Announcing the New Hammer HHT

As a more mature hunter (translate old!), somebody has to say it! The 270 Winchester was the 6.5 Creedmoor of my youth! It has settled into its own bracket. I know several good hunters who are very successful that use the 270 Winchester. A good round, but there are so many more interesting rounds to play with!
 
les said:
As a more mature hunter (translate old!), somebody has to say it! The 270 Winchester was the 6.5 Creedmoor of my youth! It has settled into its own bracket. I know several good hunters who are very successful that use the 270 Winchester. A good round, but there are so many more interesting rounds to play with!
Click to expand...
Growing old is not an option, but growing up is! :ROFLMAO:
 
Muddyboots said:
@Bojo34: did you try the 196HH in your 300WM? Curious how it would stack up. My final load was 3150fps with RL26 in Sendero 26". I like that 163HHT data!
Click to expand...
No I didn't Muddy.....was switching from the 200 accubond and knew a couple guys running the 180 E-tip with great results, so think I had it in my head that a switch to monos should be in the 180 class . Discovered Hammers/Hammertime and then the light/fast guys got their hooks into me ;), but I drew the line at 137 for my Elk rig so tested 137 up to 181.

196 @ 3150 would be tough to beat! Sadly, been looking for RL 26 for years with no luck.
 
Bojo34 said:
No I didn't Muddy.....was switching from the 200 accubond and knew a couple guys running the 180 E-tip with great results, so think I had it in my head that a switch to monos should be in the 180 class . Discovered Hammers/Hammertime and then the light/fast guys got their hooks into me ;), but I drew the line at 137 for my Elk rig so tested 137 up to 181.

196 @ 3150 would be tough to beat! Sadly, been looking for RL 26 for years with no luck.
Click to expand...
That 163HHT has my attention for 300WM!
 
choprzrul said:
26" barrel using RL16 got me to 3611 fps with the 90gr AH.
Click to expand...
Nice! I was going to try RL16, but didn't have much powder left.
Is that where you hit pressure or where you settled in at?

I tried Varget 1st, hit pressure at 3516, next I tried IMR4350 pressure at 3549, backed off and had a .5" group at 3481 ave.
Then I tried RL26, went to 3727 with NO pressure signs, but had a velocity node at around 3660, shot 3 into a .33" group with an average velocity of 3665.

I just ran out of 90g AH, so I ordered some 95g HHT, if those don't work I can always go back to the 90g AH.
 
Has anyone tried the numbers out on the difference between the 163hht and the 168hht?
Interesting, since I play with numbers sometimes.
Let's start with
3300 fps 10twist whatever?

163hht
Rec tr 1-10.5 or faster
Length 1.467
G7 .234 est

168hht
Rec tr 1-11.25 or faster
Length 1.427
G7 .241 est

zeroed 200yrds
@600 yrds

163hht
52.7in drop
2141 fps
1659 lbs energy
1.49 s.g

168hht
52.0 drop
2171fps
1758 lbs energy
1.66 sg

#'s favor 168hht from what I see.
Please correct me if I'm wrong 🤷‍♂️
 
riceman said:
Has anyone tried the numbers out on the difference between the 163hht and the 168hht?
Interesting, since I play with numbers sometimes.
Let's start with
3300 fps 10twist whatever?

163hht
Rec tr 1-10.5 or faster
Length 1.467
G7 .234 est

168hht
Rec tr 1-11.25 or faster
Length 1.427
G7 .241 est

@600 yrds

163hht
52.7in drop
2141 fps
1659 lbs energy
1.49 s.g

168hht
52.0 drop
2171fps
1758 lbs energy
1.66 sg

#'s favor 168hht from what I see.
Please correct me if I'm wrong 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Hoping I can get the 154hht to 3800fps in a 10" twist
 
Gday
@Bojo34
Got those tables up thankyou
I think you’re in a really good zone & the following you’ve answered with the following
Bojo34 said:
Qualification understood GL.....never took your post as negative towards the new pill at all and hope I didn't come across as implying you did. I share everyone's excitement over the new offering and will certainly switch once HH inventory is depleted, just weighing if the uptick in performance for my combos justifies the immediate switch. Your comment above spot on.....I'll be switching over my 7x57/120HH combo, but in the magnums where I'm 2700ish+ at all MY ranges, not feeling compelled to swap immediately, but open to persuasion..... look forward to Farleg comments on velo brackets.
Click to expand...

I also really like Riceman’s thoughts
riceman said:
Has anyone tried the numbers out on the difference between the 163hht and the 168hht?
Interesting, since I play with numbers sometimes.
Let's start with
3300 fps 10twist whatever?

163hht
Rec tr 1-10.5 or faster
Length 1.467
G7 .234 est

168hht
Rec tr 1-11.25 or faster
Length 1.427
G7 .241 est

zeroed 200yrds
@600 yrds

163hht
52.7in drop
2141 fps
1659 lbs energy
1.49 s.g

168hht
52.0 drop
2171fps
1758 lbs energy
1.66 sg

#'s favor 168hht from what I see.
Please correct me if I'm wrong 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

& when your supply is depleted I’d be looking to the 168 &also @DaveM thoughts of the 154

cheers
 
DiscoSteve said:
I noticed the new HHT bullets have the PDR bands spread farther apart, and have fewer of them. Does anyone know why some of the new HHT bullets look to have the "old style" PDR bands? For instance look at the 264 118 HHT (old style) and 125 (new style).

Steve mentioned that fewer PDR bands show less pressure, and I assume the gentler angles on the new style PDR bands reduces skin drag, but shouldn't there be an optimal geometry that all bullets would share?
Click to expand...
My guess is because that 118 is meant for 1:9tw rifles. The closer bands helps it get that weight without making it longer than it needs to be.
 
riceman said:
Has anyone tried the numbers out on the difference between the 163hht and the 168hht?
Interesting, since I play with numbers sometimes.
Let's start with
3300 fps 10twist whatever?

163hht
Rec tr 1-10.5 or faster
Length 1.467
G7 .234 est

168hht
Rec tr 1-11.25 or faster
Length 1.427
G7 .241 est

zeroed 200yrds
@600 yrds

163hht
52.7in drop
2141 fps
1659 lbs energy
1.49 s.g

168hht
52.0 drop
2171fps
1758 lbs energy
1.66 sg

#'s favor 168hht from what I see.
Please correct me if I'm wrong 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Riceman,

Two minor comments.

1) It looks like you're calculating s.g. at the 600 yard mark. That's a no-no. Stability is only calculated at the muzzle. It does not degrade as the bullet travels downfield (it actually improves).

2) You're biasing the comparison toward the 168hht a bit by assuming they both leave the muzzle at the same velocity. If the 168hht was at 3,300 fps than the lighter 163hht would be around 3,380.

That said, the two are pretty much a wash in my book and I'd shoot whichever my gun liked best.
 
Steve Davis said:
This trip to Aussie is going to be dedicated to testing solids. We want to take a footprint in that market. We will be doing the volume shooting with Hammer HHT 's. Also two of the DG test rifles will be set up with heavier HHT's for some long range work on deer and whatever else gives the opportunity. We are wanting to get some 600y plus work on water buffalo.
Click to expand...
I would also like to see a few more solid options offered in the market. Namely a .375 300gr, .416 325/350gr, .458 430-450gr, .474 480/500gr. I will be a buyer and test them for you on some big beasts.
 
BigGame said:
Riceman,

Two minor comments.

1) It looks like you're calculating s.g. at the 600 yard mark. That's a no-no. Stability is only calculated at the muzzle. It does not degrade as the bullet travels downfield (it actually improves).

2) You're biasing the comparison toward the 168hht a bit by assuming they both leave the muzzle at the same velocity. If the 168hht was at 3,300 fps than the lighter 163hht would be around 3,380.

That said, the two are pretty much a wash in my book and I'd shoot whichever my gun liked best.
Click to expand...
BigGame
Thanks, I should have clarified that up a bit. I should of included more info.
The pics below are the data I used. 1st pic would be for 163hht 2nd for 168hht.

Yes if you where using same type of bullet for velocity variation in 5 gns you are correct in velocity should be higher.
But if you notice the bullets are different, 163hht have older style pdrs with more grooves. 168hht with newer 3 wide groove design, this is the only reason for giving same velocities. I've read that the wider grooves helped lowering pressure some. I could be wrong 🤷‍♂️ this was the reason for matched velocities.
My original observation was that the 168hht had a 11.25+ tr requirement, generally the heavier bullet requires faster twist than a lighter one requiring 10.5+tr.
Below are inputs of 1yrd from muzzle.
I hope that clarified it up a bit. 🤷‍♂️
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230530-150940_Ballistics Buddy.jpg
    Screenshot_20230530-150940_Ballistics Buddy.jpg
    147.3 KB · Views: 9
  • Screenshot_20230530-150918_Ballistics Buddy.jpg
    Screenshot_20230530-150918_Ballistics Buddy.jpg
    145.3 KB · Views: 9
BigGame said:
Riceman,

2) You're biasing the comparison toward the 168hht a bit by assuming they both leave the muzzle at the same velocity. If the 168hht was at 3,300 fps than the lighter 163hht would be around 3,380.

That said, the two are pretty much a wash in my book and I'd shoot whichever my gun liked best.
Click to expand...
Gday biggame
Interesting thought process could you please delve a little deeper to explain & here’s mine on what I’m going off

I’m thinking the old rule of 100 fps per 10 gr of pill weight will not apply so much to the 168 vrs the 163 as the 168 has less friction due to the bands on ea pill so it MIGHT run the same 🤷‍♂️or within 20 fps

The bonus of this 168 pill is the stability in a twist of 10.5 now I don’t know a lot of companies that put outa 10.5 ( we get some difference once measured of coarse I’m talking advertised ) & most companies produce full numbers eg 9,10,11 & so on

So what I look @ is exactly what you said shoot what your rifle likes the best 👍I’ll just add I’d still do the numbers of the impacts @ ea individuals ranges as then we’ve covered the bases to get the best possible outcome with those calls unless you can get that 163 considerably faster the 168 is going to trump it in so many ways

Now I’ve been wrong before on how fast a certain pill can be pushed and why I love actuals not theory so as time goes by we will see where these pills line up for us all to have a better base to go off as now we are just in theory stage
So get out there people & let’s help ea other find the best combos we can

Just the way I like to look @ things
No right nor wrong & I mean no offence to you or anyone point

Overall
Stay within the advertised parameters & your good to go
Just look a little deeper if you’re ringing out that bit more & I like that up our sleeve for murphy

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top