Keith SWC vs. RNFP

[cabezaverde]

Assume the same size meplat, weight, and same velocity.

Would there be a substantial difference in performance on deer size game?

[James C. Snodgrass]

No . The meplat does all the work and if the wght was the same and vel the same the sectional density would be similar as well. So they should perform the same .The benefit of Elmer's bullet would just be the (CF) . (CF) is the cool factor which shouldn't be under estimated . Good luck James[smilie=f:

[Heavy lead]

There are arguements both ways. I've used both, and had good luck with both. I've heard and read that a swc cuts at the meplat and driving band. And I've heard nope, just the meplat. All's I know is dead is dead, hit them in the boiler room with a fairly wide meplat and they are dead. Keith boolits seem to be a might more accurate for me, but I tend to not hot rod a load.

[kooz]

The sharp shoulder of the Keith style bullet will cut a full caliber wound channel through the animal and will cause it to bleed out good and leave an easy to follow trail. This has been the case with the deer I have shot with the Keith style bullets. I have used both of the bullets you have asked about on whitetails, and both are killers, but the Keith bullets made a better blood trail and the animals didn't go as far after being hit. Whitetails aren't hard to kill, you will be good with either bullet, but my experiences using both have shown the Keith bullet to be a better killer. Good luck

[kir_kenix]

I would think that if the meplat, weight, and velocity are the same, you would be hard pressed to see any differences in the terminal balistics.

The only way to settle this is to actaully establish some tests and see the differences. Modeling clay or some sort of other balistic medium could be used to compare the wound channel differences. I (and I'm sure many others) would be very interested in any results if you come up with them.

[yondering]

I've often wondered what the truth is about this as well; and reading this, I just now realized I have two molds that would work for this test - the Lee 452-255 RF and an old Lyman 454424. Both cast about the same weight, and have about the same size meplat.
When I get a chance I'll shoot them into some wet newspaper. I've found that to be relatively easy to set up, and closest to "meat" consistency of any readily available test medium.

There was an article in one of the recent gun rags (Handloader, I think) supposedly proving that the shoulder of the Keith bullets cut, but in my opinion, they did the test wrong and proved nothing. They colored the bullets with permanent marker, then fired them into fine sand, and looked at the marks on the bullet. I don't remember if it was wet sand or dry, but either way, sand isn't the same as meat and guts, so I don't think it proves anything. They didn't seem to think of that one minor detail.

[Bigscot]

Yonderling,

Brian Pearce wrote that article in the current issue ( not Nov-Dec) issue of Handloader.

Bigscot

[Bass Ackward]

There is and there is not a material advantage. It just depends. Did your bullet hit anything to expand it or not? Remember, there is no perfect world in bullet shape at these velocity levels.

If velocity is high enough, the spray off the meplat does the cutting, which is how you get a larger than caliber hole. It is true that the shoulder of a Keith will cut if your velocity drops down too low. But that is a failure on the part of the operator for not testing properly prior to use.

In truth, the argument is mute. Because you should have either raised strike velocity, increased bullet weight to compensate for the slowdown in material and the distance traveled, or you should not have shot at such a far distance.

Translation: if everything is planned and done correctly, no difference will be observed assuming equal dimensions and strike velocity. And if your meplat mushroomed, then it formed an umbrella and hid what ever was coming behind it anyway.

[44man]

Yeah, I read that article and called him an idiot. :mrgreen:
If you watch a shadow graph of the flat nose in flight, you will see the nose waves being forced away from the sides of the boolit. Flesh and liquid flow the same as air. That tiny edge does not touch anything to do any cutting. The nose is doing the work, forcing everything away from it.
When an animal is hit, the hide is poked in a great deal before the boolit breaks through. The same happens on exit. I have watched slow motion video of projectiles on the way out of deer. It is amazing the distance the hide stretches. This is why the holes are larger then the nose. It also drags more hair into the wound as it and hide is scraped/cut off.
The edge of a semi wadcutter is useless for anything but paper.
Given a truncated cone and a semi wadcutter with the exact same meplat, the results are exactly the same and holes from both will be the same size.
I think that if you actually measure the hole in the hide from a semi wadcutter, you will find is is not exact caliber but is a little LARGER.
I don't have a dead deer in front of me but I will do some measurements when season opens. I am going by memory of the holes.
The same happens with an arrow, entry and exit holes are a little larger then the width of the cutting edges.
How about more input on this idea, I have to wait until nov to measure.

[Firebird]

Just my observation that the meplats of RNFP aren't close to being the same as a Keith SWC. To get a "round nose" shape, the meplat just can't be as big as one of a SWC. When you try, you end up closer to a LFN shape, but still with a smaller meplat than a true LFN.

[GLynn41]

I have killed a few with each -- and noticed that the Keith usually makes afull cal. hole in at least -- it is normally larger in meat and the shoulder will cut things that will not splash--such as ribs etc-- with the lBT --I have seen curl back toward you--on impact and a larger than cal. holes- I have shot normal Keith bullets with the 265 meplat(.41) and a 31 meplat keith leadheads -- and the holes in wet paper were no so different---- I love Keiths and have two molds for the Lyman 410459 and sold a wonderfull Saeco 220 keith-- I have not proved to me that the large meplat Keith is that much better than the normal --what ever that is - in my test with wet paper and shoots fired there does not seem to be too much difference between the two -- althouhg it should seem to be-I will still hunt will keiths and still want the the larger meplat - last thing on a heart shot with the original 1980s Lyman 410459 the 226 gr bullet made a thumb size hole --very ragged in the heart-my thumb according to my calipurs is aobut .8- entrance hole was .41 size - an LBT .32 meplat made .80+ holes in but stayed about the same in or out - sense I handled both deer--eh they both died

[runfiverun]

i agree with bass and 44 man.
the inner tissue damage i have seen with my rnfp's is more then a full roundnose is.
and the exit wound is always bigger. [so far i haven't recovered a boolit]
but the animals are dead.
the supposed advantage to a keith is that it travells straight in an animal.
can't argue for either side.
i do use a keith in my 44 and a rnfp in my 45 same load and nearly the same boolit weight.
same results and i only change them out cause i use the carbine in one and a full rifle for the other.

[yondering]

Bass and 44 Man, those were my thoughts as well, based on my knowledge of physics and fluid dynamics; I just don't have the cast boolit hunting experience to back it up.

Gotta love it when the magazine people "prove" something like bullet performance without actually shooting any animals!:veryconfu

[TexRebel]

maybe this link can help some
http://www.abaris.net/info/ballistics/hatcher-table.htm

[kooz]

Gotta love it when the magazine people "prove" something like bullet performance without actually shooting any animals!:veryconfu[/QUOTE]

Very funny and very true, lets also add internet professionals to that statement.

[45Spades]

He did report the results on live animals that included mule deer, elk, bear and cattle. Reread the article. I'm not arguing that you opinion is wrong or right. But the article clearly states his results of Keith bullets on animals in the field.

[45Spades]

Some may call Brain Pearce an idiot but I dare say that few men would call Brian Pearce an idiot to his face. Brian is one of us. His tests and results come from real world experience. I may not agree with all he reports but I still can respect his opinion without insulting his intelligence.

My question is "Why does the front driving band show wear in a recovered bullet from an animal?" I can't say from experience because I have yet to recover a cast projectile from an animal yet. But my guess is that if a cast bullet is recovered it is likely to have hit bone. I can see bone wearing the front driving band but I haven't come to a conclusion about wear from flesh and fluids. I choose to get a little more real world slam hammer stomp'em and knock'em down experience.

[GLynn41]

I never catch a bullet Keith or other wise -- in firing the K into wet newsprint not much happens to the shoulders -- game I do not know as they do not stop in game-- I have caught one LBT 240gr LBT I was helping to recover a wounded doe -- I caught her in a slew - and the bullet went through 5-6" of water may be less or more anyway the bullet then went nearly completely through the deer and was found on the other side- if you like the keith shoot it if you like the LWNGC bam (by all means )use it like the arguement about which is better -.411 or 429 -- ok you really think the deer know or even care? I still shoot the keith becasue I read so much of him as I grew up and I killed my first hand gun deer with one - but really the LBT style seem to work a little better-- but only to me as again I do not think the deer know what you have shot -- if you kill them they do not -- if miss them they do not - so they do not really care only we do -- as long as you use a proven effective bullet--no round nose need apply-- shoot right --shoot well and you will eat well --have fun

[kooz]

He did report the results on live animals that included mule deer, elk, bear and cattle. Reread the article. I'm not arguing that you opinion is wrong or right. But the article clearly states his results of Keith bullets on animals in the field.


Just for clarification, I agree with Brian Pearce and his results are consistant with mine as far as how well the Keith bullets work on game. My comment was directed at those who didn't agree with my firt post, but offered no personal hunting experieces to back there stance on the subject (these would be the internet professionals) . Not trying to ruffle anyones barbs here, I am just trying to answere the authors original question, and leave out mathmatical equations, wet phone book and clay experiments and just stick to field experiences that will help him in his bullet choice.

[runfiverun]

my favorite response to these questions is always a flat nose and two holes.
no soft mushy "energy dump" boolits need apply.

[GLynn41]

"My comment was directed at those who didn't agree with my firt post, but offered no personal hunting experieces to back there stance on the subject (these would be the internet professionals) " N ur humble opinion of course -- i like to test and play --but what counts is what happens in real life and I am well aware of that-- I can not aways shoot a deer but I always can paper- and then compare - -- and I am not a "internet pro"

[yondering]

He did report the results on live animals that included mule deer, elk, bear and cattle. Reread the article. I'm not arguing that you opinion is wrong or right. But the article clearly states his results of Keith bullets on animals in the field.

He did report that the bullets worked well on animals, but that doesn't mean that the shoulder did any cutting, which is what the article was about. He fired the bullets into sand to "prove" that the shoulder did some work. This is flawed because sand does not behave like a fluid. Animal meat and guts are mostly fluid, and don't behave like sand.

I don't dispute that Keith bullets work well, I think they do; I just haven't seen any test that really shows whether the shoulder does any cutting or not. I would think it doesn't; if velocity is high enough the meplat should spray flesh out laterally, without any contact to the bullet shoulder. That's just my opinion and limited observation though.

[felix]

Velocity counts. Even round noses work in the mud, water, and other objects I "kill" when I go out to have some fun. More velocity, more destruction with a given diameter boolit. Maybe a 1000 fps round would make a difference in boolit design. My favorite trick is to kick a charging can as high as possible, by intentionally shooting under it and making the splashing mud do the work. Do it NOTjust right, the can will disappear in the weeds and never found again. Have to shoot pool, making the can go in the direction where it can be seen for another shot. ... felix

[44man]

I don't really think Cabezaverde was talking about the actual rnfp as such but was meaning the truncated cone or LBT style. That is how I responded. The Lee 310 and the RD boolits fall into that catagory. I would not hunt with a round nose even if the point had a little flat on it.
The LBT and the Keith will both run straight through anything.
We just tested a bunch of calibers, bullet/boolits and loads in wet phone books and newspaper. None of the jacketed .44 or 45-70 revolver bullets made over 11". Only the jacketed .475, 400 gr made 14".
The 420 gr, .475 WFN made 37" on one shot, but more as I explain below.
The RD .44, 265 gr went 33". Entry holes from jacketed were just that, a hole. But the flat nose cast blew out a huge volcano looking crater, ran a perfect straight path and did as much damage for twice the distance then the jacketed did.
We were running out of front books and when we got down to 36" we tried the .475 again for a few shots. A center shot went through the paper and the rough sawn 1" backer board, then stuck half the nose in a piece of seasoned firewood in my wood bin. A shot to the side to miss the backer board stuck full depth in firewood and was perfectly straight with the entrance. It also split the wood so just twisting an axe in the crack got the boolit out.
Now that was with a WFN, not a WLN. I was impressed to say the least.
The Keith is a great boolit but just does not need the shoulder, only the flat meplat. The truncated cone is basically the Keith without it.
My beef with the Keith is it must be a perfect fit to the throats so it is guided into the forcing cone. The nose does not guide it good enough by itself, just the edge catches first. I get better accuracy from the LBT's.
Most Keith molds will not work as good in all the different dimensions of cylinders but if it fits, it is accurate.
Killing power and penetration is equal to the LBT, it just needs fit for accuracy. That is where the problem is when you need a .431" or .432" and the mold drops a .429" or .430". If you measure the base of the nose on a Keith it will be about .390". It is so much smaller then the bore it has no guidance at all and depends on the little shoulder entering perfectly straight. The LBT adjusts itself better in the forcing cone.
If either boolit shoots good for you, don't worry about it.
Now the thing that shows high velocity can limit penetration. The 45-70, 378 gr WFN at over 1650 fps only went 24". The nose of the hard cast was damaged so I think that slowed it too fast. The .475 boolits, even the one stuck in wood, had perfect, undamaged noses.
Yes, I called Brian an idiot! [smilie=1: And I would say it to his face for shooting boolits into sand to show the little edge cuts. Even an edge like that on a spitzer would not cut animals because of the pressure wave from the nose.
Why do Keith shooters hate the LBT? Why do LBT shooters prefer them? I hope I gave you my reasons without starting a war! :drinks:

[Bass Ackward]

The problem, as shooters of all bullets, is that we are told we need to focus on the minute details to get best results. We train ourselves to do this very thing. As cast shooters we go many steps further in this desire to launch a bullet well so that it can fly. The disadvantage? We form bad habits in that we lose the perspective of the big picture.

Bullet design is nothing more than " a tool " to launch a particular weight projectile without yaw, to give it every possible chance to travel the distance that it is needed, to perform to some penetration or accuracy standard to deliver "some" nose shape on target. We taylor that nose shape and hardness for the performance we want based upon the velocity we can muster to get it to create shock / work. That's all we attempt to do. We guess.

If you want to believe that the shoulder of a Keith cuts fine. Then it has to catch air too. If true, this would dramatically ruin the long range performance to the same thing as a full wadcutter. Since this isn't the case, the meplat is creating a plume that has the shoulder traveling in a vacuum down to some very low velocities. (long range) We understand that. What happens in game? In game, the plume changes from air to tissue. Same thing. The twist rate (rpm) and bullet weight is required to maintain stability of straight line travel through the material of interest. Get expansion and you need more weight or more velocity or both. Prevent expansion and the meplat you send in has to do the job.

Since the shoulder on the keith doesn't slow the slug through air, what chance does it have to cut in game unless velocity drops way too far? The goal for hand gun hunting success should always be complete penetration, from any angle that we might take the shot, producing a larger than caliber hole when it exits. Doesn't mean that we can't have expansion, only that we completely penetrate. We ensure this by over kill on bullet weight, velocity, and hardness. The autopsy is the only proof that we we did our job. This means the shoulder of a Keith should never got wet.

More food for thought: Since the nose diameter of a Keith type is cut down to remove weight, it also removed strength to support our nose. If two equal width meplats of both designs are delivered to the same spot, you will need a harder Keith bullet not to lose your meplat. Which design can sustain the wider meplat better / longer? Which design is better to hollow point if you want expansion? If the bullet mushroomed because it was weaker, you hid your shoulder on the Keith anyway, the front / meplat did all the work. What was behind the nose was simply designed to get it there and drive it forward.

If I want the best odds for long range where velocity will be lower, I grab a Keith. If shots are going to be fairly close, I want the best odds for the bullet to drive a penetrating meplat, I use an olgival. At handgun velocities, one has the advantage for flight, the other for maintaining nose shape. Tools that each have a place.

[44man]

Bass, I have read for years about how bad the WFN is at distance and how it is not stable past 50 yd's. How it can even tumble.
But there is something else going on when a guy has that happen.
I even stayed away from the design when buying boolits because of the comments. Then when I started to make some molds for deer with the WFN I set out to see for myself. First I found they will do 1" at 100 yd's so I set an empty spray paint can at 200, guessed the drop wrong for the first shot and centered the can on the second. Nice straight hole.
I moved eventually to 500 meters (547 yd's.) It knocks the 50# ram over with authority!
I used the WFN to keep 4 out of 5 on a 6" steel swinger at 400 yd's.
I also found that drop is not much different from the WLN or Keith. From my .475, it is only 18" at 200 yd's using a 420 gr boolit. The drop with my .44 WLN, 330 gr boolit is 35" at 200 yd's. The 45-70 only drops 16".
I have found the only limit to the design is the loose nut behind the grip or a mental attitude aquired from reading a gun rag.
I am now making all of my molds with a larger meplat of at least 80%.
It just doesn't matter if you choose the Keith, WLN or WFN. If it is right for the gun it will do what you want at any distance.
That makes life easy. Find the right combination and accuracy for 20 yd deer and there is no loss if you want to clang steel so far you can barely see the target. No need to bounce around from boolit to boolit or change loads.
My biggest belief is that a load that will take down an elephant or buffalo is still the best for a small deer too, or a woodchuck for that matter. Use a borderline bullet on deer and you dare not shoot anything larger.
Confidence and accuracy is still the best recipe for hunting.

[missionary5155]

So far what I have seen with my Boolits is this : I cast them as soft as possible for the velocity they are fired and any flat nose style expands and rips through. I am not real concered about leading.. I so far only have fired 1 shot per critter.. :.685 RB 12 gauge, .58 RB, .375 Supermag and .41 mag (Illinois only allows Shotgun, Muzzle, Revolver)... they ALL expand 50% or more... I hunt in river bottoms and the ranges have been 34 yards to 7 feet.

[cabezaverde]

44 man,

Your input is most interesting on the RD265 in 44, as I am testing that as compared to the RCBS 250 Keith. So part of my question was hypothetical, as they do not have the same size meplat, nor the same weight.

Since all of my shots are far less than 50 yards, I believe I will go with the RD265, as it already fits the throats on my SBH better that the 250 Kieth, which I would have to Beagle.

Fascinating conversation, I am learning a lot.

[Bass Ackward]

Bass, I have read for years about how bad the WFN is at distance and how it is not stable past 50 yd's. How it can even tumble.
But there is something else going on when a guy has that happen.


Jim,

All the RPM discussions and my hollow pointing experiments made me reexamine bullet design.

From the point of view of a dumba$$, (me) once you set all the science aside, as a shooter, I have two factors to consider. The first is, regardless of platform, how well I can launch a bullet design. If I can't launch it clean, how well it flies is unimportant. How clean the base broke and how high the pressure was when it did, determines how much yaw was caused. If I can't launch a design cleanly without much yaw, then a bullet with the weight on the back will allow RPMs to stabilize on some course easier, longer. How long that takes, and how wide the meplat is determines how far a bullet travels off coarse before stability happens.

After I launch it, I have to contend with bullet design and bullet balance because there is where RPMs will start to ruin accuracy after velocity begins to slow. I will be good right up until I cross some imaginary distance (velocity level) where RPMS can now take over and warp me off coarse. This is why some of the crappy stuff shot does as well as it does at 25 yards.

Heavy slugs maintain their velocity better. Both because they have a higher BC and because they have more forward momentum. If what you launch clears the muzzle well and has enough rotation and forward velocity to stabilize, and bullet balance is there, it will fly well until it don't. The wider the meplat you put on that, the sooner (shorter distance) don't is going to happen. If don't lasts as far as you want, your OK. If not, you will need to make your meplat smaller so you don't lose velocity as fast, or take weight off the nose so that the loss is easier to control.

The problem becomes one of statistics and guns. The shorter the barrel, the higher the muzzle pressure regardless of bore diameter. That means when everything is equal a short barrel is going to cause more yaw if things aren't copasetic. The heavier the bullet you try to launch with a short barrel, the tougher it is going to be and the lower the velocity you will get to where you eventually don't fully stabilize. So if you are shooting short barrels, odds are you are going to like Keith style bullets better as they compensate a little to get you the best accuracy possible. You will also like smaller meplats.

The most flexibility occurs with a longer barrels, with guns with good alignment, with taller rifling to control bullet balance and get a rotational bite to hold the bullet base square in the bore so that it breaks cleanly. Or a longer, heavier bullet to get the bite you need if rifling height is limited. It also means more stabilization (more RPMs and velocity) from the same pressure when the bullet is finally released to cause less yaw.

A longer barreled guy will have much more flexibility to launch bullet designs well than a short barreled guy who because of lower velocity, higher muzzle pressure, causes more yaw. Only certain weights and designs will work for him. (semi-wadcutter and smaller meplat)

A gun is simply a launching devise regardless of type. So the old timers always told us to shoot the longest barrels and the heaviest bullets with cast. You will have much more flexibility to launch more designs well for better accuracy .... longer or farther distances. It's not a guarantee, but it does improve "the odds" of doing well. If you don't understand that, then what happens is that you grope around over many designs until you find one that you CAN launch well under the conditions you stubbornly establish. Harder bullets improve your odds that they will hold up to the launch. Stopping leading improves balance. Then you get accuracy that can be maintained lower to lower levels than someone who doesn't do those things as well.

So what you get or are doing amounts to launching good balanced bullets well without yaw and you are having them fly well far enough that you do OK. Want a challenge? Grab a shorter barrel and try that. :grin:

It's all about the launch.

[44man]

Bass, I could not have said it better!
I never buy a revolver under 7-1/2" because I want the velocity a slower powder gives instead of the slam from a fast powder. Long boolits must be speeded up to spin faster.
What happens with the truncated cone in a short barrel is caused by a longer bearing surface even if it is the same weight as a Keith. On the Keith, the bearing surface starts at the shoulder but the LBT starts up the nose farther so it has to go faster to match the twist. As the boolit gets heavier, velocity has to be maintained because they just don't like to be shot slow.
The Keith can be shot over a wider velocity range and from short barrels better.
Maybe when someone asks about a boolit, we should first ask what his barrel length is. I WOULD recommend a Keith for short barrels!
You have made wonderful points! :Fire:
But just making the meplat smaller would be better served by making the drive length shorter to spin it faster from a shorter barrel. I think if it is spun up enough, even a large meplat will be stable as far as the boolit will travel and still be stable after the transition point to sub sonic. Just keep her turning.
Then we don't want to spin a boolit TOO fast because it will corkscrew around the flight path. Not that it hurts long range accuracy very much but the POI will be different with each range change and close range accuracy suffers. A real short boolit at high velocity from revolver twist rates is the worst. I would never shoot under 240 gr's in the .44 unless they are light plinking loads but don't even see a use for them at all to tell the truth. The 1 in 20" twist will stabilize boolits from 240 to over 330 gr's if the barrel is long enough to reach the spin needed.
That's why I like the BFR twist rates. My .475 is 1 in 15" and my 45-70 is 1 in 14". This greatly expands the weight range of boolits without reaching a pressure limit with long, heavy boolits.
Short barrels would be better served with faster twist rates. Let's face it, the shorter the barrel, the more critical boolit selection is. And powder selection! :coffee:

[Bass Ackward]

But just making the meplat smaller would be better served by making the drive length shorter to spin it faster from a shorter barrel. I think if it is spun up enough, even a large meplat will be stable as far as the boolit will travel and still be stable after the transition point to sub sonic. Just keep her turning.


Yes. If you can. Everything is a sum total game and everything is a compromise. If you don't do the little things, you will suffer farther out than someone who does.

Lead is only so strong, so you can only ask so much of it. So when you speed up the twist rate, you must slow the pressure curve with a slower powder or a larger volume case in order to let a cast bullet come up slowly. (be stronger) But after you have done everything positive that you can do, there is still a limit as some point.

Everything a caster / shooter does is to control what happens from the time he pulls the trigger right up until the bullet exits and leaves his control. Then it's on it's own from that point. If what we do results in less than a perfect launch, then a better BC and weight on the back will help accuracy especially at longer range. This is why you don't see benchrest bullets with meplats and virtually everything is hollow pointed. Cause all bullets will yaw to some degree especially when pushed. And the higher the muzzle pressure, the more yaw will happen right up until you get so bad that you .... keyhole.

A cast bullet must establish and hold bore center to break clean without yaw and achieve initial stabilization from the speed it generates. The worse the launch, the higher the RPMs you will need to bring about stabilization, the faster you need to drive it, the heavier it needs to be, or the better the design needs to be. The trade off? The higher the RPM the better your balance needs to be or flight goes to hell again. (Thanks, Larry.) Launch and RPMs if and how far it applies.

We spend too much time worrying about how a bullet flies. For handguns especially, 99% of accuracy and range is about those things that help the launch. Unless you move well beyond most normal handgun range. Knowing your gun, can eliminate a lot of poor design choices if you know that you have lower rifling height as an example. But you must maintain the big picture perspective and put all the details together to do that. It's difficult as heck all the time.

[44man]

Why do you think I have so little hair? :bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2:

[Bass Ackward]

Why do you think I have so little hair? :bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2:


So your hat will fit?

Did I win? :grin:

[runfiverun]

good synopsis there .....john
and i am glad you got something out of the rpm ar er.. discussion.
it does seem though that the being able to identify what you need to look at in a gun.
or a balanced load for high vel in a rifle seems to correspond to what you need in a long range handgun.
regardless of whether it is being used for hunting or target shooting.
i am still gonna use the keith in my 44 and the rnfp in my 45....lol.
strangely enough the best for lead i believe is the best for j bullets also.
finding the correct time pressure curve under the boolit seems to really have some merit
and more credit that it is given.

[Bass Ackward]

good synopsis there .....john
and i am glad you got something out of the rpm ar er.. discussion.


To be fair to Larry, the discussions and my failure with the 311291. Failure can / will teach more than success.

I have been getting a few questions off line about bullet design and I used this discussion as an opportunity to address this. Saves me typing several individual responses.

[Larry Gibson]

Bass, why thank you.

Very interesting thread.

Larry Gibson

[MtGun44]

All the things the Brian Pierce has written that I have been able
duplicate have shown him to be exactly correct. I will continue to
listen to what he has to say and compare it to my own experience.

So, far they match exactly but he has done a whole lot more hunting
than I have, or probably ever will do.

I wonder why those Keith shoulders cut paper and wood so well but
can't cut hide? Hard to understand for me.

Bill

[crabo]

I wonder why those Keith shoulders cut paper and wood so well but
can't cut hide? Hard to understand for me.

Bill

My guess is no resistance and no fluid to deal with.

[Bass Ackward]

I wonder why those Keith shoulders cut paper and wood so well but
can't cut hide? Hard to understand for me. Bill


This is a serious issue so don't take my word for it, prove it to yourself.

Most calibers have round nose designs with a sharp shoulder like a semi wadcutter. The round nose will eliminate the meplat effect. The cutting effect, to cut a caliber sized hole, "should" be the same. Mold it nice and hard so that the shoulder is sure to hold up well.

Load it the same as close as you can. Check it on paper to be sure it works and you see those nice, clean, round holes. You will. This will give you the confidence that that shoulder is working.

In fact, the round nose should offer less velocity slowing resistance inside the animal than the flat meplat. So the round nose with a sharp shoulder, should have more velocity upon exit. Using this higher exit velocity should force it to cut an even cleaner hole. The nose will channel all that flesh right up to that shoulder where it can receive a nice clean cut.

Then try that same bullet on game and see if it cuts a bullet sized hole in flesh.

As a precaution, take a pair of tennis shoes with ya.

[44man]

Very true. Ultra high speed movies of a flat nose boolit going through ballistic gel will show the sides of the boolit are not touching. There is a distinct shock wave standing out from the front of the boolit. Body fluids and liquid act just like air on the boolit.
Far different then paper. wood or sand. There is NO way to compare the effects.
Everything Brain does can be duplicated, but does that mean he is right about the effect on an animal? The only truth is that both boolits are good and both kill.

Bass, you win! :bigsmyl2:

[Heavy lead]

All the things the Brian Pierce has written that I have been able
duplicate have shown him to be exactly correct. I will continue to
listen to what he has to say and compare it to my own experience.

So, far they match exactly but he has done a whole lot more hunting
than I have, or probably ever will do.

I wonder why those Keith shoulders cut paper and wood so well but
can't cut hide? Hard to understand for me.

Bill

+1 on this above post. I do and will continue to use the outdated, old fashioned, *** according to some Keith boolit. I've used plenty of WFN, TC, LFN, and other abc boolits and they all work fine. I use the Keith designs because I find that they are very forgiving, loads, gun, throats, and alloy's don't have to be tweaked dead nuts on nearly as much. I cast fairly soft, lube the big groove up, size and shoot two loads in 6 guns for the 45LC, and 5 in the 44, 2 in the 475, 2 in the 454, 2 in the 41 and 3 in the 357/38. The darn things shoot in anything from 7 yards to 200 in the light (Unique) and the heavy loads (W296 or Lil Gun) mostly in 4 to 6 inch barreled guns. I too enjoy Brian Pearce. His articles are why I started casting in the first place.
I don't care if the driving band cuts or not. The boolits just work.

[yondering]

All the things the Brian Pierce has written that I have been able
duplicate have shown him to be exactly correct. I will continue to
listen to what he has to say and compare it to my own experience.

So, far they match exactly but he has done a whole lot more hunting
than I have, or probably ever will do.


Of course you can duplicate the things Brian Pierce has written. Nobody is saying he's lying. If you shoot Keith boolits into sand, you'll get the same results he did. That doesn't mean it's right. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how flat nose boolits work in a fluid.



I wonder why those Keith shoulders cut paper and wood so well but
can't cut hide? Hard to understand for me.

Bill

Like crabo and 44 man said; paper and wood aren't fluids. Sand is not a fluid either. Flesh and living tissue, for the most part, behaves as a fluid, being mostly water. That makes all the difference, right there.

[GLynn41]

In all this very interested post -- one thing is for sure --there is no replacement for the real thing --a deer to understand what happens on impact.--either the Keith or the WFNGC will kill any deer you hit in the right place--I for one indend to use them both as well a LWNGC and I am planning to design my own Keith at Mountain Mold . a .41 of course-- A critter that I have shot a lot of is the lowly Ground hog -- the results with the same normal Keith (410459 with .265 meplat) made calibur size holes on impact- and exit -- the soft point hollow point Keiths were much more dramatic in impact tearing much larger holes- bascailly what I have seen in deer-- I also I have gotten very good accuracy with the Keith

[yondering]

GLynn41, I think you pretty well summed up the important stuff there. The rest is just details.

[cabezaverde]

What about hollowpoint a Ranch Dog 44-265 with the Forster kit?

[44man]

No, don't do it! It will either open too fast or break up. It is a wonderful killer as is. Nothing can stand up long after being hit with it. You WANT it's penetration, don't cut it off.

[GLynn41]

too bad RD does not have a .41--oh well maybe sometime

[MtGun44]

I'd love to see these movies of boolit impacts showing the
shock flowing the gelatin around the shoulder. Are they available
somewhere on the web? Sounds very interesting.

Bill

[44man]

It has been a while since I seen the movies, some were brought over by friends. They might be found on the net, I never looked. These were on video tape.
The most amazing one was an arrow with a razor sharp head shot through a running bucks shoulder. The hide on the off side must have poked out 5" before the arrow broke through. I have no idea how they got that shot with a camera.
Let us know if you find any.

[EDK]

Just from observation on targets. A full wadcutter in 44 makes a nice sharp mark on the cardboard backing of my targets. The LYMAN 429244 and 429215 don't make an appreciably larger or sharper edged hole than the LYMAN 429667 or the RANCH DOG 432 265. They're all a little "fuzzy around the edges."

I grew up reading and thinking that the square shoulder of semi-wadcutters did the damage. BUT the targets (paper plates; I'm frugal!) and double thickness cardboard backing look similar with the semi wadcutter or the round nose flat points. The old quote about cutting a hole with "a drill bit or a punch" would seem to apply.

Brian Pearce has a lot of experience under his belt. His results are hard to argue with...and those of people using the Keith boolits so sucessfully all these years.

Has anyone taken a deer or larger with full wadcutters in 44 or 45?

:Fire::cbpour::redneck:

[Larry Gibson]

"Has anyone taken a deer or larger with full wadcutters in 44 or 45?"

I didn't "take" a deer with one as in hunting but as a LEO in NE Oregon But a SO friend dispatched a doe mule deer with a broken leg with a .44 WC load of mine once. The WC was made by putting a Lyman GC into the front driving bad of 429421 mould. This makes a nice GC'd WC and the normal flat base base of the bullet becomes the WC nose. Alloy was probably WWs. I'm working from memory on this load as I lost a lot of my old data some years back. I'm pretty sure the powder was Unique because the velocity was right at 1000 fps out his 4" M29. The doe (she probably was around 150 lbs) was still somewhat agile and we couldn't get closer than 25-30 yards. He wanted to use the WC load as we figured it wouldn't exit...we were wrong. He shot her broadside in the shoulder about centered. The bullet pretty much exited out the offside shoulder in the same spot. Nice clean wound channel all the way through. I recall making comment at the time that the wound channel was very similar to that of the regular 429241 at 1050 fps (.44 Special in converted M28 S&W) in a couple deer I'd shot.

I've also dispatched several deer with a Lyman 150-160 gr GC'd WC (forget the number as the 4 cavity mould belonged to the PD I worked for). It made very nice WCs and I cast them hard and drove them at 1400+ fps out of a RBH with 6 1/2" barrel. Most of those shots were head/neck so not much to report there except the deer died very quickly of course. I did thump several rock chucks with them and my impression was they did a lot more damage than the SWC.

Larry Gibson

[crabo]

Here's Veral's take on the discussion

http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php/topic,153557.msg0.html#new

[44man]

Holy smokes, Lloyd mirrors my experience exactly for a change! :drinks: Of course we almost always agree anyway! :-D
He still gets me out of breath by not breaking into paragraphs. :bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2:

[38-55]

Hey Guys,
Instead of always discussing anecdotal info why not go to the 'rocket' science of wound ballistics ?
http://pw2.netcom.com/~dmacp/index.html
Stay safe
Calvin

[GLynn41]

.44man maybe you are holding your breath- breath breath

[crabo]

I cut and pasted all of Bass and 44man's posts and put them in a single document. I got the high lighter out and studied the posts. It makes for some pretty good reading.

[Bret4207]

Wow, a lot of argument over minutiae. I'll ad my 2 cents- I think Veral has the dynamics of bullet action pretty well down in his book. The shock wave in the fluid does as much damage as the bullet or boolit itself, maybe more with more FPS. I don't think Verals/ B+Ms designs (that's where he got the idea for the WFN, I don't care what he says) work any better than the SWC or TCFN. I don't think Elmers claim that the SWC shoulder cuts flesh is accurate, but it does cut bone that I know. Beyond that you can take an LBT, Keith, RD, SWC, FN, WC, TC, WFN, OFN, etc, etc and with good shot placement cleanly harvest game. The rest is just a pissing contest. Brian Pearce is as right as any of the rest of us.

[fatnhappy]

Geez, you'd think they were wearing kevlar. Stick any of the above in the slats and follow the blood 50 yards.

A better case for an argument might be clip or drop point knife.

[runfiverun]

i like the drop point actually for all around work. and skinning.
the tanto is pretty good for cleaning.

seriously though i shot a wounded[by car] deer with my 30 carbine revolver and a rnfp boolit
with the outrageous weight of 98 grains and the outstanding velocity of 900 fps.
when we cleaned her out i was impressed with the damage that little boolit had caused
to the internals, there was 3" of damage through the lungs and a quarter sized exit hole.
fluid dynamics at work here? definately.
there was bruising at the entrance and exit wounds.
and a very dead deer after it went 20 yds.

this just confirms what i have learned about using cast for hunting.
shot placement, and pass through ,are more important then boolit weight .
did the flat point of this boolit help? i believe it did. based on the "autopsy".
the entrance wound didn't bleed a drop, had this boolit stopped inside the animal it easily could have escaped into the brush to die.
after hollow pointing and shooting my 45 colt at different velocities and with different types of hollw points, i'll take the flat point with it's CONSISTENT results.

[GLynn41]

wow in importance this ranks up there with the bail out--not only that we are repeating ourselves-- a little :) i am going to have a mold HPd ----will it kill yup -- but it would kill before
yup -- so why -- --looks good --- i can-- it is a Keith type btw--will it be as Consistent---maybe not --will it be fun yup--it seems that deer are not only 10' tall and bullet resisitant -- they have learned which bullets they can ignore -- I am joking of course-- this is a very learn ed thread we have read

[StrikerHayes]

Just thought I would pipe in. I didn't see anyone mention the reason Keith designed the bullets the way did and that is simply to help misaligned cylinder throats with the barrel.

In that fact alone these bullets have a tremendous advantage over the LBT. I shoot both. I like both, but if you ever have trouble with an LBT style bullet shooting well , it may very well be you have slightly off centered lock up/alignment. Just recover some bullets and you can easily see if you bullet is hitting on one side. The true Keith bullet ( not semi-wadcutters) will align itself without deforming one side, the nice thing about that driving band.

Whether it cuts a full caliber hole or not I think is a not worth fighting over. As a bullet slows it will no doubtly start to cut on the driving band, but in reality velocity is what
will determine tissue damage and not the meplat. I've done a great deal of testing
with black powder using 45 Colt balloon head cases and 300 WFN's. I can achieve 975-1000fps with 40 gr of Swiss 3fg, a real boomer. However on a pig hunt, it took 4 solid lung shots to drop a 200 pound sow. But out of my Ruger with the same bullet at 1300 fps, the damage is extensive and immediate. But so is a 315 Keith at 1300 - 1400 fps.

Even Veral Smith will admit you need to shoot over 1400 fps to get his style of bullets to stabilize properly. And they will. A 265 WFN at 1800 from my Marlin will
drop those stubby's right into an 8" plate at 200 yards all day. But not from a Ruger Blawkhawk at 1200, they go everywhere. That same Blawkhawk will with a Keith bullet.

I like them both and use them both, but the reality is Keith did not design the bullet
to cut full caliber holes in either game or paper.

By the way Brian Pearce is as honest as they come and cut from the no nonsense
cloth Keith was. You all need to give him the respect he deserves.

Adios


:Fire:

[Cayoot]

By the way Brian Pearce is ... cut from the no nonsense cloth Keith was. You all need to give him the respect he deserves.:Fire:

That's a pretty tall statement Buddy. I don't mean to impune your knowldge, nor Mr. Pearces' character, but by your making that statement, I get the strong impression that you have never read the story of Elmers' life.

I personally don't believe that any one in our generation was cut from the same cloth as our fore-fathers who grew up in the early to mid 1900's.

They are not refered to as "The Greatest Generation" lightly.

My respect for my Grandfather, Elmer Keith, and all the other men and women of that generation is far too deep to allow me to sit by and let your statement go unchallenged.

[35remington]

Striker, your claim for Keith bullets aiding in cylinder/barrel alignment in revolvers doesn't necessarily hold water. .

It's true the front band can rest centered in the cylinder throats when the round is chambered and this was a design feature, but the front band doesn't necessarily align square with the barrel after coming out of a misaligned cylinder.

A wide front band does engage the rifling and helps the bullet turn rather than try to ride straight ahead, but this is a characteristic that addresses the momentum of the heavy bullet, not poor cylinder alignment. Poor cylinder/barrel alignment will hurt Keith accuracy severely. As it will any bullet. It is claimed that the LBT designs have considerable surface out of the case and also have positive cylinder throat alignment.

Interestingly, I've heard the inverse being claimed - a bullet with a rounded ogive and no shoulder will align more positively in the misaligned cylinder/barrel because there's no prominent, sharp square shoulder to catch and snag - the smoother shape, it was claimed, guided into the forcing cone like water through a funnel. This makes as much or more sense than the "SWC shoulder centering theory" as the smooth surface of the rounded ogive bullet would appear to be more conducive to being guided by the forcing cone even if off center, but I ain't having any of it.

All I know for sure is that poor cylinder/barrel alignment makes accuracy suck, and a Keith ain't a cure.

[Gohon]

I personally don't believe that any one in our generation was cut from the same cloth as our fore-fathers who grew up in the early to mid 1900's.

Every generation makes that statement about their parents generation. Keith probable swore the same thing about his fathers generation. I suspect also that Keith would shake his head and have a hardy laugh if he heard some of the things he is credited with doing. I certainly wouldn't want to tell those kids patrolling the streets of Baghdad that they are not from the same cloth as those that landed on Normandy. I think we have a lot of people cut from the same cloth as Keith and most likely Keith would be the first to admire their knowledge and accomplishments.

[Cayoot]

Every generation makes that statement about their parents generation.

You may be right Gohon, but more likely the truth in your response is based on the fact that each generation has had their lives made a bit easier by the generation preceding it. From the big stuff like discovering the new world, conquering the wild west, invading Normandy etc, to the small stuff, like not having to hunt for each meal, not having to cut and chop fire wood to stay warm and cook (just a bit harder than turning up the thermostate and turning on the microwave eh?), to haveing modern communications and medicine.

"The metal of a man is purified only in fire" they say.

Well, the fires burn pretty low these days, modern day-to-day life is very easy when compared to life only 50 or 60 years ago. Now we don't even have to get out of our easy chairs to change the channel!

[Heavy lead]

Read this thread again. Interesting, I like all boolits, they are all cool. Basically all of us our wimps, the whole lot of us for the last 2000 years plus. Imagine the struggles of the neandrathal, using spears to kill mastadons. As for Brian Pearce, I don't know him, or obviously Elmer, so I only can give them the benefit of doubt as far as character, but I do know I like to read both of their stuff, and enjoy Brian as much as any other modern writer and much more than most.

[Cayoot]

I agree, I really enjoy Brian's writings. :-)

[loosecannon]

Ross Seyfried did a test years ago for G&A mag that compared the effect of the WFN to the Keith bullets in balistic gelatin that was mixed with some sand. The purpose was to shine the part of the bullets that were moving the gelatin aside without changing the gelatin's reactive characteristics significantly. They determined
(right, wrong, or indifferent), that the shoulder of the Keith was not doing this, but rather that the widest part of its nose was. Because of this, and the penetrating qualities of the WFN, they thought that the WFN was a superior projectile. This is not shooting critters, but was at least somewhat scientific. I like to design WFNs about twice their caliber in length, based on the tests and work of other shooters much wiser than I. But I dont necessarily expect them to be superior to Keiths.

[cajun shooter]

Growing up in the 60's I would read every thing I could about guns. Using that word "GUN" got me in trouble in 1965 with a very p-off drill sergeant. I had the honor of meeting Elmer Keith at a huge gun show in Baton Rouge,La. After shaking his hand I was so star struck that I forgot everything I wanted to say. This man along with others such as Lee Jurus and others are the reason that we have something different to shoot. When I first started, if you bought a box of 38 spl at the store the salesman would hand you a box with the 158 RN. That was it, if you told them you wanted something different they would hand you a box of 200gr RN. It's nice to have all the choices we have. Even so many that we can have a forum about which is best.

[Boomer Mikey]

The steel critters I hunt at the silhouette range don't care what style boolit I use as long as I hit them hard enough.

I like the Keith's for anything in 357, 44, and 45 caliber at close range... 100 yards or less. No messing with gas checks and forgiving in the casting, loading and load development departments at reasonable pressures.

For me... the long range attributes of the LFN & WFN designs 45 2.1 created for us with Keith features (large meplate, deep square lube groove, and 3 driving bands) are absolutely the best boolits available. The 640 series molds with their large meplate and round nose radius feed better, fly better, and hit harder. Gas check versions let us extend pistol cartridge power levels to rifle level ballistics providing amazing versatility.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8982&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1223070106http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5778&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1199004405http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5184&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1193770005
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7785&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1213425278

The Keith designs are excellent; however, I like the LFN/WFN designs with Keith design features best.

BTW... the first picture is the 413640 225 grain 41 Magnum bullet.

Boomer :Fire:

[pls1911]

Lots of good commentary here, but the bottom line is that the critter won't care... .44 or .45 big bullet fast or slow, placed properly will drop 'em in their tracks. Period.
I've shot .357's .41s, .44s and .45s, heavy or light, fast or slow.

Give me a something easy on the body, and fun to shoot well.... say, a Blackhawk in 45 colt with a ww or softer 255 RNFP with 9-10 gr. unique at 900-ish fps, and you have a slap-dead critter, whatever you're pointing at. Life is that easy.
Boom plop. Done with fancy, it just works. I love it.

[curioushooter]

The edge of a semi wadcutter is useless for anything but paper.

You want to see some SWCs I've recovered from being caught in sand? The shoulder is still there, and after passing through 1/2" of plywood, too. I'd love to show some from gel, but I've never recovered a solid 44 bullet of any weight or velocity I've tested...even SAMMI spec 44 special loads put a solid through 28" of gel block every time!

My gel testing has consistently demosntrated that at normal handgun impact velocites (<1400 FPS) solid bullets regardless of shape basically make a caliber sized hole in gel.

Flat nosed bullets seem to make a more impressive "temporary cavity" or impact zone, but nothing like a hollopoint does.

I think the difference between meplat size or RNFP vs SWC of the same caliber is almost immaterial inside practical parameters of, under 100 yards, under 1400 FPS MV, and made of lead-alloy solid construction. I like both and really I've not noticed that SWCs make a substantially nicer hole in paper. What matters more is what the paper target is backed with. I do think that for whatever reason SWCs seem to be more forgiving in the accuracy department. I've never had an Keith style SWC that isn't at least reasonably accurate (and I've done 38s and 44s). Then again Keith always specified standard or slightly heavy-for-caliber weights for his bullets and I think that has a lot to do with accuracy in revolvers.

[curioushooter]

Blackhawk in 45 colt with a ww or softer 255 RNFP with 9-10 gr. unique at 900-ish fps, and you have a slap-dead critter,

This is true...~900 FPS at IMPACT and you have a dead critter with a big bore solid standard weight for caliber bullet like you describe. Under 50 yards there is little difference I think. But if you are serious about handgun hunting you are at least practicing 100 yard shots and taking 50-75 yard shots. If you start out that leisurely of a pace the bullet is going at very unimpressive velocities at range and often drops a surprising amount quite abruptly making ranging and elevation compensation very difficult. There is a reason why Keith and others that were interested in long range handgunning liked to push things up to 1200 FPS or greater even though they definitely undrestood that such velocity didn't contribute much towards terminal efficacy.

I like MVs to be at least ~1050 FPS so that at 100 yards I am not aiming a foot above the deer and I have confidence it will push on through to the other side. I am just not good enough to go beyond that with iron sights, so I feel like 1200 FPS is a bit overkill. 1200 FPS will keep a Keith SWC, for example, nearly flat to 75 yards with about a half foot of drop at 100. It really starts to slide after that. Starting a 900 is flat to about 60 yards and then is almost a foot of drop at 100.