Round Nose vs Spire Point - Which Hits Harder?

hoytcanon said:
I agree with that assertion... heavy and slow bullets, particularly solids, are very effective, massive penetration, but far lower shock and "off wound channel" damage. This is where the "eat up to the hole" cliche comes from, big and slow bullets tend to cause far less radiating shock and damage than do lighter and faster projectiles... they both kill, but do it differently.
Click to expand...


By anchor, I mean the same. Every hunter should be very concerned with an ethical, fast kill. Prefer a one shot and done but that's not always gonna happen. It's hunting.


The rest of what you say is true to the best of my knowledge and is Exactly WHY I am trying to go this route.
Primarily not for deer, but bear and moose. Cannot think of a reason not to use on deer though. Clean hole, through and through for blood trail. No LEAD. What's not to like?

This thread is about Round Nose Vs Spire point. I want to use ROUND nose solid. Maybe I should use Spire point??
Not sure why the negative vibe here. Since I have the gun already, I cannot see why I shouldn't try to make use of it.
 
What negative vibe? No one said don't do it. Or that you can't/shouldn't use anything you want.

People gave opinions that it wil be actually less damaging than faster, expanding bullets. Given that the .416 solid is merely corking a .416 cal hole through something, that seems easily borne out. Any bullet, including monos, that expand to more thann .416 are going to do more damage.
 
No broadside made in your direction Pete, and Hoyt did a better explanation than I can, I may too bluntly use sarcasm online. You’ll find things like deer and black bear fall over closer to where they met the bullet using a quick load, and a not overly stiff bullet. The most familiar way to do this off the shelf is a .270, but there are many solutions.

I wouldn’t rush out to buy a .270, simply saying you’ll certainly find more effect on light game like deer and black bear from a .270 than a .416 with solids.
 
Last edited:
Since the title of the thread is literally "spire point vs round nose", I will address tests I have done with spire point and round nose Hornady bullets. These bullets, regardless of nose shape, work real well at impact velocities of 2200 fps, down to around 1500 fps. I compared 250 grain 35 cal., 180 grain 30 cal., and 154 grain 7mm. I have to add, these tests were done about 30 years ago. The bullets were fired into wet soil, in a plastic tote, at a range of 20 yards. The 35's were fired from my 35 Whelen. Muzzle velocity was 2460 fps. The 30's were fired from a 30/40 Krag. Again, the muzzle velocity was about 2460. The 7mm's were fired from a 7mm-08 and were started out a bit faster, about 2650 fps. With all of these bullets, the result was a perfectly mushroomed bullet. The round nose bullets rolled back about 1/3 further than did the spire points, and the penetration was a little less. I got the impression that the round nose bullets expanded a little more quickly. Retained weight of the spire points was a little greater as well.
As I mentioned, this was done about thirty years ago. I'm not sure the results would be the same today. Hornady spire point bullets I have bought in recent years are much more frangible than the earlier bullets and I suspect the new 35's would simply break up. They are not a good bullet IMO. I shot a coyote, at about forty yards, with a new issue 250 spire point from the Whelen. It damn near cut that coyote in half. Curious, I fired one into some damp soil to see what it did and it flat came apart.
So, the answer, as I see it, is that the round nose bullet will open a bit more quickly, assuming similar construction for both. The early Hornady bullets had thick, heavy, jackets at the base and the only difference was the shape of the nose and the thickness of the jacket at the tip.
 
Ardent,

Is the wound track not going to look pretty much like someone took a very long .416" cordless drill bit and passed it through the animal?

Not that that won't kill things dead if its in the right place, just arguably slower than most good expanding bullets of reasonable cartridge/caliber. Actually, bet even a mild 45/70 hard cast lat nose does more tissue damage, since its got a flat meplat and doesn't push as much tissue aside as the round nose does. May not be a .416" hole at all.
 
Pete04 said:
By anchor, I mean the same. Every hunter should be very concerned with an ethical, fast kill. Prefer a one shot and done but that's not always gonna happen. It's hunting.
Click to expand...

You are confusing my words and conflating the words "anchor" and "lethal"... we are ALL in favour of "one shot kills," that of course is what we work for... however, there are different ways to achieve lethal, ethical one shot kills. Heavy/slow is one way to go... but expect longer blood trails, assuming a broadside lung/heart shot. Light/fast is another way to go... shorter blood trails, but far more meat damage/blood shot. When meat hunting, which is most of the time, I don't like jello, so I skew to the heavy/slow side... but there are certainly times and circumstances to go the light/fast route... the further west you are (in general), the more likely you skew to the light/fast side. There are other factors of course, bullet construction being a major one... use a frangible bullet and you are going to see a lot of damage and full dumped energy, as opposed to the typical "pass throughs" seen with slower/heavier projectiles. Bonded and solid bullets stay together and retain more energy... but all else being equal, the slow vs fast phenomenon holds.
 
Perhaps an assumption is made that the expanding bullet is still the same caliber (at the leading face) and shape, an inch into the target, as when it was flying in the air on its way to the target? I have seen enough pictures of "solids" that had been recovered after firing, to believe they could be loaded and fired again after their first use. Not so, with most previously fired expanding bullets that I have here.

I was also reading that most "wound" damage is due to a shock wave in front of bullet - the bullet often does not even touch the meat - I see in Woodleigh manual they offer a "hydrostatically" stabilized bullet - from "representation" (page 30), the wound effect (displacement) is MUCH wider than that bullet. I would describe them as a mono-metal bullet with a concave "dimple" on the nose - nose is smaller diameter than is the bullet - comes with a "cap" to snap on to gain improved ballistics when flying in air - that "cap" is supposed to disintegrate on impact.
 
nowarningshot said:
Velocity, toughness of bullet construction, and weight/resistance of animal.

IMO, a projectile should penetrate just through, two holes to bleed for a blood trail. Energy is wasted if it penetrates and through the alder behind.
Click to expand...

I honestly don’t care if it’s got energy to spare once it’s passed through whatever it is I’m shooting as long as it’s accurate and performs as it should when it hits the animal.
 
Well, anyhoo,
To answer the OP question, I'm going with round nose rather than spire point hits harder.


For those that can't get past the .416 solid thing, insert CAST, Round Nose 405g hard cast 45/70,. No one has a problem hunting a moose with that surely.
Only diff. is .416 is a bit smaller dia., can be around the same weight and is traveling at 2,200fps not 1,200fps.
Plus I'm trying to avoid lead as I feed young kids. (ask their Mom)
 
The comments illustrate why I tested only the one brand of bullets. They were the only ones which made the same bullet, in the same weight, using similar construction. I didn't test Sierras vs Speers. I didn't test 180 grain vs 220 grain. Once you change any of the variables, you invalidate the test.
 
When I was bear guarding I used RN or flat nose in every thing from 30-06 to .458 Lott. I would rather hit it with a Mac truck than a Corvette.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom