WFN vs. Keith style

[long_arm]

Again as pertains to .44 mag revolver.
In your opinions/experience is one preferable over the other in terms of accuracy? How about in terms of performance on game?
Thanks in advance.

[rockrat]

Think the meplat on the WFN is larger than the Keith. I measured a .44 WFN the other day and the meplat was something like 70% of bullet diameter.

[JohnH]

I'd be surprised that there'd be enough difference to matter. Some years back I took the Lee 310 and milled the top of the mold off to remove the gas check shank. Ended with a bullet of about 250 grains. I've used that bullet to kill several deer with out of an NEF 44 Mag at 1270 FPS and several more out of two different muzzle loaders at ~1700 fps The WFN works well but again I doubt that it's any better or worse a killer than Keith's SWC.

The thing one must keep in mind with large caliber bullets at velocities around 1500 fps is that they kill by creating blood loss. They are not hydrostatic shockers, bullet placement is everything.

[Cosmic_Charlie]

Makes you wonder about rotational balance and other variables. Does one boolit fly better than another? I have gotten excellent accuracy from both types in .44's. Lately i have been trying this one out;
295856 Got a 4" off hand group at 50 yards with it a couple days back. 15 grains of 2400. Ran out of 2400 so I loaded some over 18 of WW296.

[Thumbcocker]

I have shot deer with Keith's and Ranch Dogs. They died.

[Larry Gibson]

Kind of like the old Chevy PU vs a Ford PU discussion.....which is "best' depends on which one you've been influenced and talked into by others, ads and spent your money on.

As to performance, in reality, they'll both get you down the road equally well........

[Jim22]

I think Elmer Keith promoted the wide flat nose boolit because it killed game better than the round nose boolits that were then common. It seems he was correct. Nowadays mould makers are following his lead and some are making their meplats even bigger than the Keith boolits. Whichever you choose it seems they both work and for the same reasons. The flat meplat creates adisplacement of liquids that a round nose doesn't. Since meat is mostly liquid it is no wonder they work well.

The cast boolits penetrate well because they are usually tougher than many jacketed ones. The flat meplat causes more tissue damage than a round nose or pointed boolit does. It is up to the person who casts the boolit to decide on an alloy that will produce the results desired. That is why I am one of those exploring powder coating boolits. I have been doing it with softer alloys than conventionally lubricated boolits. I am anxious to try powder coating with my new .358 diametsr 200 grain HP boolits from my NOE mould. I have been casting them with 98% COWW and 2% tin. They deform pretty easily.

Jim

[mnewcomb59]

WFN bullets are much more accurate, especially as speeds increase past supersonic. I think this is mostly due to ballistic coefficient. The lower BC of the SWC makes a small breath of wind blow your bullets at 100 yards. For example a 158 SWC from 357 rifle at 2000 fps vs 158 WFN. BC is .11 vs .17. Retained velocity is 1360 vs 1550 at 100 yards. Wind drift with a 10 mph cross wind is 5.5" vs 3.3". A small breath of cross wind will move the SWC and give you larger groups than the same small breath of cross wind with a WFN. I have never had SWCs near 2000 fps with less than a 4" group and 5-6" groups are more common at 100 yards. At the same time, a 158 WFN at 2000+ fps shoots 1.5-2.5" for 10 shots at 100 yards with more retained energy and better shot placement.

[rockrat]

I get about 2.5" groups @100yds with the 358156 boolit at around 2500fps out of my 357max. rifle. Brass life was short at that level though

[Flogger]

He championed the large meplat but he was also sold on the ballistics of the SWC and his designs combined both pricipals.

[MT Gianni]

Both are dependent on your gun. If you have any misalignment the edge of a swc can be deformed, less so on a wfn unless the misalignment is enough to wipe down the side of the bullet. Both are more accurate than almost all shooters, both are game killers. It has been proven more than once the the top band of a swc disrupts no flesh or cuts nothing in paper. I shoot and like both in a couple of calibers. I have only a keith style in a couple and don't feel the need to change there. No absolutes to find here.

[Lonegun1894]

I have more SWC designs than WFN, but recently got one each for my .357, .44, and .45, so hopefully I'll be able to chime in with experience on game soon. As to paper accuracy, I think both outshoot me, which doesn't help the discussion much other than that I need more practice.

[VariableRecall]

I have more SWC designs than WFN, but recently got one each for my .357, .44, and .45, so hopefully I'll be able to chime in with experience on game soon. As to paper accuracy, I think both outshoot me, which doesn't help the discussion much other than that I need more practice.

What exactly does WFN stand for? How does if differ from a Kieth bullet?

[Wheelguns 1961]

WFN= wide flat nose. I guess someone tested the WFN against the SWC and came to the conclusion that the WFN created a bigger wound channel. They said that the SWC wound channel size was more inline with the size of the front of the bullet, and not the large shoulder behind it. As far as accuracy goes, to me, each bullet is different. I have had SWC bullets that shot very accurately from my revolvers, and the same goes for some WFN bullets. I have had the best accuracy with LFN bullets(long flat nose). As noted from above, they will all kill if you put it where it needs to go.

[JohnH]

What exactly does WFN stand for? How does if differ from a Kieth bullet?

The Lee 430-310 and the 358-158 RFN are both WFN designs. There are a lot of variations on the theme of SWC, but the Lyman 429421 and the true(er) copies by folks like boutique mold makers like NOE, Arsenal and others. The Lee 358 and 44 caliber SWC is not a copy of the Keith design.

[Kosh75287]

In a revolver that will not be used for timed competition, but for hunting instead, I'D be inclined to go with a Keith-style projectile, unless the WFN shoots MUCH much better. For all its wonderful terminal effects, Keith-style and SWC projectiles tend to make it difficult to reload an empty cylinder in a hurry. SWCs also tend to hang and bind on the sharp edges and surfaces of the feedway. I get far less of either when using WFNs in a revolver or lever gun, especially in timed events.

[Bigslug]

The older hands are welcome to correct me, but I believe it was Veral Smith that originated the terms LFN (Long Flat Nose) and WFN (Wide Flat Nose)

Going from memory here, the meplat on the "True" Keith .44 bullet is .27"

Veral pitched his 250 grain LFN with it's .30" meplat as the Keith's upgrade/replacement. His logic was that the Keith already penetrated more than it really needed to; his extra meplat added to the terminal effect; and since the LFN placed more lead forward of the case, you could fit in more powder, drive it harder, and not really lose any penetration anyway.

I believe Veral's WFN / .44 formula puts the meplat at .34". The 260 to 280 grain versions of this will be a SERIOUS can of whupass, but due to having the aerodynamic profile of a school bus, they will not have the downrange trajectory of the other two. For what most NORMAL folks will be doing for a handgun shot, this is probably your best bet. If you seriously intend to play beyond 100 yards, the LFN will be the better choice.

Next question: do you intend to shoot it in a carbine of any kind? In that case, nose length begins to become a problem when compared with the space allowed by Ruger or Smith cylinders.

[Lex]

I've gotten better accuracy out of the Keith type bullets my lbt mold is accurate only with max loads.

[VariableRecall]

The Lee 430-310 and the 358-158 RFN are both WFN designs. There are a lot of variations on the theme of SWC, but the Lyman 429421 and the true(er) copies by folks like boutique mold makers like NOE, Arsenal and others. The Lee 358 and 44 caliber SWC is not a copy of the Keith design.

So, the projectile basically fills the maximum allowable space in the cylinder in terms of volume? Interesting, if you're looking to maximize grain weight per projectile.

[kingrj]

I have used both types on deer and have had excellent results with both...The deer seem to be equally allergic to both...

[Cosmic_Charlie]

I like a boolit that has some full width band ahead of the crimping groove so it's supported by the throat or cyclinder when chambered. Elmer killed elk with his handguns using his style boolits so i doubt there is any issues with the swc designs given suitable weight and velocity.

[rkrcpa]

My 41 Magnum Bisley seems to like the WFNGC

6 shots, 25 yds

https://i.imgur.com/0msehWp.jpg

Full Disclosure....

I shoot mainly Keith SWC but have a large quantity of the WFNGC on hand also. When spring rolls around I may need to do some side by side comparisons with the Contender.

[T-Bird]

I now shoot 429421 only out if my mod 29-6. Have killed a few deer, can hit a 6" gong at 60 yds ad nauseum from a rest (2x scope). I'm happy with my swc in 44 true Keith or not.

[RJM52]

Most of my shooting is with .41s and have Keith/SWC and LBT style bullets from 165 to 300 grains...and find very little difference in accuracy...

I really doubt that any animal shot in the shoulder at 100 yards is going to know the difference between a Keith and WFN of equal weight and muzzle velocity...

Shoot what you shoot best....and best shoots in your gun...

Bob

[gwpercle]

Effect on game ... it's two pea's in a pod ... use the one that ...you like and your gun shoots accurately!
Place either one in the right spot and you have a skinning job to do .

For some reason Elmer liked (insisted on ) a front , sharp shouldered , driving band ... To square up the round in the cylinder and cut a clean 44 cal. hole ...so he sacrificed a little meplate area .
He experimented with the percentages of meplate in different designs .
But honestly I don't see how one design is any great improvement over the other...they are both Great !
Gary

[DougGuy]

Both are quite accurate *IF* you can load so that the boolit's load bearing sides can reach into the cylinder throats where the boolit is held aligned in the throat.

Consider the forcing cone and boolit intersection. The sides of the WFN are a LOT more parallel to the forcing cone which should equal less boolit distortion or damage than the squared off shoulder of the K type boolit.

As far as the wound channel, at handgun velocities I would pick the WFN over the K any day.

[gunseller]

Elmer played with a wfn bullet and that is the reason he designed his swc. Long range accuracy was not there for him with a wfn bullet. When I shoot paper with w Keith style swc the holes in the paper are the same size as the diameter of the front driving band on the bullet. This makes the hole lots bigger than the flat nose of the bullet. If the front band is not cutting the paper where is the paper going? I have shot deer with both out to 200 yards and both gave me dead deer.
Steve