Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49

Thread: Another change to the 147 HST?

  1. #11
    Site Supporter richiecotite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by LockedBreech View Post
    I actually like these incremental, tiny changes over time. It most likely shows that Federal/ATK is continually improving the product based on available data.

    I have two variations of the HST and they feed the same and I am confident they work the same or better.

    I have some older Gold Dot and some very new Gold Dot, I am curious to look at them and see if CCI/Speer did the same thing over time.
    I got some 124 gr gold dots from the late 90’s-early 2000’s I’m guessing came in a gold/brownish colored box) a few years back and compared to some new production. They looked exactly the same, or near enough.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "I'm a tactical operator and Instructor and also retired military."

    -read on another forum

  2. #12
    HST, Gold Dot, and Ranger-T have all had tweaks and improvements over the years. There have been several variations of the Winchester bonded 9mm JHP too. Sometimes there are product line wide changes in many calibers, and sometimes specific loads in a given caliber have been changed.

    Usually it has been for the better.

  3. #13
    In a bygone era, I read that the Hydrashok .45 went through five variants.
    I know there were three, those differences were visible.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by perlslacker View Post
    I've wanted a properly-constructed IWBA test for short barrels (like 3" barrels) for a while. LuckyGunner's tests are OK but 3.5" is different from 3" in 9mm, and clear gel isn't the best test medium.
    For their reliance upon the clear gel product, the LG tests are a waste of time and energy.

    LG clearly missed the boat on what could've been an incredible contribution to the science and their customers that might've led to increased attention to their website and greater sales revenue.

    Quote Originally Posted by perlslacker View Post
    Everything I can find is YouTube tests of varying quality. The best is ShootingTheBull410, but he intermixed clear & organic gel results and wasn't transparent about temperature or calibration.
    I suppose that if one wanted to expend the time and effort to do so, it might be worthwhile to harvest only the 10% ordnance gelatin data from ShootingTheBull410's videos. Conducting an analysis based solely upon that information would certainly be interesting. I've not bothered to do so, but it may very well be worth doing.

    Months prior to the start of video production, ShootingTheBull410 contacted me for advice regarding his test process. STB410, seeking a scientifically-valid test regimen that avoided many of the pitfalls present in others' work, started with a ''5 shots per block'' concept that provided the maximum amount of data in the most concise manner. For whatever reason, despite many discussions with him on the topic and try as I might, I was never able to convince STB410 that the already well-known issues with the CBG product would seriously detract from the validity of his test data. Following a trajectory that would be remarkably similar to others in the amateur testing community, STB410 quickly became aware of the deficiencies of the CBG product. As can be seen in his early production videos, STB410 first attempted to ''adjust'' his data through the use of the Q-model with disclaimers to that effect in his videos. Once STB410 realized that the projectile expansion ratios produced by the CBG product differed significantly from those that occurred in 10% ordnance gelatin testing that had caused him to attempt to ''convert'' his CBG data to its equivalent in 10% OG, he quickly abandoned all together the use of the CBG product and moved directly to 10% OG.

    Thanks to STB410's technical expertise with high frame-rate videography, his early production videos—despite their reliance upon the CBG product—do have some educational value. Those videos serve to illustrate the issues that the CBG product introduces into any test regimen. In fact, I have used screen shots from many of videos to illustrate both the increased dwell time of the temporary cavitation process that leads to an unusual and unpredictable amount of projectile rebound and the ignition of volatiles under adiabatic compression as the temporary cavity collapses after impact.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    For their reliance upon the clear gel product, the LG tests are a waste of time and energy.

    LG clearly missed the boat on what could've been an incredible contribution to the science and their customers that might've led to increased attention to their website and greater sales revenue.
    Led to increased attention to their website and greater sales revenue.

    But that was the entire point of the testing. It wasn't a waste of time and effort, because it definitely did both those things. Outside of institutional users and ammo nerds, the average person neither thinks of,or cares about the "science". And most institutional users actually don't care that much either, just buy off of bigger contracts or what the FBI issues.

    The clear gel tests are great marketing, they are visually interesting, and they give an approximation of what the buyers expect the performance to look like.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    For their reliance upon the clear gel product, the LG tests are a waste of time and energy.

    LG clearly missed the boat on what could've been an incredible contribution to the science and their customers that might've led to increased attention to their website and greater sales revenue.
    Quote Originally Posted by MandoWookie View Post
    Led to increased attention to their website and greater sales revenue.

    But that was the entire point of the testing. It wasn't a waste of time and effort, because it definitely did both those things. Outside of institutional users and ammo nerds, the average person neither thinks of,or cares about the "science". And most institutional users actually don't care that much either, just buy off of bigger contracts or what the FBI issues.

    The clear gel tests are great marketing, they are visually interesting, and they give an approximation of what the buyers expect the performance to look like.
    Unless you are in possession of research that contradicts the long-standing issues that have been documented with the deficiencies with the use of the clear gel stuff product, the fact remains that the LG tests are a waste of time and energy due to their reliance upon the clear gel product. The issues surrounding the use of the clear gel product have been discussed extensively here by SMEs (Dr Roberts and others). That material is easily located using the ''SEARCH'' function.

    Parsing the predicate phrase of my first sentence to conflate the intent of my second sentence when that is clearly not what I intended is not something that I intend to waste time and bandwidth debating.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Archer1440 View Post
    I feel these tiny differences are owing to tooling variations and production related equipment more than any intentional design tweaks. Not enough difference to make a practical difference.
    It might also be a result of erosion or wear from poor maintenance of older tooling.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    Unless you are in possession of research that contradicts the long-standing issues that have been documented with the deficiencies with the use of the clear gel stuff product, the fact remains that the LG tests are a waste of time and energy due to their reliance upon the clear gel product. The issues surrounding the use of the clear gel product have been discussed extensively here by SMEs (Dr Roberts and others). That material is easily located using the ''SEARCH'' function.

    Parsing the predicate phrase of my first sentence to conflate the intent of my second sentence when that is clearly not what I intended is not something that I intend to waste time and bandwidth debating.
    I wasn't arguing that the gel tests are accurate or the testing scientific , I'm saying that they aren't needed to be because they did serve their purpose for Luckygunner. You said it was a waste of time and effort. For your purposes, yes. But not for LG.

    I do use the search function, I have read the sticky's, and I defer to Dr. Roberts expertise. I carry Gold Dots or HSTs depending on availability and go on with my life. I don't go off of Youtube tests, Luckygunner tests or company ad print.

    But many people, who aren't you, in fact the majority, do go off those things, if they care to look it up at all. For those people, the Luckygunner tests look like well put together presentations that tells them how this bullet is better than this other bullet. All easily accessible with drop down menus and numbers and charts and everything.

    Despite what you may wish they are not listening to you, or this forum.

    edit to add: Also I wasn't trying to conflate or alter or statement in any way, I was bolding for emphasis the part of the quote I found interesting as a starting point on an observation on different perceived value of the testing, and the wider relevance to the gun owning community at large as to its accuracy.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by MandoWookie View Post
    I wasn't arguing that the gel tests are accurate or the testing scientific , I'm saying that they aren't needed to be because they did serve their purpose for Luckygunner. You said it was a waste of time and effort. For your purposes, yes. But not for LG.

    I do use the search function, I have read the sticky's, and I defer to Dr. Roberts expertise. I carry Gold Dots or HSTs depending on availability and go on with my life. I don't go off of Youtube tests, Luckygunner tests or company ad print.

    But many people, who aren't you, in fact the majority, do go off those things, if they care to look it up at all. For those people, the Luckygunner tests look like well put together presentations that tells them how this bullet is better than this other bullet. All easily accessible with drop down menus and numbers and charts and everything.

    Despite what you may wish they are not listening to you, or this forum.

    edit to add: Also I wasn't trying to conflate or alter or statement in any way, I was bolding for emphasis the part of the quote I found interesting as a starting point on an observation on different perceived value of the testing, and the wider relevance to the gun owning community at large as to its accuracy.
    OK.

    Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    OK.

    Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.
    That why I included both the relevant original quote in whole, and bolded the segment I wanted to spring off of separately to clearly divide the point of discussion between your statement and my thoughts. Apparently I failed at that.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •