Gel test Hammer vs Accubond

[Hespco]

I have been using the Barnes mono's since 1994 on elk & they have never failed me. 6.5x308 wildcat , 260 Rem, 6.5x55, 6.5x06 & 264 mag. Always the 120gr weight & has put elk down decisively every season. Last year using a newly re-barreled 264 mag that for some reason would not shoot the Barnes accurately. I then tried the Hammer 6.5 121gr & accuracy was at 1/2" . At about 80 yds took a very mature elk with a complete pass thru of both front shoulders. The result was a DRT. So both Barnes & Hammer have work flawlessly for me. Only one elk for the Hammer by me but see no reason why they should not continue to work. Blood shot meat was almost non existent. The mono's have proven over & over again to me how they hold together even on extremely close shots.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I was able to clean up the second block with a torch and make it a bit better for a pic. This is the recycled block that both bullets stopped in. Bullets enter left to right. The top track is the Accubond. You can see the dark spot where it stopped and we cut it out from the top. The bottom track is the Hammer. The dark spots are petals. There is 5, one is obscured right behind the end of the wound channel. You can see where the Hammer stopped low right of the pic and we cut it out from the bottom. You can see how the petals stay pretty tight in the wound with the retained shank and then start to spread out at the end. Petals stopped penetrating at roughly the same point that the AB stopped, 28" and the Hammer went 32". You can see why the petals almost always exit too.

I think the next test we will put together will be with a highly frangible bullet. Bare with us as it takes quite a bit of time to recycle the blocks and then a range session to conduct the test. We'll have to find a place where we can set up blocks at longer range. We have two small blocks and two large blocks. Thinking we will use a paper trap behind the blocks to stop exiting bullets. That way we can have an unshot block for each bullet impact.

 

[mandl]

30 Nosler with 181 Hammers. I have been an Accubond shooter for many years, but the ease of getting the Hammers to group and great velocity has been so easy. Christensen Ridgeline with no custom work done. The speed of the 181's at 3235 average will be my Colorado elk rifle this year. Top target is 210 grain Berger.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I want to make it clear that I did not start this thread with the intent of putting down the Accubond. We chose the AB to compare to because we always considered it one of the best bullets we used. We wanted to compare the Hammer Hunter to a top end, well respected bullet in the industry. The AB performed exactly as it is advertised. That's good, I would have disappointed in the test if it had not.

To those that think the test media is flawed, I don't know what to say. As far as I know it is the best test media available on the market. It certainly is not cheap! I agree that the best test is what is in my freezer. It is pretty hard to shoot the same elk with one bullet and another right after it to compare what they did to the same elk. If there is anyone that has a better way to test bullets and compare to others, contact me and we'll see about getting some Hammers in your hands to test and post your results with pics and data.

We will continue to work on getting diff gel testing. Time is difficult to come up with.

 

[beretzs]

You'll be running the Hammers this fall

I hope so. They look like little demons!

 

[beretzs]

If I get a chance I'll line up some water jugs at 300-400 yards and run one into the jugs. I know it's not gel but it might be a decent way to see what happens.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

If I get a chance I'll line up some water jugs at 300-400 yards and run one into the jugs. I know it's not gel but it might be a decent way to see what happens.

We did a lot of that for years before we ever started making bullets. The best farmboy test that we have used is a single water jug with a tightly packed box of newspaper behind it. We always wanted to see that the bullet fully deformed in the single jug and then the paper was just to stop the bullet so it could be examined. We did the soaked wet paper but found it to be no diff than the dry paper, just much more work and mess.

The line of gallon jugs is really fun, but often the bullet will make it through several and then go out the side of one so you can't recover it. Then a new line of jugs and another shot hoping to catch it. We have gone through hundreds of gallon milk jugs over the last 10 years.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Steve,

One day I did 101 jugs with everything from .223 to .375. I guess I should do a few Hammers.

 

[MTbackwoods]

I want to make it clear that I did not start this thread with the intent of putting down the Accubond. We chose the AB to compare to because we always considered it one of the best bullets we used. We wanted to compare the Hammer Hunter to a top end, well respected bullet in the industry. The AB performed exactly as it is advertised. That's good, I would have disappointed in the test if it had not.

To those that think the test media is flawed, I don't know what to say. As far as I know it is the best test media available on the market. It certainly is not cheap! I agree that the best test is what is in my freezer. It is pretty hard to shoot the same elk with one bullet and another right after it to compare what they did to the same elk. If there is anyone that has a better way to test bullets and compare to others, contact me and we'll see about getting some Hammers in your hands to test and post your results with pics and data.

We will continue to work on getting diff gel testing. Time is difficult to come up with.

I had considered buying a bunch of Knox gelatin and making a huge block with a 16 gallon tote. The gelatin would cost $121 via Amazon and the tote could be had for roughly $10. It would be a great target size for a 1,000 yard test for someone who is a good shot (perhaps not myself ). If you could post your PayPal info, I'm sure we could rally the funds for the test if you are willing take it on. I'd be willing to contribute some funds right meow

 

[Fred3]

I didn't believe the intention was to discredit accubonds. I do think that the test at those velocity's tells very little if nothing.
I would be interested to see this test at 500 and 800 respectively, (or loaded to match the velocity's at those ranges). Having done bullet testing in the past I can say this point blank test is pretty much useless. Very few guys kill animals with a rifle at 10'. Even Accubonds are tough for game past 800 so I'm certain that a mono bullet is even less Adequate.

 

[Rich Coyle]

What is ment by "less adiquate"?

 

[Fred3]

What is ment by "less adequate"?

Will not work as well. You are welcome in advance.
Never seen guys baffled by BS so easily.
mono with crap BC (giant parachute drilled in its nose). I'm 100% sure that they are great at 350 to400 yards but LR bullets that will never be.
elk die easy so don't tell me you need massive penetration.
Hammer is an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Deleted member 103481]

.

 

[ButterBean]

Will not work as well. You are welcome in advance.
Never seen guys baffled by BS so easily.
mono with crap BC (giant parachute drilled in its nose). I'm 100% sure that they are great at 350 to400 yards but LR bullets that will never be.
elk die easy so don't tell me you need massive penetration.
Hammer is an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Once again I'm gonna say that it completely amazes me how the OP can get twisted in to the comment above The OP made a comparison with a fine Nosler with no mention of Elk but yet here we are, and by the way have you looked at any of the long range , Extreme long range or just regular old match bullets, Most all have a big parachute drilled into them