Soliciting opinions on 44 Keith SWC v. flat nose

[El Bibliotecario]

I'd like to hear opinions and experiences on the 44 caliber Keith pattern SWC bullet compared to a round nosed flat point bullet. I am not sure that is the correct nomenclature, so I have appended an example. I know the RNFP will not cut a clean hole in the target as does the Keith. Is there any intrinsic accuracy difference? Usage would primarily be target shooting and plinking at 25 yards with moderate loads in 44 Special cast from wheel weights. Hunting is not a factor. TIA

[Winger Ed.]

RN has a little more penetration, and doesn't slow down quite as quickly--- but not by much.
SWC seems to be a little more accurate, and punches a cleaner hole in paper.

That's the only differences I've ever noticed.

[HWooldridge]

The RN will be easier to feed thru a lever action, if you are ever considering that option. As Ed said, the SWC will cut a cleaner hole in paper.

You can shoot a 200 gr design in the RN, while the Keith runs 50 grs heavier, so your lead goes further with the lighter pill.

[mnewcomb59]

At ranges as short as 50 yards the SWC will blow in the wind much more than a WFN because the BC is much lower. It makes an even bigger difference as velocity climbs such as in lever action rifles. In my 357 the difference in impact velocity at 100 yards is 200 fps, which is pretty significant. Also at 100 yards the wind drift in a 10 mph crosswind is 2 inches more for the SWC than the WFN. I have never found SWC to be as accurate, and my theory is that mild puffs of wind open the groups more with the less aerodynamic bullet. If both loads are capable of 2 MOA inside a wind tunnel or indoor shooting range, the SWC will inevitably prove less accurate (sometimes dramatically so) as you move to outdoor, real world conditions.

[buckwheatpaul]

Like stated above....if you are shooting in a single shot or revolver the Keith is a better boolit. If you are running it through a lever action the RNF will cycle better. Hope this helps.

[Noah Zark]

The RN will be easier to feed thru a lever action, if you are ever considering that option . . .

^^^ This. I successfully tuned a 44 Magnum Ruger 96 to feed 240 gr SWCs in 44 Special cases, but didn't have luck consistently feeding the same cartridges from a Cimarron 1873 in 44 Spl, or two Cimarron 1892s chambered in 44 Mag but firing my 44 Spls. The RNFP feeds in everything.

Noah

[Mal Paso]

The BC for the RCBS 44-250-K is .185 compared and a Speer GDSP at .175 so pick what you like. You Won't Have 200 fps difference at 100 yards. I think the late H&G #503 (Keith SWC) as made by MP Molds and Arsenal is my best 44 bullet followed by the Lyman Devastator RNHP as made by MP Molds.

The Devastator was an outstanding RNFP before they hollowpointed it which moved the center of gravity back and made it better.

The Late H&G #503 was Elmer Keith's update of the 429421 for the 44 Magnum. The 429421 came before the 44Mag and works well in 44Mag too. I've shot tons of these, literally, 28 to the pound.

[mnewcomb59]

RCBS took a good guess and Speer used a doppler. SWC will always have less BC when weights are similar. A good approximation for average weight bullets (160 .357 or 240 .429) is .12 for 65% meplat SWC and .16 for 75% meplat WFN. As meplat grows or shrinks, BC will change. Ogive length is determineded by COAL. A small meplat SWC will be closer in BC to a really wide WFN 80%. There will be a huge gap between wide 75% SWC and a 65% RF with equal ogive length.

[derek45]

[Mal Paso]

Cool! I have the 5 cavity from Arsenal and the 6 Cavity from MP Molds. More bullets, more practice, better shot.

[MT Gianni]

Veral Smith's theory was that the RF would shoot better from a revolver as there was no chance that misalignment would deform the belt above the crimp line. I think it is difficult to see that until you are shooting at over 100 yards.

[megasupermagnum]

There's no way you are going to see 200 fps difference between them at 100 yards. The only way I'm getting that on a ballistic calculator is by comparing a rifle bullet to a round ball. In the .12 to .18 ish BC range most handgun bullets fall into, there's zero practical difference.

Now to actually comparing the designs, no, there is not an intrinsic difference in accuracy. Especially at 25 yards, the bullet barely matters at all at that distance. Some people swear a RNFP can be more accurate, and yet there is a list a mile long of people who are shooting SWC's every bit as accurately if not more so.

If you get into the nitty gritty of the designs, I can think of two differences that might effect you. One is a RNFP of the same weight is usually a shorter overall bullet than a SWC. If the noses are the same length, this translates to more powder space. That's probably not a good thing for mild 44 special loads. What often is the case though is that the RNFP has a shorter nose, making it a moot point. The other difference between the two styles is a RNFP does not have a distinct edge to their front driving band. Let's say a SWC has a .100" wide front driving band, which is about what it is on a Keith design. It will be that length no matter if you size down, or coat that bullet. Now lets say a RNFP is also drawn with a .100" wide band. When you size that bullet down, that length grows. If you coat the bullet, you not only size it even more, you are also adding diameter everywhere, including the ogive. You can easily run into chambering problems with RNFP, which is almost never an issue with a SWC. A way to mitigate the problem is to use a secant profile nose, which tapers down quicker than a tangential ogive. What many have done to overcome this completely is to reduce the diameter at the end of the front driving band, but at that point is it a RNFP, or a SWC? The other way many have overcome this is to either have NO front driving band at all, or a very short one. That's not something you want for accuracy. Universally, every bullet I've ever tried with no front driving band has been a poor performer, sometimes horrendous.

At the end of the day, you just have to accept some guns are super picky with no way to predict what works best. Most of the time you can make a bullet work pretty good, but not always. The most extreme example I have is my S&W model 57. It was always a fair shooter, but nothing mind blowing. I was getting disappointed until I stumbled into an amazing combo. It went from adequate, to likely my most accurate revolver like a light switch. In that instance it just happened to really like one bullet and one powder. That same load has been very accurate in other 41 magnums, but in another model 57 I tried it in, the Keith SWC is more accurate. Go figure.

[mnewcomb59]

For people who want to learn, if you compare the Lee 158 SWC GC BC .117 vs Lee 158-RF BC .16 vs the NOE 154 WFN GC BC .2 and start them at 2050 fps with a load of Lil' Gun you will have at 100 yards:

158 SWC 1455 fps 4.9" wind drift in 10 mph wind

158 RF 1598 fps and 3.5" wind drift in 10 mph wind. This bullet is still going 1455 fps at 137 yards.

And with the NOE 154 WFN GC small meplat, long ogive .2 BC you will still have 1682 fps and 2.7" wind drift in a 10 mph wind. This bullet is still going 1455 fps at 171 yards.

Compare this to my initial comment in this thread and you will see that I am telling the truth. The SWC is closer to a roundball or a wadcutter than it is to a real bullet. In fact, it is about half way between a round ball and the Lee 158-RF. Some quoted BC figures in the .2s for SWC are from subsonic velocities. As soon as they go supersonic they slow down like a parachute. Why don't fighter jets have SWC noses?

[Kosh75287]

Another consideration (maybe) is the speed with which a revolver can be reloaded with LSWCs vs. RNFPs. I like the terminal effect of the LSWCs, but they seem to take a lifetime to load into an empty revolver cylinder under time pressure, with or without speed loaders. I guess if it can be assured that revolver of interest will never be used in a defensive situation, the matter is academic. I'm just accustomed to assuming that ANY sidearm of mine might be pressed into that use, without warning.

[Mal Paso]

The OP said 44 Special but I don't think a gun was mentioned. All my 44s are magnum revolvers and the bullets are fit to the guns. The front band of the #503 is close to or inside each of the cylinder throats. I used to cut down my old magnum brass when it split, to Specials. I think I was running 14g of 2400. I'd get 7 or 8 good shots then a flier. I think that flier hit the cylinder throat a little off center. Now if I reduce the load it is always in magnum brass with a faster powder.

So shooting Special Brass in a Magnum Chamber a RNFP is likely to be more forgiving/accurate. Other than that I like a #503 with the forward band just inside the cylinder throat.

Another consideration (maybe) is the speed with which a revolver can be reloaded with LSWCs vs. RNFPs. I like the terminal effect of the LSWCs, but they seem to take a lifetime to load into an empty revolver cylinder under time pressure, with or without speed loaders. I guess if it can be assured that revolver of interest will never be used in a defensive situation, the matter is academic. I'm just accustomed to assuming that ANY sidearm of mine might be pressed into that use, without warning.

I can load LSWCs, without looking, in my sleep. 2 at a time or 6 at a time. LOL

[megasupermagnum]

For people who want to learn, if you compare the Lee 158 SWC GC BC .117 vs Lee 158-RF BC .16 vs the NOE 154 WFN GC BC .2 and start them at 2050 fps with a load of Lil' Gun you will have at 100 yards:

158 SWC 1455 fps 4.9" wind drift in 10 mph wind

158 RF 1598 fps and 3.5" wind drift in 10 mph wind. This bullet is still going 1455 fps at 137 yards.

And with the NOE 154 WFN GC small meplat, long ogive .2 BC you will still have 1682 fps and 2.7" wind drift in a 10 mph wind. This bullet is still going 1455 fps at 171 yards.

Compare this to my initial comment in this thread and you will see that I am telling the truth. The SWC is closer to a roundball or a wadcutter than it is to a real bullet. In fact, it is about half way between a round ball and the Lee 158-RF. Some quoted BC figures in the .2s for SWC are from subsonic velocities. As soon as they go supersonic they slow down like a parachute. Why don't fighter jets have SWC noses?

I don't think you are lying, but you clearly haven't tried these things out in the real world. The Keith 44 caliber SWC has one of the best BC's you will find in a standard weight 44 bullet. There is no clear relationship that I've seen for nose style and BC. That's more a factor of bullet length, and ogive profile.

[mnewcomb59]

you clearly haven't tried these things out in the real world.

Are you talking about my silhouette ribbons? Or the thousands of rounds I have sent down range? Or maybe you are talking about the 20 deer I have killed with my cast bullets? Can't tell.

[megasupermagnum]

Are you talking about my silhouette ribbons? Or the thousands of rounds I have sent down range? Or maybe you are talking about the 20 deer I have killed with my cast bullets? Can't tell.

I'm talking about a Labradar chronograph. We're just having a discussion here, not picking on anyone.

[OFFSHORE]

I'm a 44 mag hunter of medium sized game out to 100 yards. Hands down the best mold I have found from a 20 twist Ruger SBHH and a 18 twist custom T/C Contender barrel is the Accurate 43-255H mold. In my 30:1 alloy at 258grs. and 12/14 BHN around 1250 to 1400 FPS it is one accurate and game flattening boolit - no ifs, ands, or buts - just a pure critter killer!!!

[gwpercle]

At 25 yards it's probably a wash ... but take your favorite gun(s) load up some of both RNFP and K-SWC and Choot Em' ... the gun might have a preference and will tell you .

I believe that by testing powders and charges you can come up with accurate loads for both .

Elmer was all about hunting game animals along with accuracy and the hunting aspect influenced a few of his design features ... but the boolit has to be accurate to take deer at 100 yards .

My favorite is the Keith SWC because I grew up reading his books and magazine articles and I just like the way they look ... Skeeter Skelton liked and used them and I read a lot of his writing.

Gary