Truncated Cone, Why?

[Nora]

As far as a boolit shape I've always fond the truncated cone to be rather odd looking. I'm not knocking it mind you I've got a Makarov that prefers them to a RN. But what advantage was the design to have over any other style?

[stubshaft]

It moves the center of gravity and the center of pressure farther to the front of the boolit. It also creates a flat meplat which would displace water/tissue more readily than a round nose.

[Bass Ackward]

The truncated cone has the advantage of being just like a semi wadcutter in that it removes (unsupported) nose weight on the front half of the bullet maximizing bearing length with equal weight bullets.

The advantage that it has over a semiwadcutter is that there is lead in front of the band to support the front band from colapsing and flowing forward upon impact with the forcing cone. Theoretically the band (bullet) can be softer or not need as wide of a front band as a semiwadcutter of the same weight to perform. In comparrison, the strongest design to resist impact is of coarse the olgival, but it is difficult to get the bearing length to hold the nose center in the bore with lighter weights. Which is why you will read Veral of LBT telling you that his designs work best in the heavier weights and driven to the highest velocities. (harder to stabilize)

Those two types of designs provide for the longest bearing areas per weight of any other design at the expense of case capacity up to some weight cut off point in each bore diameter. The longer bearing area can also help with case neck tension too if the reloader is running lower powered loads. So the advantage for trunes is with lighter to mid range weights. And in handguns with slight misalignment that would otherwise affect a semiwadcutter.

[dale2242]

They feed well in autos.----dale

[dragonrider]

When used in speeloader for revolvers they drop in slicker than anything else. IME

[44man]

All kinds of theories! Drive length, weight forward, weight rearward, and on and on. I don't believe in any of it.
What counts is alignment in the forcing cone and reduction of boolit damage before it enters the bore.
When you search for pure accuracy from revolvers like I do, you soon find what works and in no case at any time do I get the accuracy I demand with a Keith.
Here is a picture of a 265 gr RD, .44, next to a 245 gr Keith. Drive bands and length are only .010" different between the two but there will be a little engraving on the back of the ogive of the RD, so it adds a little to the drive area. Both use the exact same powder charge for best accuracy, yet the RD has shot 1/4" at 50 and holds 1" to 1-1/4" at 100. The Keith is lucky to get 2" to 3" at 50.
Let's move to the .475 boolits. Here is a 325 gr truncated cone next to a 375 gr Keith HP, notice the vast difference in drive length.
Then there are two 400 gr boolits, an LBT and a Keith.
In both cases, the truncated cone will poke one ragged hole at 50 yet the Keith is still lucky to shoot 2".
So we run the range of short, long, HP, solid, light and heavy, yet the truncated cone always shoots best.
You can beat yourself up thinking up theories and how much weight you need front to rear or how much drive band length is needed and you will get nowhere because it just means nothing. Match the boolit length and velocity for each length to the twist and you will find the truncated cone is the best boolit shape ever designed and it does not matter if it is a WLN, WFN, Lee or LBT.

[Willbird]

In the cases of molds made with cherries it is probably easier to grind a cherry than many other nose designs, and it does feed well in semi-auto's.

Bill

[Jumptrap]

All kinds of theories! Drive length, weight forward, weight rearward, and on and on. I don't believe in any of it.
What counts is alignment in the forcing cone and reduction of boolit damage before it enters the bore.
When you search for pure accuracy from revolvers like I do, you soon find what works and in no case at any time do I get the accuracy I demand with a Keith.
Here is a picture of a 265 gr RD, .44, next to a 245 gr Keith. Drive bands and length are only .010" different between the two but there will be a little engraving on the back of the ogive of the RD, so it adds a little to the drive area. Both use the exact same powder charge for best accuracy, yet the RD has shot 1/4" at 50 and holds 1" to 1-1/4" at 100. The Keith is lucky to get 2" to 3" at 50.
Let's move to the .475 boolits. Here is a 325 gr truncated cone next to a 375 gr Keith HP, notice the vast difference in drive length.
Then there are two 400 gr boolits, an LBT and a Keith.
In both cases, the truncated cone will poke one ragged hole at 50 yet the Keith is still lucky to shoot 2".
So we run the range of short, long, HP, solid, light and heavy, yet the truncated cone always shoots best.
You can beat yourself up thinking up theories and how much weight you need front to rear or how much drive band length is needed and you will get nowhere because it just means nothing. Match the boolit length and velocity for each length to the twist and you will find the truncated cone is the best boolit shape ever designed and it does not matter if it is a WLN, WFN, Lee or LBT.

Ah! Well done Grasshoppa!

I have said it over and over......EMPIRICAL evidence.....seeing/experiencing what works and accepting the results, regardless of theories, is ALL THAT MATTERS!

[Blammer]

hmm, speed loaders, hadn't thought of that! I may need to get one!

[Recluse]

hmm, speed loaders, hadn't thought of that! I may need to get one!

Same here. I have all these RN moulds for my speedloaders and never thought of TC boolits.

Damned if you don't learn something new. . .

--44Man, VERY well said and thanks for the info and comparisons.

:coffee:

[Shiloh]

They feed well in autos.----dale

+1

They are accurate for me as well

[Bass Ackward]

All kinds of theories! You can beat yourself up thinking up theories and how much weight you need front to rear or how much drive band length is needed and you will get nowhere because it just means nothing. Match the boolit length and velocity for each length to the twist and you will find the truncated cone is the best boolit shape ever designed and it does not matter if it is a WLN, WFN, Lee or LBT.


Great job!!! Except for one small detail. Your theory has one slight hole in it.

Not a single design that you show in the photos is a true truncated cone design. Those are all Secants which is a hybrid truncated cone and olgival design. :grin:

[Down South]

The truncated cone will poke one ragged hole at 50 yet the Keith is still lucky to shoot 2".
From my shooting experience with the Keith style and the Truncated Cone, so far the Truncated cone is more accurate than the Keith.
I like a boolit that with its diameter just past the ogive that will be started into the throats. This helps with alignment. Actually the boolit will be aligned perfectly with the throat and barrel like this. If I could get the front driving band of a Keith into the throat without the nose of the boolit sticking past the end of the cylinder then I think accuracy would improve.
If the boolit isn’t resting into the throat then it is laying in the chamber. A boolit then has to align itself with the cylinder throat when fired.

For instance, the 358429 (Keith Style) front driving band almost reaches the throat entrance of my GP-100 throats. I can chamber a 358429 and still wiggle the nose of the boolit just a little bit while holding the boolit all the way in the chamber with my thumb.
I was on the GB for the 44-444. The 44-444 is a secant ogive. The boolits are sized to the chamber dimensions of my 629 which has been reamed to .430". When I chamber one the same way as my GP-100 the boolit doesn’t have any wiggle to it. Part of the boolit past the ogive is resting in the throat, thus the boolit is perfectly aligned with the throat and barrel. I have experienced superb accuracy with this boolit although I’ve just started testing it and working up loads. Another thing, I’ve experienced zero leading, I mean zero with this boolit with the couple different loads I’ve tried so far.

If any of this makes sense. Just my .02 worth.

[MtGun44]

Feeding in semiautos and meplat for better tissue cutting than RN.

Bill

[leadman]

I have the Saeco 220gr TC GC for the 41 mag. Very accurate bullet. Don't know how it would perform on elk with the small meplat.
I have also found the TC design is a very easy on to cast good bullets with.

[44man]

Great job!!! Except for one small detail. Your theory has one slight hole in it.

Not a single design that you show in the photos is a true truncated cone design. Those are all Secants which is a hybrid truncated cone and olgival design. :grin:
Does not matter like I said, get rid of the nose that is too small for the bore and the shoulder, then the boolit will follow the forcing cone into the bore.
I have every kind of nose you can think of on my molds yet the Keith is the only style that gives me trouble.
With the few thousandths play in a cylinder, the boolit will turn the cylinder to align. Something the little shoulder on a Keith can't do, it just mashes on one side.
I do not believe in a dead solid cylinder lockup, they give me the most problems with accuracy and have to be dead on perfect to the bore. One out of 100 might be right but the rest are to show friends how tight the gun locks up! [smilie=1:
When I cut a cherry, I pre-cut the nose and use a file until I like the shape. I could care less what the shape is called, they all shoot and nobody has shown accuracy like I get from so many different revolvers and boolits on any site.
You can't pick apart
results.
My 330 gr .44 boolit has a true truncated cone cut as close to the forcing cone angle that I could get it. You seen the group at 200 yards that measured 1-5/16".
Yeah, some believe in making a boolit soft so it mashes all out of shape, then reforms to the bore and I have to ask why the guy was so picky to buy a certain mold and boolit design? Why worry about grease groove shape? What difference does a nose shape make when it slumps?
Here is a recovered Lyman boolit from my .45 I found on the ground after going through a pile of steel belted tires. Other then the rubber on it, do you notice anything strange??? [smilie=1:
It still looks like the boolit I cast! Even the GC is still on.
This boolit has done 1" at 75 yards from my Vaquero and will go through a 16" tree and 5 deer! :roll:
Bass, you have NEVER proven me wrong yet. :kidding:

[44man]

Picture didn't take, try again. My mouse double clicks on me.

[44man]

That Lyman is the boolit that does this at 50 yards Bass. I have dropped deer in their tracks at 100 yards and my last deer with it was 76 yards, all off hand. Many have fallen to it.
No, it is NOT a truncated cone but it is also not a Keith. I have a good slingshot for a Keith though.
By the way, that is 5 shots!

[45 2.1]

Picture didn't take, try again. My mouse double clicks on me.


You cast a real good duplication of a FMJ........................

[44man]

You cast a real good duplication of a FMJ........................
True, that is what it takes in a revolver. But a ductile boolit also shoots as long as it is tough enough.
I shoot a wide range of alloys and as long as they resist deformation, they are good to go.
It is amazing how far you can go and still get accuracy but air cooled or dead soft alloys are out if you want to hit anything.
Even an under size boolit that is started straight and does not deform will shoot as long as it is groove to groove size or a little over. It is better if it fits the throats but is not as critical as some think.

[45 2.1]

True, that is what it takes in a revolver. But a ductile boolit also shoots as long as it is tough enough.
I shoot a wide range of alloys and as long as they resist deformation, they are good to go.
It is amazing how far you can go and still get accuracy but air cooled or dead soft alloys are out if you want to hit anything.
Even an under size boolit that is started straight and does not deform will shoot as long as it is groove to groove size or a little over. It is better if it fits the throats but is not as critical as some think.

Some of the above is true and some isn't. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which. When you put enough time into that, you'll learn which is which.

[felix]

Well, both of you are correct when you consider the boolit is a baseball hit by the Babe, A-Rod, or whomever with tremendous power. Imagine the surprise of the guy in the stands catching one of those curving line-drive home runs and seeing the cavity as marked by the bat. If that were the situation, the ball was not tough enough to resist the equivalent, the rifling. You never want permanent deformation on any projectile during any stage of the flight, start to finish. What happens at the finish line is immaterial to this discussion. ... felix

[2shot]

44man

Interesting theories that I have believed to be true but have never done the research to prove them. In a way it explains the reason that the Lyman 429383 is a very accurate bullet for target shooting in the .44 cal guns.

I too believe in what you have stated. [smilie=w:

2shot

[Jumptrap]

One theory I have never bought into is; nose slumping.

Has anybody ever seen a slumped nose? NO!

Folks spend great amounts of time postulating how a bullet nose slumps and that is the reason their groups went to hell.

Great theory, but I'm not buying into it.

As long as the bullet shank constitutes 2/3's of the bullet's length and is supported by the barrel, the nose isn't going to 'slump' anywhere.

If you can take a picture of a bullet nose slumping in flight, please send a copy to me. I truly want to see it.

If the theorist wants to describe how the centrifugal forces more or less sling that long floppy nose off to the side........have the centrifugal forces been measured to see what they are in relationship to the bullet?

No.

If the postulator thinks an unsupported (slumped) nose is the consiprator of e-vil......please explain why extremely long ogived, boat tailed jacketed bullets (like a Sierra Matchking) that usually exhibit no more than one caliber of bore contact........shoot the way they do? Come on......don't lay down and hand all the laurels to the bullets jacket.....that won't hold water. The centrifugal forces at work are plenty high enough to make a pretzel of a jacketed bullet as well.....unless it is stabilized.......and of course, that is what those high rpm's do....stabilize the bullet.

Therefore, the slumped nose theory won't hold water because the same centrifugal forces applied to the streamlined jacketed rifle bullet are applied to the cast bullet.......only more so, as jacketed velocities are generally twice what is applied to a cast bullet.....especially if we are talking a pistola projectile. We won't even bother tossing pressures into the discussion.

I'm no physicist.....but I do know that an object tends to revolve around the center of it's mass.....in other words, it is self centering.....perhaps one of Newton's laws are applicable.

Sorry, slumping noses, I don't buy

What I MIGHT buy into, is bullet deformation caused by the leap from the cylinder and into the forcing cone and that deformation causing problems. I have seen bullets with forked up noses shoot pretty good out of rifle barrels.....evidently the nose itself isn't that great a player in stability.......poor drag coefficients, yes, stability, no.

Obviously something is at work causing the Keith bullet to not perform as well as the LBT and other similar designs. I don't think the nose is the culprit.

Shoot the Keith bullets from a rifle or a Contender at the same speeds and see how they group......this eliminates the cylinder/forcing cone transition....that would isolate that contributor. If the groups tighten up.....I'd say that mighty leap is the problem.

I freely admit that some bullet designs are more accurate than others, that's a no brainer. I don't go along with 'slumping noses' however.

[felix]

I agree, Mark. Even if the nose slumps, and it is possible without doubt, it appears the likes of the Match Kings are tough enough to bounce back. That is the major trick to this stuff. ... felix

[giz189]

All kinds of theories! Drive length, weight forward, weight rearward, and on and on. I don't believe in any of it.
What counts is alignment in the forcing cone and reduction of boolit damage before it enters the bore.
When you search for pure accuracy from revolvers like I do, you soon find what works and in no case at any time do I get the accuracy I demand with a Keith.
Here is a picture of a 265 gr RD, .44, next to a 245 gr Keith. Drive bands and length are only .010" different between the two but there will be a little engraving on the back of the ogive of the RD, so it adds a little to the drive area. Both use the exact same powder charge for best accuracy, yet the RD has shot 1/4" at 50 and holds 1" to 1-1/4" at 100. The Keith is lucky to get 2" to 3" at 50.
Let's move to the .475 boolits. Here is a 325 gr truncated cone next to a 375 gr Keith HP, notice the vast difference in drive length.
Then there are two 400 gr boolits, an LBT and a Keith.
In both cases, the truncated cone will poke one ragged hole at 50 yet the Keith is still lucky to shoot 2".
So we run the range of short, long, HP, solid, light and heavy, yet the truncated cone always shoots best.
You can beat yourself up thinking up theories and how much weight you need front to rear or how much drive band length is needed and you will get nowhere because it just means nothing. Match the boolit length and velocity for each length to the twist and you will find the truncated cone is the best boolit shape ever designed and it does not matter if it is a WLN, WFN, Lee or LBT.Hey 44 man, is this true of all revolvers or just in yours?

[44man]

One theory I have never bought into is; nose slumping.

Has anybody ever seen a slumped nose? NO!

Folks spend great amounts of time postulating how a bullet nose slumps and that is the reason their groups went to hell.

Great theory, but I'm not buying into it.

As long as the bullet shank constitutes 2/3's of the bullet's length and is supported by the barrel, the nose isn't going to 'slump' anywhere.

If you can take a picture of a bullet nose slumping in flight, please send a copy to me. I truly want to see it.

If the theorist wants to describe how the centrifugal forces more or less sling that long floppy nose off to the side........have the centrifugal forces been measured to see what they are in relationship to the bullet?

No.

If the postulator thinks an unsupported (slumped) nose is the consiprator of e-vil......please explain why extremely long ogived, boat tailed jacketed bullets (like a Sierra Matchking) that usually exhibit no more than one caliber of bore contact........shoot the way they do? Come on......don't lay down and hand all the laurels to the bullets jacket.....that won't hold water. The centrifugal forces at work are plenty high enough to make a pretzel of a jacketed bullet as well.....unless it is stabilized.......and of course, that is what those high rpm's do....stabilize the bullet.

Therefore, the slumped nose theory won't hold water because the same centrifugal forces applied to the streamlined jacketed rifle bullet are applied to the cast bullet.......only more so, as jacketed velocities are generally twice what is applied to a cast bullet.....especially if we are talking a pistola projectile. We won't even bother tossing pressures into the discussion.

I'm no physicist.....but I do know that an object tends to revolve around the center of it's mass.....in other words, it is self centering.....perhaps one of Newton's laws are applicable.

Sorry, slumping noses, I don't buy

What I MIGHT buy into, is bullet deformation caused by the leap from the cylinder and into the forcing cone and that deformation causing problems. I have seen bullets with forked up noses shoot pretty good out of rifle barrels.....evidently the nose itself isn't that great a player in stability.......poor drag coefficients, yes, stability, no.

Obviously something is at work causing the Keith bullet to not perform as well as the LBT and other similar designs. I don't think the nose is the culprit.

Shoot the Keith bullets from a rifle or a Contender at the same speeds and see how they group......this eliminates the cylinder/forcing cone transition....that would isolate that contributor. If the groups tighten up.....I'd say that mighty leap is the problem.

I freely admit that some bullet designs are more accurate than others, that's a no brainer. I don't go along with 'slumping noses' however.
I have picked up many boolits on the range for the lead and I see rifling up on the nose that started out as bore rides but set back to fill the grooves. I pick up boolits with rifling on one side of the nose and not the other side because it slumped off center.
Bullet noses do not slump in flight and I never said that!
You are confusing damage from the case to the throats, to the forcing cone and into the barrel with boolit rotation and damage in flight which does not occur by the way.
But go to the BPCR sites and see the complaints about the Lee 459-500-3R boolit and nose slump. Many recovered boolits show setback and most is off center. So it does occur in rifles too.
But please keep jacketed boolits and rifles out of a revolver discussion.

[44man]

Hey 44 man, is this true of all revolvers or just in yours?
True in all revolvers. All of my hunting and shooting friends use nothing but my boolits and loads even when they load for themselves at home. Scares me when they come to cast! :mrgreen: I worry about the lead supply but many bring lead and WW's so it evens out.
If you think you can convince a single one of them to change, better get them so drunk they can't hear you! [smilie=w:
Now there are some revolvers that will never shoot no matter what you do and some are super expensive and some are even more expensive custom guns but a good quality custom revolver like a Jack Huntington or such WILL shoot but I can't prove they are any better then a good Ruger, S&W or BFR.
Once a gun is OK, you can make it shoot. Spending $4000 on one will not make it shoot better, it only makes it pretty.
Sadly, any factory can let a bad one out now and then. Neither I nor anyone else here can make a bad gun shoot.
Bass talks about running 2000 rounds through a gun but I want to take a new gun out of the box, stuff my loads in it and knock over a deer at 100 with no more shots then it takes to sight the gun.
If it will not shoot, I sell it, I don't have time or money to fool with the thing for years.
Guns are like Ford cars. One can run for 100 years and the next goes 10 miles and quits.
However, what some do not understand is that you can have the best, most accurate gun off the line and your loading practices will turn it into another pile of metal not worth the money you paid for it. When you start to think for yourself and correct the wrong things you do, the gun can get so accurate it is boring.
When some friends come to shoot, I have a hard time deciding which gun to take down. I know what they do and do not need to keep shooting them, so, many times I do not take one of mine down to the range. Practice for hunting is different and we do a lot of that.
Once a gun shoots so accurate that you can not shoot better then it can, practical shooting practice is what you want to do. Improve yourself.
You never get better with a gun that just makes noise. :violin:

[remy3424]

Great thread, I love all the wheels turning and everyones experiences!!! Great shooting 44man!!! Gives a guy something to think about...like I needed more..

[Patrick L]

All great reading, lots of interesting info.

Back to the original question of Why? I believe Hornady developed TCs in response to the need for greater stopping power in FMJ applications, like military use where softnose/HPs are forbidden. Didn't Hornady used to refer to them as the "Air Force" design?

Then again, this all come from my memory, which is a pretty twisted mess!

[44man]

All great reading, lots of interesting info.

Back to the original question of Why? I believe Hornady developed TCs in response to the need for greater stopping power in FMJ applications, like military use where softnose/HPs are forbidden. Didn't Hornady used to refer to them as the "Air Force" design?

Then again, this all come from my memory, which is a pretty twisted mess!
I have no idea but notice the nose shape on all jacketed revolver bullets. I don't see a single Keith shaped one.
The XTP has proven the most accurate bullet I have ever used, why not duplicate it in lead?

[MakeMineA10mm]

It moves the center of gravity and the center of pressure farther to the front of the boolit. It also creates a flat meplat which would displace water/tissue more readily than a round nose.


They feed well in autos.----dale


Feeding in semiautos and meplat for better tissue cutting than RN.

Bill


All great reading, lots of interesting info.

Back to the original question of Why? I believe Hornady developed TCs in response to the need for greater stopping power in FMJ applications, like military use where softnose/HPs are forbidden. Didn't Hornady used to refer to them as the "Air Force" design?

Then again, this all come from my memory, which is a pretty twisted mess!

These guys all got it right. The Truncated Cone (TC) was designed by Hornady in the late 70s for the USAF, because non-expanding bullets were required by the "laws of war" (various treaties and agreements and the JAG's interpretation of how they needed to be complied with), but the Air Force wanted something more effective like the JHPs that had been coming on the market for about 10 years at that point. Naturally, they were going to be used in 45s or 9mms (the military was considering what handgun and caliber they were going to use, even that far back), so feeding was also an issue. Hornady did some R&D and decided if you needed a non-expanding bullet, but wanted shock value and sure feeding, you needed something with a meplat (like a SWC), but with more of a rounded or angular side so it would feed in a semi-auto. Voila, the Truncated Cone is born...

The TC is INTENDED generally for autos. RNFP is a 150 year old version for a revolver/lever-action rifle. The main difference between the two is that the ogive is curved (secant or other curvature) whereas the ogive on the TC is flat/straight (after a small radius from the meplat to the ogive, so there's no sharp corner). Also, the RNFP usually (but not always) has a bigger meplat than a TC (again, because for feeding in a semi-auto, too big of a meplat hampers smooth/sure feeding).




Great job!!! Except for one small detail. Your theory has one slight hole in it.

Not a single design that you show in the photos is a true truncated cone design. Those are all Secants which is a hybrid truncated cone and olgival design. :grin:

Or, a RNFP, which has also been called a WFN, LFN, MFN, and several other monikers, all to sell us on the idea that it's something new, or to differentiate one guy's design from another's.

Generally, I think 44 Man got us side-tracked into a revolver discussion, although in fairness to him, J.D. Jones applied the TC nose shape to revolver bullets with his SSK 44 heavy and super-heavy bullet designs in the 80s, so there is SOME relevance to a revolver discussion. Personally, I think the RNFP is a better design for a revolver. (As most of 44Man's pictures are RNFPs, I presume he agrees with me...)

I've included a pic, 'cause they're worth a thousand words...
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=179&pictureid=1136

[giz189]

True in all revolvers. All of my hunting and shooting friends use nothing but my boolits and loads even when they load for themselves at home. Scares me when they come to cast! :mrgreen: I worry about the lead supply but many bring lead and WW's so it evens out.
If you think you can convince a single one of them to change, better get them so drunk they can't hear you! [smilie=w:
Now there are some revolvers that will never shoot no matter what you do and some are super expensive and some are even more expensive custom guns but a good quality custom revolver like a Jack Huntington or such WILL shoot but I can't prove they are any better then a good Ruger, S&W or BFR.
Once a gun is OK, you can make it shoot. Spending $4000 on one will not make it shoot better, it only makes it pretty.
Sadly, any factory can let a bad one out now and then. Neither I nor anyone else here can make a bad gun shoot.
Bass talks about running 2000 rounds through a gun but I want to take a new gun out of the box, stuff my loads in it and knock over a deer at 100 with no more shots then it takes to sight the gun.
If it will not shoot, I sell it, I don't have time or money to fool with the thing for years.
Guns are like Ford cars. One can run for 100 years and the next goes 10 miles and quits.
However, what some do not understand is that you can have the best, most accurate gun off the line and your loading practices will turn it into another pile of metal not worth the money you paid for it. When you start to think for yourself and correct the wrong things you do, the gun can get so accurate it is boring.
When some friends come to shoot, I have a hard time deciding which gun to take down. I know what they do and do not need to keep shooting them, so, many times I do not take one of mine down to the range. Practice for hunting is different and we do a lot of that.
Once a gun shoots so accurate that you can not shoot better then it can, practical shooting practice is what you want to do. Improve yourself.
You never get better with a gun that just makes noise. :violin: 44man, I was just reading over my question and I realized it sounded somewhat smart alecky. Actually what I was thinking when I wrote it, was if you have had your revolvers accurized, and if so, what did you do to them. :lovebooli

[felix]

I'm impressed! This is perhaps the greatest thread I have witnessed on this board: calm, cool, collected. ... felix

[44man]

44man, I was just reading over my question and I realized it sounded somewhat smart alecky. Actually what I was thinking when I wrote it, was if you have had your revolvers accurized, and if so, what did you do to them. :lovebooli
No, I do not do anything beyond a trigger job. All of my revolvers are out of the box and production only as far as the barrel and cylinder.
After so many rounds I will install over power, variable Wolfe mainsprings because springs from Ruger and BFR do take a set.
My SBH has a 24# spring, the .475 has a 25# and my 45-70 has a 26#. I get 1-1/2# to 2# triggers. Anything under 2# with them will need a longer transfer bar which I make by hand from tool steel. I do not want hang fires or a failure to fire because of a short transfer bar that drops too low on the firing pin. This is a safety item and does not aid accuracy other then having a good trigger.
Trigger springs are re-shaped stock.
Anyway, all of my work is only for the trigger.
I never make a distinction between a RNFP, TC, WLN or WFN because they all shoot. As long as the silly little shoulder is gone and the nose guides the boolit in the forcing cone I can make it shoot.
Take a Keith boolit and set it nose first in the muzzle of your gun, notice no part of the nose is in contact and you can wiggle the boolit side to side and it just sets on the little shoulder. The nose on a Keith does ZIP for guidance even once it is in the barrel. Your revolver needs to be super perfect in alignment to get them accurate. Some boolit designs still have a tiny shoulder and as the shoulder gets smaller accuracy will increase.
Now I don't know what I would call that big Lyman 452651 boolit except a RNFP but it sure does shoot and puts a hurt on deer. Lyman made one like it for the .44 and I saved up some money to buy a mold. All of a sudden it was GONE because nobody could make it shoot????? I know I could have made it work! Anyway, I have bought and made so many molds for the .44 I really didn't need it.
Now for you rifle shooters, boolits that suck in a revolver will work in a rifle and the primary thing is to match the boolit and velocity to the twist along with lube quality and quantity. You still have your work cut out for you but the revolver will always be the hardest to master.
All of you know I use a large 4 M.O.A. dot with my Ultra Dots for hunting. If I had a good, powerful scope with fine cross hairs that would take the recoil, I might scare the pants off of you with groups from a revolver! :bigsmyl2: I show groups that are only at my visions ability using the dot. I can't hunt with a scope, they are too dark. Even with my Vaquero, I have to let deer walk until it gets light enough to see the sights.
But it is such pure hunting I hate a rifle, (Been a bowhunter all my life.) just too easy. I have never been a trophy hunter although I have shot many, many bucks. I don't like the taste so I will shoot the nice doe that is with the buck. When I do shoot a buck, I give the meat away.
Now if you want to know about the steaks I made last week, just ask. ;-) YUUUUUMY!

[44man]

Nawww, I have to tell you!
I used a roast from the hind quarter, cut 1/2" steaks and used one of those needling stabbers on them although the meat is tender. Then I dumped a lot of Emeril's essence on both sides. I used southwest but Cajun is good too. Pat it on.
Make a sauce with 1/2 cup of cane syrup, 1/2 cup of red wine and simmer it down. Add some pepper when done. Next time I am going to use current jelly and wine to try.
I used the burner on my BBQ and heated a cast iron skillet until smoking, added a little olive oil and threw in the steaks. 4 to 5 minutes a side to blacken. I need to get them more done for the wife so I did 5 minutes.
Take off and let rest a little while, pour on some sauce and go to it.
The next day I made the rest of the steaks but cut them thicker and just put them on the BBQ. First chop fresh thyme and garlic, two tablespoons each and some black pepper. Rub into the meat.
Make a sauce from 1/4 cup soft butter, 1/2 cup crumbled blue cheese, 3 tablespoons of sun dried, re-hydrated tomatoes, 1 tablespoon of chopped parsley.
When the steaks are done, smear the sauce on them.
No, I will not send you any meat, it is almost gone. :kidding:
OH, don't cook this sauce, just cream it together with a spoon.

[leftiye]

FWIW, the original bullet design for the 9mm Parabellum (Luger) was a truncated cone. Slightly antedates the 1970's trials. Yup, they knew way back then that a flat nose provides greater shock, tissue damage (killing effect). Dern! He's a cook too! I use an acetlyene torch myself.

[9.3X62AL]

One fine thread here.

I have no objection to in-thread free-lancing side-jaunts, esp. when they contain the quality information and informed, experiential opinion like that herein.

I use a variety of boolit designs in my wheelguns and stutter-pistols. The Lee-type truncated cone has been VERY reliable-feeding in a wide range of self-loaders for me, and has done well at stopping small game and varmints. No complaints whatsoever. Round flatnose designs have been working well for close to 150 years. No beef there, either.

People can get a mite worked up when discussing the semi-wadcutter or Keith-type designs. I've used Thompson GC SWCs for quite a few years, and more recently started with the Keiths. These have shot well for me, and perhaps my skill level or platform characteristics are in play here--but I don't see these SWCs as being any less accurate than the RFN or TC types. I will also cop to NOT knowing (or caring) whether the Keith/Thompson sharp shoulder does any more or less damage than the boolit's meplat. They do cut cleaner holes in target paper, but whether that translates to some advantage in corporal tissue is an argument that makes my eyes glaze over. Dead is dead, and placement is key. Magic bullets belong in Harry Potter films.

[geargnasher]

The experiences posted here on this thread have helped explain a lot to me about why I've never been able to get a swc to shoot as well as RFNs in my wheelguns. I can shoot SWCs in leverguns just fine, sometimes even better grouping than with the wide meplat "Cowboy" boolits, but usually about the same accuracy-wise. I've shot the LEE 150-gr swc plain base in a variety of .38 and .357mag pistols and carbines, they all shoot "ok" in the pistols but never impressed me like the 358665.

I'll have to start experimenting with the truncated cone struff now, may be the hot ticket!

Nora: Thanks for unwittingly taking us all on a tangent joyride!!!!!!!

[44man]

One fine thread here.

I have no objection to in-thread free-lancing side-jaunts, esp. when they contain the quality information and informed, experiential opinion like that herein.

I use a variety of boolit designs in my wheelguns and stutter-pistols. The Lee-type truncated cone has been VERY reliable-feeding in a wide range of self-loaders for me, and has done well at stopping small game and varmints. No complaints whatsoever. Round flatnose designs have been working well for close to 150 years. No beef there, either.

People can get a mite worked up when discussing the semi-wadcutter or Keith-type designs. I've used Thompson GC SWCs for quite a few years, and more recently started with the Keiths. These have shot well for me, and perhaps my skill level or platform characteristics are in play here--but I don't see these SWCs as being any less accurate than the RFN or TC types. I will also cop to NOT knowing (or caring) whether the Keith/Thompson sharp shoulder does any more or less damage than the boolit's meplat. They do cut cleaner holes in target paper, but whether that translates to some advantage in corporal tissue is an argument that makes my eyes glaze over. Dead is dead, and placement is key. Magic bullets belong in Harry Potter films.
No getting worked up at all, this is a site of great guys and discussions are civil.
About the Keith, They do shoot good enough and kill good enough for most fellas. The shoulder does nothing at all except cut holes in paper but the meplat does kill game.
But when you get nuts like me and look for the one hole group at 100 yards, you will need a better boolit. I have actually done it at 50 yards but my quest is not over.
You just need to understand that my idea of accuracy is not the same as most revolver shooters have.
I am not trying to change you from what you shoot unless you get like me, looking to shoot better then most hunting rifles, at rifle distance.
Only when you clang a steel ram at 500 meters with your revolver every shot are you allowed to have that little grin when a rifle shooter comes to see what you are shooting! In fact you are allowed a BIG smile! :Fire:
I pass on what I find just for all of you to play around with, nothing is a secret but I do not guarantee anything. If you are happy, it is just fine with me. If you think 2" at 25 yards is great, I will not try to change you but in my opinion, 2" at 100 is poor.
If you experiment with my ideas, it is OK but if you don't and dispute me, it is still OK. I lose nothing and you gain nothing. [smilie=1:

[geargnasher]

44man, I'm still trying to get 2" at 15 yards!

(with a 1-7/8" Smith Airweight) [smilie=l:

I don't hunt with handguns yet, 'cuz I'm not nearly good enough. But maybe in a few years. I still get laughed at for killing whitetail at 200+ yards with an iron-sighted Karlina. Rednecks around here don't think it's dead unless they hammer it broadside with a .300 Winchester Magnum. The laughing at me usually stops when they see the bullet hole in the side of the deer's head. I figure there's not enough meat on one in the first place to waste meat with a vague "vitals" shot. Like 9.3X62AL said, it's all about hitting your aim, and it seems that you do that with authority!

(There are other calibers than .44 Magnum, though) :kidding:

Gear

[MakeMineA10mm]

I gotta wonder how much a RNFP/WFN/TC really is better than a SWC.

I mean, 44Man makes a really good argument, backed up by experience, that the RNFP/WFN/TC are more accurate, because they guide the boolit through the throat into the bore through the shaping of their nose and some amount of bore-riding.

Keith, and the other SWC fans, make a good argument, backed up by experience, that the shoulder sticking out of the case and into the throat creates same/similar/sufficient alignment.

By my thinking, there's darn little contact area between the Keith and the throat - whatever thickness the front driving band is. (In 44s and 45s, typically right at or just under .100".) And, I'll agree 100% with 44Man that the nose on a Keith doesn't "bore-ride" and therefore gives no guidance.

HOWEVER, I also think that there may be a bigger difference between the TC/WFN/RNFP designs than 44Man asserts. If you think about it, depending on the OAL/Seating Depth, the TC has the same or less shoulder area sticking out of the case as the Keith. And, the nose section is only a bore-rider for a distance of whatever length of the nose section is engaged by the rifling, which is entirely dependent on rifling depth, and no matter what that is, it is DARN SHORT. So, for let's say "at least 90-95%" of the TC's nose, there is no guidance from it's nose either... It SHOULD shoot same as a Keith SWC.

Most, if not all, LFNs and TC's with narrower & longer profiled noses that I have seen have non-bore-riding nose sections and would be the same or WORSE than a TC or Keith SWC. RNFPs and WFNs COULD be better than all the others, IF the ogive on them is so large that it creates a bore-riding section. This would require some careful matching-up between the nose/ogive diameter and the bore diameter (land-to-land distance). So much so, our cast pistol bullet shooting would become much more like cast rifle boolit shooting, where you have to match a mould design/measurements to the particular pistol you're shooting it in, or face the task of sizing the nose section to match the bore-dia. of the particular gun you're wanting to shoot it in. That WOULD, in this case, create the potential for better accuracy, but I think it's both too much work, and against what most pistol shooters want: ammunition that works in all the guns they have chambered for that caliber.

For example, I want all of my 44 Spl. and 44 Mag. ammo to work in any of my 44 Mags. Therefore, I size to a certain diameter (that my two largest-throated revolvers need) and seat to an OAL that works in the shortest cylinder and feeds through my lever-guns. I also load my "stockpile ammo" to about 90-95% of max loads (a level that has been found safe in all of my 44s), so that I don't have to worry if I've got a "Ruger-only" load in a S&W. Yes, this IS a compromise, but it's not so bad that it won't take deer, shoot informal silhouettes, or do any other job I ask of this gun/caliber/load combination. Could I go from 2" groups down to 1.5" groups with some custom-tuning of boolits as described above? Probably - maybe even get down to 1", but would it matter/be worth it to me?

To me, no. But, it sounds like either 44Man enjoys this technically-oriented, detail-work, or the superior results thereof (and is willing to keep his ammunition straight for which gun it goes in), or he is in the comfortable position of being able to manufacture (handload) ammo to this degree AND with flexibility, because he may only have one gun he's working with, or whatever multitude of guns he's working with, all have similar bore and throat measurements.

If you think about it, this is why Keith liked his SWC. He did the same thing I do and I think most pistol handloaders do - He settled on a pet load, and that load was fed in any and all guns he had in that caliber. I think what Keith was asserting, in his own way (of: "my way is the best way, and don't question me about it"), is that if you're not wanting to customize-load for each gun in your battery, a SWC with throat-riding shoulder is the best combination of accuracy, power, and FLEXIBILITY. (Keith kind of left that implied...) I think the same thing could be done with any of the RNFP, TC, WFN designs, but if they are flexible enough to work in any gun in that caliber, they will be no better than a Keith SWC.

[44man]

44man, I'm still trying to get 2" at 15 yards!

(with a 1-7/8" Smith Airweight) [smilie=l:

I don't hunt with handguns yet, 'cuz I'm not nearly good enough. But maybe in a few years. I still get laughed at for killing whitetail at 200+ yards with an iron-sighted Karlina. Rednecks around here don't think it's dead unless they hammer it broadside with a .300 Winchester Magnum. The laughing at me usually stops when they see the bullet hole in the side of the deer's head. I figure there's not enough meat on one in the first place to waste meat with a vague "vitals" shot. Like 9.3X62AL said, it's all about hitting your aim, and it seems that you do that with authority!

(There are other calibers than .44 Magnum, though) :kidding:

Gear
I hear you. That's why I like handguns, all good meat right to the holes. I hate bloodshot meat!
We are lucky to have a lot of deer so close shots are the norm. No need for a rifle at all.
Some need a rifle depending on where they live and hunt.
I love all guns but I love to hunt with revolvers and bows more then anything. If I can't hit a deer, I don't shoot because there are more, and other days. Killing is easy, hunting is fun so I would rather hunt.

[Nora]

Ok, now that we've exhausted the Keith bashing..... I'm sure we have, have we not?

Back to the design and purpose of the TC :-D



These guys all got it right. The Truncated Cone (TC) was designed by Hornady in the late 70s for the USAF, because non-expanding bullets were required by the "laws of war" (various treaties and agreements and the JAG's interpretation of how they needed to be complied with), but the Air Force wanted something more effective like the JHPs that had been coming on the market for about 10 years at that point. Naturally, they were going to be used in 45s or 9mms (the military was considering what handgun and caliber they were going to use, even that far back), so feeding was also an issue. Hornady did some R&D and decided if you needed a non-expanding bullet, but wanted shock value and sure feeding, you needed something with a meplat (like a SWC), but with more of a rounded or angular side so it would feed in a semi-auto. Voila, the Truncated Cone is born...


As far as military use goes, if the TC has better shock value on impact with it's meplat on soft tissue, apposed to the RN TMJ used currently, why did they not go with the TC? If it feeds better, and has better "punch", that should have been a better choice. Or are we dealing more with politics than practicality?

[303Guy]

44man, perhaps it would be appropriate to supply a little eye candy? I know what what pictures of your groupings you have to offer! I would love to see them again! They are simply inspirational.:drinks:

Might I ask, can revolver 'boolit design' be applied to rifles?

[fivegunner]

You put alot of good information in your post`s thank you :Fire::castmine::-D

[44man]

44man, perhaps it would be appropriate to supply a little eye candy? I know what what pictures of your groupings you have to offer! I would love to see them again! They are simply inspirational.:drinks:

Might I ask, can revolver 'boolit design' be applied to rifles?
OK, I still have pictures.
Yeah, you can shoot them in rifles but they add nothing to the killing effect unless they expand or are hollow pointed too. It seems that once they are shot too fast, the meplat pushes tissue out of the way with the pressure wave so the boolit needs to be softer.
They will also have a higher trajectory. I don't mess with rifles much, just my BPCR, but it seems a small meplat helps stability.
Here are a few pics. In the second, the can was shot twice at 100 yards.

[44man]

I gotta wonder how much a RNFP/WFN/TC really is better than a SWC.

I mean, 44Man makes a really good argument, backed up by experience, that the RNFP/WFN/TC are more accurate, because they guide the boolit through the throat into the bore through the shaping of their nose and some amount of bore-riding.

Keith, and the other SWC fans, make a good argument, backed up by experience, that the shoulder sticking out of the case and into the throat creates same/similar/sufficient alignment.

By my thinking, there's darn little contact area between the Keith and the throat - whatever thickness the front driving band is. (In 44s and 45s, typically right at or just under .100".) And, I'll agree 100% with 44Man that the nose on a Keith doesn't "bore-ride" and therefore gives no guidance.

HOWEVER, I also think that there may be a bigger difference between the TC/WFN/RNFP designs than 44Man asserts. If you think about it, depending on the OAL/Seating Depth, the TC has the same or less shoulder area sticking out of the case as the Keith. And, the nose section is only a bore-rider for a distance of whatever length of the nose section is engaged by the rifling, which is entirely dependent on rifling depth, and no matter what that is, it is DARN SHORT. So, for let's say "at least 90-95%" of the TC's nose, there is no guidance from it's nose either... It SHOULD shoot same as a Keith SWC.

Most, if not all, LFNs and TC's with narrower & longer profiled noses that I have seen have non-bore-riding nose sections and would be the same or WORSE than a TC or Keith SWC. RNFPs and WFNs COULD be better than all the others, IF the ogive on them is so large that it creates a bore-riding section. This would require some careful matching-up between the nose/ogive diameter and the bore diameter (land-to-land distance). So much so, our cast pistol bullet shooting would become much more like cast rifle boolit shooting, where you have to match a mould design/measurements to the particular pistol you're shooting it in, or face the task of sizing the nose section to match the bore-dia. of the particular gun you're wanting to shoot it in. That WOULD, in this case, create the potential for better accuracy, but I think it's both too much work, and against what most pistol shooters want: ammunition that works in all the guns they have chambered for that caliber.

For example, I want all of my 44 Spl. and 44 Mag. ammo to work in any of my 44 Mags. Therefore, I size to a certain diameter (that my two largest-throated revolvers need) and seat to an OAL that works in the shortest cylinder and feeds through my lever-guns. I also load my "stockpile ammo" to about 90-95% of max loads (a level that has been found safe in all of my 44s), so that I don't have to worry if I've got a "Ruger-only" load in a S&W. Yes, this IS a compromise, but it's not so bad that it won't take deer, shoot informal silhouettes, or do any other job I ask of this gun/caliber/load combination. Could I go from 2" groups down to 1.5" groups with some custom-tuning of boolits as described above? Probably - maybe even get down to 1", but would it matter/be worth it to me?

To me, no. But, it sounds like either 44Man enjoys this technically-oriented, detail-work, or the superior results thereof (and is willing to keep his ammunition straight for which gun it goes in), or he is in the comfortable position of being able to manufacture (handload) ammo to this degree AND with flexibility, because he may only have one gun he's working with, or whatever multitude of guns he's working with, all have similar bore and throat measurements.

If you think about it, this is why Keith liked his SWC. He did the same thing I do and I think most pistol handloaders do - He settled on a pet load, and that load was fed in any and all guns he had in that caliber. I think what Keith was asserting, in his own way (of: "my way is the best way, and don't question me about it"), is that if you're not wanting to customize-load for each gun in your battery, a SWC with throat-riding shoulder is the best combination of accuracy, power, and FLEXIBILITY. (Keith kind of left that implied...) I think the same thing could be done with any of the RNFP, TC, WFN designs, but if they are flexible enough to work in any gun in that caliber, they will be no better than a Keith SWC.
Some good points because many of my boolits will not go in the Marlin and you sure do not want to shoot some out of a S&W.
Now the RD 265 was a big surprise and the load I use in the Ruger is super accurate and easy on a S&W 29 too. It also works in the Marlin because it was designed for it.
Even most of the .475 boolits I make will not work in a Freedom, other then the Lee 400 gr that BARELY fits, I only have one other that works in them.
However, none of the boolit needs to rest in the throats when a round is chambered and jump to the forcing cone means nothing either. I used to read all of that stuff and had concerns when designing some boolits but found most claims have no basis in actual shooting. The only problem I have found is when short brass is used, like .480 in the .475, .44 special in .44 mag, etc. No matter what I do, I can't make the short brass shoot as good as normal length brass for the chamber even when boolits do not enter the throats.
The most graphic picture is the 45-70 cylinder and the jump to the forcing cone, this should never shoot! [smilie=1: The boolit has NO part that rests in the throats either.
But look at this can with 5 shots through the top hole at 100 yards. The other holes were shot by a friend with a .45 ACP rifle. Yes, I had to walk down and set the can back up after every shot.

[GabbyM]

Ok, now that we've exhausted the Keith bashing..... I'm sure we have, have we not?

Back to the design and purpose of the TC :-D




As far as military use goes, if the TC has better shock value on impact with it's meplat on soft tissue, apposed to the RN TMJ used currently, why did they not go with the TC? If it feeds better, and has better "punch", that should have been a better choice. Or are we dealing more with politics than practicality?

Politics.
The TC bullet does not meet NATO penetration test. I think that's sixteen inches of hard pine board with two gaps in the stack to give the bullet a chance to tumble. Plus a couple other test media. The 45 ACP does not come close to passing this penetration test and the TC-FP 9mm will out penetrate a round nosed 45 acp while blowing twice the hole size in gelatin. In the world I see rattle snakes opened up with 45's and 44's while a 9 drills a 9mm hole in them. Perhaps in a target with more meat the 9mm would do better? But still I think it's a shame the US military doesn't issue the TC-FP bullet. Really who cares if the ammo will function in an old Sten gun or MP-40. Shooting through small trees may be handy though so who's to say what's best in all situations. Most important is to have a bullet in your gun not just a pile of empty brass on the ground.

[44man]

I am like those ghost hunter guys that set out to debunk a ghost. I read all the stuff for years and years, then set out to prove what is wrong and means nothing. It is really funny just how much is worthless work so I set out to make loading and shooting easy yet out shoot everything out there and do it with all sorts of boolit weights and designs. Many guys have a super accurate revolver but only with one boolit and one load.
I did the same with archery. I don't know how many of you bow hunt but I figured out the method for broad head tuning a compound years ago. I can shoot ANY head on the market, any weight and even change arrows, reset the bow without firing a shot and go kill deer.
I read for years that a broad head MUST be straight and should spin like a top. I took a large head and mounted it in an under size insert so I could crank the head sideways when I glued it in.
I fully expected the arrow to vanish out in the field but I centered the bullseye so I backed up and even at 30 yards I was punching the center because my bow tuning was perfect and the crooked head had no effect.
I guess what I am trying to say is you don't have to stick out your tongue 47.004*, kink your head to the side and hold one knee up to load accurate rounds.
I got my revolvers to shoot by disputing every thing in print, picking it apart and finding what really works and what is just a lot of bull.
I am lazy, never weigh a boolit, use a powder measure, use a Lee primer seater, Lee boolit size dies and Hornady loading dies. I do nothing special, I just do it right.
If you come over with your Ruger and I hand you a handful of rounds, I fully expect you to break 1" at 50 yards! :drinks: If you sit at my bench to load your brass, I will hand you a bunch of boolits, tell you what to do and even if you never loaded a single round before, you will break 1" at 50 yards.
No magic, no voodoo. Just relax and stuff all of the gun rags under the rug.

[44man]

Politics.
The TC bullet does not meet NATO penetration test. I think that's sixteen inches of hard pine board with two gaps in the stack to give the bullet a chance to tumble. Plus a couple other test media. The 45 ACP does not come close to passing this penetration test and the TC-FP 9mm will out penetrate a round nosed 45 acp while blowing twice the hole size in gelatin. In the world I see rattle snakes opened up with 45's and 44's while a 9 drills a 9mm hole in them. Perhaps in a target with more meat the 9mm would do better? But still I think it's a shame the US military doesn't issue the TC-FP bullet. Really who cares if the ammo will function in an old Sten gun or MP-40. Shooting through small trees may be handy though so who's to say what's best in all situations. Most important is to have a bullet in your gun not just a pile of empty brass on the ground.
Now you know that NATO does not want to offend or, Heaven forbid, hurt anyone! :bigsmyl2:
Strange that you can't use a certain bullet in war yet a .50 BMG round will blow body parts 50 feet in the air a mile away. Politics have killed more of our boys then anything else.
I think the nine should be tossed in a scrap heap and the sidearm should be a .45 Colt.
Here is what a .45 does to a 16" tree and it cut the grapevine also. The top hole is from a .475. Anyone behind the tree would be dead.

[HWooldridge]

I am like those ghost hunter guys that set out to debunk a ghost. I read all the stuff for years and years, then set out to prove what is wrong and means nothing. It is really funny just how much is worthless work so I set out to make loading and shooting easy yet out shoot everything out there and do it with all sorts of boolit weights and designs. Many guys have a super accurate revolver but only with one boolit and one load.
I did the same with archery. I don't know how many of you bow hunt but I figured out the method for broad head tuning a compound years ago. I can shoot ANY head on the market, any weight and even change arrows, reset the bow without firing a shot and go kill deer.
No magic, no voodoo. Just relax and stuff all of the gun rags under the rug.

You should write this info down in a single compilation and publish it. I am being completely sincere and believe a lot of folks would benefit from a collection of tips and kinks to iron out their shooting problems. In essence, that is what Elmer Keith did - he loved guns and shooting so he recorded what worked for him and as a result, hunting with a handgun and long range pistol work made a leap forward. Cooper did the same thing with regard to using a handgun in combat. It would be helpful to both newbies and old dogs to see specifically what works for cast bullets. Just a thought...

[Dogg]

.44man, great info, I agree with H Wooldrodge, you need to write this info down and make it available to those of us who aren't as knowledgeable or like me just getting back into the reloading/casting scene and really want to do it right.
Great info

[geargnasher]

.44man, great info, I agree with H Wooldrodge, you need to write this info down and make it available to those of us who aren't as knowledgeable or like me just getting back into the reloading/casting scene and really want to do it right.
Great info

+1.

Gear

[Echo]

Wonderful thread. We are all learning at your knee, 44man, and I second the motion for a published booklet containing your expertise.

[Nora]

Wonderful thread. We are all learning at your knee, 44man,

I don't mean to be an ass or to discredit 44 man's greatness but I started this thread in hopes of finding information on the creation, design and purpose of the truncated cone. Sifting threw the BS on a high jacked thread has made learning something new difficult.

Sorry Echo but, " We are learning at your Knee" I now want to vomit.

[fecmech]

One theory I have never bought into is; nose slumping.

Has anybody ever seen a slumped nose? NO!

I don't go along with 'slumping noses' however.

I respectfully disagree. The picture shows 2 slumped 358429 ACWW bullets next to one unslumped and a H&G #39 slumped RN next to an unslumped one. These bullets were recovered from snow and did not impact anything. The line on the nose of the RN is one I put there so I knew which bullets were which when the snow melted. They were fired over max charges of 296 out of a Ruger .357 pistol. I can't find a 429421 from my .44 mag that went from a SWC to RNFP when fired out of my .44 mag. That was a 20/1 lead tin HP over 25/296 that I used for hunting woodchucks. I knew it was slumping simply by the holes in the target paper, more of a RN hole than SWC. No I don't think they slump in flight, I think it happens during ignition and acceleration.

[BD]

To add my 2 cents to the original question; In every gun I've owned, TC designs and even more so secant ogive flat point designs, have shot better at distance than the Kieth style designs. And, at lower velocities, they seem to kill things better as well. It never occurred to me that "proof" was needed. I just went to RNFP designs for everything, and designed one for the .45 acp as none was available to use.

I still use H&G #68 boolits in action matches, or for shooting steel, when the range is always under 20 yards. They use less lead and cast and load on machines with fewer troubles, but the difference between any of the SWC designs and the BDacp at 100 yards is just too great to consider the SWCs for any sort of serious business. IMHO the same is true comparing the 265 grain WFN and Lee 310 RNFP to a keith SWC in the .44 mag.

Starting into the design for the .450B it never even occurred to me to try a SWC. Does anyone use them in Rifles?

I think the real question is "What is the SWC for, besides making a clean hole in paper targets?"

BD

[felix]

Nora, you just described the difference between various students. ... felix

[bruce381]

44 man I have only loaded the Lyamn 429421 what would you recomend in Lyman or lee? I have handloaded for 30 years so no problem working up a load just need a mold number.

Thanks

bruce

[Groo]

Groo here
I have enjoyed this thread greatly.
In regards to bullet slumping, in talks I had with JD Jones [SSK]
bullets will slump at times.
The 454 will take 45 hollowpoints [45acp or 45 colt jackets] send them out the barrel looking like wadcutters .The impact of the bullet into the barrel
seems to cause the problem. [also causes the core to be blown out of the jacket:groner:] Soft unsupported lead noses and high pressures.
All his Ramslamers are TC and have a lot of shank in contact with the bore.
They group well and drive deeply.

[Jumptrap]

I have picked up many boolits on the range for the lead and I see rifling up on the nose that started out as bore rides but set back to fill the grooves. I pick up boolits with rifling on one side of the nose and not the other side because it slumped off center.
Bullet noses do not slump in flight and I never said that!
You are confusing damage from the case to the throats, to the forcing cone and into the barrel with boolit rotation and damage in flight which does not occur by the way.
But go to the BPCR sites and see the complaints about the Lee 459-500-3R boolit and nose slump. Many recovered boolits show setback and most is off center. So it does occur in rifles too.
But please keep jacketed boolits and rifles out of a revolver discussion.

I believe I just got my ass ripped....hehe!

Well, I have gathered up range debris too, exhibiting all sorts of crash damage. Never have been able to pick any of it up and go Ah HA!.....a slumped nose bullet! More often than not, the nose is so deformed, there is no telling what caused all the damage.

Now, if somebody were to produce a handful of slumped nose bullets and can, without a doubt, prove that a slumping nose is responsible.....I would love to see it.

Some people believe in ghosts too.

[Heavy lead]

I really hope Magnum Research comes out with a RBBFR in .416 Rigby, .416 Weatherby and .460 Weatherby, I really want to see 44man's groups with them, I'd even pony up for say halfsies so we could get him the test gun!

[Jumptrap]

Before this goes any further.....I feel the need to say, whether necessary or not, I am not picking a fight with 44man. I am not disputing his marksmanship.....never have I said a word about that.

I just don't buy into the slumping nose theory and that opinion goes way back before I ever read any posts by 44man.

Some of the things he said prior to opening the slumped nose can of worms......I agree with. And, I'll be the first to say it doesn't mean anything, one way or another, if anybody agrees or disagrees with me. I have my convictions and he/they have theirs.

All I ask is for folks to stop and think....deeply.... on the subject matter, before they draw any hard and fast conclusions.

[JSnover]

Paul Matthews claims to have recovered a couple of slumped boolits in one of his books. I think he said he shot them into a large berm of snow and waited for the spring thaw to recover them. I respect his opinion but can't vouch for the reliability of his method.

[MT Gianni]

These guys all got it right. The Truncated Cone (TC) was designed by Hornady in the late 70s for the USAF, because non-expanding bullets were required by the "laws of war" (various treaties and agreements and the JAG's interpretation of how they needed to be complied with), but the Air Force wanted something more effective like the JHPs that had been coming on the market for about 10 years at that point. Naturally, they were going to be used in 45s or 9mms (the military was considering what handgun and caliber they were going to use, even that far back), so feeding was also an issue. Hornady did some R&D and decided if you needed a non-expanding bullet, but wanted shock value and sure feeding, you needed something with a meplat (like a SWC), but with more of a rounded or angular side so it would feed in a semi-auto. Voila, the Truncated Cone is born...

The TC is INTENDED generally for autos. RNFP is a 150 year old version for a revolver/lever-action rifle. The main difference between the two is that the ogive is curved (secant or other curvature) whereas the ogive on the TC is flat/straight (after a small radius from the meplat to the ogive, so there's no sharp corner). Also, the RNFP usually (but not always) has a bigger meplat than a TC (again, because for feeding in a semi-auto, too big of a meplat hampers smooth/sure feeding).





Or, a RNFP, which has also been called a WFN, LFN, MFN, and several other monikers, all to sell us on the idea that it's something new, or to differentiate one guy's design from another's.

Generally, I think 44 Man got us side-tracked into a revolver discussion, although in fairness to him, J.D. Jones applied the TC nose shape to revolver bullets with his SSK 44 heavy and super-heavy bullet designs in the 80s, so there is SOME relevance to a revolver discussion. Personally, I think the RNFP is a better design for a revolver. (As most of 44Man's pictures are RNFPs, I presume he agrees with me...)

I've included a pic, 'cause they're worth a thousand words...
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=179&pictureid=1136

I believe the original TC was invented by the German's for their Lugers. The 356402 would be a copy of that projectile.

[sundog]

Gianni, I have no idea whether what you say is fact concerning the 356402, but I've been thinking of that mould all the way through this thread. I've shot a ton of them in Lugers over the years, and they work quite smartly. One of my earlier mould acquisitions.

[Le Loup Solitaire]

FWIW; I've got an old reprint of a small luger manual published by Stoeger once upon a time and it shows a crosssection of a Luger mag loaded with conical bullets, but they are not truncated or cut off so that there is any sort of meplat. The ends of the bullets are rounded, but it is not a short nose either...it is identical in appearance to RCBS mould #09-115-RN (order#044-82026) and H&G #7. Cutting off or truncating the nose on any design would seem to me, to shorten the longitudinal axis of the bullet and as such move its center of gravity back a bit. I think that the German ballisticians knew a lot more about the subject than I do and if truncating were the better thing to do then they would have done it. They were probably more concerned with optimal/reliable feeding. The conical design whether truncated or not is definitely a flawless feeder. LLS

[Nora]

FWIW; I've got an old reprint of a small luger manual published by Stoeger once upon a time

Does that manual have an original copy write date on it? I'd be curious to have a peek at it.

[44man]

I believe I just got my ass ripped....hehe!

Well, I have gathered up range debris too, exhibiting all sorts of crash damage. Never have been able to pick any of it up and go Ah HA!.....a slumped nose bullet! More often than not, the nose is so deformed, there is no telling what caused all the damage.

Now, if somebody were to produce a handful of slumped nose bullets and can, without a doubt, prove that a slumping nose is responsible.....I would love to see it.

Some people believe in ghosts too.
It does get kind of hard to see if the boolit is damaged but one way to tell is the length of the rifling marks out on the nose compared to the drive length on an unfired boolit.
Years ago I picked up some soft Keith boolits that were rifled almost to the meplat.
I will search through some pickups I think I still have around, if I didn't already melt them.

[44man]

44 man I have only loaded the Lyamn 429421 what would you recomend in Lyman or lee? I have handloaded for 30 years so no problem working up a load just need a mold number.

Thanks

bruce
Lee only has one good one, the C430-310RF.
Lyman has a few choices, 429640 and 429667 but you have to watch for under size molds.
Saeco has a bunch, #428, 430, 432 and 433, all look good.

[JesterGrin_1]

Bruce381 or if you get lucky you can find a Ranch Dog .432-265Gr Lee might even have some that were returned due to the fact they did not measure up to .432. So you might find those on the Lee Site under closeouts. :) It would be a cheap mold to try and easy to Leement. :)

Just a thought :)

I just did a check and they have them in the close out http://www.leeprecision.com/html/catalog/surplus.html . Listed as
101 DC Bullet Mold TLC 430-265 RF New $ 20.50 99001

.44Man Twisted my arm and I said Uncle lol. Picked up one of these this weekend.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/SHAKERATTLEROLL/RugerHunter.jpg

[StarMetal]

Go here for original German 9mm ammo. It shows the TC bullet.
http://www.cartridgecollectors.org/intro9mm/

Joe

[Willbird]

Before this goes any further.....I feel the need to say, whether necessary or not, I am not picking a fight with 44man. I am not disputing his marksmanship.....never have I said a word about that.

I just don't buy into the slumping nose theory and that opinion goes way back before I ever read any posts by 44man.

Some of the things he said prior to opening the slumped nose can of worms......I agree with. And, I'll be the first to say it doesn't mean anything, one way or another, if anybody agrees or disagrees with me. I have my convictions and he/they have theirs.

All I ask is for folks to stop and think....deeply.... on the subject matter, before they draw any hard and fast conclusions.

I have fired 158 grain Remington .358 bullets in a 357 maximum contender and had the acceleration reshape the bullet nose to the point that lead rubbed the bore. Granted that core is probably pure lead, but to expect it to reshape like that consistently is asking a lot.

Bill

[fecmech]

I believe I just got my ass ripped....hehe!



Now, if somebody were to produce a handful of slumped nose bullets and can, without a doubt, prove that a slumping nose is responsible.....I would love to see it.

Some people believe in ghosts too.

If you look at the pictures in my post on page 3 you will noses set back and lube grooves shortened to about half their normal height on the 358429 bullets and on the round nose you will also see rifling marks on the nose of the bullet on the right. I don't know about ghosts but bullets slump!

[Jumptrap]

If you look at the pictures in my post on page 3 you will noses set back and lube grooves shortened to about half their normal height on the 358429 bullets and on the round nose you will also see rifling marks on the nose of the bullet on the right. I don't know about ghosts but bullets slump!

Those bullets look pretty straight to me.....considering they have impacted downrange...wonder what straightened them back out.

What pray tell, slings the nose over X degrees and causes what you believe to be slumping?

How many 22 rf bullets have been recovered showing this phenomena? They're nearly pure lead and soft as butter. But, perhaps they're 'special' and don't count.

I think what you fellows contribute to 'slumping' is caused by the crash during the leap from cylinder to barrel. I also think the diminished lube grooves are due to the bullet being squeezed/sized by the bore. That displaced material has to flow somewhere and it takes the path of least resistance.....back filling the lube groove itself.

The rifling twists in most pistols is so slow that too suggest that some hyper torque curve has slung the bullet out of shape goes beyond sound reasoning.

Evidence has been proffered showing damaged bullets.....I just don't accept the proposed cause.

[fecmech]

As I said in the post the bullets were fired into snow and recovered in the spring so they impacted nothing. I did not say they were bent, I said the noses of the bullets slumped but that said I don't believe it is unreasonable to assume that the lead movement could be off center. The rifling marks on the round nose weren't put there by the snow, they happened in the barrel.

[44man]

Those bullets look pretty straight to me.....considering they have impacted downrange...wonder what straightened them back out.

What pray tell, slings the nose over X degrees and causes what you believe to be slumping?

How many 22 rf bullets have been recovered showing this phenomena? They're nearly pure lead and soft as butter. But, perhaps they're 'special' and don't count.

I think what you fellows contribute to 'slumping' is caused by the crash during the leap from cylinder to barrel. I also think the diminished lube grooves are due to the bullet being squeezed/sized by the bore. That displaced material has to flow somewhere and it takes the path of least resistance.....back filling the lube groove itself.

The rifling twists in most pistols is so slow that too suggest that some hyper torque curve has slung the bullet out of shape goes beyond sound reasoning.

Evidence has been proffered showing damaged bullets.....I just don't accept the proposed cause.
Fecmech showed it the way it is. Soft boolits kicked in the butt by a hefty load of fast powder WILL slump and shorten and even try to turn into a cylinder. Bases can flare before being forced back in the throats and rifling, noses can expand so the whole nose is rifled.
I have explained many times about soft boolits in .38 specials that deformed so much lead would squirt out of the gap, coat the outside of the cylinder and frame with lead and be a danger to anyone in line with the gap. Now anyone can figure out that it is no longer a boolit being shot, just a lump of lead that has to be re-shaped in the barrel. Lube and grease grooves will be wiped out and the bore will fill with leading. You gain zero by casting a boolit and a chunk of lead wire will be the same.
Shooting in deep snow offers no resistance at all to a boolit and it will be recovered in the exact shape it left the bore.
I don't know how much more can be shown when rifling goes all the way up the nose of a boolit??? :confused::confused:
I will not allow deformation or slump in my revolvers so I can show how a boolit should look.
All of these boolits DID impact something, either steel belted tires, dirt or wood. The two on the left penetrated over 16" of seasoned oak and just wiped the surface off.
The others show no damage to grease grooves except from the lands. Noses are perfect.
Now look close at the .475 boolit on the right. The land marks on the nose are very wide from skidding yet the marks on the base are land size. This boolit is extremely accurate, beer can accurate at 200 yards and under 1" at 100.
If you want revolver accuracy, this is what a boolit should look like, nothing else will do.
Fecmech's gun with the deformed boolits will only be a noise maker it is sad to say and many of you suffer from the same problem by using lead that is too soft or not tough enough to make the transition out of the barrel in the shape it was cast.
If you can't balance boolit and powder so a boolit stays the way it was cast, you fight a losing battle and cut your guns effective range drastically.
The softer the boolit the more your work is cut out for you. Loads are so easy to work with the proper boolit but not so if they are damaged when you pull the trigger.
When a fellow has leading or poor accuracy problems, I never, ever tell them to soften the boolit.
Fix bore constrictions, timing and fit the boolit at least to bore dimensions or throats. Then do all you can to have a REAL boolit leave the muzzle.

[44man]

Hey, Jumptrap, a .22 RF IS different, it has almost no inertia and has a powder that doesn't finish burning until around 16" of barrel.
And if you ever paid attention, a .22 is never as accurate from a revolver as it is from a semi auto or rifle unless the revolver is extremely precision built with match chambers, etc. So there CAN be damage to the boolit.
But have you ever recovered a .22 boolit that did not hit anything to quantify your statement? I don't think anyone has ever looked for them, I know I haven't and would not pay any attention to them anyway.

[44man]

Fecmech, Jumptrap bailed out and started another thread making fun of boolit slump. I don't know what it will take to convince him so I did some searching and posted what I found.
I guess we are stupid and make things up so maybe he will listen to better experts.
I suppose I will have to lead my bores and cast some soft boolits to recover slumped ones but of course he will say it was done after impact. I don't think he understands inertia.
Well, I try my best! I would sure like to see his groups at 50 and out to 200 yards.
Now the problem is that I have posted so much information for so long that it is easy to do what I do but claim results were done with the wrong things. A ringer, so to say! :takinWiz:
I just do not know how much more to do, along with so many here that try to help and make suggestions to better how everyone shoots. Why do some want to feel important when we should be friends and share? I am too stinking old to care what someone thinks of me but I care about all of you. If I am wrong and proven wrong, I will admit it but I will never back down when I know something is true.
I just do not know where the animosity comes from!

[kirb]

44man,
I have read through your posts on this thread and have really enjoyed all of the input. I have been going about long range accuracy with a revlover a different way. I think I have learened the error in my ways. I am intrested in the makeup of your alloy. I woul like to try and alloy with more strength. I talked to lumpie about this several months ago and have some copper babbit that he recomened. I think he told me to put a pound copper babbit to 10lbs of pure do you think this would be tough enough.

[StarMetal]

Hey, Jumptrap, a .22 RF IS different, it has almost no inertia and has a powder that doesn't finish burning until around 16" of barrel.
And if you ever paid attention, a .22 is never as accurate from a revolver as it is from a semi auto or rifle unless the revolver is extremely precision built with match chambers, etc. So there CAN be damage to the boolit.
But have you ever recovered a .22 boolit that did not hit anything to quantify your statement? I don't think anyone has ever looked for them, I know I haven't and would not pay any attention to them anyway.


Yes I have recovered many 22 slugs fired into snow after the snow melted. No slump, no deformation, nothing.

I have a first model Ruger semi auto pistol that will out shoot most scoped 22 rifles. I thought I've never see a 22 with it alone out shoot it. Well then I bought my S&W Model 617 first series, the six shot, and it shoots right there with that Ruger semi.

Jumptrap knows what he is talking about. He doesn't spread BS and he's as honest man I've met.

Joe

[44man]

Yes I have recovered many 22 slugs fired into snow after the snow melted. No slump, no deformation, nothing.

I have a first model Ruger semi auto pistol that will out shoot most scoped 22 rifles. I thought I've never see a 22 with it alone out shoot it. Well then I bought my S&W Model 617 first series, the six shot, and it shoots right there with that Ruger semi.

Jumptrap knows what he is talking about. He doesn't spread BS and he's as honest man I've met.

Joe
That he may be and I am not talking about him, only his feelings about slumping that is a fact.
Read the other post and my answers. There are only two .22 revolvers that shoot along with a semi auto or rifle and those are the S&W and Freedom. Match grade chambers and perfect alignment.
I also posted that most .22 bullets have antimony in them.
Are you also disputing boolit slump? :roll:

[Jumptrap]

Yes I have recovered many 22 slugs fired into snow after the snow melted. No slump, no deformation, nothing.

I have a first model Ruger semi auto pistol that will out shoot most scoped 22 rifles. I thought I've never see a 22 with it alone out shoot it. Well then I bought my S&W Model 617 first series, the six shot, and it shoots right there with that Ruger semi.

Jumptrap knows what he is talking about. He doesn't spread BS and he's as honest man I've met.

Joe

Now, now, Joe!

My only goal is to energize latent brain cells and nothing more. In some respects, it's working!

Most people held onto the flat Earth theory, until the Pope told them it was okay to think otherwise. I'm not bashing the late Pope either, just saying that people tend to believe what they are told, or told to believe, until some higher authority tells them it's possible that something otherwise, might be the truth.

And no, I do not portend to be an authority, just an inquisitor.

Such an event occurred just a few hundred years ago and became known as;
The Age of Enlightenment. I see no reason for that Age to end.

[44man]

44man,
I have read through your posts on this thread and have really enjoyed all of the input. I have been going about long range accuracy with a revlover a different way. I think I have learened the error in my ways. I am intrested in the makeup of your alloy. I woul like to try and alloy with more strength. I talked to lumpie about this several months ago and have some copper babbit that he recomened. I think he told me to put a pound copper babbit to 10lbs of pure do you think this would be tough enough.
I have no idea what copper will do with pure lead. Try it.
I have good luck with water dropped WW metal but for top accuracy I use 20# of WW's, 6.4 oz of tin and 9.6 oz of antimony.
Many of my posted groups are just water dropped WW metal.
The RD 265 gr .44 boolit shoots 3/4" at 50 yards all day from WW metal but the 1/4" group I shot was with the harder alloy.
Now the RCBS Keith will shoot 1/2" at 25 yards with my hard alloy and Unique plinking loads. That is the best I ever got from the boolit so I am going to try it at 50.
I do nothing super special, I just make the boolits so they are not damaged when loaded or shot.
It is so easy I can never figure out why there is so much disagreement! [smilie=1:

[44man]

Now, now, Joe!

My only goal is to energize latent brain cells and nothing more. In some respects, it's working!

Most people held onto the flat Earth theory, until the Pope told them it was okay to think otherwise. I'm not bashing the late Pope either, just saying that people tend to believe what they are told, or told to believe, until some higher authority tells them it's possible that something otherwise, might be the truth.

And no, I do not portend to be an authority, just an inquisitor.

Such an event occurred just a few hundred years ago and became known as;
The Age of Enlightenment. I see no reason for that Age to end.
Jumptrap, thanks, I am not bashing you in any way, just trying to enlighten you that setback, slump and flared bases are a fact. I have seen it too many times and in over 56 years I have learned that it needs to be prevented for accuracy.
Don't get wound up in disputing things until you experience it yourself.

[fecmech]

Fecmech, Jumptrap bailed out and started another thread making fun of boolit slump. I don't know what it will take to convince him so I did some searching and posted what I found.
I guess we are stupid and make things up so maybe he will listen to better experts.
I suppose I will have to lead my bores and cast some soft boolits to recover slumped ones but of course he will say it was done after impact. I don't think he understands inertia.
Well, I try my best! I would sure like to see his groups at 50 and out to 200 yards.
Now the problem is that I have posted so much information for so long that it is easy to do what I do but claim results were done with the wrong things. A ringer, so to say! :takinWiz:
I just do not know how much more to do, along with so many here that try to help and make suggestions to better how everyone shoots. Why do some want to feel important when we should be friends and share? I am too stinking old to care what someone thinks of me but I care about all of you. If I am wrong and proven wrong, I will admit it but I will never back down when I know something is true.
I just do not know where the animosity comes from!

If people don't want to see something they won't see it. I know bullets slump and so as far as I'm concerned time to move on. I posted pics of slumped bullets and if that's not enough to convince jumptrap so be it.

[Nora]

Is the truncated cone design prone to, or exempt from boolit slump?



Thanks for the link StarMetal, that was a fun read.

[felix]

Got to compare the mass of the nose between both boolit designs, that part of the nose which extends beyond the support of the lands. More mass, more POSSIBLE non-returning slump. ... felix

[felix]

Yeah, Mark, the Pope(s) have a habit in speaking about things not within their authority to pontificate! ... felix

[StarMetal]

Jumptrap, thanks, I am not bashing you in any way, just trying to enlighten you that setback, slump and flared bases are a fact. I have seen it too many times and in over 56 years I have learned that it needs to be prevented for accuracy.
Don't get wound up in disputing things until you experience it yourself.

Oh no no no Jump and 44man. Meant nothing about either of you two. I like ya both!

Joe

[44man]

Is the truncated cone design prone to, or exempt from boolit slump?



Thanks for the link StarMetal, that was a fun read.
Yes, Felix said it right. Boolit design is very important and can stop it completely.

[Cap'n Morgan]

Not to jump into the fray [smilie=1: but snowdrifts may not always be the best media for stopping bullets gently. A friend of mine tested some handloads I made for his 30-06, by shooting into a snowdrift (thawing snow). The bullets (150 grain Nosler PT and Hornady Interbond) showed perfect mushroom shape after travelling 6-7 feet through the snow.

I know we're comparing apples and oranges here, but I'm still surprised the wet snow added that much resistance.

[RexDart]

Back to the original question of Why?

Because of the relationship between the mag position and the feed ramp, Springfield XD pistols cannot work reliably with SWCs in my experience, and in the experience of many others.

TCs on the other hand, feed like a champ. That's why *I* cast TC for my .40.

I would suspect that the TC design was developed originally for auto-loaders. For whatever reason, almost all the jacketed or plated bullets available in the 10mm/.400 size are TCs.

[StarMetal]

Not to jump into the fray [smilie=1: but snowdrifts may not always be the best media for stopping bullets gently. A friend of mine tested some handloads I made for his 30-06, by shooting into a snowdrift (thawing snow). The bullets (150 grain Nosler PT and Hornady Interbond) showed perfect mushroom shape after travelling 6-7 feet through the snow.

I know we're comparing apples and oranges here, but I'm still surprised the wet snow added that much resistance.


Like you mentioned...wet snow. The light "dry" type of snow, you the kind you can't make a snowball from, is a different matter.

Joe

[StarMetal]

Because of the relationship between the mag position and the feed ramp, Springfield XD pistols cannot work reliably with SWCs in my experience, and in the experience of many others.

TCs on the other hand, feed like a champ. That's why *I* cast TC for my .40.

I would suspect that the TC design was developed originally for auto-loaders. For whatever reason, almost all the jacketed or plated bullets available in the 10mm/.400 size are TCs.

If you went to that 9mm site you'd see the Germans made that type of bullet for the very early 9mm's. Pretty long ago and not many semi autos on the market at that time.

Joe

[Jumptrap]

Jumptrap, thanks, I am not bashing you in any way, just trying to enlighten you that setback, slump and flared bases are a fact. I have seen it too many times and in over 56 years I have learned that it needs to be prevented for accuracy.
Don't get wound up in disputing things until you experience it yourself.

44man,

I am 51 years old and have shot as much, if not more, bullets down range as any individual sharing these pages.

My reloading and casting room reflects the largess of gear-junk-whatever....that goes along with somebody who has taken more than a passing interest in this activity.

There is no way I can say that I have seen it all....but damned near it. I have researched the causes of so many things we shooters encounter while shooting......cast and/or jacketed bullets, round balls and sabots and shotgun loads as well.

One of my enjoyable past times used to be digging up/recovering cast bullets. I used a magnifying glass for a long time and then bought a used microscope, so I could get up close and personal while looking bullet corpses over.

The suggestion that I have no idea what I am talking about, is so far from the truth. Note the word 'idea'..........I do indeed have an idea of what I am talking about. I shall never claim to have the last definitive answer on any subject.

For an individual to announce that some phenomena is indeed fact, it takes more than just saying......."it is, because...well, just because and that makes it so.."

Lots of people claim they have seen UFO's.....one of them is me.....but that doesn't prove that what we consider as a UFO, is actually an alien space ship. Therefore, for me to jump up and say......"Yessir they sure do exist cuz I seen'em afore and that bygod, is that!" What I have seen may not be at all what I thought/think it is/was.

That is exactly how I feel about slumped noses.....they are the UFO's of cast bullets. The supposition of what causes them defies logic and there is no science to support the theory.

Sorry, no cigar.

Yes, I have poked a little fun.....if you feel like it.....poke back, my skin is mighty damned thick and I can take it. I may not agree with you or your theories.....but that would never prevent me from being your friend..

So far, I have been told that bullet noses slump....but there has never been a logical explanation as to why they slump.

Furthermore, scientific experimentation, which is what we apply in our bullet casting/shooting alchemy.......has to have REPEATABLE steps in order to support a hypotheses.

Your Hypotheses is: that some bullet noses slump.

In order to support your claim, you must be able to repeatably perform the steps of an experiment based upon your theory. You must also have a standard by which you compare your results.

So; when you can say.....take one of the truncated designs and show that it never slumps and postulate why it doesn't.....with evidence to support it, AND THEN substitute the Keith bullet or whichever one has been damned as a poor design and show that it slumps, sags or whatever in a predictable and repeatable experiment.....then, you're on to something.

But before you should begin such an endeavor, you should research some of the scientific principles/Laws involved, which would probably save yourself a lot of wasted effort.

[geargnasher]

How about a HIGH speed camera capable of photographing the boolits in flight? Then load up some test rounds of different powders and velocities (read: Launch rate) with the Keith's and blast away. Then we could see beyond a doubt what happens and when it happens.

Gear.

[StarMetal]

44man,

I am 51 years old and have shot as much, if not more, bullets down range as any individual sharing these pages.

My reloading and casting room reflects the largess of gear-junk-whatever....that goes along with somebody who has taken more than a passing interest in this activity.

There is no way I can say that I have seen it all....but damned near it. I have researched the causes of so many things we shooters encounter while shooting......cast and/or jacketed bullets, round balls and sabots and shotgun loads as well.

One of my enjoyable past times used to be digging up/recovering cast bullets. I used a magnifying glass for a long time and then bought a used microscope, so I could get up close and personal while looking bullet corpses over.

The suggestion that I have no idea what I am talking about, is so far from the truth. Note the word 'idea'..........I do indeed have an idea of what I am talking about. I shall never claim to have the last definitive answer on any subject.

For an individual to announce that some phenomena is indeed fact, it takes more than just saying......."it is, because...well, just because and that makes it so.."

Lots of people claim they have seen UFO's.....one of them is me.....but that doesn't prove that what we consider as a UFO, is actually an alien space ship. Therefore, for me to jump up and say......"Yessir they sure do exist cuz I seen'em afore and that bygod, is that!" What I have seen may not be at all what I thought/think it is/was.

That is exactly how I feel about slumped noses.....they are the UFO's of cast bullets. The supposition of what causes them defies logic and there is no science to support the theory.

Sorry, no cigar.

Yes, I have poked a little fun.....if you feel like it.....poke back, my skin is mighty damned thick and I can take it. I may not agree with you or your theories.....but that would never prevent me from being your friend..

So far, I have been told that bullet noses slump....but there has never been a logical explanation as to why they slump.

Furthermore, scientific experimentation, which is what we apply in our bullet casting/shooting alchemy.......has to have REPEATABLE steps in order to support a hypotheses.

Your Hypotheses is: that some bullet noses slump.

In order to support your claim, you must be able to repeatably perform the steps of an experiment based upon your theory. You must also have a standard by which you compare your results.

So; when you can say.....take one of the truncated designs and show that it never slumps and postulate why it doesn't.....with evidence to support it, AND THEN substitute the Keith bullet or whichever one has been damned as a poor design and show that it slumps, sags or whatever in a predictable and repeatable experiment.....then, you're on to something.

But before you should begin such an endeavor, you should research some of the scientific principles/Laws involved, which would probably save yourself a lot of wasted effort.


Summer of 1966, somewhere 300 miles off the East coast NC or SC area aboard a Navy Destroyer 2200 hours our ship was tracking a UFO on radar. Captain came on the PA system told us about it and what actions were taken. The contacted NOB (Naval Operations Base) in Norfolk, VA. They were in communication with D.C. (remember Nam was going on and also the cold war and in that time period too the Cuba missile crisis). They said it wasn't any military or commercial aircraft of any country and to log it down as a UFO. I saw it as a very big bright red light in the dark sky. When it appeared to have just been switched off like a light the Captain came back on the PA and said it went off the radar at over 6000 mph. Now tell me, what could fly that fast in 1966 or even now.

Oh, couldn't tell if the craft had a slumped nose.

Joe

[geargnasher]

..........

That is exactly how I feel about slumped noses.....they are the UFO's of cast bullets. The supposition of what causes them defies logic and there is no science to support the theory.

So far, I have been told that bullet noses slump....but there has never been a logical explanation as to why they slump.

Furthermore, scientific experimentation, which is what we apply in our bullet casting/shooting alchemy.......has to have REPEATABLE steps in order to support a hypotheses.

Your Hypotheses is: that some bullet noses slump.

In order to support your claim, you must be able to repeatably perform the steps of an experiment based upon your theory. You must also have a standard by which you compare your results.

So; when you can say.....take one of the truncated designs and show that it never slumps and postulate why it doesn't.....with evidence to support it, AND THEN substitute the Keith bullet or whichever one has been damned as a poor design and show that it slumps, sags or whatever in a predictable and repeatable experiment.....then, you're on to something.

But before you should begin such an endeavor, you should research some of the scientific principles/Laws involved, which would probably save yourself a lot of wasted effort.

I was going to keep out of this because you have been shooting and thinking about shooting longer than I have been alive, but I feel I have to point out what others have talked all around but not stated outright. You want to a logical explanation of why boolit noses slump?

NEWTON'S FIRST LAW OF MOTION.

Same reason boolit bases obturate. The mass of the boolit nose resists acceleration due to static inertia and has no forces acting upon it except the air in front of it and the force of the acceleration of the remainder of the boolit's mass behind it. Oversimplification, yes I know, the forces are actually divided along the axis in relation to the sectional mass, the graph of which would be a derivative of the acceleration curve and the mass of a given point alonth the length of the boolit, but one can basically say that the nose moves last, and in a Keith style boolit with an unsupported nose section, if the acceleration is great enough (as has been said) to overcome the elastic limit (or springback) of the alloy, then the boolit nose compresses lengthwise and due to it's shape, expands radially.

Due to the forces acting upon it, a boolit really slumps along it's entire length when fired, but is contained by the bore and the forces become vectors going equally to the front and rear, which are largely cancelled by the pressure of the burning powder behind, but continue forward and act on the nose, kinda like squirting cake icing through one of those cloth tubes. Pascal's law also explains why the forces of the base of the boolit act upon the nose, a malleable solid acts similar to fluid in compression in that the pressures within remain equal throughout the obtect and act equally on any container (barrel).

Soooooo, if accelerated quickly enough, a boolit would become a sphere if uncontained and a double-ended wadcutter if in a barrel. Make sense?

Can I prove this? I need a high-speed camera and a good chronograph.......:roll:

Gear

[leftiye]

Exactly. Well said! Proof? I'd guess that anybody who wanted to could design a boolit with an unsupported nose (or find one), and shoot it with a fast burning high pressure load, and recover the boolit and they'd have proof.

[felix]

OK, Gear, you are good! Now explain gas expansion in like terms. Jump asked me to a while ago, but I had a problem coming up with words to explain the math (logic therein) involved for the various shapes of nozzles, with emphasis on the design mimicking a bottle neck cartridge as well as a straight walled (slight taper) case. ... felix

[Nora]

Summer of 1966, somewhere 300 miles off the East coast NC or SC area aboard a Navy Destroyer 2200 hours our ship was tracking a UFO on radar. Captain came on the PA system told us about it and what actions were taken. The contacted NOB (Naval Operations Base) in Norfolk, VA. They were in communication with D.C. (remember Nam was going on and also the cold war and in that time period too the Cuba missile crisis). They said it wasn't any military or commercial aircraft of any country and to log it down as a UFO. I saw it as a very big bright red light in the dark sky. When it appeared to have just been switched off like a light the Captain came back on the PA and said it went off the radar at over 6000 mph. Now tell me, what could fly that fast in 1966 or even now.

Oh, couldn't tell if the craft had a slumped nose.

Joe

I believe Mylar must have been piloting the craft.

[geargnasher]

OK, Gear, you are good! Now explain gas expansion in like terms. Jump asked me to a while ago, but I had a problem coming up with words to explain the math (logic therein) involved for the various shapes of nozzles, with emphasis on the design mimicking a bottle neck cartridge as well as a straight walled (slight taper) case. ... felix


First: Nora, if you're still following this (your!) thread, I'm sorry for the hijack but please try to be the "other" kind of student.

Felix, as you know that's a deep subject buried somewhere within an undergrad course called "Dynamics", if you are referring to the theory behind the shape of gas nozzles that control a medium at the nozzle so it will react a certain way as it is introduced into another medium (or same medium at lower absolute pressure) or even a reacting medium (like a rocket engine or torch flame). Or were you simply referring to the Venturi principle, as it works (or we think it works) in a bottle-neck cartridge? Where the restriction causes an increase in velocity and a reduction of pressure? Or are you talking about the theories behind the Weatherby (radiussed shoulder) cases versus the original Holland & Holland design or the Ackley "improved" 40* shoulder?

Maybe we should start another thread rife with speculation and hot-headed assertions interspersed with the occasional nugget of fact-based wisdom :veryconfu

Maybe I should go get my UFO album..............:-D

Gear

[felix]

All of it, Gear, in English terms using only " obviously known" concepts by the members here. TIA. ... felix

[Jumptrap]

All of it, Gear, in English terms using only " obviously known" concepts by the members here. TIA. ... felix

HAR!

This is only TOO good Felix!

I love it when when great minds come together.........and do nothing but spew hyperbole.

I started to hit the books last night and try to form a hypotheses that would be fitting for a broad audience.....which includes my self.....and the deeper I went, the further away from my goal I became. So.....I said to hell with it.

In the words of Newton: Hypotheses non fingo

I don't know the answers and cannot supply them, only speculation. It appears that nobody else in the audience is prepared to do so, either.

[Wayne Smith]

Six pages of this and not a single mention of Dr. Mann! Am I the only one here who has read (and not fully understood) The Bullet's Flight? What is slump other than uneven obduration? He pretty much proved obduration without question, although more does need to be done with harder alloys.

Granted, one then needs to explain the "uneven" in uneven obduration!

[44man]

Six pages of this and not a single mention of Dr. Mann! Am I the only one here who has read (and not fully understood) The Bullet's Flight? What is slump other than uneven obduration? He pretty much proved obduration without question, although more does need to be done with harder alloys.

Granted, one then needs to explain the "uneven" in uneven obduration!
I don't think you need to worry about the harder alloys until you get to high velocity rifle loads with the wrong boolit nose. But notice many that push the limits use lino or some mix with it.
All of the funny boolits I picked up were soft lead. The very worst would be those pure swaged things.
It takes very little hardening to prevent problems although I would start to harden them more as loads increase and/or powder gets faster.
I remember when the wad cutter was popular and they were dead soft. They hold shape better then any other boolit design and look the same after being shot. The clue something was wrong with the lead was when it squirted out of the cylinder gap like butter and it was very hard to clean off the gun. Then someone said a hollow base would help them seal---very funny when the skirt blew out of the gap! :bigsmyl2:
So there is a case of a boolit nose that does not get damaged but the base goes to hell. If I were shooting wad cutters I would make them very hard.
Then some genius figured out the semi wad cutter, good, but then they stuck with soft lead, bad! Now when you buy them, they are hard, then someone stuck a bevel base on them, made them undersize and filled the grooves with something they call lube but is really softened stone. Nobody gave forcing cone and bore alignment a thought so the gun needs to be too perfect.
Then the guy gets disgusted with store bought stuff and buys an RCBS, Lyman or Lee mold only to find he needs to be lucky to get one that casts large enough
So along comes Mister Beagle with a great idea, however it makes an oval boolit and it still needs to be soft enough to round out in the bore if you Beagle too much. But it does improve the boolit.
There are a milion posts asking how to correct leading and poor groups and every day you see a new question.
If the gun is OK, use a boolit that provides guidance, make it hard enough to resist deformation, make it large enough and use a good lube.
But then we would have nothing left to talk about here! [smilie=f:
Except when someone tells the guy to make his boolits softer so they obturate and I can't figure it out---expand to WHERE if the boolit is at least throat size to start.
The one I like best is when a throat is undersize to the bore and someone says it is OK, just make the boolit soft and after it gets sized in the throats, it will expand again in the bore. Sorry, it doesn't exactly work that way, inertia has already been overcome. The answer is always to make it softer yet and now you have a lot of boolit damage at the forcing cone and either way, a bore full of lead.
Why is it so hard to get a revolver to shoot? I find it very easy.

[Jumptrap]

Six pages of this and not a single mention of Dr. Mann! Am I the only one here who has read (and not fully understood) The Bullet's Flight? What is slump other than uneven obduration? He pretty much proved obduration without question, although more does need to be done with harder alloys.

Granted, one then needs to explain the "uneven" in uneven obduration!

Wayne,

I have read Dr.Mann's book.

Obturation/obduration of the bullet's base is well known and accepted as fact. I don't think anybody has argued to the contrary, that the base obturates until it reaches the limit's of the barrel wall(s) and then stops. That concept shouldn't be too difficult to visualize and accept, should it?

Our discussion has been what goes on at the front end of the bullet and what is responsible for the damage to the noses. One camp says 'slump' is responsible, the other says they don't think so.

There is no heated discussion here. We are grown men, with opinions. And in this case, they differ.

I found Mann's book dry at best. In fact I ought to dig it out and give it away on the PIF board.

[geargnasher]

Felix, I'm not biting.

Gear

[felix]

After all, Jump has given up, so it is best we keep our teeth intact and save our chewing effort for something a little easier to explain. Math being a foreign language gets difficult when translating back and forth, especially as in intent. ... felix

[Wayne Smith]

Wayne,

I have read Dr.Mann's book.

Obturation/obduration of the bullet's base is well known and accepted as fact. I don't think anybody has argued to the contrary, that the base obturates until it reaches the limit's of the barrel wall(s) and then stops. That concept shouldn't be too difficult to visualize and accept, should it?

Our discussion has been what goes on at the front end of the bullet and what is responsible for the damage to the noses. One camp says 'slump' is responsible, the other says they don't think so.

There is no heated discussion here. We are grown men, with opinions. And in this case, they differ.

I found Mann's book dry at best. In fact I ought to dig it out and give it away on the PIF board.

Aaah, but what about when he cut the barrels shorter and shorter?? He got nose obduration, on a massive scale. What's happening to a too small nose inside the barrel when the light bulb goes off? It squeezes to the size of the barrel, or tries to very hard.

[felix]

Wayne, the correct term is obTuration, not obDuration. ... felix

[Wayne Smith]

Thanks, Felix, I think I knew that, didn't do or think it right.

[felix]

If the truth be known, Wayne, we should all be in your office to have you cure us of this affliction. ... felix

When you get the chance, google the word ablator. Check out the word ablation which should come up as well. These terms are related to our boolit endeavor as well, but are more commonly seen within the medical arena. I have only seen these words in "professional" literature as it pertains to projectiles. Odd, but perfectly valid, however. ... felix

[Marlin Hunter]

If you went to that 9mm site you'd see the Germans made that type of bullet for the very early 9mm's. Pretty long ago and not many semi autos on the market at that time.

Joe


Apparently the first 9mm rounds were TC's. Interesting!

http://cartridgecollectors.org/intro9mm/


http://cartridgecollectors.org/intro9mm/pix/image007.jpg
http://cartridgecollectors.org/intro9mm/pix/image002.jpg

[BD]

I don't know if I'm qualified to get into this discussion as I don't have on my gummy boots right now, in fact I'm bare foot.

But a couple of things I do know. One is that if you shoot any sort of boolit out over the frozen snow covered lake at a coyote, and miss, you can later walk out past where you mistakenly thought he was standing and pick up your projectile in pristine condition just by following the trails left on the high points of wind whipped snow. If it's sunny out you can find each and every one of them. And, they don't go but 20 yards or so after they first hit the snow. From this I've learned two things: first, that the Lyman 6.5mm bore rider at 2,000 fps will show rifling marks way up one side of the nose, but not on the other side, and that the nose will be crooked. Whether from twist, or "nose slump" I dare not say, but the effect is definitely there.
Second, if the wind is strong in your face, it's not the fact that you're shooting at him that prevents that coyote from coming in closer to the bait, (where you know the range), it's just that he's smarter than you are about some things. He doesn't care if you shoot at him 5 or 6 times, as long as the boolits aren't getting there it's as interesting to him to watch as it is to you to shoot.

During these same pleasant, if very cold, afternoons in Maine I also discovered that it is in fact possible to spin a 45 grain .22 faster than the jacket can withstand, and they will come apart in mid flight. They leave a little gray dirt and some pieces of shiny jacket that you find on your way out to pace off how far that coyote really was standing beyond the bait. I think this is why someone smarter than me finally marketed range finders that will fit in your pocket. Thanks for doing that, whoever you are.

I've also seen several things flying through the air over my head that I thought may have been UFOs. Some of them later turned out to be "Stealth" aircraft, and I can't describe the "a ha!"moment I felt when I saw the first published picture of one. Others are still beyond my ability to wrap my head around relative to their apparent speed. I suppose on some level I do believe that UFOs visit on occasion, it's just a little tough to talk about without sounding like I forgot my tinfoil hat at home.

In any event it's been a good thread, and I don't feel anything squishy between my toes as yet.

BD

[Wayne Smith]

If the truth be known, Wayne, we should all be in your office to have you cure us of this affliction. ... felix

When you get the chance, google the word ablator. Check out the word ablation which should come up as well. These terms are related to our boolit endeavor as well, but are more commonly seen within the medical arena. I have only seen these words in "professional" literature as it pertains to projectiles. Odd, but perfectly valid, however. ... felix

Interesting, Felix, I know it from geology and from space science more than from medicine. I'm not into surgery or bone work, obviously.

You are talking about the process of throat wear, of course.

[geargnasher]

BD, the bent noses and uneven rifling marks on the 6.5 Swede is very common and due most likely to being "bent" upon firing, not really "slumping", i.e. not starting in the bore straight. I know you said "bore rider", but that doesn't always keep them straight with the bore unless the cartridge is perfectly centered in the bore (because you neck size only and turn your case necks, and your throat is worn evenly, and your chamber is round). When starting the boolit off-center, you know what happens.

I'm not saying for certain that the noses aren't slumping off-center, just that the boolit deformation you describe commonly happens at much lower velocities than will cause permanent slumping. At 2000 fps in a Karlina (I assume) with cast you are already way past the envelope where crazy things happen.

Gear

[StarMetal]

Since wound channel diameter is much more a product of meplat diameter than actual bullet diameter, it is our view that all non-expanding hunting bullets should utilize very broad meplats. Broader meplats result in larger diameter wound channels, which increase the speed of incapacitation. Another benefit of broad meplated bullets is increased penetration depth. This relationship of penetration depth to meplat diameter is quite interesting, and fundamental to proper full-potential bullet design. It is commonly believed that bullets with less meplat diameter, such as truncated cones, offer less resistance to penetration and, therefore, provide deeper penetration. This would be true if terminal stability was not influenced by meplat diameter. However, bullets such as truncated cones with less frontal area, and greater front to back weight disparity, are far less stable upon impact, and, as a consequence, provide less penetration. It is always easier to observe than explain, but clearly as the weight disparity between the front of the bullet and the rear of the bullet increases, there is a tendency for the heavier end to overtake the lighter end upon impact. This takes the form of the rear of the bullet moving forward faster than the front, resulting in yaw which greatly inhibits penetration. Simply stated, the bullet goes sideways. However, when the weight disparity between the front of the bullet and the rear of the bullet is minor, or non-existent, this tendency to yaw is greatly reduced and the bullet penetrates deeper. However, once the issue of front to back weight disparity is corrected, and bullet yaw is substantially eliminated, further increases in meplat diameter result in reduced penetration depth.

This is one ammo maker's take on it.

Joe

[felix]

Very good, Joe, and factual. However, there no no mention of increasing twist to enhance the stability of a large weight disparity. That would have made the paragraph more complete. Even if with a large disparity, an increase in speed will enhance stability as well, even with a lesser twist in some circumstances. It takes "time" for the projectile to alter course. ... felix

[felix]

That's right, Wayne. A gascheck, or any kind of filler, acts as an ablator. ... felix

[Newtire]

I don't mean to be an ass or to discredit 44 man's greatness but I started this thread in hopes of finding information on the creation, design and purpose of the truncated cone. Sifting threw the BS on a high jacked thread has made learning something new difficult.

Sorry Echo but, " We are learning at your Knee" I now want to vomit.

While I think I have learned alot about Keith vs RNFP or Truncated cone types, I also have to agree that "learning at your knee" is a bit sicko too. But then, I am from the midwest also. hah hah...

[44man]

I don't mean to be an ass or to discredit 44 man's greatness but I started this thread in hopes of finding information on the creation, design and purpose of the truncated cone. Sifting threw the BS on a high jacked thread has made learning something new difficult.

Sorry Echo but, " We are learning at your Knee" I now want to vomit.
OOPS, go back to your original question and that is not what you asked.

[BD]

geargnasher, that same old swede would keep the lyman 150 in 2" @ 100 and it will keep the Jumptrap 140 in an inch @ 100 if I hold the velocity down around 1,600. I haven't shot that jumptrap load in those circumstances as my Jumptrap is the pointy one, and since those day's I've come up with better tools with flatter trajectories for the 'yotes. There's definately something that happens to the boolits in the swede as velocities get up around 1,800 - 2,000.
BD

[Nora]

Originally Posted by Nora
I don't mean to be an ass or to discredit 44 man's greatness but I started this thread in hopes of finding information on the creation, design and purpose of the truncated cone. Sifting threw the BS on a high jacked thread has made learning something new difficult.

Sorry Echo but, " We are learning at your Knee" I now want to vomit.

OOPS, go back to your original question and that is not what you asked.

Ok let's take a look again at the OP then.

Truncated Cone, Why?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as a boolit shape I've always fond the truncated cone to be rather odd looking. I'm not knocking it mind you I've got a Makarov that prefers them to a RN. But what advantage was the design to have over any other style?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I started this thread in hopes of finding information on the creation, design and purpose of the truncated cone. But what advantage was the design to have over any other style?"

I'm not sure how much clearer to make it. ----The subject IS "Truncated Cone, Why? (hopes of finding information on the creation, design and purpose of the truncated cone.)


The question was also: "But what advantage was the design to have over any other style?"

It speaks only of, when the designers sat down and said "this is the way to go" what were they thinking. IE: we'll give it this shape to better feeding. Or the meplat will offer better splat" It asks nothing of how poorly others think of another boolit designer, boolit slump unless that is what they were trying to overcome, or the long winded personal achievements of others.

Sorry to have been so vague.

Nora

[918v]

I've been reloading for over 15 years for accuracy. I have tried all these bullet shapes in various pistols and revolvers. For some unknown reason, bullets with a sharp transition between the shank and the nose (TC or SWC) make it far easier to develop an accurate load. I'm not saying the most accurate load for a particular firearm will never involve a RN profile bullet, just that overall, a TC is more likely to be accurate.

In looking through Pet Loads by Ken Waters, or most other Handloader articles where accuracy is tabulated, TC/SWC beat RN profiles as well, generally.

I don't think it has to do with bullet slumping or any mechanical defect either pre or post ignition. I think it has to do with load chemistry and barrel vibration. The way TC and SWC bullets transition into the bore is more abrupt/shocking than RN. Maybe that affects ignition and consistency somehow. I dunno, but it's worth considering.

[felix]

The way TC and SWC bullets transition into the bore is more abrupt/shocking than RN. Maybe that affects ignition and consistency somehow. ... 918v

Yes, it does that, but more importantly if the RN is not launched within the angle of attack straight on and the boolit is not hard enough to align itself straight on, you get the inaccurate effect. In general, inaccurate guns can be made more accurate with hard projectiles. ... felix

[JesterGrin_1]

I have also found that a True TC BOOLIT at least in my .44 Mag Marlin will shoot tighter groups but I hunt with mine and thus I do not feel the TC has enough frontal area to be a good hunting round.
If I was just target shooting or shooting anything for that matter other than game I think they are a great design.

[918v]

In general, inaccurate guns can be made more accurate with hard projectiles. ... felix

Being that semi-auto pistols launch the bullet into the bore off center (due to chamber slop and extractor tension), how hard should a cast bullet be to aviod the distortion you speak of?

[leftiye]

"It speaks only of, when the designers sat down and said "this is the way to go" what were they thinking. IE: we'll give it this shape to better feeding. Or the meplat will offer better splat" It asks nothing of how poorly others think of another boolit designer, boolit slump unless that is what they were trying to overcome, or the long winded personal achievements of others." - Nora

Seems clear enough. Though I did enjoy the boolit slump part! (which it does overcome)

[leftiye]

"I have also found that a True TC BOOLIT at least in my .44 Mag Marlin will shoot tighter groups but I hunt with mine and thus I do not feel the TC has enough frontal area to be a good hunting round.
If I was just target shooting or shooting anything for that matter other than game I think they are a great design." Jest er grin

So how about just enlarging the meplat, or hollowpointing?

[felix]

how hard should a cast bullet be to aviod the distortion you speak of? ... 918v

Who knows? Trial and error. The formula for determination would have far too many variables to be controlled with confidence. Therefore, the heuristic process is the only valid method we home bodies can perform. ... felix

[JesterGrin_1]

"I have also found that a True TC BOOLIT at least in my .44 Mag Marlin will shoot tighter groups but I hunt with mine and thus I do not feel the TC has enough frontal area to be a good hunting round.
If I was just target shooting or shooting anything for that matter other than game I think they are a great design." Jest er grin

So how about just enlarging the meplat, or hollowpointing?

I think if you enlarged the meplat you would be back to about the size of a RNFP. And the HP is a good idea but there is not much there to HP. But I am not a designer and at this time not able to make my own molds for testing.

[44man]

I agree, the Marlin can be touchy because it shoots faster but a larger meplat will not correct a velocity problem. I proved that with my 45-70 BFR when I tried an 80% meplat on deer and it did no better then a TC boolit. The Marlin needs some expansion so a softer nose or hollow point would be nice. Just going to a larger meplat might be disappointing.
Now step down to the .44 revolver velocities and nothing matters much. A keith, WLN, WFN or RNFP will knock the daylights out of a deer. Lower the velocity and it still kills but not as fast, yet go too fast and it gets worse.
I think the .44 mag revolver has the edge on killing power, blood trails and short distance a deer runs. Deer shot with my .45 at a lower velocity take a little longer to die but I still have no trouble at all. Now the .475 is back in the right range and deer might just as well give it up on the spot. Go to the .454 and .460 and trouble starts again. I am talking cast, not expanding jacketed bullets. I can make my 45-70 sit up and talk with a jacketed bullet.
I firmly believe that once a certain velocity is reached, meplat size will do nothing for you but expansion will so if you can get a softer boolit to shoot from the Marlin, the TC boolit will work just fine.
I know, it sounds goofy but after killing a hell of a lot of deer and doing a necropsy on them all plus friend's deer, I see strange things.
I was wrong when I thought a faster WFN would kill better. :confused:
Again, Felix is correct, we must do the work and see what happens so things can be changed to make it better. Never get in a rut.