Henson Aluminum tipped bullets test

Discussion in 'Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics' started by goodgrouper, Jul 31, 2008.

  1. goodgrouper

    goodgrouper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,705
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Ok, now that I have a minute, I will be doing the testing of the 280 grain HAT bullets in wet phonebooks and comparing them to the 300 grain SMK side by side. I will also be doing a ballistic coefficient test as well.
    It probably looks on schedule for Saturday but I thought I would start the thread tonight. Here's a pic of the test bullets:

    [​IMG]

    The bullet on the far right is the bullet seated out a ways to show how long it is. The bottom of the bullet is actually at the body/shoulder junction! The other two on the left are loaded to fit a REM long action magazine. I loaded the 300 grain SMK with 50 grains of N170 and 48 grains are behind the 280's. I loaded them VERY light to simulate a 1200 yard (roughly) impact.
     
  2. royinidaho

    royinidaho Writers Guild

    Messages:
    8,853
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    GG,

    What about the 265 HATs? Any chance you have any left?

    My 800 # boar arrives at 0800 in the morning. Am loading down to approximate 1K w/300 SMKs and 225 NABs in the 338 RUM.

    Pretty poor selction of bullets but Cross from I/F may show up with several more guns.

    Looking forward to your results.
     

  3. lazylabs

    lazylabs Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    870
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    It would be interesting to know what percentage of case capacity is lost with that much bullet in the case. It would be hard to order a reamer with a 1/2 freebore and hope those bullets liked that barrel. Have fun with your test.
     
  4. goodgrouper

    goodgrouper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,705
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Roy,

    I have the 265's loaded up as well. They are in that loading tray but just out of the picture.

    I don't think I will have enough phone books to test them this weekend too so they will probably get their own, independent test the following week. I already know what they do in comparison to the 250 SMK's thanks to Davewilson so I'll just shoot them into a different media than he did to see if anything changes.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2008
  5. goodgrouper

    goodgrouper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,705
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004


    I don't know about the HAT bullets, but I lost about 8 grains capacity with the 300 SMK's seated out to a similar length and then pushed in to fit the magazine!
     
  6. goodgrouper

    goodgrouper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,705
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Holy batcrap Robin! I totally lost a week here somewhere! I thought the br match was next weekend and I learned this morning it's THIS weekend! I'm getting senile in my old age. Better make the bullet test report the first part of next week. I've got to get my crap thrown in the truck and haul arse to the range if I'm going to make it in time! GG out.....
     
  7. davewilson

    davewilson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,634
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    i believe GG could write for a daytime soap. he builds all of this suspense, and then leaves you hangin!
     
  8. Fiftydriver

    Fiftydriver <strong>Official LRH Sponsor</strong>

    Messages:
    6,848
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    GG,

    How do you figure to compensate for the change in RPMs of the bullets. I have done a bit of testing trying to duplicate long range impacts and it never seems to be consistant with what actually happens at long range even though velocity can be adjusted exactly.

    Its my theory that the difference in RPM is the difference for this performance. Actual long range impacts seem to expand much more then simulated impacts.

    I have been going to get a very fast twist barrel to match velocity as well as rpm just to see if my theory is correct.

    ANyway, look forward to your results.

    One thing I do not care for with these bullets is the VERY long baring surface. Yes, this can improve accuracy but it also effects velocity potential and in a chambering such as the 338 AM, it can make things a bit finicky with temp changes.

    Would have liked to see a bit more aggressive ogive and a bit shorter baring surface. But I am not a bullet maker!!! LOL
     
  9. davewilson

    davewilson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,634
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Kirby, you make a point that i've wondered about and that is, how much do the RPM's drop as compared to the drop in velocity? does anyone know of a proven formula for this or a general rule that might be used?

    after talking to a couple powder people i was afraid to shoot loads that were less than published minimum loads as it was guaranteed to be potentially dangerous. i see where GG and others are doing this but i was basically "chicken" to do it. i tested the 265's at a tad under 2800 at distances of 300 and 700 yards.
     
  10. älg

    älg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    723
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Dave I ´ve also read reports about the danger of reduced loads. Can´t remember the reason but I recall there was some discussion on this.

    As for the alum tips, they look great.- It will be good to read about the test when it is done.
     
  11. Ridge Runner

    Ridge Runner Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    987
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2002
    not nearly into this as much as you guys, the only info I can add is I have 223's in 8, 9. 10, and 12 twist. the 10 twist 223'barrel length is 26", the 12 is 22, the 8 is 24, the 10 and the 12 shoot faster than the 8, but using the same ammo the 8 expands the bullet much better at 300-500 yards. so I'm certain that terminal performance is enhansed with faster spin.
    RR
     
  12. royinidaho

    royinidaho Writers Guild

    Messages:
    8,853
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Ridge Runner,

    I tend to agree with you but I don't have enough experience with it to make a firm statement but it sure seems that way so far.
     
  13. goodgrouper

    goodgrouper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,705
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    As promised, here are the results of testing the 280 HAT bullet against the 300 grain SMK.

    I was in a race to find enough paper to shoot into and barely made it to the range tonight with enough time to make the chronos work before the sun set. Because of limited time and the fact that I didn't want to make a mess in the bed of my truck, I didn't soak the paper. It was packed tight and bone dry.

    First step was to set up the two chronos back to back and fire the test ammo across them while getting a new zero for the seriously reduced velocity I was going to get. The MV of the 280 HAT's was registering at around 1989 fps on the Oehler 35 and around 1996 on my POS SHooters Chrony which came from a mild load of 48.0 grains of N170. The 300 SMK was loaded with 50.0 grains of N170 and registered at 1983 on the Oehler and 1989 on the Shooter's Chrony. The impact was WAAAYY low of what it usually is for the 300 SMK at 100 yards. But I quickly dialed up the needed amount and moved the SHooter's Chrony out to the 100 yard marker in front of the target.

    Here's the pic:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I fired 5 HAT bullets of which one didn't register through the Shooters Chrony at 100 yards. But the other four were perfect reads. The Oehler MV was 2050,2029,1978,(1934 error on SC),1957 and the velos at 100 yards were 1948, 1940, 1888, 1867. You can do the exact math but the average velo loss was around 90 fps.

    The 300 SMK velos were 1982, 1968 on the Oehler and 1904 and 1889 on the 100 yard SC. This was about a 78 fps loss.

    Do the math and you get a bc of .684 for my environment parameters for the 280 HAT bullet and .797 for the 300 SMK. This is not far off what I got the last time I tested the bc of the 300 smk at .810. My barrel has had a few shots through it since then and the throat has become just a touch rougher.

    So why didn't the HAT have a higher bc? The holes in the paper were point on but there possibly wasn't enough rpms to get this bullet totally stabilized at 100 yards. Or perhaps a longer range test would be more accurate. But I can't go any farther with my little chrono. The window is just too small. So perhaps someone can drop test the bc at normal MV speeds?

    So, on to the media test. I fired three SMK's and three 280 HATs into the phone books at 100 yards with reduced velocities to simulate long range impact speeds. Since I already know what the 300 smk's do to animals at 1000 yards, I used it as the control. In this manner, I can make a comparison of the two bullets and I know what the minimum performance level is that can be accepted.

    Well, the 300 SMK's left the muzzle at 1939, 1945,and 1910. The HAT's MV was 1913, 1900,and 1888.


    When I opened the box, I was surprised to see this HAT bullet only 7 inches into the paper:
    [​IMG]

    Then I kept digging and found another one just a bit farther in. Maybe 9 inches but I didn't actually measure it.
    [​IMG]

    Then I noticed a hole in the dirt beside the box. It was a Hat bullet impact that had hit the box of paper low and turned down and zipped out the bottom of the box about 5 inches into the paper.
    [​IMG]
     
  14. goodgrouper

    goodgrouper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,705
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Sorry for the double post but the server wouldn't let me post more than 6 pics on one post so here is the rest of my post and the pics;



    View of the first HAT:
    [​IMG]


    At the 10 inch point, the SMK holes were still going and were slightly bigger. I kept digging and found them in almost twice as far as the HAT's:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Then I found something interesting. One of the SMK's had it's core blow out of the jacket and it took a 90 degree turn and went out the side of the box about half way into the box. I found the core about 5 feet from the box just lying on the ground. The jacket was stuck in the cardboard on the side:
    [​IMG]

    Here is a pic of the three HAT's and the three SMK's:
    [​IMG]


    So, the SMK's had somewhat erratic performance but always penetrated farther, mushroomed better, and caused more damage in the paper than the HAT's. ANd they stabilized a bit better at lower velocities.

    As for the RPM factor, it could change the whole results but in comparison to the SMK's, they don't work as good at low velocities. Perhaps the HAT's need a thinner jacket and a cavity under the tip? If you look closely at some of the pics, you can see that the Hat JAcket is really quite thick where the tip meets the jacket. This (I feel) needs to be thinner.

    Now, I need to test the HAT's at higher velos and I also have those 265's around to shoot as well.