It may take me a few attempts to get this worded correctly so please bear with me.
Ever since I started learning about the heavy game killing benefits of a great big flat nose on hard cast handgun bullets. I have wondered why not just make the front of the bullet say 15 thousands smaller than bullet diameter and go hunting.
If the flat nose is what makes the hole in the animal , the S.D. and velocity carry the hole maker through the animal. And the hardness/toughness keep the bullet in its shape to maintain straight penetration.
Then , What role does caliber play , in how much (hole diameter making), shock transferance/hard hitting , ability ? Assuming the rifling twist is fsst enough to stabilize the bullet.
Say a 340 gr 430, 452 & 475 bullets all have the same or very close meplat diameter and all are pushed at 1200 fps. Wont all 3 ("kill") Exactly alike ????
What am I missing here ?
Thanks
Glen.

To fairly compare the terminal effectiveness of one caliber to another, the meplat percentages must be the same. Otherwise, a larger caliber that would/should enjoy an advantage over a smaller caliber will not necessarily make a bigger hole. I don't put much stock in SD as I believe nose profile is a much greater determinant in penetration. My preference is the WFN (real LBT, not some knock off) that has about an 82% meplat. I know that many will tell you that LFNs fly better, but I haven't experienced a lack of accuracy at the ranges I typically hunt. I like getting close to the game being hunted. More later when I have some more time.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
To fairly compare the terminal effectiveness of one caliber to another, the meplat percentages must be the same. Otherwise, a larger caliber that would/should enjoy an advantage over a smaller caliber will not necessarily make a bigger hole. .

This is my question point.
If a 420-440 gr .475 bullet has the same meplat as a 500 bullet and they are both going the same speed . Wouldn't they both work the same .
I'm most concerned with how well the bullet will kill at ranges like 50 feet or less. There are lots of bullets and molds available that seem to work good for general purpose big game hunting. I'm looking for the most "bullet " advantage I can get. As it is parameter that can be tweaked. Obviously an accurate shot placement is first and foremost. So if , say a full wadcutter or bullet nose that is slightly under bore diameter is. And it was accurate and stabilized to 25 yards. Would that bullet be a noticeably better killer ?

In my humble opinion, you can't do much better than real LBT bullets and of them, I like the WFN with the aforementioned 82% meplat. When you order a WFN mold from LBT, the meplat will be sized relative to the diameter so a .510 WFN will have a larger meplat than a .475 WFN meplat. To take advantage of the size differential you have to have a bigger meplat than the smaller calibers. Essentially, if the meplat on a .44 is larger than that of a .45, it will make a bigger hole than that particular.45. This is why I prefer WFN profiles.

LBT WFN is .090" below bore diameter in a any caliber. The LFN is .120" below bore diameter, if memory serves. The LBT's also have a specific nose length and they work as advertised.

JWP; , which do you use ?

This book is invaluable. I don't think anyone knows more about cast bullets and nose profiles than Veral Smith.



For comparison, this is a Keith semi wadcutter in .44 Mag next to an LBT WFN also in .44 Mag. Meplat does dictate wound channel size all else being equal.



I used WFNs in .500 JRH on this water buffalo:

Yup. I'm planning on getting that book asap. Several years ago I got a box of Buffalo Bore 340 gr +P+ 44 mag ammo. The meplat on that bullet was bigger than the 325 gr 45 Colt bullet that BB was loading. With its added velocity it penetrated like crazy. The only thing that penetrated deeper, that I had was the CorBon factory loads with the 320 gr Belt Mt. Punch bullets.
However, for my purpose . I like the 480 better .

quote:

Originally posted by Cold Trigger Finger:
JWP; , which do you use ?

This book will answer your questions.

My preference is the LFN profile over the WFN. I have been known to fling lead several hundred yards and the WFNs are prone to taking hard turns during flight. The game I have taken with LFNs have not been in a position to argue bullet performance.

My understanding is that as you get close to a full wad cutter stability at distance becomes a problem. I have an LBT mold that throws an almost full w.c. and it is ok at 25y, or less, but not good at all beyond that. I guess you just need to see what works in your revolver?
C.G.B.

Ok. Thanks for the replies everyone.
Beings I will start with the 400 gr Lee plain base mold for my 480. No doubt I'll be learning lots. With its shape I'm hoping I can have 2 different loads for that bullet.
One at around 900 fps for practice/plinking and one at max working in my gun for hunting/defense.
Then I'll add other molds and play around with max meplat diameter to find out how far I can go.

Forgive the young, but what does LBT stand for. The larger noise profile creating better wound channels is the gest of the terminal bullet thread in double rifle forum. Some rejected the findings. I do not.

Lead Bullet Technology

Veral Smith

Thank you,

So the abbreviation is a brand.

Yup; and since he developed the shapes there are many similar copies. So , they are sometimes refered to as an LBT shap. Which is not specifically correct. But done none the less.

quote:

Originally posted by Cold Trigger Finger:
Yup; and since he developed the shapes there are many similar copies. So , they are sometimes refered to as an LBT shap. Which is not specifically correct. But done none the less.

Much like the oft misused "Keith-style."

Yes . I'm not sure who coined the WFN, LFN,WLN. ,designations . But suspect it was Mr Smith.
They are copied also . Like Kieth Style even tho they may not be precise duplicates.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Forgive the young, but what does LBT stand for. The larger noise profile creating better wound channels is the gest of the terminal bullet thread in double rifle forum. Some rejected the findings. I do not.

When I checked out that thread everything seemed alot more adversarial than I wanted to spend my time enduring so I shined it on.
I was on CEB's site reciently . They have a 340 gr .475 bullet. But I didnt like the look of the meplat. It may be a good general purpose bullet. But, so will a cast lead for alot less money.

quote:

Originally posted by Cold Trigger Finger:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Forgive the young, but what does LBT stand for. The larger noise profile creating better wound channels is the gest of the terminal bullet thread in double rifle forum. Some rejected the findings. I do not.

When I checked out that thread everything seemed alot more adversarial than I wanted to spend my time enduring so I shined it on.
I was on CEB's site reciently . They have a 340 gr .475 bullet. But I didnt like the look of the meplat. It may be a good general purpose bullet. But, so will a cast lead for alot less money.

I used CEB's 340 grain .475 solid, in Argentina on water buffalo. Here is a link to the online version of the article:

https://www.americanhunter.org...uth-american-safari/

My chief complaint has always been the size of the meplat. That said, they were extremely accurate and worked well. Again, I prefer a bigger meplat.....



I would add that when you have a trophy fee in the thousands of dollars riding on your hunt, it makes really good sense to use one of these monometal solids over a hardcast bullet. It's cheap insurance.

My chief complaint has always been the size of the meplat. That said, they were extremely accurate and worked well. Again, I prefer a bigger meplat.....



I would add that when you have a trophy fee in the thousands of dollars riding on your hunt, it makes really good sense to use one of these monometal solids over a hardcast bullet. It's cheap insurance.[/QUOTE]


Your last paragraph is a kicker for me.
Brown bear bones are the hardest bones Ive found . Granted I only has a limited knowledge base. At least as hard as the skull plate on a bull moose. Probably harder.
I know brass and copper will bust them . But I dont have the experience with cast.
As 06 Phil proved last summer with his 9 mm bear problem. And Mr Dybdahl proved last fall while deer hunting. Sometimes bears Aint Foolin Around. Somethings gonna get bloody quick.
My wife's health and well being is more valuable to me than anything. And she has spent months with me , in the brush in serious bear country. We are older and alot less nimble of foot now .
Thats why I'm searching for the best hammer I can get in my 480. Sometimes all a guy has on him is a handgun.
Some guys would knee jerk up to a 500 S&W. But I've already tried one and its too much gun for me . So, I'm kinda stuck with the 480 . Which isnt a bad thing , I just want it to be All it can be.

In my experience a moose moose has larger bones and more difficult to penetrate than a bear.

I used an LFN hard cast on the moose and bear in the left of the photo back in 1988. The first bear and moose shot with the 475 Linebaugh.

That looks like a great hunt.
Your 475 looks like it was the prototype for the now factory Super Blackhawk Bisley 480. It looks like it has the long ejector rod and everything.

I got to fondle a 6 1/2" Ruger Bisley in 480 today. A good friend found one in Anchorage this week. After I told him all about them . Max, you can tally that purchase up to your review of them. If I hadn't read your review, I wouldn't have been talking them up . Which got him interested in them. Several other guys were very impressed so I'm thinking around 6 of them will end up in Glennallen within a year or less. Ruger better keep making them. !!!!!!!! I definitely need one of them . Very , Very impressed with it . I'm gonna talk him into making either caribou antler or Dall sheep grips for it. Just to guild the lily. Just the mostest nicest factory single action Ruger I've ever held. I had a very hard time putting it down. The price wasn't bad either. Perfect gun for a hip holster. Maybe not the mostest perfectest. But still perfect.

I've got some bhn 22 cast bullets from an Accurate 380V mold coming soon . As cast they have around a .398" meplat . So I'll get to try them out and see if they tumble in an animal . Now I need to get an Ultra Dot for my SRH.

CTF,

CEB will custom manufacture .475 caliber FN copper monometal (or brass) in your stipulated weight and meplat percentage - a minimum order is required (For my custom order of 430gr .500 caliber MTH Banded copper bullets my minimum order was 250 bullets.)


Max,

Have you worked further with CEB regarding proper meplat % and bullet weights for hand cannons?

Not yet , no. I kindof think a CEB in 370-380 gr is about as long a bullet as I will be able to stabilise in my 1/18" twist @ around 1200 fps . maybe as much as 1300 fps but I kinda doubt I will get much over 1250 fps.
So, if I find that at out to 30 yards I can hit some pretty hard bones and the bullet stays nose forward. That would warrant going ahead and having a bunch turned.
Thank you for the heads up . I thot it required having A lot more bullets than that for a custom order.

quote:

Originally posted by Cold Trigger Finger:
Not yet , no. I kindof think a CEB in 370-380 gr is about as long a bullet as I will be able to stabilise in my 1/18" twist @ around 1200 fps . maybe as much as 1300 fps but I kinda doubt I will get much over 1250 fps.
So, if I find that at out to 30 yards I can hit some pretty hard bones and the bullet stays nose forward. That would warrant going ahead and having a bunch turned.
Thank you for the heads up . I thot it required having A lot more bullets than that for a custom order.

Something to remember when trying to settle on your monometal bullet:
1) DO NOT exceed the length of the longest C&C, or lead, FN bullet that will stabilize in your 1:18" twist else your monometal bullet will not stabilize.
2) Meplat % is of primary importance for within mass trauma and penetration stability.
3) Bullet weight is dictated by #1 and #2.

Good luck...

Thanks Jim ;
I've got some experimenting to do .

Veral Smiths "book" has been mentioned, so I'll give what I hope is still current info on how to order one. His wife was handling this when Veral was not available. Judy Smith, HCR 62 Box 145 Moyie Springs, Id 83845. Not sure of current price, but it use to be around $26.

I'll also give my not flowery critique of the "book". I don't know when a pamphlet becomes a book, but this one is on the border. 131 pages and it's only 5 1/2" x 8 1/2" and was written without benefit of proof reading. Very much a collection of misspellings. There is no loading data in the book. Compare this to a Lyman manual, which is cheaper, and they spent a lot of money doing research to include loading data. The Lyman manuals are more like 479 pages and are 8 1/2" x 11". To me there is no comparison, the Lyman Manuals are a much better buy.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Veral Smiths "book" has been mentioned, so I'll give what I hope is still current info on how to order one. His wife was handling this when Veral was not available. Judy Smith, HCR 62 Box 145 Moyie Springs, Id 83845. Not sure of current price, but it use to be around $26.

I'll also give my not flowery critique of the "book". I don't know when a pamphlet becomes a book, but this one is on the border. 131 pages and it's only 5 1/2" x 8 1/2" and was written without benefit of proof reading. Very much a collection of misspellings. There is no loading data in the book. Compare this to a Lyman manual, which is cheaper, and they spent a lot of money doing research to include loading data. The Lyman manuals are more like 479 pages and are 8 1/2" x 11". To me there is no comparison, the Lyman Manuals are a much better buy.

Sure, but you are comparing apples to grapes. I didn't buy Veral's book for load data. If someone wants to understand the theory and testing involved in creating Veral's vastly superior bullet designs, this is the book. Yeah, it's poorly edited but I am willing to look past that for the information contained within. I still believe that Veral Smith has forgotten more about nose profile design than most in the industry actually know. JMHO.

Cold trigger finger--Nobody has given you a definitive answer, guess you'll just have to pick your own nose.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Cold trigger finger--Nobody has given you a definitive answer, guess you'll just have to pick your own nose.

Good one.

CTF,

Based upon jwp475's and Whitworth's comments (two individuals I'd pay very close attention to) your meplat is set at 82% of bullet diameter...

My only additional comment would be "specify an 82% of meplat AFTER radiused edge"...
I draw that comment from the terminal bullet performance and bullet nose profile testing that Michael458 and Sam Rose conducted; a straight edge had slightly less within-mass straight-line stability than the radiused edge.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Cold trigger finger--Nobody has given you a definitive answer, guess you'll just have to pick your own nose.

Ha ha ha.
. With the radiused nose and 80+% that would make a nice fat nose.

quote:

Originally posted by Cold Trigger Finger:

Ha ha ha.
. With the radiused nose and 80+% that would make a nice fat nose.

Yep. Just look at the right-side bullet/cartridge shown in Whitworth's 2nd photo in his 14 February 2017 05:35 post.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
In my humble opinion, you can't do much better than real LBT bullets and of them, I like the WFN with the aforementioned 82% meplat. When you order a WFN mold from LBT, the meplat will be sized relative to the diameter so a .510 WFN will have a larger meplat than a .475 WFN meplat. To take advantage of the size differential you have to have a bigger meplat than the smaller calibers. Essentially, if the meplat on a .44 is larger than that of a .45, it will make a bigger hole than that particular.45. This is why I prefer WFN profiles.

Did I not more or less give a reasonable response to the OP's question?

Yup, you were spot on . but A guy has to try and learn things.

So CTF did your ever buy a mold and pot and start casting your own.

Not yet . I do have some boolits on the way from a guy that designed the Accurate Mold .48, 380 V mold . it has a meplat of .395-.4 depending on the recipe. This batch has a bhn of 22. Hoping they get here this week.
Hopefully I'll be back to work by the end of the month . My knees are improving , still not up to full strength but far better than they were . So my accumulation can commence. I'm going to go with a Lee dipper pot and use it for dual purpose. Casting and Salt bath annealing of my rifle brass .
http://www.accuratemolds.com/b...bullet=48-380V-D.png

My boolits got here today. So far they average 381.3 gr .476.5" diameter, .396 sharp edge meplat, .836" long. It looks from the data that I can easily push them to over 1300 fps . But will check them for accuracy. Then do penetration tests.
A good friend here got the 480 E, mold from Accurate. It has the identical nose profile as near as I could see comparing my bullet to his mold. But its a 405 gr boolit instead of 380.