Elk Bullets - LRX vs HHT

You do realize that's the idea of a Hammer? To turn into copper confetti with the four petals sheddinng when they open up?


That’s not what we are talking about. We’re talking about the distance where the bullets fail to upset. It’s very short for mono bullets.
 
With respect to the oil theory, that has no bearing. It's been discussed ad nauseam but yet somehow still interesting, a number of places here. The physics of it make no logical sense.


The oil theory is that hard-to-falsify-but-obvious-bullshit stuff.
 
I run the 162hht in my 7prc. Took oryx (gemsbok) this year with zero complaints. I have also used the 140 absolutes and 141hbc in a fast twist 280ai on elk with great performance. Attached is my speeds with the 7prc. If you run the hammers drop down in weight from the traditional cup and core weights and run them fast. 1000012531.jpg
 
That’s not what we are talking about. We’re talking about the distance where the bullets fail to upset. It’s very short for mono bullets.
Your words were "turn into confetti". For sure it's obvious the conversation has been about longer distance expansion. Found it interesting myself that confetti was brought up when that does have nothing to do with long distance.
 
Your words were "turn into confetti". For sure it's obvious the conversation has been about longer distance expansion. Found it interesting myself that confetti was brought up when that does have nothing to do with long distance.


It has the terminal efficacy of confetti way too soon.
 
I shot a bull at 700 with a 160 lrx impact velocity around 2050ish. One shot dropped it in its tracks. Bullet performed like should with minimal meat loss. Then I’ve seen a bull at 570 eat 3 of them with sub par performance... I feel like I’m loosing more meat with hammers. I also like the lrx better for the ranges and country I typically hunt. Prefer the hammer still over the lrx. In my time with both I feel like the hammers are more consistent also seem to shoot better. Realistically if you’re setting up a rifle. Set it up for the bullet you want to shoot out of it for the country and game you want to hunt. So if a lrx or hht is what you wanna run try to find a gun that will give you that 2000 fps with the recoil mitigation and capabilities you can comfortably shoot at. I don’t have any long range kills 450+ with any of the hht or hunter bullets. My stuff closer it worked like a dream. Lrx also worked amazing up close. Both killing and being around multiple kills of each I would pick a lrx for a long gun and a hammer for a more mid and in gun.
 
I shot a bull at 700 with a 160 lrx impact velocity around 2050ish. One shot dropped it in its tracks. Bullet performed like should with minimal meat loss. Then I’ve seen a bull at 570 eat 3 of them with sub par performance... I feel like I’m loosing more meat with hammers. I also like the lrx better for the ranges and country I typically hunt. Prefer the hammer still over the lrx. In my time with both I feel like the hammers are more consistent also seem to shoot better. Realistically if you’re setting up a rifle. Set it up for the bullet you want to shoot out of it for the country and game you want to hunt. So if a lrx or hht is what you wanna run try to find a gun that will give you that 2000 fps with the recoil mitigation and capabilities you can comfortably shoot at. I don’t have any long range kills 450+ with any of the hht or hunter bullets. My stuff closer it worked like a dream. Lrx also worked amazing up close. Both killing and being around multiple kills of each I would pick a lrx for a long gun and a hammer for a more mid and in gun.
Interesting. I would make the exact opposite claim. I think the Hammer has a slight edge on the longer range fringes. Especially the tipped ones.
 
Back
Top