Took this fat sow with the 150gr SST and she dropped in her tracks!

I have been following this round for some time, and should finally get my rifle back in the next week. I decided to have an M17S built into a 7.62x40 WT, and that took considerably longer than the usual process of just slapping a barrel on an AR. The idea of a small, spitzer compatible.30-30 that works well with a semi-auto and requires no proprietary parts or components is perhaps the best example of "how come nobody thought of that sooner?" in the modern shooting world. That, to me, is the mark of a a great idea, and I wanted to thank Bill Wilson for making it available to the rest of us. I'm buying property in East Texas soon, but have hunted there and dealt with hogs all of my life. Bill did us all a favor by using his unique resources to address a widespread problem.

I joined this forum because Bill is kind enough to respond to questions about the round, and I wanted to ask a question that has bothered me since I read about the .300 HAM'R. I already had 7.62x40 WT dies and reamer, but I'm happy to see either or both designs succeed as the appeal to me is that I don't need ammo manufacturers to care (that's the beauty of using common components). The part that concerned me was the appearance of a round which for all intents and purposes was the old round and from the same company. I have no knowledge of how this came to be, and that's really why I am asking the question here. My concern may make more sense in the context of 2 stories.

The .300 WSM and .300 SAUM are basically the same round, introduced at about the same time, with the same intended market. The obvious question "Why make both?" is easily answered with "Remington wanted to get in on the short magnum market and didn't want to pay royalties to USRAC". That makes sense. Now consider the following hypothetical: Hornady announces tomorrow their new .264 MoreCreed, a 7.62x51 based 6.5mm with virtually identical (but not interchangeable) dimensions to the 6.5 Creedmoor, but which can push similar bullets 25-50 FPS faster. A lot of people would be confused by that move, and might ask why they had done so.

That's my question with regard to the .300 HAM'R and 7.62x40: why? The answer may be as simple as "it seemed like a good idea that for some reason didn't catch on, so we optimized it a little more to try to relaunch it." My concern that there might have been other, even potentially less honorable, reasons gave me pause in being supportive of the round and WC in general (for the $5 in sales that my influence is worth), particularly since the potential existed for disagreements given the origin of the 7.62x40 outside of WC.

Again, I want to stress that my limited dealings with WC have been great, I applaud their decision to continue support for the 7.62x40, and I have no information to suggest that WC nor Bill Wilson have done anything wrong, immoral or illegal. I merely noticed a few details that didn't make sense and hoped that Bill or WC could put them to bed under the assumption that I'm not the only person who had this question.

Thanks for the great discussion and thanks to Bill for this and his other contributions to shooting.

Someone's online gossip magazine subscription ran out.

Load ammo

Shoot pigs

Repeat


Leave the gossiping at the bridge club table.

I think that you've mistaken my effort to avoid gossip for gossip. I admittedly have no details about the situation other than the publicly available facts that I stated above. It's likely that their explanation is completely benign, and making up wild speculation about misdeeds would indeed be gossip. My one goal is exactly what I posted: I wanted help from the source in understanding a set of incomplete facts that didn't make sense to me. That's it.

Is possible you have already answered your own question? "can push similar bullets 25-50 FPS faster".

Has anyone tried Cavity Back Bullets in HAM'R? Seems like they would be ideal projectiles for this given their media, but knowing how media works I thought I would see if anyone has experience with them before picking up a box for myself.

I haven't been asked "why the 300 HAM'R?" for awhile...

Simple answer, my goal was to equal the ole .30-30 out of the AR15 platform using a standard 5.56 bolt and I just couldn't achieve this with the 7.62x40WT. I just needed slightly more powder capacity. Actually the first reamers were marked .30-30 AR, but my son Ryan suggested we use the HAM'R name which we already had a TM on for marketing purposes. The cartridge designation 7.62x40WT was always a negative from a marketing perspective. As I'm sure most of you know Kurt Buchert was the original developer of the 7.62x40, we just did further development and brought it to market with Kurt's blessing. Kurt and I always got along well and to my knowledge there is no "bad blood" there, but I haven't talked to him in several years now.

Most of this is in the "history of the 300 HAM'R" section on the WC web site, see below:

I guess you could say the project originally started way back in 2005 when J D Jones sent me one of his 300 Whisper uppers and a set of dies. This cartridge seemed like a good idea to me other than in order for it to fire heavy subsonic bullets a short case with minimal powder capacity was required. Being an avid hunter my primary interest was terminal performance and the 300 Whisper just didn’t get the job done for me. So, at that point I moved on to the 6.8 SPC and did a lot of work with it and killed a LOT of hogs and deer.

I’ve always been a bigger bullet is better guy and a .277” diameter bullet just wasn’t exactly what I wanted. Then, in 2008, Remington came out with the .30 Rem AR and I started getting the terminal performance on game that I was after. However, that caliber has its share of issues such as a proprietary upper receiver, bolt carrier group and magazine, and then you add on the fact that shortly after Remington brought this caliber to market they quit supporting it. I never did understand this.

Along came the 300 Blackout that Robert Silvers sent me early on for testing. I didn’t see any terminal performance improvement over the 6.8SPC with 110-125gr bullets and it didn’t shoot nearly as flat. I briefly tried shooting hogs with heavy subsonic bullets, but the rainbow trajectory and poor bullet performance on game turned me off quickly.

This brings us up to the 7.62×40 originally the brainchild of Kurt Buchert. Kurt’s cartridge that Wilson Combat brought to market as the 7.62x40WT, is a well-balanced cartridge that met Kurt’s requirement for it to accept virtually every .30 caliber bullet in the 110-135gr weight range. However, to achieve this with the long-pointed bullets the case length had to be limited to 1.565” (40mm). Don’t get me wrong, I really like the 7.62×40 and have done a lot of successful hunting with it. But I always wanted more; to at least equal the legendary and time proven .30-30 Winchester in terminal performance.

So, I came up with this quest to create a .30 caliber cartridge that could be fired from an AR15 platform utilizing the original 5.56 bolt, and I was going to call it the .30-30AR. Obviously the logical place to start was with Kurt’s 7.62×40. As I mentioned above, the problem was a lack of powder capacity so the first thing I did was to lengthen the throat by .060” to allow for the bullets to be seated out longer. This didn’t gain anything with the long nose pointed bullets that were already being seated out to maximum magazine length. It did allow for me to seat bullets designed for the .30-30 out an additional .060” giving me an additional grain of powder and reducing pressure due to the larger case volume. The result is I gained about 50fps with the Speer 130gr HC which proved to be a VERY terminally effective projectile.

Now, I have a problem, we can’t just start chambering the 7.62x40WT with a different chamber! Also, in my opinion, the two main factors that prevented the 7.62x40WT from being more successful in the marketplace was the name and the other was bad timing. When Wilson Combat releases a new and similar cartridge at basically the same time as the SAAMI approved 300 Blackout with Remington Arms behind it, let’s face it, who’s going to win? Therefore, a minor facelift of the 7.62x40WT wasn’t going to meet my goals for this project even if I could get close to the .30-30 in performance. So here I am back to powder capacity, or the lack of and the first step is to determine which bullets the cartridge must be compatible with and decide if this selection is adequate to meet all of the goals for the intended use of the cartridge (hunting, target and tactical).

Once I determined the answer was yes, measurements were made to determine how long the case can be and still work with the bullets I had selected. This turned out to be .040” longer than the 7.62×40 or .260” longer than the 300 Blackout. At this point I called Pacific Tool and Gage and worked with Dave Kiff to finalize a chamber reamer. The reamer arrived in early January 2018 and my testing began.

It was immediately apparent that there was potential and that we could probably gain 100fps over the 7.62×40 and lot more over the 300 Blackout. My good friend Terrill Hoffman and I shot thousands of rounds testing loads and barrel twist rates since I also wanted this cartridge to be optimized for accuracy.

Then one day I was corresponding with Ron Reiber of Hodgdon Powder Company and he strongly suggested that we try their new CFEBLK powder. To make this long story shorter, this ended up being a game changer and the final piece to the puzzle. It gave us improved accuracy and more velocity with less pressure allowing me to exceed my original velocity goals. Once I decided on a 1-15 twist rate for the barrels and we were good on ballistic performance and accuracy, all that was left was to decide on a name and test real world terminal performance.

During the early testing we were calling it the .30-30AR. That was the name on the original chamber reamer print and what we engraved on early test barrels. My buddy Terrill said something to the effect of “only us old guys know and care much about the old thuty-thuty”. So we came up with a bunch of potential names and my son Ryan said “we just came out with the 458 HAM’R and we have a trademark on HAM’R so let’s call it the 300 HAM’R”! Now 13 years later, THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of rounds downrange, several scrap barrels, one upper blown up and thousands of dead TX feral hogs we have the 300 HAM’R that not only meets all of my original goals, but EXCEEDS them!

– Bill Wilson

Not gossipy enough Sir.

I can get 99% of that info from the #1 Google hit using the terms "300 HAM'R History" or "300 HAM'R development"

Now to the real relevant meat of the HAM'R gossip thread:

I'm going to try to tally up a 50 hog month. I'm pretty happy with 110 CC in almost all cases regarding pigs but I'm a bit of a tinkerer and am saving all of my 125gr TNT's for the Djones Training Camp for Hog Killz. When can I be expecting to get my hands on some of these 125gr Controlled Chaos pills???

All testing is complete on the new 125gr CC designed specifically for the 300 HAM'R (it will also work in several other .30 cal cartridges too) and they are in the Q for production. I estimate they will be available in late Feb.. Order # will be 05308125CUSP

I've killed over 40 hogs and 8 deer with them with excellent success. They are definitely one of the best (quickest) killing bullets I've used.

Here's what they do in water fired from 10-200yds. The base normally weighs 61-64gr and penetrates 21-22". Muzzle velocity as 2440fps

Excellent. Thank you.

I am intrigued.

I use the 110 a lot now in a couple areas to minimize the likelihood of pass throughs causing damage to other wildlife or livestock.

I have a number of videos with FTX and 130 hot core & bonded 150 & 135 Speer bullets zipping through 150-200#+ adult hogs like they weren't there. That is kind of a time bomb on flat hard rocky ground in a few of my hunting spots around the pens.

Pushing them at 2600-2640fps at the muzzle I noticed on a number of my videos with 110 CC the pedals and even bases of the CC that exited hogs weren't carrying much energy to be a risk. I have even found a couple bases on the ground within a few yards of the kill site after watching the video frame by frame and simply going looking for them. I'd guess they don't travel more than 25yds on average in the videos I caught. Being destabilized that rapidly apparently scrubs a lot of momentum because they are definitely cooking on their way out of the muzzle.

Thanks for the timeline update. I'm looking forward to trying the 125gr CC after turkey season winds down.

Thank you to all the above posters. Dove in after 80 or so pages on this caliber. Against most recommendations I went with an 8in barrel with the goal of exceeding the performance of my 8in 300 blackout truck gun.

With my blackout I was pushing 110 gr VMAX at 2000 fps and sigs 125 gr copper hunting bullets at around 1900.

Grabbed some loaded 125 TNTs from WC and put the first 40 rounds down the barrel this week. Can definitely tell there is a little more pop and thump. averaging just over 2000 fps. Hoping to squeeze out a couple more FPS as the barrel breaks in and looking to the 130gr bullets next.

Mainly home defense and the occasional hog.

I appreciate the explanation. Two other questions: If I decided to move to .300 HAMR from a gun already chambered in 7.62x40, could I simply run a reamer through that chamber without setting the barrel back? This is on an M17S, which has a barrel threaded into a trunnion (essentially an AR-180), though with the gas port already drilled changing the length for the piston is an issue. Finally, have you done any work on Hornady 220 grain RN bullets? Feeding issues aside, I am not sure that a supersonic load would be capable of cycling an AR-180 or AR-15 action with a carbine gas system. I've been in touch with Ken McCalister, who makes the current iteration of the M17S, and he's been fighting with the gas system on the .300 BLK version of his guns for a while: even with a pistol length gas system and adjustable gas block, a functional gun with suppressed/unsuppressed subs and suppressed/unsuppressed supers is a challenge. The pressure curve for the 220 loads might not be that bad, but it may cause even more issues, though as I said this is speculation on my part.

In a std AR15 7.62x40 bbl all you have to do is run a 300 HAM'R reamer, but I don't know anything about a M17S. 300 HAM'R is a supersonic ONLY cartridge and is NOT applicable to subsonic.

I'm using the 125 tnt and cases I made out of lake city brass. They have been sized and trimmed, but not fire formed. I'm using 25.1 grains of 1680 out of the 11.3" barrel and am getting about 2180fps on average. I'm going to up the charge a little bit with the fire formed cases, and maybe try the lauded cfe blk. I'm hoping I can get to 2300fps. For comparison, I was getting 2200 fps out of a 9" blackout using 20 grn of h110 and the 110grn black top tac-tx bullets.

So I'm not going to lie, I like the ham'r, but I was really hoping for a bit more performance. Now I know it does better out of a longer barrel, but so does the blackout......

Load some 125 in the 300bo and it will slow down a bunch too

I use the TNT 125 to fireform my LC brass as well but I run it a little hotter. At 26grs of AA1680 my 16" is pushing these pills out at 2420 FPS. I'm sure you can get close to 2300 in that 11.3". To put things in perspective, my 16" 6.5 Grendel pushes 120gr Nosler BT at around 2350 fps and my 12.7" Grendel pushes the same load at around 2200 fps.

If you're using 1680 with125gr. bullets out of a 16" barrel, you will love CFFE-BLK.

I have done lots of testing with different powers and I find SBR Socom gives me the highest velocity in my 14.7 1in 15 twist barrel with 125 grain TNT LC brass CCI #450. 2547 f.p.s /110gr v-max 2705 f.p.s/ 110 gr Barnes tac-x 2662 f.p.s

CFEBLK and the 125's are on my radar. I haven't done any load development with that combination but I do have plans for it.

In the mean time, I am going to do some fire-forming using Shooters World Blackout with the 125 TNT to see how it compares to AA1680. What I do not like about AA1680 is it very dirty. I did a quick burn test today and determined SW Blackout has a much cleaner burn than AA1680 so I maybe moving away from 1680 in favor of the SW Blackout if they have comparable performance. My grouping with 1680 while fire-forming was actually pretty good so we'll see how SW BLK does.

BTW, I previously reported a flyer issue and found the problem was related to not sorting my LC converted brass. 95% was date code 11 but had some 12 and 13 stamped heads intermixed. It's the first time I have done any brass conversions and I did not think about sorting. Now I need to go back and re-due my 130 FNHC and 135 FTX CFEBLK load development but I have a pretty good idea of where to start. Moving forward I am only going to use WC brass for development.

I found another potential issue but don't believe it was impacting my development. I purchased the Lee Pacesetter dies from WC and the bullet seating stem was deforming the tips of my 130 FNHC projectiles. I fixed it my drilling out the center to give the tip a little more room while seating. Worked really well. I also tested the bullet seater from my Hornady 300 Blackout die set with the Lee dies and it worked as well.

Thanks to everyone who provided input on the flyer issue, it was invaluable....

I really like SW Black. It is a bit slower burning than SOCOM and behaves better under compression (doesn't pressure spike as aggressively) and works really well with heavier projectiles. I usually find I can fit 1 - 1.5gn more powder in a case with SW Black over SOCOM. Most of my best blackout loads where with that powder.

Question for all you speed freaks. At what point do you quit chasing velocity when your groups start opening up? Since my shots are always under 200 yards (at least with the Ham'r) I always go for accuracy and with my barrel it seems the best accuracy is around a grain or 50 to 75 fps below max load according to the Wilson load data...which by my velocity readings and pressure signs are still somewhat conservative.

I load up to max velocity recording data as I go. Once I hit pressure signs, Ill explore the closest accuracy node below to make my final load. Some times my best load is at max load, other times its slightly below. Basically I want the most energy possible without sacrificing accuracy since energy is worthless if you miss. Exploring the accuracy node involves finding a nice wide area with very low SD and ES, then adjusting seating/crimp to tune when the projectile exits the barrel for max accuracy.

I'm not sure if that makes me a speed freak, but I do want the most velocity so it probably counts. It sounds like you may be doing something similar just not chasing velocity quite as much.

Its hard not to mash down the accelerator down while driving a race car and the same goes for a rifle. If max speed is your goal then step up to a larger cartridge.

I tend to start toward the upper limit 85% and move up until I start seeing pressure. This is to establish some performance data at different velocities. I am looking for a generous node (if available) that spans a 50fps range (so up or down 0.5gr powder) and still hold accuracy. I do my load development in summer when it is Hot so that I know my powder charge is safe with no concerns for spiking pressure due to weather. Usually there is a good node a little below max charge/velocity that is forgiving. I set my load to the upper point of this range and as temps drops during winter my reloads retain their accuracy. I also re-test the loads during winter temps to reconfirm their performance.

I use CFE BLK with the 125 TNT and get 2300 out of my 11" with good accuracy and es/sd. I haven't chrono'd the 125 TNT with my 8" yet, but the 110gr Hornady SP goes 2500 out of my 11" and 2360 out of my 8". There is DEFINITELY a performance difference between blackout and hammer at any barrel length.

Isopher, what kind of accuracy results have you been able to get? I haven't experimented with Blackout a lot, but so far it has been harder to find the accuracy sweet spot with compared to CFEBLK. Based on the limited pressure testing we've done, unlike A1680 it seems to be good for velocities almost as high as CFEBLK at similar pressure levels.