Handgun nose shape
- Thread starter Brad
- Start date
Possibly but consider this bullet is to be tested in Brads Ruger. Brad has done pretty well to 100 yards with this revolver and with heavier (longer) bullets than this one. With this shorter bullet and far better brass fit and far better bullet fit in the throats and the same twist one would think that if Brad can concentrate on grip this should do even better.
.
9
9.3X62AL
Guest
I am WAY outta my depth here, but what the heck--can't let facts and expertise get in the way of a good opinion. 
I come at nose shape and form factor from a different angle than a long-range specialist like Rick and others would. Most of my cast bullet R&D has to do with hunting, and the attributes that enhance "slipperyness" in flight might enhance penetration in tissue as well. Of course, the hunter wants some carnage when that bullet traverses the quarry, too--and that is where the medieval-esque arguments about "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" get their traction. Truncated cone? Round flat nose? Semi-wadcutter/Keith? Stuff like this has filled many a gunrag, and one of the more succinct summations made by our friend Bret 4207 some years back stated that gunrags and websites spend far too much time discussing arrows and far too little examining the Indian. For hunting with castings, I unplug a lot of the nose form magic by using Bruce B Softpoints to enhance expansion and (hopefully) lethality.
Here comes the controversial part--look for it as you pass through. I have held a California Hunting License for 52 years. During that time I have seen hundreds of large game and thousands of small game exemplars taken by self and others, and often assisted in field prep for the kitchen and freezer. (I must have been a ghoul or forensic pathologist in some past life). I also spent the majority of my career time as a cop training folks with firearms and investigating the outcomes of shootings and killings--by cops, by citizens, and by crooks. Sample population is in the "several hundred" ballpark. Does bullet shape matter in this venue? A little, maybe--but not nearly as much as location of impact. Diameter? A little, maybe--no bullet impact improves anyone's condition, but you still have to hit the assailant to have any effect at all--and you can't miss fast enough to survive a gunfight, in spite of all the high-cap hype to the contrary. And all of those high-tech uber-modern controlled expansion zombie stoppers that retain for a buck and half apiece......are they all that and a bag of chips? Resounding NO. Still gotta hit the goblin. There is that arrow/Indian thing again. My advice to folks serious about keeping one's carcass unshot is to first not venture into adventure-travel environments and recreations, and to spend your money on range time and ammo to stay sharp with your war toy(s) and use loads that run close to the carry ammo you cart around in harm's way. Long range? DUDE, PLEASE--most defensive shootings are resolved or lost within 2 yards--within 2 rounds--and within 2 seconds. Incredibly fast, incredibly close, and incredibly vicious and violent. Be fast--be first--be accurate, with 2 to center-mass and at least a third to the Brain Housing Group.
Twist rates......with the 44/40, how a 1-38" in a rifle by Winchester and 1-16" or 1-20" in a revolver by Colt can BOTH be appropriate strains logic more than a little. Why 1-10" or 4 turns/meter is right for short squatty 9mm and 40 S&W bullets is another poser. I guess consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
I come at nose shape and form factor from a different angle than a long-range specialist like Rick and others would. Most of my cast bullet R&D has to do with hunting, and the attributes that enhance "slipperyness" in flight might enhance penetration in tissue as well. Of course, the hunter wants some carnage when that bullet traverses the quarry, too--and that is where the medieval-esque arguments about "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" get their traction. Truncated cone? Round flat nose? Semi-wadcutter/Keith? Stuff like this has filled many a gunrag, and one of the more succinct summations made by our friend Bret 4207 some years back stated that gunrags and websites spend far too much time discussing arrows and far too little examining the Indian. For hunting with castings, I unplug a lot of the nose form magic by using Bruce B Softpoints to enhance expansion and (hopefully) lethality.
Here comes the controversial part--look for it as you pass through. I have held a California Hunting License for 52 years. During that time I have seen hundreds of large game and thousands of small game exemplars taken by self and others, and often assisted in field prep for the kitchen and freezer. (I must have been a ghoul or forensic pathologist in some past life). I also spent the majority of my career time as a cop training folks with firearms and investigating the outcomes of shootings and killings--by cops, by citizens, and by crooks. Sample population is in the "several hundred" ballpark. Does bullet shape matter in this venue? A little, maybe--but not nearly as much as location of impact. Diameter? A little, maybe--no bullet impact improves anyone's condition, but you still have to hit the assailant to have any effect at all--and you can't miss fast enough to survive a gunfight, in spite of all the high-cap hype to the contrary. And all of those high-tech uber-modern controlled expansion zombie stoppers that retain for a buck and half apiece......are they all that and a bag of chips? Resounding NO. Still gotta hit the goblin. There is that arrow/Indian thing again. My advice to folks serious about keeping one's carcass unshot is to first not venture into adventure-travel environments and recreations, and to spend your money on range time and ammo to stay sharp with your war toy(s) and use loads that run close to the carry ammo you cart around in harm's way. Long range? DUDE, PLEASE--most defensive shootings are resolved or lost within 2 yards--within 2 rounds--and within 2 seconds. Incredibly fast, incredibly close, and incredibly vicious and violent. Be fast--be first--be accurate, with 2 to center-mass and at least a third to the Brain Housing Group.
Twist rates......with the 44/40, how a 1-38" in a rifle by Winchester and 1-16" or 1-20" in a revolver by Colt can BOTH be appropriate strains logic more than a little. Why 1-10" or 4 turns/meter is right for short squatty 9mm and 40 S&W bullets is another poser. I guess consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't argue with a bit of that Al except for one tiny little detail. The bullet that is the topic of this thread and the firearm that will shoot it has nothing to do with either hunting or defensive carry. It is destined to be fired scoped from the bench searching for that elusive long range one hole group.
NASA used to have a good techinical article on nose cone design, alas it has gone 404 on the web. IIRC they recommended a parabolic (actually a power-law shape) style cone. It works best across the transonic region (for stability and drag). Look at the newer commercial space rocket nose cones.
Trans-sonic is 0.8-1.2Mach. It is NOT the lowest drag but very close. Tangential ogive (lots of bullet noses) performance is not very good. RNFP gives lats of drag, smaller meplat is better and round edge of the meplat helps. Definitely longer bullets have better BC. 9mm parabellum was pretty close to right. Of course the VLD stye is good but doesn't fit in pistol.
NASA does have a simple rocketryII app that might give some insight.
As 9.3x62AI says, SIL's bro retired 30 yr large city homicide detective. SD range is close, fast & furious. He said practice 25 yds on a running perp. Saves the taxpayers $$. I chuckle when urban dwellers want to use a 12ga. for SD.
DIT: clarity
Trans-sonic is 0.8-1.2Mach. It is NOT the lowest drag but very close. Tangential ogive (lots of bullet noses) performance is not very good. RNFP gives lats of drag, smaller meplat is better and round edge of the meplat helps. Definitely longer bullets have better BC. 9mm parabellum was pretty close to right. Of course the VLD stye is good but doesn't fit in pistol.
NASA does have a simple rocketryII app that might give some insight.
As 9.3x62AI says, SIL's bro retired 30 yr large city homicide detective. SD range is close, fast & furious. He said practice 25 yds on a running perp. Saves the taxpayers $$. I chuckle when urban dwellers want to use a 12ga. for SD.
DIT: clarity
Last edited:
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Not to get OT and not to dispute any of Brother Al's observations, but IMO and IME when it comes to hunting and defense, nose shape see to become more important as the power of the round decreases. IE, hit a coyote/BG with a 44 anything and chances are he's not gonna be a happy camper. Hit the same thing with a 32 Long and stuff changes. But, that's got nothing to do with the subject at hand, of which I am little more than an interested observer.
I'm late to the party, but agree with everything Al has to say above on the impact end of the equation. I believe the original post was about long-range flight stability, something I have done very little testing on but I can share this tidbit -- in extended conversations with Rob Applegate on the subject of bullet stability, he shared that this subject was studied in great detail back in the early days by people like Pope, Mann, et al. Rob summarized by saying, basically, that meplat was almost entirely secondary, that the ogive had the most impact on stable flight (assuming the bullet was properly stabilized to begin with), and more specifically ogive shape. Rob is a big believer in having some degree of radius in the ogive, and feels that this curvature interacts with the bow wave (in super-sonic flight) to help dampen oscillation (yaw). I've got a copy of Mann's "The Bullet's Flight" and will dig through it and see if I can add anything more.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
I'm pretty sure "The Bullets Flight" is available online. I have the edition with the notes by Harry Pope and truthfully, after a while your head turns to mush simply because so much of it is repetitive. It's pretty darn dry too. I think I've been through it cover to cover twice and I'm sure I'll hit it again. Theres an awful lot to digest in there.
I've got an online version and it's a tough read. The copy I have is from photocopying the pages and many aren't all that crisp and clear. I don't think I've ever read it cover to cover but at one time or another I've probably read most of it. In one way it reads like Felix's posts, if you re-read it and think on it the answer is there. Just like Felix's posts quite intentionally I think it makes you think.
I don't know of anyone reporting on work done regarding nose shape and downrange accuracy. I am sure Veral did some work regarding this but don't know of written accounts of what he learned.
Looking at Veral's ogival wadcutters and how they are supposedly good to 100 plus I wonder just how much of a nose "taper" is required.
Looking at Veral's ogival wadcutters and how they are supposedly good to 100 plus I wonder just how much of a nose "taper" is required.
Let me clarify what I tried to say earlier -- I don't know of anyone who has looked at nose shape as impacting accuracy. The earlier work Rob and I were discussing was more about bullet shape ("writ large", with a focus on nose shape) as it impacted bullet stability. Much of the early work was looking at downrange trajectory (i.e. more or less ballistic coefficient), high speed spark photography, and whether or not the bullet holes in the targets were round, or oblong.
Brad -- I had a mould for an ogival wadcutter, a big heavy behemoth for .44 Mag. It would group pretty well (~2") at 25 yards, and groups were still OK at 50 yards (~4", and all the bullet holes were round). Plinking at 80-85 yards was an adventure! About half of the shots would hit at, or close to, point of aim, and the other half would miss by 10-20 FEET (in random directions). I have heard people say that ogival wadcutters were stable out past 100 yards before, and I've often wondered if they had really tested it, or if they were just parroting what they had heard. Based on my experience with that .44 ogival wadcutter (a data set of ONE), I would say that they start tumbling at about 60-70 yards. I no longer have any interest in ogival wadcutters.
Brad -- I had a mould for an ogival wadcutter, a big heavy behemoth for .44 Mag. It would group pretty well (~2") at 25 yards, and groups were still OK at 50 yards (~4", and all the bullet holes were round). Plinking at 80-85 yards was an adventure! About half of the shots would hit at, or close to, point of aim, and the other half would miss by 10-20 FEET (in random directions). I have heard people say that ogival wadcutters were stable out past 100 yards before, and I've often wondered if they had really tested it, or if they were just parroting what they had heard. Based on my experience with that .44 ogival wadcutter (a data set of ONE), I would say that they start tumbling at about 60-70 yards. I no longer have any interest in ogival wadcutters.
Part of what I noticed when looking at this topic is the fact almost all TC bullets share a similar nose angle. It seems 20° is pretty common. Is this because of testing that shows it works best or because of monkey see, monkey do?
So many of the existing bullets were designs for terminal effects, short range accuracy, or function in auto loading pistols. Little has really been done regarding down range accuracy.
Glen, your information on ogival wadcutters is beneficial. I have no first hand experience with them and only had read anecdotal reports regarding them at longer ranges. Your first hand experience eliminates them from any future work for me.
Take a bullet like I ended up with for my 44 super redhawk. If I kept the meplat the same width but had bullets with a 20°, 30°, and 40° nose angle what, if any, difference in accuracy would we see? At what point do we cross a threshold and get wadcutters like behavior as range passes 75 yards?
So many of the existing bullets were designs for terminal effects, short range accuracy, or function in auto loading pistols. Little has really been done regarding down range accuracy.
Glen, your information on ogival wadcutters is beneficial. I have no first hand experience with them and only had read anecdotal reports regarding them at longer ranges. Your first hand experience eliminates them from any future work for me.
Take a bullet like I ended up with for my 44 super redhawk. If I kept the meplat the same width but had bullets with a 20°, 30°, and 40° nose angle what, if any, difference in accuracy would we see? At what point do we cross a threshold and get wadcutters like behavior as range passes 75 yards?
I suspect that the nose angle on TC bullets is largely from past experience with what will feed best in semi-autos. Funny story -- JD Jones told me a story about when he was designing his SSK line of cast bullets. By this point, he had recovered many, many cast bullets from game animals (mostly Keith SWCs), when he recovered them, they looked like 20 degree TC bullets. JD's comment to me "Hell, if they ended up looking that way, I figured why not start 'em off that way!" and so he made all of his SSK hunting bullets TCs (and they have an excellent reputation for deep, straight penetration).
Now THAT is useful info! Knowing the reason behind the SSK bullet nose angle is a huge help. Thanks for that Glen.
I agree that most TC bullets have an angle designs for feeding in semi auto handguns.
The excellent reputation of the SSK bullets for hunting is why I would have no reservations using a similar design for hunting. To a large extent the bullet I came up with, after much help from Rick, is an SSK type bullet with much less lead in the case and more in the throat.
I agree that most TC bullets have an angle designs for feeding in semi auto handguns.
The excellent reputation of the SSK bullets for hunting is why I would have no reservations using a similar design for hunting. To a large extent the bullet I came up with, after much help from Rick, is an SSK type bullet with much less lead in the case and more in the throat.
Brad, keep in mind that JD's designs are primarily hunting bullets and as such have a much wider meplat than your looking for with a strictly target application. I'm sure Tom could cut the same bullet with a steeper truncated cone resulting in a wider meplat for hunting. Once you get the hunting version of this bullet you can do a real long range accuracy test between the two meplats.
I don't see a need for a different bullet for hunting. This bullet has a .250 meplat. Ben measured his SSK bullet as having a .28 meplat. I don't see where .030 makes any real difference in the hunting world.
Learning why JD used the nose angle tells me it isn't something magic.
Learning why JD used the nose angle tells me it isn't something magic.