button rifled]. Using Berger and HAT bullets.
The 224 will be tested against Berger bullets in Hart barrels.
Finally the 375/408/416 will be tested with Weatherby cases and Lilja barrels. Using which ever bullet that is considered the industry standard as the controll bullet.
Please file this away for future refrence.
I smell a childish taunt!
So all of this time Lightvarmint has been comparing the HATS with SMK's because in YOUR words:
Any time in the past when we posted comparason results it has always been with the 300 SMK'S
because they were considered the industy standard...
So now the question is were you lying when you wrote that, or why would you stop using them now? Oh, and you pick Berger...I will guarantee that in every test your bullet will beat out your mythical Berger bullet.. you know the ones that you really won't be shooting WINK, WINK!
IF you really wanted credibility you would keep away from Berger like the Plague..this so called testing while I was curious, now I find it contemptible!
Since I am not a moderator on this board I can't see if your IP is the same as Lightvarmints, but I strongly suspect that it is!!
edge.
PS Since now you have made it personal, I hope that every person that spots a non compliant certified test jumps all over your threads, after all if your process is not certified as Lightvarmint stated earlier the results can't be trusted!!
L
Lightvarmint
Guest
Well at least the gloves have come off and the competitive/business nature of the information, participation, interaction, and posting is now front and center. The emotions have now spilled the beans. No more pretending.
I'm sure RG can make a go of it without immediately incurring the costs associated with developing BCs for each of his bullets. After all, Wildcats Bullets did. We get reasonable drops posted here and that's good enough for me. I HAVE to go shoot them in my rifle before I'm long-range capable no matter the BC published by the manufacturer, and I'm going to use BCs that match my drops, rather than a published BC should it not meet my drops.
Didn't Berger just change their BCs since Bryan came on board. How in the world did we manage with the Berger bullets all those prior years using errant BCs before they were just recently "corrected"?
I'll stick my neck out here and venture a guess that Mr. Berger didn't develop and post BC's for his bullets in the first year or two of his bullet making business. If Mr. Berger comes back and corrects me, I'll bite my tongue since I've completed absolutely no research on the topic. In fact, he may be the only one that knows. But I'll venture a guess that there were higher priorities - like making sure the bullets shot well enough to win competitive matches.
Paul,
The more I read your postings, the more I like you..... WRT the Berger bullets, some of that could have been chronograph(s) accuracy and consistency. Additionally new sets of dies can be a littlle different from the previous set. That is why some of the older customers whined about the 6mm point up die change recently.
I knew both Walt and Eunice a long time ago. My shooting partner (Harold Morgan) who is now deceased and I always loaded with Walt and Eunice at the Crawfish benchrest matches in Lafayette Louisianna. We were all under the pavillion shed along with the Buchtels too. Walt was a stiff competitor as well as Eunice. We enjoyed our time around and with them when at the matches....
Personally, I do not think that Walt inflated the BCs or had anything to do with it. I think it was due to some honest errors in attention to detail, calculations and instrumentation. Even though they were incorrect, I don't think it was on purpose snce I am sure it has been an embarrassment for them. Unfortunately, they are not making good on them to the shooters who purchased products advertised as one thing and then became another when the pencils got sharpened.
I really like to use the Sierras as much as possible for my comparison testing since they are usually more conservative on their BC estimations.
Anyway, more of RGs bullets line up with the bullet weights of the Bergers than the Sierras and that is why we are using the Bergers for a lot of the testing..... Bullets of like grain weight are a lot easier for the folks to understand the comparisons. We will also use the Sierras whenever possible.
I can't wait until I can get some of the new Berger .338s to use to test alongside of the SMKs and the HATS. I have a friend who signed on to be a tester, so I will be able to get some if and when the test batches go out.
James
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
Phorwath,
The "gloves" would have remained on had Mr. Henson delt honestly with the "BC" question from the beginning. I know nothing about the Berger Co., except that they went through the expense of hiring someone capable of revising their published BC's down. I am certain that we will find them headed the other direction if I understand the purpose of Bryan's recent association correctly. That is what good business practice is all about.
Henson, in contrast, began (or authorized) this extended thread with a very good idea of what the actual values of his bullets are, as indicated by his own statements. That information has been conciously concealed. This goes way beyond science, marketing, or even "hype".
The "gloves" came off when personal attacks upon both Bryan, and me, were substituted for substance.
You are correct about determining drops for your rifle specifically. I have a personal problem with the use of G-1, or G-7 drag models for anything beyond comparative purposes. You should use Henson bullets if their quality, which by all accounts is good, justifies the cost for you. Guarantees are no better than the guarantor however. I think that is what others are focusing upon.
There is a positive angle to this thread. It has shown that even in an aspect of science as established as spin stabilized projectile flight, there remains a great deal of misconception about the knowable. I expect you will be hearing much more in the future from Bryan, as he is a relatively young man.
I will be absent from this board for some time also.
Best,
Noel
The "gloves" would have remained on had Mr. Henson delt honestly with the "BC" question from the beginning. I know nothing about the Berger Co., except that they went through the expense of hiring someone capable of revising their published BC's down. I am certain that we will find them headed the other direction if I understand the purpose of Bryan's recent association correctly. That is what good business practice is all about.
Henson, in contrast, began (or authorized) this extended thread with a very good idea of what the actual values of his bullets are, as indicated by his own statements. That information has been conciously concealed. This goes way beyond science, marketing, or even "hype".
The "gloves" came off when personal attacks upon both Bryan, and me, were substituted for substance.
You are correct about determining drops for your rifle specifically. I have a personal problem with the use of G-1, or G-7 drag models for anything beyond comparative purposes. You should use Henson bullets if their quality, which by all accounts is good, justifies the cost for you. Guarantees are no better than the guarantor however. I think that is what others are focusing upon.
There is a positive angle to this thread. It has shown that even in an aspect of science as established as spin stabilized projectile flight, there remains a great deal of misconception about the knowable. I expect you will be hearing much more in the future from Bryan, as he is a relatively young man.
I will be absent from this board for some time also.
Best,
Noel
L
Lightvarmint
Guest
Comparative result thus far;
300 grain SMK- $.63 each
265 grain HAT- $1.50 each
I await the rest...
Noel,
Speaking of prices, we would all like to see your price listings and or price quotes for your bullets.
If you are going to discuss prices, in the interest of full disclosure what are your prices for the bullet lineup that you have?
Additionally, which of your bullets can be shot in standard twist barrels without having to go to a custom barrel twist?
James
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
L
- Replies
- 98
- Views
- 24K
