THIS Is the Dedicated 65G Bullet I Want

[Bigfoot]

One more thing, I don't really care how pricey these turn out to be. I'm only going to shoot a few per year and practice with 100 AMAXs for instance.

This bullet should do everything the 123 SST does. Just do it differently. Better velocity, you can take hard quartering and shoulder bone shots at close range with little meat damage.

[Variable]

IMO Sneaky deserves the benefit of the doubt that his recommendations are based on the knowledge he's gained from spending untold (and donated) hours modifying and hunting with them. He purchased a mini lathe for gods sake. Besides the truth will out with the gel tests, I can wait till them and make up my own mind.

Most of you know that I and several others have been discussing the very bullet Hanka has proposed. Good BC with good velocity and low expansion properties. I think his 6.5 version of the 110 Blackout bullet is perfection.

I seem to remember that eliminating the turbulence in the bullets wake (via long boattail) is more important than nose and ogive shape.

I'm trying to figure out how to make and test Hanka's prototype. I assume it's not annealed like some large caliber, low velocity Barnes bullets are. IIRC they are made via CNC but I assume a 120TTSX could be lathed up to match the profile and nose cavity. Similarly the 30 cal poly noses could be adapted, they don't have to be perfect this is just for gel testing.

HMM who has a mini lathe and experience modding bullets? Get my drift everybody?

We could use several new 6.5 bullets, how many 6.8 specific bullets are there, 20ish? Four different monos plus two bondeds. Agreed that we gotta get a foot in the door with a real good one so the sales will make the other manufactures notice, and I personally prefer Hankas, but lets keep our minds open and respect others input also.

Thanks for helping me get back in HANKA. Put me down for 500.

Respecting the inputs of others is a two way street.

It's pretty simple really. I never borrowed any ideas from him. I never asked him to do anything. I never had him donate me squat. I wasn't even speaking to him or referring to anything he may be doing. I haven't been following what he has been up to, because what I saw didn't personally interest me. Hence why I never entered a thread and started dumping on him for not agreeing with my personal interests.

John has an idea for a bullet he'd like to see. I never saw Sneaky mentioned in his PDF proposal anywhere. Sneaky then pops in and says John "photochopped" one of his bullets. Ummmm, no. The bullet he used is very clearly a modified version of a Barnes file photo. Then he starts hijacking the thread and hurling words like idiotic and saying stuff like "good lorde(sic), let it go" and implying we're stupid for not wanting what he wants.

When two people are in a room having a conversation that has nothing to do with me, I don't wade in automatically assuming they are. I also don't start peeing on their pants leg because they don't immediately come to heel and adopt my way of thinking.

I'm sure Sneaky is a good guy, and while I've skipped a good number of his posts because I didn't feel like interpreting them into common english, I've never had a problem with him before. I just don't take kindly to being insulted and upbraided for not having the same wants and desires as he does.

The desired qualities of the projectile that this thread is dedicated to are pretty clearly lined out in the PDF and the first post.

I'll recommend it again: If anyone isn't interested in it, and would rather discuss bullets with low BCs, higher opening velocities, and an intention for hunting inside of 300 yards, then they should start a seperate thread. I won't molest them in any way. I certainly won't come in inferring that they are somehow stupid because they want something different than I do, and have different intended uses for it.

[Dave Bob]

Respecting the inputs of others is a two way street.

It's pretty simple really. I never borrowed any ideas from him. I never asked him to do anything. I never had him donate me squat. I wasn't even speaking to him or referring to anything he may be doing. I haven't been following what he has been up to, because what I saw didn't personally interest me. Hence why I never entered a thread and started dumping on him for not agreeing with my personal interests.

John has an idea for a bullet he'd like to see. I never saw Sneaky mentioned in his PDF proposal anywhere. Sneaky then pops in and says John "photochopped" one of his bullets. Ummmm, no. The bullet he used is very clearly a modified version of a Barnes file photo. Then he starts hijacking the thread and hurling words like idiotic and saying stuff like "good lorde(sic), let it go" and implying we're stupid for not wanting what he wants.

When two people are in a room having a conversation that has nothing to do with me, I don't wade in automatically assuming they are. I also don't start peeing on their pants leg because they don't immediately come to heel and adopt my way of thinking.

I'm sure Sneaky is a good guy, and while I've skipped a good number of his posts because I didn't feel like interpreting them into common english, I've never had a problem with him before. I just don't take kindly to being insulted and upbraided for not having the same wants and desires as he does.

The desired qualities of the projectile that this thread is dedicated to are pretty clearly lined out in the PDF and the first post.

I'll recommend it again: If anyone isn't interested in it, and would rather discuss bullets with low BCs, higher opening velocities, and an intention for hunting inside of 300 yards, then they should start a seperate thread. I won't molest them in any way. I certainly won't come in inferring that they are somehow stupid because they want something different than I do, and have different intended uses for it.

I have to say I agree with Variable on this. I happen to like high BC hunting bullets, HANKA is on the right track with this. I like Sneaky but reading his posts is , well hard. I have a hard time sometimes following his posts. Lets keep this on track and get a good high BC fast opening at relatively low speed bullet. Put me down for 500.

Dave

[montana]

Gentlemen, with respect to all I don't believe sneaky was trying to be pushy in any way. His post could arguably be construed-ed as such but I do know it wasn't his intent. He is only giving his experience and opinion to help others. I have done the same in the past with unintended consequences, " My wife has always told me I don't know when to shut up". I personally like Hanka's idea because of the long range shooting that is in Montana and the benefits his idea could have. On the other side of the coin Sneaky is absolutely correct about most practical hunting distances that I have experienced. Sneaky has been one of the best friends I have talked with on this forum . On the other side of the coin I have always loved to read Variables posts, because they are some of the funniest and spot on posts I have read. I consider both of you great guys so please with respect KNOCK IT OFF, and now back to topic

[stanc]

I'm trying to figure out how to make and test Hanka's prototype. I assume it's not annealed like some large caliber, low velocity Barnes bullets are. IIRC they are made via CNC but I assume a 120TTSX could be lathed up to match the profile and nose cavity. Similarly the 30 cal poly noses could be adapted, they don't have to be perfect this is just for gel testing.

HMM who has a mini lathe and experience modding bullets? Get my drift everybody?

Once upon a time I used a lathe to turn a .45 ACP FMJ bullet into a JHP (solely for a dummy round, not for shooting!), so I think it should be feasible to machine the cavity of TTSX, LRX, and GMX bullets to larger size.

And Sneaky has shown that shortening and reconfiguring the base of a monometal bullet is a doable modification.

However, with my rather limited experience in lathe operation, I'm not at all sure if it's feasible to reshape the ogive, and do it exactly the same for each and every one of the bullets that would be needed for adequate testing.

So, my suggestion would be to first acquire a .308" 110gr TAC-TX bullet, and take precise measurements of it for comparison with .264" 127gr LRX, 120gr TTSX, and 120gr GMX bullets.

If the dimensions and ogive shapes of one or more of the 6.5mm bullets are determined to be compatible with the long .300 BLK polymer tip, and if one could acquire the needed quantity of the .300 BLK tips, then it ought to be possible to make some test projectiles. Of course, they wouldn't be configured exactly like John's concept photo (although I think the GMX might be very close), but they should be good enough to test for approximate values of expansion threshold and ballistic coefficient.

If performance proves acceptable to Hanka, Variable, and others, then you'd have something to present to Barnes and Hornady, where final configuration could be tweaked to maximize performance.

Otherwise, the guys will just have to submit Hanka's proposal with its pretty pictures, and hope for the best...

[Variable]

---snip---
Thanks for helping me get back in HANKA. Put me down for 500.

I have to say I agree with Variable on this. I happen to like high BC hunting bullets, HANKA is on the right track with this. I like Sneaky but reading his posts is , well hard. I have a hard time sometimes following his posts. Lets keep this on track and get a good high BC fast opening at relatively low speed bullet. Put me down for 500.

Dave

That'd make:

Buster: 500
Variable: 500
Jawbone: 500
BjornF16: 500
Montana: 500
Cory: 500
D.Davis: 500
TPlace: 500
Crippleshot1: 500
KentuckyBuddha: 500
Whitebull: 750
Bigfoot: 500
Dave Bob: 500


Total possible to date: 6750

That'd be 33.75% of a 20,000 bullet order.

[stanc]

That'd make:

Total possible to date: 6750

That'd be 33.75% of a 20,000 bullet order.

I hate to rain on your parade, but this question has been bothering me for a while: How certain is that 20,000 figure?

It doesn't seem to me like that small amount would even cover their engineering costs. Plus, in post #134, Paul said he thinks that Barnes requires a 250,000 minimum order (which sounds much more realistic to me).

Perhaps it would be a good idea for somebody to check with Barnes (and Hornady) to verify what is actually the required order size for a custom bullet?

[Drifter]

I don't really care how pricey these turn out to be. I'm only going to shoot a few per year and practice with 100 AMAXs for instance.

If a majority of potential buyers share the same viewpoint, I'm not sure that it would be realistic to expect a manufacturer to bring to market a new specialty bullet for a niche cartridge. There is little incentive for them to do so. This is why cost should be carefully considered.

[Variable]

I hate to rain on your parade, but this question has been bothering me for a while: How certain is that 20,000 figure?

It doesn't seem to me like that small amount would even cover their engineering costs. Plus, in post #134, Paul said he thinks that Barnes requires a 250,000 minimum order (which sounds much more realistic to me).

Perhaps it would be a good idea for somebody to check with Barnes (and Hornady) to verify what is actually the required order size for a custom bullet?

As our resident fact checker and Inspector General, I think that'd be an awesome thing for you to do Stan!

[stanc]

As our resident fact checker and Inspector General, I think that'd be an awesome thing for you to do Stan!

<chuckle> Yes, it would indeed be awesome of me.

But, since it's not my project, and I won't be buying any bullets...

[Variable]

Gentlemen, with respect to all I don't believe sneaky was trying to be pushy in any way. His post could arguably be construed-ed as such but I do know it wasn't his intent. He is only giving his experience and opinion to help others. I have done the same in the past with unintended consequences, " My wife has always told me I don't know when to shut up". I personally like Hanka's idea because of the long range shooting that is in Montana and the benefits his idea could have. On the other side of the coin Sneaky is absolutely correct about most practical hunting distances that I have experienced. Sneaky has been one of the best friends I have talked with on this forum . On the other side of the coin I have always loved to read Variables posts, because they are some of the funniest and spot on posts I have read. I consider both of you great guys so please with respect KNOCK IT OFF, and now back to topic

Hopefully I was misconstruing his intent. I have no desire to argue with anyone here. I just take up for myself when I feel it's necessary. Maybe I was overreacting, I don't know.

As for bullets:

1.) So far as I can tell (I haven't been following all of Sneaky's efforts), there is a loose group here that are working on modifying current monometal bullets for the purpose of creating one that'd be better suited for hunting with the Grendel. Right? If that's correct, then I'm totally cool with that and wish you all luck. Really, not saying that to be a smartass.

2.) The bullet John and I are talking about isn't that bullet. He doesn't want a slightly modified hunting bullet. He (and myself as well) wants a bullet that is significantly different. We want a higher BC, and a lower expansion threshold than the typical monometal hunting bullets have. Much like the Barnes .300Blk Tac-TX, but optimized for the Grendel. That bullet is intended for more than just hunting, and while the .300Blk is a cool round, the Grendel could do it at much longer range if the design is feasible and executed correctly. Think barrier penetration and two legged vermin eradication from even very short barrels. In my opinion---- The fact that it could also probably be an excellent deer hunting projectile (and would be useful for people in lead free zones) is just icing on the cake to me.

Think of it like ice cream flavors. If some folks don't like my particular flavor--- I'm totally cool with that. There are other threads for other flavors. The particular flavor of this thread is: Highest BC (that can be reasonably had), and lowest expansion threshold (that also can be reasonably had).

[Variable]

<chuckle> Yes, it would indeed be awesome of me.

But, since it's not my project, and I won't be buying any bullets...

Then that'd make you even more awesome!

[montana]

2.) The bullet John and I are talking about isn't that bullet. He doesn't want a slightly modified hunting bullet. He (and myself as well) wants a bullet that is significantly different. We want a higher BC, and a lower expansion threshold than the typical monometal hunting bullets have. Much like the Barnes .300Blk Tac-TX, but optimized for the Grendel. That bullet is intended for more than just hunting, and while the .300Blk is a cool round, the Grendel could do it at much longer range if the design is feasible and executed correctly. Think barrier penetration and two legged vermin eradication from even very short barrels. In my opinion---- The fact that it could also probably be an excellent deer hunting projectile (and would be useful for people in lead free zones) is just icing on the cake to me.

Yup this was the bullet I was thinking about, When Hanka said similar to the 5.45X39 round I was on board. Evil minds think alike

[cory]

That'd make:

Buster: 500
Variable: 500
Jawbone: 500
BjornF16: 500
Montana: 500
Cory: 500
D.Davis: 500
TPlace: 500
Crippleshot1: 500
KentuckyBuddha: 500
Whitebull: 750
Bigfoot: 500
Dave Bob: 500


Total possible to date: 6750

That'd be 33.75% of a 20,000 bullet order.

Isn't this Hanka's baby? Why isn't he down for any bullets? I'd think he'd be down for 1000+.

[JASmith]

Hopefully I was misconstruing his intent. I have no desire to argue with anyone here. I just take up for myself when I feel it's necessary. Maybe I was overreacting, I don't know.

Just remember to filter the Sneaky-Speak to first remove the interesting adjectives and superlatives, then look at his suggestions and insights.

We then find that he too is simply offering an alternative point of view.

My own point of view is that Grendel popularity will be helped most by bullets that produce point blank ranges similar to those enjoyed by 100 gr loads in the 243 Win and 130 gr loads in the 270 Win. This would take us to a bullet like the one John proposes but shortened to get the weight down to around 85 gr.

An 85 gr all-copper hunting bullet is good for deer and other game weighing up to around 330 lb. The 100 gr all-copper would give more margin for deer and get the cartridge on the edge of elk. (http://shootersnotes.com/ideal-bullet-weight/)

The 100 gr bullet is therefore an excellent choice for the dedicated Grendelier who automatically shifts into long-range shooting techniques for anything further out than a tad over 200 yards.

The 85 gr bullet would appeal to the vastly more numerous hunters who are happy to be able to aim at the center of the vital zone and expect a lethal hit at ranges out to about 275 or possibly 300 yards. Having a cartridge like the Grendel that can help them gracefully transition from the more convenient point and shoot method to techniques that give them success out to 500 yards is a plus.

So, we could argue that both classes of bullet weight are good for the Grendel.