So you don't think a larger meplat creates a larger wound channel? You don't think heavier bullets penetrate better? What do you base this on?
I assume that was directed at me since I posted the picture of the bullet.
That wasn't directed at anyone.
The point of the picture of the bullet that penetrated 3 or so feet of deer was it should have no problem penetrating a bull elk broadside, which, in my opinion, is the only shot a handgunner should take on game of that size. Too, that was a relatively light load, yet it still penetrated quite well.
They do penetrate well but they also have limitations. Your picture actually supports my point. If a load doesn't exit on a deer, it certainly won't exit on anything bigger, given similar shot placement. Like I said, it will work fine on a perfect broadside shot and if you want to limit yourself to those, that's fine. However, the hunter using a heavier LBT won't have to limit himself. That SWC penetrated 3' of deer. The heavy LBT's are known to penetrate four to five feet of 3/4 ton bovines.
Who said they would use their deer load for elk??
The gist of the opposing argument is that these heavy bullets aren't needed. So one can reasonably assume that any game to be hunted with a handgun, may be hunted with a Keith SWC at 1100fps.
Some of the claims regarding the WFN type bullets I believe have been mixed with a little pixie dust.
All the claims are based on experience. What are the contradictory claims based on? If you guys think that a 300-360gr LBT has no advantage over a standard weight Keith bullet, surely you have evidence to support this?
As mentioned in the previous post, it's a given that a bullet with a larger frontal area penetrates less, as in the case of the HP's and the deformed SWC. Yet somehow a .44 caliber WFN with a .345" meplat will penetrate deeper than a Keith style SWC with a smaller .300" meplat??
Yes, a .45cal WFN with a .355" meplat will penetrate deeper than a SWC with a .300" meplat. Actually a lot deeper. Why? Because it's 100gr heavier and a superior design.
I believe we should each use the bullet in which we have the most faith, and in doing so there's no need in trying to convince everyone else they're less than intelligent because of their choice. I happen to follow the writings of Keith, Pearce and others who used and use SWC's, and base my choice on their experiences, and ultimately my own very limited experiences.
I believe we should choose the best tool for the job. Faith doesn't create wound channels, break bones or turn lungs to jello. Bullets do. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone's intelligence been questioned. What I do question, however, is the logic behind the argument. I've been reading folks like Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, Ross Seyfried, John Taffin and Brian Pearce since childhood. Elmer Keith designed a great bullet that is still viable today but the latter three will tell you that heavyweight LBT's are better bullets for larger game. Where do you find anything to refute what we've said here in the writings of any of those guys?
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. The media used is called Sim-Test. It has to be diluted with 30% water to equal ballistic gel. Undiluted, it is tougher than real flesh. We have no way to calculate how these numbers translate to real critters, it is best to use the data to compare one load to another. However, I would throw a wild guess that in real life, the loads would penetrate about double what they did in Sim-Test if no heavy bone is encountered.
