The implication has been that WFN style bullets penetrate deeper by virtue of the fact that they're WFN's, which makes no sense. Anyone who's hunted at all regardless of the firearm used, knows a larger frontal area, relative to bullet diameter, reduces penetration when using bullets of like weight. So, take two bullets of the same caliber and of like weight, one a WFN and one a SWC, and the one with a smaller frontal area is sure to penetrate the deepest.
Below is the chart that eldon referenced. You can see for yourself how a heavy LBT greatly out-penetrates a Keith bullet in either caliber.
Regarding the penetration tests, comparing a .45 caliber 260 gr. SWC to a .44 caliber 335 gr. WFN is pointless. Of course the heavier smaller diameter bullet will penetrate further than the lighter larger diameter bullet. Simple physics, no testing required.
That's a myth. It's been proven time and again that the SWC's shoulder does not create the wound channel. Sure, it cuts clean holes in paper but the meplat is what produces wound channels in critters. By the time the shoulder passes through, the meplat has already pushed tissue out of the way. WFN's create larger wound channels and that is not an unfounded opinion, it's fact.
Here's the shoulder of a buck I shot a couple of years ago with the bullet pictured; a Keith style SWC. A fella doesn't need a set of calipers to see the would channel is significantly larger than the diameter of the bullet and about twice as large as the meplat.
Another from the heart of the same buck shows where the bullet creased the heart, again creating a path much larger than the diameter of the bullet.
FWIW, that bullet struck the buck at around 50 yds. loafing along at a little over 900 fps and even at that pedestrian velocity exited the body. Seems like it may have even broken a rib coming or going. I know, I know, it's a little deer, but the point is a SWC style bullet can make a nice large wound channel. Would a WFN have made a larger wound channel? Maybe, but the buck wouldn't have been any "deader". And please don't tell me that larger animal s have "tougher" muscles. There's hardly a week of my life that goes by that I don't eat venison and I can tell you in all certainty that the steaks thereof ain't NEARLY as tender as those from an elk.
I believe we should choose the best tool for the job.
Interesting statement in a thread in which the topic is has turned to shooting animals that "start weighing closer to a ton" with cartridges that aren't quite as powerful as those fired from an old Trapdoor 45-70; a rig to which most hunters would turn up their noses as "obsolete and underpowered".
35W
