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
Light Varmint, where are you?
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="Lightvarmint" data-source="post: 237541"><p>GG,</p><p></p><p>I am not inclined to jump through ridiculous hoops just to satisfy someone or even a few folks who are genuinely not interested in the outcome or the details (whether they are postive or negative). Pictures nor videos would probably not do you any good as I doubt you would believe them and you would probably claim they were false. If we had witnesses and signed statments I seriously doubt that you would believe them (you would probably claim that they were liars too) either and that is your perogative. But don't waste my time by starting a thread on a website calling me out and asking me for bullet test results and then when you get those results, claim someone is being dishonest because the test on a live deer with blood pressure present does not agree with your tests in a dry stack of phone books. </p><p></p><p>For your information, 300gr SMKs have very thin jackets and they are somewhat brittle which is significantly different than Mr Hensons bullets. They behave much different than the HATS (at least down here at 82 feet of altitude). I have not been dishonest and suggest that you seriously consider your words very closely. Even the Nosler folks took the bad news about their custom ammunition line when I (a nobody in the bullet world) did the evaluation and provided them the results earlier this year. Instead of ingnoring the facts/findings and claiming that I was a liar, they went to work and fixed the problem.... They were very appreciative of my evaluation based on the material they sent me..... </p><p></p><p>Here we are in November, you seem to have completely lost your objectivity of the subject matter and your strong opinions have put you in a position where you obviously feel the need to recoil out at the tester (me) since the outcome did not match your published predictions and expectations. It appears to me that your ego may be slightly damaged. Hopefully it is not damaged too much over a successful meat test of a new style bullet constructed by Mr RG Henson of Cartersville Georgia (bullett33@hotmail.com).</p><p></p><p>If you don't like the test results, then that is fine but it does not change them...... More results will be posted when they occur. Since this is YOUR thread, I will post them on a different thread since you are obviously not genuinely interested in anything but a negative finding and arguing from a point of significant disadvantage. </p><p></p><p>I really wonder if you would have questioned my integrity and the validity of the test results if the bullets had failed and I had subsequently reported that they failed and did not work? Man, I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it.</p><p></p><p>You asked for the results and you got them......... Too bad you don't have it in you to accept the very results you asked me to provide even if they were positive and proved that the bullets expand well in muscle tissue and penetrate well after expansion. The higher BC non-bonded HAT bullet wound channel very closely resembled (in size and geometry) the wound channels that I have witnessed from lower BC Accubond bullets on animals shot at similar distances and shot aspects.</p><p></p><p>Maybe you just don't want to pay Mr Tilley the Benjamins............</p><p></p><p>Hopefully, I will get out to the upcoming Cactus BR match and we can do some shootin. Have a nice day. </p><p></p><p>Lightvarmint</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lightvarmint, post: 237541"] GG, I am not inclined to jump through ridiculous hoops just to satisfy someone or even a few folks who are genuinely not interested in the outcome or the details (whether they are postive or negative). Pictures nor videos would probably not do you any good as I doubt you would believe them and you would probably claim they were false. If we had witnesses and signed statments I seriously doubt that you would believe them (you would probably claim that they were liars too) either and that is your perogative. But don't waste my time by starting a thread on a website calling me out and asking me for bullet test results and then when you get those results, claim someone is being dishonest because the test on a live deer with blood pressure present does not agree with your tests in a dry stack of phone books. For your information, 300gr SMKs have very thin jackets and they are somewhat brittle which is significantly different than Mr Hensons bullets. They behave much different than the HATS (at least down here at 82 feet of altitude). I have not been dishonest and suggest that you seriously consider your words very closely. Even the Nosler folks took the bad news about their custom ammunition line when I (a nobody in the bullet world) did the evaluation and provided them the results earlier this year. Instead of ingnoring the facts/findings and claiming that I was a liar, they went to work and fixed the problem.... They were very appreciative of my evaluation based on the material they sent me..... Here we are in November, you seem to have completely lost your objectivity of the subject matter and your strong opinions have put you in a position where you obviously feel the need to recoil out at the tester (me) since the outcome did not match your published predictions and expectations. It appears to me that your ego may be slightly damaged. Hopefully it is not damaged too much over a successful meat test of a new style bullet constructed by Mr RG Henson of Cartersville Georgia (bullett33@hotmail.com). If you don't like the test results, then that is fine but it does not change them...... More results will be posted when they occur. Since this is YOUR thread, I will post them on a different thread since you are obviously not genuinely interested in anything but a negative finding and arguing from a point of significant disadvantage. I really wonder if you would have questioned my integrity and the validity of the test results if the bullets had failed and I had subsequently reported that they failed and did not work? Man, I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. You asked for the results and you got them......... Too bad you don't have it in you to accept the very results you asked me to provide even if they were positive and proved that the bullets expand well in muscle tissue and penetrate well after expansion. The higher BC non-bonded HAT bullet wound channel very closely resembled (in size and geometry) the wound channels that I have witnessed from lower BC Accubond bullets on animals shot at similar distances and shot aspects. Maybe you just don't want to pay Mr Tilley the Benjamins............ Hopefully, I will get out to the upcoming Cactus BR match and we can do some shootin. Have a nice day. Lightvarmint [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Light Varmint, where are you?
Top