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
Official Hammer bullets Terminal Performance (picture heavy)
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="codyadams" data-source="post: 2296519" data-attributes="member: 87243"><p>In my testing the Badlands the bc's have been very close, similar to Bergers as far as how little adjustment has been needed. That is using the .277 140, the .338 270, and the .338 250, so only 3 of them, but those three were very good. </p><p></p><p>I would guess the reasoning would be the bearing surface combined with the large hollow point that is required for consistent expansion, because the bullets are otherwise very sleek. They tend to have a lot of bands, that is not going to help bc. The Badlands for example, have 1 or 2 generally, and they are slower in their angles, not so abrupt. </p><p></p><p>I generally use hammers in my sub 500 yard guns, and higher bc bullets for my others. It is not uncommon during our elk hunting to need to take shots from 800 to over 1000, and wind is ever present, so bc matters in that range. In closer however, the difference is small enough that going for a MPB zero and having the ability to hold on fur and send it makes up for a little more wind drift, and also having confidence in the terminal performance is a great thing too.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="codyadams, post: 2296519, member: 87243"] In my testing the Badlands the bc's have been very close, similar to Bergers as far as how little adjustment has been needed. That is using the .277 140, the .338 270, and the .338 250, so only 3 of them, but those three were very good. I would guess the reasoning would be the bearing surface combined with the large hollow point that is required for consistent expansion, because the bullets are otherwise very sleek. They tend to have a lot of bands, that is not going to help bc. The Badlands for example, have 1 or 2 generally, and they are slower in their angles, not so abrupt. I generally use hammers in my sub 500 yard guns, and higher bc bullets for my others. It is not uncommon during our elk hunting to need to take shots from 800 to over 1000, and wind is ever present, so bc matters in that range. In closer however, the difference is small enough that going for a MPB zero and having the ability to hold on fur and send it makes up for a little more wind drift, and also having confidence in the terminal performance is a great thing too. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Official Hammer bullets Terminal Performance (picture heavy)
Top