Round Nose vs Spire Point - Which Hits Harder?
- Thread starter Gatehouse
- Start date
- Location
- Western Manitoba
To each their own - I have a made-in 1896 Lud. Loewe rifle that was confirmed to have been used in the second Boer War in South Africa - is a number of boxes of the old Hornady Round Nose 175 grain for that one. For about 15 years, I used a Ruger No. 1 in 7x57 for deer hunting - that one pretty much only ever saw 150 grain Nosler Partitions - I tried the 140's and the 160's and convinced myself that it shot the 150's better. Once started on that path, I never changed for that rifle, although I intended to try other bullets, but never did. For a Husqvarna 4100 in 7x57, which has a very slow 1-12 (?) twist, I wanted the shortest bullets that I could find that were suitable (in my mind) for hunting - so, I have a supply of Woodleigh PP SN 140 grain for that one.
I have a couple of RN bullets that I load for the 303 British [Ross 1910, sporterized]
The Norma 180 grain "Alaska"; the Remington 180 grain "Cor-Lokt"; and the Hornady
174 grain "Interlock"
I also shoot spitzer bullets in this rifle, with the Sierra 180 grain "Pro-Hunter" being
the most accurate bullet I use.
I believe that RN bullets may expand just a bit quicker, due to more exposed lead at
the nose, but spitzer bullets have worked well for me, with the Nosler Partition still
being one of my favorites. (wish Nosler made one in .311/.312 diameter) Dave.
The Norma 180 grain "Alaska"; the Remington 180 grain "Cor-Lokt"; and the Hornady
174 grain "Interlock"
I also shoot spitzer bullets in this rifle, with the Sierra 180 grain "Pro-Hunter" being
the most accurate bullet I use.
I believe that RN bullets may expand just a bit quicker, due to more exposed lead at
the nose, but spitzer bullets have worked well for me, with the Nosler Partition still
being one of my favorites. (wish Nosler made one in .311/.312 diameter) Dave.
Yeah. I think construction is far more important. IMO bullet construction will have far more effect than how pointy the bullet is or isn't.
I kinda liked his stuff
I used to test hunting bullets when I worked for CIL R&D. We had huge blocks of bees wax that was melted to coat 22LR ammo.
We shot the test bullets into the wax blocks to test expansion.
I don't recall that shape had anything to do with expansion. The Sabre Tip, for example, was explosive. Too much so, in my opinion, but maybe perfect for long range shots.
The big variable in bullets is jacket thickness and lead hardness (softness). That is independent of shape.
We shot the test bullets into the wax blocks to test expansion.
I don't recall that shape had anything to do with expansion. The Sabre Tip, for example, was explosive. Too much so, in my opinion, but maybe perfect for long range shots.
The big variable in bullets is jacket thickness and lead hardness (softness). That is independent of shape.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
You’re 8 weeks early Pete.
For a deer and black bear anchor, try a .270 rather than a .416 with solids.
In general I like and respect your opinion and find your contributions to the forum well worth reading.
However, I cannot think as to why you think a .270 would be better than the .308 I used to take my last deer with and wrote about in my last post??
I was going to develope one of my 45/70 long guns for my all purpose hunting gun, but I just happen to have this 416 Ruger Hawkeye that I picked up for a song.
I only hunt my own property that borders Queen E II provincial park. I've hunted here for quite some time using 243, 6.5, 7mm, .308, 30/06, 9.2x62. Next was gonna be 45/70. We have moose, elk, black bear and white tail deer.
I like the 45/70 ctg. very much but can't get the speed of the projectile I'm looking for. 1,200-1,600fps in 45/70 as opposed to a tuned down 2,000-2,200fps for the .416.
The reason I'm in this thread is because I'm using a ROUND nose bullet as opposed to the pointy kind.
I want the speed and the ROUND NOSE for the "shock wave" effect. Maybe the wrong tech term but I'm going for the bug/windshield effect. Very heavy weight traveling at moderate speeds.
Last edited:
A big slow 416 with a tough bullet sounds like a cordless drill. If they run from shots with 45/70s and 12 gauge slugs why won't they run from that? The 12 ga should just be the king of shockwave and knocking things down right on the spot, no? Its yuge, its round lol.
I don't see how much shockwave effect there could be if it retains enough energy to probably shoot through a few trees or kill a cape buffalo after exiting the small animal you shoot with it?
Whereas the 270 with the right bullet offers a much wider, more destructive wound channel where the bullet sheds weight in fragmentation and expands a lot more rapidly. Even maintaining there is a difference between 270 and 30-06 seems impossible to demonstrate.
Food for thought.
I don't see how much shockwave effect there could be if it retains enough energy to probably shoot through a few trees or kill a cape buffalo after exiting the small animal you shoot with it?
Whereas the 270 with the right bullet offers a much wider, more destructive wound channel where the bullet sheds weight in fragmentation and expands a lot more rapidly. Even maintaining there is a difference between 270 and 30-06 seems impossible to demonstrate.
Food for thought.
I think you nay have misunderstood Ardent's post... if I may (?), by "anchor" I believe he means "put down fast." 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. I like both options in different circumstances... however if dropping an animal in it's tracks is your priority, then Ardent is correct, a .270 with a 130 will be more effective than a .416 with a solid.
I don’t think that’s exactly what he said.
