Announcing the New Hammer HHT
- Thread starter Steve Davis
- Start date
I’ve got a rocket scientist really interested in Hammer Trail. Stay tuned.Now you're getting into rocket science!
Believe I'll wait in the wings on this one
better bc with the new design
DiscoSteve
Hammer Time Executive member
I understand that. Then why would some of the new HHT tipped bullets still have the old PDR design? E.g. the .264 118 gr HHT.
I haven't looked close, do you have a couple that come to mind?
DiscoSteve
Hammer Time Executive member
I'm basing my question on pictures from the website. See below.
Here is the .264 118 gr HHT with 5 PDR bands. This is what I'm accustomed to, and what I was referring to as the "old style."
Here is the .264 125 gr HHT. It only has 3 bands, which is what I'm referring to as the "new style."
They are distinctly different geometries. Why?
Here is the .264 118 gr HHT with 5 PDR bands. This is what I'm accustomed to, and what I was referring to as the "old style."
Here is the .264 125 gr HHT. It only has 3 bands, which is what I'm referring to as the "new style."
They are distinctly different geometries. Why?
The depth is less!
Farleg
Hammer Time Executive member
jasbo
Member
Super cool to witness the giddiness amongst Hammer shooters responding to this new product rollout! Much gratitude to those who proved these Tipped designs in the hunting fields.Gday
Yep that’s me
Well I think
Cheers
les
Hammer Time Executive member
The only thing I know is Steve and Company (testers) have them ready for me to work up loads and harvest game! I've got pills on the way and I will be ready for fall with the 300 RUM. If I don't like the new bullets, I can fall back on the old ones! I've got a sweet load worked up with the 137 HH and I feel it will take anything I hunt this fall. I'm really excited about the new bullets. I know a lot of work has gone into them.
LightTheTower
Hammer Time Executive member
I get what you’re saying Disco… My assumption is that some bands are wider and shallower because that’s better for bc, however, it is probably only possible in the longer bullets. Essentially, the longer the bullet, the wider the bands can be since they have enough length to get at least 2 “peaks” in contact with the case neck. I suspect that the lighter for caliber bullets won’t have much (if any) wider bands than normal HH. This is all conjecture on my part…
T_the_Tinkerer
Hammer Time Executive member
@Steve Davis
Bring the bullet out soon. I'd be happier if I had it in my hands. I have 2 blocks of clear gel and I'm absolutely itching to shoot it with some rifle loads. And I also hate being teased. That's one of a few reasons why I don't go to strip clubs. On the bright side, at least the teasing here isn't costing me anything...
Bring the bullet out soon. I'd be happier if I had it in my hands. I have 2 blocks of clear gel and I'm absolutely itching to shoot it with some rifle loads. And I also hate being teased. That's one of a few reasons why I don't go to strip clubs. On the bright side, at least the teasing here isn't costing me anything...
T_the_Tinkerer
Hammer Time Executive member
@DiscoSteve
I noticed this as well. In fact, some of the original hammers (i.e. a number of .243 caliber pills) have gentler bands, too. I figured some time back that this would improve BC. Due to the higher surface to volume ratios of the smaller calibers vs the larger ones, I am really hoping that this 68gr unicorn that @Pickens72 mentioned has the newer, gentler and less numerous PDRs. The smaller calibers should benefit by a larger margin than the large ones with the new design and tip.
@Pickens72
Hopefully the 22 cal unicorn has a nice long nose and boattail. My 223 remington magazines feed COALs of 2.360" due to a modification I made. I load my stuff out long. I'm thinking I can comfortably get between 3000fps and 3100fps with that pill. I have a can of N135 waiting that has given me the best accuracy my rifle has ever seen. Will be perfect for the unicorn.
I noticed this as well. In fact, some of the original hammers (i.e. a number of .243 caliber pills) have gentler bands, too. I figured some time back that this would improve BC. Due to the higher surface to volume ratios of the smaller calibers vs the larger ones, I am really hoping that this 68gr unicorn that @Pickens72 mentioned has the newer, gentler and less numerous PDRs. The smaller calibers should benefit by a larger margin than the large ones with the new design and tip.
@Pickens72
Hopefully the 22 cal unicorn has a nice long nose and boattail. My 223 remington magazines feed COALs of 2.360" due to a modification I made. I load my stuff out long. I'm thinking I can comfortably get between 3000fps and 3100fps with that pill. I have a can of N135 waiting that has given me the best accuracy my rifle has ever seen. Will be perfect for the unicorn.
Rifle?Don't nobody shoot the 270 anymore. It's skinny and ugly
ButterBean
Hammer Time Executive member
Watch your mouthDon't nobody shoot the 270 anymore. It's skinny and ugly
Nice thread. I was waiting for these bullets to come out. Several notes below, some unrelated to each other.
unrelated: Joe16: My wife loves her 270Win Tikka. Yes, it would have been nice with an 8" twist, but she's happy with the factory barrel for deer.
On tips and stability, I'm afraid that we need to go into tech stuff.
I do not trust the formulae underlying the JBM website (which I use a lot) for the plastic tip additions.
A simple thought experiment can explain:
take a hollow point bullet 1.5". Let's say that it's Sf for that rifle is also approximately 1.5.
then add a tip +0.2". The bullet is now 1.7". Common sense tells us that the BC will go DOWN.
Why? Because the longer bullet would need more twist! You can verify this by plugging values into JBM while leaving the "tip" box "0.0".
For checking, I used the following settings to produce a 1.514 SF: 30* Farenheight, 25% humidity, 1200ft elev (think midwest, cold), then a 1.5" bullet in .308", 150grain, 3000fps and a 8.8" twist. That produces a 1.514 Sf.
Take the same rifle and climate, extend the bullet length to 1.7" and the SF comes out at only 1.050 Sf. In other words, adding a tip to a hollow point results in a marginally unstable bullet. However, if one adds the tip, and one records the tip in the JBM site, the result improves to 1.336 Sf. I've also adjusted for weight, using 155grain for the tipped bullet and gotten 1.381 Sf. If that tip were .3", then the BC goes UP even more according to JBM: 1.575 Sf with a 155grain, .3" tip, 1.7" bullet (at 3000fps and same weather). Something seems wrong with the formula.
I am happy to be corrected on the thought experiment. (I first contemplated this when having trouble with long tips and CEB bullets.)
Below is a comparison that may help in choices.
Hammer Tipped (Sf calculated at 'midwest winter', 30*F, 25%H, 1200ft, 3000fps), 10" twist (for comparisons, not recommendation)
"c TIP" means JBM with the 0.143" tip compensation calculated. It is my current feeling that these are artificially "high", not real.
For confirmation of the +tip calculations, here is a similar table with the "160grain" class of .308" bullets:
Sf calculated for upper midwest winter, 2900fps, 30*F, 25%H, 10" twist, 1200 elev.
The tipped HHT 163 has an Sf calculated with JBM tip compensation and without tip compensation.
For the heavier bullets, it looks like the longer noses of the HH make them the best choice for those with faster twist barrels, like myself. Current recommendations for the 181 HH are 9.5", which seems good. (The tipped bullets are designed with shorter, stubbier noses and lose BC.)
[[Since our PRC is an 8" twist, we are not restricted by the accuracy of the +/- TIP calculations. They're all good.]]
For the light bullets, the choice will come down to "better BC with the tip" versus "potential better muzzle velocity with the AH". to be honest, it's pretty much a wash between them, but I like trying new things. I really like the AH in our grandkids' 308Win, and I am up to trying out the HHT. It may get a little velocity increase itself over the old 152HH because of reduced PDR surface in the new HHT and be the best of both worlds. Or not, but it is worth a box to find out.
bottom line:
(1) I am ordering some 154 HHT, hoping that its velocity will get close to the AH so that the BC can have its effect at 300-400 yards, which is a long shot for a 308Win in the field.
(2) Also some 163 HHTs for the 300PRC.
(3) I'll wait for longer noses on the heavier 308's and maybe order them when the 338 and 270 come out
Thank you, Steve/Hammer for the offer.
unrelated: Joe16: My wife loves her 270Win Tikka. Yes, it would have been nice with an 8" twist, but she's happy with the factory barrel for deer.
On tips and stability, I'm afraid that we need to go into tech stuff.
I do not trust the formulae underlying the JBM website (which I use a lot) for the plastic tip additions.
A simple thought experiment can explain:
take a hollow point bullet 1.5". Let's say that it's Sf for that rifle is also approximately 1.5.
then add a tip +0.2". The bullet is now 1.7". Common sense tells us that the BC will go DOWN.
Why? Because the longer bullet would need more twist! You can verify this by plugging values into JBM while leaving the "tip" box "0.0".
For checking, I used the following settings to produce a 1.514 SF: 30* Farenheight, 25% humidity, 1200ft elev (think midwest, cold), then a 1.5" bullet in .308", 150grain, 3000fps and a 8.8" twist. That produces a 1.514 Sf.
Take the same rifle and climate, extend the bullet length to 1.7" and the SF comes out at only 1.050 Sf. In other words, adding a tip to a hollow point results in a marginally unstable bullet. However, if one adds the tip, and one records the tip in the JBM site, the result improves to 1.336 Sf. I've also adjusted for weight, using 155grain for the tipped bullet and gotten 1.381 Sf. If that tip were .3", then the BC goes UP even more according to JBM: 1.575 Sf with a 155grain, .3" tip, 1.7" bullet (at 3000fps and same weather). Something seems wrong with the formula.
I am happy to be corrected on the thought experiment. (I first contemplated this when having trouble with long tips and CEB bullets.)
Below is a comparison that may help in choices.
Hammer Tipped (Sf calculated at 'midwest winter', 30*F, 25%H, 1200ft, 3000fps), 10" twist (for comparisons, not recommendation)
"c TIP" means JBM with the 0.143" tip compensation calculated. It is my current feeling that these are artificially "high", not real.
| PH 150 | AH 151 | HHT 154 | HH 181 | HHT 182 | HH 180 | HH 199 | HHT 203 |
| .389e G1 | .185 G7 | .221 G7 | .272 G7 | .261e G7 | .243 G7 | .299 G7 | .291e G7 |
| 1.24" | 1.24" | 1.335" | 1.537" | 1.582 | 1.48" | 1.627" | 1.710 |
| 151gn | 151gn | 154gn | 180gn | 180 | 180 | 197 | 203 |
| .699 | .720 | 0.7195" | nose? | 0.8308" | 0.855 | nose? | 0.8371 |
| but probably | blunt nose | point nose | longer nose | longer nose | |||
| lower (!) | lower BC | better BC | better BC | better BC | |||
| BC vs AH | AH vs HHT | vs HHT | vs HHT |
| 2.092 Sf/cTIP | 1.445 c TIP | 1.280 c TIP | |||||
| 2.037 | 2.051 Sf | 1.690 Sf | 1.310 Sf | 1.204 Sf | 1.214 Sf | 1.081 Sf |
For confirmation of the +tip calculations, here is a similar table with the "160grain" class of .308" bullets:
Sf calculated for upper midwest winter, 2900fps, 30*F, 25%H, 10" twist, 1200 elev.
The tipped HHT 163 has an Sf calculated with JBM tip compensation and without tip compensation.
| Targ 160 | AH 162 | HHT 163 | HH160 | |
| .250e G7 | .197e G7 | .234e G7 | .219 G7 | |
| 1.349" | 1.36 | 1.467" | 1.335 | |
| 160gn | 162gn | 163gn | 160 | Sf= 2900fps |
| -- | 0.83" | 0.9077" | 0.7833" | 30*F, 25%H |
| 1.635 ? c 0.143 tip | <— JBM tip Sf =?!? | 10" twist | ||
| 1.684 Sf | 1.665 Sf | 1.344 Sf "without" | 1.736 Sf | 1200ft elev |
For the heavier bullets, it looks like the longer noses of the HH make them the best choice for those with faster twist barrels, like myself. Current recommendations for the 181 HH are 9.5", which seems good. (The tipped bullets are designed with shorter, stubbier noses and lose BC.)
[[Since our PRC is an 8" twist, we are not restricted by the accuracy of the +/- TIP calculations. They're all good.]]
For the light bullets, the choice will come down to "better BC with the tip" versus "potential better muzzle velocity with the AH". to be honest, it's pretty much a wash between them, but I like trying new things. I really like the AH in our grandkids' 308Win, and I am up to trying out the HHT. It may get a little velocity increase itself over the old 152HH because of reduced PDR surface in the new HHT and be the best of both worlds. Or not, but it is worth a box to find out.
bottom line:
(1) I am ordering some 154 HHT, hoping that its velocity will get close to the AH so that the BC can have its effect at 300-400 yards, which is a long shot for a 308Win in the field.
(2) Also some 163 HHTs for the 300PRC.
(3) I'll wait for longer noses on the heavier 308's and maybe order them when the 338 and 270 come out
Thank you, Steve/Hammer for the offer.
The dimensions of the PDR bands are all constant for depth. The distance between them varies. We, for the most part, have spread them out for fewer of them in the new designs. One more or less does not make any kind of drastic change to bullet performance. Much of the decision of PDR configuration is up to the artist discretion. (That would be Brian.) The spacing needs to make sense according to the amount of bearing surface to be covered and making sure that they are close enough together to ensure at least two make contact in the case neck.
The tip is not soft for use in tube feed magazines.
Some have claimed that the polymer tip doesn't effect stability, so doesn't have to be considered in bullet length. Others claim that the tip is no different and must be absolutely considered in bullet length for stability. In testing, we proved that the tip does add to the bullets length for stability. Although not as much as if it were the same density as the bullet material. I think the jbm stability calculator with tip dimension input is reliable. In testing we found the Hammer HHT to be terminally stable with less stability than the Hammer Hunters. @Farleg in his quest to make them fail, ran the 163g HHT marginally stable trying to make them deflect off angled rib shots and he was still unable to stop them from straight line penetration. He can elaborate on how hard he tried to make them fail. So you all know, we asked him to fail them. "Right, I can fail any bullet, mate.". Pretty sure that was his answer.
The tip is not soft for use in tube feed magazines.
Some have claimed that the polymer tip doesn't effect stability, so doesn't have to be considered in bullet length. Others claim that the tip is no different and must be absolutely considered in bullet length for stability. In testing, we proved that the tip does add to the bullets length for stability. Although not as much as if it were the same density as the bullet material. I think the jbm stability calculator with tip dimension input is reliable. In testing we found the Hammer HHT to be terminally stable with less stability than the Hammer Hunters. @Farleg in his quest to make them fail, ran the 163g HHT marginally stable trying to make them deflect off angled rib shots and he was still unable to stop them from straight line penetration. He can elaborate on how hard he tried to make them fail. So you all know, we asked him to fail them. "Right, I can fail any bullet, mate.". Pretty sure that was his answer.
So you guys know. We have about the same number of bullets already designed as are in the initial launch. Waiting on labeling! More testing yet on calibers greater than .308.
Thank you for the reply on JBM and tip stability.
On reflection, we ordered the 154 HHT and 168gn HHT in order to try out the increased spacing. In the PRC we might try 'seating long.' Not able to try this out until Fall since grandpa will do this work, me.
Thank you again for the work on the products.
On reflection, we ordered the 154 HHT and 168gn HHT in order to try out the increased spacing. In the PRC we might try 'seating long.' Not able to try this out until Fall since grandpa will do this work, me.
Thank you again for the work on the products.