OzFclass

Would be interested in evidence-based, not anecdotal, conclusions re HBC vs imports and suggested improvements in HBC design.
Thanks

Litz does a thorough assessment of the HBC in his first book which you can directly compare it too other brands in the same weight class. I don't think you could get much better info.

IMO the best thing HBC could concentrate on is a heavier weight, perhaps in the 185 class in 30cal.

Heavier weights and other styles could be an option.

Jason, I'm assuming when people use the 185gn 30cal bullets they'd prefer a VLD design? I don't shoot a .308 at the moment so not really keeping up with what people are using. There are a lot of options these days.

I just ran the HBC against the Berger 155.5 VLD in 2 separate ladder tests using 2208, Fed GM and unfired Lapua at 300yd.
On day one the Bergers with 45gn the HBC with 46 both printed nice tight groups.

On day 2 the wind was in play but the results confirmed those loads. Groups were an inch or so long but vertical on both was miniscule.

There really was nothing between the group size, but HBC won the day because the extra grain put the group 2" higher than the Bergers.

Unfortunately it wasn't bright enough for my chrono. It caught a couple but I can't remember which loads. I'll be running both through that at the next opportunity.

As far as design goes, they work for me just like they are. I've got them 20 thou off the lands and there would be no space in the case but no compression either.

I can send you pics of the groups if you need them?

Edited to add
If anything, (and it's the only thing I can think of) they could tidy up the meplat a bit. It's not as bad as some, but it's not as good as Berger.

Would be interested in evidence-based, not anecdotal, conclusions re HBC vs imports

With two different rifles.
The first batch of 1000 HBC's I got were great. Then I bought 1000 projectiles out of batch "16".
There was an immediate reduction in accuracy with this batch with more that the odd flier.

Sierra's however still shot just as good as always.

Draw from this what you will.

Please, don't change the HBC I get more than enough 60 with good x count. A meplat tidy could work, but it could also push the cost up as it would be a separate function I imagine.

As for design, everyone is different, but of late I have heard/seen plenty if people heading towards the juggernaught.

My preferred pill is the 200hybrid, but I think HBC would get more value out of a weight around the 185 class.

Norm wrote:

Would be interested in evidence-based, not anecdotal, conclusions re HBC vs imports

With two different rifles.
The first batch of 1000 HBC's I got were great. Then I bought 1000 projectiles out of batch "16".
There was an immediate reduction in accuracy with this batch with more that the odd flier.

Sierra's however still shot just as good as always.

Draw from this what you will.

I think it time people got past the "bad batch"

When David took over he was left in the deep end, since his first issue he has spent more than a bit of time and I am sure more dollars than he would care to count rectifying the issue.

I have now had several batches of HBC's and I have to say the quality is up with the best.

At the very least, they are priced competitively for the quality!! And according to Litz the match the berger equivalent to within .001 of it BC.

jasmay wrote:Please, don't change the HBC I get more than enough 60 with good x count. .

I take it you weren't using HBC's at Townsville

With F/TR on the books putting a heavy companion with the current 155 might be a good idea, something in the 175-185 area.
I can squeeze a 168 VLD in mine but I think the 175 is going to be too long. A heavy HBC projectile that will fit in a chamber throated for a 155 might have a market.

Tim L wrote:

jasmay wrote:Please, don't change the HBC I get more than enough 60 with good x count. .

I take it you weren't using HBC's at Townsville

With F/TR on the books putting a heavy companion with the current 155 might be a good idea, something in the 175-185 area.
I can squeeze a 168 VLD in mine but I think the 175 is going to be too long. A heavy HBC projectile that will fit in a chamber throated for a 155 might have a market.

Jasmay, I don't believe he will be changing the HBC, but there could be options. Like a pointed HBC.

Tim, what reamer specs are people using for the 155 HBC? I think a heavy companion is also the way to go. Choosing what people want is the hard part.

FACT: "Batch 16" was three years ago...

Thanks, good to see some rational feedback. I'm a supporter of the brand and local vs imports, and I suggest we back the local guy at the checkout.

My personal results have been inseparable from the imports, and I'd like to see a pointed version as we cannot point them ourselves according to SSRs.

Heavier FTR version makes sense, but whether it's 185 or 210 is something you guys will know better, I'm a sling shooter.

I would not like to see the design changed. There are a few good reasons. Firstly it is a good design and has a great BC. Secondly with the long bearing surface (compared to hybrids, sierras and 155.5's) you can use it in chambers designed for some longer bullets (VERY IMPORTANT WITH CURRENT TREND OF FTR RIFLES COMING THROUGH). It also seems quite forgiving on seating depth and have seen it used from jam to large jumps.

The throat in my 308 cannot accommodate some of the other projectiles and I am limited to the HBC, VLD or Lapua in 155 class.

As far as accuracy goes - I did extensive testing around the time of batch 16 and found all earlier batches and even quite a lot of batch 16 to be very accurate. Batch 16 refers to the batch of jackets and were made over a long period of time some were actually very good and as stated before we are well past that now.

I remind everyone that all manufacturers have bad batches of bullets - I have had several from Sierra and also some from Berger that were below Par. The HBC is a top notch projectile.

Tim L wrote:

jasmay wrote:Please, don't change the HBC I get more than enough 60 with good x count. .

I take it you weren't using HBC's at Townsville

With F/TR on the books putting a heavy companion with the current 155 might be a good idea, something in the 175-185 area.
I can squeeze a 168 VLD in mine but I think the 175 is going to be too long. A heavy HBC projectile that will fit in a chamber throated for a 155 might have a market.

I was using 155HBC's at Townsville, I was shooting standard.

Hahaha, your right Tim, bloody Townsville, I'll have to prepay for those 60's next year.

I think once HBC have completed the relocation to SE Qld the focus will be on consistency and quality of supply.

Personally I'd recommend pulling the design back a fraction to sacrifice a small amount of BC in return for a more consistent batch-to-batch production. In saying this I don't believe it's financially viable to do so given the tooling costs and the corresponding teething period. Maybe the move to SE Qld allowed these costs to be absorbed, either way it's no simple matter of changing a punch or a die. The new design that Bob left Dave to work out is inherently more difficult to produce than the original HBC design. Either that or the design was inherently difficult to be taught and/or learned...nope studied is a better word.

Invariably the quality of the HBC projectiles produced by Dave is dictated by the NRAA as they deal with him directly. Bob wouldn't have changed the HBC design just for the sake of it, this would have come from the NRAA. Sierra's are supplied through an agent to the NRAA and they take what they are given. The Berger's are imported directly by the NRAA. Even though they are the single biggest customer for Berger worldwide the NRAA takes what it is given...or they wait another 6 months to be re-supplied...it's a Sellers market out there, especially when the NRAA seek to supply their members with projectiles at the lowest cost possible. Lapua projectile supply is token at best by the NRAA.

Based on this you can make a reasonable comparison of the HBC to the other manufacturers over the longer term. I say the longer term because anyone can make a single batch of 'golden bees', it's being able to do that year-in-year out that lets a shooter buy a box of 500 or 1000 at a time.

Sierra have shown that they will stick with a design regardless of it's accuracy or BC performance post-production release, unless sales are significantly affected. I'd suggest the Sierra design experts get one crack at implementing a design onto a dedicated production press and after that it's the bean counters pulling the lever until the tooling or the press dies.

Berger have shown that they will bring on new designs to meet the market and sort out the production issues later on. Trying to capture as much of the market as possible means they're reluctant to drop older models in the same calibre and weight. Berger might have 'doubled' their production equipment but they will have to double it again and their stock holding capacity, if they want to keep producing every design they ever released. At least they're starting to drop some 'duplicate' models. If HBC were to threaten the market with an improved design, Berger would be the most likely to trump HBC with a design Bryan nutted out for them 3 years ago to regain market share. The batch-to-batch quality will come back over the next 12 to 24mths if the demand stabalises, they train up some more Mexicans, and the market swallows a price rise.

HBC will continue to produce projectiles to the price, specification and volumes that the NRAA demands. It's not in the NRAA's interest for HBC to expand it's operations unless they remain the main distributor for all of HBC's products, and it doesn't affect supply or quality of the 155gr's. When 1 customer takes >80% of your production volume you can plead for a price increase or beg. If quality or supply of the HBC drops they will just threaten with more Bergers, you can call they're bluff but they can also write you out of the SSR's, you're call.

Lapua and Norma are the dark horses that the NRAA will find hard to put off. Norma have longer and more extensive commercial interests than Lapua, and both are releasing new products into the target shooting market. They both have the ability to produce products of the highest standard, but have kept their main volume focus on government contracts/subsidies for defence and law enforcement. With subsidised capital and tooling they could easily match price with other commercial based competitors and meet any technical challenge. Their weakness is their government based support which faltered a few years ago with Lapua, but seems to be back on board.

So yes all these previous comments are completely non-evidence based and anecdotal, purely speculation and opinion if you like...very Internet forum...but the OP was barking up the wrong tree IMHO with his/her's original question. You have to consider the bigger picture.

I didn't even bring marketing into it this time.