Apparently copper monolithic are prone to penciling!
6.5 Grendel 110 Hammer Hunter Pencil Through?
6.5 Grendel 110 Hammer Hunter Pencil Through?
Copper Monolithic Prone to Pencil
- Thread starter OutdoorEdventure
- Start date
ButterBean
Hammer Time Executive member
Not anymore 
Schmo
Hammer Time Executive member
@choprzrul,
Sounds like you’re referring to McGuire Ballistics Copper Rose. I’m not looking to go away from Hammers, but curious what you think of them?
Sounds like you’re referring to McGuire Ballistics Copper Rose. I’m not looking to go away from Hammers, but curious what you think of them?
choprzrul
Hammer Time Executive member
Never seen one in person let alone fire any. However, they are located about 45 minutes up the road from me in Paso Robles (Hogue's factory and Pro Shop is up there also).
I like that he has a field report thread running over at LRH showing terminal performance. It appears his results are much the same as Hammers. I would like to know how he is getting a FMJ bullet profile that also expands??
I have no plans to use anything but Hammers, but I will try to tour his place the next time I run up to the Hogue Pro Shop (which by the way usually has a great selection/variety of powder in stock and will custom fit grips for your pistol if you bring it in).
Listened to podcast a few weeks ago that had him on. The bullet and tip are 2 separate peices. The single feed tips are apparently a very soft copper(alloy?). His mag feed ones have a much higher minimum velocity because the tip has to be harded for magazine feeding. Not convinced enough to try them, but he was at least reasonable with a few thoughts behind his work.
Farleg
Hammer Time Executive member
Gday
Pencils & most bullets go hand in hand the issue is the resistance people use to evaluate a pill working or not
Personally I like to go on the lower end of resistance as if it works there it will work on any deer
Look @ ones resistance across say a GL’s small deer rib shot vrs a elk shoulder
You will get the same pill to open completely different & why I’m leaning towards you guy’s looking @ yotes as a good indicator as gel ,water , soaked phone books etc offer to much resistance & the pill will work yet keep shooting & watch a pencil occur in the field on occasions
I also am watching @kneedeep with gel as tinkering to come on that may solve /show a bit of a better indicator
I would like to think yotes or coons are like our Bennett’s wallaby but I’ve got no idea & hopefully kneedeep & joe can weigh in if much difference in the elasticity of ea critter hide & one I wish we would have talked about more but only so much one can do on a trip so what better reason than another
Cheers
Pencils & most bullets go hand in hand the issue is the resistance people use to evaluate a pill working or not
Personally I like to go on the lower end of resistance as if it works there it will work on any deer
Look @ ones resistance across say a GL’s small deer rib shot vrs a elk shoulder
You will get the same pill to open completely different & why I’m leaning towards you guy’s looking @ yotes as a good indicator as gel ,water , soaked phone books etc offer to much resistance & the pill will work yet keep shooting & watch a pencil occur in the field on occasions
I also am watching @kneedeep with gel as tinkering to come on that may solve /show a bit of a better indicator
I would like to think yotes or coons are like our Bennett’s wallaby but I’ve got no idea & hopefully kneedeep & joe can weigh in if much difference in the elasticity of ea critter hide & one I wish we would have talked about more but only so much one can do on a trip so what better reason than another
Cheers
kneedeep
Hammer Time Executive member
There is still a lot to work out when translating gel results to animal results. With that said, there are certainly some similarities between the two. An example ( @Farleg ) is you and I have shown very similar velocities in where two different pills fail to open. You shooting wallaby with both pills at low velocities and me shooting gel with both pills at very similar velocities. Assessing what velocity a pill fails to open is where I believe gel may have some merit. More testing of different pills will be needed to see if this holds true.
As @Poor_choices has stated, gel is extremely consistent. But it’s not only the gel that’s consistent, it’s unbelievable how consistent some pills are in gel.
But gel is nothing like animal matter (other than the meat to an extent) so the wound channels don’t translate. But you can visually see how altering a pill changes the way it comes apart and the resulting speed of the shank after shedding its nose. Which I believe this is extremely good information. It shows the difference in the amount of energy used to shed the nose with slight alterations. There is a lot to be gained in this area. Altering the gel itself could possibly change the way a pill comes apart in gel, potentially getting it to show more similar traits as animal matter. More to come on this later as gel is Extremely time consuming.
Now for raccoons and coyotes vs wallabies for bullet testing. Coyote has a similar skin thickness and texture as your wallaby. The rib bones are a little larger and the depth of the chest (broadside) is roughly double that of a wallaby. Coyotes are a good lighter resistant bullet test, although they are generally not as readily available as raccoons and no where nearly available as wallaby. Well depending on your location
Raccoon resistance varies depending on location (north to south) and also time of year. I believe our Midwest raccoons fall between your wallabies and your brush tailed possum. The biggest difference being fat content. I’ve seen some Alabama raccoons (not on feeders) that would be as close to your wallabies as it gets. Thin skinned, similar chest thickness and little fat. It was reported last year that raccoon populations across the US where at an all time high. For those that want more turkeys to hunt, keeping nest predators low is the best way to improve turkey populations. Point being raccoons are readily available just about anywhere and make a great bullet test. But! There’s some translating of wound channels between wallaby/raccoons and deer or larger animals.
I tested the 338/210hht in gel and raccoons before going to Tassie. My concern with testing this pill in raccoons (as well as a few other pills) was not seeing the coke can wound channel when shooting them length ways. After seeing the results in wallaby, there are similar traits. You really have to find the petal tracks to determine their direction. What I find most helpful with testing on dead raccoons is filming the impact in slo motion with my iPhone. While scrubbing the video I can find a frame or two that shows the direction of the shaped charge.
For comparison, the shaped charge in gel is slightly more focused than in a raccoon. These were around 3100 impacts. But in Farleg’s fallow deer (mid 2000s and below impacts) there was the distinct coke can wound channel. Considerably more focused shaped charge. In gel at mid 2000 impacts the wound channel is narrower than in the fallow deer. @T_the_Tinkerer has read that this is a common theme with gel and animals. This pill like many initially goes wider at higher velocities than it does at lower velocities. Point being, depending on the resistance, depth and velocity, there will be some translation needed regarding wound channels. No easy button here in my opinion.
Well thanks to Farleg, I’ve spent more time on this than I had this morning.
Till next time
Kneedeep
As @Poor_choices has stated, gel is extremely consistent. But it’s not only the gel that’s consistent, it’s unbelievable how consistent some pills are in gel.
But gel is nothing like animal matter (other than the meat to an extent) so the wound channels don’t translate. But you can visually see how altering a pill changes the way it comes apart and the resulting speed of the shank after shedding its nose. Which I believe this is extremely good information. It shows the difference in the amount of energy used to shed the nose with slight alterations. There is a lot to be gained in this area. Altering the gel itself could possibly change the way a pill comes apart in gel, potentially getting it to show more similar traits as animal matter. More to come on this later as gel is Extremely time consuming.
Now for raccoons and coyotes vs wallabies for bullet testing. Coyote has a similar skin thickness and texture as your wallaby. The rib bones are a little larger and the depth of the chest (broadside) is roughly double that of a wallaby. Coyotes are a good lighter resistant bullet test, although they are generally not as readily available as raccoons and no where nearly available as wallaby. Well depending on your location
Raccoon resistance varies depending on location (north to south) and also time of year. I believe our Midwest raccoons fall between your wallabies and your brush tailed possum. The biggest difference being fat content. I’ve seen some Alabama raccoons (not on feeders) that would be as close to your wallabies as it gets. Thin skinned, similar chest thickness and little fat. It was reported last year that raccoon populations across the US where at an all time high. For those that want more turkeys to hunt, keeping nest predators low is the best way to improve turkey populations. Point being raccoons are readily available just about anywhere and make a great bullet test. But! There’s some translating of wound channels between wallaby/raccoons and deer or larger animals.I tested the 338/210hht in gel and raccoons before going to Tassie. My concern with testing this pill in raccoons (as well as a few other pills) was not seeing the coke can wound channel when shooting them length ways. After seeing the results in wallaby, there are similar traits. You really have to find the petal tracks to determine their direction. What I find most helpful with testing on dead raccoons is filming the impact in slo motion with my iPhone. While scrubbing the video I can find a frame or two that shows the direction of the shaped charge.
For comparison, the shaped charge in gel is slightly more focused than in a raccoon. These were around 3100 impacts. But in Farleg’s fallow deer (mid 2000s and below impacts) there was the distinct coke can wound channel. Considerably more focused shaped charge. In gel at mid 2000 impacts the wound channel is narrower than in the fallow deer. @T_the_Tinkerer has read that this is a common theme with gel and animals. This pill like many initially goes wider at higher velocities than it does at lower velocities. Point being, depending on the resistance, depth and velocity, there will be some translation needed regarding wound channels. No easy button here in my opinion.
Well thanks to Farleg, I’ve spent more time on this than I had this morning.
Till next time
Kneedeep
Last edited:
ButterBean
Hammer Time Executive member
I’m with you 109% and IMHO that’s the problem with gel, it’s consistent and critters ain’t, sure it a good starting point to look at a pill but I personally just shrug my shoulders, dead critters on the ground is my proving groundThere is still a lot to work out when translating gel results to animal results. With that said, there are certainly some similarities between the two. An example ( @Farleg ) is you and I have shown very similar velocities in where two different pills fail to open. You shooting wallaby with both pills at low velocities and me shooting gel with both pills at very similar velocities. Assessing what velocity a pill fails to open is where I believe gel may have some merit. More testing of different pills will be needed to see if this holds true.
As @Poor_choices has stated, gel is extremely consistent. But it’s not only the gel that’s consistent, it’s unbelievable how consistent some pills are in gel.
But gel is nothing like animal matter (other than the meat to an extent) so the wound channels don’t translate. But you can visually see how altering a pill changes the way it comes apart and the resulting speed of the shank after shedding its nose. Which I believe this is extremely good information. It shows the difference in the amount of energy used to shed the nose with slight alterations. There is a lot to be gained in this area. Altering the gel itself could possibly change the way a pill comes apart in gel, potentially getting it to show more similar traits as animal matter. More to come on this later as gel is Extremely time consuming.
Now for raccoons and coyotes vs wallabies for bullet testing. Coyote has a similar skin thickness and texture as your wallaby. The rib bones are a little larger and the depth of the chest (broadside) is roughly double that of a wallaby. Coyotes are a good lighter resistant bullet test, although they are generally not as readily available as raccoons and no where nearly available as wallaby. Well depending on your location
I tested the 338/210hht in gel and raccoons before going to Tassie. My concern with testing this pill in raccoons (as well as a few other pills) was not seeing the coke can wound channel when shooting them length ways. After seeing the results in wallaby, there are similar traits. You really have to find the petal tracks to determine their direction. What I find most helpful with testing on dead raccoons is filming the impact in slo motion with my iPhone. While scrubbing the video I can find a frame or two that shows the direction of the shaped charge.
For comparison, the shaped charge in gel is slightly more focused than in a raccoon. These were around 3100 impacts. But in Farleg’s fallow deer (mid 2000s and below impacts) there was the distinct coke can wound channel. Considerably more focused shaped charge. In gel at mid 2000 impacts the wound channel is narrower than in the fallow deer. @T_the_Tinkerer has read that this is a common theme with gel and animals. This pill like many initially goes wider at higher velocities than it does at lower velocities. Point being, depending on the resistance, depth and velocity, there will be some translation needed regarding wound channels. No easy button here in my opinion.
Well thanks to Farleg, I’ve spent more time on this than I had this morning.
Till next time
Kneedeep
Kneedeep,
Well said and written.
Much to digest and will bear re-reading several times.
Haven't done any gel testing, but quite a bit of critter testing (nothing like Farleg's and ya'll's in Tassie.)
There is much variation in critters as you mentioned. Winter to summer, North vs South, body mass, fat or no, etc. A prime example is the 85gr HH in 100 lb deer vs your 160+ lb northern deer.
A thin coon/coyote gets a late opening wound starting at mid-late body penetration and exiting. A fat coon or normal beaver gets liquified internals, a devastating shape charge and an unholy mess!
You can see the effect of "tinkering" with a bullet inside a critter. Ex., the 120 gr 30 cal. LH @4k. Opening up the lips of the hollow point made the bullet open sooner, shed petals faster, retain more shank speed, and become more devastating sooner.
Looking very much forward to where this all leads
Well said and written.
Much to digest and will bear re-reading several times.
Haven't done any gel testing, but quite a bit of critter testing (nothing like Farleg's and ya'll's in Tassie.)
There is much variation in critters as you mentioned. Winter to summer, North vs South, body mass, fat or no, etc. A prime example is the 85gr HH in 100 lb deer vs your 160+ lb northern deer.
A thin coon/coyote gets a late opening wound starting at mid-late body penetration and exiting. A fat coon or normal beaver gets liquified internals, a devastating shape charge and an unholy mess!
You can see the effect of "tinkering" with a bullet inside a critter. Ex., the 120 gr 30 cal. LH @4k. Opening up the lips of the hollow point made the bullet open sooner, shed petals faster, retain more shank speed, and become more devastating sooner.
Looking very much forward to where this all leads
I had not thought that before. Basically if gel is the "standard", we get good gel bullets.
choprzrul
Hammer Time Executive member
A new light bulb just popped on in my world....
kneedeep
Hammer Time Executive member
Your statement is well said Carl. No matter the test media, there’s some translation that has to occur, unless testing on the specific animal the pill is intended for.
There is a LOT of translation that Farleg does when testing pills on wallaby. It’s his ability to see and read the fine details of a pill’s performance on wallaby. With literally thousands of translations from wallaby to larger animals, he’s able to assess a weakness if there is one. But it takes many shots on wallaby to see how consistent a pill is. The ten good results don’t get examined, it’s the two shots that make you say “something is going on there, that was a different reaction.” Those two wallaby get examined for the finest details to make sense of what happened. (And some of the good results wallaby get examined for the basics.) So even if we all had thousands of wallaby to shoot, without Farleg’s ability (sickness
) to see the finest of details in a mess of animal parts and the experience to translate to larger animals, we’d all just be shooting wallaby and saying dead is dead. The same goes for those who shoot a lot of deer sized or bigger animals. If you don’t take into account the animals reaction and examine the Wound channels (and have the ability to understand what’s going on) then you’ll be a dead is dead guy and not understand the limitations of that pill. So we are extremely fortunate to have Farleg here to not just take bullet performance to the next level but to take it to the extreme. And I don’t believe every pill has the ability to achieve this extreme performance. A pill will get too short or too long to proportion it properly for the ultimate performance. This doesn’t mean those too short or too long pills necessarily perform poorly, they just have more limitations or perimeters you should be aware of.
Back to the topic of the original post, there are many factors that can cause a pill to pencil. Shooting a pill with the best materials in combination with its design and knowing a pill’s limitations will help mitigate any chances of a pill to pencil through.
Just my two cents
Kneedeep
Les,
Some Hammers handle speed better than others. All will kill, some just take better advantage of the speed.
For ex, the 6.5 118 HHT does not do particularly well with high vel impacts (at or near 4k). However, it appears they do very well at more nominal impacts (say Grendle or CM velocities).
The HHT line is designed more for normal/nominal impact velocities and speeds.
In all my testing the hammer hunters and absolutes have no uppet boundaries
Some Hammers handle speed better than others. All will kill, some just take better advantage of the speed.
For ex, the 6.5 118 HHT does not do particularly well with high vel impacts (at or near 4k). However, it appears they do very well at more nominal impacts (say Grendle or CM velocities).
The HHT line is designed more for normal/nominal impact velocities and speeds.
In all my testing the hammer hunters and absolutes have no uppet boundaries
This year I'm trying HH tipped in 30 cal 182 gr. 6.5 125 gr. tipped and 95 gr. Tipped .257. In 300 RUM/300 WM. 6.5 PRC/6.5 Needmoor and 257 Weatherby. I've had great results with all but 257 Weatherby. Was shooting 100 gr. Barnes TTSX in it. Shot great. I can't wait to try the 95 gr. HHT in it. I'm going to start off with same RL26 load I was using with Barnes. It was 3664 fps. No pressure signs. I'm sure the Hammer will be faster and great accuracy. H1000 was almost as good. Little slower and almost as accurate.Les,
Some Hammers handle speed better than others. All will kill, some just take better advantage of the speed.
For ex, the 6.5 118 HHT does not do particularly well with high vel impacts (at or near 4k). However, it appears they do very well at more nominal impacts (say Grendle or CM velocities).
The HHT line is designed more for normal/nominal impact velocities and speeds.
In all my testing the hammer hunters and absolutes have no uppet boundaries
