Forester
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry I must have missed something, are they not copper jacketed? Anything soft enough to make a bullet jacket out of is going to foul a barrel.
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
- Status
I'm sorry I must have missed something, are they not copper jacketed? Anything soft enough to make a bullet jacket out of is going to foul a barrel.
overbore
Well-Known Member
Gentlemen:
As we say ,I do not have dog in this particular fight; however, I have about 20 years and several million $$ invested in a product for ships so there is no conflict in what I am about to say.
My Generation One product worked well, within certain narrow praramaters. Generation Two worked better. Generation Three worked for more applications and naturally Gen Four was better yet. What I am telling you is that it is **** easy to knock the Generation One products of anyone, whether it be from Boeing, Browning or Buick; it is however, a **** sight harder to develop something better yourself so unless you have spent the time, money and integrity to do something better, do not knock it!
What we should all do is tell the inventor, developer or promoter what we found and why and how he may improve his product for us all. His success is our success as his better product wil be ours to shoot and win with .
What twist rates, for example should we use for his bullets, that is the key, gents. As to expansion,. it will be a simple matter to determine the slices in the jacket, like the Gold Dots, to get an expansion for hunters. Let us help him not knock him. Overbore
As we say ,I do not have dog in this particular fight; however, I have about 20 years and several million $$ invested in a product for ships so there is no conflict in what I am about to say.
My Generation One product worked well, within certain narrow praramaters. Generation Two worked better. Generation Three worked for more applications and naturally Gen Four was better yet. What I am telling you is that it is **** easy to knock the Generation One products of anyone, whether it be from Boeing, Browning or Buick; it is however, a **** sight harder to develop something better yourself so unless you have spent the time, money and integrity to do something better, do not knock it!
What we should all do is tell the inventor, developer or promoter what we found and why and how he may improve his product for us all. His success is our success as his better product wil be ours to shoot and win with .
What twist rates, for example should we use for his bullets, that is the key, gents. As to expansion,. it will be a simple matter to determine the slices in the jacket, like the Gold Dots, to get an expansion for hunters. Let us help him not knock him. Overbore
L
Lightvarmint
Guest
Hello,
Thanks for your interest. They are a copper alloy that is designed for lubricity and they do not foul on custom barrels that are smooth unless you approach loading them to max pressures that blow primers as some on this board have done. I have shot many hundreds of them at full velocity (using 5 reloadings on a lapua case as a criteria prior to having to full size the brass significantly) and when I let a copper remover sit in the barrel it did not indicate copper fouling whatsoever. Now if you use a bronze brush, then the brush granules imparted on the lands will indicate copper.
If you have a rough bore such as my third-hand 300 Win mag, then all bets are off and the pitting will "grate" away some of the jacket but that is not a fouling problem as the bore is abrasive since it is so old and has been shot more than I can fathom. We have not seen any copper fouling on the custom Hart or Kreiger barrels used to test the .308 210s, .308 220s, .338 265s, and .338 280s. Another point is that they (180s) did not foul the Wichita Silhouette pistol either and that has a Douglas barrel as supplied from Wichita.
Lightvarmint
overbore
Well-Known Member
Is there a dependable BC for the .30 / 210 gr at 2,950fps? Overbore
goodgrouper
Well-Known Member
Overbore,
If you read back to the beginning of all this mess, you will find that several guys here (myself included) did try to give some feedback for the purposes of helping the R&D of these bullets as we were all excited and wanting these bullets to be the best they could be. But when we did, we were told that we were stupid (more or less) and then some bad business deals ensued.
I got screwed by this company when I tested bullets that I confirmed with them were the bullets that I could continue to get as I didn't want to waste barrel life on something that was not here to stay (being a new company, you never know for sure) and after they told me straight up that they would always be available, in reality, the bullets I tested were obsolete and replaced by generation II before I even had the gen I bullets loaded up! Then they ridiculed my testing of their OBSOLETE bullet!! And I was only trying to help. Can you believe it?
It's too bad too. It could have been a HAT bullet that killed my spike elk at 915 yards this year, and a couple of speed goats past half a mile. Would have been good advertising for them. But I had to use the old 300 SMK instead.
Last edited:
Forester
Well-Known Member
I think everyone here wants these things to work pretty badly, they would be a big step in the right direction. The knock is that independent testing has yet to match up with LV's claims. And LV seems very disinterested in any data that does not support his position.
Someone help me out here, would these be the first copper bullets in history that DO NOT copper foul to some degree?
goodgrouper
Well-Known Member
Someone help me out here, would these be the first copper bullets in history that DO NOT copper foul to some degree?
I've shot about every bullet known to man and I've never seen it! The ones I dug out of the phonebooks had rifling grooves in the sides of them. That copper had to go somewhere. Maybe it just up and disappeared like a fart in the wind?
Honestly, some bullets do copper LESS, but NONE are compeletely absent of fouling. If this guy was to mention this "fact" at any kind of competitive match in the country, he'd get laughed right off the range.
Forester
Well-Known Member
Kinda what I thought, but I'm a neophyte at this stuff so what do I know? I was just applying a little common sense to the question.
tillroot1
Well-Known Member
overbore, I agree with what you say in part, I do not feel anyone here has knocked the bullet maker here. Different Henson Aluminum tip bullet threads has transpired here and at snipershide.com for months now, and interest in the products is strong, if you have read all the threads on this subject where lightvarmint posted, he goes by master chief on the other site, you will see where things fall. I have not seen one sideways comment towards the developer/bulletsmith, just the so-called tester. I realize how much dookie that I have caused here but feel its worth it for how I was treated on the other website and here. For the distractions that I have caused by any interested parties, I am sorry but my thoughts are solid and I feel justified in what I post. Respectfully, Ron Tilley
L
Lightvarmint
Guest
Good Grouper,
Why shoot a spike? Why not let him grow up into an adult Elk? If you are worried about herd management, why not take a cow and let the babies walk?
You got screwed?????
How can that be?????
It is hard to get "screwed" when one did not buy any of these directly from Mr Henson.
How many bullets did you purchase from owner of the company?
Since you purchased (I believe) none from the owner and you were never asked to fire one shot, it is a significant stretch to claim that you were "screwed"..... I believe that you tested them for your own reasons and benefit and those are similar to the same reasons that everyone tests projectiles. Second point, and as previously stated on numerous occassions, the bullet maker had a new .338 die on order from a die maker for almost a year and when it came in, he switched to it because it would yield a higher BC and better flight characteristics. If you insist on the older design, I am sure Mr Henson will make an exception and sell you some of the older ones but that would mean that you would not be shooting the ones with the highest BC. I don't see why he should not be able to improve his products when he has the opportunity do you?
On the fouling, I did not say it was absent, I said we got no indication of it with the chemicals we used and therefore we surmised that if the chemicals did not indicate copper, that copper was not present.... If you use an ammonia based solvent and you do not get an indication of copper does that mean copper is present or undetectible or absent. You figure it out. With Shooters Choice and then again with Sweets, we did not get indication of copper fouling on the custom Hart, Douglas, or Krieger barrels and we clean every 15 shots on the bigger cases and 20 shots on the smaller ones.
Your testing was accurate for what it was. You tested the .338 265gr bullets you obtained in phone books and you got your 338 265gr bullet phone book results.
Me, I tested the .308 180 grain bullets at full velocity in animals and I got my animal related results for that caliber and grain weight. The problem is you don't believe my results even though you have not even fired one of the .308 diameter bullets.......... You have lost our objectivity to conduct thorough and accurate testing in this case.
But, it seems as though you expect the entire world to believe your test points to be the standard and that you are the clearinghouse for information and that just ain't so in this case. I do believe you shot the phone books, but I also believe that the test is a moot point with respect to shooting live animals. We will know definately for sure in the next few days as the 265s that you tested will also be tested on live animals to ascertain the accuracy of your test claims. Until the game animals are actually shot, we cannot say that the tests you performed are invalid for game, we can only expect that they are. However, since the three published tests performed on the 265s yielded such drastic differences, two and probably three of the tests are going to be incorrect.
Come on get real GG, if the Wildcat bullets advertised are using the same jackets and they properly expand and dispatch game then for the most part, the testing has already been completed. Using the same jacket should yeild similar expansion properties and I do believe you are on record as saying that they will not expand enough and punch a hole?
I have to be honest with you that based on your lack of objectivity, I and others are really starting to question the standard set of conditions you used for your testing. It really seems as though you have much more of an ax to grind than just testing free bullets.
Remember this, the tests you performed were attempted many years ago by the testing services when they were researching new military rounds. They specifically abandoned the dry and wet paper tests as it was not an accurate assessment for the bullets being tested. Then they went to shooting goats (under anithestic) and that is what gave then the data they needed for ammunition round development.
AJ Peacock
Well-Known Member
Why would you even question the type of elk he shot? Seems like you have a serious burr under your saddle.
So, please explain YOUR standard set of conditions and please post some pictures of the wound channels as well as the recovered bullets.
If it's tough to get a "standard set of conditions" when shooting animals, and I expect this will be your response. Maybe you could shoot a carpenter deer, or maybe a telephone deer and then we can compare those tests to other 'documented and standard' tests we have seen on this forum.
AJ
Forester
Well-Known Member
The fouling is a minor point, but your words were:
"The really cool thing about them is that they do not copper foul barrels and cleanup is a quick and easy task."
No mention of the specifics of how you cleaned just that they do not foul, when you make claims like this it hurts your credibility.
On that note, the reason good grouper's test results are not being questioned by anyone except you is again, credibility. You as a tester for the company that produces the bullets can not be considered objective by any standard. Add to that, your posts make great claims with only your word to back them up. GG has no reason to be anything but objective and his credibility on this board is outstanding.
That credibility is earned over time, not given freely or owed to anyone. The best thing you could do is do what people are asking for and provide some pictures. The thing about advertising (which is what you are doing) is that peoples perception of your product is the only thing that matters. Right now the perception is that the product you are pushing has questionable performance, a poor representative, and a high price. You can solve those issues, but not by continuing the way you have been.
All that said, I hope these bullets can be shown to work, I would buy some for sure if I had some independent evidence that they will function on game.
goodgrouper
Well-Known Member
LV,
Since you seem to have selective reading problems, I will try to make this as clear as possible so please try and pay attention.
One: Why shoot a spike elk? Because I was hunting in a spike only unit. If I shot anything besides a spike, I could be thrown in jail. The biologists set this up to grow more trophy class bulls in certain areas. And why would you even ask this? It makes you look like what AJ said.
Two: I think since I was lied to and insulted that that constitutes getting screwed. The fact that I never bought any bullets is irrelevant. I was sent bullets by friends on this board who wanted me to test them because they were interested in what I would find.
All in all, dealing with you has been a VERY negative experience and it would seem that since Greyghost doesn't object to the way his company is being represented by you, he must be in the same mindset as you which means more than myself will be screwed by you two.
Three: You say that the new dies were on order for a year and showed up just as I was testing the old ones. Then you say that Mr. Henson has the right to improve his product. You are mixing two things into one. Why was I told that the bullets I was testing were the going to stay at the time and there was no mention of new dies or the fact that the old ones were instantly obsolete?
Four: On fouling, I have several barrels that do not produce blue patches too. However, there is copper in there as I can SEE it with my own two eyes. How this is, I honestly don't know. But obviously, a guilding metal cannot be grooved off into a another metal and not be there.
Five: PAY REAL CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS ONE as you seem to have missed this point several times already. I tested the HAT bullets in a media that works perfectly fine when used in comparison on a known baseline of which I had many controls in my baseline. When other bullets are directly compared to HAT's, the test WAS relevant, and it showed that the HATS were made with too thick of jacket.
Secondly, I ran them at REDUCED velocity to simulate a long range impact. Shooting them at high velocity as you did only replicates a close range impact of which I'm not interested in. If I was going to shoot nothing over 400 yards, I would simply buy an Accubond or something and save myself $1+ per bullet!
Six: Check your facts before you bring them up. I never was on record for saying that the Wildcat bullets don't expand. I have never tested them, never even held one in my hand. But Fiftydriver has tested them up and down and has shown me that they have way thinner jackets around the meplat than HAT'S. And many guys here have tested them in media and on game and there have not been any complaints that I've heard.
Seven: My lack of objectivity you say? I'm not the one trying to sell these bullets. The fact that you would even say that is amazing. Then again, knowing you, it's not all that amazing.
Eight: I could quote you volumes of research for you to read on military ammunition testing but it would be useless. You wouldn't read it and even if you did, you would just read what you wanted and skip the rest. But I will say that the isolated test you referred to was done for the purpose of testing ball ammunition (FMJ) of which is quite insignificant in this case as we are dealing with hunting bullets that are more frangible and rely less on hydrostatic shock to kill.
In closing I would just like to add this: Since it is apparent that I'm playing cards here with someone who doesn't have a full deck, I think it's time I go shooting and forget this garbage.
Last edited:
ATH
Well-Known Member
It amuses me in a sad way that you are so blind to your obtuse social skills. Someone asks a straightforward question, and you launch off on a mostly unrelated and long response that doesn't even address the question.
Then you respond to me, calling me "unprofessional and basically juvenile" for daring to question the results of you, Oh Mighty One.
I don't think I'm the one being unprofessional and basically juvenile here. I'd never buy these bullets if they had a BC of 2.000, I don't do business with companies that represent themselves with people like you.
- Status
