Henson Aluminum tipped bullets test

[royinidaho]

To chime in again. I think that bullet spin is an important factor.

I've also "heard" that the bullet quits spinning after only a little penetration. I have no personal knowledge of this.

I felt uncomfortable with the reduced loads I used with the NABs but couldn't argue with the results.

Keep testin' fellas. Let's slay some game with things and see how it goes.

 

[goodgrouper]

Not that it makes much difference here, but my twist is actually 9.25".

ANd I restate this:

The bullets hit point on.
The bullets grouped quite well.
ALL bullets yaw and the longer they are, the longer it takes them to dampen. ANd the 300 SMK isn't exactly a short bullet.
If you think RPM's are what opens a bullet, consider this: RPM's at 1900 fps near the muzzle are going to calculate the same as the RPM's at 1500 yards if the residual velo is 1900 fps. EIther way you want to look at it, this impact velocity and/or RPM level proved unsatisfactory for terminal ballistics on this bullet. That point cannot be argued.

I pesonally want a bullet that doesn't rely on RPM's to open the bullet up as NO CALIBER has a high RPM or high impact velocity at the ranges I HUNT. PERIOD.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

If you check out the Barnes site, they have a video of a TSX penetrating a 6"x 6"x 16" block of gelatin. There doesn't apear to be any noticable reduction of spinning.

 

[goodgrouper]

I'm tired of hashing out this test. If the manufacturer has tested these bullets and found them satisfactory and having differing results than mine, I SAY LETS SEE 'EM. I want evidence! I wasn't going to push for this but since it seems prudent we have them to prove how I don't know a **** thing, then I respectfully request we see them. OTherwise, get off the pot. Thank you.

PS I hate to get ****y, but I think the request is fair! I showed you mine, now show me yours. The burden of proof is in your hands now.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

GG, sorry you feel that way. I for one am learning a lot in this thread. A lot of good info is coming out. As for me, I really am not *taking sides*. I greatly appreciate the effort you made in your test and it showed some interestiong results. I have found that there are a lot of variables in the shooting world. Hashing things out gets info out in the open and hopefully everyone can keep their cool. I figure you think you are being second guessed and in fact you are, but I dont think on a personal level. Any researcher that publishes his results is going to get scrutinized and rightfully so.

This isn't the end of the HAT story. More experiences and field results will come out and it's quite possible that you have provided the manufacturer with some valuble information.

Thanks for all your effort.

Mark

 

[goodgrouper]

GG, sorry you feel that way. I for one am learning a lot in this thread. A lot of good info is coming out. As for me, I really am not *taking sides*. I greatly appreciate the effort you made in your test and it showed some interestiong results. I have found that there are a lot of variables in the shooting world. Hashing things out gets info out in the open and hopefully everyone can keep their cool. I figure you think you are being second guessed and in fact you are, but I dont think on a personal level. Any researcher that publishes his results is going to get scrutinized and rightfully so.

This isn't the end of the HAT story. More experiences and field results will come out and it's quite possible that you have provided the manufacturer with some valuble information.

Thanks for all your effort.

Mark

Mark,
I appreciate your kind words. Please understand that I'm not upset. I simply have been told how bad I did something by people who have yet to produce any evidnence or proof themselves and it's getting old. If my test wasn't good enough for them, too bad. I say it's good enough for me. If they don't like it, DO YOUR OWN! PROVE ME WRONG INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING I'm wrong!

I've been shooting long range long enough to know that if this bullet slips into the heart/lung area of a little bitty deer at 1500 yards, that deer isn't going to hardly know it regardless of RPM's, impact velocity, jacket shredding, phases of the moon, bad horoscopes or anything else you want to throw in there. I brought this test to light to HELP someone correct a problem before it grows into a monster and that is all. It is their move to act on it as they will. NUff said.

 

[tillroot1]

Mark,
I appreciate your kind words. Please understand that I'm not upset. I simply have been told how bad I did something by people who have yet to produce any evidnence or proof themselves and it's getting old. If my test wasn't good enough for them, too bad. I say it's good enough for me. If they don't like it, DO YOUR OWN! PROVE ME WRONG INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING I'm wrong!

I've been shooting long range long enough to know that if this bullet slips into the heart/lung area of a little bitty deer at 1500 yards, that deer isn't going to hardly know it regardless of RPM's, impact velocity, jacket shredding, phases of the moon, bad horoscopes or anything else you want to throw in there. I brought this test to light to HELP someone correct a problem before it grows into a monster and that is all. It is their move to act on it as they will. NUff said.

goodgrouper, you did alot of work here and shed to light important behavior of long range bullet performance. I have kept up on all of the henson bullet threads here and on snipershide as well, purchasing a box of the 280 grainers and the 265 grainers, here is where I first saw them and I asked about anyone using them on snipershide as well, light varmint on this forum is master chief on the snipershide forum instantly chimed in stating that all had been discussed on this forum and there was no need to re hash on that forum what had been put here. I felt differently so I persisted with the thread. The 280 grain bullets did not work out for me, due to my own fault, and I have not been able to try the 265 grainers. In my opinion you will not get satisfactory answers from light varmint, he is like talking to a lawyer. Thank you for sharing your tests here and the pictures that you included. Ron Tilley

 

[blygy]

GG.. **** on them all.. you keep up the good work man.. results like these are what we the soon to be purchasing ******* want to hear.. we can't all afford to test these things and if some info comes from you sacraficing your barrel then it is info.. and people can take from it what they will...

I for one would love to test a 6.5 version of this bullet but i don't think that is in the near future...... esp for me as shipping bullets from the USA to Canada has become all but impossible thanks to BATF..

Thanks to you for having the balls to test something and post the HONEST results...manufacturers tend to be biased.. now I'm not saying that is the case but.....
keep up the good work...

 

[jwp475]

gg, has a base line of bullets of known ability to compare in his test, thus their is a relevance IMHO

 

[Fiftydriver]

I am not sure what jackets I had in the prototype Wildcat bullets I tested. If Richard told me, and he probably did, I have forgotten it. I know they were not J-4 and I know they were not Sierra or Sauter.

For some reason I am thinking that he made some on some old Hornady 358 cal jackets that he reduced and then tipped but if I remember correctly those were the 250 gr AT RBBTs.

I do know that the jackets on the prototype bullets I tested for accuracy, ballistic performance and in game in the field had a VERY heavy jacket that tapered at the nose. We were in fact worried there would not be enough expansion but with the huge AL tip in these bullets and the much more aggressive ogive, we also worried about them blowing up.

Accuracy for the 265 gr AT RBBTs was great, as good as any of the test rifles had shot to that point so at least as good as the SMK. I tested these bullets for BC figured from bullet drop at two different velocity ranges, 2975 fps muzzle velocity(338 AX) and 3450 fps muzzle velocity(338 AM).

Out of the 338 AX, the slower of the two, the bullet drop was measured from the muzzle and measurements were figured at 300, 500, 700 and 1000 yards. From these bullet drop figures, the BC came out to 0.970 to get the predicted drop chart to match up with actual drop numbers using known muzzle velocity and envior. specs.

In the much faster 338 AM, I measured drop at 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 and even 3000 yards.

For the 338 AM, for ranges under 1000 yards the BC from bullet drop came in at around 0.91, significantly lower then the much slower 338 AX over for some reason I have not totally figured out yet.

At longer ranges, A BC of 0.89 was needed to get the bullets actual trajectory to match up to Exbal predictions. Why? Not sure but I believe it has something to do with spinning the bullet faster then it needed to be, WAY Faster!!!

I have not tested but my theory is that had I used a 1-11 twist the BC would have been higher in the big 338 AM.

As far as penetration, I did not get as scientific as GG. I just shot them into some milk jugs at long range and expansion was dramatic. I never recovered a fired AT RBBT but they broke the same number of water filled milk jugs as the 300 gr SMK on average so I figured they would work.

In the 338 AX, I was afraid they would pencil with no expansion at longer ranges, in the 338 AM I was afraid they would explose at close ranges. So for testing, things worked out pretty well.

First test was the 338 AX, muzzle velocity of 2950 fps. On a clean broadside shot on a 1100 lb bull elk at 607 yards, the bullet fully penetrated and left a 2" exit wound on the off side after hitting only rib on both sides. Bull fell before I could get another shot into him.

On the 338 AM, planted a 265 gr AT RBBT on the hind quarter of a bedded down pronghorn at 1300 yards. He was quatering away from us at nearly a 45 degree angle, thats why the impact was so far back. The bullet penetrated up and exited just hehind the offside shoulder. Exit wound was pretty large, around 5-6", obvious expanions.

Both penetrated VERY straight through the target, both penetrated at least 20".

Other then that, do not have much more to offer. I will not say they expanded any more rapidly then the 300 gr SMK or any more consistantly because I only put two bullets on game but they did seem to be very consistant on impact as far as what they did on target.

Moot point if Richard can not get Jackets!!! But this is what I know on the subject.

 

[Roll-Yur-Own]

I am not sure what jackets I had in the prototype Wildcat bullets I tested. If Richard told me, and he probably did, I have forgotten it. I know they were not J-4 and I know they were not Sierra or Sauter.

For some reason I am thinking that he made some on some old Hornady 358 cal jackets that he reduced and then tipped but if I remember correctly those were the 250 gr AT RBBTs.

Kirby, didn't he try to use the Sierra intitally and then went to the Hairfield because Sierra wouldn't sell to him? I know Bob Cauterucio uses Sierra jackets that are one caliber bigger and draws them down but those hairfield jackets are much thicker.

The wildcat bullets I have expand perfectly, but they are not the AT. I was wondering how the aluminum tipped wildcats worked. Since you 're saying they work well perhaps the two designs should be compared. Obviously the Henson bullets have some sort of design flaw if Richard's expand and Henson's do not.

Designing a bullet for proper expansion is not my strong suit, but I was under the impression that the tips helped the expansion.

 

[goodgrouper]

Ron Tilly and Blygy,

A sincere thank you.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Going back and looking at the pictures of the HATs, I wonder if the structure of the bullet failed first in the body instead of at the tip (normal bullet opening) before it started to tumble? Not sure of spin or the media would have an affect on this or not?

Just a thought...

 

[goodgrouper]

This was a pm from lightvarmint today. I share it with everyone on this site because I'm sick of typing everything twice--once on the thread and once to lightvarmint. Also, as one poster already pointed out, LV seems to be taking on the "lawyer" approach both here and on another forum so I thought everyone interested in this thread should SEE who they are dealing with.

When I asked him for his proof of testing, this is what I got.

Talking about the bulletsmith's test of aluminum tips:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[/quote]

I don't believe them because I have never seen them or heard of them. Let's be fair now! I would think that a thread like what I started would be the opportune time to let everyone see your contradictory tests? Still no evidence has been seen other than mine and Dave Wilsons. It might be a good thing to use right now.[/quote]


GG,

Let's be honest here. Based on what I here you say and the way you say it, you are not going to believe anything unless you see it or do it yourself.... Correct? And, that is fine........ Currently a free country. However, if you are genuinely interested in these projectiles, you ought to do like the rest of us do with all the other bullet companies and order some and do your own proof tests to satisfy your skeptism. I can tell you for a fact that RG Henson is not sending you any free ones to test. If you want to test some, then you are going to have to pony up and buy some. On another note and as I have said and posted before, the bulletsmith conducted some initial expansion testing out of both a 338 RUM and a 338 JDJ at normal velocities for the associated firearm. Since he got satisfactory results that were conducive to proceeding on with the investment of jackects, lead, tips and not to mention his time, he proceded to start making some prototypes and then the prototypes were tested and then the bullet runs were started. He did not just buy a set of dies and start making bullets. He has been in the bullet business for over 20 years.... Hardly a novice.

Here is an idea....... Since Richard Graves cannot get any jackets in Canada to make his Aluminum tipped bullets, you might try to pick up his dies and give making these aluminum tipped bullets a whirl. It is much different than making the benchrest bullets you shoot in matches. Anyway, when and if you do, send me some and I will do some diagnostic testing under consitent controlled conditions and provide you the negative feedback on my testing.

James
__________________
Even a poor shot as myself can have moments of glory with good equipment, good components and a seven-foot drop tube.



Ok, here is my response LV.
You ask: if you are genuinely interested in these projectiles, you ought to do like the rest of us do with all the other bullet companies and order some and do your own proof tests to satisfy your skeptism?

That's strange, I thought that is what I did. I'm pretty sure I ran a test last weekend on these bullets unless I'm imagining the whole thing.

Then you say: Based on what I here you say and the way you say it, you are not going to believe anything unless you see it or do it yourself.... Correct?

Well, I thought that was obvious (not to mention my responsibility). I have seen too many "picture perfect" advertising department's campaigns let the public down enough to ever trust heresay.

Then you say: I can tell you for a fact that RG Henson is not sending you any free ones to test. If you want to test some, then you are going to have to pony up and buy some.

Fine with me. I never asked for freebies. I told Henson I would test his bullets for him and he sent me some free. I then told you I would do another test at higher speeds if he wanted to send me some more "test" bullets. Now his spokesperson (that being you) has apparently cut me off. Well, that's fine. I'll just wait for the Bergers to come out. I don't mind buying bullets that WORK.



Then you say: On another note and as I have said and posted before, the bulletsmith conducted some initial expansion testing out of both a 338 RUM and a 338 JDJ at normal velocities for the associated firearm. Since he got satisfactory results that were conducive to proceeding on with the investment of jackects, lead, tips and not to mention his time, he proceded to start making some prototypes and then the prototypes were tested and then the bullet runs were started.

Again, here is mention of testing that we are apparently not allowed to see. You are acting like the Warren commission. If these tests are real, why not show them to us? Why just keep saying they exist but offer no proof either to me or to the jury? And then you slam me for doing my own tests? Is this how your friend's company is run or is it just your own bad business conduct?


Then you say: Here is an idea....... Since Richard Graves cannot get any jackets in Canada to make his Aluminum tipped bullets, you might try to pick up his dies and give making these aluminum tipped bullets a whirl. It is much different than making the benchrest bullets you shoot in matches. Anyway, when and if you do, send me some and I will do some diagnostic testing under consitent controlled conditions and provide you the negative feedback on my testing.

This is just childish. Hypothesize an abstract and impractical suggestion so you can return the favor of a bad review to me? Well, that just takes the cake. One thing is for sure, if I did make some bullets for long range, and someone found a flaw with them, I sure as hell would be GRATEFUL to them and use it to my advantage to fix the bullets before I sold them as something they weren't. I certainly wouldn't have a second party spokesperson debate the usefullness of the test publicly on a forum! Of that I am CERTAIN!

The bottom line is this: The more you open your mouth and shove your foot in, the more you are damaging the reputation and business of Mr Henson. People are starting to get the idea that this is a bad company based of the spokesperson's (that being you) bad behavior. If Mr Henson objects to any of this or cares about what is going on, I would suggest he get on here and tell us what he thinks because at this point, I'm tired of dealing with the b.s. and I think he has the right to set things straight on his own.

Good day to you.