I am in quarantine for the second, official time, due to Covid 19 exposure. I hope to be released from home incarnation Wednesday or Friday. I have not tested positive. I am well. Simply, was exposed to folks at work who were and have. They too are more or less okay as in no one is in the hospital or on vents.

Therefore, I am looking for some infotainment. In the Medium Bore forum it has been noted members are sick and tried of forum members asking questions instead of using the search function. I will attempt to circumvent this issue by refraining from asking a question. I am starting this thread to discuss the merits of the various nose profiles/bullet shapes common to handgun and large bore single/lever action rifles hunting.

I have been reading a lot about this subject lately as I have been in isolation over the holidays except for fancy tv communication with my wife and brother. Here are my summations of that reading. The discussion assumes equal construction and weight to caliber ratios (Sectional Density).

The most common nose profiles appear to be in no particular order as follows: LFN-Long Flat Nose, WFN-Wide Flat Nose, Keith/SWC-Semiwad Cutter, WLF-Wide Long Flat Nose, RFN-Round Flat Nose. There are a few profiles I have seen, but do not have definitions for FN DCG obviously; this is Flat Nose something. I am sure I am missing profiles.

LFN/Long Flat Noise profile the consensus appears to be performs better at ranges of say 100 plus yards. This assumes the shooter can place shots accurately with the revolver at 100 yards. I did not know, but after reading this the bullet I have been using for my 357 magnum is a LFN. The LFN is considered a better penetrator. The LFN maximizes case capacity. I did not know, but it appears the tight chambers of the Freedom Arms Model 93 (but not the 83) causes capacity issues. I cannot shoot well enough past 50 years to take advantage of the better flight ballistics. I can see the LFN penetrating better because it has less surface area compared to all but maybe the Keith. The noise has good shoulders and surface area to stabilize in flesh and not tip which is the reason I believe these flat nose bullets penetrate better than round nose profiles. Everything is more square as they cut though flesh. I think a gentleman by the name of Veral Smith designed this concept.

WFN/Wide Flat Nose profiles the consensus appears to be generates more impact or shock on impact compared to other designs. My eye, they look like flying beer kegs. The consensus is this profile does not penetrate as well as LFN types. The WFN having a lot of surface area. However, this appears to be like comparing the strength of a Winchester Model 70 to a Mauser 98 as both are sufficient penetrators. The WFN seem to have greater meplat diameter on average with a shorter ogive. Some, contest the claim LFN penetrate better citing stabilization in flesh. There is a theory that shorter bullets penetrate better than longer bullets. See Pierre Van der Walt. The LFN and WFN may have issues feeding in lever actions. This is the profile if I have read correctly appears to be the most in vogue and cited as giving hollow point performance with the benefits of penetration. I did not know it, but his profile is what I have been shooting in my 454 Casull which within my range limitations has been very accurate. Likewise, I am under the impression Veral Smith created this profile. In preparing this summation. I submit old Belding and Mull designs also inspired Mr. Smith.

RFN/Rounded Flat Nose profile appears common in pistol lever actions cited as being giving a little more comfort or margin when loading in tubular magazines. I use these in 200 grains in my Model 24-4 due to availability. I do not find this nose profile particularly popular outside of plane base cowboy shooting loads. This was the best design before the turn of the 20th century.

Keith/Semiwad Cutter nose profile being classed together is going to cause some agitation. The Keith style may have been the first Semiwad Cutter nose profile, but not all Semiwad cutter nose profiles, actually entire bullet shape, are Keith design. The nomenclature Keith does seem to get applied to Semiwad Cutter nose profiles. I place these two shapes in one category for two reason 1) the Keith appears to be the first, or at least, the design that became most common in the United States as introducing the Semiwad Cutter design after B.F Wilder and C.E. Heath made the basic introduction of what would be a Semiwad Cutter, I submit Keith was working off of. 2) This allows me to discuss the differences concisely. Note, this is a very condensed overview. Wilder and Heath contributions omitted and various molds not addressed. Now, I am reading and can mix-report. So, others with more experience please correct.

The Keith design set out to address the shortcomings of previous Semiwad Cutter designs too small meplat, insufficient crimp grove, bullets setting to deeply among other short comings discerned by Keith. Working from his 44 Special, he designed a 65 percent meplat moving to 70 percent in other designs for other calibers. He used a double radius on the olive to provide stable long range flight. The crimp grove was beveled to match the profile of the case when crimped. The crimp groove was located to seat as much of the bullet outside the case as possible. This caused issues with the introduction of the 357 S%W Magnum which is why Keith used 38 special cases. The design had three equal width driving bands. The full width and full diameter of the forward band is the band that aligns the bullet with the bore as the bullet makes the jump from cylinder to forcing cone. These bands ensured over half the the bullet length was acting as a bearing surface in the bore helping alignment. The flat bottomed or square cut grease grove created slight bevels which allowed easy removal from the mold. However, Keith did not like gas checks and designed hims bullet not comparable with gas checks. Ideal Company a source for molds at the time was sold to Lyman. Hence; that relationship. Keith did design hollow base version.

For the most part, the bullet makers or providers of cast bullets are offering Keith bullets true to the plain base design and identical to the design with the exception of being gas check compatible. I think this gas check compatibility is accomplished by non-beveling the flat of the grease grove. Bullet designs that depart from the three equal width driving bands are classed as Semiwad Cutter design. However, I have seen bullets deviating from the preamaters set out above as “Keith” design.

I wonder why Keith is cited as disliking gas checks for the reason he designed the Keith as a plain base. No one ever provides a primary source for this assertion. Keith is the Pope of the Church of Magnum Revolvers and Cast Bullets. However, despite his perceptions on the issues, time has proven is dislike for gas checks incorrect. Keith was pushing velocities, so would have had leading issues without gas checks. In put here is welcome.

I cannot help but think the three driving bands causes hell in tissue contributing to penetration and trauma. The meplat of 65 to 70 percent is a bit small by the more modern designs, but just fine to my eye. The bullet is longer than corresponding WFN designs which if one prescribes to the shorter bullet being more inherently stable, deeper penetrating than a corresponding longer bullet will be perceived as limiting penetration. Thanks to Bugle Them In I have 180 Keith gas check compatible 230 grain bullets on hand. A bullet that has been reported as offering great penetration on elk sized game in other forums. The nose profile may be less stable in tissue than a WFN, LFN, or WLFN of Veral Smith design. Shorter “Semiwad Cutters” than true Keith profiles feed better, more reliability, or easier in off the rack lever actions.

Of interest, there seems to be a consensus in print that the Keith design or profile creates equal wound in flesh that a non-wide flat nose with the round flat nose losing meplat due to the rounding causing smaller entrance holes and wound channels of the three.

WLFN-Wide Long Flat Nose profile is another Veral Smith design. I should have grouped his three designs in order, but I wanted to talk about Keith. I highly recommend his Jacked Performance with Cast Bullets. Veral Smith may become more known, popular, or revered as this centuries Keith in the decades to come. He deserves the recognition. His book is highly recommend and an essential resource. The WLFN profile is a hybrid of the LFN and WFN offering more transfer of energy/impact with larger entrance holes and wound channel than the LFN, but better trajectory and case capacity than a WFN. Of course, the WFN is better at trauma the the WLFN, and the LFN is better in flight and capacity than the WLFN. This WLFN appears to becoming more popular in Lever Actions because it feeds better than the WFN, but gives more meplat and a little less length for caliber and wight than the LFN.

I have only killed a 2 year old buck, a 1.5 Year spike, and a three under one hundred and fifty pound feral pigs with 180 grain 357 LFN bullets.

I have omitted the Punch style bullets which appear to modernize the designs of Veral Smith with materials, lead however; you handed it cannot compete with.

What designs did I omit? What did I get wrong? What are your experiences? Please, add at will.

Wow.

One can make reloading as complicated or as simple as one wants it to be.

Not so much about reloading. More a summary of reading presented here for accuracy check and discussion generation.

I like to be precise with terminology.

Look for the book by Veral Smith. Buy his book. It tells a lot about bullet shapes and fitting the bullet to your gun. It is THE book to have in my opinion. Not advice you will pay for but it will pay to follow. Good luck in your quest for information. Be Well, Packy.

I strongly recommend Veral Smith’s book in the post. I did not cite from the book heavily as it would make the list too long, and I want people to buy the book.

I think Veral Smith will be thought of as folks now think of Elmer Keith.

I think part of the reverence we handgunners hold for Elmer Keith is the "Hell, I was there!" aspect of his life. He did an immense amount of testing and trying in the real world, on game, and not on paper. People nowadays decry the lack of penetration of his Keith SWC compared to the Veral Smith designs, but that reminds me of Pondoro Taylor's writing about penetration. "Experts" in his day were saying that one cartridge had less penetration than another, but Pondoro said that was NOT the same thing as saying that it lacked penetration. The Smith designs may penetrate deeper, but that isn't to say that the Keith bullet lacks penetration. For decades it was the bullet of choice for handgun hunting, and it is still a very viable choice.

Bullet integrity as it relates to hardness must also be considered. Cast bullets, even at 18-20 hardness, can become deformed and lose both depth and straightness of penetration if driven too fast. 1250-1300 fps seems to be about the max for striking velocity to maximize penetration, which coincides nicely with most of our popular hunting cartridges with medium to heavy bullets. The new monometals can be driven faster and remain pristine, even when encountering bone. To me, this is more of a quantum leap over any cast bullet, than the Smith designs are over the Keith bullet. A medium weight Punch bullet at 300+ fps faster than a heavy for caliber cast bullet will outperform every time. This is where the larger cartridges like the Casull and Linebaughs shine for hunting large, heavily boned game.

how does one unglaze their eyes?

I don't know about glazed or unglazed. I like donuts because they taste good. But I don't eat fat sacks anymore. Do you mean about cast bullets, E. Keith, V. Smith, some other bullets, Barnes??? Please finish your thought. Be Well, Packy.

naw, i'm good. but thanks anyway.

I need to secure a copy of the "hell, I was there" book.

I do like how the WFN's appear to hit animals. Whether out of pistol, muzzleloader or lever rifle

The more a have learned about the Keith design the more I appreciate the thought behind it.

Keith’ goals were as follows:
1) Address inaccuracy issue of designs available. He accomplished this goal see the first post.
2) Address the lack of wounding/trauma. He accomplished that with a sufficient meplat of 70 percent of caliber. Is it better at wounding/trauma than the WFN. The consensus is no, but it has a lot of points to cut with.
3)Maximize case capacity. He accomplished that goal. See first post.

The only thing he did not do was address leading by baulking at gas checks. His magnum velocities would have certainly caused leading as velocity does today. I have not obtained any insight as to why Keith rejected gas checks except the second hand sources stating he did not like them. No why is given.

Does anyone know why Keith hated gas checks?

The Punch bullet is truly wonderful. I just see it as another creature which applied Veral Smith’s designs in a material lead cannot compete against weight and caliber equal in such comparison.

Veral Smith with his designs sought to maximize, still in a balance, a different goal. That being maximum trauma/wounding with hand guns. The relative low velocities of handguns does not allow jacketed hollow point/tipped hollow points the same wounding as such a bullet does with rifle velocity. Penetration suffers with jacked handgun bullets on game. So, Smith, like Keith, needed to balance the trauma to penetration. The various designs of Smith address different sub concerns LFN and more capacity, but the overall goal wounding or trauma remained paramount. Keith’s design gives equal consideration to all factors.

I always wondered why the Keith bullet looks like it did. Now we know. Also, in the general media (gun mags) there is a lot of misconception about what a Keith is, why it looks the way it does. Often, Keith is cited as creating the SWC design. That is not true. He perfected the SWC design.

I am including penetration as part of wounding and trauma.

I have to reread these things occasionally. If I haven't been using cast bullets to hunt with. Be Well, Packy.

I like the Keith bullet in .44 Special, but have not taken game with it. I remain unconvinced that a .430 caliber Keith, LFN or WFN at the same weight and velocity would yield a startlingly different result on a deer at 100 yards or less.
Nice summation, sir. Hope we can all keep dodging the virus. I just tested negative myself.

I get released tomorrow.

I'm glad you will get out of the house. I released myself from prison 15th of March. I was retired but going back two days a week to plug a hole in their staffing. Be Well, Packy.

Well written LHeym, thank you for the information. I sympathize about the staycation to to speak, and just coming to the end of mine as well for another's (mild) case of the virus. Wishing you all well.