284 Hornady AMax ELD 175grain

[kris4ocean]

Gentlemen, the new 284 bullet from Hornady has tempting factory G7 BC @0,340
Comparing that to real life values of 162AMAX @ 0,307 and 180gr Scenar L @ 0,320 the above number seems too optimistic.
Is there any credible measurement and/or info out there?

Thank you

 

[284winner]

Not sure but I believe it's going to be very close. Hornady seems to be very very close on there numbers unlike Nosler. You'd have to have the forum expert give actual numbers. I have not seen Bryan's numbers on the new Hornadys but Noslers actual BCs on some were not super impressive. Nosler did have some that were close.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Dunno about this one, but the 208 ELD-M has been independently measured, and the factory BC is right on. I'd bet on Hornady's BCs for the ELD line. They were meticulously careful.

 

[284winner]

Dunno about this one, but the 208 ELD-M has been independently measured, and the factory BC is right on. I'd bet on Hornady's BCs for the ELD line. They were meticulously careful.

Agreed. They have some pretty amazing technology measuring the numbers.

 

[kris4ocean]

just noticed that JBM Ballistics has the 175LED-X on the list with G7=0,330 ...

 

[rimfiremac]

A point of caution is the tipped design. For hunting, it is useful. To use it on scoring targets will be a challenge- David Tubb did the legwork on that proof- OTM designs are simply an inherently more accurate design. The difficulty with tipped projectiles is guaranteeing concentricity- a little deviation out of axis turns into a lot of deviation on paper.

 

[284winner]

Amax has proved to be a phenomenal long range target bullet. I'm sure the ELDs will be very similar.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

A point of caution is the tipped design. For hunting, it is useful. To use it on scoring targets will be a challenge- David Tubb did the legwork on that proof- OTM designs are simply an inherently more accurate design. The difficulty with tipped projectiles is guaranteeing concentricity- a little deviation out of axis turns into a lot of deviation on paper.

Got a link to the hard data on that? I tend to be skeptical on such broad claims unless there is an opportunity to review the data on a careful test.

 

[rimfiremac]

Not going to find a study on it, but there was a recent article/ release associated with the new 115 dtacs that referenced trying tipped bullets in the past without sufficient success to warrant production. Granted there is a marketing bias if the article is associated with selling dtacs, however, couple that with the fact that few folks tout Amax/ new tmk's as contest winning, and to me an empirical foundation begins to form. Stay skeptical, but I admit reality when a trend is identifiable.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Not going to find a study on it, but there was a recent article/ release associated with the new 115 dtacs that referenced trying tipped bullets in the past without sufficient success to warrant production. Granted there is a marketing bias if the article is associated with selling dtacs, however, couple that with the fact that few folks tout Amax/ new tmk's as contest winning, and to me an empirical foundation begins to form. Stay skeptical, but I admit reality when a trend is identifiable.

I've seen enough of my buddies shoot great scores and place high in matches with the AMAX bullets that I am less skeptical of plastic tips. My only tournament win ever was with Berger, and I also like Sierra better than Hornady, but I've posted scores in the mid 190s with Hornady (which is good for me). Got one buddy convinced right now that the new TMK is shooting great in the .308. Scheduling conflicts have prevented proof one way or another in a match setting, but groups are impressive.

I was director of a bench rest match some time back. Tipped bullets were relatively uncommon (10% or so), but they seemed to garner their share (>10% ) of wins and high finishes.

One should also keep in mind that 2 of the top 3 longest recorded sniper kills in history were scored with the Hornady AMAX.

 

[rimfiremac]

To agree on the fundamental, I do shoot Amax sometimes- they are good enough for practice and maybe some club level. I'm looking forward to trying them on deer. However, I think there is also a measurable performance difference between good enough and good.

 

[rimfiremac]

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2016/08/new-dtac-115gr-rebated-boat-tail-bullet-from-david-tubb/

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Thanks for the link. Tubb seems to indicate the issue with plastic tips is more related to the melting at long range than a fundamental accuracy or concentricity issue. Hopefully the ELDs will solve that.

 

[FrankG]

Thanks for the link. Tubb seems to indicate the issue with plastic tips is more related to the melting at long range than a fundamental accuracy or concentricity issue. Hopefully the ELDs will solve that.

It is to my understanding that Hornady changed the material used in the tips do to melting etc....and they changed it a while ago (last year or so if memory serves me correctly).

They should be good to go!

Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Gentlemen, the new 284 bullet from Hornady has tempting factory G7 BC @0,340
Comparing that to real life values of 162AMAX @ 0,307 and 180gr Scenar L @ 0,320 the above number seems too optimistic.
Is there any credible measurement and/or info out there?

Thank you

Hornady does provide BC data online, be it very limited. They only provide about 550 fps worth of BC data leaving out the 3000 - 2500 fps and the 1900 - 1500 or even transonic data. However we know from their own admission the BCs you see when "shopping around" are peak, or marketing BCs that are not sufficient for long range shooting. They only provide the BCs for a very limited range, about 550 fps, and do not provide a full picture. However you can see from their own data, the BC declines very rapidly over that short period for some bullets. To get a good averaged BC from their data you would need to see the BC down to subsonic, or at least in to transonic zone. However, this is all by their own admission, that the BCs you see on the box, and the BCs you should use for shooting are not equal. What you see on the box is for marketing to make them look good on the shelf. What you should actually be using is lower, in some cases 10% or more lower. http://www.hornady.com/BC?mobile_state=full . So your concern is warranted, and re-enforced by their own admission.

 

[284winner]

Hornady does provide BC data online, be it very limited. They only provide about 550 fps worth of BC data leaving out the 3000 - 2500 fps and the 1900 - 1500 or even transonic data. However we know from their own admission the BCs you see when "shopping around" are peak, or marketing BCs that are not sufficient for long range shooting. They only provide the BCs for a very limited range, about 550 fps, and do not provide a full picture. However you can see from their own data, the BC declines very rapidly over that short period for some bullets. To get a good averaged BC from their data you would need to see the BC down to subsonic, or at least in to transonic zone. However, this is all by their own admission, that the BCs you see on the box, and the BCs you should use for shooting are not equal. What you see on the box is for marketing to make them look good on the shelf. What you should actually be using is lower, in some cases 10% or more lower. http://www.hornady.com/BC?mobile_state=full . So your concern is warranted, and re-enforced by their own admission.

Hornadys numbers are as close as Berger's BC numbers. They have been very close to the actual BC according to testing. Independent tests not only done by Hornady. Sierra and Nosler are very inaccurate on there numbers. My drop data is very close when I use my actual velocity and the numbers Hornady provides for BC with environmental conditions calculated.