Members: Given everything else being equal (velocity, bullet weight, construction type), would one expect any difference in expansion rate and penetration between a round nose and a spire point bullet? I realize that the ballistic coefficients would differ markedly, but, if both bullets arrived at the target at the same velocity, would there be any performance difference? Would any differences be of any real significance?

Supposedly round nose bullets open up faster.

I only have limited experience with round noses. I've only taken around 10 big game animals while using them as I've always been a spire point kind of guy. From that small sample, I'd have to say they seemed to perform indentically to other cup-n-cores of the same weight. Two instances that stick out in my mind were a 180 round nose Power Point at 20 yards from an 06 on a large whitetail, broadside through the ribs and the bullet was nicely mushroomed on the off side hide, the other a close range hit with a 150 RN CL from a 30-30, same as above(broad side and mushroomed against the off side). The others mostly passed through and did normal internal damage it seemed. I personally don't feel they offer anything a SP doesn't offer.

Good Luck

Reloader

I'm a RN and Flat point bullets fan; my favourite are Norma Oryx, Nosler Part PP and Lapua Mega; in my experience they have some more knockdown power and are possibly a better choice for short and medium range shots.

it may not be very scientific to say it this way, but all else being equal, round and flat-nosed bullets seem to provide more THWACK.

And pictures like the first one add "what" to the forum???????

This idiot should be booted out of here.

quote:

Originally posted by kraky:

I am a closet fascist.

congratulations, kraky - you win!

Hey Pagris, I'd offer that it really depends on the overall Bullet Design, not just the Tip. And yes indeed, there is a very significant difference between the Bullet Designs when it comes to:
1. Depth of Penetration.
2. Retained Weight.
3. Expansion rate.
4. Retained Overall Expansion or an initial Expansion and then a (Designed in) Reduction in Diameter.
5. Jacket/Core integrity.
6. Stability.
7. Accuracy.
8. Cost. (It doesn't take a $5 Bullet to Kill.)
9. Weight consistency.
10. Form(shape) consistency.
11. Reputation.
12. etc.

You might find it interesting to take a look at Mr. Gary Sciuchetti's Bullet Test and be sure to see how well the old Wasp Waste Remington RN performed in comparison with " ALL " the other Bullets. A truely outstanding Design that NEVER should have been changed.

It is a large file, but has all kinds of excellent comparative "Bullet Design" information. One thing that mystifies some folks (with very limited actual Hunting experience) is how similar the results are to actual on-game performance using the same Bullets in that Test. It is the very best information provided to the civilian market concerning how Bullets Function that exists. All there for everyone to ponder and learn from.

Best of luck to you.

I wish I could reference the study.....I cannot however...Years ago a guy tested a lot of bullets and round noses looked much the same as today's bonded bullets after shooting them into medium.

The test results convinced me that one was much better off with round nosed bullets for short range (under 200 yards) shooting.

Then along came bonded bullets.......and we get the best of both in one now!

Well as pointed out, RNs are economically priced and yet are big performers.. even tho they are not big sellers.. with many being dropped by manufacturers...

For 250 yds, I am a RN fan... followed by a SMP fan.. a cross between RN and Spitzers...

Heavy sectional density and a RN or SMP, is always my first choice in a "do anything" load..

I used to use RN but found they really dropped out of the sky much worse than the ballistics programs said so changed to soft points.

I'm back to using them in a selected situation (short range, light powder charges for increased moderator efficiency and hence lower velocity) and they work really well for that but IMHO they are not a good choice for all round work if there is even a faint chance of longer range.

Out to 200+ yards they do about a good as anything and if you want to see a deer swatted on his a$$, hit him with a RN bullet. One of the problems is finding the darn things as they aren't usually stocked anymore.
I'll be using them in my .300 Savage and 7-08 this year.

When I was trying to decide on a bullet for my .375 I looked in the manuals for differences between RN ans SP bullets of the same weight and velocity and found that even though the velocity was lower for the RN( big suprise) it only dropped 1 inch more at 200yds with the same sight-in distance. I would be confident inside that distance shooting a RN bullet at most anything. Especially a 300 grainer!

A RN bullet gives more bullet weight for OAL for short magazine rifles and is more forgiving of insufficient twist rate (for heavies). Also, bullet jump can be reduced with them and still fit the magazine, if the rifle is somewhat long-throated. I have found them to be pretty good in my 303 and are deadly on varmints, right out to 200 yds. (That's with a 180gr RN with muzzle velocity of 2300 fps). On game, they gave good expansion without destroying the whole thing, and penetrated 3/4's of the body length of an African bush-pig before exiting. (Shoulder to behind the ribcage. Split the heart open like a burger bun).

FC363 , a 300 grainer RN sounds like just the ticket. My now deceased uncle, who was a gun builder in the old Rhodesia, would have approved!