Did Hornady just say there A-Max and V-Max have fualty tips ??

[Metal god]

New ELD bullet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpan-7vTqes

After seeing that video I sent this Email

Ok I'm sure you are getting this question a lot after putting out the ELD video . I still have to ask though , Did you guys just say in not so many words that your A-Max & V-Max bullets polymer tips are faulty and cause issues in flight you never knew was happening before ?

1) Do you have any conclusive data that shows how consistent these polymer tips degradation is ?

This very well could explain why I have at times some inconsistent results using the 178gr A-max in 308 at distances at and past 300yds . I always figured it was something I did in the loading process because they more often then not shoot lights out . This has me rethinking everything and wondering how much time and money I've wasted trying to fix the un-fixable .

2) I'm asking do you have data explaining how much the melting of your polymer tips effect your bullets in flight ?

3) Is there a velocity and or caliber you have found that causes the issue more then others ?

It seems at face value that you just confirmed what I have concluded through testing . That is if you want a consistent long range bullet . The A-Max is not it .

4) Will you be changing the A-Max tips to these new tips or just discontinuing the line ??

I know you like to keep your reply short but I would appreciate it if you would answer each question individually .

Thank you

Was I wrong in thinking they just said the A-Max has a real problem they never knew about ?

[emcon5]

From: http://www.hornady.com/support/heat-shield

The Hornady 6.5mm 140gr A-Max is a very popular match bullet. Its long-time published G1 BC of .585 has been measured with chronographs at the muzzle, 100 and 200 yards. The radar verifies that exact BC out to 200 yards. When fired at 800 yards; however, the radar verified average BC it is actually .545. This is because of the polymer tip melting and deforming during flight. When the traditional tip is replaced with a Heat Shield tip, the Radar verified 800 yard average BC becomes .610 – a huge improvement! Why a .610 when we already established a 200 yard BC of .585? The .610 BC shows that the traditional tip was already exhibiting degradation at 200 yards.

As mentioned, moderate and low BC tipped bullets (less than .550 G1) are not significantly affected. Case in point: a 22 caliber 50gr V-Max with a conventional polymer tip, fired at 3,700 fps, has a 400 yard radar verified average BC of .232. With a Heat Shield tip, it still had a BC of .232. Similarly, a 7mm 162gr SST has a 500 yard radar verified average BC of .520. When tested with a Heat Shield tip, it only gained a small amount of BC - .532. The .012 increase in BC is too small to matter on this bullet at any distance this bullet would expand on game.

[Dufus]

I have recovered some fired VMax tips and they did not look melted to me.

[skizzums]

I don't know if that means to say they are faulty, just that they're not "perfec"t. the new is a more "perfect" design. I assume that a spitzer would not undergo any changes, but does an OTM? does the BC of the amax at 800 yards still equal a BC, at least equal to or better than, most spitzer or OTM designs?

I would think that the consistency of this "degradation" would be the most important factor, which I don't think they mention

[Metal god]

Thanks emcon5 , That clears a few things up and is likely something close to the response I'll get back from Hornady .

Skizzum :

If the tips are melting and they did not know this and never intended it to happen . I conclude that to mean there is a problem or are faulty . I mean what would you call a 175gr smk that had the tips deform in flight . Faulty or just not so perfect ?

Do they make a polymer tipped spitzer bullet ? Most spitzers I see and use are round lead tipped . If they do make a polymer tipped spitzer then they are worth comparing . If not then comparing apples to carrots is not going to tell us much .

[Mozella]

I see this as a good thing because I can add it to my bag of excuses.

I can picture myself at the local rifle range putting four rounds into one hole with the fifth one a bad flyer.

The guy on the next bench might ask, "What happened dude? Did ya flinch a little bit on the last one?"

Me: "Nope............... @^%$#*& tip melted".

[emcon5]

Frankly I am less annoyed by the tip melting/deforming than I am, by this:

Its long-time published G1 BC of .585 has been measured with chronographs at the muzzle, 100 and 200 yards.

You would think a company making a long range match bullet like the .264 140 AMAX would have done better LR BC testing.

That being said, I use the Brian Litz option in the JBM calculator, and my real world results are pretty close to what he has published, not sure how he comes up with his numbers.

[Xfire68]

I see this as a good thing because I can add it to my bag of excuses.

I don't care who you are that there is funny!

[Metal god]

What's funny about it ? That he is going to use it as an excuse or that he has a WHOLE bag of excuses

[stubbicatt]

... Carbon on the valves...

[marine6680]

You would think a company making a long range match bullet like the .264 140 AMAX would have done better LR BC testing.

Do you think other bullet makers do more or more thorough tests?

I would think, Hornady would have tested to the same standards and methods of other bullet makers.


When Hornady released the little "Teaser" prior to making the announcement... They mentioned doppler radar.

To me, it made it seem like using the doppler radar for bullet testing was a newer and less used method, and it was like they were playing up the use of it.

I did only a quick look over of the teaser, so I may have interpreted it differently than intended.

[Double Naught Spy]

Did Hornady just say there A-Max and V-Max have fualty tips ??

Nope, no more so than ANY time a improved product comes out. It doesn't mean the previous products were faulty. It just means that the new product is supposed to perform better. It is sort of like in statistics where failure to reject the null hypothesis is NOT the same thing as accepting the null hypothesis.

Was I wrong in thinking they just said the A-Max has a real problem they never knew about ?

Let's think about this statement for a moment. If it was a "real problem," then how did they never know about it? "Real" in the sense of causing significant issues.

When you look at the differences in bullets of the exact same weight, but different designs, you find that this "real problem" with the tips is producing miniscule changes in BC and it is hard to know from the BC differences are if the changes are truly with the tip, the redesign of the bullet, or a combination of factors.

I noticed that Hornady hasn't produced a set of melted tip bullets from long distance flights to show that the tips are actually melting. I wonder why that is? The new tips are more heat resistant. Got it. Is that the ONLY characteristic about the new tips that is different? Are they more stiff, less brittle, more uniformly manufactured?

[Unclenick]

I thought that was funny, too. My guess would be the tips they have would undergo deformation, particularly after the first yard or so, when the bullet has just cleared the muzzle blast sphere and is plowing into the air at its highest velocity, and that it would be much worse for the FTX soft ballistic tips for lever guns. But that's not what the radar is showing them. A melting phenomenon would have to be due to the longer exposure to heat from air friction. This would soften the plastic and make it easier for the air pressure on the nose to deform it. When it slowed below where enough heat is being made by air friction to cause that softening, the tip could tend to return to shape. A lot of plastics do when you heat them. I would expect the BC's exact value to be the least of concerns in that scenario, as it should be repeatable. Instead, the deformation being asymmetrical and introducing eccentric wobble of the bullet flight path would be.

The other funny thing is their talk about constant BC and appearing to show a G1 BC. They are not shooting bullets the same shape as the G1 projectile so it would be odd for the G1 BC to be constant unless the shape were not very aerodynamic. Something's just wrong there. I'm thinking they actually found the drag function wasn't constant, so a BC using the projectile's own drag function with a non-melting tip made of wood or other material was not constant, but that they didn't want to have to try to explain that.

For those not familiar with Doppler RADAR, it's the same technology used by traffic policing before laser speed meters came out. The military has used it for decades to follow bullets, because the microwaves it emits actually bounce off the bullet base and return to the receiving antenna continuously, producing a frequency shift that may be accurately measured, allowing instantaneous velocity to be calculated at any point in time, and letting them follow the projectile's velocity throughout its flight and doing so with higher precision than an optical chronograph provides. Properly done, this can resolve fractional feet per second accurately.

The limitations to Doppler RADAR are that the antenna being off to the side of the barrel causes a trigonometry error you have to compensate for, and that the FCC doesn't allow radar powerful enough to work at great range without special licensing. My guess is that Hornady licensed their unit for a particular location for which they were able to show no interference with aircraft radar or other microwave devices would occur. There is a home version Doppler RADAR called LabRadar, but I understand it can only reach out 50 to 80 yards because the company could not get FCC permission to make its transmitter powerful enough to go out further, even though their prototype went a couple hundred yards. Also, that unit only reads out velocities at particular ranges and does not appear, in its literature, to produce a continuous graph. The maker says specifically that it's not suitable for determining ballistic coefficients. That put an end to my interest in it.

What Bryan Litz did was get a pair of chronographs that agreed with each other (Oehler 35P and CED M2) well, and set them up at long separation distances apart and took the risk of being able to shoot through them accurately enough at long range that he wouldn't damage them. This gives him pairs of velocities at a measured separation, and BC's that are average over that separation are calculated from the velocities at the two points. The JBM site has a calculator for doing this.

You can do something similar. You just have to keep the precision limitations in mind. Litz said he's tested a lot of chronographs and found 15 fps is about the limit of accuracy on them, so keep that in mind. They resolve single feet per second, or even fractions in the case of one German model, but the absolute accuracy is not to be counted on to be any better than 15 fps. He likes the large Magnetospeed V3 for rifle muzzle velocity determination.

[F. Guffey]

A few years ago I called RCBS to caution them they were going to receive an email and a phone call. I cautioned them about answering the email. They said "TOO LATE". I was going to warn them about there response.

F. Guffey

[COSteve]

Yesterday, I talked at length to Philip Mahin, one of the Ballisticians at Sierra bullets you can call at 'Talk to a Tech' who, when I called, told me that he was actually in the middle of discussing Hornady's claims with the other techs.

They told me that the industry has known of the 'discoveries' Hornady claimed for decades and that neither they nor any other bullet maker they've talked to, have seen any evidence of tip melting or ablading. Their doppler radar tests showed results consistent with the change in BC caused by velocity loss. He said, for instance that the time of flight to 1,000 yds of a bullet launched at 3,000fps with a BC of .300 will be slightly under 2 seconds. Their tests don't show any melting of their ballistic tips under those conditions.

He talked about the fact that the bullet base sees a 6,000° plasma jet from the burning powder but there isn't enough duration to liquefy the base of a FMJ's exposed lead even though lead melts at 622°. Yes, it will smooth is out but not turn it liquid or melt away. He went on to talk about the differences in BC vs velocities and that what their tests showed with damaged ballistic tips and velocity loss.

He told me that for instance, a Spire point bullet's BC number decreases as velocity drops while a round round nose bullet's BC number actually increases slightly with velocity loss. They show those numbers in their performance data on their website just as many other bullet makers do. He also said that slight damage to the tips, bent, broken, etc., had little to no affect on performance in their tests as well.

He told me that they had all concluded that Hornady's video was a good marketing idea and applauded the campaign as a way to sell their newest bullets. You might consider that Sierra is just trying to protect their market share by downplaying Hornady's claims or you might consider their response to be correct. Time will tell what the actual facts are.

[T. O'Heir]

The tip or point doesn't matter. Only the base matters.
"...better LR BC testing..." BC is calculated not tested.
BC = mass / d squared * i.
m = mass of bullet in kg or lb
d = measured cross section (diameter) of projectile in m or in
i = Coefficient of form

[COSteve]

While that might be true, aerodynamically a sharp pointed bullet does produce less drag than a blunt pointed one. BTW, if it was also sharp pointed at the base, the drag would be reduced further as the laminar air flow around the bullet would be disturbed the least.

[Unclenick]

I think Sierra has it right. IIRC, Harold Vaughn did a test with filing 45° slants onto bullet tips, and then fired the cartridges from a machine rest gun, and they opened what would be bugholes up less than 0.5 moa. And that constant BC claim just doesn't fly. A round nose increases BC with velocity loss as Sierra says because it is more blunt than the G1 projectile shape, while Spitzer type ogives and boattail bullets do just the opposite. It's a very odd claim. Any bullet whose nose and base don't match G1 projectile will not have constant G1 BC over any significant velocity range.

[DaleA]

... Carbon on the valves...

Stubbicat-one of my favorite movies in the quirky category. (Another one you might like is 'Uncorked').

For everyone else, the 'New Leaf' reference to the valve problem can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4UhOeYYXAA
but you really need to watch the whole movie.

[jmorris]

Yeah, they came out with the "we change everything" video as a teaser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n233sHgQeeI


Then unveiled the video saying they found a problem they didn't know existed with the plastic tip they have been using and now use a different plastic.

So "everything" turned out to be just the tip. I guess when I was a teenager I said the same lie, just backwards....

[skizzums]

^^^

[9MMand223only]

Take 1 thing in mind.

These are bullet "engineers". Not exactly NASA engineers, or Honda engineers.

It sounds like huge improvements, but its called marketing. We already have bullets for decades that are so good, you can shoot holes through holes at 100, and the size of a golf ball at 600 yards.

It can't be improved much, due to not shooting in vacuum.

[Unclenick]

And in a vacuum there is no overturning drag from air so bullets don't precess to point into the trajectory path. So your long range holes will all be vertically oblong, complicating scoring.