This topic was brought up in this thread but let's put it to a vote.<BR><BR><BR><a href="https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2911043/m/683107139?r=704109239#704109239" target="_blank">http://forums.accuratereloadin...=704109239#704109239</a>In a hunting context, if you had only ONE of the below to choose from, what would it be?The original Keith SWC as he designed itLBT all the wayDoesn't matter as they both work just fineOther - i.e. JHP, TC, RN, generic SWC, etc...

We've made advances over the years. Keith's bullets were great in their time and still are, but I like big meplats......JMHO.

As more animals I shoot - as more unsure I am - about what bullet/style which is the best

And what caliber

Six of one, half a dozen of the other... They will both kill, and dead is dead!

My experience has been that LBTs make bigger holes thru game, but the heavier Keith bullets fly much straighter at long ranges, say out at 300 yards and past. The large meplates of the LBTs seem to cause a loss of stability past about 200 yards. This of course is a moot point with most handgun hunting anyway.
But my hunting partner and I use our hanguns to hunt ground squirrels and other varmints out at looong range for the practice. The Keiths win hands down for taking them at 150 yards, and at rocks at about 2-400 yards, we use the Keiths exclusively.
The only exception has been the Freedom Arms .45 Colt with a 340 gr. LBT. They shoot like a rifle at extreeeeeeeem range.

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
My experience has been that LBTs make bigger holes thru game, but the heavier Keith bullets fly much straighter at long ranges, say out at 300 yards and past. The large meplates of the LBTs seem to cause a loss of stability past about 200 yards. This of course is a moot point with most handgun hunting anyway.
But my hunting partner and I use our hanguns to hunt ground squirrels and other varmints out at looong range for the practice. The Keiths win hands down for taking them at 150 yards, and at rocks at about 2-400 yards, we use the Keiths exclusively.
The only exception has been the Freedom Arms .45 Colt with a 340 gr. LBT. They shoot like a rifle at extreeeeeeeem range.

The WFNs seem to have that problem (even though I have never witnessed it myself), but not the LFN. Bfrshooter designed a 420 grain .475 bullet that is a cross betwen the LFN and the WFN and has an 80% meplat -- I call it a AWFN (Almost a Wide Flat Nose) that exhibits no instability at range.

I prefer bigger meplats than the Keith-style bullets have to offer.

That said, the Keith works very well.

This is a pretty broad question. I've only killed deer and small game with a handgun, and for that I can't see that it makes much difference. The Keith is a great all-around choice, and I've had excellent luck with a 325-grain LFN in 5- and 6-shot 45 Colts.

The main advantage of the LBT designs is that they hang a lot of lead outside the case, which lets you run them a little faster than a Keith of the same weight. But I don't know that it makes much difference.


Okie John

Those of you that have shot animals with both which do you feel gives deeper penetration?

FWIW, I voted "both" without trying to justify why.

Okie John, I think you put your finger on it with that observation about the broadness of the question and how, for deer and small game, either one makes a fine choice.

NE450no2 is on to something there also. For BIG stuff, a handgun doesn't have an abundance of power so hedging all bets makes sense. The extra mass the LBT style allows may lead to generally deeper penetration.

Thanks for the responses guys!

Penetration is just a function of weight and a boolit that holds together. Of course a 300 gr will go farther then a 240 in an animal big enough to tell.
I don't think there is a bit of difference between a Keith or LBT as long as things are equal, meplat and weight. Both work and kill.
Besides what some say about accuracy from a keith and that a WLN or WFN goes unstable at range, that is just not true. There is not a single feature on the Keith that makes it more accurate. It is a good boolit however since I sold my original 429421 and 358156 HP molds, I have not found a single Keith boolit that equals them. There have been more of every weight and caliber go across my loading bench then I can count and 2" to 3" at 50 could be called good. It is a boolit that is either accurate or it sucks and 95% of the time it sucks.
Keith knew what he was doing for the guns and alloys he used but factory mold makers don't know crap, all they care about is cost and ease of production. Now days even the gun writers come to the sites to learn about their next article!
The Keith is a touchy design and will not tolerate any change at all.
I make a lot of molds for LBT style boolits and nothing I have changed has ever hurt the accuracy, from wider to narrower base bands, front bands and number, shape and position of grease grooves. If it looks like an LBT it will shoot like an LBT.
That in a nutshell is why I say the LBT is better.
I have shown a million times what my boolits do at all ranges yet I have never seen any long range Keith groups posted, not a single picture!
Of course there will be a few that have a Keith that will shoot from the gun they have but for most of us, it's not that way. So if anyone is shooting 2" groups at 300 yd's I would like to see it. I would also like to see 50 yd groups from all others that love the boolit, good or bad, you will not be judged.
We are at the point of pros and cons that we need to show and compare accuracy from each. Let's settle it.

Well, I'm not a statistician but the LBT style has close to a two to one choice as a better design.

The basic reason? It does everything a Keith type can without relying on specific design parameters and often performs better.

Thanks for the participation and happy shooting!

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Those of you that have shot animals with both which do you feel gives deeper penetration?

I shoot more LBT's, but the Keiths and the LBT's both seem to exit with similar frequency.