Why switch to a different weight bullet? What does a bullets energy give us?

[Spitpatch]

Northern Tier Minuteman Missile field.

I fought the South Dakota Theater of the Viet Nam War, and not a single Commie overran MY post, by God.

Had ta make sure ol @Andy54Hawken had somethin' ta come home to, dontcha know.

 

[IndyPrepper]

Northern Tier Minuteman Missile field.

I fought the South Dakota Theater of the Viet Nam War, and not a single Commie overran MY post, by God.

Had ta make sure ol @Andy54Hawken had somethin' ta come home to, dontcha know.

Lmao..awesome man..go Air Force. My dad was still carrying the M14 at the time. He doesn't have anything good to say about the M16's from back then. Now he's too cranky to change his opinion..I can't talk him in to firing my AR.

 

[BigGame]

Koda,
It sounds like you've come to a resolution, but I'll put some late comments in because I also shoot Hammer Bullets.

The 'standard bullet weight per game' rule of thumb comes from our long history of lead core bullets. You're shooting monolithics, which have a different standard because they penetrate so much better.

In my experience with Hammers, it's been an exercise in using progressively lighter bullets while confirming at each step that you're confident in the terminal performance (this means full pass through with massive damage all the way, for me).

For your 280AI, for example, I'd be primarily thinking in the 130-140gr range for elk at your distance with a stronger bias towards 120 than 150. The only thing that would tip the scale heavier is if my rifle shot the heavier much better.

Last thoughts:
1) You're best off reading input from others, but confirming for yourself.
2) Your observation that there is little difference is likely right - there's a big element of tinkering for the fun of reloading and experimenting in this.

 

[Koda]

The 'standard bullet weight per game' rule of thumb comes from our long history of lead core bullets. You're shooting monolithics, which have a different standard because they penetrate so much better.

They also have a difference standard because they weigh less for the same size, which is why they need speed to make up for the energy loss from the mass. I think...

When I initially chose the 140gnAH it was a middle of the road weight to start with, a compromise. There's lots of peer pressure in the hunting community to use big heavy and lead only bullets... talk to many experienced well respected hunters and thats what they use and suggesting otherwise you get balked at. When I got the 280ai it was my first "real" elk caliber so I was going back and forth with what Hammer to try (Id already made up my mind to switch to Hammers because they perform better than lead, another subject). Here was my chance to use a 150, 160 or even a 170gn weight class even with Hammers. I chose the 140gn cause its in the middle and I chose the Absolute because its designed for less barrel friction increasing velocity even more (undecided, but 3200fps isn't bad for a 140gn)

When I compare my 140 load to Hammers lighter bullets I run into a larger energy loss, hardly worth switching for a loss of 226ft lbs at 600yds (its possible I could get much more muzzle velocity out of these than I'm estimating).
There is one exception, their new 132gn HHT tipped bullet. That one stands out I think because its advertised BC is higher than the 120AH and 130HH. IDK but -if- I could drive that at least 3300fps MV, it virtually equals the ballistics downrange of my 140AH. not bad.

If I switched to their 153HHT I would Improve my downrange (estimate) energy by an additional 50ft/lbs. The 162HHT improves by 81ft/lbs. (Their new HHTs do seem to be an improvement in their lineup)

Is an improvement if 50-80ft/lbs is worth it (original question) but since were going full circle here in the discussion: this does clarify more why I started the discussion but the new question I ask now is why not go heavier if theres no loss in any other metric?

 

[Spitpatch]

For one, recoil. (Because I believe you are not one of the idiots believing it has no effect on them.)

 

[Koda]

For one, recoil. (Because I believe you are not one of the idiots believing it has no effect on them.)

and there it is. (correct, I can handle recoil but so what Id rather have faster followup shots and a nice shooting experience). Like I said, 50-80ft/lbs isnt a huge jump and at distances Im not even going to hunt with.
Im good with this discussion and putting to rest my query. Nothing wrong with considering all options and I do overthink things but this will save me time and money I can focus on the load I have and learn to shoot it well.

 

[BigGame]

Another way to ask this is what factor makes you decide to switch to a different weight bullet?

They also have a difference standard because they weigh less for the same size, which is why they need speed to make up for the energy loss from the mass. I think...

When I initially chose the 140gnAH it was a middle of the road weight to start with, a compromise. There's lots of peer pressure in the hunting community to use big heavy and lead only bullets... talk to many experienced well respected hunters and thats what they use and suggesting otherwise you get balked at. When I got the 280ai it was my first "real" elk caliber so I was going back and forth with what Hammer to try (Id already made up my mind to switch to Hammers because they perform better than lead, another subject). Here was my chance to use a 150, 160 or even a 170gn weight class even with Hammers. I chose the 140gn cause its in the middle and I chose the Absolute because its designed for less barrel friction increasing velocity even more (undecided, but 3200fps isn't bad for a 140gn)

When I compare my 140 load to Hammers lighter bullets I run into a larger energy loss, hardly worth switching for a loss of 226ft lbs at 600yds (its possible I could get much more muzzle velocity out of these than I'm estimating).
There is one exception, their new 132gn HHT tipped bullet. That one stands out I think because its advertised BC is higher than the 120AH and 130HH. IDK but -if- I could drive that at least 3300fps MV, it virtually equals the ballistics downrange of my 140AH. not bad.

If I switched to their 153HHT I would Improve my downrange (estimate) energy by an additional 50ft/lbs. The 162HHT improves by 81ft/lbs. (Their new HHTs do seem to be an improvement in their lineup)

Is an improvement if 50-80ft/lbs is worth it (original question) but since were going full circle here in the discussion: this does clarify more why I started the discussion but the new question I ask now is why not go heavier if theres no loss in any other metric?

You're using the language of energy and I'll continue to sidestep it, as it's a bottomless topic that evokes strong feelings.

I'll frame it this way: if you have a standard for terminal performance (for me, full pass through with massive damage the whole way) and all of your bullet options from 130-180gr satisfying your standard, what's the use of choosing the heavier option? Instead make your choice based on other factors like:

• Which is most accurate in my rifle?
• Which has the flattest trajectory and farther MPBR?
• Which has the least recoil, as Spitpatch mentions?
• Etc.

Of course, you can't frame the question this way unless you've first convinced yourself through personal experimentation that all of the bullets from 130-180 in fact satisfy your terminal performance standard.

In the end, it's about your personal confidence when you're behind the trigger. If a heavier bullet feels right for you right now, go with it. It's possible your thinking could change in future, which is part of the fun.

 

[Koda]

You're using the language of energy and I'll continue to sidestep it, as it's a bottomless topic that evokes strong feelings.

I'll frame it this way: if you have a standard for terminal performance (for me, full pass through with massive damage the whole way) and all of your bullet options from 130-180gr satisfying your standard, what's the use of choosing the heavier option? Instead make your choice based on other factors like:

• Which is most accurate in my rifle?
• Which has the flattest trajectory and farther MPBR?
• Which has the least recoil, as Spitpatch mentions?
• Etc.

Of course, you can't frame the question this way unless you've first convinced yourself through personal experimentation that all of the bullets from 130-180 in fact satisfy your terminal performance standard.

In the end, it's about your personal confidence when you're behind the trigger. If a heavier bullet feels right for you right now, go with it. It's possible your thinking could change in future, which is part of the fun.

yes, I have factored all of this into the discussion. The energy component is not the only metric and not my priority or I would have been pursuaded to go for the extra 50-80ft/lbs. Not worth the squeeze.

• My current load is accurate, in fact I increased my effective range out to 400yds with it.
• Current load is like a laser beam, a 300yd mpbr.
• Mild recoil.

The only missing component now is to put one in an elk. I tried last year and had several elk in my sights but no bulls in the herd. I agree with your standard on terminal performance but also have full confidence in the Hammers. I was going to go with Barnes but like the way Hammers shed their petals like a shotgun blast inside.

 

[osprey]

Late to game on this one but a few things to consider. A heavier bullet and the reduction in speed may cause less meat loss due to bloodshot. This is probably more noticeable in conventional bullets. There is a quite a difference in bc of those two bullets, but it probably is inconsequential at 400 or less. Another benefit to a heavier bullet in the same caliber is that to gain more mass they get longer which raises their sectional density and promotes penetration. This may help with raking shots and shots that encounter bone. However, in monos that are already long for weight, a faster twist rate may be needed to stabilize the heavier bullet properly. It sounds like you have a good load developed at this point, so my ending advice is to go shoot an elk with it and report back!

 

[sk8willy1]

The other day I was comparing ballistics estimates to my handloads to see if I wanted to change to a lighter or heavier bullet and found the energy values didn't vary that much. So I asked myself is the hassle of load development worth the squeeze if I already have a good handload for hunting. Velocity benefits are more obvious, but what exactly does more energy give us?

Another way to ask this is what factor makes you decide to switch to a different weight bullet?


Note: Im not asking about switching to a different bullet type, just weight change only. Hunting deer and elk size game.

Was shooting my 300blk (which I always thought of as a very slow round) and tried a very light bullet. Not only did it shoot through a 8" tree and keep going, but the kick was way different. So, pass through is something you may want to ramp up or down depending on what you're attempting to accomplish with it. Other than that, I know some barrels can be way better with different weights, and some not so different. Each is unique I think.

 

[Spitpatch]

yes, I have factored all of this into the discussion. The energy component is not the only metric and not my priority or I would have been pursuaded to go for the extra 50-80ft/lbs. Not worth the squeeze.

• My current load is accurate, in fact I increased my effective range out to 400yds with it.
• Current load is like a laser beam, a 300yd mpbr.
• Mild recoil.

The only missing component now is to put one in an elk. I tried last year and had several elk in my sights but no bulls in the herd. I agree with your standard on terminal performance but also have full confidence in the Hammers. I was going to go with Barnes but like the way Hammers shed their petals like a shotgun blast inside.

I'll make another plea (and this will cost you significant money). Put as much effort into testing expansion for YOURSELF. You may not have Elk carcasses, but you can mess with a couple other "poor man's" media to test expansion on these bullets. A chronograph and careful reduced loading can duplicate long range velocities even at 100 yards for expansion testing.

I have used Nosler Partitions on game with good success. I never did so without understanding exactly how they worked first hand (and they are entirely different in operation and expectation from other bullets). I tested them. I was not surprised when the game reacted almost indifferently to impact with almost never a "slam down" kill. But total penetration and a soon and certain kill.

I tested a fair number (I still have the partial boxes) of monolithic bullets for .264 diameter, .270 diameter and .257 diameter. I never found one to shoot as well as the best lead core premium bullet. But I was willing to trade for some extreme observable expansion results.

The balance was never tripped. But I have hope.

I'll keep trying, but for now, the best lead core bullets shoot better than anything else. If I want to bust a 250lb silver-faced Muley in the ball of the shoulder and expect that bullet to come out just ahead of his hip on the far side, I'll have a 225 grain Nosler Partition in my .350 Remington Magnum. I knew what it was gonna do to him ahead of time and I didn't take anybody's word for it.

 

[Koda]

I never found one to shoot as well as the best lead core premium bullet. But I was willing to trade for some extreme observable expansion results.

The balance was never tripped. But I have hope.

Hammers.


In full disclosure I'm going on a leap of faith since I just switched to them, I don't have time to go down the medium testing rabbit hole but you'd be hard pressed to find a conclusive negative review on any hunting forum but you will be overwhelmed with positive reviews. Hammer did a really good interview with Ron Spomer in detail on their design and how they work and expand if your interested.

View: https://youtu.be/jlg9GU3ALkE?si=YxVqxziKd50G2e09&t=801

 

[Provincial]

Not pertinent to the original question, but I did encounter a situation where bullet weight was a determining factor in choosing what to shoot.

I have a 9mm compact which has a windage adjustable rear sight and fixed front sight. If I shoot 124 gr. bullets in it, it shoots very high. If I shoot 115 gr. bullets it shoots a little high. I'm not about to drop below the 115 gr., so I just aim a little low with them. The 124 gr. bullets just go ridiculously high at longer ranges, so that isn't an option. I'd have to whittle out a higher front sight to get it to shoot on target, and it isn't worth the time and effort when I can just adjust my point of aim. I've worked that out for the ranges I'm willing to take shots at.

This is a special case, but it does point out a reason for choosing a particular bullet weight.

 

[Koda]

Was shooting my 300blk (which I always thought of as a very slow round) and tried a very light bullet. Not only did it shoot through a 8" tree and keep going, but the kick was way different. So, pass through is something you may want to ramp up or down depending on what you're attempting to accomplish with it. Other than that, I know some barrels can be way better with different weights, and some not so different. Each is unique I think.

I would rather shoot a lighter bullet much faster than a heavy bullet much slower. Lots of testimony out there to validate, speed kills. Similar to your 300blk I went with a lighter bullet in my Grendel for a hunting load.

 

[Spitpatch]

Hammers.


In full disclosure I'm going on a leap of faith since I just switched to them, I don't have time to go down the medium testing rabbit hole but you'd be hard pressed to find a conclusive negative review on any hunting forum but you will be overwhelmed with positive reviews. Hammer did a really good interview with Ron Spomer in detail on their design and how they work and expand if your interested.

View: https://youtu.be/jlg9GU3ALkE?si=YxVqxziKd50G2e09&t=801

You buy 'em, I'll test the Hell out of 'em!

 

[Koda]

You buy 'em, I'll test the Hell out of 'em!

Most people are skeptical of monolithics performing equal or better than their lead counterparts. If I was rich Id buy you a box just to learn your opinion.

 

[Spitpatch]

Most people are skeptical of monolithics performing equal or better than their lead counterparts. If I was rich Id buy you a box just to learn your opinion.

I've always been optimistic toward them.

And I've acted on that optimism, continuing to try them.

A lot of any guarded view on my part comes from the repeated accolades that Barnes received upon their "introduction" of premium monolithics to retail sales. All the propaganda (not only from Barnes) claimed that compared to previous attempts by custom bullet makers, "the bugs were worked out" "fouling issues solved" , "accuracy on par", "expansion tests superb at a wide range of impact velocity".

And none of it was true.

And with each similar "fresh" announcement. the bullets seem to gain one more "anti-fouling/pressure reducing" groove and/or a different expansion system. "Now we've REALLY got it figured out!" or similar is the advertising theme.

And I buy a box and try 'em again.

 

[lucusloc]

I've always been optimistic toward them.

And I've acted on that optimism, continuing to try them.

A lot of any guarded view on my part comes from the repeated accolades that Barnes received upon their "introduction" of premium monolithics to retail sales. All the propaganda (not only from Barnes) claimed that compared to previous attempts by custom bullet makers, "the bugs were worked out" "fouling issues solved" , "accuracy on par", "expansion tests superb at a wide range of impact velocity".

And none of it was true.

And with each similar "fresh" announcement. the bullets seem to gain one more "anti-fouling/pressure reducing" groove and/or a different expansion system. "Now we've REALLY got it figured out!" or similar is the advertising theme.

And I buy a box and try 'em again.

Better you than me?

 

[Koda]

A lot of any guarded view on my part comes from the repeated accolades that Barnes received upon their "introduction" of premium monolithics to retail sales. All the propaganda (not only from Barnes)

Hammers are not Barnes though, and are designed to operate entirely differently.

If I recall Barnes history correct, when they first came out they were horrible. And it took a long time to both fix the issues and build trust among hunters.

I think nowadays their ttsx has a stellar reputation...

I did try a (new ttsx) barnes, took one blacktail with it and it performed incredibly well, the wound channel was devastating and as good as any lead core ive used reliably for years. But I think Hammer has an even better design, so Im trying those now. Hammer has been enjoying a positive reputation from their beginning.

 

[orygun]

I've always been optimistic toward them.

And I've acted on that optimism, continuing to try them.

A lot of any guarded view on my part comes from the repeated accolades that Barnes received upon their "introduction" of premium monolithics to retail sales. All the propaganda (not only from Barnes) claimed that compared to previous attempts by custom bullet makers, "the bugs were worked out" "fouling issues solved" , "accuracy on par", "expansion tests superb at a wide range of impact velocity".

And none of it was true.

And with each similar "fresh" announcement. the bullets seem to gain one more "anti-fouling/pressure reducing" groove and/or a different expansion system. "Now we've REALLY got it figured out!" or similar is the advertising theme.

And I buy a box and try 'em again.

Barnes had come out with a blue bullet and I decided to give them a whirl.
I didn't give them a chance by doing much variation with bullet seating, but they didn't shoot very well out of my Ruger. They shot to the right of point of aim compared to any other bullet I'd shot out of the same gun. It took a long time to get that blue gunk out of my barrel. Somewhere I still have a few of those blue bullets.
That's the last time I've tried a Barnes bullet. Since then I watched a parade of different ideas to make them shoot "better". I suppose if I was forced by hunting regs to shoot a non lead bullet I would start working with monolithic bullets, but not at this point.