New "to me" made in Montana monolithic bullets ...

[FEENIX]

Thank you for having us sir! And that is why, a couple of days ago, when someone started calling us names, I used "ignore" instead of get drawn in fight!

Ditto!

 

[DoneNOut]

If you formulated an opinion before any test as you just did, yes, it is a bias. More often than not, researchers do not know their own biases; this is why independent peer reviews exist in empirical researches. Again, this is not about you and me or our biases. It is an option for those that are open-minded, willing, and able to try.

The way I see it, one can have all kinds of hopes, skepticisms, and opinions before an experiment. Once the data is gathered though, one must only rely on the data. Data is never wrong, only our interpretations of the data can be wrong. Maybe this is why you are hinting I'm hypocrite.

I was purely analyzing the spiel. It would have been nice for CBB to provide support to the claims. Let's us see their data.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I figured it out.

 

[JMW67]

I still know a few OLDER than me shooters that I cannot convince to try the Hammer bullets and when I told them about the absolute hammers they really thought I was crazy as hell I did take a 243 win shooting 69 absolute hammers to one of their ranges and they were impressed at the near 3800 fps and the accuracy but still will not try them kinda blows my mind but it is what it is

 

[Bro Dave]

I seen long range guy Eric Corrina make a cavity in base of bullet with his lathe on YouTube and shoot a 5/8 group with them at 1000yds, guess they are starting to be more mainstream, I would definitely like to try them. I got a Ruger LC9 that made crappy groups with everything thing I tried, found some Ranier bullets with a concave base I had and they shoot great, just seems to make sense that there's more surface area to push bullet and pushing mostly center of back of bullet.

That was an April fools joke. Check the date stamp on the video and listen all the way to the end.

 

[FEENIX]

The way I see it, one can have all kinds of hopes, skepticisms, and opinions before an experiment. Once the data is gathered though, one must only rely on the data. Data is never wrong, only our interpretations of the data can be wrong. Maybe this is why you are hinting I'm hypocrite.

I was purely analyzing the spiel. It would have been nice for CBB to provide support to the claims. Let's us see their data.

The same can be said to any bullet manufacturers, esp. those that do not have ballisticians. "Once data is gathered, though, one must only rely on data the data," this is not a true statement. If you ever looked at empirical researches (especially in longitudinal studies), there are always future recommendations and limitations to their research study. It provides a baseline for future researchers to find and develop a research gap and add the knowledge base. Like learning, data gathering never stops.

 

[adam32+P]

The way I see it, one can have all kinds of hopes, skepticisms, and opinions before an experiment. Once the data is gathered though, one must only rely on the data. Data is never wrong, only our interpretations of the data can be wrong. Maybe this is why you are hinting I'm hypocrite.

I was purely analyzing the spiel. It would have been nice for CBB to provide support to the claims. Let's us see their data.

As has previously been posted...the CBB's have been around the gas gun crowd for a decade and by all reports...they work! There's your data.

 

[xsn10s]

As has previously been posted...the CBB's have been around the gas gun crowd for a decade and by all reports...they work! There's your data.

First I've ever heard of them. Good to know they've been around for a decade.

 

[6mmfan]

the concave cavity does not actually give "more surface area to push bullet...". The total force along the barrel axis is unchanged. Some other things happen, and the mavens on this channel can probably speculate meaningfully about that. what's noteworthy to me, is the COG is moved forward, maybe affecting the geometry of the external ballistic behavior.

 

[JMW67]

the concave cavity does not actually give "more surface area to push bullet...". The total force along the barrel axis is unchanged. Some other things happen, and the mavens on this channel can probably speculate meaningfully about that. what's noteworthy to me, is the COG is moved forward, maybe affecting the geometry of the external ballistic behavior.

That and the rear portion of the bullet will expand more making a better seal in the barrel this, maybe me just talking out of my a-- though as I am not near the scientist or engineer as some here

 

[pgothro]

The same can be said to any bullet manufacturers, esp. those that do not have ballisticians. "Once data is gathered, though, one must only rely on data the data," this is not a true statement. If you ever looked at empirical researches (especially in longitudinal studies), there are always future recommendations and limitations to their research study. It provides a baseline for future researchers to find and develop a research gap and add the knowledge base. Like learning, data gathering never stops.

 

[ButterBean]

As has previously been posted...the CBB's have been around the gas gun crowd for a decade and by all reports...they work! There's your data.

Yep They work in a gas gun, what I find peculiar is all of the die hard cup and core folks getting all tore out of the frame about a bullet they haven't even tried

 

[FEENIX]

I still know a few OLDER than me shooters that I cannot convince to try the Hammer bullets and when I told them about the absolute hammers they really thought I was crazy as hell I did take a 243 win shooting 69 absolute hammers to one of their ranges and they were impressed at the near 3800 fps and the accuracy but still will not try them kinda blows my mind but it is what it is

Old habits are hard to break; you provided a prime example of bias.

 

[pgothro]

I agree, many of us are always looking for better results but have many different requirements. My father was an engineer and an artillery man in WWII. No one had chronographs except manufactures I still have his ballistic calculations done with a slide rule and they are spot on against today's tools. I think you need to try and test for your needs. I know he would love to have the tools of today to get his guns shooting better