Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Least fussy mono-metal bullet?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Northkill" data-source="post: 2346168" data-attributes="member: 110890"><p>Morning bud. It's hard not to feel your negative bias coming through. Why not wait till after your trials to chime in? Your push-back against "unsubstantiated claims" leads to indirect "unsubstantiated claims" on the inverse.</p><p></p><p>I have Barnes, Hammers, Badlands, and more recently some Cayuga's to try. There is no bias in my bones. I'm a nut when it comes to perfection and I'm always chasing improvement. I love the BC's of the Badlands, but it is abundantly clear to me that they do not run close to the Hammers in speed with all things considered. They have also been a lot more work to find a tight-shooting load. The best I've gotten so far with multiple rifles, calibers, and weights is 0.64 MOA. This is not good enough for me and basically cancels the value of a high BC. What I've seen with BC performance though, would make them my go-to projo - if they could just shoot tight. I need 0.3 MOA before I'm satisfied. And that is not hard to get with the Hammers in the same rifles if your willing to try another weight if one doesn't quite cut it.</p><p></p><p>Barnes have generally been ok, but nothing exceptional, and I've found not as speedy. Terminal results in my experience have been somewhat varied - likely depending on speed and target resistance. I've had plenty of very impressive terminal results with the Hammers at a wide range of speeds and impact variables. The little 52 gr .224 going 3,400 in our stock Rem 223 has blown me away with it's way out-sized performance on game as well as accuracy. Same story with the 124's running in my 6.5x284 and 6.5 Creed's. I'm going to try the Badlands on some deer in the next 3 weeks - hopefully that is. The rifle that's running them is a bit outside of normal performance range so maybe not the best test - launching the 7mm 150 BD-2's at near 3,700 fps. in front of 106 gr of RL-33, there's no question something violent is going to happen.</p><p></p><p>I got the Cayuga's a little late to get a load workup before season, so we'll wait to try those 122's in a 6.5 PRC next year, but I have high hopes they will meet expectations. I just can't honestly report anything on those as of yet.</p><p></p><p>They all have their pros and cons. No need to bash one to promote another, but my unbiased experience has been rather positive for the Hammers. I love working with the company and the old-world service they provide. If they can push the BC's up, we'll be in happy land. Just like everyone else, they are continually working on improving product and design, so we'll see.</p><p></p><p>But please do your test and let us know what happens. But honestly, with so many variables to consider, your expressed bias so far will have a bearing on our confidence in the results. Running the exact same components isn't necessarily a fair test with bullets of different design characteristics. I'm sure broader feedback will be forthcoming over time.</p><p></p><p>To the OP, if most of your game is taken at 600 yd and in (maybe further depending on your projo & speed), I can almost guarantee you'll be delighted with the Hammers. They will typically cost you less to find a load and will give you terminal results to take to the bank - or freezer rather. If you like trying things and don't mind exploring for full potential, buy samples of all of them and keep what works best for your rifle, your needs, and your expectations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Northkill, post: 2346168, member: 110890"] Morning bud. It's hard not to feel your negative bias coming through. Why not wait till after your trials to chime in? Your push-back against "unsubstantiated claims" leads to indirect "unsubstantiated claims" on the inverse. I have Barnes, Hammers, Badlands, and more recently some Cayuga's to try. There is no bias in my bones. I'm a nut when it comes to perfection and I'm always chasing improvement. I love the BC's of the Badlands, but it is abundantly clear to me that they do not run close to the Hammers in speed with all things considered. They have also been a lot more work to find a tight-shooting load. The best I've gotten so far with multiple rifles, calibers, and weights is 0.64 MOA. This is not good enough for me and basically cancels the value of a high BC. What I've seen with BC performance though, would make them my go-to projo - if they could just shoot tight. I need 0.3 MOA before I'm satisfied. And that is not hard to get with the Hammers in the same rifles if your willing to try another weight if one doesn't quite cut it. Barnes have generally been ok, but nothing exceptional, and I've found not as speedy. Terminal results in my experience have been somewhat varied - likely depending on speed and target resistance. I've had plenty of very impressive terminal results with the Hammers at a wide range of speeds and impact variables. The little 52 gr .224 going 3,400 in our stock Rem 223 has blown me away with it's way out-sized performance on game as well as accuracy. Same story with the 124's running in my 6.5x284 and 6.5 Creed's. I'm going to try the Badlands on some deer in the next 3 weeks - hopefully that is. The rifle that's running them is a bit outside of normal performance range so maybe not the best test - launching the 7mm 150 BD-2's at near 3,700 fps. in front of 106 gr of RL-33, there's no question something violent is going to happen. I got the Cayuga's a little late to get a load workup before season, so we'll wait to try those 122's in a 6.5 PRC next year, but I have high hopes they will meet expectations. I just can't honestly report anything on those as of yet. They all have their pros and cons. No need to bash one to promote another, but my unbiased experience has been rather positive for the Hammers. I love working with the company and the old-world service they provide. If they can push the BC's up, we'll be in happy land. Just like everyone else, they are continually working on improving product and design, so we'll see. But please do your test and let us know what happens. But honestly, with so many variables to consider, your expressed bias so far will have a bearing on our confidence in the results. Running the exact same components isn't necessarily a fair test with bullets of different design characteristics. I'm sure broader feedback will be forthcoming over time. To the OP, if most of your game is taken at 600 yd and in (maybe further depending on your projo & speed), I can almost guarantee you'll be delighted with the Hammers. They will typically cost you less to find a load and will give you terminal results to take to the bank - or freezer rather. If you like trying things and don't mind exploring for full potential, buy samples of all of them and keep what works best for your rifle, your needs, and your expectations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Least fussy mono-metal bullet?
Top