The New-Age .45 Colt - by Max Prasac

[CraigC]

The implication has been that WFN style bullets penetrate deeper by virtue of the fact that they're WFN's, which makes no sense. Anyone who's hunted at all regardless of the firearm used, knows a larger frontal area, relative to bullet diameter, reduces penetration when using bullets of like weight. So, take two bullets of the same caliber and of like weight, one a WFN and one a SWC, and the one with a smaller frontal area is sure to penetrate the deepest.

I don't know where you got that. WFN's penetrate deeper because they're usually heavier. Sometimes much heavier. LFN's penetrate even better because they have a smaller meplat. The Keith SWC is and always has been a wonderful bullet. However, for serious use on larger, tougher critters, Veral Smith came up with a better design. The shortcoming of the SWC design is that it's a SWC design. Perpetuated by the false belief that the shoulder contributes to the wound channel. The LBT maximizes its efficient use of limited real estate and allows for a heavier bullet that can be driven faster, penetrates better and produces a larger wound channel. It takes a deer cartridge and makes it a Cape buffalo cartridge.

Regarding the penetration tests, comparing a .45 caliber 260 gr. SWC to a .44 caliber 335 gr. WFN is pointless. Of course the heavier smaller diameter bullet will penetrate further than the lighter larger diameter bullet. Simple physics, no testing required.

I don't see how it could possibly be pointless. Actually, the testing revealed that the 335gr WFN did not do as well as expected, falling well short of the .44 bullet of similar weight. Simple physics? They're nothing "simple" about terminal ballistics, at all.

Here's the shoulder of a buck I shot a couple of years ago with the bullet pictured; a Keith style SWC. A fella doesn't need a set of calipers to see the would channel is significantly larger than the diameter of the bullet and about twice as large as the meplat.

Nobody said that SWC's didn't work well, or that they did not produce a wound channel larger than the bullet. That is a given and we know, because we use them. We also know that WFN's produce larger wound channels, because we use them.

Interesting statement in a thread in which the topic is has turned to shooting animals that "start weighing closer to a ton" with cartridges that aren't quite as powerful as those fired from an old Trapdoor 45-70; a rig to which most hunters would turn up their noses as "obsolete and underpowered".

Most hunters do so with rifles and still buy into all that old crap about muzzle energy. Those of us who hunt with handguns know better. We know that a properly loaded big bore revolver gives up nothing to rifles in killing ability, just range.

 

[murf]

maxp,

if you want to get the "skinny" on semi-wadcutter bullets from the source, go to elmerkeithshoot.org and click on the american rifleman site. select the april, 1929 issue and start reading. this should put to rest all the "myths" being spread around about how great the lbt bullet is and how inadequate the swc bullet is.

luck,

murf

p.s. suggest you get a subscription to handloader magazine and, also, order a few pertinent back issues of said magazine. ross seyfried and brian pearce have penned excellent articles on this subject.

 

[MaxP]

if you want to get the "skinny" on semi-wadcutter bullets from the source, go to elmerkeithshoot.org and click on the american rifleman site. select the april, 1929 issue and start reading. this should put to rest all the "myths" being spread around about how great the lbt bullet is and how inadequate the swc bullet is.

luck,

murf

p.s. suggest you get a subscription to handloader magazine and, also, order a few pertinent back issues of said magazine. ross seyfried and brian pearce have penned excellent articles on this subject.

Murf, Ross dumped semi wadcutters when he discovered LBT and he was quite vocal about it in print. I have talked to him ad nauseum about his bullet choices. He also did a piece on MOA accuracy with a revolver and ended up getting said performance from a WFN of all bullets (considering the oft cited claim that they don't fly very well). I have read nearly all there is to read about Keith bullets and have researched and tested much of this in the production of three books on revolvers. 1929, while an interesting era is not that pertinent in 2016 as we have made strides in bullet technology. I get Handloader and have for years.

 

[murf]

just trying to help, max. i still stand by my claim that a 355 grain 44 cal swc bullet would be more accurate and penetrate farther than a similar lbt bullet, if you could fit it in the gun.

anyway, i believe in lbt bullets and did an accuracy test using the cast performance 325, 335, 360 and 395 grain bullets in the 45 colt. the most accurate bullet, in my revolver, was the 325 grainer and is what i use in that gun today.

i think there is a place for the swc, but it stops at 260 grains in the 44 caliber. the lbt is a better bullet in weights beyond that.

murf

 

[MaxP]

just trying to help, max

I appreciate that, Murf. That didn't come out right, sorry! If the two bullets in question with penetrate completely, I would still prefer the bullet with the larger meplat for the damage it will impart. If something works, I get the reluctance to change it, but I really can't see the downside to using LBT bullets from an accuracy and terminal standpoint.

 

[murf]

agreed!

murf

 

[mavracer]

Perpetuated by the false belief that the shoulder contributes to the wound channel.

Absolutes are very rarely true in all cases, there is far too great of variance in tissue to say that the shoulder of a SWC has "NO' effect.
As such

The LBT maximizes its efficient use of limited real estate and allows for a heavier bullet that can be driven faster, penetrates better and produces a larger wound channel.

Doesn't fly because while external ballistic may go beyond simple physics it can't break the simple laws of physics.