Gel test Hammer vs Accubond

Status
Not open for further replies.

RockyMtnMT

Official LRH Sponsor
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
5,768
Location
Montana
We set up a gel test to compare the .284 cal 143g Hammer Hunter and the .284 cal 140g Accubond. The test data is as follows.

Gel impact at 100y
Clear Ballistics gel 10%
Rifle cartridge 280ai 1-8" twist
Hammer Hunter muzzle vel=3110 fps
Hammer Hunter impact vel=2934 fps
Hammer Hunter retained weight=101.5g
Hammer Hunter % retained=71%
Accubond muzzle vel=3123 fps
Accubond impact vel=2932 fps
Accubond retained weight=84.7g
Accubond % retained=60.5%


Point of this test was to compare what we consider one of the best premium lead core hunting bullets to the pure copper Hammer Hunter. Both bullets performed exactly as advertised, doing what they were designed to do. Both bullets exited the 1st 16" long block showing that they will make it through most North American game animals on a broadside shot. Both bullets stopped in the second gel block with the Hammer Hunter making 32" of penetration and the Accubond making 26" of penetration. The second gel block that was used was cloudy and not pic worthy due to prior use. The Hammer Hunter retained a permanent wound channel of about 1" until just before it stopped and the Accubond made a wound channel went down to the size of the mushroom at best until it stopped. The significantly larger wound channel of the Hammer after the 1st 16" I will attribute to the retained vel and the petals following along with the retained portion. The petals stopped a couple of inches before the retained shank.

To be honest I did not know what to expect with this test. For us this was a test against what we consider a very good hunting bullet of bonded lead core construction. We were surprised to see that the Hammer Hunter showed a larger wound channel at the moment of expansion than the Accubond. We did expect to see a larger wound channel after the initial expansion. Turns out that the Hammer Hunter showed a larger permanent wound channel from start to finish and deeper penetration to boot. This test dispels the reputation that pure copper bullets have, that they are not able to create as large a wound channel as a lead core bullet. There is simply no point after impact that the Hammer did not do better. The Accubond is the top block and the Hammer is the bottom block. The caught bullets are sitting on top of the blocks.

Gel test Hammer vs Accubond.jpg

We should have video of the impacts soon. I will post them when get them.
Steve

Hammer Bullets
[email protected]
 

elkaholic

Official LRH Sponsor
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
9,485
Location
hauser, id.
We set up a gel test to compare the .284 cal 143g Hammer Hunter and the .284 cal 140g Accubond. The test data is as follows.

Gel impact at 100y
Clear Ballistics gel 10%
Rifle cartridge 280ai 1-8" twist
Hammer Hunter muzzle vel=3110 fps
Hammer Hunter impact vel=2934 fps
Hammer Hunter retained weight=101.5g
Hammer Hunter % retained=71%
Accubond muzzle vel=3123 fps
Accubond impact vel=2932 fps
Accubond retained weight=84.7g
Accubond % retained=60.5%


Point of this test was to compare what we consider one of the best premium lead core hunting bullets to the pure copper Hammer Hunter. Both bullets performed exactly as advertised, doing what they were designed to do. Both bullets exited the 1st 16" long block showing that they will make it through most North American game animals on a broadside shot. Both bullets stopped in the second gel block with the Hammer Hunter making 32" of penetration and the Accubond making 26" of penetration. The second gel block that was used was cloudy and not pic worthy due to prior use. The Hammer Hunter retained a permanent wound channel of about 1" until just before it stopped and the Accubond made a wound channel went down to the size of the mushroom at best until it stopped. The significantly larger wound channel of the Hammer after the 1st 16" I will attribute to the retained vel and the petals following along with the retained portion. The petals stopped a couple of inches before the retained shank.

To be honest I did not know what to expect with this test. For us this was a test against what we consider a very good hunting bullet of bonded lead core construction. We were surprised to see that the Hammer Hunter showed a larger wound channel at the moment of expansion than the Accubond. We did expect to see a larger wound channel after the initial expansion. Turns out that the Hammer Hunter showed a larger permanent wound channel from start to finish and deeper penetration to boot. This test dispels the reputation that pure copper bullets have, that they are not able to create as large a wound channel as a lead core bullet. There is simply no point after impact that the Hammer did not do better. The Accubond is the top block and the Hammer is the bottom block. The caught bullets are sitting on top of the blocks.

Gel test Hammer vs Accubond.jpg

We should have video of the impacts soon. I will post them when get them.
Steve

Hammer Bullets
[email protected]
very nice Steve!👍
 

SamuelBerryhill308

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
233
Location
Lincolnton nc
We set up a gel test to compare the .284 cal 143g Hammer Hunter and the .284 cal 140g Accubond. The test data is as follows.

Gel impact at 100y
Clear Ballistics gel 10%
Rifle cartridge 280ai 1-8" twist
Hammer Hunter muzzle vel=3110 fps
Hammer Hunter impact vel=2934 fps
Hammer Hunter retained weight=101.5g
Hammer Hunter % retained=71%
Accubond muzzle vel=3123 fps
Accubond impact vel=2932 fps
Accubond retained weight=84.7g
Accubond % retained=60.5%


Point of this test was to compare what we consider one of the best premium lead core hunting bullets to the pure copper Hammer Hunter. Both bullets performed exactly as advertised, doing what they were designed to do. Both bullets exited the 1st 16" long block showing that they will make it through most North American game animals on a broadside shot. Both bullets stopped in the second gel block with the Hammer Hunter making 32" of penetration and the Accubond making 26" of penetration. The second gel block that was used was cloudy and not pic worthy due to prior use. The Hammer Hunter retained a permanent wound channel of about 1" until just before it stopped and the Accubond made a wound channel went down to the size of the mushroom at best until it stopped. The significantly larger wound channel of the Hammer after the 1st 16" I will attribute to the retained vel and the petals following along with the retained portion. The petals stopped a couple of inches before the retained shank.

To be honest I did not know what to expect with this test. For us this was a test against what we consider a very good hunting bullet of bonded lead core construction. We were surprised to see that the Hammer Hunter showed a larger wound channel at the moment of expansion than the Accubond. We did expect to see a larger wound channel after the initial expansion. Turns out that the Hammer Hunter showed a larger permanent wound channel from start to finish and deeper penetration to boot. This test dispels the reputation that pure copper bullets have, that they are not able to create as large a wound channel as a lead core bullet. There is simply no point after impact that the Hammer did not do better. The Accubond is the top block and the Hammer is the bottom block. The caught bullets are sitting on top of the blocks.

Gel test Hammer vs Accubond.jpg

We should have video of the impacts soon. I will post them when get them.
Steve

Hammer Bullets
[email protected]
Nice comparison for sure I'm hoping to order some bullets from ya soon.also did yall get the you tube channel going yet?
 

codyadams

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
2,985
Location
Southwest Wyoming
That why I use Barnes. Like a 4 bladed boat prop going thru meat.
Very different bullet than a hammer, and a different method of terminal performance. The hammer sheds it's frontal area quickly, loosing as little velocity as possible, and the bullet diameter (or slightly larger) flat fronted shank penetrates deep with a high retained velocity, causing hydrostatic shock. Barnes expand in a mushroom similar to a traditional bonded bullet.

Not saying anything bad about either, simply pointing out the differences between the two.
 

codyadams

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
2,985
Location
Southwest Wyoming
Maybe I missed it, how did the frontal areas of the two compare?
Not sure exactly how this test did, or how the accubond did, but below is typical hammer bullets (not my images) -
Mxxp7cDl.jpg
xwG0RrWl.jpg


The lack of "expansion" was offputting to me at first, until I read about how they work. Steve explains it perfectly here (from another forum dated september 2017) -

"My name is Steve. I am the manufacturer of Hammer Bullets. I understand exactly where you are coming from. What our bullet does is not what we all grew up understanding what a bullet is supposed to. We all grew up thinking that a bullet failed if it does not have a double caliber mushroom. I have always been a bit of a tinkerer and was always in search of a better bullet. I got real tired of making a good shot on an animal and losing meat that I did not hit due to blood shot. I my quest I found a particular mono metal bullet and really liked how they worked. Long story short, my partner and I designed a bullet and we were able to get a patent on it. Today we are a year and a half since we launched our bullet for sale.

The answers that have been given do a pretty good job of describing how a bullet like ours does it's job on impact. They are designed to shed the petals and create a flat frontal area to displace soft tissue perpendicular to the direction that the bullet is traveling. The goal with all bullets is to create a permanent wound channel that bleeds in order to cause the central nervous system of an animal to fail. Velocity of a bullet as it goes through an animal is what causes the trauma. The soft tissue that needs to be damaged is elastic or stretchy. So the goal is to push it out of shape enough to cause it to not be able to come back into its original shape. What is called a permanent wound channel. Study shows that a smaller flat frontal area of a bullet will cause a larger permanent wound channel than a larger rounded frontal area of a classic mushroomed bullet will. The other reason that we want the nose petals to shed is we do not want the bullet to slow down too much while inside the animal. As the bullet slows down it causes less damage. So the idea of leaving all the energy of a bullet in the animal really an old wives tale. It is not the energy of a bullet that does the damage, it is the displacement of soft tissue. I can throw a rock at a deer and hit it with more energy than a bullet. With a good hit that rock will bounce off the deer and leave all of its energy on the deer. Pretty rare that I can kill a deer with that high energy rock. :) So as a bullet slows to a stop inside of the animal the amount of damage it does reduces relative to how fast it is still traveling. Here is a link to a physics study that we based our design on. It is a worthy read for those who are interested in terminal performance of bullets. It is long and dry but well worth the read. Shooting holes in wounding theories. Terminal Ballistics"

Hope I'm not stepping on your toes Steve, if so, let me know and I'll delete my posts....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trending threads

Top