What is your best nose profile for 100 yard.

[Changeling]

It appears I have given some inaccurate ideas to people as to what I wish to accomplish with Cast bullets, more than likely because of the way I stated my questions and the lack of experience concerning revolver bullets, namely in .45 LC because that is what I am concerned with.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse so to speak I am just trying to gain as much experience as I can through your experience. These days a mistake can be costly relative to purchasing a mold.
I am well aware that nothing beats actual experience but it never hurts to take advantage of the accumulated experience of experts and save ones self the agony of making a silly mistake.

In regard to the 45 LC bullet at 100 yards give or take it "appears" that the consensus here is definitely in favor of the WFN concept (not interested in expanding nose) for hunting, this makes a lot of common sense.
I was originally worried about the accuracy of these bullets when I should have been concerned about there killing design as well as accuracy at my established hunting range.

It appears (maybe) that the wider the meplat the better without being a wad cutter.
There must be superior designs for accuracy in these nose designs so I was wondering if we could explore this.

[44man]

It appears I have given some inaccurate ideas to people as to what I wish to accomplish with Cast bullets, more than likely because of the way I stated my questions and the lack of experience concerning revolver bullets, namely in .45 LC because that is what I am concerned with.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse so to speak I am just trying to gain as much experience as I can through your experience. These days a mistake can be costly relative to purchasing a mold.
I am well aware that nothing beats actual experience but it never hurts to take advantage of the accumulated experience of experts and save ones self the agony of making a silly mistake.

In regard to the 45 LC bullet at 100 yards give or take it "appears" that the consensus here is definitely in favor of the WFN concept (not interested in expanding nose) for hunting, this makes a lot of common sense.
I was originally worried about the accuracy of these bullets when I should have been concerned about there killing design as well as accuracy at my established hunting range.

It appears (maybe) that the wider the meplat the better without being a wad cutter.
There must be superior designs for accuracy in these nose designs so I was wondering if we could explore this.
WLN, WFN or RNFP all work. A keith will too if you can make it accurate.

[S.R.Custom]

...It appears (maybe) that the wider the meplat the better without being a wad cutter....

To a point. Generally speaking, once the area of the meplat exceeds 75%, you begin to compromise long range stability/accuracy.

Meplat area notwithstanding, there's very little about a nose that actually affects accuracy. Much more critical factors include bullet bearing surface/length, internal occlusions, diameter (as it relates to chamber, throat, and groove diameter), bullet base shape and consistency... it's a long list.

Much has been said in recent discussion about how WFNs are more accurate than SWCs. This is true in some, but not all instances... In my experience, this is true when the revolver's cylinder chambers are not perfectly aligned with the bore. When this happens, that sharp shoulder of the SWC gets battered in the forcing cone as the bullet realigns itself from chamber to bore. As that sharp shoulder is actually a significant portion of the the SWC's bearing surface, the effect is a net eccentricity in the bullet. By contrast, in a chamber/bore misalignment situation, a tangential or secant ogive makes for a much smoother realignment of the bullet as it transitions from chamber to bore, resulting in less bullet deformation.

Having said that, I don't keep a revolver very long if the chambers and bores aren't perfectly aligned. If I can't remedy the situation, the revolver becomes trading fodder. But if proper alignment is present and all other dimensional aspects of the gun are correct, the single biggest factor in determining an accurate bullet in a revolver is the diameter, followed closely by the length of bearing suface. The nose profile, if it conforms to the previously mentioned 75% meplat rule, is almost irrelevant.


WLN, WFN or RNFP all work. A keith will too if you can make it accurate.

Exactly.

[leftiye]

Hollow points are intrinsically more accurate than flat points.

[jh45gun]

For killing I have found even in 30 caliber a flat point cast bullet will kill a deer no problem Round nose will slip right through them like a jacketed.Now 45 cal leaves a big hole like a 30 cal does expanded so you have some lee way there.

[NickSS]

I shoot a lot of 45 colt ammo in both revolver and rifle. I have found that short 200 to 240 gr bullets work well out to 50 yards but accuracy starts to fall off at 100. A 250 to 300 gr bullet generally has greater accuracy at longer ranges. So my most used bullet is a RNF that casts at 260 gr with WW. This bullet has worked well for me it is the original Lyman 45 colt bullet that is listed at 255 gr but casts heavier in my mold and alloy. I get good accuracy at 100 yards and it will keep in a six inch group at 200 yards with a rifle with 10 gr of Unique in it.

[missionary5155]

Good morning
I have a Ruger Blackhawk and a Rossi 92 (Older Interarms). They both shoot the Lee 265 round/flat nosed the best. I tried a swc, round nose and a wad cutter and the r/fn won out with each powder I tried. I only tried Unique & 2400. Both powders gave the same results... so I use that round / flat nose boolit for everything. I would hunt any critter here in Illinois with it. All I need to do is switch from pure WW to 50/50.

[44man]

To a point. Generally speaking, once the area of the meplat exceeds 75%, you begin to compromise long range stability/accuracy.

Meplat area notwithstanding, there's very little about a nose that actually affects accuracy. Much more critical factors include bullet bearing surface/length, internal occlusions, diameter (as it relates to chamber, throat, and groove diameter), bullet base shape and consistency... it's a long list.

Much has been said in recent discussion about how WFNs are more accurate than SWCs. This is true in some, but not all instances... In my experience, this is true when the revolver's cylinder chambers are not perfectly aligned with the bore. When this happens, that sharp shoulder of the SWC gets battered in the forcing cone as the bullet realigns itself from chamber to bore. As that sharp shoulder is actually a significant portion of the the SWC's bearing surface, the effect is a net eccentricity in the bullet. By contrast, in a chamber/bore misalignment situation, a tangential or secant ogive makes for a much smoother realignment of the bullet as it transitions from chamber to bore, resulting in less bullet deformation.

Having said that, I don't keep a revolver very long if the chambers and bores aren't perfectly aligned. If I can't remedy the situation, the revolver becomes trading fodder. But if proper alignment is present and all other dimensional aspects of the gun are correct, the single biggest factor in determining an accurate bullet in a revolver is the diameter, followed closely by the length of bearing suface. The nose profile, if it conforms to the previously mentioned 75% meplat rule, is almost irrelevant.



Exactly.
This is true but of not much concern with today's guns. They are better then ever. One thing I don't like are cylinders that are too tight with no side play. These MUST be perfect.
I feel the Keith with nothing but the shoulder contacting the forcing cone will not let the cylinder align. One side of the shoulder gets mashed first. The shoulder does nothing for the boolit except cut a nice hole in paper, it does nothing in flight or in game. The meplat does the killing, the shoulder never touches any tissue. The pressure wave in tissue from the meplat moves tissue away from the shoulder. The shoulder is totally useless except the boolit is pretty to look at.
You know how my revolvers shoot, no question about it. But I have shot thousands and thousands of semi wad cutters over the years in every weight and caliber and I can say at no time has any single one been as accurate as a WLN, WFN or RNFP. My revolvers have perfect alignment so that is not a factor. Even my old SBH with over 56,000 heavy rounds shows no off center wear in the forcing cone. All check perfect with range rods.
Chambers out of line are just not a common problem with new machining methods.
What is left is the boolit design and I will never understand what the draw is for the Keith????? It is out dated.
I can show you what a Keith does from an extremely tight fitting cylinder when doing an individual chamber test. These were shot at 50 yards from a rest with the best load in the gun.

[44man]

Now compare to a WFN at 80% meplat at 100 yards. The hole in the top is from 5 shots. The other holes are from a friends rifle, .45 ACP.
Oh yes, did you know the WFN is unstable!!!!! :mrgreen:

[Piedmont]

44man, I have some questions for you. It seems to me that the competition shooters find the answers to what works best as far as accuracy goes.

1)What shape is winning the handgun silhouette shoots these days?

2)What shape is winning the Bullseye matches. Now I know scorers in Bullseye matches like a clean hole, but if a roundnose or ogival-type would markedly out shoot a SWC wouldn't the shooters just tell the target scorer "tough" when he complained about the holes? The better accuracy at 50 yds. would make the ogival shape worth it.

I've wondered about both these questions for a long time and I really don't follow either game, so don't know what the winners are using, but think they use SWCs in Bullseye. Also, if that shoulder is bad, didn't eveyone use full wadcutters for Bullseye back in the revolver days? If they did, how could that abrupt shoulder have been bad for accuracy?

[S.R.Custom]

...Chambers out of line are just not a common problem with new machining methods...

That's because you're spoiled. Have you looked down the muzzle of a Taurus lately? It's all those boys can do to remember to cut a forcing cone.

The current crop out of S&W is not impressing me either-- even worse than they were back in Bangor Punta or Lear Siegler days. As far as I'm concerned, the high-water mark for modern revolver quality came and went in the '50s and early '60s. Pick up a .44 or .45 N frame from that period, and you don't even have to look at it to know that it's right.


...What is left is the boolit design and I will never understand what the draw is for the Keith????? It is out dated.

Now that particular statement I can get behind; there is a huge difference between a good SWC and a Keith bullet. A bit about good SWCs in a moment, but first...

The problem with Keith bullets is too much nose. So much so that the bullet's center of mass is too far forward on the bearing surface, resulting in a slug that's what I call top heavy. But, of course, the true Keith bullet was not about accuracy, but about getting as much of the bullet outside of the case as possible, thus making room for more powder. The Keith is about velocity.

Now in defense of "normal" SWCs... Back in the mid '90s I had access to a commercially cast SWC bullet in .44 caliber made by Tony Vance that he would supply to me as-cast and un-lubed at .434". I could put it through a scoped Dan Wesson SuperMag into 1.5" at 100 yards all day long. (A feat that I've yet to repeat with a cast bullet to this day.) This bullet was very similar to the Lyman 452424. (Which is another very accurate bullet in a good gun. If you look at the 452424, you'll see a much smaller nose in proportion to the rest of the bullet.) If I could get that old Vance bullet locally, I'd quit casting my own.

[Changeling]

Now compare to a WFN at 80% meplat at 100 yards. The hole in the top is from 5 shots. The other holes are from a friends rifle, .45 ACP.
Oh yes, did you know the WFN is unstable!!!!! :mrgreen:

44man it's very evident from the posts I have read from you that you put a lot of effort into this sport and truly must really enjoy shooting revolvers. Can you please tell me what you have found out concerning the 45LC in revolvers like the Ruger SA relative to the best WFN bullet styles. Just saying that WFN, WLN, etc all work is a broad statement, there must be designs from different people that contribute more to accuracy than others.

What about the Gates design or LBT or whoever. What weight/style do you use in the WFN design on deer?

[44man]

44man it's very evident from the posts I have read from you that you put a lot of effort into this sport and truly must really enjoy shooting revolvers. Can you please tell me what you have found out concerning the 45LC in revolvers like the Ruger SA relative to the best WFN bullet styles. Just saying that WFN, WLN, etc all work is a broad statement, there must be designs from different people that contribute more to accuracy than others.

What about the Gates design or LBT or whoever. What weight/style do you use in the WFN design on deer?
I really have found little difference. I use the Lee, Lyman, LBT and my own mold from 300 all the way to 347 gr. Gates knows what he is doing, a smart and great fella so I expect his are good.
I still think it is important to engage the forcing cone with the nose as it first enters it, not waiting until a small nose goes into the bore, touching nothing. Sort of like like using a pin punch to enter a tapered hole, no guidance until the small part of the taper is touched but notice you can wiggle the whole punch?
Put a Keith in the muzzle and see how far sideways you can move it, the nose does not even engage the rifling.
Ignore those that say you must expand a boolit to fit the throats and forcing cone, it does not work.
I have over the years had several Keith boolits that shot good, the original 429421 and the 358156 are two but I exceed the accuracy today by a long shot. In fact all, even today they shoot to what most shooters can do.
But I am never satisfied, never have been. My quest is a one hole group at 100 yards and I have been close but no cigar yet. I feel I am the weak link and just can't do it.
Anyway, here are the boolits I use and there is not a nickels difference in how they shoot.

[44man]

Now I made a mold for my .44 that has an 11* forcing cone. I tried to match it with the boolit nose. It weighs 330 gr. This is what I got at 200 yards doing a drop test.

[44man]

44man, I have some questions for you. It seems to me that the competition shooters find the answers to what works best as far as accuracy goes.

1)What shape is winning the handgun silhouette shoots these days?

2)What shape is winning the Bullseye matches. Now I know scorers in Bullseye matches like a clean hole, but if a roundnose or ogival-type would markedly out shoot a SWC wouldn't the shooters just tell the target scorer "tough" when he complained about the holes? The better accuracy at 50 yds. would make the ogival shape worth it.

I've wondered about both these questions for a long time and I really don't follow either game, so don't know what the winners are using, but think they use SWCs in Bullseye. Also, if that shoulder is bad, didn't eveyone use full wadcutters for Bullseye back in the revolver days? If they did, how could that abrupt shoulder have been bad for accuracy?
Most silhouette shooters use jacketed bullets and so far the most accurate is the Hornady 240 and 300 gr XTP's in the .44, followed by their silhouette bullet and the Speer bullets. Look at the nose profiles---not a single Keith. Why make a cast boolit different? Why make a cast boolit soft if a jacketed can punch 1/2" groups at 50 meters?
Back in the old days distance shot was hand shaking distance at paper. Soft wad cutters would spit lead out of the gap and lead the outside of the gun and deform in the cone. Being a flat nose, not much change in shape could be seen. The damage to a wide meplat, soft semi wad cutter is most likely the reason some say a WFN goes unstable at past 50 yards. The boolit has been ruined before leaving the barrel.
Every single thing must be perfect for a Keith to exit in the exact same shape it was cast. Not even .001" inch of cant.

[yondering]

Why make a cast boolit soft if a jacketed can punch 1/2" groups at 50 meters?

I've often wondered about that myself. Other than expanding (HP or otherwise) boolits, I don't see any advantage to a soft boolit in a modern handgun. However, I often read comments on this forum claiming the opposite. I read one the other day claiming "There is absolutely no advantage to hard cast boolits!". I disagree from my own experiences, what about you 44man?

Along the lines of what you were saying about nose fit, what do you think about this boolit? I used it a bit in my .454 Casull when I first started casting, but haven't done much with it since then. A recent discussion got me thinking about it again, so I'm thinking of cutting the mold down to either 350gr plain base or 310gr gas checked. The design seems like it would function similar to a WFN in the bore, but I haven't played with it enough to know. BTW they are currently 390gr as-cast from WW.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c26/zthang43/molds/IMG_1060r.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c26/zthang43/molds/IMG_2755.jpg

[Piedmont]

I think 44man should be provided a research grant to have Buckshot or Erik Ohlsen hollowpoint one of his already accurate bullets so we can see if a hollowpointed version is even more accurate.

[shooting on a shoestring]

Here's my take. I have a .45 Colt 7.5 inch Blackhawk. My favorite boolit is 454424, followed closely by 454190. I have the Lee 310 wfn GC and I shoot it less b/c it is GC and I don't like GCs (cost, another step to loading). I also have 452490 ( I think that's right, its also a 250 gr SWC but is a GC mould). It shoots ok, but again, I don't like checks, and it doesn't shoot any better than 454424. My only bad boolit is the 300 gr group buy Keith SWC. It does shoot bad. I have worked at it considerably and can't get to group even half as good as 454424 or 454190. So what is a good group to me? Under 3 inches at 25 yds iron sigths, rested. 454424 and 454190 both do that with mulitiple loads and velocities, some consistently at 2 inches. That's as good as I get.

Last weekend I shot my newly aquired S&W 4" Model 67 .38 Spl with the Lee TL158 SWC and 3.5 gr Bullseye and got a 7.5" 5 shot group at 100 yds resting one elbow. I also put over half my shots on a 1 gallon water jug at 100 yds using the wadcutter 358091 over 3.5 grs Bullseye. I don't believe wadcutters get unstable after 50 yds as I've seen quoted. I also use them in my .357s driven to between 1200 and 1300 fps. They really work fast and long.

[Edubya]

I'd suggest that you read another thread for information that you, possibly never thought about. Some real interesting posts here. It's about hardening of alloy to 28 BHN, which I'll never need or even try, but I found the entry by "cbrick" as being very relevant to sizing. #31

We are squandering away our time and effort following the other un-informed in the attempt to develop experience and knowledge.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?p=716208#post716208

EW

[44man]

I've often wondered about that myself. Other than expanding (HP or otherwise) boolits, I don't see any advantage to a soft boolit in a modern handgun. However, I often read comments on this forum claiming the opposite. I read one the other day claiming "There is absolutely no advantage to hard cast boolits!". I disagree from my own experiences, what about you 44man?

Along the lines of what you were saying about nose fit, what do you think about this boolit? I used it a bit in my .454 Casull when I first started casting, but haven't done much with it since then. A recent discussion got me thinking about it again, so I'm thinking of cutting the mold down to either 350gr plain base or 310gr gas checked. The design seems like it would function similar to a WFN in the bore, but I haven't played with it enough to know. BTW they are currently 390gr as-cast from WW.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c26/zthang43/molds/IMG_1060r.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c26/zthang43/molds/IMG_2755.jpg
It looks good. I would try 350 first, no need for a check. You can even make it a little lighter by making the base band smaller.
My best shooting PB .475 boolit, a WFN 420 gr, only has a .075" base band.

[Bucks Owin]

Now I made a mold for my .44 that has an 11* forcing cone. I tried to match it with the boolit nose. It weighs 330 gr. This is what I got at 200 yards doing a drop test.200 yds! 1 5/16"! Incredible! My "varmit rifle" shoots no better. (Well, "maybe" it's the nut behind the trigger) Were those rds from the same charge hole? Amazed, Dennis

[Whitworth]

I find the tipping point for long range accuracy is over 80%. 44man's 420 grain .475 bullet is right at 80% (meplat size), and it flies predictably and repeatably at long ranges -- despite conventional wisdom.

[44man]

200 yds! 1 5/16"! Incredible! My "varmit rifle" shoots no better. (Well, "maybe" it's the nut behind the trigger) Were those rds from the same charge hole? Amazed, Dennis
No, I use all chambers in my revolvers.
Can I do that group again? probably not! The point I make is that the boolits we use are accurate. You are right that it is the "nut" behind the trigger.
We shoot revolvers more at 100 yards then at any other distance and NEVER at 25 yards unless there is a deer there.

[yondering]

I find the tipping point for long range accuracy is over 80%. 44man's 420 grain .475 bullet is right at 80% (meplat size), and it flies predictably and repeatably at long ranges -- despite conventional wisdom.

When you say 80% meplat size, can you clarify whether you mean 80% of diameter, or area? Seems some people use diameter, some use area, but there is a significant difference, so it's nice to know.

The Lee 452-300 WFN for example has a .370" meplat. This is ~82% meplat diameter, but only 67% meplat area.

[Whitworth]

Sorry I didn't clarify! I meant 80% of the bullet's diameter.

[yondering]

Thanks! That makes sense, just wanted to make sure.

[August]

Best nose profile for 100 yards?

Barbara Striesand.

[Bucks Owin]

I'm considering buying a custom /semi-custom mold of .430" diameter, truncated profile to fit 11*degree forcing cone, 70-80% wide meplate, and shuffle the size and position of lube groove, crimp groove, driving bands, and nose length to come up with a 210gr to 215 grain wheel weight alloy bullet.
My guess is that would be a accurate bullet for my Colt SAA size guns in 44 special and 44-40.
Am I on the right track? FWIW, I achieved excellent accuracy with the RCBS 225 GC bullet in my .44. You may need to size to .427" or thereabouts for your .44/40, depending on it's dimensions....Just 2 centavos, Dennis

[Changeling]

I haven't forgotten this post at all. The things that 44Man said and others still ring in my ears when I get ideas! You can not argue with someone who puts the evidence on a plate in front of you, that is just simple logic! There are better bullet designs than the orig keith or there new counterparts for that matter.

However,I recently searched quite a bit for an updated rendition of the Keith bullet. After looking at a million photos it was obvious that the RCBS 255-SWC is probably the best updated Keith rendition of the Lyman 454424 bullet available today (I do no buy Lyman anything).
So I went looking for a good price on the mold and found it on sale at Green Top in Virginia for $54.00 delivered.
This is to settle my craving for the Keith type 454424 bullet, now I'll be able to see for myself. One side of this mold will get a Hollow point conversion, UNLESS I change my mind on my reasonings for wanting it and it's theoretical probability of doing what I want it to do.
Anyway it is considered a great rendition in it's own right, and an awesome buy at that price.

That long nose that everyone seems to find ridicule with has distinct advantages that no one seems to talk about. That is long range, now unlike everyone that uses the term loosely meaning "WHAT"! That long nose if the revolver/rifle twist is enough will give a more stable flight characteristic over a shorter nose witch might be unstable for mathematical reasons within the same long range distances, let us say 300 yards are more, sometimes, Lots more..
So how many people here are going to be able to shoot game at 300 yds or so like Mr. Keith did and even longer. Trust me , very dam few! Me I like shooting long long distances and then figuring why I didn't hit!! And I have the room, so far, but maybe not for long.

But I am starting to ramble. Everyone has to consider the distance they are going to shoot (revolvers)"MAXIMUM" and then deal with the caliber/bullet/load that is capable of doing what you want at that distance providing enough energy to support a quality kill of the animal in question.
It's your responsibility, think about it!

[44man]

It is a question of ethics for me when hunting. I feel I can hit deer where I aim to 100 yards off hand so that is my limit but I prefer closer every time. Since I never have a rest except sitting on the ground so I can use my knees, I limit my long range shots.
Now shooting steel is a different matter and I shoot my BFR's to 500 meters with WLN and WFN boolits.
I ONCE put 3 shots on our half size buf at 500 yards with the 45-70 BFR and a WLN that measured 2-1/2". (Don't ask me to repeat it!)
I also kept 4 out of 5 shots on a 6" swinger at 400 yards with my .475 and a WLN. Drop is something else but I see no loss of accuracy.
But once the right tree branch, about 26' over a steel ram at 500 meters is found, all shots can ring steel with the 45-70 BFR. It makes my 45-70 rifle look sick.
If there was some way to set sights at that range, what fun it would be. You would need a drastically tapered base. I use the Ultra Dot for all of my shooting. I set the bottom of the dot on my aiming point. I can't give real drop figures because I don't use the dot center. I can't measure the branch height either. My spotter walks me to the right aim point.
Now a Keith might have a few inches less drop but I can't prove it because I never got one to shoot accurately that far to even measure. When talking many feet in drop, inches mean nothing.
Back in 1956-57 I was shooting 200 yards with my .44 and the 429421 but targets were like a 32 gallon hot water tank. As the years went by I found I could hit pop cans at 200 with my SRH by using better boolits. Empty spray paint cans at 200 are duck soup with the BFR's. Just need to guess the holdover right. (I never change from my deer hunting settings.) I sight for 75 yards.
Anyway, I have never seen a WLN or WFN lose accuracy over long range. I hope one day when I get to the club to shoot 800 yards. THAT should be interesting! :Fire: The range in my woods is only 200 yards.
Many of you are missing out on GPS---grins per shot! :drinks:

[Bucks Owin]

(I do no buy Lyman anything). That's a shame, you're missing out on some good designs

So how many people here are going to be able to shoot game at 300 yds or so like Mr. Keith did and even longer. Trust me , very dam few! Me I like shooting long long distances and then figuring why I didn't hit!! And I have the room, so far, but maybe not for long. For the most part, Mr Keith took shots at extreme handgun ranges at wounded animals or wounded that were getting away. Anyone who would take a shot at a game animal with an open sighted handgun at 300 yds should have the barrel bent over their head! And JMO, but I kinda think ol' Elmer never let a story suffer much in the telling...

But I am starting to ramble. Everyone has to consider the distance they are going to shoot (revolvers)"MAXIMUM" and then deal with the caliber/bullet/load that is capable of doing what you want at that distance providing enough energy to support a quality kill of the animal in question. I agree but again, with an open sighted sixgun that range isn't going to be so long that velocity/energy loss is a much of a factor except perhaps "expanding" J-boolits shot at a borderline velocity to begin with. 150 yds is a looong way out there over open sights, TOO far without a good rest, good conditions, and plenty of practice under your belt. You'll see some front blade at that range alright, but a (heavy) bigbore cast boolit still has plenty of steam to penetrate pretty darn well. Anybody sensibly hunting at ranges longer than that will be the folks with scopes and "flatter" calibers for the most part, eg Steve Herritt's creations and the like, and will be very good at range estimation from varmiting or silhouette shooting and will know their hogleg's trajectory as well as they do their own phone number! The rest of us duffers better stick to inside 100 yds IMO

JMO of course, Dennis :) (BTW, here's a thought on some fun long range handgunning. Have someone other than yourself take some paper plates and put them at varying (unknown) ranges, as far as they like, behind light brush, up and down a hillside, half hidden behind a tree etc. In other words, places a deer would be. Call the paper plate your "vital area". Then shoot at them from different positions that you would actually use when hunting and see how well you can CONSISTENTLY ventilate them with your HUNTING LOAD. That's your maximum range and it won't be as far as you might wish!) :shock:

[Whitworth]

JMO of course, Dennis :) (BTW, here's a thought on some fun long range handgunning. Have someone other than yourself take some paper plates and put them at varying (unknown) ranges, as far as they like, behind light brush, up and down a hillside, half hidden behind a tree etc. In other words, places a deer would be. Call the paper plate your "vital area". Then shoot at them from different positions that you would actually use when hunting and see how well you can CONSISTENTLY ventilate them with your HUNTING LOAD. That's your maximum range and it won't be as far as you might wish!) :shock:


Or it may surprise you how far it is! :mrgreen:

[44man]

Or it may surprise you how far it is! :mrgreen:
How true, I shot a deer with my Vaquero and I thought she was about 55 yards. Lots of brush, etc in the way but I found a hole.
Later when Whitworth was over to practice out of the same stand I paced it off and found it was really 76 yards.
We shoot those little plastic water bottles, cans and anything else laying around, set at all spots a deer might be. All off hand from the stand.
I watch Whitworth hit the bottles as far as 86 yards and none of us will miss more then a few inches. Bioman shoots with us too. He is deadly at the closer ranges but needs more practice way out there. I think he peeks at the long targets. I watched Bioman shoot 1/2" groups with his Ruger Hunter at 50 yards from bags and his last deer with it, he shot in the neck to drop it because it was an easy shot.
All it takes is practice and to get comfortable with your revolvers. We NEVER shoot light loads because they do not prepare you for hunting.
Paper targets suck too, shoot at all kinds of stuff from rocks, cans, plastic bottles and for a lot of fun, gallon jugs of water. I found an old hubcap in the woods and that was a lot of fun. Also some old pots and pans.
I feel so sorry for all of you fellas that live where even 25 yards at a range is as far as you can shoot. I have heard of clubs that will not allow a revolver shooter on the rifle range.
I have a crutch to bear when I shoot at deer with a bow, rifle, shotgun, muzzle loader or revolver. I have no control over the trigger pull. As soon as the sights are on, the gun goes off and I never remember letting off the shot or pulling the trigger. I have zero control for the time the gun fires or the arrow is on the way. I don't know if it is bad or not because deer die with regularity, however I can not hold for a long time at a certain spot.
It is far different when shooting at targets because the gun never seems to want to go off and I need to work like mad to hold steady and squeeze but at times the trigger does not move at all. Even a 1-1/2# trigger feels like 100#. My finger does nothing without making it work. Why the difference is there is funny. Maybe I am just meant to hunt and targets mean nothing.
Anyway, it is easier for me to kill a deer then to hit anything else.
I am on full auto with deer running full out in open fields too. I have dropped every deer with a muzzle loader out to beyond 100 yards and well past 200 with a rifle. When the lead is right, the gun goes off with no input from me.
I laugh at the hunting shows where they need to grunt to stop a walking deer. I would kill the thing, then grunt at him. :kidding:

[Frank]

The one variable missing here is wind drift. If you have any wind, a flat nose going slow has alot of wind drift at 100 yds. And what wind doesn't increase, decrease, go left, right and stop? A boolit with a BC of .190 (Linebaugh or 45-70) blows 3" at 100, a foot at 200 with a 10 mph crosswind. Who has no wind? Nobody. Now with a pointy bullet and a rifle you are looking at .6" and 2.5" at those ranges. If you want long range, go to another set-up.

[44man]

The one variable missing here is wind drift. If you have any wind, a flat nose going slow has alot of wind drift at 100 yds. And what wind doesn't increase, decrease, go left, right and stop? A boolit with a BC of .190 (Linebaugh or 45-70) blows 3" at 100, a foot at 200 with a 10 mph crosswind. Who has no wind? Nobody. Now with a pointy bullet and a rifle you are looking at .6" and 2.5" at those ranges. If you want long range, go to another set-up.
Yep, I had to aim at the next ram at 200 meters some times to hit the one I was shooting at. And that was with XTP's, etc. I watched guys set sights for the wind but good old Kentucky windage was best.
It is fun to watch boolits through a spotting scope.