If meplat diameter was the only factor that matters, than full wadcutters would be the ultimate hunting bullet. If that were the case the 357 mag with a 220 gr full wadcutter at 1200 fps should be just as capable of a big game round as the 44 or 45 with 240-250 gr @ the same speed.
But most of us know that isn't true. The entire bullet shape affects how accurately the bullet travels through air and flesh. I've long been of the opinion that for a given caliber once you get to a certain meplat and bullet weight you've maximized what that caliber can do in terms of wound diameter, and for more terminal performance you have to step up bullet diameter.
Sure the 44 mag is a very good hunting round, but even with 300 gr hardcast at 1200-1300 fps with well shaped bullets some hunters have found it lacking on the largest of game. Yes, the animals did die eventually but the performance was less than decisive. Not isolated instances, I've heard this from many hunters I respect.
Sure the 44 is a very good round, but it's at best intellectually disingenuous to say it measures up to the 45.
We know that full wadcutters become unstable in the air beyond about 50yds and often tumble in flesh. So we also understand that the meplat can only be so large in relation to the bullet diameter. I have a couple hundred of the Penn Thunderheads to test and expect them to prove inferior to the WFN.
Don't take the statement out of context. The meplat is what creates the wound channel, not the overall bullet diameter. So when assessing these bullets, one must look at the meplat diameter. If you take two bullets with a .300" meplat, one a .44 and the other a .45, we can expect them to create similar wound channels. We can also expect the .44 to penetrate deeper due to less friction. The net difference, nothing.
It's intellectually disingenuous to imply that the critter cares what size the bore is if everything else is the same. Do you really think a .45cal 360gr at 1060fps is a significant step up from a 355gr .44 at 1130fps?
