Thread: Hammer Hunter 116 grn .270wsm: graphic pics

Originally Posted by Tahr

What you seem to get with these is exceptional straight line penetration and tissue damage.
Dead under most circumstances is what I'm after.

There are plenty of good bullets around. Mucking around with these just adds a bit of interest.

I think that we would all convert to copper bullets if we were confident that they worked as well as a quality lead / copper jacket jobby.
I am interested to see how they work at 400 -( which is really the velocity / power limit of most non magnum cartridges) as well as at 60 mtrs.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I am interested to see how they work at 400 -( which is really the velocity / power limit of most non magnum cartridges) as well as at 60 mtrs.

400m is well short, in my view, and... well... it just is. A reasonably soft bullet out of a 6.5, 7mm or .308 is good for a lot more than that. But we needed argue about that I suppose!

The longer range monolithic terminal performance debate is a really interesting one, with a huge amount of marketing bullshit from manufacturers (like Barnes LRX) and an equal volume of utter nonsense spouted on Internet forums.

There’s been a bit of testing here and there, but I’ve yet to come across a decent study that objectively compares performance of several different monolithic designs at a variety of hunting ranges. I don’t think close range monolithic performance is too problematic, but for what I mostly have to do due to terrain, cover, etc, there’s zero chance of me selecting a monolithic bullet that is priced roughly the same as what I’m now being fleeced for Hornady.

What will eventually win the day is innovation, because it always does, eventually legislation will drive the design of effective longer range bullets that can be manufactured economically to a price point that won’t cause the average hunter to turn around and walk out the shop. We haven’t got that yet. I am hopeful that legislation against a lead bullets doesn’t ever rear its ugly head in this part of the world, as it has done in the EU for example.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

400m is well short, in my view, and... well... it just is. A reasonably soft bullet out of a 6.5, 7mm or .308 is good for a lot more than that. But we needed argue about that I suppose!

The longer range monolithic terminal performance debate is a really interesting one, with a huge amount of marketing bullshit from manufacturers (like Barnes LRX) and an equal volume of utter nonsense spouted on Internet forums.

There’s been a bit of testing here and there, but I’ve yet to come across a decent study that objectively compares performance of several different monolithic designs at a variety of hunting ranges. I don’t think close range monolithic performance is too problematic, but for what I mostly have to do due to terrain, cover, etc, there’s zero chance of me selecting a monolithic bullet that is priced roughly the same as what I’m now being fleeced for Hornady.

What will eventually win the day is innovation, because it always does, eventually legislation will drive the design of effective longer range bullets that can be manufactured economically to a price point that won’t cause the average hunter to turn around and walk out the shop. We haven’t got that yet. I am hopeful that legislation against a lead bullets doesn’t ever rear its ugly head in this part of the world, as it has done in the EU for example.

I base the 400 mtrs on having 1500 ft lb and 2000 fps which is what is needed for a stag and a quick humane kill. But sure, if a rifle has that level of energy out further... The 1000 ft lb's for a deer comes from the U.S. and shooting white tails.