Bullet Shapes

[Kevin]

I was poking around the internet this morning, looking for some information about various 9mm loads etc. I came across some reviews of different factory loads and they said flat tipped bullets were in general more accurate.

This was some magazine doing the testing using a ransom rest. They said this was a generality, however, across the different brands, and different weights, the flat tipped bullets performed better than round nose.

Could this be true across all calibers, or is it just their results?

Just thinking here. I was reloading some 41 Magnums today, and my stash of 215 grain bullets are flat tipped which in general seem to be incredibly accurate regardless of the different powders and loads I've tried.

 

[contender]

There is more to accuracy than just the shape of the tip.
The balance,, the shape, the distance you expect accuracy to be the best, etc.
A few examples;
In some .38 spl's,, at shorter distances,, the full wadcutter is very accurate, punching clean holes for score. Yet,, try to get that same accuracy at silhouette shooting distances, (200 meters,) and the wadcutter will fail miserable. But,, a SWC design will perform much better at longer distances.
The flat nose designs do seem to perform a bit better,, and even some HP bullets can do the same. Remember,, the HP design moves the center of gravity rearward somewhat,, so that's a stabilizing factor.
But,, as with all handguns,, it comes down to what YOUR gun prefers,, at the distances you shoot at.

 

[Kevin]

Oh yeah! I didn't even think about wadcutter when I was reading the reviewer's notes about bullet shapes. I've been only using wadcutters in my 38 loads for a while now. They are amazingly accurate and a pleasure to shoot at 25 yards with a light load.

Something to think about I guess.

 

[mikld]

Before I would take that statement to heart as fact, I would want to see a few separate tests as I'm not sure I fully believe it. I have not done a comparison with bullet shapes and accuracy, but I have read in revolvers a plain round nose bullet can be very accurate when compared to other shapes (excepting full wadcutter) which can also be considered "internet wisdom"...

 

[contender]

As I mentioned,, a LOT of variables go into what is considered "accurate." I had 2 newer shooters at my match today,, that didn't go to a different range where a classifier stage had targets at 35 yds. They felt it was "not practical, or very doable." So, while a few guys they knew did go there,, they didn't for fear of failure.

But,, for a LOT more information,, with excellent details,, put forth by a VERY knowledgeable handgunner,, (and he's also a member here,) may I suggest something? Go to Lee Martin's Single Action Forum. Look for stuff by David Bradshaw. He has already put out tons of excellent information,, in ways all can understand. Lots of details, lots of serious discussion,, all good,, and you will learn more than you can imagine.
If David were to write a book, I'd buy 1/2 dozen copies. One to read & wear out. One to have as a spare. One to back up the spare,, and the other 3 as an investment.
But be prepared to spend time studying a lot,, and do not fear,, you will have lots of questions. But as you read & study more,, most of those questions will get answered. David is a wealth of excellent information by someone who has "Been there,, done that,, got the T-shirt,, wore it out,, used it as a gun rag,, and refuses to stop learning & doing it all again!" He has forgotten more than many of the internet marksmen will ever hope to know.

 

[dixie884]

Meanwhile conventional wisdom seems to bear out the fact that a LFN is more accurate at distance than a WFN. That's what they say, whoever they is...........

 

[contender]

"whoever they is"

David has discussed this very fact.

 

[dixie884]

First let me say that I am sure Mr Bradshaw has forgotten more than I will have time to learn. I am a hobbiest shooter at best and was just commenting on what I have learned on the web. I believe Veral Smith is who wrote what I read........

 

[contender]

As yes,, Veral,, is another excellent source of information. I have his book as well. I've read it several times,, highlighting certain things,, for more serious, in the field study.

 

[kmoore]

Kevin, I have to ask, what distances do you shoot your handguns and for what reason. Unless your hunting or match shooting. About any bullet to punch paper at up to 25 yds will work. You need to develop shooting skills before worrying about bullet shapes. Now, I will admit I have never fired a handgun form a ransom rest or even off a bench. I stand and shoot. I shoot at bulls eye and silhouette targets. When your good, the groups will be small at normal handgun ranges if your talking SD with any bullet shape.

 

[Kevin]

Normally i shoot at paper targets, standing at 25 yards. I do admit to using a rest when attempting to see how accurate a particular handgun is without my messing it up. And by rest, I simply mean sandbags. I'm not going to go to the trouble of setting up a ransom rest or something similar.

But I do want to go as far as I can within reason to get the most accurate results. Plus, I'm just curious.

My range also has a 50 yard range for AR-15's. I've been using this range for my Contender 17 hmr and 357 Max. It's amazing how accurate the 17 caliber can be.

 

[kmoore]

I get that reasoning.
But I think for 25 yards standing none will make much if any difference. When I read your post, I thought back to early days when starting out as a rifle match shooter and when I was really good as a Master class shooter for years. When new no matter the gun, ammo or equipment a person cannot shoot as good as the best stuff. Buying the best most expensive ammo is/was a waste. But at a higher level that stuff is what will win or loose a match.
.22lr was less than a buck a box. As a Master I would lose points unless I shot 10 dollar a box Eley Tennex. In practice or at after matches newbies would ask about ammo and stuff I used to become better themselves.
In the end they need to have experience and better equipment to have better groups with the very best ammo.
So, unless your shooting little bitty groups to start with I doubt changing any bullet shape at SD distances will make any difference. But, if your wanting to know, you should try and see what your results are.

 

[Kevin]

Kmoore:
Thanks for the input, I agree with what you are saying. The first few pistols I bought when I first started shooting were .22's. I always tried to find the best ammunition. I tried Eley, and oh yeah, that stuff is awesome! I usually settled for CCI Green Tag. Surprisingly enough, I could always find it stocked in the gun stores in Illinois around Chicago and none since.

And yes, you are probably right about 25 yards not making much of a difference. I did just load some 327 round nose and some round nose flat tip. Both 100 grain and I'm going to go test that this weekend.

 

[kmoore]

You mentioned CCI Green Tag. I was given a bunch by the co. rep the year they came out with it as better ammo then CCI Mini Group. With my match rifles, if I lost a point when shooting Green Tag at 50ft. It was never do to that ammo, It's great or was I have not shot any now in 10 years. I was okay shooting it in league matches at 50 ft.
At 50 meters and 100 yds. My testing showed that Eley Tennex was much better. Green Tag could not hold a x ring 10 shot string.
Post back on your tests. Good shooting!

 

[snakeeyes4445]

To get back to the OP's question....first of all, there is no disagreement or variation with the cartridge in terms of bore size, rifling twist or throat sizes from manufacturers of .41 magnums. That may be why his 215s are so accurate. From what I have read about artillery ordinance development from when smooth bore cannons began to lose to rifled guns, the key point is the nose of the bullet. A bullet will automatically compress the air in front of the nose to point where to receive that pressure, it must slide back around the sides. Very pointed bullets must have very good balance at a number of velocity ranges to achieve accuracy at distance. Heavy for caliber bullets are often more accurate because of better alignment in the barrel while they are in there. Round nose bullets likely move more gently through the forcing cone to produce better accuracy in revolvers that are "looser". Semi wad cutters are sometimes more accurate in a revolver with perfect uniform throat sizes that are compatible with the bore because the forward band already provides perfect starting direction.

If you are looking for above average accuracy in a revolver, I would first look carefully at what the bore slug says, then what the throats are in relation to that....they can be optimised by several members here. Next find the most likely accurate mid range bullet weight for the caliber...then the manufacturer and then a nose type. Spending your time looking in this order might be better than just trying a random bunch of reloads, but then again you might just get lucky and find a good one early. I have done that too, but still keep on trying to better that load usually without success. Recoil impulse has a lot to do with me liking a load.

If in doubt, you could start with a truncated cone which would be a satisfactory combination of many good qualities that you are looking for.

 

[contender]

From another post in the Revolver section, by David Bradshaw.

"Before commenting any above work, target @ absolute minimum 25 yards. 50 yards is better. My standard is 100 yards. Some Blackhawks don't sandbag much better than 5-to-7 inches @ 100 yards; although such groups would never have made it in silhouette, I might not condemn the barrel for that."

The above quote was in a discussion about an old Blackhawk, and throat erosion. My point in posting it,, is the distances mentioned. Accuracy,, it quite often not as an easy answer as one may think. As noted above,, at 25 yds,, most bullets can produce good to great accuracy,, no matter the shape. It's distance AND the many other variables that tell the true story of an accurate bullet, & firearm combo.