Round Nose vs Spire Point - Which Hits Harder?

pounder said:
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.
Click to expand...

If they are expanding bullets and they expand with like an inch of neck that takes a millisecond to cross, and most of the damage actually comes from the area where the bullet does expand....how is one a mack truck and the other a corvette?

Was using the same bullet in pointed form not hitting bears hard enough?

Leeper said:
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.
Click to expand...

10000%

Gotta control for variables.
 
Last edited:
Pete04 said:
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)
Click to expand...

Fully agree on keeping the the lead out of meat for the family. Try the 350gr TSX instead, expanding bullets and modern velocity evolved for reasons. Solids at low velocity will be a disappointment if looking for a game anchor.

Having shot a lot of the .375 version of that recipe into game up to the allegedly dangerous kind (270 & 300gr TSX), it will not do more than a .270 or .308 on deer and black bears unless you’re into strange shot angles. But it will be fun, and hunt anything on this planet, unleaded.
 
Joel I used Woodleigh 220 gr. RN in my 3006 and hard cast 450 or 500 gr. in the Lott and Marlin 45-70. Breaking bones was the object of the shot. Granted this is not hunting this is stopping.
 
For a few years I shot some decent sized whitetail bucks with both an 8x57, and, same rifle rechambered to 8mm-06, Sierra 150 grain spire point. All of the deer were hit in the boiler room, heart blown to pieces and some with serious lung damage. Iirc most if not all ran a little ways and toppled over dead. I thought at the time, and still do, that the spire point poked the skin through with very little meat damage, exploded when it got to something a bit more solid.

I also shot two or three with my trusty 32 Special that had factory flat nosed ammo,but that’s not a comparison to worry about. .
 
pounder said:
Joel I used Woodleigh 220 gr. RN in my 3006 and hard cast 450 or 500 gr. in the Lott and Marlin 45-70. Breaking bones was the object of the shot. Granted this is not hunting this is stopping.
Click to expand...

Have they done so better than premium pointed bullets like 180-200gr Partition, etc? There seem to be some tougher ones on the market too, like the Trophy Bonded, Trophy Bonded, Tip, etc.
 
Having taken part in the demise of a lot of hefty bears, there is no question left in my mind that harder, larger bullets don’t equate to harder hits on bears. Quite the opposite if the bullets are going substantially slower.

The most effective cartridges I used and guided on big bears and grizz were the .300s, followed tightly by the 7mm Mag and .375 Mag. All have one thing in common, adequate speed. The least impressive with an equally good vitals hit was the .450 Marlin.

It completely changed how I select and recommend hunting cartridges and loads, as I went in thinking more like Taylor. It remains a tough concept to shake that physically bigger and harder has to be better.
 
Ardent said:
Having taken part in the demise of a lot of hefty bears, there is no question left in my mind that harder, larger bullets don’t equate to harder hits on bears. Quite the opposite if the bullets are going substantially slower.

The most effective cartridges I used and guided on big bears and grizz were the .300s, followed tightly by the 7mm Mag and .375 Mag. All have one thing in common, adequate speed. The least impressive with an equally good vitals hit was the .450 Marlin.

It completely changed how I select and recommend hunting cartridges and loads, as I went in thinking more like Taylor. It remains a tough concept to shake that physically bigger and harder has to be better.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, assuming that the speed is accompanied by reasonable mass... my experience with .450 Marlin is exactly one season and three bears... all decent sized. The two I lung shot with a hot load and 350 RN, went 20 yards each, huffed and died... 5 seconds? The one shot by a client when his rifle jammed dropped straight down, shot through the shoulders. I don't know how much speed would have improved those kills, but certainly would have done more damage... would the lung shots have gone straight down... maybe. I think mostly we are referring to stopping power, those times where you don't want the critter to take even one more step... speed is definitely your friend there. When it comes to something I plan to eat, I go the slow & heavy route and if they want to run a bit that is fine... there will be two holes and lots of blood on the pine needles... and the skinning and butchering will be a lot less, Rocky Horror Picture Show"esque." LOL.
 
Ardent said:
Having taken part in the demise of a lot of hefty bears, there is no question left in my mind that harder, larger bullets don’t equate to harder hits on bears. Quite the opposite if the bullets are going substantially slower.

The most effective cartridges I used and guided on big bears and grizz were the .300s, followed tightly by the 7mm Mag and .375 Mag. All have one thing in common, adequate speed. The least impressive with an equally good vitals hit was the .450 Marlin.

It completely changed how I select and recommend hunting cartridges and loads, as I went in thinking more like Taylor. It remains a tough concept to shake that physically bigger and harder has to be better.
Click to expand...

I can see the logic in the bigger ones being better - it hurts more on my end, why wouldn't it hurt more on the other end too? lol But clearly that is not necessarily the case.
 
Certainly what I found afield.

A .375 puts it all in your tool kit, the terminal ballistics as a result of sufficient speed, proper bullet performance and expansion, and big bone cleaving as below on a big, big grizz. It doesn’t matter if it’s RN or Spire for this, they both do the same thing from the .375. This was a DGX, reputed to be a soft junk bullet, it put a quick end to a very large bear.

I wouldn’t get too hung up on the shape of the bullet, though things like this make lively threads that help us get through winter. Just be concerned with its velocity at impact and bullet construction. It does one well to avoid the temptation to pack turn of the century cordite tropical ballistics in the North American game fields.

And the bullet nose profile definitely doesn’t matter in standard SPs. Seen poor performance from a well placed 175gr 7x57 too. Was just too slow to lay the grizz down close, though no question it was lethal.

mLHHr0g.jpeg
 
Joel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Missed this sorry Joel, yea I think that’s a reasonable analogy. Below 2200fps impacts, pressure of the waves is insufficient to break cell walls away from the tract, and little damage propagates beyond the immediate wound tract. Hence eat right up to the hole.

Solids and extremely tough bullets certainly have their place, but it’s in Africa or professionals like pounder’s hands who are shooting at 7 yards and want a drill. I would personally would argue a good medium bore SP going 2500fps placed the same penetrates more than well enough for the biggest North American game as with my bone ‘to pick’ above, with an added backup plan disrupting more tissue. But that’s just my personal preference.
 
Thanks Ardent,

Happy to hear from you and he...never having had any experience with trying to anchor big, dangerous critters immediately. Hearing about the tools that succeed - and those that fail - is interesting.
 
I have pondered this theory for a while.

My thoughts on it are the mass behind the mushroom.

I round nose bullet creates its mushroom while having more mass left in the shank of the bullet to carry momentum.

Same theory works with Flat base bullets hitting harder than a boat tail bullet.


I have some 180g RN core locks for my 30-06 to fling at a bear this spring.

But a 45colt and a 30-30 hit and kill better then the ballistic number would indicate.
 
Ardent said:
Having taken part in the demise of a lot of hefty bears, there is no question left in my mind that harder, larger bullets don’t equate to harder hits on bears. Quite the opposite if the bullets are going substantially slower.

The most effective cartridges I used and guided on big bears and grizz were the .300s, followed tightly by the 7mm Mag and .375 Mag. All have one thing in common, adequate speed. The least impressive with an equally good vitals hit was the .450 Marlin.

It completely changed how I select and recommend hunting cartridges and loads, as I went in thinking more like Taylor. It remains a tough concept to shake that physically bigger and harder has to be better.
Click to expand...

Taylor is mostly remembered for the big bores on the biggest animals; but he is on record saying that on plains game the 300 H&H was the fastest killing thing he'd ever seen. He often used light bullets in it, and the bullets of the day would be considered frangible today. A stick of dynamite with a trigger was how he described it. He was also liked the 275 H&H and had much the same comments about it.
 
So... anyone got definitive answer?

Sure, there are some cartridges that traditionally use a RN or a SP

But how about those that can and do use both? Like a 30-06 for instance. Does a 180gr RN provide more smack than a 180 gr SP?

Or is it only until we get to a 220gr RN vs a 180 gr SP?

I sure hope some ballistic gel yoiutuber picks this up :)
 
Gatehouse said:
So... anyone got definitive answer?

Sure, there are some cartridges that traditionally use a RN or a SP

But how about those that can and do use both? Like a 30-06 for instance. Does a 180gr RN provide more smack than a 180 gr SP?

Or is it only until we get to a 220gr RN vs a 180 gr SP?

I sure hope some ballistic gel yoiutuber picks this up :)
Click to expand...

I would be comfortable going on record saying that there is NO discernable difference in "SMACK" between an RN or an SP "Cup & Core" bullet of equal weight. You have to compare apples to apples, to be fair.
 
hoytcanon said:
I would be comfortable going on record saying that there is NO discernable difference in "SMACK" between an RN or an SP "Cup & Core" bullet of equal weight. You have to compare apples to apples, to be fair.
Click to expand...

Same.

And that high sectional density bullets that are prone to some fragmentation like an ELD-M or TMK or Ballistic Tip are going to kill quicker than round nosed just about anything, even if they are from a smaller caliber.
 
hoytcanon said:
I would be comfortable going on record saying that there is NO discernable difference in "SMACK" between an RN or an SP "Cup & Core" bullet of equal weight. You have to compare apples to apples, to be fair.
Click to expand...

I agree, I just think it would be cool to see it played out in gel or some other medium. By someone other than me! I used to do lots of bullet tests a decade or two ago but I don't have the time or inclination to do them anymore, as I don't think I can learn anything much from them these days. But they are fun to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom