Bullet shape: Round nose vs semi wad cutter

[Kevin]

Is one bullet shape inherently more accurate than another? I just took my 41 magnum and 45 Colt to the range side by side. Both loads had Uniquie powder. The 41 was 210 grain semi wad cutter and the 45 was 250 round nose. Both poly coated. Both gun's have 7 1/2 inch barrels. 25 yard pistol range.

The 45 Colt just grouped tighter and seemed to be more accurate. The 41 magnum (semi wad cutter) groups were a little bit bigger. I didn't measure but I fired 40 rounds of each and this was my general impression. The only real difference was the bullet shape. Both loads were moderate. 6.5 Unique for the 41 and 8.1 grains for the 45 Colt.

Any thoughts?

 

[mikld]

At "normal" handgun ranges one would be hard pressed to say which is more accurate. The SWC is said to be very accurate at extended ranges, but I don't remember any side-by-side comparison/test. One celebrity shooter/bullet designer is reported to hunt, quite successfully with .44 Magnum SWC out to 600 yards. One would need a ransom rest and quite a few loaded rounds of each bullet style to give a good result...

Personally in my semi-autos a SWC is a hair more accurate, but I couldn't say regarding my revolvers...

 

[mhblaw]

I would think, at close range, the inherent accuracy of the specific revolver would be more important than the particular bullet shape.

 

[GunnyGene]

The biggest difference in the two is terminal performance in a critter. A RN will tend to glance off a bone or other stuff unless it hits dead square, and may not retain it's original path or nose first attitude. A SWC will cut thru the bone and maintain it's original path and attitude, although it won't penetrate quite as deeply as a RN because of the large meplat. You can see the same thing on paper where a WC or SWC leaves a nice clean hole, a RN leaves a ragged hole because some of the paper is pushed aside.

See this:

Where a rounded profile will shove vitals aside or glance off bone, the edge of a wadcutter or semi-wadcutter will slice or dig in. When I was shooting bowling pins, a popular bullet with revolver shooters was the "lead pencil": a 230-grain .358-diameter full wadcutter. It did not glance off of bowling pins.

Read more: http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammo/ammunition_hg_wickedwadcutters_200901/#ixzz4WcwaZ3xb

 

[LAH]

Is one bullet shape inherently more accurate than another?

Any thoughts?

In purely target sense it is hard to out shoot a proper round nose.

 

[Kevin]

Thanks! and Thanks for the link GunnyGene, That was actually a pretty informative article. I didn't shoot any animals today, but I did dispatch an old computer hard drive. At 25 yards, my 45 round nose went right through the drive. In two shots it was shattered into pieces. One Terabyte, so there were 3 of those round metal discs. Pretty thick too.

But back to the original thought, today at least, for me, the Round Nose didn't perform as good as the Semi Wad Cutter. Perhaps the gun isn't as accurate, or perhaps I need to try a different powder. Maybe Unique isn't the best in 41 magnum. Hmmm... I think this is why I like reloading, for all the different factors. It keeps shooting guns more interesting by looking for better bullets.

 

[contender]

If paper punching is all you do at moderate ranges,,, Bullseye shooters found that a full wadcutter was very accurate & cut clean round holes. But once you start stretching the distance,,, accuracy fell off. If you look at just paper punching,, with ALL other factors being equal,,, I'd think the gun will be the one to tell you which one it likes. Different guns can perform differently.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

2 different guns and 2 different bullets. You can't compare the two. Shoot different bullets out of the same gun and compare.

As a rule a certain gun will shoot a certain bullet better than others but it is hard to predict which one.

There are also generalities. A certain bullet might work better in most guns but not all guns.

...not much help I know. Did somebody mention different powders?

 

[Mobuck]

"The only real difference was the bullet shape."

Think about this sentence. The ONLY similarities were powder type and (I assume) revolver brand.

 

[DGW1949]

Is one bullet shape inherently more accurate than another? I just took my 41 magnum and 45 Colt to the range side by side. Both loads had Uniquie powder. The 41 was 210 grain semi wad cutter and the 45 was 250 round nose. Both poly coated. Both gun's have 7 1/2 inch barrels. 25 yard pistol range.

The 45 Colt just grouped tighter and seemed to be more accurate. The 41 magnum (semi wad cutter) groups were a little bit bigger. I didn't measure but I fired 40 rounds of each and this was my general impression. The only real difference was the bullet shape. Both loads were moderate. 6.5 Unique for the 41 and 8.1 grains for the 45 Colt.

Any thoughts?

My first thought is that 8 Grns of Unique under a 250-ish .45LC bullet is right where that particular combo begins to work really good...a 210/.41 Mag under 6.5 though, maybe not so much.
Plus, it's been my experience that when it comes to what you are calling a "moderate" .45LC load (which is actually purty-close to SAAMI-specs), nothing outshoots a proper 250-255 Grn LSWC bullet.

Point is...you haven't yet begun to compare apples to apples, so I'd gently suggest that you might want to do some further testing before forming any assumptions.

DGW

 

[Kevin]

Thanks! Yes, the 8.1 grains of Unique for the 45 has proven to be the best load for this gun for me as a shooter. I've tried both less and more, and it just seems the most accurate.

For the 41, you are right. 6.5 isn't a heavy load from what my manuals list. I think one has a starting load of somewhere around 9 grains. I don't enjoy wrist breaking heavy "Ruger Only" loads, so I err on the light side. With a revolver, I don't have to worry about having enough oomph to operate a slide like a 9mm or 45 ACP for example.

I also have not made any assumptions, but rather observations about the group size I had the other day. Some days I shoot spot on and others are so bad, I literally pack up and leave the range. Fortunately that doesn't happen too often.

This raises a good point. I keep a journal of my shooting. When I have reloaded ammunition at the range, I have a book and keep notes, what works and what doesn't. I rely on this just as much as the reloading manuals at my bench. I can go back and look for trends, like HS 6 has been an outstanding powder in several calibers. CFE not so much. Perhaps it's the day or the weather. I shoot outside and somedays are very windy here in flat North Texas.

Looking back through my journal I think with the 41, there are more accurate powders than Unique.

I'm not the only one to keep such a journal, am I?

I know Bob Wright has talked about keeping exact count of rounds fired and has a system for tracking how many reloads for a particular case. I've tried that but no luck. Those little brass cases all look the same when empty.

 

[Kevin]

DGW1949. Thanks for the thoughts. I do agree with you about further testing. I'm not doing anything close to an exact science test. More along the lines of just casual observations. I'm looking for the most accurate round, and if I can use a particular bullet shape to get more accurate, then I would.

I've found poly coated bullets are slightly more accurate for cast. For me. Not saying everyone. Not sure why. perhaps they are just a few microns thicker and grab the rifling better?

Anyway, thanks. Where is cut 'n shoot Texas anyway?

 

[427mach1]

Kevin,

You are right about the 41 starting loads - I have loaded some 210 bullets and my Redhawk seems to like 9.7 grains of Unique. It is still a pleasant, low recoil round.

I keep a loading journal, I tried to keep up with rounds fired through each gun but I always seem to lose track. Fr some reason it is just easier to keep track of reloading.

 

[LAH]

2 different guns and 2 different bullets. You can't compare the two.

Didn't want to say it so glad you did. How true. My statement concerned the bullets only not considering other things.

 

[BIgMuddy]

"The only real difference was the bullet shape."

Think about this sentence. The ONLY similarities were powder type and (I assume) revolver brand.

This ^^^^^^^^^

Dan

 

[DGW1949]

DGW1949. Thanks for the thoughts. I do agree with you about further testing. I'm not doing anything close to an exact science test. More along the lines of just casual observations. I'm looking for the most accurate round, and if I can use a particular bullet shape to get more accurate, then I would.

I've found poly coated bullets are slightly more accurate for cast. For me. Not saying everyone. Not sure why. perhaps they are just a few microns thicker and grab the rifling better?

Anyway, thanks. Where is cut 'n shoot Texas anyway?

Sorta N/W from my neck of the woods, and due East of Conroe.
If you want to find it on a map, locate I-45N heading out of Houston, follow it to Conroe, exit to the right onto SH105, keep heading East through town and you'll run right into the Cut 'N Shoot city limits.

DGW

 

[bigboredad]

I have read and experience and more than one occasion and in more than one revolver that a round nose will be more accurate than a semi wadcutter the theory is that the round nose is able to get centered up into the forcing cone faster and easier than a semi wadcutter were there that's true or not I don't know but like I said in my experience the round of those I've been more accurate out of several different revolvers same load same town same bullets in caliber different guns

 

[woodsy]

Is one bullet shape inherently more accurate than another?
?

NO.