300WM experiment using McGuire 178 gr Copper Rose bullets

[KonoctisWigwam]

I'm currently hobbling together this 300WM, and waiting on a trigger. My plan is to move the barreled action into a Long Action Fierce Carbon Rogue stock, but I quickly realized that I need a .400" thick recoil lug, that's a whopper!

McGuire makes both Mag Fed and Sensitive Single Fed bullet in the same length/weight. On their 168 gr CRs, they offer a long sensitive bullet, but AFAICT, their other bullets are the same length for both. Both are solid tips.

CRs are expanding, not fracturing. In this regard, they are not like Hammer, Cutting Edge, Lehigh Defense, Maker, et al, as those are fracturing bullets. Those use the theory that the petals shed and create a massive EDIT: wound channel. The 8.6 blackout is pretty amazing in that regard, as the fast twist causes Barnes TTSX bullets to shed their petals. It is amazing how massive the subsonic petals are. The fracturing bullets leave a solid slug for pass through, after the petals have been shed, so you end up with a mini-solid, similar to solids used on Dangerous Game in Africa. But we're not talking 8.6 blackout here, we're talking 300WM.

What I am trying to do is have an extended single fed bullet in the chamber of my rifle, with the intention that this is the bullet that will kill the game, and then I have 3 mag fed bullets to followup with.

These are both Copper Rose bullets, and the mag fed rounds are set to 3.430", which is the longest that will fit in the mag. I am still shy a few parts to pull this together, and it requires fastening several components with a torque wrench, and being able to measure, etc.., but that stuff is in transit. I have extended the single fed bullets out to 3.650", based on how it seats to the next cannelure. I like to think of it as giving an extended life to the 300WM. This looks like a modern bullet, and the BC is crazy on these CRs, McGuire Ballistics states these as having a .600, where all the rest of the bullets are much lower, in the 400s, 500s tops.

I am testing a ladder for both H4831SC and Reloader 23. I'm using H4831SC in 6.5 PRC with CX and LRX bullets.

Sam says he thinks the mag fed as having less pressure, but that doesn't seem right to me, since seating the bullet farther should create more pressure, I thought, but I will be testing this with a LabRadar to make certain, maybe Sam is correct, he seems to know his bullets pretty well.

On the left is set to mag length max, 3.430", and on the right is a single fed bullet set out to 3.650". However the powder/pressure works out, I want to use the single fed in the chamber and the mag fed in the mag. An accurate load with the mag fed will get me a hunting round, but my plan is to use my 6.5 PRC as my primary hunting rifle this year. My 300WM is my backup.

This shows my loads, I'm moving the last ladder test for H4831SC to be in the range listed on the Hornady app for 176-180 grain bullets.

My loads are using Peterson Long Brass, CCI 34 Primers, McGuire 178 Copper Rose bullets, and both H4831SC and Reloader 23 as the powder.

I don't have a trigger on my Remington 700, but do have a scope mounted on it. I have a better, but non-illuminated scope to put on it, but need a picatinny rail. The trigger is in the mail, as-is a magazine. When I convert the 300WM over to the Fierce Carbon Rogue stock, which is an M5 bottom metal, I am going to use a Hawkins Hunter Mag, it will hold 3 Magnum rounds. I will have similar to the DBL which holds 3 also, but will be able to have different rounds I can swap out with a mag. I only plan to have 2 mags. If I can't drop game with that ammo, I need to get another hobby...

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

Well, that didn't take too long...I'm pulling all of these bullets and reloading them with H4350, which I only have 1 lb. of, per a McGuire enthusiast on LRH (ButterBean). Lee said not to worry about the COAL, and seat them the same. The only difference is the SF bullets are too sensitive to feed in a mag.

He also uses the 168 CRs.

So, to the shop I go, to dig out my H4350, and pull these. Still misting up here, hope it's dry for you guys. Good day to hunt, IMO.

 

[_lilith]

I’m right there with you on pressure...Seating deeper generally lowers it since it boosts the case volume, but it’s not always straightforward. I've experienced some surprises depending on the bullet design and how the powder burns. LabRadar will reveal the real deal, and I’m eager to find out how H4831SC measures up against Reloader 23 in your setup. Personally, I've had great success with H4831SC in my 6.5 PRC too

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

I’m right there with you on pressure...Seating deeper generally lowers it since it boosts the case volume, but it’s not always straightforward. I've experienced some surprises depending on the bullet design and how the powder burns. LabRadar will reveal the real deal, and I’m eager to find out how H4831SC measures up against Reloader 23 in your setup. Personally, I've had great success with H4831SC in my 6.5 PRC too

I can test that further, but I pulled all of the 300WM loads and ready for round 2 using H4350.

I have more wiggle room on 6.5 PRC, and here's why...I have a combo box of 50 using 125 Copper Rose bullets, and I have an extra 25 Single Feed bullets, where 300 WM, I only have a combo box of 50 (25 MF and 25 SF).

I also have 2 boxes of Peterson Brass for 6.5 PRC, where I only have 1 box of Peterson 300WM brass.

I also have load data from the Hornady app to give me a start, using both H4831SC and Reloader 23.

Ready for round 2 on 300WM, this is what was recommended as XLNT powder for 300WM, by an acquaintance on LRH.

 

[alan]

I really love your approach with that single fed round in the chamber and the mag fed follow-ups. It’s such a clever way to boost performance while keeping things practical. Stretching that single fed bullet out to 3.650" and teaming it up with a high-BC projectile like the CRs? That’s how you really get the most out of the 300WM. A .600 BC is impressive. It’s like giving the cartridge a fresh start in today’s hunting scene.

Keep us in the loop when you get the final pieces together. I’m eager to hear how those ladder tests go and how the CRs perform out in the field. If you can’t take down game with that setup, it’s not the ammo… it’s probably just some bad luck!

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

I really love your approach with that single fed round in the chamber and the mag fed follow-ups. It’s such a clever way to boost performance while keeping things practical. Stretching that single fed bullet out to 3.650" and teaming it up with a high-BC projectile like the CRs? That’s how you really get the most out of the 300WM. A .600 BC is impressive. It’s like giving the cartridge a fresh start in today’s hunting scene.

Keep us in the loop when you get the final pieces together. I’m eager to hear how those ladder tests go and how the CRs perform out in the field. If you can’t take down game with that setup, it’s not the ammo… it’s probably just some bad luck!

Thanks Alan, I think it might pan out well, but my contact on LRH says he seats the bullets the same for SF and MF, and he's not sure I'll see gains, yet he says it's worth trying. I'm a bit surprised that he hadn't tried it yet. He used to do a lot of work with Hammer bullets, but in his words, "I will throw rocks before I use another Hammer." I don't blame him, I feel the same and have both 6.5 and 30 cal bullets, more 30 cal. For this test, I'm using McGuire Copper Rose bullets.

AFAIK, Hammer doesn't have any extended single feed bullets, but Cutting Edge does in the lazer line. Those have really high BCs, like .646, and the McGuires are about .600, both are extremely high, considering Barnes and Hornady are down around .440-.480 on BC.

I went to the range yesterday afternoon, I was the only one there in the late afternoon before it gets dark. I was able to fire more of my reloads, and the 53.0 grain loads I prepared shot about 2830 average with Barnes 127 gr LRX bullets.

I have been told by several people that seating the bullet further can often cause less pressure, which is the opposite of what one could expect, so that will need to be tested with different seating depths.

Today I'm getting a new windshield in my Tundra, a pebble hit the windshield on the freeway and slammed into the windshield, cracking it at the bottom...but sitting in the sun, the crack started spreading across the entire windshield...it looks fugly, I want a new windshield. I need to reload before I go back to the range, and will load those 125 Copper Rose bullets for the 6.5 PRC. Still waiting on a firing pin removal tool, and a trigger for the 300 WM. I'm gonna try to extend some of those, as I have above, just to test.

 

[alan]

I’ve had my share of issues with Hammer bullets. They looked really good on paper, but I struggled to get consistent groups, and the terminal performance didn’t quite live up to the hype. I eventually switched to Barnes for hunting and Berger for precision, and I’ve been a lot happier since then.

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

I’ve had my share of issues with Hammer bullets. They looked really good on paper, but I struggled to get consistent groups, and the terminal performance didn’t quite live up to the hype. I eventually switched to Barnes for hunting and Berger for precision, and I’ve been a lot happier since then.

Alan,

I haven't said too much about Hammer on this forum, but I can assure you I've gone from intending to use them, to selling much of the bullets I had, and I bought some 2nd hand, though I'm not sure I will use them. This all started out listening to Steve and Brian doing a podcast blurting out about their <cough> "Parabolic Drag Reduction". A friend of mine has about 26 patents issued to him, so I had an idea that I wanted to patent, and he was explaining to me how the patent system works. Well, the way it works is that if you start making a lot of profit, the patent attorneys will go after you, it doesn't even matter if they have the same technology, they sue based on potential damages.

Normally, engineers are working for a company, and the company provides them with a monetary amount for their work, but there is actually no obligation to do so...however, the patent is issued to the company, despite the inventor working for them.

Steve and Brian proudly claim and speak of their patent as if it was a utility patent. The patent they list on their website is wrong, it's not even a valid patent number, so you really have to understand and know the patent system to even find their patent, because they do have a patent. The patent number they list on their site is D774159, but that is incorrect for a patent number. The D prefix is correct, but the amount of digits is incorrect. To find the real patent you need to search the patent archives, and search for Brian's name as the inventor.

This is the page you need to search: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.html

If you select the inventor, and put Holtsmeyer in the name, this is one of the patents that shows up:

https://ppubs.uspto.gov/api/patents...5LTRmNjYtOTI4NS1kY2UxZTc1ZDU1ZjkiLCJleHAiOjB9

To really understand this, one needs to look at the patent, this is not a utility patent that is awarded on some specific feature, this is merely an Ornamental Design Patent, and the Parabolic Drag Reduction is really nothing more than hyperbole. The Hammer folks talk about this patent as if it really does something. But it doesn't, this is merely an Ornamental Design patent issued for 15 years. The issue date was June 03, 2015, so on June 03, 2030 the Design patent expires.

If this patent was really to do with something, it would have been issued as a utility patent, not that it would protect them, the patent system is well past it's usefulness, IMO. But it's not, it's merely an Ornamental Design patent. I found this with my friend's help, and then he went on to explain how the patent system really works. If this patent really made Hammer Bullets profitable to excess, other patent attorneys from large companies like Barnes and Hornady was be on them like stink on you know what...but they're not, so I have to assume that while Hammer may be profitable, they're not profitable enough for patent attorney/trolls to go after them. I figure Hammer gets to go around testing bullets and hunting on the companies dime.

To me, it seems the theory Hammer goes by is, use a light bullet, and push it to the max, to create hydrostatic shock to put down game. I'm not saying their bullets do not work, just that the company is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and the bullets cost about $1.50/each.

Now, go back to 1944 (actually beyond that), when Roy Weatherby started building rifles. This is the exact same theory of hydrostatic shock that Roy used on his cartridges, he added his radius'd shoulder, enlarged the case capacity, and created a Weatherby Magnum. Roy first came out with the 270 Magnum, and then the 300 Magnum, although the 257 Magnum was his favorite, and what he used to take a cape buffalo in Africa. But Roy not only subscribed to the Hydrostatic Shock theory, but pretty much developed it. Shoot light bullets at extreme velocity to create hydrostatic shock to drop game. Weatherby has been doing this since 1944, which is like 80 years ago. My family owned a liquor store that I worked in for 15 years as a kid, and Roy used to hang out at the gunsmith next door. Our liquor store was named Lyn-Gate Liquor, it was at the border of Lynwood and South Gate, and Roy lived in South Gate, and his shop was on Firestone Blvd, but people were always talking about Roy as he had a range built under his house in South Gate. I had never been there, and wasn't friendly with Roy, I was a kid. But I was good friend with Mike Bennett's son, David, who was the same age as me. Mike eventually moved his business to Long Beach, but he had a tremendous LEO following as Mike was retired LEO himself. He sold my step dad all of his firearms, including a PPK 380, Colt 45 stainless with all gold plated parts, a choked 12 gauge side by side to 20" legal length, and a 38 special. All of these firearms were sold before registration was required in California.

The Weatherby history is why I own Weatherby rifles, I consider them to be some of the most beautiful firearms built. They weren't just another Remington, they were special. I currently own a 1970 257 Magnum (first year for Howa built rifles), 1976 270 Magnum (Commemorative Bicentennial Edition), and a 1962 300 Magnum (German built by Sauer). I have an early 60s Remington 300 WM also, and a new Weatherby 307 action chambered in 6.5 PRC.

I get good terminal ballistics using Barnes and Hornady bullets, but am planning to use McGuire Copper Rose bullets as my main bullet. These bullets are slightly higher cost over Hammer Bullets, but Sam McGuire is a standup gent to deal with, and he develops a different type of bullet. The CRs are expanding, not fracturing like the Hammers. They are more like Barnes and Hornady bullets in that regard. Also, Hammer Bullets has removed posts from their HammerTime forum, and have banned me for asking about their design.

This is a long post, but I want to emphasize, I'm not in any way saying that Hammer Bullets don't work, as many people use them with great success. But I am saying that Hammer is not the type of company I want to patronize, and as a customer, I get to decide who I patronize. I won't go into ButterBean's reasoning for not using Hammer Bullets, but I will say that both him and fordy, down in Australia, did a lot of terminal ballistics shooting Hammer Bullets on game. I hope to hunt with fordy in Australia at some point. fordy does use Hammer Bullets still, and took some to Africa recently, but there are others, including me that will avoid them at all costs. I had a box of 120 grain HBCs for 6.5 PRC, but I sold them at a loss to get them out of my reloading room.

There are people on this forum and on LRH that use Hammers with great success, and praise Hammer to the mountain tops...but I am not one of them, and I will NEVER be. Like others, I will throw rocks before I will use Hammers. I'm a man based on principals, and Hammer is not the type of company I patronize.