Least fussy mono-metal bullet?

FEENIX

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
18,212
Location
Great Falls, MT
My response was only to point out the comparison of two bullets with the same charge would result in a much lower vel for the bullet that has much lower engraving pressure. Low pressure equals low vel.
Steve,

I appreciate your response esp. the 400Y and higher BC comment, and I fully understand the concept that low pressure means low velocity. However, as previously noted, others are experiencing the same with Cayugas; see #27 and #42. @xsn10s provided the best response in my unbiased and honest opinion in #69. Let me reiterate, this thread or my responses was never about one monolithic bullet versus another.
 

HuntnPack

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
834
Location
The Wilderness
Op,
In regards to your Original question:
"Less Fussy"
Not sure if your query is limited
Only to load development, accuracy & velocity, or a wider range of overall bullet performance characteristics.

In regards to "Choice of Less Fussy Bullet"
I typically choose my particular bullet choice based on several factors that may vary for intended use.

A few items I consider for hunting use (species & distance) are:

1)Terminal Performance Design.
2)Ballistic Efficiency & Accuracy
3)Bullet construction
4)Bullet weight & manufacturing tolerances, consistency
5)Bullet design,
Ease of loading / tuning
6)availability

Currently I'm working on a couple offerings from Hammer. I chose Hammers as they "Best" fit my current desired use criteria.

Recently worked up a fireforming load for my 6.5 MAX with the 123 Absolute's after researching data & utilizing information from users on this forum. Great Hammer Bullet thread sources here.

After brass prep I Loaded up 50 pcs of brass with 64gr. Re-26, Fed 210, Seated to desired depth & crimped the bullet.
Easy Right?

Initial 20 used for barrel break in & fireforming shot Excellent. New rifle setup, bore sighted, 1st shot at 50 impacted within 1/2" of center, 😀.
Took it right out to 200, couple clicks, shot the next 19 in a break in sequence & all grouped nicely.
😀
Shot a few at rocks at various distances, 350-500 yds. all shot extremely accurate.

Pretty much Zero Fuss !!
No seating depth or powder charge change.

In a subsequent 100 yd.range session I shot the remaining 25 pcs of brass to form with the same load.

First target
Shot 1 to foul & then 11 more into a nice group. 😀Ran a patch thru bore to check for fouling & copper & only had powder residue, No Copper.😀

Second target
Shot 1 more fowler & then 12
more into a nice group. 😀
Again "No Fuss".

All 50 shot Very Consistently
Even tho I was only focused on New barrel & Fireforming brass.

Next I'll load up the formed brass with the 110 Hammer Hunter to see how they do. Decided to try a lighter weight bullet in the 20" suppressed barrel with a faster burn rate powder. I'll do a complete load work up with these.
I have no doubt they will perform well.

My initial impressions with the Hammer Bullet in regards to being "Less Fussy" is Positive.

I may give the 122 Cayuga a try after that if I get more positive terminal performance information
With their design. I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the "Designed To Tumble"
theory & the recommendation to shoot for bone to initiate expansion of the harder material.
I would maybe use them in a more specific application.

Not sure I'll try any of the tipped versions at this time tho as
I'm not sure there is an advantage to a tip to initiate expansion in a mono without inconsistency's or failure.
Based on my prior experience.

My impression on the monos is not all were, or are being designed & built with the same initial performance goal. This is evident in the fact that some perform better than others in certain situations.

Some seem designed & built with emphasis on ballistic performance First and terminal performance second.

Others designed & built with emphasis on terminal performance First
and ballistic performance second.

I'm comfortable with the Design, Quality, Performance & manufacturing process of the Hammer product, especially the terminal performance approach
of Hammer Design, & continued
Process improvement.

Hopefully manufacturers can improve design Even thru different approaches to deliver A Better Bullet.

I don't think there is or will be a do it all perfect bullet.
All come with trade offs,
Design, Materials, Quality.
Some good ones …Yes
And Definitely some Great ones for Specific applications.

Good Luck on your "Less Fussy"Quest. 😉
 
Last edited:

Hard rock

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Messages
806
Location
Tomball Texas 77377
Op,
In regards to your Original question:
"Less Fussy"
Not sure if your query is limited
Only to load development, accuracy & velocity, or a wider range of overall bullet performance characteristics.

In regards to "Choice of Less Fussy Bullet"
I typically choose my particular bullet choice based on several factors that may vary for intended use.

A few items I consider for hunting use (species & distance) are:

1)Terminal Performance Design.
2)Ballistic Efficiency & Accuracy
3)Bullet construction
4)Bullet weight & manufacturing tolerances, consistency
5)Bullet design,
Ease of loading / tuning
6)availability

Currently I'm working on a couple offerings from Hammer. I chose Hammers as they "Best" fit my current desired use criteria.

Recently worked up a fireforming load for my 6.5 MAX with the 123 Absolute's after researching data & utilizing information from users on this forum. Great Hammer Bullet thread sources here.

After brass prep I Loaded up 50 pcs of brass with 64gr. Re-26, Fed 210, Seated to desired depth & crimped the bullet.
Easy Right?

Initial 20 used for barrel break in & fireforming shot Excellent. New rifle setup, bore sighted, 1st shot at 50 impacted within 1/2" of center, 😀.
Took it right out to 200, couple clicks, shot the next 19 in a break in sequence & all grouped nicely.
😀
Shot a few at rocks at various distances, 350-500 yds. all shot extremely accurate.

Pretty much Zero Fuss !!
No seating depth or powder charge change.

In a subsequent 100 yd.range session I shot the remaining 25 pcs of brass to form with the same load.

First target
Shot 1 to foul & then 11 more into a nice group. 😀Ran a patch thru bore to check for fouling & copper & only had powder residue, No Copper.😀

Second target
Shot 1 more fowler & then 12
more into a nice group. 😀
Again "No Fuss".

All 50 shot Very Consistently
Even tho I was only focused on New barrel & Fireforming brass.

Next I'll load up the formed brass with the 110 Hammer Hunter to see how they do. Decided to try a lighter weight bullet in the 20" suppressed barrel with a faster burn rate powder. I'll do a complete load work up with these.
I have no doubt they will perform well.

My initial impressions with the Hammer Bullet in regards to being "Less Fussy" is Positive.

I may give the 122 Cayuga a try after that if I get more positive terminal performance information
With their design. I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the "Designed To Tumble"
theory & the recommendation to shoot for bone to initiate expansion of the harder material.
I would maybe use them in a more specific application.

Not sure I'll try any of the tipped versions at this time tho as
I'm not sure there is an advantage to a tip to initiate expansion without inconsistency's or failure.
Based on my prior experience.

My impression on the monos is not all were or are being designed & built with the same initial performance goal. This is evident in the fact that some perform better than others in certain situations.

Some seem designed & built with emphasis on ballistic performance First and terminal performance second.

Others designed & built with emphasis on terminal performance First
and ballistic performance second.

I'm comfortable with the Design, Quality, Performance & manufacturing process of the Hammer product, especially the terminal performance approach
of Hammer Design, & continued
Process improvement.

Hopefully manufacturers can improve design Even thru different approaches to deliver A Better Bullet.

I don't think there is or will be a do it all perfect bullet.
All come with trade offs,
Design, Materials, Quality.
Some good ones …Yes
And Definitely some Great ones for Specific applications.

Good Luck on your "Less Fussy"Quest. 😉
You said it all x2
 

Northkill

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2019
Messages
835
Location
PA
Brad,

Below is an excerpt from an e-mail I got from Barnes ...

Thank you for shooting Barnes Bullets. First off, Barnes is made of 100 percent copper and Hammer is a gilding metal bullet. Gilding metal has zinc in the copper. So a Barnes Bullet is actually softer. The expansion has to do with what velocity we want the bullet to expand at. Some bullets we have designed for extreme low velocity expansion and others are more around the traditional 1800 fps; some even higher. It depends on the cartridge or application it is intended for.

The above query response is not intended to start any company wars, but I went directly to the source to get the answer to your query.
This isn't the first time Barnes misled folks to their advantage. 🤔 They did that to Berger too.
 

FEENIX

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
18,212
Location
Great Falls, MT
This isn't the first time Barnes misled folks to their advantage. 🤔
S

ShoNuff
That is why I did not have any problem sending the correction immediately. Perhaps to alleviate misinformation, a simple rewording is necessary. It might not work for Barnes, but at least those navigating the Hammer Bullet website will know the correct information, just as Steve noted in #147 - just my 2-pence to ponder.

"Hammer Bullets are custom turned on a CNC lathe, using only the highest-quality 100% solid copper (not gilding metal) appropriate for the desired result".
 

nugentfan

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
16
Totoro I assume that you are in California as I am and thus looking into unleaded projectiles?

For me I have tried to load Barnes for 25+ years with mostly unsatisfactory results. Either my lead loading routine didn't transfer to Barnes or there was a missing a puzzle piece? Don't know but I only got desired results from two rifles, one of which on game performance forced me to look further.
Somewhere I read about Hammer bullets and talked to the owner who recommended a 6.5 110 for my .260. With very few sent projectiles I had a more accurate load than my very best with dozens of Barnes down the tube. Deer do not like it at all! Fast kills with almost no meat damage which is hugely important to me.
I recently used 5 bullets to get a sighted in load for a .220 Swift, again very fast and sub moa. .300 WSM took about 20 bullets to get to zero on paper because the powder that should have been the one wasn't making expected velocity. Changed powder and another tight group. Pretty much just loading to mag depth because changing lengths doesn't seem to matter, for me at least. Working on changing a couple other rifles over from lead and expect an easy time with them as well.
For my purposes Hammer bullets have been a great solution, quick load development and great on game performance. Now I am not a long range shooter so BC isn't real important, yes I know this is a long range forum but some really good info learned here. Some have reported that at long range Hammer BC may be lacking not an issue for me. Your mileage may vary.

This summer I sold about 20 boxes, some partials, of my no longer needed Barnes bullets on Gunbroker auctions. I was very surprised by the winning bids. Looks like they have been hard to come by and whoever posted that they are reasonable maybe were maybe are again. Most sold for more than what the replacement in stock Hammers cost me.

If you decide to try some Hammer's call Steve Davis at Hammer and he will steer you in the right direction. Have a pencil and paper handy because he will give you a bunch of info you will want to remember. Butterbean is someone who I would also say can help out immensely, fact is I need to pick his brain for some insight.
 
Last edited:

FEENIX

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
18,212
Location
Great Falls, MT
I’m not sure it’s Steve’s responsibility to clarify someone’s false or misleading information, rather those who misled
or initiated misinformation.

No need to clarify the website description.
Pretty straightforward as is.
So be it then, you are right; it should not be my concern either. I apologize for even suggesting to enhance clarity, help in damage control, or for even caring - moving on.
 
Last edited:

Northkill

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2019
Messages
835
Location
PA
So be it then, you are right; it should not be my concern either. I apologize for even suggesting to enhance clarity, help in damage control, or for even caring - moving on.
C'mon man. It's Thanksgiving... 🦃
 
Top