Hammer vs accubond test

[cubdriver84d]

That was a pretty sad excuse for shit talking in the back half of that thread!

Yeah it got seriously derailed. Would’ve posted the one over on the Hammer Time forum instead if I had seen it first. Much more civil over there.

 

[bradb]

Yes I was referring to hammers. Wound channel didn't appear very good

 

[eoperator]

Has anyone seen poor terminal performance from hammer bullets fired from fast twist barrels?

 

[cubdriver84d]

Has anyone seen poor terminal performance from hammer bullets fired from fast twist barrels?

I haven’t and I’ve seen a number of posts by Steve at hammer talking about how twists faster than what he lists as minimum will yield better terminal performance. I think the idea is the bullet maintains better stability and a straighter wound channel after shedding its petals. Marginal stability probably doesn’t matter for lead bullets that just turn into a blob and push through tissue.

 

[Newtosavage]

funny timing... my trip to the range today was to compare 131 Hammers vs. 140 Accubonds. Both over Varget (45 for the Hammers and 43 for the Accubonds). The Hammers were more accurate by a good margin.

 

[tdot]

Has anyone seen poor terminal performance from hammer bullets fired from fast twist barrels?

About the closest thing I've had to a failure with the Hammer's was shooting the 6.5mm 131grain in a 7.5 twist, which is the minimum recommended. One bear dropped in his tracks, one bear ran roughly 75 yards leaving a blood trail that looked like someone took a gallon can of paint and splashed the forest floor every 10 yards. After skinning and prepping the bears, I was not able to find any indication of the petals exiting, nor did I find their wound channels or the petals themselves. The exit wounds weren't as round as most typical Hammer exit wounds have been. Steve at Hammer figured the bullet wasn't fully stabilized and yawed on entry. I didn't see any indication of this on paper targets, but it certainly appeared that way on game. I'll hopefully be able to shoot some gallon water jugs at some point this fall to confirm, but if not I'll drop down to the 124grain.

 

[BAKPAKR]

I have allot of pass through on many moose and elk with Accubonds and they dont fragment up close either at high velocity. It is all I load anymore for my .300 RUM for elk & moose. Five of my friends only use these for their large game also. No problem here.

I have had a different experience with 200 gr Accubonds in my 300 RUM. They shot well, but I got poor penetration up close on two moose. I thought the first moose was a fluke. After getting similar results on a second moose, I decided a change was needed. On the next moose, I used a 200 gr Barnes LRX and got the bang-flop result I had been expecting with the Accubond. None of these moose were broadside, behind the shoulder shots, but that is why I took a 300 RUM with me and not a 6.5 Creedmoor. Moose 2 (Accubond) and Moose 3 (LRX) were both strongly quartering to me. (Disclosure - Moose 2 was a larger Canada moose while Moose 3 was a Shiras). The Accubonds have worked well on whitetail does. I haven’t shot any elk with them.

I am getting ready to re-barrel one of my 300 RUMs to 30 Nosler since I am getting kind of wimpy in my old age. I plan on trying the 199 Hammer in it.

 

[theleo91386]

I view terminal bullet performance tests from bullet manufacturers as just as reliable as used car salesman telling me about the reliability of a used Ford Pinto. The same goes for forums created by manufacturers for a bunch of guys that love the product, to just talk about how great it is. Give me an independent 3rd party that can talk pros and cons of both, and I'll listen. I'm just a little to skeptical of anyone saying they've constructed the perfect bullet. Kind of like Hornady when the ELD-X was introduced with it's "excellent penetration and controlled expansion". Sorry, but I ain't drinking that koolaid just yet.

 

[cubdriver84d]

I view terminal bullet performance tests from bullet manufacturers as just as reliable as used car salesman telling me about the reliability of a used Ford Pinto. The same goes for forums created by manufacturers for a bunch of guys that love the product, to just talk about how great it is. Give me an independent 3rd party that can talk pros and cons of both, and I'll listen. I'm just a little to skeptical of anyone saying they've constructed the perfect bullet. Kind of like Hornady when the ELD-X was introduced with it's "excellent penetration and controlled expansion". Sorry, but I ain't drinking that koolaid just yet.

I've never heard nor read a post that indicates that Steve thinks he has created the perfect bullet. In fact, he is currently refining a new design (https://hammerbullets.boards.net/thread/1055/testing-tomorrow). He takes feedback from his customers about performance of his bullets on game seriously, and he'll be the first to suggest a tweak to one of his bullet designs if he thinks it will improve performance. Plenty of evidence of this on the long range and hammer time forums. Only one of the many reasons why I shoot hammers.

 

[SIontheHunt]

I wish i reloaded so that i could mess with Hammers ( i do not have the cash for custom ammo) but I am skeptical. While I can see that the hammer had a larger permanent wound channel i think that is due to the shape of the frontal area of the bullet after it sheds its petals. It is a more blunt frontal area tears more tissue than the more rounded classic mushroom.

Less penetration is only a downside for blood trailing. If two bullets of equal weight and speed enter an animal and one exits, that means the one that didn't transferred more energy inside the animal. But in the same vein the accubond lost energy more rapidly as it traveled through the gel block.

 

[theleo91386]

I've never heard nor read a post that indicates that Steve thinks he has created the perfect bullet. In fact, he is currently refining a new design (https://hammerbullets.boards.net/thread/1055/testing-tomorrow). He takes feedback from his customers about performance of his bullets on game seriously, and he'll be the first to suggest a tweak to one of his bullet designs if he thinks it will improve performance. Plenty of evidence of this on the long range and hammer time forums. Only one of the many reasons why I shoot hammers.

You did your duty as a fan boy by sharing the thread, and I've done my part by voicing my opinion as a skeptic. I really don't care why you shoot what you shoot so long as it's legal under whatever game laws you're using them under. I just care that I get the accuracy I want and that the bullet performs how I want it to on animals regardless of the brand attached to the bullet. That test and his specific wording is all to the advantage of a bullet of monolithic design. There's a biased sales pitch in that thread. If you want to pretend there's not, good for you, yet again I don't really care. I'll wait till I see some unbiased reviews with pro's and con's before swallowing their sales pitch hook line and sinker.

 

[cubdriver84d]

You did your duty as a fan boy by sharing the thread, and I've done my part by voicing my opinion as a skeptic. I really don't care why you shoot what you shoot so long as it's legal under whatever game laws you're using them under. I just care that I get the accuracy I want and that the bullet performs how I want it to on animals regardless of the brand attached to the bullet. That test and his specific wording is all to the advantage of a bullet of monolithic design. There's a biased sales pitch in that thread. If you want to pretend there's not, good for you, yet again I don't really care. I'll wait till I see some unbiased reviews with pro's and con's before swallowing their sales pitch hook line and sinker.

Maybe the thread is biased, but is there bias in the ballistics gel? Lots of info out there on the performance of hammers on target and on game.

 

[theleo91386]

Maybe the thread is biased, but is there bias in the ballistics gel? Lots of info out there on the performance of hammers on target and on game.

Considering the argument between mono and jacketed bullets has almost never been about the size of the permanent wound cavity at the velocities they were testing them at, yes there's a bias about what they're showing. There's a conversation they're conveniently neglecting to have there that glosses over what many consider to be a con of mono bullets.

 

[ShortMountain91]

There are so many factors at play when it comes to how quickly something dies when shot by a rifle round that I put very little stock in people saying "I shoot x bullet and never had one get away, or I shot y bullet and 2 of the 5 deer ran 100 yards with no blood trail." There's so much more we don't know from reports like these. In my option this article has some of the best info on the subject of killing game that I've ready and highly suggest folks read it.
https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/Effective+Game+Killing.html

As much as I want to load one bullet in one cartridge to effectively kill everything from groundhogs to elephants. It's just not possible. There's advantages and tradeoffs to all bullet designs. One bullet can't unload all of its energy into an animal and pass through every time on all sizes of game.

Personally I'm already loading 180 accubonds but I'm going to start loading 180 Nosler BTs also since they should have similar ballistics but perform better on smaller game. I like what hammer is doing and think that it's an improvement over an already well respected Barnes product but monos start to make me nervous when velocity creeps down on those long shots. I'd be willing to bet there's not very many people that have hit an animal with a mono past 400 yards and got a DRT result without striking the brain, high spine, or autonomic plexus.

All this said to make the point that it's hard to declare any one bullet design is superior in all situations. I feel I can say pretty confidently that there are some situations and accubond bullets is going to be superior to the hammer and there's other situations a hammer bullet will be superior to an accubond. I feel like accubonds and BTs cover the widest range of hunting situations I'll see myself in.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[PA Hunter]

I have had a different experience with 200 gr Accubonds in my 300 RUM. They shot well, but I got poor penetration up close on two moose. I thought the first moose was a fluke. After getting similar results on a second moose, I decided a change was needed. On the next moose, I used a 200 gr Barnes LRX and got the bang-flop result I had been expecting with the Accubond. None of these moose were broadside, behind the shoulder shots, but that is why I took a 300 RUM with me and not a 6.5 Creedmoor. Moose 2 (Accubond) and Moose 3 (LRX) were both strongly quartering to me. (Disclosure - Moose 2 was a larger Canada moose while Moose 3 was a Shiras). The Accubonds have worked well on whitetail does. I haven’t shot any elk with them.

I am getting ready to re-barrel one of my 300 RUMs to 30 Nosler since I am getting kind of wimpy in my old age. I plan on trying the 199 Hammer in it.

I had exact opposite results as yours. All my Barnes ttsx in 30-06 for deer were horrible just penciling through no shock trauma factor including elk. Now my Accubonds were all Eastern Canadian larger moose full adults and broadside from 50 ft to 130 yds the furthest. I load for 5 different .300 rums all Accubonds mine is 3170 FPS friends just under that we have allot of moose bang flop.
An old Elk guide recommended these Accubonds to me years ago and I have been extremely impressed.

 

[Newtosavage]

Theleo,

I can assure you that I am no fanboy for any bullet manufacturer. This will be my first year hunting with Hammers. Typically, I'm very skeptical of "custom" anything, figuring the masses do just fine with gear that's been proving itself for decades (like Nosler Partitions or Hornady Interlocks, etc). But I also like very accurate hunting rounds and in my mind, bullet placement trumps all. Right now, the Hammers look like the most accurate bullet available to me for my main hunting rifle, so I'll give them a try. If I don't like the terminal performance, you can bet I'll post up about it here.

Frankly I couldn't care less whose bullets I use because I don't know anyone personally who owns a bullet company and I have better ways to spend my time than to go down rabbit holes about such trivial things.

If they work, I'll say so. If they don't, I'll say so too.