Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Gel Test Data part 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doverpack12" data-source="post: 2674893" data-attributes="member: 57848"><p>Thank you for sharing these results. I've been shooting hammers for years and slowly moving each rifle or those I load for to hammer. Typically I choose shock hammers because most hunters will never need or be capable of taking a shot at distance where it would matter. </p><p>Myself I have been working on some combo loads in my 7mm STW with a 1:9 twist. 143 HH and 195 Berger are both as much bullet as I can shoot and fully stabilize. Steve's test at a minimum shows there is little to no need. In my rifle with my mild 143 load (3350 fps, can push it 250 plus fps faster if I want to) I get 1800 fps at 1025 yards wind drift 4.7 moa calculated or 52". The 195 (3023) I get 1800 fps at 1250 yards wind drift 4.0 moa calculated or 53". </p><p>Now yes I could push the hammer faster but it shoots incredible where I load it and has proven extremely effective terminally for me so I'm not touching that. What the above info combined with Steve's testing info shows me is that terminally these two bullets are pretty close at 1025 yards. Berger there is 2000 fps (equal terminal estimation to hammer at 1800 fps) however, wind is 3.1 moa or 34" estimation. Now who knows what wind hold or correction would really be but to me we have to acknowledge there is likely a little wider margin for error on wind correction with the Berger at max terminal range in my rifle. </p><p>This really changes my thinking and am extremely tempted to just stick with 100% hammer 143 because increased terminal performance range is what I was chasing with 195s but do I really get that increased distance? MAYBE it would take gel testing these two bullets below 1800 impact to see where the Berger and hammer each become unpredictable and fail. </p><p>In Steve's test the 215 didn't have much more distance or velocity drop before it pencils through the animal (on a deer it might have been a long slow death). Steve's 199 test was consistent at close to 1800 so how much lower can it go before performance terminally is unacceptable for the intended purpose of incapacitation?</p><p>Therefore in my rifle I now have 100 Berger 195s to compare at distance and see if they increase my hit percentage or not, but terminally I consider them equal to a slight advantage for the 143 at low end impacts and a landslide up close where shot angle simply isn't a factor with the 143 but I have to be selective with the 195. Previous thought was to carry 143s and if needed pull out 195s for the right long range opportunity. </p><p>Thank you again Steve for sharing openly and to those who provided great discussion on this thread. Selfishly I would like to see the same test next with 7mm 143 HH and 195 Berger possibly the 190 Berger because in a 9" twist they both stabilize and would be max or best bullet in each line for long range. </p><p>Follow that up with 6.5 mm simulation 124 HH and the Berger equivalent that stabilizes in a factory 8" twist barrel.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doverpack12, post: 2674893, member: 57848"] Thank you for sharing these results. I’ve been shooting hammers for years and slowly moving each rifle or those I load for to hammer. Typically I choose shock hammers because most hunters will never need or be capable of taking a shot at distance where it would matter. Myself I have been working on some combo loads in my 7mm STW with a 1:9 twist. 143 HH and 195 Berger are both as much bullet as I can shoot and fully stabilize. Steve’s test at a minimum shows there is little to no need. In my rifle with my mild 143 load (3350 fps, can push it 250 plus fps faster if I want to) I get 1800 fps at 1025 yards wind drift 4.7 moa calculated or 52”. The 195 (3023) I get 1800 fps at 1250 yards wind drift 4.0 moa calculated or 53”. Now yes I could push the hammer faster but it shoots incredible where I load it and has proven extremely effective terminally for me so I’m not touching that. What the above info combined with Steve’s testing info shows me is that terminally these two bullets are pretty close at 1025 yards. Berger there is 2000 fps (equal terminal estimation to hammer at 1800 fps) however, wind is 3.1 moa or 34” estimation. Now who knows what wind hold or correction would really be but to me we have to acknowledge there is likely a little wider margin for error on wind correction with the Berger at max terminal range in my rifle. This really changes my thinking and am extremely tempted to just stick with 100% hammer 143 because increased terminal performance range is what I was chasing with 195s but do I really get that increased distance? MAYBE it would take gel testing these two bullets below 1800 impact to see where the Berger and hammer each become unpredictable and fail. In Steve’s test the 215 didn’t have much more distance or velocity drop before it pencils through the animal (on a deer it might have been a long slow death). Steve’s 199 test was consistent at close to 1800 so how much lower can it go before performance terminally is unacceptable for the intended purpose of incapacitation? Therefore in my rifle I now have 100 Berger 195s to compare at distance and see if they increase my hit percentage or not, but terminally I consider them equal to a slight advantage for the 143 at low end impacts and a landslide up close where shot angle simply isn’t a factor with the 143 but I have to be selective with the 195. Previous thought was to carry 143s and if needed pull out 195s for the right long range opportunity. Thank you again Steve for sharing openly and to those who provided great discussion on this thread. Selfishly I would like to see the same test next with 7mm 143 HH and 195 Berger possibly the 190 Berger because in a 9” twist they both stabilize and would be max or best bullet in each line for long range. Follow that up with 6.5 mm simulation 124 HH and the Berger equivalent that stabilizes in a factory 8” twist barrel. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Gel Test Data part 2
Top