(HAT) Henson Aluminum Tipped Bullet 338 Rum Test

[GREYGHOSTt]

Just curious if the guarantee includes that you will get The Same Drops as reported by LV ?
If it does, then I would agree that they would probably be worth a try!

edge.

Yes it does we didn't spend months and months testing and countless dollars just to post ficticious bc's .
Lotts of (blood mostly mine)( sweat mostly LV's)(my shop has ac) and (tears mostly mine when u break something a punch or die )(and a few not nice words all mine ) went into developing these things and countless hours of loading technique to get the results we do.
Not to mention hours on the range and hunting for expansion tests..
Making these tri metal bullets was a great challange then finding out what makes them fly the best was next.ie the loading guide.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Len,

First I want to say that some of the things said on this site about your business motivation where very unfortunate to be aired publicly. If any member had any concern he should have gone to you in private. I for one think this is a great site and I have learned almost everything I know about LR, and much about guns and shooting in general here and continue to learn.

Back to the subject. LV made some pretty tall claims in the opening post and I asked him a simple question...

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

I was ignored, so I pursued him a little hotter. I beleive his claims were greatly exagerated and amounted to false advertising. and as far as I'm concerned he represents, or at least used to represent HAT bullets. LV went after another bullet maker (who is not a sponser here) mercilessly in more than one thread on the same subject of BC. So IMO, he shouldn't be surprised to get some tough scrutiny.

Also IMO, when LV talks about bullets it's the same as GG talking. He represented HAT's here. So any claim that that LV made, GG approved and if he didn't he should have said so.

BC is everything in the LR world and if you make claims that your bullet has a higher BC and will go faster than another bullet it gets a lot of attention and people buy them. As far as I'm concerned, the money back guarantee is meaningless. If someone buys 50-100 bullets for load development, how many are going to be left over to send back? And then there's all the time, effort and resource spent chasing a wild goose not to mention barrel life which is precious on some of the higher caliber custum rifles that go for $3000 or more.

Anyone who makes claims in these forums should stand up to the scrutiny. Everyone feels the heat in here and that's good because it keeps us honest. Kirby, Shawn, Nate, Paul (Wildcat Bullets) and a lot of others feel the heat. Sometimes it excessive but that is usually seen for what it is.

In these forums, where BC is everything, if someone is going to make claim about BC they should provide some data or get some testing done.

-Mark

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Yes it does we didn't spend months and months testing and countless dollars just to post ficticious bc's .

Can you provide the data for this testing?

 

[elkaholic]

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

Thanks Bryan! I had some very serious doubts when I read these claims so I'm glad that you took the time to check it out. Would you be interested in checking a few of mine for grins? ........Rich

 

[Buffalobob]

Mr Henson, if you get your 7mm HATs ready for sale by June then that will give me enough time to get them tested for max load in my rifle and then I will take some to Wyoming with me and shot them at a mile or more. I probably have the fastest 7AM on the forum and can spin the Wildcat bullets into vapors before top end is reached.

I do not need a money back guarantee. I have dozens of partial boxes of bullets that I only tested 5-10 and found them unsuitable for me.

I also have an 8 twist 257 Wby if you should have some of those ready for sale. That rifle is not really very accurate being as it is a falling block but I manage to kill stuff at 1K with the Wildcat bullets and can run a few rounds of your bullets down the barrel also.

I do not need any BC guarantees. As Len mentioned, those of us who actually shoot at long range pretty much come to understand that a bullet lands where it lands and nobody's guarantee is going to make it land any different.

And I will acknowledge that you have done us all a good deed in attempting to make a super high BC bullet. It seems to me you have had to solve some fierce problems. Perseverance in the face of adversity is something I admire in people. I should, being as I am stubborn enough myself.

If you will simply announce in the forum when they are ready for sale, I will buy some. This is not any offer to be a tester, it is just my curiosity as to the bullets ultra long range performance.

 

[GREYGHOSTt]

Mr Henson,

If you will simply announce in the forum when they are ready for sale, I will buy some. This is not any offer to be a tester, it is just my curiosity as to the bullets ultra long range performance.

Will do thank you sir,,
rg...

 

[GREYGHOSTt]

Len,

First I want to say that some of the things said on this site about your business motivation where very unfortunate to be aired publicly. If any member had any concern he should have gone to you in private. I for one think this is a great site and I have learned almost everything I know about LR, and much about guns and shooting in general here and continue to learn.

Back to the subject. LV made some pretty tall claims in the opening post and I asked him a simple question...



I was ignored, so I pursued him a little hotter. I beleive his claims were greatly exagerated and amounted to false advertising. and as far as I'm concerned he represents, or at least used to represent HAT bullets. LV went after another bullet maker (who is not a sponser here) mercilessly in more than one thread on the same subject of BC. So IMO, he shouldn't be surprised to get some tough scrutiny.

Also IMO, when LV talks about bullets it's the same as GG talking. He represented HAT's here. So any claim that that LV made, GG approved and if he didn't he should have said so.

BC is everything in the LR world and if you make claims that your bullet has a higher BC and will go faster than another bullet it gets a lot of attention and people buy them. As far as I'm concerned, the money back guarantee is meaningless. If someone buys 50-100 bullets for load development, how many are going to be left over to send back? And then there's all the time, effort and resource spent chasing a wild goose not to mention barrel life which is precious on some of the higher caliber custum rifles that go for $3000 or more.

Anyone who makes claims in these forums should stand up to the scrutiny. Everyone feels the heat in here and that's good because it keeps us honest. Kirby, Shawn, Nate, Paul (Wildcat Bullets) and a lot of others feel the heat. Sometimes it excessive but that is usually seen for what it is.

In these forums, where BC is everything, if someone is going to make claim about BC they should provide some data or get some testing done.

-Mark

is this sufficient for ya. LV didnt respond because he has been removed from posting,,


Anyway, today we verified the 400 yard zero and then shot out to 928 on a vertical drop board. Todays results gave the same performance as the mid range testing back in December. Below is the range conditions and pertinant data. If someone could run these numbers and let us know what the results are, I would appreciate it.

338 Lapua Improved (My 1995 design with the 30 Snyper brass from Bell Labs)

1-10" twist

400 yd zero

265 gr

3245 fps at muzzle

2.13" sight height

69.6 degrees F

82% humidity

82' above sea level

29.84"Hg

calm winds... Impact points were about 1.5" to the left of the aiming point. This is well inside one click on the Nightforce 12-42 NXS scope.

At 928 yards the holes were -10.3 to -10.5 moa below the aiming point.

All the shots today were cold bore shots and they were about 10-15 minutes apart. We let the barrel cool while we went down to the target board and marked the holes. Group size was 3.5". We let the barrel cool while we went down to the target board and marked the holes.

Tomorrow the expansion tests will be performed at 928 on some phone books and newspaper I have been collecting for about 4 months.... This should not be a problem since the gun was grouping 3.5" at the 928 yard target board.
Thanks in advance for the help.

 

[royinidaho]

Greyghostt,

Great post. Now we are getting some where.

Roy

 

[roaddog1m]

Bryan,

Thanks for your posts. The folks at Berger Bullets have always been very open and transparent about any claims they have made and I appreciate all the hard work you do for our sport. I wish others in the industry were as honest and open about testing and how results were obtained.

Tom

 

[BryanLitz]

GG:

Anyway, today we verified the 400 yard zero and then shot out to 928 on a vertical drop board. Todays results gave the same performance as the mid range testing back in December.

I would like to point out that the conditions you claim for your testing today are exactly the same as the conditions that James claim existed last year when James first posted the performance data.

I documented the conditions and the claimed performance data that was reported last year in this document

82% humidity, 29.84 inHg, 69.6 degrees F. I don't know where you are, but it's about 15 degrees F where I am today. Either you're fortunate enough to do your testing in an unchanging environment (down to the .01 inHg and .1 degree) or you're recycling the old BS performance claims, or it's an incredible coincidence that every detail of the previous test was repeated today.

Len, I completely understand and agree with your position about encouraging innovation. It's unfortunate that your judgment was called into question over this. The whole nature of this conflict is unfortunate because the HATs bullets may actually be very good bullets and some will never give them a try because of these threads and that is a shame. I (and I think others) don't have a problem with the bullets, but the claims that are repeatedly made about them are simply outlandish, misleading and unsupportable and that's the only problem IMO. It's also unfair to other bullet makers who do their best to report honest values or no values at all.

-Bryan

 

[Michael Eichele]

Greyghostt,

Great post. Now we are getting some where.

Roy

+1

I am grateful LV is no longer a spokes person for HAT. I think he is why nobody will give GG a chance.

Mr Len Backus,

As most know, there is always a flip side to every story. I appreciate your candid points in showing us the other side of the coin. I have tried to stay out of most of the HAT threads with the exception to trying to alieviate some tension with some humor or jokes which in reality probably doesnt help. I have been watching these threads with an open mind and an objective stand. Most here dont question your motives or integrity and it is sad that some respected member(s) brought that up and questioned it.

To everybody else, the only way to know for sure is to try them. In reality load development is a potential crap shoot with EVERY other bullet on the market anyway. Every barrel is different. You can spend lots of dollars on MANY brands, weights and styles to find one or two your rifle really excells with. That is the cost of shooting plain and simple. You will loose barrel life and money testing ANY bullet. Also it works out best to find the real BC be it double chronies or a drop test. HAT bullets are no different in this regard than any mainstream bullets. When Sierra says the 338 300 grain has a BC of .768 and then you find it to be a bit higher or lower nobody condems them as it is 'part of the ritual' so to speak of finding precision accuracy. If you cant afford to pay then dont play. Barrel life of lack there of is part of the game. If youre that concerned about barrel life then it is time for a different caliber. Dont use that as an excuse to condem HAT as they are not responsible for your caliber choice(s). Most develop loads for their barrel burners and then leave them alone shooting only a few bullets a year to save the barrel. If you have done this and youre happy with what you have then why try something new? Wait till you have a new barrel or a rifle of a different caliber to try them or suck it up and try them. What is the worst that can happen? You burn your barrel out only to find a very inovative bullet that works well for you? He!! that is worth the cost of a new barrel right there. If they are nothing special then it is still worth it to me to know to never waste my time, money and barrel life on them again. It is kind of like the old saying "If you loan somebody $20.00 and you never see that person again, it was worth it." Nobody makes this many waves about the 177 grain 30 cal GS bullet advertised at over .620 That seems like it is too good to be true right? But when shooters here see reports of other members trying them everybody eagerly awaits the results yet the only thing anybody eagerly awaits for with HAT threads is an opprotunity to bash them. With LV's history it is easy to see why. Now that he has been silenced, lets put all the tension and BS to bed and start over with an objective un-bias view.

Personally, I am going to order some HATs and give them a try. Worst case is I learn my lesson. That said, it will be money well spent. Best case is I find a 180 grain 308 bullet with a really good BC that shoots great for me. That too will be money well spent.

M

 

[MontanaRifleman]

.....have always been very open and transparent about any claims they have made...

Tom, that's what it's all about to me... being open and transparent.

 

[GREYGHOSTt]

GG:


I would like to point out that the conditions you claim for your testing today are exactly the same as the conditions that James claim existed last year when James first posted the performance data.

I documented the conditions and the claimed performance data that was reported last year in this document

82% humidity, 29.84 inHg, 69.6 degrees F. I don't know where you are, but it's about 15 degrees F where I am today. Either you're fortunate enough to do your testing in an unchanging environment (down to the .01 inHg and .1 degree) or you're recycling the old BS performance claims, or it's an incredible coincidence that every detail of the previous test was repeated today.

Len, I completely understand and agree with your position about encouraging innovation. It's unfortunate that your judgment was called into question over this. The whole nature of this conflict is unfortunate because the HATs bullets may actually be very good bullets and some will never give them a try because of these threads and that is a shame. I (and I think others) don't have a problem with the bullets, but the claims that are repeatedly made about them are simply outlandish, misleading and unsupportable and that's the only problem IMO. It's also unfair to other bullet makers who do their best to report honest values or no values at all.

-Bryan

The real procedure is the same..
And no i still do not want to hire you for a ballistician.

YOU showed you lack of detail in your earlier post and i quote( i didnot work up a accurate load)..

Well sir a accurate load is essential for doing correct drop for bc's.
All companies that use declining velocity shoot hundreds of rounds that you didnot have..
According to you all the longrange animals that were shot with the hats using our bc's were misses.

You might want to check your equiment since Eddybo has hit his intended targets..

And on a nother note i am still not going to pay you for the modeling you did that i didnot request.

But any day you want to come out to the range and prove your verbose claims bring it on!!!!!!!!! (We put the large flat end on the HAT in the case first)

The question i thought was how we derived the bc's not the actual rum shooting conditions .

 

[MontanaRifleman]

is this sufficient for ya. LV didnt respond because he has been removed from posting,,


Anyway, today we verified the 400 yard zero and then shot out to 928 on a vertical drop board. Todays results gave the same performance as the mid range testing back in December. Below is the range conditions and pertinant data. If someone could run these numbers and let us know what the results are, I would appreciate it.

338 Lapua Improved (My 1995 design with the 30 Snyper brass from Bell Labs)

1-10" twist

400 yd zero

265 gr

3245 fps at muzzle

2.13" sight height

69.6 degrees F

82% humidity

82' above sea level

29.84"Hg

calm winds... Impact points were about 1.5" to the left of the aiming point. This is well inside one click on the Nightforce 12-42 NXS scope.

At 928 yards the holes were -10.3 to -10.5 moa below the aiming point.

All the shots today were cold bore shots and they were about 10-15 minutes apart. We let the barrel cool while we went down to the target board and marked the holes. Group size was 3.5". We let the barrel cool while we went down to the target board and marked the holes.

Tomorrow the expansion tests will be performed at 928 on some phone books and newspaper I have been collecting for about 4 months.... This should not be a problem since the gun was grouping 3.5" at the 928 yard target board.
Thanks in advance for the help.

Mr Henderson,

LV did respond to another member after I made my first inquiry with him so it appears to me that he did ignore my question before his membership was terminated. But that's past, so let's move on.

For those of you LR shooters who aren't interested in BC, you can ignore and disregard the following. It wont interest you.

Thanks for replying and providing the data but I have to be honest and say it appears to be very questionable to me. But at least you did reply. Anyway... when I ran the numbers I came up with a BC of 1.3 Maybe I did something wrong so if someone lese could check the numbers I would aprreciate it. That seems like a very high BC for that weight and shape of bullet. It also seems odd if not incredible that your enviromental data for last year is exactly the same as today. From an email I received from Huston this morning, it was in the 30's there. If you care to tell us your location, those enviromanteal conditions can be confirmed on weather.com

So sitting in my chair, and crunching the numbers you provided I come up with a 1.3 BC vs the .649 BC that Bryan litz came up with. That's a huge differenc and maybe my number crunching was off. But how is that reconiled? I have to put more weight in Bryan's findings for several reasons. First is, that his work IS well known and consistant, he has published his methods and his data for public scrutiny, and has been already mentioned, he and Berger have displayed the highest level of transparency, openess and integrity. They even did an exhaustive testing of their bullets and actually lowered their BC's, in many cases below what their competitors were claiming for same weight/cal bullet. How often do you see that in industry? So let me repeat, his method's and data are PUBLISHED for open and public scrutiny. If he says your bullets have a BC of .649, that carries a lot of weight with me. And we all know that there are a lot of things that affect BC, but I expect Bryan's finding are very close to actual.

I have nothing against you or your bullets and wish they were everything they are claimed to be because that would only be good for me as a LR shooter. But at this point I would like to see some more transparency and independent verifcation.

Thank you,

Mark