Velocity windows

Farleg

Farleg

Hammer Time Executive member
les said:
I continue to wonder why? What will a 210 do that the 220 won't do and visa-versa? Does one solve an issue that the other doesn't? How nuanced do we need to be in the bullets we use to harvest animals ethically?
Click to expand...
Steve Davis said:
If we did one without the other we would get calls requesting the missing weight. Some guys can't kill an elk with a 210gr pill because it isn't heavy enough. Or brown bear or moose or white tail, etc. Nothing wrong with personal preference.
Click to expand...

Gday Les & Steve

Well Steve potentially you know where I’m about to go fairly quick once you read on a bit
Hmmm yes people I’ve been in Steve’s ear about the following
Yes the dog with a bone don’t let up so your about to read where /what I’m referring too but this also maybe the one that shuts me up once I understand where most people come from or look @

Yes I guess it will depend on how people react to this on a potential future thread I’ve partially started to gather notes on so I can post it up with more clarity or just leave it in the archives of my note book 🤷‍♂️

To les’s point on ethically I’m all over that & where I basically have spent most of my life working out which pills give better results

So let’s get into this & broadly real broad as a lot in this & Steve sorry to blindside you or put words in your mouth but I honestly think you are missing it or I haven’t relayed it correctly yet 🤷‍♂️ & here’s my next attempt
Yea I’m not giving up yet 🤣😇

The question is :
So how do people feel about picking more tuned / balanced pills to their personal needs/ situations ??

That can only be understood when you really get into the depths of what I’m about to put up as I guarantee everyone is 100% yes on the broad question above

So let’s broaden that out some more & see what the responses are

So the question will follow after this

Pills regardless of brand have sweet spots on killing efficiency
This is basically on the really good pills around a 600 fps impact range
Most don’t get this & 400 is more generally a better number to work with

Now that impact is a fluent number across so many brands & even within the same brand
Yes it maybe a pill A that works well from 2000 to 2400 & pill B is 2800 to 3200

So when we see ea of these pills is rated from
X to Y that both advertise the same ,
I’ll call total BS

With the exception of one company & that is woodleigh in Australia & Geoff rates his pill on such a small window than other companies, it’s a credit to him to have stuck to his guns & overtime you have seen woodleigh become world class In reputation due to this being put out imo

It’s simple you step outside that window & it will still kill but not as good or “ethically” as if your inside it

That is a proven fact & dare I say probably over a million critters have proven this to be the case ( not mine but I tested these windows fairly extensively & they work )

But woodleigh have limitations like every single brand & it’s more relevant to c&c

Now take those windows & where it fits imo with hammers & you’ve already dabbled in it steve so don’t think it’s to complicated as it’s only simple words on your website that will fix it or should I say people will eventually understand you are taking terminal performance to the next level

& I’m not even talking dual loads yet , yes yet as that will come if people grasp this first but limited to a smaller audience than the following

So let’s take a hht broadly
It’s been able to ( proved ) that it can broaden that 600 great velocity window & stretch that to 1000
Which is a game changer but other companies are snapping at that pills heels

Ea & everyone are limited to what can be achieved & if you take those 2 pills above & the window of 2000 to 3200 which is outside that 1000 now take that pill & use it in a 308&300 rum you still have the 1000 great window but ea chambering is outside the great window yet both can be & most likely in the great window for a lot of people due to ranges critters are taken @ but ea has room for improvement

For the 308 why don’t we have a pill that’s rated from say 1700 to 2700
& a rum a 2500 to 3500

Now you watch those impacts from 1700 to 2000 improve & not a little & this is one I hate impacts here but I’ve seen enough in the prototypes of the 163 hht to go hmmm & even when those tables were put up here or the old forum 🤷‍♂️ nearly everyone picked pill D as it killed way better in that bottom velocity window than the pill C which was the better overall pill & got my nod as the vast majority of people would benefit from the killing efficiency of pill C as pill D topped out like the 300 blackout pill

So pill C covers most but now let’s move those to a 500 yard 308 shooter or a 100 yard box shooter

Great for the box shooter yet the 500 yard guy will eventually get longer runs that pi$$ them off when they see their mates or other internet players show better results time after time

Now have pill D & watch that 500 yard guy show the results to his mates of did you see that & the actual results will raise to the top with actuals just like woodleigh has done & that to me is one that if we are to take this ethical/efficiency part on board it’s the easiest way to do it not try & tune a pill that covers exceedingly well from 1700 to 4000 as we have pills that can cover it today in hammers better than others no doubt but it’s not the best that can be achieved in my mind & why I put this out & actual data proves it ( 163hht )

Now that covers the majority of people as they will beable to hone in on their impact range & get even better results again as they now have a pill that is fine tuned for THEIR application

So if I explained that all correctly 🤷‍♂️🤞

the question now is :
who would accept a velocity rated pill or would it just complicate things to much

Now get past that & dual loads is another part of the spectrum that broadens out the efficiency of killing or should I say the potential most ethical system that no other company produces that’s also easier with hammers but we need to get past the first question above & understand it before we get to that stage if we ever do 🤷‍♂️

So I’ve dribbled enough & looking forward to see if it’s one that has merit or am I out on my own on where pills will eventually end up @

Sorry for blindside but saw my opening I believe 😇but time will tell 😎
Back to my hole 😜
cheers
 
Hooray, and good for you Farleg!
As you know, several here have been working with velocity brackets for a long time.
Your testing (and others') have shown us the "sweet spot" for best bullet performance terminally (ethically-quickest kills) for some time.
We have velocity brackets for Hammer Hunters and Absolutes. To get optimum terminal performance, one must balance bullet weight/velocity/and animal size-resistance.
The optimum velocity brackets for the HHTs are still in the development stage (still waiting on ya'll 's final data). We know the velocity brackets will be different (and probably wider) for the HHTs. Some of the HHTs may have an upper limit for optimum performance.
With all three style bullets, the question should not be "how low a velocity will they open." It should be "at what impact velocity do they perform Best!" (Stated as a range of impact velocity).
Thus, bullet choice should be reflected in the cartridge/rifle a person has (or needs), the likely range they will shoot, and the quarry.

Not everyone follows this thought process?

Few if any bullets can perform optimally at all impact velocity ranges. Obviously, the widest good performance range is better (hence your reference to "dual loads").

Woodleigh is way ahead with their recommended impact ranges. With enough data, Hammers could lead the way over here. It's gonna take some education and changes in how hunters think in the US.

I'll be following this with keen interest.
Thank you again sir!
 
Thanks Farleg! It really does boil down to everyone's analysis of their own hunting environment, personal limitations, and preferences. Not all of us can get out and do research like many of you get to do. Fish and Game where I live will not allow it. I was really looking forward to doing some of my own testing this spring on coyotes, but alas I am physically unable to shoot a rifle until the end of June or the 1st of July at the earliest.

I would encourage all of us to think think think! As I think about the 6.5 Creedmoor, I am still settled on the 118 HHT as the best bullet for me. I love reading all of your results, and it was a little mind shaking to hear all the praise for the 112 and 124 HHT. Would I feel handicapped with either of those bullets if the 118 didn't exist? The answer to that would be "No and Yes" I've enjoyed working with my gun, and for me and where I hunt I have determined that a bullet between 115 grains and 120 grains provides the perfect compromise for hunting with the 6.5 out to 600 yards.

The other solution is to have more than one gun. One of the worst things about being out of action is we have had great weather for spring bear hunting this year. I was really looking forward to hunting with "the Howitzer" (45/90) and the 35 Whelen for bear this year. In the past year I have also worked on developing my own "broad spectrum" hunting rifle. Again, doing the research without all of the "puppy love" that often factors into one's decisions, I settled on the 300WSM. If I don't know what I am getting into this is the gun I will grab. If I know I won't have to hike a lot and I might need to reach out there, I will grab the 300 RUM. Sometimes it does just boil down to one's subjective likings. There is nothing wrong with that! I do like my single shots.
 
I understand the theory described here of providing an impact velocity range for effective terminal performance for each bullet or style of bullet. It seems prudent and useful.

But I’m curious about the upper end of the range for Hammer bullets. My assumption has been that they remain effective even at very high impact velocities, which is why I’ve mainly been concerned with the low end of the impact velocity range.

Are you suggesting producing both a ‘standard’ Hammer (impact range ~1700-3000, say) and a ‘high-velocity’ Hammer with a range of 2500-3800?
 
BigGame said:
I understand the theory described here of providing an impact velocity range for effective terminal performance for each bullet or style of bullet. It seems prudent and useful.

But I’m curious about the upper end of the range for Hammer bullets. My assumption has been that they remain effective even at very high impact velocities, which is why I’ve mainly been concerned with the low end of the impact velocity range.

Are you suggesting producing both a ‘standard’ Hammer (impact range ~1700-3000, say) and a ‘high-velocity’ Hammer with a range of 2500-3800?
Click to expand...
I think the larger hollow points in the HHTs can cause issues at very high velocities, especially the lighter for caliber bullets?🤷🏻‍♂️
 
Gday
Thanks Steve for moving it over to another thread

GL the velocity brackets are so simple that is I guess why I personally like them & they fit extremely well with hammers as consistency is the part that really sets them up to work extremely well
The hht through a major spanner in the works as that 2 nd bottom bracket basically is absorbed in the middle bracket
tweak’s still needed I think which is a pain as you get one pill you can put in it’s brackets real easy & the next just dosent fit
So tweaking the pill & you can somewhat get it to align pretty closely to a bracket

Now this is where I believe what woodleigh somewhat does ( not to the extent that hammers potentially can) is a easier process of that’s the pill & this is where it works better & leave it alone
Then tweak another pill that covers where it doesn’t produce as good of a result & improve that to a level that REALLY complements that velocity bracket or brackets


On the hht we still have a line around that 2000/2100 mark that on the testing of the 163hht you saw where the performance of pill D was a higher level than pill C
But from 2000/2100 to that 2600/2700 you could realistically use either

But 1700 to 2000/2100 it was evident what pill was working better hands down

So that pill weight had 4 different tweaks & then whittled down to one we have today

Now to give you lot a idea & off the top of my head I think that went through around 500 critters to work that out

Yet it was extremely evident in around 20 critters what was doing what
The A pill was within 5 yep that was so easy but confirmed in more so I wasn’t missing anything

So that got me ticking somewhat & what I also saw was the evidence of a bar raised on the lower impacts but for the vast
majority of us will not impact down there


Now I just read biggames post as I done the above sometime this morning but had a day to forget but all cool now

So let’s get into this
1700 3000
2500-3800

No doubt you’ve upset GL as he’s the 4k or go home guy lol 🤣🤣
I just had to put that in as my little unwind

Now the serious stuff

I’m glad you put those brackets up biggame as makes me think a little outside of what I was thinking which is good as I like to get my thinking cap on & assess why did you put those up & where they fit
So thankyou & I like those 👍😇

How to approach this in a way that can give us the hunters a easy format & greater terminal results overall

Let’s try tackling it this way
Sub 2000 sucks imo but I’ll acknowledge this is the area that has the greatest potential for improvement

But equally if we concentrate on the sub 2000 we will ultimately loose the top end potentcy

I can think of so many pill brands that do this yet in the end they are neither fish nor fowl & even some hammers fit in here & you just get longer runs when you go how I had heaps of bandaids

So to biggame question on a top end limit yes there is but not from a structural point it’s I think you just are trying to get a pill to do too much or @ a level that we are expecting to much as we have been extremely spoilt but if it’s designed in mind of shrinking those brackets somewhat to a more manageable level that are easily obtainable hmm it’s one I like

Now let’s take that sub 2000 for this to work well you need the pill to function well below 1700 not just @1700 & that’s where the issues arise or lack of killing efficiency as you watch 50 fps differences show vastly different results & yes it’s not hard to watch it in the field as critter reaction & impact to tip just doesn’t lie & one I’m hoping like crazy that kneedeep & the tinker can figure this gel out that translates to critters or Steve’s going to need to import Bennett’s wallaby as those guys are extremely valuable in assessing what’s going on here as they are the hyper

So dare I even say this & never thought I would get on the bandwagon of pushing lower as ceb laser turned me right off the so called work @ low impact yes they open & shed but work not in my world or a critter you can’t tell it’s hit well I couldn’t or my spotter rest his sole ( that was Corey )

But if you concentrate on these low impacts you can get better terminals as the 163hht proved

So now if we use the 3000 top end of that pill you are still gaining good terminal preformance but it actually worked to 1450 but killed pretty $hit but 1550 wasn’t much difference than the 1750 of the chosen pill
So now you have a pill for a 308 guy or longrange that can kill more effectively @ those lower impacts so ethically that’s way better

Now the top end guys velocity as LTT has pointed out can be a little disturbing
& let’s take the 168 hht in 30 cal after I shot that I thought oh no the 154&138 were going to cut a deer in half but no they had settled a touch & got to a level where the top end of a extra 300 did no more damage but man does it sit **** down but let’s go to the 154 it dosent open as low as the 168 so it’s not one I’d look @ if your entering sub 2000 & gladly use the 168 instead if twist is ok

So tune / balance that 154 better & 2 pills become available to us and wherever one sits in the impacts they will achieve that’s the one they choose

Now for those who will impact both here’s your dual load & same pill just designed different yet sight in is easy as no different & longrange needs to dial anyway
& 2 tip colours solves the issue of mix up & simple method that can also be mixed up yes but colour code on a drop chart would basically sort that out

Man alive I can dribble on & sorry for that also no proof read as I need to go splat some critters & wind down a touch so I hope it all makes sense & catch you lot when I can
Cheers
 
@Farleg ,
WOW!!!
As my good friend BBean says, "you just slobbered a bib full"!!!!! And there is great deal of merit in All of it🤔😁!!!
Let's try to summarize some of this to keep us on track. This is getting Really interesting😋.
The vast majority of hunters in North America shoot cartridges with impact velocities of ~3100 or below. Most are in the range of mid 2000s.

The HHTs were (are being) developed to perform optimally in this impact range window.(BC is irrelelevent to many of us).

Traditional Hammers (HHs and Absolutes) do not appear to have an upper limit of performance at High impact velocities (3800+). Some Are more destructive at high impact speeds. Some open a bit soon and petals radiate out more horizontally than is desirable (optimum) at high speed. One has to choose/test bullets for best performance at your distances/speed/quarry.

HHTs generally perform Very well at mid-range velocity impacts. Some become very destructive of tissue at higher impact velocities. There is some serious evaluation and "tinkering" going on to sort this out (Farleg & company).

Optimum velocity impact windows are changing from the original table developed for traditional Hammers. If this pans out to be 2 ranges - What a wonderful world!

Some of us (the speed demons) have not yet fully embraced the HHTs because they offer us little advantage over traditional Hammers. For the vast majority of hunters, however, they are a huge step forwards 😀! Most would benefit from disregarding us speed demons. We are a minority.

Me? I'm gonna stay with speed. As one of the members once said "Once you see the results of high velocity impact, you can't unsee it" 🤪
 
Last edited:
I understand better now, thanks. I’m gathering that ongoing experimentation with different Hammer designs (HHT most recently) has led to the discussion of optimal impact velocity ranges because the HHTs are performing differently than prior Hammers - more effective at the low/mid impact velocity but not able to maintain performance at the higher/highest impact velocities. The natural step is to embrace that and clarify optimal ranges for the shooter. Makes sense.

Personally, the low end remains paramount because it defines my effective range. My bias is to ask whether a 7mm-08 can do it out to 500 yards, so I can dispense with the 7RM or 7RUM. That puts me firmly in the camp of more-info-is-better. Being explicit about and even further crafting the designs to open clear performance distinctions by impact velocity sounds like a good step forward to me.
 
Thanks George! I must confess, I am a speed demon too. My next project is to work up a load for the 300WSM with the 124 grain HH. Per your advice and other's input, I have a sweet load at 3,850 with the 137HH our of the 300RUM. I am impressed with the HHT in the 6.5 Creedmoor. When all is said and done, speed solves a lot of problems.
 
Last edited:
Thanks!

Periodically I need to be reminded that everyone has not been along for the whole ride of Hammers being developed.

We are currently discussing what the velocity brackets might look like for the new HHT bullets.

A few years ago there was a great deal of discussion about velocity brackets and stability factor as it relates to terminal performance of Hammer Bullets. If you were not present (member) during this time, it is highly recommended that you search for and read a couple of very good threads on these topics. They are under Bullets and Ballistics. I think they were something like Velocity Brackets, is it really this simple.... and there are others. Search for Velocity Brackets and go from there.

Farleg and a group of dedicated individuals developed and refined the velocity brackets with on-animal testing.

The brackets are designated as to how well they support "The Triangle" of killing efficiency. To be successful, a bullet must support all 3 legs of "the triangle":
Shot Placement
Penetration length, and
Wound channel

A simple recap of the original Velocity Brackets (for traditional Hammers) is:
A - 3200 fps + Impact velocity (best)
B - 2750-3200 Impact velocity
C - 2400-2750 "
D - 2100-2400 "
E - 1800-2100 " (weakest, but will work)

These brackets were derived from observed animal reactions to the shot and distance run before tip over in increments of about 10 yds or so, up to 40+ (best I remember).

There is a ton of good information under Bullets and Ballistics, if you haven't browsed there yet. If you haven't been shooting Hammers for 3 years+, I strongly suggest some reading there and under Reloading.

There's some terrific minds and experience on this Forum!

Regards. G
 
I have yet to see an HHT not perform exceptionally well with high vel impacts. I also have not seen excess meat damage from them. Penetration is not an issue. They retain the same basic weight as the Hammer Hunter. What I see with the HHT line is a more impressive permanent wound channel in the low to mid velocity impact range (where most cartridge and bullet combos are) and above 3000 fps impact little to no difference in terminal performance. They may open a bit quicker but that is hair splitting. We don't have problems with high vel impacts. I remember the 101gr 308 caliber Blackout Shock Hammer didn't like 5000 fps impacts, pretty hard to count that one. I don't see the value in designing bullets that are tough to get to open and then get a customer to use two different bullets with the same load and then decide which one to load when they get a range on an animal. This will create an inventory nightmare and confusion amongst customers. I only see poor bullet performance issues caused by confusion. That's my 2 cents. Talk me out of it.
 
I would like to have "cartridge specific" bullets. Bullets that, based on physical dimensions, fit the brass and magazine and chamber.
 
I think I have to agree with Steve, I think I have an idea what’s being discussed here and it kinda makes sense. But the testing of all these pills they are bringing out seems to me like more than enough effort and logistical confusion, never mind doubling that to do a high velocity version and a low velocity version. I do understand it would be ideal and we owe it to the animal to do our level best but what’s realistic without sinking a small company? Then like Steve alluded to, most guys new to hammers are already swimming in a sea of choices, then to run a high velocity pill in a low velocity cartridge with less than impressive kills, will probably discourage more customers than it’s worth. Seems better to stick with the low velocity cartridge needs that most customers shoot????
Just the way I see it🧐😃
 
WOW!!! I love this place!

It’s quite a bit to digest, but WOW, what a great thread.

The one I’ll chime in on is the 1 bullet/weight per cartridge concept. I gotta disagree with it simply because I know a lot of guys who hunt a lot of different animals with one gun/cartridge, and I’m really starting to lean that way myself. Most single gun guys I know, change up their loads based on what they’re going after. A heavy bullet for Elk, bear, muley, etc…. A lighter faster for whitetail, speed goats, varmints, etc…

Maybe, if we looked at it from an optimal weight for a game category, that might work. For instance, in the 30 magnum realm, WMs, RUMS, ETC… MAYBE A 180-190ish grain for large game (elk, moose, etc…) and a 130-150ish grain for deer and similar sized….
 
Aw c'mon @Steve Davis, we need a bullet weight for each cartridge in each action length for every conceivable magazine and freebore configuration along with specific barrel twists and lengths.

So what if you have 650 bullet weights per cartridge! Just buy more Swiss CNC's and warehouse shelving.

Just follow me for more bullet design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top