The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading Round Nose bulletsGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Round Nose bullets | Login/Join |
| one of us |
This is just in response to the post about Premium Bullets by Fred338. Sure their max range is usually about 250 yds, and they loose velocity quick. However for my money, nothing still beats a good old round nose jacketed bullet. Guys like me are a dying breed because it is in Vogue to have a 500 yd load to shoot a 100 yr shot on game. Most game is taken at 100 yds or less. Weatherby keeps loading the old 117 gr RN in the 257 Weatherby Mag. In today's world, gun writers would tell us that combination is obsolete and should not work anymore. However, they keep loading it, because people keep buying it,because evidently it works. A Round Nose will also hold together fairly well at close range in a high velocity cartridge, much better than a spitzer. I don't know why, but I sure have seen that result from actual field experiences with me and other hunters. Last deer I shot in Wisconsin before moving to Oregon in 1995 ( 1994 season) was taken at 250 yrd, it was in a 30/06, 220 Grain Round Nose, 2 x7 Leupold Scope set on 4 x. dropped a 200 lb buck on the spot. Post mortem, the deer only had a small dime size hole, going in and the same size exiting. One the ground where the bullet came out was a small pool of blood, no bigger than the palm of my hand, and 3 or 4 kernels of corn where he must have been feeding. Gutting it, the 220 basically had stirred the lungs like it had been done with a chain saw, cut the esophagus and blew out the top half of the liver. Zero was 3.5 inches high at 100 yds, as I do all of my loads for deer. the buck never knew what hit him. Went down instantly. And I did not need a premium bullet for that. And that is all I got to say about that,,,, Forest Gump. ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon} ![[Razz]](images/icons/tongue.gif){kind=icon} ![[Cool]](images/icons/cool.gif){kind=icon} | ||
|
| one of us |
I have had excellent results with Hornady 154 grain roundnose bullets in my 7mm-08 on whitetails. Another one that has preformed flawlessly is the 165 grain Speer Roundnose in my 308, but alas, this bullet is no more. Both of these bullets are wonderfully accuurate in my rifles and I never thought I was giving anything up in the way of performance. Out to 250 yds or so they shoot plenty flat enough and the terminal performance has been excellent. | |||
|
| one of us |
Round nose bullets do work well at close ranges but then so do pointed bullets.So why would you give up longer range performance without any short range gains? | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Yes (closer ranges and with moderate velocities). quote:No. If you feel you absolutely *need* long-range performance, call the artillery :-). Carcano | |||
|
| one of us |
carcano91-So pointed bullets do not work at close ranges.I suggest that you tell that to the millions of head of game that have been killed by pointed bullets at close range. | |||
|
| one of us |
Stubblejumper: since you are evidently not informed about the ballistic issues at hand here, I suggest you just close your mouth for a moment, and listen to others, such as to use your chance to learn. We shall be happy to help you in this noble endeavour. Carcano | |||
|
| one of us |
carcano91-Since you mention ballistics perhaps you would like to inform me as to how round nosed bullets are ballistically superior to pointed bullets. | |||
|
one of us |
To say a round nose will hold together better is like saying a red car gives better gas millage. There are too many makes of roundnose bullets to say any roundnose will hold up better than a spitzer shape. If I load a sierra 150gr roundnose .308cal and a barns X 150gr spitzer in a 30-06, be honest, witch one is going to hold up better on say a black bear? I'm not bashing the roundnose, I use the 250gr 338RN hornady and love it. I have also found though that a 225gr. Aframe or X bullet will give me an exit wound every time, breaking bones and penitrating several feet. And for the record I don't pick pointed bullets for long range advantage. My longest shot on a big game animal was bearly over 200 yards, every other one was 125 yards or closer. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:It seems that you are willfully misunderstanding the virtuous point of seafire's argument. That however does not make his opinion look altogether bad - well, I would not quite agree with his praise for the 117 gr RN in a .257 Weatherby Magnum, *chuckle* - , especially since you prove lateron in your posting, that you know better yourself. The point is that those RN SP bullets about which we speak and the performance of which we rightly praise - be they loaded in a 6,5 x 54 Mannlicher-Sch�nauer, in a 7 x 57 Mauser, in a .303 British, in a 8 x 57 IS, in a .318 Westley-Richards or a .333 Jeffery - are invariably long bullets with a comparatively heavy weight (always heavier than typical spitzer bullets in the same caliber), with enough bullet material remaining after the nose expands or partially disintegrates, with the ensuing higher sectional density, and with a comparatively lower velocity. Hence the positive results. Thus, stubblejumper's question is also answered. Carcano [ 06-08-2003, 21:55: Message edited by: carcano91 ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Actually nbhunter gave the best answer but it didn't support any ballistic advantage of round nose bullets.As he mentioned bullets like the barnes x or a frame(and many others including failsafes,partitions interbonds,accubonds,scirroccos etc)will hold together(maximum weight retention and therefore maximum sectional density) and break bones and exit just as well or in most cases better than any round nose,with the added advantage of better long range performance. [ 06-08-2003, 22:10: Message edited by: stubblejumper ] | |||
|
| one of us |
If we leave it at "cup and core" bullets at moderate velocity which is where they belong than I wiil agree with the above mentioned statements. My 6.5x55 would be at the top of it's game if fed long heavy roung nose bullets. As is my 1895 Winchester .303 with 220gr round noses. A round nose just isn't an "all purpose" bullet for any caliber, that's all. | |||
|
| one of us |
nbhunter-Better make that non-bonded,non interlock,single core, cup and lead core bullets at low to moderate velocities.By the time you eliminate so many bullets there aren't many left. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Yes, I would. See the initial posting of seafire in the following thread. The rest is experience... which has been presented here in the Forum copious times before. http://www.serveroptions.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=38;t=001159 Regards, Carcano | |||
|
| one of us |
Carcano91-All the threads to which you refer confirm that round nose bullets do work well at short to medium range with low to moderate velocity.I have never disputed that and never will.I do however stick by the fact tht pointed bullets also work well at short to medium distances at low to medium velocities.Thousands of game animals are killed under the same conditions each year with such bullets as powerpoints and core-lokts most of which are pointed.The advantage of these pointed bullets is that they work better at long distances than round noses due to better retained velocity which aids expansion as well as bullet placement due to a flatter trajectory.When you add in the pointed premium bullets they not only outperform the round noses at longer distances but also at higher velocities.The bottom line is that all bullets work well at short to medium distance and low to medium velocity but the pointed bullets are an advantage if a longer shot opportunity presents itself. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I am sorry, but this erroneous part of your opinion has already been treated and refuted above - just not been spelled out in detail, but maybe more implicitly. Read again and correct your misperception, if you like. Carcano | |||
|
| one of us |
While I use both sorts of bullets, I have to weigh in on the side of the old reliable round nosed bullet. Lets look at several of the generalities stated here: round nosed bullets do well at short and medium range; spitzer bullets do well at long range. What is short and what is long?? A 150gr .308 RN bullet launched at 2900fps will drop 9.1 inches at 300 yards with a 200 yard zero. A 150gr spitzer boat tail (not a hunting bullet) launched at 2900 fps will drop 7.4 inches at 300 yards with a 200 yard zero. Come on fellows, that's an inch and a half. Normal shot dispersial from a bench rest using a hunting rifle would cover that. But for you "poke and hope" fellows, at 400 yards with a 300 yard zero, the spitzer advantage would be a whopping four inches. Or, if we keep the 200 yard zero, seven inches. I daresay, few of us, under field conditions, could shoot a seven inch group at 400 yards. If you're sniping away at deer beyond 400 yards you need to spend some time in the hunting ethics room. As regards the retained velocity of the spitzer, I think that would be rather negated by the round nosed bullet's very profile. By that I mean that the round nosed bullet's frontal area could be considered to be already expanding when it reaches the animal. As I said, I don't have a dog in this fight as I use both. But I think the information here is basically answers to non-questions to prove solutions to non-problems. But again, it is relaxing on a rainy sunday to soar thru cyberspace unfettered by reality. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
For over 30 years I've been using round nose bullets when hunting in the bush, such as we have over most of the eastern part of the continent. In more open areas where you can reach out a bit then the spitzers do their job nicely. This works for me, and it works for most people I know. I don't see any ground for argument except for the stubborn pridge of a couple of people here using this forum. Lighten up guys, you don't have to make a right and wrong issue where none exists. Use the bullet you prefer, but don't have the nerve to tell the rest of us what to use. Best wishes. Cal - Montreal | |||
|
| one of us |
I have openly accepted that round nose bullets worked well from my first post.To end this thread,I will concede as carcano91 insists that pointed bullets absolutely will not kill game animals at close ranges.Anyone that says otherwise is wrong according to carcano91 and the millions of animals taken while the hunter used pointed bullets for close range shots died of causes other than the bullet wound.This is my last post on this thread. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Well, *what* exactly do I insist upon; certainly not upon that funny rendering of yours. Rather, I would insist that not blindness on your part must play the crucial rule - since now you are apparently referring to a posting of mine that had not been written in Braille - but rather terminal ignorance. My heartfelt sympathy is with you thus. However, frequent reading of this forum will ultimately help in imparting at least basic concepts of terminal ballistics to you, no matter how much you resist :-). Until then, thank you for having entertained us. Carcano [ 06-10-2003, 02:22: Message edited by: carcano91 ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:While you have done a fine job demeaning Stubblejumper, you�ve done an incomplete job of backing up your opinions. Snide comments and sarcasm are fine by me but they bite much harder when you are right and you present your case in such a way that it�s obvious to everybody that you are right. In other words, have the tech to back up what you�re saying before you go mocking somebody. Once you do, feel free. As of this point, you do not. quote:Feel free. START NOW. I would really like a technical explanation as to why pointed bullets don�t work well at close range. I�m waiting. quote:Oh, I see! They�re only better when they are heavier and have a higher sectional density! That�s what people that observe the Scientific Method call �Apples to Oranges.� In your case �Junk Science� is an accurate description as well. So explain to me exactly how a 180 RN will perform better than a 180 Silvertip, Ballistic Tip, Interlock, Speer SP or any other 180 30 Caliber bullet when fired at a moderate velocity at close range. Point me to some test data. Something. quote:Apparently you�ve never heard of wind drift. Look it up sometime. Post what you find the difference in wind drift of your above example to be. No, I wouldn�t expect to shoot 7� groups at 400 yards with roundnoses...unless, of course, I find an indoor range somewhere.... | |||
|
| one of us |
Jon, oh I have heard of wind drift. And gravity. And mirage. And shooting uphill and down. I guess I've heard of all that neat stuff. Mostly from arm chair great white hunters and gun hacks. The point I was making was that the whole argument was rather pointless. My statement still stands: "few of us, under field conditions, can shoot a 7 inch group at 400 yards." And that's with any sort of bullet you would choose. On a cloudy-bright day, dead calm, totally flat. Once you accept that, you can maybe deal with the real basic tenet of my hunting philosophy: If you aren't sure of the shot, get closer; if you can't get closer, leave it for seed. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have used the 270 grain Hornady 375 in both round nose and spire point off an on since the spire point first was introduced. I have used then on pigs, kangaroos and rabbits on our flat inland country. Since we are shooting in what Americans would call a varmint environment, then if we can see the animal we will shoot at it. The first comment I would make is that I think a lot of people have never actually tried the round nose at long range and if do you may receive a suprise. My belief is that in rifles that have a far quicker twist than is necessary (which is most rifles when mid weight bullets are used)that quite often the spitzer gets up a bit of a yaw and this in turn wipes off a lot its ballistic coefficient. I think that is also the reason that many shooters find very heavy bullets to do better in the wind and for bullet drop than the extra ballistic coefficient over lighter bullets would suggest. One of the interesting things about the use of round nose bullets (at least in Australia)is that strong proponents of them tend to be shooters who have done lots of shooting in both animal count and also number of years. I include number of years because that brings into play variations caused by different rifles and variation in components put by Hornady etc. For those who have read my post this far I would like to add a little story. I became very interested in ballistics and calibres from the time I was about 15, around 1963. By the time I was about 18 I was very keen on the Weatherby idea and also equally keen on the 375 H&H. I was able to buy my first 375 at about age 20. However my keen interest in ballistics caused me to have concern that Hornady only made round nose in 270 and 300 grain. A gunsmith out here who my father had become very friendly with and who also had been a pro roo shooter and his father before him was Australia's version of P O Ackley told me not to worry as it would make no difference and they would be fine. His favourite calibre was the 270 and his favourite bullet had been a locally made 130 grain Round Nose. Jump forward more than 30 years to today and my gun cabinet is full of Hornady 270 grain Round Noses and 220 grain Hornady Flat Noses. Mike | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:You need to start talking to people who actually do a lot of shooting at these ranges. To these people, the factors you mention are not trivial or pointless. quote:If only a few of us could do it under those conditions, I'd say all the rest of us need to learn how to shoot! If I couldn't shoot a 7" group at 400 yards on a calm day I'd probably turn the rifle on myself or at the very least find a new hobby. Heck, I'll bet I could even do that with round noses!!! quote:I agree with that 100%. That's why I think everybody needs to actually shoot at ranges longer than 100 yards every now and then to find out where their limit really is. That's why I practice at 500, 600 and 700 yards. It makes those 400 yard shots duck soup. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:You are right. Incomplete is true. Reason for my omission: I did not feel obliged to expound the obvious. Nevertheless, I have done so, probably out of graciousbess. quote:Here it is: quote: quote:Wrong. Insufficient reading and comprehension skills. Not "when", but "because". See my above explanation. READ IT AGAIN. quote:Silly question, because moot. _This_ staged and unreal juxtaposition means indeed comparing local apples to Durian fruits. Please read my above explanation again, and now apply yourself to understand it, instead of willfully misrepresenting it. Thank you ! Carcano | |||
|
| one of us |
quote: That's a false statement. The basis of your technical arguement is a false statement? Pretty weak. Here's my technical arguement for pointed bullets: With the discontinuation of the 250 Original Barnes, the longest, heaviest, highest SD round nose available in 30 Caliber weighs 220 grains. Therefore, your own arguements prove that the 240 Sierra Matchking (HPBT) is the best bullet for use at short ranges and moderate velocities. Oh, it works OK at long range too.... How do you like them apples? | |||
|
| <redleg155> |
A rather comical thread... It's funny to watch arguing over the tiniest little things. I like round nose projectiles - they're great for hunting and often (with a corresponding shorter length of bearing surface) can be loaded to slightly higher velocity since they are shorter weight for weight. I've found RN bullets typically more accurate (less playing with the load) to get them to shoot well. And I'm not talking 100 yard groups, I mean 200 and 250 yard groups with hunting guns like a 9.3x64mm Brenneke, 300 Savage, 30-06; I haven't shot my 460 G&A at greater than 100 yards. But really, unless you get into ranges in excess of 300 yards, you won't notice the difference usually. You would notice with the tactical sub-sonic rounds though. Maybe with more dialogue on this Saeed could start an ACCURATERELOADING SitCom. Best - redleg | ||
|
| One of Us |
redleg One of ther reasons I have always loved the 375 H&H is that I don't get all worried about ballistic coefficients and can just use what works The mental games are quite funny (or perhaps sad ) I have used 150 grain Hornady round nose in the 270 with great success but somehow they just look all wrong in that cartridge.Mike | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I would say you are right. quote:I would say you are wrong. Why ? Wrong presupposition on your part, necessary because otherwise your erroneous argument would fail. Just see above. I wrote it clearly. But please go on; you *are* funny when trying to play logical, while distorting reality at a whimsy. ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon} Carcano | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Hey stubblejumper, I confess, I like both RN and SP bullets. Like you, I also prefer the Ballistic Coefficient advantages of SP bullets for what I consider l-o-n-g range shots. My reasons for liking RNs in "some" of my rifles for up close(inside 400yds for me) has more to do with the excellent past performance I've had with them at those distances, relatively inexpensive cost and (I'm sure you will like this reason most of all) they look bad in the case. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon} Aren't those good enough reasons? ... But the real reason I've fallen into this thread is the comments by your "close and personal buddy" concerning Sectional Density. (Tighten your seat belt!) Here is the definition of Sectional Density I've used for many, many years. Sectional Density: Take the bullet weight and convert it to Pounds(grains/7000). Then divide the Bullet weight in pounds by the Square of the Bullet's diameter in inches. For example: A (good old) 30 cal 150gr Speer RN Hot-Cor has a 0.226 S.D. (150/7000)/(0.308 x 0.308)= 0.226 S.D. Now stubblejumper (this should get you a few grins), how can "the nose expands or partially disintegrates" end up with "the ensuing higher sectional density"??? Let's run some numbers. First, the "nose expands" to a modest 0.500" and absolutely ZERO weight "partially disintegrates" in that EXCELLENT bullet. The numbers go (150/7000)/(0.500 x 0.500)= 0.086 S.D. Second, the "nose expands" absolutely ZERO(bad bullet made by someone else) and the weight "partially disintegrates" to 100gr. The numbers go (100/7000)/(0.308 x 0.308) = 0.151 S.D. Third, the "nose expands" to a modest 0.500" and the weight "partially disintegrates" to 100gr. Here the numbers go (100/7000)/(0.500 x 0.500) = 0.057 S.D. So stubblejumper, (you do not have to respond since you said you wouldn't, but if you want to share a few chuckles with me, I'll forgive you) - Why does "your close and personal buddy" who knows EVERYTHING about Ballistics think those S.D.s are "higher"?????? [ 06-10-2003, 01:51: Message edited by: Hot Core ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Hot Core: have you ever in elementary school been acquainted with the use and usefulness of a small interpunction sign, such as a comma "," ? Not, as I see. But it would really have been beneficial, and knowing the function of interpunction would have avoided such hilarious misinterpretations as the one you've just graced us with .Carcano | |||
|
| one of us |
As far as big game hunting goes, I doubt that one could tell any difference in them...I know the RN bullets open faster (for the most part) than spitzer, but I'm sure a varmit spitzer would open faster yet... I use mostly RN heavy for caliber bullets these days for big game examp: 300 gr. RN 338; 320 gr. RN 9.3; 350 gr. 375 and 450 gr. 416's...but I also use some of the GS spitzers, North Forks, Woodleighs etc. Bottom line is one is as good as the other.. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote: Now that's the smartest thing you've said all day! quote: Sorry, you're going to have to take another try at that "why" part. Saying my argument would fail is much easier than pointing out how it fails, isn't it? Let's hear you take the hard way out. quote: Every attribute (in your very clear statement) to which you credit the round nose's superiority is exceeded by ye ol' mighty Matchking. Please explain to me why these attributes which are all important to the success of round noses suddenly become unimportant and are discounted once you put a point on the bullet. That would be an exceptable "why." In case you're wondering, yes I've been there and done that. I got my buck last year at 15 paces with the subject bullet. To say it "worked well" is an understatement--certainly not an incorrect statement as you have said it must be. Why don't you simply change your arguement to, "LIGHT bullets don't work well." You'd stand a better chance of defending it. quote:Yeah, this is fun. I've been chuckling about this thread all day long.... | |||
|
One of Us |
I agree with Ray for the most part, one would more often than not be hard pressed to see any noticable difference in the field. But still, much as I like a RN bullet, the spitzer is simply more versatile especially of the spire point variety. I see a rn being at its best up close and personal like for Bison or Moose with heavy for caliber loads. Likewise a RN in a 257 Weatherby is not much more than an oxymoron. | |||
|
| one of us |
As the "father" of this post, I was amazed at the arguments people got into over it. Clarification to some of my points. RoundNoses cost a lot less than Barnes Xs, Partitions etc. I use the latter also. And I use spitzers. However for consistency, I have trouble seeing where much has improved upon the capabilities of the old round nose except for range ( if that is an issue). I keep my hunting ranges for deer etc to within 250 yds. A Round Nose also helps me keep that discipline. It is hard for a lot of people not to take a shot at something HUGE regardless of how far out it may be. A bullet with a 250 yd range, helps me maintain this discipline and ethical hunting standard. Round Noses also have a tendency to give better accuracy than a spitzer when a rifle has a bore that is starting to wear. If you never had a bad bore then this point may be mute to you, but not to someone else who may have a bad bore, but does not have the money to replace the rifle or the barrel. Round Noses will penetrate better than spitzers, and that is based on experience, not gunwriters experience for my life. I saw it, not read it. A round nose will also hold up better on impact at close range at high speed. That was the point of the 117 Hornady in a 257 Weatherby. I don't shoot one, but have seen people have problems in the field. The final thing I see from a lot of time at our local range, which we are lucky to have one of the nicest on the west coast., is the common need to have a 500 yd gun with a 500 yd bullet, with a 500 yd x 50 scope, to shoot a deer or elk, when most are taken at less than 100 yds. Believe me the premium bullet makers appreciate your business. I just am a believer in what works, not what I am "told" will work. I also do not believe that your bullet works better than my bullet, because yours cost 4 times as much as mine, and you got it in a factory box with pretty nickel brass and a beautiful coordinated match coating, that suppose to lube the bore as it goes down the barrel, and helps reduce heat build up. All of this while you are taking a 50 yd shot on a deer, one shot only maybe two ( heat build up? ridiculous deer hunting, unless you are a lousy shot who lucks out and gets a lot of shooting) I can shoot and hit things at 400 yds, a lot better than a lot of people I see or know. However, I don't take those shots, because what is beyond that 400 yds if I miss or the bullet does exit the deer and keeps on going? Anyone ever have someone else's miss go flying over your head, or hit a tree near where you were standing?? Not a comfortable feeling. All points considered, in my life, give me the round noses most times if the bullets are still available. You spitzer guys are winning because that is what you buy, and manufacturers quit making them, so they can make a pretty bullet with a colored plastic tip, and sell it a 4 times the price. Before marketing ran the industry, people bought what worked for a reason. 50 yrs ago, people would laugh at you if someone thought they had a trendy bullet: Nowadays they laugh at you if you don't. ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
I absolutly love hunting with round nose bullets in certain cartidges. However, I would NEVER predicate a soft points ability to penetrate game based based on its exteral shape... thats just plain stupid. THE ONLY circumstance that (without knowing the individual manufacture/bullet/velo and game) I might make a blanket statement like that is that if the spitzer and round nose weighed the same and both were BELOW thier threshold of expansion and DID NOT expand. Then I might say that the round nose would penetrate farther. Roundnoses and sptzers will out penetrate each other for numerous reasons. Its my understanding that alot of people cant even tell you why a .308 180 grain nosler partition will out penetrate a 220 grain hornaday even when the partition has lost more weight and has less shank left. seafire said: Before marketing ran the industry, people bought what worked for a reason. Yeah like what? linseed oil ... hey but its cheep right? The first 62-68 years of smokeless powder cartridges revolved around bullet failure. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I use RN's a bit and I like there performance for what I do. And I actually think they look pretty cool | |||
|
| one of us |
quote: Just see above. I explained the reasons clearly. Read again. And again. And again. And read it for the fifth time. Special assignment for you 8-). quote:An utterly mindless argument. You might have gotten it with a FMJ as well. Or maybe with a .32 ACP. How devoid of ballistic knowledge one must be to use this as an example for anything... quote:I am aware that the not easily mastered cultural task of reading may defy your skills. Still, and for your educational benefit, let me plainly point out once more, that it was not me who had first put forth an argument which I would have to defend. Rather, I have taken apart a flimsy and erroneous argument of someone else. Which deconstruction was indeed fun. What I wrote to this purpose was true and remains so. But I need not repeat it the umpteeth time just because of willful hermeneutic disabilities on your part. Duh. C. | |||
|
| one of us |
funny to read the arguments on this subject. I have to agree with Mike 375 from Australia that he points out that most people who have been hunting the longest, and have taken the most game seem to use the Round Nose bullets a lot more than hunter that don't match their experience. And several points, such as " say a RN will penetrate better ..... is like saying a Red Car will get better mileage" Well a simple response is why does the largest bullets for the biggest and nastious game that can kill you if you don't kill it, seem to come in RN's?? Must be just everyone's imagination or lack thereof I guess. The point I made on the 257 Weatherby, is just plain fact. I don't own a 257 W. However they keep loading the bullet and combo, in a world that the "big ticket" is premium bullets. Well if people weren't buying them, since they are not in business to loose money, Weatherby would not still have them being loaded. I think that combo proves the fact that a RN will work. A 257 Weatherby can put a real stain on a bullet, with the velocity it achieves in ratio to the impact a small caliber bullet will have to do and continue to do its job, instead of just blowing up. At $55.00 for a box of 20 at my local gun shop, I do not consider people are buying them for economy reasons. The 257 W owners I have talken and asked about them, have told me they buy it because it works better and penetrates more than some of the other loads ( without specifying what those are).. Their point, this works, why change it? I prefer the RNs, but we all know if we have any experience, it is not so much the style of bullet you shoot, the caliber of the gun you shoot, but where you place the bullet that is the ultimate answer to the goal of dropping the game. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I believe the answers is two fold. One when the advent of smokeless powder came about, even small bore smokless powder and transitional cartridges used roundnoses. It wasnt until some militaries found the use and design of spitzers in high velocity, did small bores change and add spitzers. Now the large bores... MOST did not change to spitzers for several reasons 1) There velocity was too low to take advantage of any ballistic gains. 2) The higher square area and the amount of lead exposed above the jacket moving under maliable forces allow for round noses to expand at easier with the same jacket thickness at lower velocity. 3) In accompany of all this most big game/dangerious game are shot at close range hence 1)and 2) just my two cents | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |