Given the same caliber, and weight, with say a 60 percent meplat, which would have better straight-line penetration, a truncated cone or a ogival design?
Printable View
Given the same caliber, and weight, with say a 60 percent meplat, which would have better straight-line penetration, a truncated cone or a ogival design?
Rebel, not identifying the caliber:
* Short range, no difference
* Long range, 100 to 1000yds - ogive
60% metplat is one fat bullet
No real answer to that question. Heavier works best. A while back I accidentally shot through the wide part of a pine 2x4 (50yds) - nice burrow until the wood split ~ 1.2" from the back edge. Nice RD boolit from jacketed fps load. Pretty much a question of what is in the target to deflect/damage the boolit. Watch some utube gel & wood shots on penetration - they never go in a straight line.
alloy wasnt mentioned... the harder the better but not too much or it will severely fragment on impact. Just enough... like the buffalo bore rounds... they penetrate deep.
the caliber shouldn't matter, as long as both boolit designs are the same weight and caliber, and for giggles lets say lyman #2, but like I said, it really only matters that they are both the same alloy, and fired at the same velocity from the same distance. basically I was asking hoping to find someone who has tried both types.
I meant the caliber should not matter for use in comparing, of course the caliber would make a difference in the amount of penetration. does no one have a mold of each type, at least close to the same weight?
I am not sure shape is as important as the meplat. A RN will often deflect or veer or even tumble. A flat point will usual track straight. It is easier to get a large meplat with ogive than TC.
The only rifle I have tested that has that large a meplat was a 458 Winchester magnum and this was done about 40 years ago.
The 2 boolits that I tested were the Lyman 462560 and the Lee C457-500 F.
These were fired into a red clay bank as a backstop. The were running about 2000fps.
They were cast from straight linotype.
Both penetrated very deeply(in excess of 5 feet) and neither one veered from a direct straight line unless it hit a rock. I fired 5 shots with each boolit. I only dug out 2 of each when I found out how deep they were going.
Unless the boolits struck a rock, they didn't expand or deform and were in perfect shape when I got them out of the dirt.
I am sorry that I no longer have the slugs(I have moved since then and they were lost).
With a 60% meplat, there's hardly any difference between the designs. Also, the question cannot be answered without giving us the calibers of the ogive and the angle of the truncated cone. But I can discuss it a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklahoma Rebel
Your question can be interpreted 2 different ways:
1. Which design will penetrate deeper?
The design with the greater sectional density.
2. Which will be less likely to be diverted from a straight-line path?
Again, with a 60% meplat, they will hardly differ. And again, you didn't give enough design information to answer the question. But the answer is, the design that has the most blunt nose.
Look at the results from the Linebaugh Seminars. The WLN or WFN works. The Punch bullets work real good.
All things being equal, I'd put my money on the ogival. It's going to have more of it's weight forward; the TC is going to move some of that weight to the rear.
While the bullets you are describing are not so extreme in their weight-rearward distribution, base-heavy/nose-light is the formula that's used to make the 5.56 NATO and 7.62x39 tumble on impact.
Keeping more metal up front is also going to give an ogival a sturdier nose that's less likely to deform for any given alloy. That's going to improve ability to track straight.
How do you know that? It could be a 6 calibre ogive and a 45 degree T/C. The OP gave no numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigslug
big slug seems to be the only one to understand my question, and he gave me a very good answer, that satisfies my curiosity. hangfire, oh, nevermind, thanks a lot!-Travis
Dynamic stability.
Center of gravity close to center of pressure.
Low overturning moment
Gyroscopic stability factor 2.0 or greater.
https://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath...S/GUNBLST.html
This thread represents why I'm about to give up on this site.
what he understood and you didn't is that I was talking about just your average design of each kind, if I said keith or spitzer, instead of truncated cone and ogival, would you have answered the same? I have seen tons of keith based boolits, but you would have assumed the 429421 right? or would you have asked, well what if he meant the accurate # so and so? but you can let it get under your skin, just don't forget, instead of getting your feeling riled up, you could always push the back button, and your day would go on just like it would have, if you wanted to.
fred, your answer makes a lot of sense, and taz, with the 458 Winchester, I doubt I'd be as worried about penetration! lol thanks guys