Maybe but in our opinion Ballistic Gel is in a static state and while it provides a baseline it's just not the same as on animal performance
My thoughts on solid copper bullets and in comparison to other bullet types.
- Thread starter Petey308
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I stopped worrying about energy a long time ago with pretty much any bullet. Impact velocity has been the ultimate factor between the two, as well as impact resistance from shot placement. In my experience, the amount of energy in the bullet doesn't equate to how it behaves terminally, and if it exits, it also doesn't equate to how much of that even transferred to the animal. In my experience, impact velocity and the amount of impact resistance the bullet experiences is what determines most how a bullet will behave as it goes through the animal. So I definitely agree with how you're approaching that with the Hammers.
Matching the bullet weight and BC to provide necessary impact velocity at your anticipated and desired ranges is definitely the way to go with any bullet.
As far as the petals and shanks, I'll agree there still seems to be some mystery there as far as what actually happens and most consistently. I've seen solids that shed petals. The Lehigh Defense Controlled Chaos, for example, are purposely designed to do just that. The petals will of course still travel through the body with the shank because they still have momentum too, but have less mass by themselves, so the physics tells us they'd stop before the shank. The other factor though is the displacement of fluid and tissues creating a channel. These petals can get caught up in essentially a vacuum and pulled along a bit more than they otherwise would. That could explain some of what's been seen.
So yes, speed and the rapid displacement of fluids/tissue caused from it, is ultimately what's producing the results with the Hammers.
I have also seen evidence of tumbling too though with them. I'm not sure how common this is, and it's even occurred with confirmed proper stability achieved. The tumbling seems to occur after impact. I've seen tumbling like this with many different bullets, and it's definitely violent and tends to break apart the bullet if it's not completely solid, without a core or without cavities or slots in the ogives that is. So it's stands to reason that at least with some shots with the Hammers, they're tumbling after impact and the violent nature of it is ripping off the nose/ogive and into petals but likely more slowly as it travels through, unlike being pealed back like a banana right from the start of impact if not tumbling.
Like it was mentioned by @vancewalker007 other manufacturers have had similar experiences with this type of terminal behavior and it appears changing the bullet to keep petal expansion more controlled and even, has reduced the tumbling and penciling greatly.
That said, tumbling isn't necessarily a bad terminal performance characteristic. When Eugene Stoner was designing what became the M-16, he was using a slow twist barrel and FMJ bullets to purposely make them tumble and do more damage. It was an effective way to get around not being able to use bullets specifically designed to expand. Tumbling does inflict a lot of damage and causes a lot of changing and alternating hydraulic forces through the body. Fort Scott Munitions actually makes a lot of their bullets from a solid chunk of copper or brass and they are purposely designed to tumble upon impact. My only issue with tumbling though is that it can be very unpredictable as far as exactly what the bullet will do and where it will go. They have a tendency to alter course. On the battlefield or as self defense, or if only culling animals or a trophy hunt, that might be fine, but with an animal you're hunting for meat, I personally prefer bullets that perform predictably, reliably, and consistently as much as possible.
I'm not at all making any conclusions here on what hammers do. I'm merely carrying on the conversation and offering some possibilities and topics of discussion that could factor in.
It's great to see a nice pile of recovered shanks though. Anything recovered is nice to see and examine.
Last edited:
I agree. Gel, to me, is great as a controlled media to use to compare bullets side by side to get an idea of how they differ and an idea of what you might expect, but actual results on a living creature will always be different, sometimes much different. The pumping fluids, muscle tissues (both/either contracted and relaxed), varying tissue consistencies, bones, cartilage, tendons, etc, etc all create a vast difference from gel. You can only do so much with gel.
With the right gel though, and a high speed camera, you might at least be able to get an idea of how the petals typically detach. Could at least give some insight there.
All of the above is 100% correct. Tumbling or "nosing over" is very undesirable.
In our testing of Hammers, we are learning that terminal stability needs to be high for best results and no veering off. This also seems to enhance the forward directional travel of the petals on their wounding path.
For years a stability factor of 1.5 has been the "golden yardstick" for measuring good stability in bullet flight. This may well be minimal for good performance upon impact. Bullet performance (turning lungs into mush) and very deep penetration is easily achieveable when the stability factor is pushed over 2.0 and higher with Hammers (and maybe other monos).
After all of our testing so far, I know all of my new barrels will have much faster twist rates and velocity will be kept as high as accurately possible.
In our testing of Hammers, we are learning that terminal stability needs to be high for best results and no veering off. This also seems to enhance the forward directional travel of the petals on their wounding path.
For years a stability factor of 1.5 has been the "golden yardstick" for measuring good stability in bullet flight. This may well be minimal for good performance upon impact. Bullet performance (turning lungs into mush) and very deep penetration is easily achieveable when the stability factor is pushed over 2.0 and higher with Hammers (and maybe other monos).
After all of our testing so far, I know all of my new barrels will have much faster twist rates and velocity will be kept as high as accurately possible.
One great thing about solids versus jacketed bullets is that they aren't affected by over revving like a jacketed bullet. You can spin a jacketed bullet too fast and cause it to rip apart in flight. You also increase friction in the bore by increasing the rate of twist along with increasing velocity. That too has been known to cause issues with cup and core bullets by allowing too much heat to transfer to the core and melting it, causing the bullets to disintegrate in flight as well. Solids do not have that problem either. So you can push them very fast and to a 2.0 or higher SG and shouldn't see an issue unless the bullet is not perfectly balanced and induces a wobble from too much spin.
I have said from the beginning, and will continue, that with solids/homogeneous/monos, they need to be going fast for best terminal performance. I will stick by my 2200fps minimum impact velocity rule of thumb too. You definitely have a lot less risk keeping impacts above that anyways. I know there are other solids out there with advertised lower minimum impact velocity, but in my experience what's considered adequate expansion tends to vary considerably from person to person.
X2. My hunting buddy harvested a nice MT bull elk a couple of years ago. It was a perfect double lung shot with factory Hornady 200 ELD-X @ ~400Y. The bull managed to run over 1KY into the woods' It took us over an hour to locate him, thanks to another hunter that was watching my buddy's hunt unfold. There was no blood trail except for a few drops ~5Y from where he finally expired. Unfortunately, it was a slow death for the bull. In short, the bullet did not expand, but when my buddy sent it to Hornady, their ballistic gel test resulted in excellent expansion. This is NOT in any means a pot shot at Hornady as there are many successes with this bullet by many LRH members. We were hoping it was a bad batch or something. My buddy got a new box of ammo, though.
Last edited:
I've had similar results with that particular bullet. When it first came out, I switched to it over the 208gr AMAX I was using before in my 300wm. I found it was just too tough of a construction and without a great deal of impact resistance, it wasn't priding as good of results as I was getting with the AMAX. So I switched to the new 208gr ELD-M and went right back to the performance I was at before with the AMAX. It's such a great combo with that cartridge.X2. My hunting harvested a nice MT bull elk a couple of years ago. It was a perfect double lung shot with factory Hornady 200 ELD-X @ ~400Y. The bull managed to run over 1KY into the woods' It took us over an hour to locate him, thanks to another hunter that was watching my buddy's hunt unfold. There was no blood trail except for a few drops ~5Y from where he finally expired. Unfortunately, it was a slow death for the bull. In short, the bullet did not expand, but when my buddy sent it to Hornady, their ballistic gel test resulted in excellent expansion. This is NOT in any means a pot shot at Hornady as there are many successes with this bullet by many LRH members. We were hoping it was a bad batch or something. My buddy got a new box of ammo, though.
My friend is a non-reloader, and I will share your experience with him. I have had excellent results with 128 A-Max on a deer size game. I have 178s, 212s, and 220s and am reluctant to load them for hunting; maybe I will use them for target shooting instead.
As GL said above, we have ceased the tumbling by carefully watching the SF, we had a bunch tumble that were marginally stable and looked great on paper but as soon as they hit hide the tumbled
I used to use the 178gr AMAX in my 308 a lot for deer. It worked very well. I ended up trying the 208gr ELDM in it to boost my range but was having issues getting groups as small as I prefer between magazine restrictions and jump. So I tried the new (at the time) 195gr TMK and had a load shooting 1/2" groups in less than 25 shots. It's been an absolutely amazing bullet too. Slightly thicker jackets than an ELDM but a slightly wider tip. It's turned out to be an excellent balance there for terminal performance.
I might have to give them a try, thanks!
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,364
I may have to try those also as they maybe a better fit for a 30-06 then the 208 eldm I am going to test. I like the SMK's but tended to stay away from the TMK's as I read they can be harder to tune. Thanks for the tip.
cabelasken
Well-Known Member
A good many bullets tumble after impact and the result is not always bad. And the release of petals to add wound channels is nearly always a good thing. At least some of them will strike a vital part of the animal and provide a lethal result. Personally I like a entrance and exit hole and a wound cavity of 3 to 5 inches in diameter from start to finish. The pure copper bullets that remain in one piece have provided that for me and I've used them exclusively for the past 15 years. I closely examine every animal I take as well as the others that my hunting party takes and have found that the solid copper bullets to perform best for me. The lead bullets that shed 30 to 50 percent of their weight at the entrance site can produce spectacular knock down results, but also result in massive amounts of bloodshot meat. And sometimes poor penetration can occur from non bonded lead bullets. I've seen an older design nosler partition literally dissintegrate on a slight uphill shot on a mouflon ram at 300 yds from a 140 gr 7mm partition.
memtb
Well-Known Member
The more that I read these type of posts, the more I'm glad that I am only a "medium range" hunter. It makes it a lot easier to have a bullet that works great from "hair burning" range, breaking heavy bone and offering deep (often pass through) at extreme impact angles, out to ranges at which proper expansion is no longer guaranteed! True Long Range Hunting does have it's complications ....doesn't it! 
memtb
memtb
