Hammer vs accubond test

[cubdriver84d]

Just wanted to share this thread from LRH.

Gel test Hammer vs Accubond

We set up a gel test to compare the .284 cal 143g Hammer Hunter and the .284 cal 140g Accubond. The test data is as follows. Gel impact at 100y Clear Ballistics gel 10% Rifle cartridge 280ai 1-8" twist Hammer Hunter muzzle vel=3110 fps Hammer Hunter impact vel=2934 fps Hammer Hunter retained...

www.longrangehunting.com

 

[bruceleroy]

A repeated test through a shoulder bone would really be cool. I need to get set up to do stuff like that. Gel is cool and all but it doesnt usually give a full story in terms of performance on animals, however, it gets closer than any other test methods.

 

[PA Hunter]

I have had outstanding results with accubonds on moose, elk and deer. I have had horrible results from barnes solid copper on moose, elk & deer. I will never give up my Accubonds.

 

[Northpark]

I use both hammers and accubonds. The last six rifle killed critters all took 199 hammers out of my .300 win mag. They thump stuff.

 

[MeatBuck]

I have had outstanding results with accubonds on moose, elk and deer. I have had horrible results from barnes solid copper on moose, elk & deer. I will never give up my Accubonds.

Barnes and Hammer are apples and oranges. Try the Hammers.

 

[CApighunter]

The 140 accubonds performed excellent on last years buck. 310 yards, quarter sized exit, everything inside the rib cage was jelly. Got some 155 hammers to try out with RL26 but haven’t gotten around to it.

 

[Hogyotedeer]

I'm not sure about accubond being one of the very best hunting bullets. I'd take my swift sciroccos or swift a-frame over an accubond any day, and by the looks of the hammer bullet coming apart, I gotta say no thanks there either. My sciroccos and a-frame retain at least 90% of their weight, and as far as that goes, I have several boxes of old norma bullets that have retained 90% of their weight also in the tests I've ran.

 

[MattB]

I'm not sure about accubond being one of the very best hunting bullets. I'd take my swift sciroccos or swift a-frame over an accubond any day, and by the looks of the hammer bullet coming apart, I gotta say no thanks there either. My sciroccos and a-frame retain at least 90% of their weight, and as far as that goes, I have several boxes of old norma bullets that have retained 90% of their weight also in the tests I've ran.

The line of Hammer bullet tested is designed for 60-70% weight retention. They have another line designed to retain approximately 80%.

 

[Quicksilver]

I'm not sure about accubond being one of the very best hunting bullets. I'd take my swift sciroccos or swift a-frame over an accubond any day, and by the looks of the hammer bullet coming apart, I gotta say no thanks there either. My sciroccos and a-frame retain at least 90% of their weight, and as far as that goes, I have several boxes of old norma bullets that have retained 90% of their weight also in the tests I've ran.

Do you not realize them coming apart is what makes them so lethal?...weight retention isn’t everything.

 

[tdot]

I'm not sure about accubond being one of the very best hunting bullets. I'd take my swift sciroccos or swift a-frame over an accubond any day, and by the looks of the hammer bullet coming apart, I gotta say no thanks there either. My sciroccos and a-frame retain at least 90% of their weight, and as far as that goes, I have several boxes of old norma bullets that have retained 90% of their weight also in the tests I've ran.

Concerns about weight retention are based on lead bullets. The Hammers and several other copper bullets function on a very different ballistics and wounding theory. Long story short. Those petals breaking off leave a flat nosed projectile. That flat face leaves a much more dramatic permanent wound channel in the animal, many times larger then caliber..... a lead bullet essentially deforms into the most hydrodynamic shape possible and wastes energy both continuously deforming the metal and pushing a larger hydrodynamically efficient shape thru the animal at a slower pace. (Which slowly displaces tissue, resulting in a non-permanent wound channel)

I was always taught that a mushroomed bullet found on the offside of an animal was perfect performance. Now I consider it a failure. I want one hole in/One hole out and as big a wound channel connecting the two as possible.

 

[Newtosavage]

Concerns about weight retention are based on lead bullets. The Hammers and several other copper bullets function on a very different ballistics and wounding theory. Long story short. Those petals breaking off leave a flat nosed projectile. That flat face leaves a much more dramatic permanent wound channel in the animal, many times larger then caliber..... a lead bullet essentially deforms into the most hydrodynamic shape possible and wastes energy both continuously deforming the metal and pushing a larger hydrodynamically efficient shape thru the animal at a slower pace. (Which slowly displaces tissue, resulting in a non-permanent wound channel)

I was always taught that a mushroomed bullet found on the offside of an animal was perfect performance. Now I consider it a failure. I want one hole in/One hole out and as big a wound channel connecting the two as possible.

What is a "non-permanent wound channel?" That term is very confusing to me.

 

[tdot]

That wording is based off some research papers I read a couple of years ago. I just tried to find them again to post links, but haven't had any luck. Essentially a permanent wound channel is a gaping hole, this allows for easy blood flow, maximizes damaged tissue and removes any tissue, fat, skin and fur that could help to obstruct the flow of blood. A non-permanent wound channel closes in on itself, this can slow and even stop the flow of blood. (ie. Great blood at the impact site, then decreasing to nothing over a short distance)

You can see this phenomenon in the videos of the Ballistics gel.

Another benefit of the permanent wound channel is it increases the possibility of a heart attack, by instantaneously dropping the blood pressure, in a way that the animal's system can't cope with. (This is my layman's understanding of the reason for the heart attack, reality may be slightly different)

 

[bradb]

I am still in the skeptical camp. In only a few animals last year I did not see things that impressed me

 

[Brendan]

I don't have a large sample size on Accubonds using a 165gr 308, but I hit a 1.5 year old, SMALL whitetail buck last year. Broadside, hit rib only. Bullet vaporized, didn't exit, didn't find a single piece and the lung cavity was a mess. So, it did its' job, but didn't have more than a couple drops of blood and took me way longer to find him than I would have liked. Not a big deer at all.

My only other sample was an Elk, performed better, broadside at 40 yards. Found "mushroomed" under the opposite side hide. Again, killed him in 50 yards, but no exit and zero blood.

I personally am interested in trying Hammer and/or Cutting Edge in that 308

 

[N2TRKYS]

I don't have a large sample size on Accubonds using a 165gr 308, but I hit a 1.5 year old, SMALL whitetail buck last year. Broadside, hit rib only. Bullet vaporized, didn't exit, didn't find a single piece and the lung cavity was a mess. So, it did its' job, but didn't have more than a couple drops of blood and took me way longer to find him than I would have liked. Not a big deer at all.

My only other sample was an Elk, performed better, broadside at 40 yards. Found "mushroomed" under the opposite side hide. Again, killed him in 50 yards, but no exit and zero blood.

I personally am interested in trying Hammer and/or Cutting Edge in that 308

I’m shooting that same combo(308/165 grain Accubonds). I hope I don’t have the same issues.

 

[Brendan]

I’m shooting that same combo(308/165 grain Accubonds). I hope I don’t have the same issues.

Not a speed demon. Mine is an 18" barrel Kimber Adirondack, speed was 2605 fps when I chrono'd it. Elk was at 40 yards. Deer was probably 125-150. The deer surprised me a lot more than the Elk.

 

[Wrench]

I've killed enough stuff with enough stuff that bullets that are even close in performance are of little concern to me.

In the 80's and 90's it was Speer btsps, then barnes, then match pills and now designer pills.

Give me an accurate pill with predictable results and good availability and I'll drive it where it needs to go to work.

More "failures" are from pilot error than hardware failure.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Not a speed demon. Mine is an 18" barrel Kimber Adirondack, speed was 2605 fps when I chrono'd it. Elk was at 40 yards. Deer was probably 125-150. The deer surprised me a lot more than the Elk.

Mine is a 20” barreled Model Seven. I’ve had pass throughs with 110 grain Accubonds in my 25-06 on whitetails, so I’m hoping for the best with the 308.

 

[PA Hunter]

The line of Hammer bullet tested is designed for 60-70% weight retention. They have another line designed to retain approximately 80%.

I have allot of pass through on many moose and elk with Accubonds and they dont fragment up close either at high velocity. It is all I load anymore for my .300 RUM for elk & moose. Five of my friends only use these for their large game also. No problem here.

 

[wind gypsy]

Just wanted to share this thread from LRH.

Gel test Hammer vs Accubond

We set up a gel test to compare the .284 cal 143g Hammer Hunter and the .284 cal 140g Accubond. The test data is as follows. Gel impact at 100y Clear Ballistics gel 10% Rifle cartridge 280ai 1-8" twist Hammer Hunter muzzle vel=3110 fps Hammer Hunter impact vel=2934 fps Hammer Hunter retained...

www.longrangehunting.com

That was a pretty sad excuse for shit talking in the back half of that thread!

I am still in the skeptical camp. In only a few animals last year I did not see things that impressed me

Are you referring to hammers?