Ok, we have had the argument over flat nosed vs round nosed solids but what about a boat tail on the back end. Most of the drag that reduces penetration comes from the the base of the bullet so...

Been playing with arrows into large things and a shaft smaller than head diamiter certainly makes a significant difference!

Anybody tried it?

So we are talking FNBT. Can not say I ever saw a picture of one of its kind. Considering the cavity made around the bullets (unlike a shaft, because of the velocity)during its flight through the carcass, I can not understand it should make a difference, but compared to some of the experienced people in here, I am a mere amateur.

Somehow I don't relate to boattails on solids. I think of long range when I think boat tails and solids are almost exclusively used at short range.

It's not a selling point to me.

GS Custom solids have a small boat tail and they work great.

But has anyone compared penetration of two solids of identical design and construction except that one has a boat tail and one does not? I doubt it would make much difference as the boat tail would be inside the supercavitation bubble for most of the bullet's path within the animal.

The BC improvement an FN solid gains over a flat base is insignificant. I put boat tails on our solids for two reasons. It makes loading them so much easier as they just drop into the case and sit straight up. Secondly, a boat tail moves the CG forwards and this improves the gyroscopic stability of the bullet. On some of the longer ones, like the 250gr .338 third from the left above, this is needed to ensure linear transition on impact.

Gerard - thanks for that. Have used a few of your bullets and wondered but never had the oportunity of recovering them. Most boat tailed bullets tumble- as part of their design, and would dearly love to dig some of yours out of an ele and see.

They should stay point on a bit better and penetrate straighter, at least I think so.

Don,
We look at recovered bullets under a microscope to see what markings there are on the surfaces. With FNs we very seldom find anything but rifling marks on the shanks. Obviously, if the bullet destroyed major bones, the evidence is there but the typical signs of friction and abrasion on one side or, in extreme tumbles, on opposite sides of the shank, is generally absent with FNs. As you have found, we do not get to inspect many FNs.