(HAT) Henson Aluminum Tipped Bullet 338 Rum Test

[Lightvarmint]

This is a copy of the letter I sent to RG Henson reporting the results of the HATS in the factory 338 RUM Remington Sendero SF:

RG,

This is for your records.

I finished the factory .338 RUM data and testing today and here are the results for the factory Remington 338 RUM Sendero SF with the 265 HATS. The only modifications on the rifle were the Jewell trigger and the muzzle brake (for obvious reasons). Actually, this barrel did not even come on this gun. It was a take off barrel that I picked up last year and just "screwed in on". Sort of a Johnny Cash setup.

CBS Group (without wind flags)-- .058"

(note: The seating depth for this round was a departure from previous encounters with this bullet in custom barrels. This chambering preferred -.015" from land contact when normally it is -.030"-> -.060" on custom barrels. This seating depth preference was proved three times during testing to be the preferred length for both the barrel and the bullet. Finally, the .058" was the very best group that it shot at that depth and powder charge. The other two were slightly over .100").

Velocity-- 2955 fps

Velocity spread-- 5 fps

The velocity spread and speed resembles a HAT 180 grainer out of a 24" factory 300 Win Magnum Remington Sendero, but the impact energy is more along the line of a 300 Win magnum on a lot of steroids!

Crunching the numbers (using the most conservative BC of .900) and comparing it to known velocities for the 300 Sierra Match King out of several of the same model rifles:

The 338 RUM with your bullets travels 235 fps faster and delivers 490 ft-lbs more energy at 1000 yards with 53.09" less drop. It really makes it a forgiving factory package when long range hunting under less than desirable conditions when shots can come faster than you would like. Remember that we know the BC is always higher than .900 so the down-range performance will be more impressive.... FWIW, I prefer to use the conservative BC values to minimize/eliminate any possible consternation from the unwashed masses.

I am in hot standby for the final .30 cal testing as well as the ground-breaking .224, 6mm, 7mm 375, 408, and 416 testing. Almost forgot, when are you sending me the 280 and the 300 grain .338 test bullets?


James

 

[Chas1]

The .058 group is like a hair less than a 6/100th of an inch group. Am I understanding this correctly? Were these 3 shot groups and at what yardage?

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Interesting report James,

Can you provide pics and some dimensions? OAL of bullet, length of nose and length of tail and required twist?

Thanks,

Mark

 

[groper]

yeah how about the powder type and charge too? not much useful info for such a long post...

 

[Lightvarmint]

yeah how about the powder type and charge too? not much useful info for such a long post...

All the information you need to unleash your potential and your equipments' potential is there. Specifically, I opened all the "Lets Make A Deal" doors and revealed a projectile in a factory rifle using a factory 338 chambering and barrel that is capable of this level of performance..... Just as I did last year about the information on the .30 caliber 180 grain Hats. Factory chamberings in factory rifles and high levels of performance. That is the message!

How you use it for your benefit is up to you. It does not matter how my equipment functions as long as it can prove and represent what can be done. Your equipment is probably different than mine and it would be unwise to get locked into my powder, powder charge, cases, primers, barrels etc. I do recommend getting some of the bullets and follow the directions on the invoice and apply them to your equipment and have some fun.

Seating depth is -.015" from land engagement of the ogive to the barrel lands as previously mentioned. If you don't have an ogive tool, you need to get one... Measuring OAL as a basis for load developement is akin to throwing darts blindfolded.

My load is 96gr H1000 powder. Hard to find a better powder for the 338 RUM. Everyone I know uses that. The powder charge is dependent on your particular barrel configuration and internal dimensions.... Start at 94 grains and work up.

If you want pictures, contact RG Henson at [email protected] as he has the photo of the .058". The .100" are so common, we don't even photograph them...... Not a big deal.

Here is the big deal that one needs to focus upon...................

With the factory Remington Sendero .338 RUM at the above performance level, it will beat the pants off of the 300 SMK out of a 338 Lapua Improved (I have one) and start nudging even the larger cases as well when they are using the SMK projectiles.

Preliminary tests with the Edge last summer gave us 3100 fps with H1000 and 3150 with Retumbo.... But, that was with test bullets. Now, the recipe is finalized and we will be testing the production bullets in the Edge just like we did in the .338 RUM.

With a 338 Lapua Improved we got 3245 fps with the 265s mentioned above....

Since the Edge and the 338 RUM are so potent and they are in a repeater variation, those are the two hunting rifles I will use when I travel to distant places to hunt. I will be pulling off the 338 Lapua Improved barrel from my single shot as it does not really offer much benefit over the other two. Then, I will put on an 8" twist .30 caliber barrel to tinker with the 210gr HATS at higher speed than my 300 Dakota XP-100 generates.

In short, if the 338 Edge or the .338 RUM cannot take care of it with these bullets in 265, 280 or 300 grains, a .408, .416 or 50 BMG would be in order.

This post is not meant to cover all the permutations or your possible loading questions, it is intended to reveal/expose the possibilities as to what can be accomplished if one gets motivated and goes to work and pays extremely close attention to bullet selection, powder charge, neck tension and neck cleanliness.

We measure powder to .02 grains and measure ID neck diameters to .00002" (twenty-millionths). If the neck tension is the same and the powder is the same and the tune length is correct, they go into a hole when the shooter does his/her job..... It is just a matter of having the correct tools of the trade.... Specifically, shooting stick and measuring tools.

If you (or anyone) have/has any additional questions, contact me at [email protected] or RG Henson at [email protected]. I will not be back on the site to banter/debate this subject/posting. I will return when I have another report to file so if you have a question or a comment that you expect us to answer, please use the email system.

Good shooting.

James

 

[MontanaRifleman]

...Crunching the numbers (using the most conservative BC of .900) and comparing it to known velocities for the 300 Sierra Match King out of several of the same model rifles:

The 338 RUM with your bullets travels 235 fps faster and delivers 490 ft-lbs more energy at 1000 yards with 53.09" less drop. It really makes it a forgiving factory package when long range hunting under less than desirable conditions when shots can come faster than you would like. Remember that we know the BC is always higher than .900 so the down-range performance will be more impressive.... FWIW, I prefer to use the conservative BC values to minimize/eliminate any possible consternation from the unwashed masses

James,

Would it be too difficult to provide the bullet measurements asked for? You'll have to forgive me for being a little skeptical of your claim of a .9 BC, but that's a tall order order for a 265 gr .338 bullet. Not impossible, but definitely requirng a long bullet needing a lot of twist. Did you use differential chrony velocities at extended ranges to calculate your BC?

I have a few of your 180's that are claimed to have a BC of .7 plus. They are 1.574" in length vs a 210 gr Berger VLD (BC .631) with an OAL of 1.48" which is .096" diff. The HAT is slightly longer but the VLD 30 gr heavier (about the same bearing surface) so I'm skeptical it could have a better BC than the VLD considering the weight difference and similar shape. Now I know you are a stickler for accurate reporting of BC's based on your past criticism of other bullets published BC's. So dont you think you should provide us with some background on just how you determined the BC for the HAT. I'm sure you would agree that we wouldn't want anyone to go out buy these bullets and go through the load development process just to find out that they dont have much diff in trajectory at 1K than the SMK.

So how about it.... how do you get the BC you're claiming? I'm skeptical, not saying it's not accurate but I'm definitely skeptical.

Regards,

Mark

 

[BryanLitz]

The reason James (LightVarmint) wants to address individuals via email is so that his bogus claims aren't subject to public scrutiny. For those who aren't familiar with this individual, he was on here last year boasting the same inflated claims for the same bullet. Last time he posted trajectory data for this bullet which implied a BC over 1.0. I see he's reduced the claim to .9 which is still not true for this bullet.

How do I know it's not true? Because I tested it myself. I became so frustrated with these misleading claims that I purchased 50 samples of the .338 cal 265 grain HATS bullets from a forum member (the manufacturer wouldn't sell me any). I tested these bullets using the same equipment and procedure that I used to test all of the bullets in my book, and all of Berger's BCs. The method is published in my book, and is repeatable to within +/-1%. Using that measurement procedure, I've found that the .338 caliber 265 grain HATS bullet has a measured G1 BC of .649 (average from 3000 fps to 1500 fps) and a G7 BC of .332 (valid for all speeds). That BC implies a form factor that's right in line with other bullets in it's class, and therefore, a BC that's reasonable for a bullet of that weight and caliber. The claimed BC of .9 implies a form factor that's lower than any other bullet in it's class by 30% which is impossible for a 265 grain bullet that's stable in a 1:10" twist.

I didn't do any load development to see how small I could group these bullets, but after seeing how terribly inflated the BC claims were, I concluded that these precision claims are likely bogus as well. "Averaging in the .1's with a .338 caliber factory rifle"? Who do you think you're kidding? Benchrest shooters who dedicate their lives to shooting small groups are lucky to average groups that small with dedicated custom 6PPC rifles.

Many of us try very hard to provide accurate and useful information to shooters and it's incredibly frustrating to see people intentionally misleading and undoing that work for their own benefit. My claims aren't baseless. I spent the money and time testing these bullets and the above measured BC's are what I found. Sharing these results is my contribution to this thread. In the spirit of public peer review, you (prospective HATS customers) can take in what's being said and make your decisions. The claims made for these bullets are simply unsupportable and I'm doing what I can to prevent well meaning shooters from spending their hard earned money only to be disappointed. False advertising leads to disappointed shooters and that doesn't do the shooting sports any good.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I do work for Berger bullets. My message is not intended to steer everyone away from 'all other' bullets. But when inflated and unsupportable claims are made, I'm compelled to offer my analysis.

-Bryan

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Bryan, thanks for posting the results of your tests with the HATs. Quite a difference between .649 and and .9

Lightvarmit, the next time you shoot a group of .058" with these bullets, or even the more common .1's, you should have a witness to verify such claims. And out of a factory barrel that you just screwed on... WOW! is all I can say.

 

[Buffalobob]

Thanks Brian

I was going to buy a box of the 7mm HATs and take them to Wyoming this Fall and shoot them at 2K and check drops against the Wildcat bullets. You have saved me some money and barrel life and barrel life being most important.

 

[elkregulator]

It might be important to note what generation bullets that were used for the testing.

I've been shooting gen 2 (I think he is on gen 3) - 265's out to a mile.

I know this is not lab quality testing and there are a lot of variables that might produce different results... This is what has been working for me:

MV: 3400 fps ES of 7

practice altitudes: 4500 to over 8000 feet ASL

exbal multi-bc
2500fps - .89
2300fps - .6
2000fps - .35
0fps - .25

I've shot over 100 rounds with decent results. These were fun to play with but I'm back to shooting the 300 SMK's.

Took 2 antelope with them this year at 865 and 605 yards. Here are the results:

I'm not supporting or opposing any claims – just stating my experience. As I said, I'm back to the SMK's.

 

[Chas1]

Thanks Bryan. That answered my question on .058 and .100 groups. I thought maybe I was reading it wrong...instead sounds like maybe it ain't so. I did find it odd that questions asked of Lightwarmint would only be asked off post. I also agree with MontanaRifleman. If your going to be testing product/s and making claims that are that much better than where the leading edge of technology is...then at least an independent witness is reasonable...in fact independent testing would be better. If the claims are in fact true I would think the manufacturer would welcome and independent test knowing full well the test will reveil such claims and sales would skyrocket. Isn't Lightwarmint the same individual I've seen get into it with Kirby numerous times?

 

[eddybo]

Bryan, are you sure that the BC you posted earlier in this thread is correct. I will have to open the PM you sent me last year, but it is saved on my office computer to confirm, but am pretty sure that is not the BC number you quoted me. I have a real problem remembering numbers at times, but was pretty certian you stated .86ish for the 265gr 338 hats.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Yep. Some how every time Lightvarmint post it turns into a ****ing match. He always seems to be self promoting or trying to discredit someone else. It has happened so many times now that when ever he posts people climb all over him and if he does have good info it gets lost in the smoke and fire.

Usually makes for good reading.

Steve

 

[BryanLitz]

eddybo,

The number that I had for you last year was based on computer modeling (predictions) before I'd tested the bullets. I've since tested them and found the BC's to be lower than the modeling predicted (which is most often the case).

-Bryan