Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Terminal Ballistics -

Doubletap would you please explain this further. I guess you're talking about Elmer Keith and the cartridges and heavier bullets he liked to shoot?But what does makos quote mean?

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

Half way down the page

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/game_study.html

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/1shotstops.html

Ok i'm definately missing something i still don't get it!!

I believe this is the idea: Consider two .430" diameter cast bullets, one is a Keith with a .270" meplat and .430" shoulder, the other is an LBT flat point round nose with a .340" meplat. Despite the lack of a full diameter shoulder, the LBT hits harder and makes a bigger hole.

The second bullet makes a bigger hole than the first:



Note: Photo lifted from elsewhere on the 'fire.

Thank-you Mathman GOT IT!!!!!! Like i said i'm NOT a ballistian.Thanks.

Mathman explained it better than I would have.

That doesn't mean that the LBT style is always better. It seems that the LBT bullets aren't as accurate with reduced loads as the Keith style.

That depends on the particular LBT. There are several nose configurations, and some are better balanced overall for use at different velocity levels.

Here are some comparison figures if I remember them correctly: A classic Keith for a 44 has a .270" meplat, an LBT LFN has a .300" meplat, and an LBT WFN has a .340" meplat.

The LFN is usually a good balance between aerodynamics, weight distribution, and "smack" that works over a range of load levels.

I agree. LFN-type bullets tend to be a good choice for hunting revolvers and large-bore hunting rifles of the lever variety, in my experience. I say "LFN-type" because there are non-LBT bullet moulds out there that aren't LFN's but are close enough that I call 'em LFN's in conversation with other shooters/hunters.

But that doesn't mean I only shoot/hunt with LFN bullets. Over the past 15 years or so I've been messin' around with cast bullets quite a bit, and in the process I've learned that there's a lot of variables that have to be accounted for. There is quite simply no single bullet that will "do it all". When you take into account caliber, meplat, alloy, and velocity (both muzzle and impact) you'll find that there is a place for RFN's, SWC's, WFN's, LFN's, and HP versions of all them.

Like many others, I used to worship at the altar of the LBT hardcast bullet. I've since learned there's a lot more useful cast bullet stuff out there and am far more ecumenical in my loading and shooting. Veral Smith's book mentioned in the link in the OP, is a good place to start learning about this stuff, but Glen Fryxell's book is a far more comprehensive and advanced cast bullet technology opus for those who want to explore further.

Thanks for posting the link. I've read that article before, but had lost the link to it. I'm gonna print it out for my files when I get home tonight.

I think one of the concepts that trips people up in this discussion is that the study of terminal ballistics is NOT the same thing as the study of terminal effects. Terminal ballistics is essentially the study of the physics of missile impact on a terminal medium, whereas terminal effects is the study of the physiological effects of the missile's impact on a living organism. I have done a lot of work with terminal ballistics experts over the years, but I am not a ballistician. (My interest and expertise (such as it is) has been much more in the area of terminal effects. My background is medicine, physiology, and biochemistry, not physics or engineering.) Ballisticians need physiologists, and vice versa, when we start looking at questions of lethality of bullets.

Unfortunately, too many people take the simplistic view that if they can only quantify terminal ballistics to a sufficiently fine degree they will have the miraculous answer to all their hunting/killing questions. This is nonsense. There is no such thing as a "perfect bullet", although some bullets perform sufficiently well over a specific range of physical parameters and desired terminal effects that they might serve for all of one's hunting/killing needs.

I find it interesting to read of the experiences of older fellows who have a lot of experience hunting and shooting animals... Karamojo Bell, John Taylor, Elmer Keith, Bob Hagel, and Craig Boddington come immediately to mind. In each case they settled on a basic bullet/caliber "theory" and stuck with it over many, many kills. Despite a lot of experimentation on each man's part, they each settled on one or two solutions and then just shot the heck out of everything they hunted. Our own Mule Deer wrote a column a short while back describing his own full-circle experience with Nosler Partitions, as a point of interest.

Just my dos centavos anyway.

I haven't done any casting in a long time. When I get back to it, probably the first mold I'll warm up is a Lyman 358429. It's a nice one with a full size front driving band and a generous, flat bottomed lube groove. Simply classic for my 38 Special chambered S&W 586.

The next mold to see lead will be a Walt Melander made NEI 454-270-PBK. That one has a sharp edged, WFN size meplat and a full diameter SWC shoulder.

I'm not LBT all the way either.

Elmer Keith killed a lot of game with SWC's, and I know a lot of other guys who've killed a lot of game with 'em, too... myself included.

I've been playing with HP cast bullets lately. I have had a lot of success on small game with cast hollowpoint bullets in .32 caliber and want to find a .38 caliber SWC-HP mould soon. This winter I've done some target/load testing with a new .452" mould (an LBT WFN converted by hollowpointmoulds.com) in several alloys, and in a month or so will start doing some expansion/penetration tests with these bullets.

Me too. Including moose and wild boar.

Around 1955 or so, I had Lyman cherry a set of hollow-point blocks for the 357446 SWC (IIRC), to bring that 158-grain spin-off of the Keith .358 SWC to about 148 grains. It proved to be very accurate.

For heavier hollow-point .358 bullets, I used Elmer's original hollow-point version of his scaled-down .44 bullet, a standard offering from Lyman at the time. Accurate and deadly.

The title of this thread brought back some memories. When I was about 14 or 15 and just beginning to become "gun crazy", I read everything I could get my hands on. My scoutmaster at the time was a homicide detective with the Houston Police Department. I asked him if he had any books on ballistics and he brought three to the next troop meeting for me to read.

They were all on wound ballistics and were full of the goriest photographs that I have ever seen. I didn't learn anything about trajectories and drop tables. I did acquire a healthy respect for just about any load from a shotgun or center-fire rifle impacting the human torso at close range.

Years and years ago, Homer Powley lent me some of the same stuff. It fascinated me. I was surprised after a while, therefore, to find myself getting sick to my stomach.

When you find yourself no longer affected by it, that's the time for concern.

That's what others have told me.

Meh... I have to disagree somewhat with that assertion, although it's a small quibble. There's a big difference between not being affected by gore and/or traumatic suffering, and being numb to it.

I have to be able to be "unaffected" in order to function in a trauma setting, and this applies in a lot of people in fields where they have to deal with nasty stuff.

That is a classic parasympathetic response. You had no sympathetic response (thereby raising your bloodpressure and offsetting the para) to counter/offset it.

When you pull up to an accident scene or when your buddy gets shot in combat, this typically won't happen.

I had the same thing happen to me in 91B school many years ago from a film entitled "Medicine in Vietnam". I've seen a bit of blood and gore since then with no issues.