345: Round Nose vs Spire Point - Which Hits Harder?

[@rogerf7265]

The 6.5 BC is a Wildcat cartridge that was under development by Vortex optics. It falls between the 6.5 Creedmoor and the 6.5 Weatherby Magnum and is based off of the .300 RUM.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Thanks Roger. I was wondering if it was perhaps a wildcat. Can't keep up with all of those.

[@rogerf7265]

@@RonSpomerOutdoors they have videos on their KZbin channel detailing cartridge and working up their loads including a Wyoming Pronghorn hunt that they did with the cartridge. The last update on it was around a year ago.

[@Wheelchair-bear]

I think BC stands for Bitch Cat

[@CowboyHunterPodcast]

The good ole 6.5 bitch cat, I think it did some good things but last I heard they were scrapping the idea.

[@lasselevula6736]

In my experience a round/flat nose bullet diference compared to a similar sructure and weight spitser bullet: expands faster and can generate a bigger diameter muschroom whit the same impact velocity. Another benefit of a round nose/flatnose bullet is if the bullet has been manufactrured to support max cartidge lenght you have possible increased powderspace and less friction surface that can make in some cases a higer muclevelocity possible. There is also some debate about flat/round bullets could be les sensitive to branches and other obstacles on the trajectory. Also the possibility to have a semi stable flying recoshe is les whit a flat/round desine. In my opinion you might have some benefits using a optimal round/flatnose bullet if shots are made in thik undergrowth at short distances in limited visibility terain.

[@bryandale7125]

Ron, please do not put yourself down by saying you are ugly, for God's children are all beautiful. 😊 Love you man! Keep up the good work of education.

[@JohnGriffith-w2w]

@@bryandale7125 Ron you are not ugly you are aesthetically challenged ! 😂🤣😳😳

[@jfess1911]

The Leverevolution 30-30 load significantly increases the effective range for that cartridge by about 100 yards over traditional loads. The BC for the 160 grain bullet is .33 G1 compared to about .19 for 150 grain and .25 for 170 grain round nose bullets. Most of the data is for 24" barrels, but most 150 grain and 170 grain bullets drops below 1000ft lbs at about 150 - 200 yards. The 160 grain Leverevolution load still has slightly over 1000 ft lbs at 300 yards. I remember when Hornady introduced this at a SHOT Show that they let visitors shoot at targets and gel at 300 yards.

[@WayStedYou]

Meanwhile the .44 magnun 225 grain leverevolution has worse B.C than the 200 grain XTP

[@jfess1911]

@@WayStedYou Not really. The BC on the 200 is .155 and the BC on the 225 is .174. The BC's on the 240 and 300 grain XTP's are better, though, at .185 and .232. That little red tip on the short, fat 225 FTX made me think of the espression "lipstick on a pig". 😀

[@64samsky]

Ron, you are a national treasure but were not ready to bury you.😂 Please keep doing what you do.

[@cb9660]

You’re doing a great job Ron. Lots of value coming from your podcasts 👍

[@bekkerbosbeer3453]

Hi Ron , generally with a round nose like you correctly state has less energy on arrival on impact especially at longer ranges, But the round nose was never developed for longer ranges , thus at closer ranges its absolutely the best efficient hardest hitting bullet at close range..good example would be 30-06 220 gr ...all the big bores... precisely why you don't get 458 win mag ,416 in spitzer points.Both bullets were developed with a very specific function.Just my thoughts on it.Thanks for the great videos and hard work

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Good points, sir. Seems it's more about the heavier bullet carrying more energy than the round nose delivering it.

[@bekkerbosbeer3453]

@@RonSpomerOutdoors absolutely

[@shanehebert396]

My dad recovered a number of .35 Remington 200gr Core-Lokts from whitetails over the years. Every one of them looked like the picture of the mushroomed bullet on the Remington box. I used 180gr SP Core-Lokts in my .30-06 for many years. Every hit was impressive, leaving a large wound channel. I never recovered one of those. I've used .30-30 and .35 Rem as well (Marlin 336 for both and my dad's Remington 760 in .35 Remington) and had very reliable performance from those round nose bullets. I've also used spire points in a few rifles and they work well, too. As to which is better? I'd have a hard time saying for sure but do remember those .30-06 180gr SPs causing lots of damage. I know that some folks argue that the round nose are deflected less by branches than a spire point but I've seen experiments (well... KZbin videos, anyway), where they found that they deflect similarly. I remember reading an article some years ago about meplat performance. I remember something about handgun cartridges like the .357Mag with hollow points, wad cutters, semi-wad cutters, etc. and they liked the wad cutters for damage but I can't remember details about it. I'm not sure where I read the article, maybe it was in a magazine back in the days when we actually had magazines delivered to our houses each month. Something about that broad flat meplat doing damage. I did a search just now and found this article: The Effects Of The Meplat On Terminal Ballistics but I haven't read it yet.

[@hoffpbass]

Two comments on questions that you spoke towards. 1. Yes, there are folks making 12 gauge mini shells with slugs. Google it. 2. There was just a new video this week showing a guy take an Elk at 340 yards with Hornady 160 grain FTX in 30-30. Dropped where it stood. So, that is a game changer.

[@lesliewinters1301]

You are the best and highly treasured across the entire globe Ron. Thanks, from da U.P., eh, ya betcha!

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Ya, shoor, ya betcha too! Tanks.

[@JohnGriffith-w2w]

Ron ! You have plenty of evidence! The .30-30 was a usually a 150-170 grain bullet that was and still is rather effective out to 125 yards or so. Then along comes Hornady Leverevolution featuring a rubber tipped spritzer bullet that brought the velocity range trajectory and down range energy up to the point that I considered it a new cartridge altogether! How’s that for evidence?

[@unbalancedredneck5778]

Hornady definitely checked all the boxes with this ammo. Almost doubled the BC, appropriate SD, 200fps faster than the standard 30/30 and retains about 300lb more energy down range at 200 yds. It’s been a go to ammo since it was released.

[@anthonyjbargeman5280]

A day in the life of ? Yeah ! Once a week a tide bit of the goins on of my favorite outdoor writer. Have learned a lot from you over the years brother. Thank you.

[@billhatcher2984]

I just wanted to congratulate you on your nomination I am just the rite age to have herd your name probably about the same time you started writing I grew up reading Field and stream and Out door life and Sports a Field those three I always had a subscription but I bought lots of other outdoor magazines and now I only listen to your podcasts now and then someone else will interest me but I don't subscribe to any others and all that just so I can say thank you for all the entertainment 👍 and hopefully lots more

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Thanks for your support, Bill.

[@EricChmelarsky]

Well hard evidence on this subject is hard to find. In the Pennsylvania Hardwoods, the 35 Remington 200 grain RN, 30.06 Remington 180 grain RN. Rules the roost. The affect on game is outstanding. Why? I just don't know. The old 30-30 170 grain still gets the done. Exit wounds tend to be larger than a Spitzer. I also believe that frontal diameter factors in also. Lots of luck getting hard evidence to prove either one.

[@cristianespinal9917]

Handgun hunters who use cast bullets have long understood the benefit of a wide meplat, which is why designs like Elmer Keith's Semiwadcutter and Veral Smith's Wide Flat Nose bullets are very popular among such shooters. The wider the flat face of the bullet, the harder it hits and more tissue it crushes. As far as hard evidence, obviously rifle and pistol terminal ballistics aren't perfectly similar, but it seems that smaller meplats "push through" flesh where the wide-nosed bullets crush through. I have noticed when hunting at short range with my .270, that my only DRTs on deer have come with round nosed bullets, where spire points have killed almost as well, but the deer would often run something like 20-30 yards instead of dropping on the spot. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like anyone is producing the .277 cal, 150gr bullets that have worked so well for me at woods distances. Scandinavian moose hunters also use round nosed 6.5 Swedish bullets on moose. Is it a relic of the past or an effective concept today? I believe the latter. Everything old is new again. I think blunt nosed bullets will see their day in the light again when woods hunters realize that those super-high-BC bullets are pointless for them with their 50-yard shots, and that they could do a little less tracking and take down bigger game with a blunt bullet.

[@williamgaines9784]

Good points. Ron made good ones as well. The pointy bullet hits at faster speed at distance because it is not hitting the air as hard on the way there. My anecdotal experience is that blunter bullets make a bigger entry wound, but the exit wounds are similar if the bullets deform to similar diameter and the impact velocities are similar. Each bullet will have its own expansion velocity threshold and shots should be kept within that velocity/distance limit, which the sleeker bullets will sustain to a greater distance.

[@cristianespinal9917]

@@williamgaines9784 agreed on all points. The pointier the Spitzer, the smaller the entry, but the ones I've used still did great internal damage and made big exits. Honestly, I wish I had more blunt-nosed bullets to experiment with using rifles, but they just don't make them for any cartridge I would hunt with. My last deer was with a .44 Mag revolver and I was a bit disappointed with my choice of a soft point. I got it, but had to track over 100 yds. Judging by the hole, expansion was pretty much just the bullet peening to a flat .44 cal. Next time, I'll have to use one with more violent expansion. Either a soft cast hollow-point or an all-copper hollow point.

[@williamgaines9784]

@@cristianespinal9917 Where I hunt, I always shoot high shoulder. A 100 yard track job results in being able to follow one's own blood trail back out. I was hoping to try some 44 wadcutters on a hog or deer this past season, but no takers.

[@cristianespinal9917]

@@williamgaines9784 talk about a wide, sharp meplat! It'd be cool to hear how .44 cal wadcutters work. Best of luck. I usually go for the double-lung/heart with rifles. With my handgun, it was my first time out with a handgun only, so my goal was to aim for the middle tight behind the shoulder. The deer was 40-45 yards away, trotting, and I led him well, crosshairs centered on the shoulder when the trigger broke. My mistake was that I didn't follow-through with my lead, so the hit was towards the back of the lungs. Thankfully it was a solid double-lung and tracking was very easy, even through some dense brush.

[@oneredeemedrich]

Always making excellent productions and informative.. every time, Ron! Thx!!!

[@Plumcraziness]

One added benefit I do like about round nose bullets is, in certain calibers where they are available, they can provide you the opportunity to shoot heavier bullets for caliber, as well as a higher sectional density than is normally possible for a factory twist rate rifle. The reason for this is because, due to a round nose bullet's more blunt contour/ogive, it is able to be heavier for the same length of bullet compared to a spitzer, thus allowing you to shoot a higher grain size and sectional density and still have it be stabilized in stock barrel twist rates. This not only gives you another option for some added punch in close due to the extra bullet weight (particularly at closer range at 150 yds or less), but more importantly: the higher sectional density provides even deeper penetration. For instance, take the 160 grain Hornady Interlock round nose bullet in a 6.5 Creedmoor as an example. Not only does it have 17-20 more grains than the typical upper range for 6.5 Creed (usually in the 140-143 grain range), that 160 grain bullet also delivers a sectional density of .328, which is the fourth highest sectional density rating of any bullet up to .45 caliber. Which again, aids in even deeper penetration. Same goes for the good ol' .30-06 where a 220 grain round nose bullet offers not only a bigger hammer in close, but also has an extremely high sectional density rating of .331, which is the third highest sectional density rating of any bullet up to .45 caliber. As mentioned, round nose bullets are an excellent choice for shooting at shorter distances, and can be particularly beneficial when selecting a bullet for hunting larger game animals like bears or moose (depending on a given cartridge's capabilities) where closer range shots can be more the norm than the exception. Of course, every landscape and hunting situation can present different shooting ranges, but the higher grain weight for caliber and additional sectional density that a round nose can offer is a good option to have for certain hunting situations. The debate can be made about whether a round nose hits harder than a spitzer upon impact, but for me, where the round nose bullet really shines is when they are used to extend the upper grain weight range of a cartridge, which offers some of the added benefits I mentioned. Round nose bullets definitely have their place.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Now that is a valid and accurate assessment, Plum. Heavier bullets usually do carry and deliver more energy with the added penetration of higher SD. Best answer so far. But what difference might there be if you matched the round nose mass and SD with a spire point of same construction?

[@Plumcraziness]

​@@RonSpomerOutdoors Thanks for the reply, Ron. I do see your point (no pun intended) about a spire point bullet of the same grain weight. But part of the point I was making is it's not always possible to shoot those high grain weight for caliber spire point bullets like a 160 grain in the 6.5 Creedmoor, or a 220 grain in the .30-06. Part of the issue you run into with spire points of those grain weights is that they can no longer be stabilized at their respective factory twist rates. For instance, a 220 grain spire point being shot out of a .30-06 cannot be stabilized in a factory twist rate barrel of 1:10. Same for a 160 grain spire point with a 6.5 Creedmoor. This is where round nose bullets come into play because, due to its inherent ogive, a round nose allows for a heavier bullet at a shorter bullet length than would be possible with a spire point of the same grain weight. Thus allowing it to be stabilized in a factory twist rate barrel. The only limitation is that a round nose is better suited for closer range shooting due to its poor BC numbers for downrange terminal performance. But that's what makes it a valid option because it offers more wallop in close, as well as an even higher sectional density for even deeper penetration. For me, given those specific parameters, that's where round nose bullets earns its keep. 👍

[@DanielPhillips86VA]

Thanks for the explanation!

[@arthurshingler2025]

Great Job, Ron! (as always!)

[@dr.froghopper6711]

Wound ballistics studies have been done for huge numbers of bullets and I can’t imagine that they didn’t compare spitzer vs round in the studies.

[@jfess1911]

It depends mostly on bullet construction. A spitzer with a soft tip and core will open faster than a relatively harder round nose. A solid round nose bullet or one designed limited, even expansion will tend to penetrate in a straight line, which is helpful if you need deep penetration to hit the vitals. A round nose, flat base design will allow a heavier bullet to be stabilized in a given rifle. With the 270 Win, for example, the traditional long-range general-bullet was a 130 grain spitzer, but a 150 grain round nose was available for bigger game, although it had a shorter effective range. The heavier bullet started off slower and tended to damage less meat when used at short range, so it was often preferred for hunts where that was expected, such as in heavily wooded areas. Bullet selection has gotten more confusing now that bullets with light "ballistic tips" (made of plastic or aluminum) have become popular. This has allowed heavier bullets for a particular cartridge to have higher BC's. The design allows the portion of bullet containing the heavy section of lead or copper to stay shorter while the lightweight pointed tip extends overall length and reduces drag without having a large effect on gyroscopic stability.

[@HikeHuntHaul]

Must have missed you! I truly enjoyed the DSC 2024 as well. Wonderful time! We will have to connect next year in Atlanta! The gentlemen at park west arms are wonderful as well. Till then cheers. 👍🏻😃

[@joeyindahl2593]

Maybe the round nose bullets were just weaker jacketed? That would explain the difference maybe. I’ve noticed the same thing with my 270

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Interesting point. Could be. Perhaps softer lead cores in many cases too?

[@joeyindahl2593]

@@RonSpomerOutdoors that’s my best guess anyway.

[@sidekickbob7227]

Joey, I wonder if the rounded nose tended to have a quicker expansion than the spitzer point? This due to the larger diameter of the open lead. The jacket of the two bullets could have equal thickness, but the larger angle you have between the center axis, and the line between the center of gravity and the end of the jacket, will encourage easier expansion. Not sure of any of this, just my thoughts.

[@nozrep]

just saw your cameo on one of Backfire Jim’s shotshow vids and looking forward to watching some more shot show stuff. Still new to even being a fan of the gun industry, lol, even though I hunted my whole life. But of course there’s always been a shot show. Although I’d not a clue what a shot show was until Demolition Ranch’s vids introduced me to it in like, 2019. And aye, I am almost forty and still was unaware of it in 2019 even though I had been around guns my whole life. So I am happy to learn anew!

[@carlmiller8657]

I have done a lot of research into terminal ballistics. Without getting too far into the weeds, the difference is mainly velocity , Frontal surface area, and retained weight. The high velocity cartridges tend to shed weight quickly and end with a retained weight somewhere around 65%, but the lower velocity bullets tend to retain more weight because there is less pressure acting against the lead frontal surface area. The round nose helps the low velocity bullet to expand, but its frontal surface area after expansion and retained mass are the two factors that will determine its penetration depth and the size of the wound channel. High velocity bullets that expand to a large diameter, and shed a lot of weight, create a very wide and slightly shallower wound. The bullets that expand wide, but not quite so wide, and retain all of their mass will penetrate more deeply with a longer, but narrower wound cavity. This is the same reason why copper bullets can penetrate so deeply. The high velocity bullet that sheds weight leaves a football shaped wound, and the lower velocity bullet that sheds less weight will create a subway, foot-long shaped wound When you compare 45-70 lead bullets to copper, there is such a huge difference in weight that the lead bullets penetrate more deeply, even after some loss of mass.

[@oakleygraham9529]

Hey Ron, love listening to your episodes. Lots of good information and discussion. I'd like to have some input on the Spitzer vs round nose discussion. I don't have any evidence that round nose or flat nose projectiles hit any harder. I have some anecdotal evidence that most of the whitetail deer I have shot with round or flat nose bullets out of a 30-30 winchester have dropped on the spot, whereas some of the deer I have shot with Spitzer bullets from a .308 or .270 have not. They died too, they just took a few more yards to do so. I contributed this difference more to shot placement and distance than bullet construction. That being said, there may be some differences in how a Spitzer and flatnose bullet disrupt tissue from a bullet construction standpoint. Not in how the tips are shaped, but in the jacket construction and the velocities they are meant to expand at. If I load a 150 Spitzer interlock from Hornady in my .308, that bullet was designed to expand at .308 winchester up to 300 magnum velocities. That's a fairly tough bullet. However, if I load a 150 round nose bullet meant for the 30-30 into my .308 winchester and shoot it at those kind of velocities, I would expect DRAMATIC expansion. No doubt I would have less penetration if that bullet over expands, however I theorize that shooting a deer at 50 to 100 yards with that round nose may induce a more dramatic effect than with the more robust Spitzer if shot place were constant. Just some food for thought. Keep up the good work Ron.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Good thinking. Could more likely be differences in bullet materials/construction than shape.

[@fordray1]

Very good content Ron! Keep it coming! Some of your content validates what I've discovered over the years. Much your content provides insight to topics I've always pondered and many of your your topics have never crossed my mind. I don't always agree with your conclusions but it prompts me to challenge my own thoughts on the subject. The cartridge comparisons and analyses are my favorites, especially when the .308 Winchester is put into proper perspective. :-) ya ... I just bought one anyway. Cheers!

[@kvonzwild8979]

Craig Boddington once wrote that he couldn't explain why but flat or round nose just seemed to hit harder. I would personally suspect that initial impact may create more immediate hydrostatic impact like Lehigh defense claims of their fluted bullets. I've witnessed it at shorter ranges and observation tended to reinforce the notion.

[@scottstruif3939]

This show doesn’t care about witnesses. Spreadsheets rule here.

[@peterconnan5631]

Hi Ron, thanks for another great episode. Not sure how I missed it before. On the round nose vs. Spitzer debate: I don't have any empirical evidence either, but I do believe that there may be something in it. A number of years ago a friend and I did a lot of "cull hunting" of Impala and Blue Wildebeest. We used three rifles, a 7x57, a .30-06 and a .308. We were shooting body shots and because most of the farms were quite dense the distances were usually less than 200m. We found one bullet that seemed to put gane down significantly faster than any of the others we tried, and this particular bullet had a very blunt ogive. It was a very strongly-constructed bullet that always gave upwards of 95% weight retention, which could also have been a factor, but one of the bullets we compared it to was the Barnes X. The bullet in question was the Rhino Solid Shank. A very similar bullet I believe to the North Forks you recently brought to Africa. My hypothesis is that a blunter ogive causes the bullets to expand more quickly, and if this is true they may be transferring energy more quickly? But like you I have been unable to find any studies on this. Perhaps you can do a collaboration eith Ballistic High-speed or Smarter Every Day using high-speed photography and ballistic gell to investigate this idea?

[@daig54]

Ron you should do a top 3 rifle rounds for hunting or general use by continent. I think that would be SUPER interesting episode!

[@darrellblanchard2362]

Depends on impact velocity and bullet construction.

[@glockparaastra]

Namibia and South Africa! I'd love to meet you in South Africa! Safe travels and enjoy our beautiful country!

[@awwwshucks443]

Got to imagine that more than shape of the bullet, it's construction will matter the most if weight and velocity is the same. Energy transfer will happen from them flattening out to disperse force across greater areas.

[@chrisdaniel1339]

Purely in a physics sense the more blunt the bullet the more forceful the impact on the animals skin as sharply pointed will pierce the animals skin at a lower force and before a more blunt bullet will, but lets keep in mind this is all happening in milliseconds with no way to actually measure the impact force. Now because of technology and design the spire bullet will likely expand first because of the way petals are manufactured with in the first inch or two of penetration whereas a soft lead round nose has to move material by deformation to mushroom

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Interesting idea, Chris, and thanks for it, but I'm thinking that the millisecond impact force with both bullet shapes is all there, in the body, just spread across slightly different milliseconds. If both bullets remain within the body, both dump all of their kinetic energy. And the more aerodynamic bullet retains more energy, so... Now, if the spire point were to retain original shape and zip through, then the round nose would dump more energy into the target. But this doesn't seem to be the usual claim by round nose fans. I'm back at the mushroomed/expanded/mangled bullet of either initial configuration pushing, ripping, and tearing vital organs, arteries, etc. Why would the rounded nose shape do more of this?

[@mr.puddles5246]

​@RonSpomerOutdoors the round nose is born with a head start and isn't as velocity dependent like the spire. That's the advantage. And I'd theorize that the tip of a monolith is less likely to lose mass upon impact vs a pointed bullet, due to narrower tips lacking mass to hold things together. So, penetration may be more consistent. You are less likely to experience failure in a target with round nose at close range. I have forgotten the man's name, but he stated that when hunting elephants with massive muzzleloaders, he preferred the lead ball over the pointy conicals. Blunt bullets punch above their weight and it isn't completely understood as to why.

[@chrisdaniel1339]

@@mr.puddles5246 You may be thinking of the elephant hunter W.D. Bell. Although, if it is Bell you are thinking of his favorite rifle was a Mauser 98 chambered in 7x57, he also had a 6.5x54R he favored for hunting for meat.

[@Aliquot1914]

Luv your channel Ron

[@craigenraphael7398]

Ron, I think you said it yourself at the beginning and inadvertently proved the point about the round nose hitting harder. You said that the round nose isn’t as areo dynamically efficient as the spire point and slows down in air faster. This is the same principle as it impacts an animal, the RN slows down faster in air or fluid which causes the impact energy to generate a larger force as a result, or a "harder hitting bullet". Deceleration Velocity is squared so the faster the object slows down the greater the impact. drag coefficient is a dimensionless quantity that is used to quantify the drag or resistance of an object in a fluid environment, such as air or water. It is used in the drag equation in which a lower drag coefficient indicates the object will have less hydrodynamic drag. The drag coefficient is always associated with a particular surface area. Impact energy: During an impact, an object's energy is converted into work. The energy of a moving object is called kinetic energy, and is equal to one half of the object's mass times the square of its velocity. Such that, when two bodies collide. During this collision, both bodies decelerate. The deceleration causes a high force or shock, (E=1/2 m v2).

[@slimjimmy229]

I believe there is something with "dwell time" or time the bullet spends inside the animal with appropriate velocity. Growing up, I always used a 170gr bullet out of the ol' 30-30. Despite it's low energy numbers, I seemed to drop nearly every deer I shot with that round. Double lung, heart, or high shoulder, it didn't seem to matter, bang flop. When I switched to the 30-06, there seemed to be fewer DRT shots. I'm not saying the animals didn't die quickly, usually within 20 yards, they just didn't simply fall down and not move as the seemed to do with the 30-30. Now that I hunt a lot with a handgun, I have found that a heavy (300+gr) WFN (wide flat nose) hardcast bullet at 1200 fps is much more effective than even 240 gr XTP at 1500 fps. I'll often find that XTP bullet caught by the hide, but the deer would run 40-50 yards. Yet, the 310gr wfn bullet wouldn't even seem to slow down, let alone transfer energy. For some reason that I cannot explain, the deer just seem to fall over. The heavy bullets seem to do minimum damage, just put a 1" plug through the animal, but for whatever reason it just put the deer down. I tell these stories because I think that may be the reason for a FN or RN seeming to be more effective than a splitzer. The people using RN bullets will be shooting close range. The ballistically inefficient design will slow down faster, mimicking a longer shot which would increase this "dwell time" that I was talking about. The science doesn't really make sense, but this is the observations that I've experienced over the years.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Slim, I can't imagine how a bullet spending more time transversing an animal's vitals adds to lethality. Bullet don't set up shop, take out their cutting tools, and get to work. They merely expand to varying degrees microseconds after impact and tear/rip until they run out of energy. The more slowly they go, the less they tear/rip. The less energy they carry, the less they tear/rip. The energy they expend tearing and ripping is "work." Energy is nothing if not converted to work.

[@slimjimmy229]

@RonSpomerOutdoors I completely understand what you're saying. I never said I understand why this phenomenon is occurring, just that it is an observation that I've made over the years. The best explanation I can come up with has more to do with weight retention than time spent in the animal. Hence, why I mentioned the part about "at speed." Meaning, the velocity/energy of the bullet is still high enough to create the wider wound channel prior to the point you see the "streamlining" effect in gel test. Most of us know that you can have shallow penetration if your impact velocity is above the velocity window that that bullet is intended for. Perhaps, because the round/flat nose bullets are slowing at a much faster rate than the splizers. And, because most people using a RN/FN design are hunting close quarters. The lower impact velocity could be in a better spot in the velocity window, allowing the expanding bullet to retain more weight. Thus creating a longer wound channel rather than a wide, short one. At least, that's my best theory on the reasoning. The same would hold true for just using a heavier bullet, though. As far as my handgun goes, I'm likely seeing the same thing, just a bit differently. The XTP dumps its energy early in the animal, whereas the heavy wfn cast bullet maintains its energy (and wound channel) through the animal. Putting a decent wound channel through multiple organs rather than a massive amount of damage to whatever it hits first and just pokes a hole after that until it comes to rest.

[@philwalter1655]

Gidday Ron Love the show ¹❤ I have developed a new cartridge at least one we cannot buy in Australia Its a 7.62x39 necked down to 20 cal Its really getting out there fast and hits hard I tried a 30m1 necked to 22 but it wasnt much better so i call the new one THE SQURILLE Its a great little rabbit fox cat kangaroo round Cheers phil Australia

[@georgeprice7046]

Ron, thank you for sharing your knowledge. I like the question that came up about 350 rem mag. For I like the 35cals. Except the only one I own right now is the 35 rem in a 336 marlin. Would like to own more and the 35 whelen has been on my radar for years now. Except I have been wanting it in a bolt action. Hopefully CVA or someone else will come out with one. If you have any connections a whisper in their ear would be nice. Heck 358 win in a Henry Lone ranger would be nice to. However, getting back to what I was writing to comment or ask about. You had a letter asking about the difference of a round nose and spire point about the round nose hitting harder. The only thing I can think of is the bigger frontal area. The reason I say that is something the older men use to say when I was a teen. Now that I am 50+ the all are gone. But one pointed out the the old double rifles in Africa that the calibers for them come in round nose and they are designed to take dangerous game. While I didn't argue with them for I know nothing of African hunting especially back then and not to mention that he was my elder. Well I have often seen round nose bullets on those cartridges in the hunting magazines back then and thought no more of it till I heard you read that letter.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

George, Lipsey's is marketing a Ruger Hawkeye in 35 Whelen this year. Ask your dealer. I suspect Browning still chambers its BLR in 358 Win. And those Africa dangerous game cartridges use round nose or flat nose bullets because they best penetrate in a straight line (no deviation due to variable pressure against the curved nose) and are almost always delivered at close range (50 yards or less.) No advantage with a spire point/spitzer for such work.

[@georgeprice7046]

@RonSpomerOutdoors Ron, thank you for the heads up on the rifles. Also appreciate the explanation of the round nose and spire point. Like I said, that would be the only idea of someone saying one hit harder than the other. But that would also be like comparing the 30-03 and the 30-06. When you explained why the military switched to the lighter faster spire point of the 30-06 over the heavier round nose in the 30-03. Anyway, I know that regardless of the bullet you use. The one you shoot well and at appropriate ranges, putting it in the right place will kill the animals it was designed for. Like you have said many times, know your equipment and practice. You are so right about that. Here in SC, most of the old hunters that have since pasted on had a 30/30 or similar lever gun. Then there were the ones with 30-06. Due to the way they hunter, a box of ammo would last them 10 to 15yrs or better on a rifle like that. But just about everyone had a 22lr and / or shotgun, and even though they were always watching how much ammo they were shooting. They would tend to shoot more of their 22lr or shotgun ammo, not much more than it took to put food on the table. For they had been through the great depression and knew about not being able to buy goods. As always, thank you, Ron, for sharing your knowledge, experience, and understanding. You bring so much to us that are learning still.

[@ronladuke7235]

I would imagine the larger diameter lead tip of a round nose bullet would make initiating expansion easier and possibly allow for a harder alloy or thicker jacket to control expansion?

[@russellk6415]

Seeing how the round nose already has more of a bigger surface before making contact with the game and will also start expanding upon cantact then it seems to me that bigger and faster maximum expansion could make a difference. Did that make sense? Im just speculating here. I too am a round nose user and they put game down quick!!

[@fredbalster3100]

One problem I have had with reloading plastic tips, is that the tips deformed when seating the bullet in the case. I had to remove the tips. 😊

[@midweststrength]

Hornady makes that lever evolution ammo with little plastic bumpers on the ends of the bullet. I have found no difference in accuracy in .348 Winchester vs the flat buffalo bore ammo but I love that they’re making it!

[@davidzakrzewicz707]

Interesting that you mentioned the notion of various cartridges shooting to the same ballistic arc. I just read an article in the 1997 Handloaders Digest that dealt with this very subject, titled In Search of Uniform Trajectory, by Thomas W. Harris. I’m sure the principles he explains in the article can easily be calculated for the new cartridges, especially given the advances in ballistic knowledge and computer technology since 1997. It is still based on muzzle velocity and ballistic coefficient. I enjoy perusing articles in my old references and also enjoy your podcasts. Sometimes I discover there is a grain of truth in the saying that there is nothing new under the sun.

[@CB-68-westcreations]

That flat nose is going to leave a better blood trail, even at lower velocities because the wound in which the blood is going to escape from has a wider exit port to get out of the body. Points will start expanding as they go through the tissue, but you can look at your entrance and exit wounds and see the difference.

[@csipawpaw7921]

I remember hearing (I think it was on C&Rsenal), that a European Army in the late 19th century was using rifles with tubular magazines and did have cartridges go off when the rifle butts were slammed on the ground during drills. I also know some KZbin channels tried to duplicate the rifle tube discharge problem, in clear plastic for filming purposes, and failed to get a discharge. But I believe they failed because they used small light cartridges. The military cartridges in Europe were much larger and much heavier.

[@paulbarela6548]

I agree with Chris, but it happens when you get to that point. How cold are you and how long you been waiting.

[@BuleJagterAdventures]

Stalking close, to within 200 yards? 😁 obviously, he's not from the Midwest. We usually hunt from a treestand, and most shots are under 50 yards. Some of us also stalk whitetail. The closest I've stalked a deer was about 10 yards, with a bow. The best part of that hunt is the fact that it was the first deer I shot. (And the first deer I killed) I'll never forget that hunt. I've also stalked a few other deer, and one coyote between 30 and 75 yards. I stalked one deer with a muzzleloading handgun, on a bare field, within approximately 50 yards. Crawling on my belly, to get within muzxleliading handgun range, was very rewarding. Your videos are always a pleasure to watch. I check I'm on your channel, every day!

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Congrats on your stalking skills, Bule. You're getting your money's worth out of your hunts.

[@cameroncassel994]

Ron Spomer outdoors my dad has an old serria reloading book from the late 70's maybe early 80's and I remember reading it and it had data on the round nose bullets for all kinds of rifles. I hope that helps some.

[@rottiesrule5285]

Ok Ron,,i'll be easy to make happy this time..all i want is the box of 35 rem. cor lokt you have on the table... those are about as few and far between as hens teeth..speaking of which i'd give my hens teeth for them...

[@chrismaclean5434]

I’m no expert, but my observations are similar to others. RN bullets hit harder for whatever reason. I think this is partially due in fact that they carry more of their weight forward, driving deep combined with a possibly faster deceleration and disruption of tissue. It is fact however, the RN bullets will track a straighter line through a medium such as an animal, compared to a spitzer bullet which will often tumble. These have been my observations on game with various calibers.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

You're sure right about the straighter line penetration. Only a flat nose or cupped flat nose penetrates straighter. I'm not with you on the weight forward enhancing penetration, however. Seems to me more mass in the shank is what keeps pushing an expanded nose deeper. But thanks for giving us something else to contemplate. I'm still waiting for someone to offer some hard test data. We'll see...

[@nozrep]

there are bullet manufrs. fhat make both round nose and spitzers. I wonder if first guy’s question if he has also sent the question to their folks to ask upon feedbacks and datas?

[@GuyGooding-q9o]

Ron , Hornady makes 200gr ftx bullets and ammo for the .348 win , must be the plastic tip projectiles mentioned by that listener .

[@rodneyrugg7272]

My 270 shoots the 150 grain Remington RN more accurate than Nosler and Hornady spiral points. Figured I would keep shots closer, then ended up killing elk at 376 yards, didn’t go 5 yards till it fell, bullet didn’t exit. Wonder if I should have taken shot, was able to lie down and use pack as rest, not sure confidence in round is as good as bullet coefficient for some.

[@robertsebacher44]

You Ron are the master of the non sequitur. If the bullets are the same length, the round nose bullets will be heavier than the more aerodynamic bullets. More speed can offset this advantage.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

If I said "same length," I misspoke and wanted to say same B.C. If MV and BC are the same, trajectories are the same irrelevant of caliber. You'd need a hell of a lot more MV to offset the drag of a 150-gr. RN .308 vs. a 150-gr. BTSP .308. Run some ballistic tables and check it out.

[@jasonsimone3523]

For a gun writer I'm always a little surprised by the thing's you don't know about or never heard of. Hornady made the leverevolution in 348 Winchester with the red pointed tip.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Ah, the Flex-Tip bullet. I should have thought of that. With some 30 calibers, 230+ different cartridges, and who knows how many different bullet types on the market, my soft-drive sometimes fails to spin up the data quickly enough to match my speaking speed. Sorry.

[@donaldslayton2769]

220 gr RN in a 300WBY looks like a monster. They punch holes in targets really nice. Never had a chance to take game with one. 200yds is a max practical hunting distance locally

[@patrioticguy1791]

Regarding rain affecting trajectory.... I'm a PRS competitor and I have been at a couple matches where rain came in and started to downpour right in the middle of a stage. We were shooting targets from 500 to 800 yd during that stage and we continued to get impacts at those distances without changing our dope. I found it odd because I felt that the rain would slow the bullet down and require more Mills of elevation. I was wrong and, at least on those couple of days in Michigan, the rain did not affect the trajectory of the bullet enough to cause a miss.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Good to hear, Patriot. Higher humidity is supposed to result in higher trajectories (minimally) because humid air is less dense than dry. Seems counterintuitive.

[@dukedenarie5858]

I was gonna comment what roger said about vortex making the BC but I’d add that you guys should do a collaboration podcast. I think you’d all get along well.

[@TonyYork-KB9RAO]

I like to think of the round nose and spire thing like doing a belly flop vs a dive into a pool.... the pool probably dont feel much difference....

[@jeremywilson15147]

Hey Ron, you should check out the mini-shell slugs available these days. Federal, Aguila, and some others are making 12 ga slugs in 1.75" shells.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

To what end, Jeremy? The only benefit I'm aware of is lighter recoil for practice rounds and more rounds in a given tubular magazine length for increase firepower. Perhaps useful when defending against a horde of attacking rats. Perhaps reducing pellet damage on close flushing quail, ie. fewer pellets in a load. Anything else?

[@jeremywilson15147]

@@RonSpomerOutdoors I only brought them up because you said you were unaware of slugs in shells shorter than 2", and there are several options available these days. As for their purpose, there have been several channels testing the short slugs and buckshot in gel, and the results are actually pretty decent. If somebody wanted a defensive shotgun load with high capacity and ample penetration without too much of a concern for over-penetration, the #4 buck in a short shell could be the answer. With 12" of penetration and a decent pattern at 15 yards, it's surely useful for something other than a horde of rats! And the short slugs have a 1oz chunk of lead leaving the barrel at 1200 fps, which ain't nothing to sneeze at.

[@nozrep]

i myself, as an uneducated person of minor means, watchin’ Spomer to learn stuff, propose that: I propose that a round nose at 25 yards shall hit harder than a spire or spitzer or whatever it’s called at 250 yards. I theorize it. Although, it may also be true that a 300 mag will hit harder at 300 yards than even a 22 rimfire would hit at 10 yards. But that my theory that I propose for submittal and consideration unto my fellow comments sectionites.😌😄

[@Cole_42]

Can I get a link to the video referenced at 11:50?

[@robertpettus6037]

The only reason why people say round or flat nose projectiles hit harder is because they wheigh more for the given length. Those people think more mass means more energy despite losing a lot of their velocity and efficiency. More mass in a projectile, all things being equal that is, will give you more penetration but hitting harder...thats a stretch.

[@iamnobody9542]

Rn vs Pointed. My bear rifle. Custom 350 Rem mag 700 BDL 22", with the long action so I could seat boolits out to the canelurs. Hornady interlock 250 Gr Rn and Spires, 2470 f/s. Gallon milk jugs full of water at ~10 yards on an old coffee table. ALL pointed boolits, no matter, FIRST jug blew up the most. Those 250 Rn's - the Second and Third jugs blew up the worst, and in fact blew a tear drop shaped hole down thru the table top under them! I repeated this test with my 30-06 with Rem 180 gr core-locked pointed and Rn - SAME result!! Seemed counter intuitive, but. Consider all the impact force on a small soft point vs a more distributed RN area... So, for the range of bear hunting, the velocity loss difference is immaterial. The RN's dump their energy in the boiler room. The pointed ones blow up a lot of skin, meat, etc just GETTING IN there. Yes. I have seen this effect on game, too. Ok... Now having sed all thet thar... I now only shoot Nosler Partitions at living, unwounded game. Because. I want enuf Penetration for the biggest, baddest critter I am likely to meet in the woods. Use enough gun, AND enough boolit. Jerry

[@chrisowen5497]

I remember a fellow from my Army days (1986 - 1992) that claimed his round nose bullets hit an animal harder than my “pointy” bullets. He was using a 30-30 Marlin lever gun, and myself with a Spanish Mauser in 308 Win. I never really bought into his claim, but I didn’t really know for sure.

[@veteranoutdoorsman9978]

My expierience is round nose expands faster. I see more tissue sage from round or flat nose.

[@CowboyHunterPodcast]

Interesting thing about minimum cartridge legality. Wisconsin this past year changed their regulations. This isn’t verbatim so bear that in mind. Now on to he meat and potatoes the deer hunting cartridge regulation was changed to “no minimum cartridge requirement. Use judgement to determine a cartridge that is sufficient to taking your game animal”

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

They are coming to their senses.

[@Duane14]

Would love to get Ron's take on the 375 Ruger. Thinking of building one, in lieu of the h&h since it fits in a standard action. Thoughts??

[@italian_badger1660]

He's spoken about it before. It's the same ballistic performance as the h&h, but in a shorter action (as you said). This means a shorter rifle. He also said to call your guide in advance if you are going to Africa to make sure it is legal to use even though it is just as powerful as the hh

[@charlessmith4242]

* For me this question of which type of bullet hits the hardest would be very hard to prove. If everything is the same but the shape of the bullet's nose, at what point during penetration does the frontal diameters of each bullet coincide with each other? And, are they transferring the same amount of energy at that point? I suppose high speed cameras can capture that approximate point in a block of gelatin. But, how do you measure the transfer rate of the energy that each type of projectile would have on a living organism? Will both bullet types even be travelling at the same rate of speed once inside the animal?

[@fredbalster3100]

To compare round nose to spire point, do a ballistic jell test at 100 yards. Compare penetration and wound cavity.😊

[@dustinweaver3032]

As for the leverevelution ammo vs traditional design both my 30-30's a marlin and a Winchester, shoot remington core locks more accurately than any other ammo. My marlin has a fixed power scope and at 100 yards i can usually get easily under a inch group wih the the remington core locks. The hornady ammo was almost a 4 inch group it was all over the place. The nosler ammo was even worse and alot slower

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Different loads shoot differently in various rifles. Use what works best with yours.

[@johnathonkraska]

Hi Ron, long time viewer here love your content and have learned so much so thanks for doing what you do and keep it up. Piggybacking off of your podcast theme here, I would like to know why I have heard some cartridges that often feature round nose projectiles "good brush guns". For example, here in Minnesota, lots of heavy grain 30-06 and 30-30 loads with round noses have been referenced by my circle of hunters as good brush loads. Is it more about the shape of the bullet being able to avoid deflection from small vegetation, or because of their optimal terminal ballistics being within close ranges (100 yds or less)? Would like to know what you think. Thanks!

[@mikereinhardt4807]

The other thing is, what process could anyone possibly use to determine which type of bullet hits harder? I would think the current terminal ballistic tables that show terminal ballistics for any given round at any given distance would be the definitive resource for which bullet hits harder...

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

That seems to be the question. While ballistic energy computations seem to accurately depict how many foot pounds a bullet delivers, they don't predict momentum, expansion or penetration, all of which contribute to terminal performance. Whether that could be called "hits harder" remains elusive, largely because we have no clear definition of "hits harder!"

[@ChukChukChuckie]

What kind of equipment is commercially available for us to shoot at, without fear of our ammunition destroying it, that can measure the force of our ammunition's strike upon it?

[@RonSpomerOutdoors-Podcast]

Chuk, I don't know that equipment, though I'm sure it's out there. However, I also don't see the need because the physics is pretty well known and solid. Bullet weight and muzzle velocity determine kinetic energy. That energy is then lost to varying degrees based on the B.C. of the bullet. The wider, shorter, and more blunt the bullet, the more energy it loses. Thus, any same-caliber/same weight bullet with a sleeker shape than a round nose will carry more energy downrange at all distances. The question remaining is "does the animal feel more of the energy when the bullet is round nose or flat nosed?" I doubt it given the quick and radical disruption of the bullet against body tissue.

[@LilyRose-l6l]

They are the same my be a little 600 yards

[@ChukChukChuckie]

Maybe we can get George of Target Suite to do these tests; if we can get him away from Lever Actions long enough. He does like tests and Quantifiable Numbers.

[@javierhuerta9098]

Trying said round nose v flat nose v spitzer in a ballistics gel from say a 150 grain 30cal would be interesting

[@TractorWrangler01]

My opinion is that within 150 yards the roundpoint would put 100% energy on target. Once you get past that you will lose velocity with the round point and although the roundpoint will still dump 100% of its energy, it wont have as much energy to dump on target. The pointed bullets would retain their velocity and accuracy longer and dump more energy at long distances. At close distances the pointed bullet will pass completly through and mushroom yes but not dump 100% of their energy. Its my opinion, for what it's worth.

[@philipfreeman72]

Round nose work only at very close range , they drop very quickly at longer range .

[@jerrywelch1370]

Remington also chambered the 350 mag in a bolt action pistol...

[@HobbitHomes263]

as a guide i detest tis long range shooting fad. range skills rarely transfer well to the variables of hunting in the field. i spend an awful lot more time convincing people to work in closer and even at 400 yds i am spending a lot more time tracking poorly wounded game, an elk on three legs can travel a ver long way in a hurry. yes you might bump you quarry if you try to get closer but the risk of lost game in that scenario is less than the probability of a bad long shot. i wish everyone would come to camp without a rifle and i could have a selection like a golf caddy. we would get as close as possible then hand you the best rifle for that particular shot :)

[@edwardabrams4972]

Well said🙌 now if we can just get these young bucks to believe this 😳

[@jimparker7778]

bullets of equal weight will hit equally hard. The tip is more about external ballistics than penetration...

[@TheVanKeh]

I'll start with saying there's nothing to back up my speculations, I'm just throwing out my own thoughts on the topic. I think that maybe rifles can more easily stabilize heavy, round nose bullets, rather than equal weight spire point bullets? Perhaps long heavy-for-caliber spire point bullets had to traditionally be seated too far into the case to be practical? Personally if I'm using a round nose bullet fired from anything other than a lever gun it's because I want a heavy bullet out of a slightly smaller or weaker caliber, and I would probably use it in the woods. There's no reason not to use a spire point bullet today with the vast bullet selection we have, but I would like to see some testing on the terminal performance of both styles, round nose and spire point.

[@hendrikkiliaan7639]

Inuit in Canadas north as well as the Dene below the tree line, have used the.22lr on a variety of big game animals. I witnessed a few dozen Pearyi caribou shot with heart shots with .22lr solids only. I was the goto receiver of collected polarbear skulls‘, every year half a dozen showed up with.22 lr bullets in the brain, they told me that those were shot from the boat while swimming. Curious bears entering muskrat camps get often brained from close with a .22lr, reason being that a .22lr is often the only rifle handy. Another reason is that Canadas Arctic is wide open. A lung shot caribou with a .22lr will run a few miles. In the Arctic with unlimited visibility, it’s no problem for a skidoo to retrieve a runner. In forested rolling country it be likely a lost caribou. From close range within 5 yards the .22lr will penetrate a polar bear skull when a solid is used, however the .22lr is not regarded as a good big game cartridge by the Dene or Inuit, but one that can do under special conditions on close range animals, where there is no other more suitable caliber is available.

[@albosarge6524]

I always get a genuine belly laugh when you social media types say that you’re living off grid. Off grid is out of sight and out of mind Lol.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

A dictionary definition of off-grid is: "not using or depending on public utilities, especially the supply of electricity." Since we are not tied to any utility power or water, instead making our own electricity from solar panels and gravity feeding water from a spring, I figure we're legitimately off-grid. "Out of sight and out of mind" could mean Elvis Presley, the Amazon River, the backside of the moon, or your basement. Whatever you're not looking at or thinking about, right? Unless by out of sight you mean living deep in the wilderness without road or bush-plane access. I'd call that "the middle of nowhere."

[@oneninerniner3427]

Spire point, without a doubt at face value, given both are the same weight

[@ernestclayton8550]

The trend is shooters? Maybe.... Cheers

[@Royal-xh8db]

If you have two bullets, say one is 50 grain and one is 150 grain, if they are both traveling at the same speed they should both drop the same amount. The amount of drop depends on flight time. Think of a feather and a rock in a vacuum, the principle is the same.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Correct. Drop is constant (minus a tiny bit of different drag effects due to bullet diameters/lengths.) But downrange drops involve bullet drag and often variable inclines of the muzzle at launch, both of which contribute to variable bullet drop at distances. Actual gravitational pull on the bullets is same, reach downrange is different.

[@markdavidson8424]

Hitting hard, I have a custom 338-06,and depending on the day five or six other calibers to hunt Elk, bear and deer. The rifle I packed in the bush for years with a single shot 45-70.shots were usually under an hundred yards and this short barrel rifle wasn't just easy to pack and thing's died on the spot.Now, I understand what people mean about knock down power or round nose bullets having more of it than pointed .And oli know it's just not true, but a 45 caliber at 350 grains has alot of energy. I could spend a lot of tome talking with you about it but I think we're are close on the conclusion. I'fI don't want an animal running off A 45 -70 will do it. If you ever hunted Elk in their coast range in Oregon you wouldn't understand why you don't want your Elk moving from their place you shot it.,the elk could end up at bottom of a 1500 foot canyon or worse. Any distance then it's my 338-06. So is it's knock down power, It's basically the right bullet in the right caliber for the cituation your in and the outcome you expect. A story I tell people that people that even took medicine buy surprise was I shot a buck at about 40 yards. Raining harder, getting dark,I gutted them deer and wash surprised I couldn't find the lungs Orl the heart .I said to my brother, they're not here, He's walked up to look any said, were they destroyed, it was a 325 Hornady bullet, I said no there not here. I went to where they buck was standing any about 20 feet up the road was a pile of something any it was steaming which is what caught my attention And there it was, a steaming pile of heart and lungs. Never seen that before and yes I knew what I was looking at. Before I became a timber faller I worked in a slaughter house and was very familiar with internal organs. I'm still on the edge about knock down power but at 40 yards and 30 caliber traveling at 26 to 3000 FPS would hate passed through so fast expansion would have been minimal and unless you shattered them nerve center that deer couldn't have shown littlest reaction and ran for sometime. So Ron the reason I watch your videos is you don't know everything and don't come off like you do and even are excited to look into to something to expand your knowledge. It's a pleasure to add you to a cup of coffee in the morning and learn something myself. So thank you.

[@WillyK51]

Around the turn of the century, Bullet shape was stadarized as round nose.(Hard Cast hunting bullets were flat/rounded For hunting and military. Military evolved as spitzer full metal jacket. Low speed balistics prefered round nose lead bullets, as construction wan't advanced for fast expanding pointed bullets at high speed. Complains were normal for overexpántion and under expantion. Soft lead round nose would expand reliabily at slower speed like the 30-30. Bullets of the time would explode at 3000 Fps. Technollogy caught up with faster balistics and pointed Bullets are very reliable. Still today Big game Solid Bulletrs are still round

[@HobbitHomes263]

In the 70s I hunted with the Remington 220 grain round nose CoreLokt 30-06. You could get away with the heavier bullet because the round nose is shorter and the factory twist would stabilize it. I think having a blunt nose with lots of exposed lead is a lagacy theory that came down to us via military surplus rifles. My grandpa was born in 1893. He bought his first rifle at age 14. It was US Army surplus infantry rifle in 45-70. Later he bought a 30-30., same theory. When he came home from WWI he bought a surplus Springfield and sporterized it but STILL he loaded blunt nose bullets with lots of exposed lead. He passed those theories onto me and my dad. Given equal bullet weights, a spire point is gonna be better at long range BUT I doubt a factory 30-06 twist would stabilize a 220 gr high BC bullet but WILL stabilize a round nose. In that sense you would get a harder "hit" but only because to are shooting a heavier bullet but that advantage decays rapidly down range

[@PaulBeans-i6w]

Need to get that question up against the meat target. Somebody get Paul Harrell

[@nozrep]

is a full steel bullet possible in the same way a regular lead bullets exist and has it been done or does ir exist? Because I shoot ducks with steel and tungsten and it’s law. And I don’t think lead ought be outlawed at all but if steel bullet exists and it works better I would request to educated and informed of such like.

[@schottiey]

I would assume using steel would burn rifling out super fast but solid copper bullets are gaining popularity due to being able the to use lighter bullets that have high BCs

[@nozrep]

ohhh yes the friction might be a lot more bad on a steel projectile for sure. And yah had heard of the copper bullets but didn’t know why they are getting more popular!

[@novicereloader]

It seems that if round nose bullets are better than spire points, we'd all be hunting with wadcutters.

[@allanroberts637]

Gell test maybe

[@wadepederson8457]

I did a test with a round nose 170grn 8mm and the170grn sst 8mm, and both at the same velocity of 2900fps, the target was 7 inches of catalogs at a distance of 25 yards the effect was the same at that yardage and the penitration was 4.5 inches but where the problem starts is just beyond 100yrds where the round nose slows down incredibly faster than that of the Spitzer and the wind has a devastating effect on the round nose at 200yrds plus the wind moves them several inches at that 200yrds range but the Spitzer was great all the way out with good effect I can't say that these tests were the the most scientific but it told me the round nose is good to 150 yards the Spitzer all hunting distances so if I'm in the heavier brushy woods short range 150yrds and under round nose will work so anyway that's the way I treat it now and don't waist money on the round nose bullets except for the special situations I mentioned above, so aim small, good hunting, GOD bless.

[@RonSpomerOutdoors]

Thanks for this info, Wade. It's no surprise to me, but many still mistakenly think a round nose hits harder when Newtonian physics clearly predicts it won't/can't, and experiments like yours confirm it. Aerodynamic inefficiency sacrifices energy on target.

[@missey3164]

BC = Before Creedmoor ? 😂

[@nicholasgrover2993]

Pound for pound 22lr is the best cartridge

[@JimParvin-o9e]

Using the same gun and weight of bullet, it depends on the distance to the target.

[@jimdavis3150]

Ron, I've got a question about a scope I bought. I just bought a Swarovski z3 3-10x42 BRH and I've been told that after I sight my rifle in that if I adjust the magnification up or down it will change the impact point of my bullet. Now I've never heard of that with any of the newer scopes out nor have I ever experienced anything like that before with any of the scopes I've owned before. If you can shed any light on this, it would be greatly appreciated.

[@nozrep]

did it say that in the instructional fold out sheet that came with it or the instructional manual? Swarovski are top notch quality and expensiveness comparative to the whole wide world of scopes. Ain’t NO way swarovski makes that kind of mistake manufacturing their scopes. Then again, I have never owned a swarovski, but I just know about their reputation and quality. Whoever told you that is an idiot who does not understand how basic rifle scopes work, and who probably is unaware of the extreme expense that a swarovski would be out of budget for the mass majority of hunters in the land. Also, shoot it yourself and find out eh? That’s actually probably the best way to immediately find the answer to your question. Also again, no, it’s a friggin swarovksi for crying out loud. no way they’d do that.

[@jimdavis3150]

@nozrep I haven't had chance to even mount it on my rifle yet. I've never owned a Swarovski either, but none of the scopes I've ever had before did that. But as soon as get a chance I'll mount it on my rifle and find out for sure. Knowing Swarovsk's reputation I can't imagine they'd make a mistake like that either. ( at least I hope not)

[@1975jdawg]

your point of impact is different only on the brh reticle meaning your drop chart in the reticle because its only true at the highest magnification. im trying not to be confusing i guess my best suggestion is to reasearch 1st focal plane vs second focal plane scopes yours is a second focal plane

[@jimdavis3150]

@1975jdawg I have read up on first focal plane vs second but I honestly don't understand how by adjusting the magnification on up or down on my scope changes the bullets point of impact? The only thing I can do is try it for myself and go from there.

[@1975jdawg]

it does nt change it at the crosshairs. it changes the math equation in the reticle at distance. so if you have a moa scope 1st fp its true at any magnification each hash mark is 1 moa on a second fp scope the hash marks are only true at full magnificaion. you could test this on a moa target at 100 yds by zooming your scope in and out reading the hashes. but having said that the scope you have isnt moa anyway its just distance marks and if you want to know what they are youll have to shoot the rifle at the distances to see where they hit and it will change on different power settings. my theroy is if you are shooting that far youll be at full magnification anyway. i hope this helps :) @@jimdavis3150

[@64samsky]

You can shoot 32 longs and others out of a 32 H&R Magnum revolver. Do some research to see which ones work.