BC vs MV… Debating between two bullets.

[Rifleman86]

Well in that case, I 100% agree with you. Berger’s aren’t ideal for close range impacts. Monos are a tough situation because of their poor BC’s in general. It’s almost like you need to run an extra big cartridge just so you can use a decent weight mono bullet to get some higher BC and retained down range velocity. Did you look up what your impact velocity was on that elk?

Right around 2200 fps, so we’ll above the 1800 min velocity Hammer advertises. But it could’ve been in the zone where the petals didn’t shed and that limited penetration significantly. That combined with an entrance just aft of the diaphragm might have resulted in the zero blood trail. Who knows unfortunately.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I've got a friend shooting the Badlands BD 2's and he claims that the BC is also way off vs advertised. Don't take that as gospel, just relaying info from someone that uses them and who's opinion I trust.

 

[35WhelenAI]

So, those are probably G7 ballistic efficients. I know that's all the talk these days. In years past I've spoken with Ty at Barnes a lot, he indicates Barnes BC's are from shooting at their indoor facility.

With respect to ballistic efficient, my 35 Whelen AI shooting the Barnes 200 TTSX @2925 fps with a 3" high at 100 yds sight, is dead on for elevation at the center of a 2.25" group at 300 yds. Best I can measure I have 1.5" above bore for the center of my scope.

At my elevation here in Colorado I should be just under 3" low for that group with an advertised .369 BC. Haven't heard anybody say Barnes is way off in their BC's but I hear that a lot with others trying to stretch long range ballistics. Hammer claims "estimated BC" and that says a lot about why they may be "off"... That isn't fair to consumers or most importantly to the game that's being pursued.

With that said, how could the ballistic coefficient be that much different from a Hammer gun vs what guys are shooting in the field? If they are using something that enhances the number, that's not honest.

 

[Rifleman86]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I've got a friend shooting the Badlands BD 2's and he claims that the BC is also way off vs advertised. Don't take that as gospel, just relaying info from someone that uses them and who's opinion I trust.

Nope I appreciate it. The BC of the BD2 does seem to be a little too good to be true I’ll admit. But over at LRH most guys seem pleased so we will see.

I’ll run the numbers when I do load development with my labradar.

Speaking of which with the advent of stuff like labradars is shocking to me manufacturer’s are still putting out BC’s that are so far off at times. When I went to the range with the Hammers I trued to a BC of .200 from shot drops at 1000 yards. When I got home I pulled the data from my labradar and came up with a G7 of .1997. Anymore I start with what the labradar gives me vs what is on the box.

 

[Rifleman86]

Back to the original question, I looked up load data from Barnes in the 7 SAUM with 140 and 150 gr bullets. With H4350 there was a loss of 178 fps moving to the heavier bullet. H4381 was similar. There were other powders that didn’t give up nearly that much velocity, but I don’t have them and probably can’t easily get them.

That’s much more than the 105 fps I estimated. Enough to easily give the nod to the 140gr bullet.

See, I knew with enough analysis (or overthinking) the answer would be clear!

 

[amassi]

I hear a lot about Hammer bullets being way off on bc. What gives?

They "calculated" their bc off of shot drops. Then, 5 years ago they gave brian litz their entire hunter line for testing. The when lead ballistician for berger tells them what the bc actually is, they claim the ballistician doesn't know how to calculate bc, the ballistician used faulty techniques et el. Then they continued to list their old bc on the website. Supposedly they (hammer) bought a Machine for calculating bc more accurately over a year ago but have been too busy to open the box and use it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[huntnful]

Nope I appreciate it. The BC of the BD2 does seem to be a little too good to be true I’ll admit. But over at LRH most guys seem pleased so we will see.

I’ll run the numbers when I do load development with my labradar.

Speaking of which with the advent of stuff like labradars is shocking to me manufacturer’s are still putting out BC’s that are so far off at times. When I went to the range with the Hammers I trued to a BC of .200 from shot drops at 1000 yards. When I got home I pulled the data from my labradar and came up with a G7 of .1997. Anymore I start with what the labradar gives me vs what is on the box.

How do you pull the BC’s from a lab radar? I had no idea you could do this.

 

[Rifleman86]

How do you pull the BC’s from a lab radar? I had no idea you could do this.

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...7-bc-calculator-from-labradar-tracks.7074446/

The future is now, and it’s awesome.

 

[Rifleman86]

They "calculated" their bc off of shot drops. Then, 5 years ago they gave brian litz their entire hunter line for testing. The when lead ballistician for berger tells them what the bc actually is, they claim the ballistician doesn't know how to calculate bc, the ballistician used faulty techniques et el. Then they continued to list their old bc on the website. Supposedly they (hammer) bought a Machine for calculating bc more accurately over a year ago but have been too busy to open the box and use it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Thanks, I couldn’t remember the specifics of their issue with Litz. Either way Litz isn’t a guy you try to call bullshit on with ballistics. He will beat you to death with facts then bury you with data.

 

[Jasent]

I can’t speak for the whole bulldozer line but I have tested the 205gr sbd2’s in my rifle. Bc is spot on in my 1:8 twist. Took my buck at 650 yards. Drops have been consistent out past half mile. They did pressure out fast. About 100 FPS slower than similar weight bullets but shoot well.

 

[35WhelenAI]

The data Litz came up with, is it available to see?

 

[JakeSCH]

Here is a good read from Steve (owner of hammer) on why BC's can be much lower on the hammer hunter line.

7mm BC's | Hammer Time

Curious what you guys are seeing for real world BC in the 7mm hammer hunters, specifically the 155 and 169gr?? I've seen bits and pieces of bc info out there and mostly positive info but came across

hammerbullets.boards.net

I have found my .338 260 gr HH to be spot on but my 308 gr 181 HH (5% low) and .264 124 HH (10% low).

Basically it sounds like if you have a tight bore, the absolute hammer may be a better bet.

 

[wind gypsy]

Here is a good read from Steve (owner of hammer) on why BC's can be much lower on the hammer hunter line.

7mm BC's | Hammer Time

Curious what you guys are seeing for real world BC in the 7mm hammer hunters, specifically the 155 and 169gr?? I've seen bits and pieces of bc info out there and mostly positive info but came across

hammerbullets.boards.net

I have found my .338 260 gr HH to be spot on but my 308 gr 181 HH (5% low) and .264 124 HH (10% low).

Basically it sounds like if you have a tight bore, the absolute hammer may be a better bet.

There is BC variance from barrel to barrel with all bullets as far as I know. That said, i never see instances where hammer bullets are producing higher BC than advertised. I never see any other bullet manufacturer having BC's drastically reduced in practice compared to spec where it hasn't been recognized as inflated BC #s.

If applied ballistics and the people with high end custom barrels in this thread reporting pedestrian BCs are all "tight bores" i have to ask what bores they are using as a baseline?

I could be wrong but my intuition points to Hammer being dishonest about this stuff.

 

[huntnful]

There is BC variance from barrel to barrel with all bullets as far as I know. That said, i never see instances where hammer bullets are producing higher BC than advertised. I never see any other bullet manufacturer having BC's drastically reduced in practice compared to spec where it hasn't been recognized as inflated BC #s.

If applied ballistics and the people with high end custom barrels in this thread reporting pedestrian BCs are all "tight bores" i have to ask what bores they are using as a baseline?

I could be wrong but my intuition points to Hammer being dishonest about this stuff.

I had a Benchmark and a Bartlein. All of my BC's from various 7mm bullets came up short. Maybe they are tight bores, but if that is the case, I would post the worst case scenario (or close to it) and then have people be elated if they got a higher BC, not the other way around. It seems there are way more tight bores floating around than loose bores, given the BC numbers gathered by many of the hammer users, including myself. I love hammers, but I'm not going to sugar coat that aspect whatsoever.

 

[SDHNTR]

Imo, You are spending way too much time behind the computer and not enough time at the range or in the field. Which ones shoots more accurately? That’s the only thing that should guide the decision. Everything else is way down the list in order of importance.

 

[JakeSCH]

Yeah I would agree. I still don't think Steve intended to be dishonest (i really don't know), but I agree either a range or worst case should be published...

It will be interesting if they use their new tools and update all their BC's to see where they fall.

 

[SDHNTR]

You used impotence instead of impetus! Haha. Solid pun!

 

[35WhelenAI]

The rationale makes sense in the response/explanation from Hammer on BC's varying. His response puts a lot of my thoughts in a different perspective and I'll give the benefit of my previous doubt to them.

 

[Andrewpurcell222]

For guys who like to shoot once and call it a day, consider a 300 Norma mag and the 205 BD-2 over H1000….3000fps out of the muzzle and everything is over as soon as you pull the trigger. Trust me….its awesome.