Thread: Hammer Hunter 116 grn .270wsm: graphic pics

Edit to title "Hammer Hunter"

Entry at at 220 yds angled in quartering away:



And the exit



And a couple of petals I found when skinning.



Exit from a broadside shot, and petal exit just visible.

That's awesome, mine should be here any day now

Excellent Tahr, your home work is to now go out and shoot a couple reds, A big stag would be nice.

awesome idea...shoot big red so can see what they go like...Tilly will be happy to have something to do.
surprised to see any fat on the carcass,the photos looked like they were a tad on the lean side.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

awesome idea...shoot big red so can see what they go like...Tilly will be happy to have something to do.
surprised to see any fat on the carcass,the photos looked like they were a tad on the lean side.

Deceiving with the winter coats I think. They were in good condition. Saw a few Reds but never go a shot. Those 2 in the pic with me in the other thread was the latest (darkest) I have ever shot a deer. Great optic the Tract Toric. Got the first one lined up at low power in the serious gloom then wound up to about 12 for the shot. And back to low power for the 2nd one which was moving out but paused at the bush line.

Those bullets certainly perform well, I think if they are working like that on fallow they should deal to a redskin no problem.

@Tahr, the carcase damage looks like about the same as a good quality lead / copper bullet would cause. What would be interesting is to measure all the damaged trim for comparison.
I have done this by trimming into a bucket and estimating the litres of trim. For example SST ( I hate these but a friend shot the deer ) Broadside behind front leg - 5 litres. Accubond -average 2 litres

Here's a buck @ 300 yards. Hit behind last rib on right hand side on the move. Pole axed it.

Exit pic.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

@Tahr, the carcase damage looks like about the same as a good quality lead / copper bullet would cause. What would be interesting is to measure all the damaged trim for comparison.
I have done this by trimming into a bucket and estimating the litres of trim. For example SST ( I hate these but a friend shot the deer ) Broadside behind front leg - 5 litres. Accubond -average 2 litres

What you seem to get with these is exceptional straight line penetration and tissue damage.
Dead under most circumstances is what I'm after.

There are plenty of good bullets around. Mucking around with these just adds a bit of interest.

Mate....all that steak n mince is making me HUNGRY........sure hope it tastes as good as it looks.

Originally Posted by Tahr

What you seem to get with these is exceptional straight line penetration and tissue damage.
Dead under most circumstances is what I'm after.

There are plenty of good bullets around. Mucking around with these just adds a bit of interest.

I think that we would all convert to copper bullets if we were confident that they worked as well as a quality lead / copper jacket jobby.
I am interested to see how they work at 400 -( which is really the velocity / power limit of most non magnum cartridges) as well as at 60 mtrs.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I am interested to see how they work at 400 -( which is really the velocity / power limit of most non magnum cartridges) as well as at 60 mtrs.

400m is well short, in my view, and... well... it just is. A reasonably soft bullet out of a 6.5, 7mm or .308 is good for a lot more than that. But we needed argue about that I suppose!

The longer range monolithic terminal performance debate is a really interesting one, with a huge amount of marketing bullshit from manufacturers (like Barnes LRX) and an equal volume of utter nonsense spouted on Internet forums.

There’s been a bit of testing here and there, but I’ve yet to come across a decent study that objectively compares performance of several different monolithic designs at a variety of hunting ranges. I don’t think close range monolithic performance is too problematic, but for what I mostly have to do due to terrain, cover, etc, there’s zero chance of me selecting a monolithic bullet that is priced roughly the same as what I’m now being fleeced for Hornady.

What will eventually win the day is innovation, because it always does, eventually legislation will drive the design of effective longer range bullets that can be manufactured economically to a price point that won’t cause the average hunter to turn around and walk out the shop. We haven’t got that yet. I am hopeful that legislation against a lead bullets doesn’t ever rear its ugly head in this part of the world, as it has done in the EU for example.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

400m is well short, in my view, and... well... it just is. A reasonably soft bullet out of a 6.5, 7mm or .308 is good for a lot more than that. But we needed argue about that I suppose!

The longer range monolithic terminal performance debate is a really interesting one, with a huge amount of marketing bullshit from manufacturers (like Barnes LRX) and an equal volume of utter nonsense spouted on Internet forums.

There’s been a bit of testing here and there, but I’ve yet to come across a decent study that objectively compares performance of several different monolithic designs at a variety of hunting ranges. I don’t think close range monolithic performance is too problematic, but for what I mostly have to do due to terrain, cover, etc, there’s zero chance of me selecting a monolithic bullet that is priced roughly the same as what I’m now being fleeced for Hornady.

What will eventually win the day is innovation, because it always does, eventually legislation will drive the design of effective longer range bullets that can be manufactured economically to a price point that won’t cause the average hunter to turn around and walk out the shop. We haven’t got that yet. I am hopeful that legislation against a lead bullets doesn’t ever rear its ugly head in this part of the world, as it has done in the EU for example.

I base the 400 mtrs on having 1500 ft lb and 2000 fps which is what is needed for a stag and a quick humane kill. But sure, if a rifle has that level of energy out further... The 1000 ft lb's for a deer comes from the U.S. and shooting white tails.

If 1500 foot pounds of energy was the sole determement then the .223 wouldn't have ever killed a deer. So there's obviously a lot more going on.

Originally Posted by Tahr

If 1500 foot pounds of energy was the sole determement then the .223 wouldn't have ever killed a deer. So there's obviously a lot more going on.

I have shot deer with a 223 and its not always a quick death - as in needing a finisher. No way would I shoot a big stag with a 223 unless it was a perfect shot, and yeah tens of thousands of stags have been shot out of machines with 223's - but in the head.