You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Truncated cone bullets ?
- Thread starter rebs
- Start date
I think they're all pretty accurate - as long as they're sized properly for the cylinder throats / barrel.
Truncated cone bullets are mostly popular because they speedload quickly and easily. They're also used a lot in Cowboy Action shooting competition. Not sure why. I think because they're considered "traditional" in shape (??).
Truncated cone bullets are mostly popular because they speedload quickly and easily. They're also used a lot in Cowboy Action shooting competition. Not sure why. I think because they're considered "traditional" in shape (??).
I think it's actually the round nose with flat meplat at the tip that's a more traditional shape for tubular magazine loading. There were conical bullets (sharp point) for revolvers, like Webley made, but I think the truncated cone is popular, as Nick said, for speed loading. Webley may have had the same idea about ease of loading under stress. Jeff Cooper also held, based on field reports, that it was a better stopper in .45 Auto than round nose hardball.
As to ballistics, the sharper point will have a higher ballistic coefficient than a wadcutter. For that reason, if the velocities match, it gets to a 50 yard bull's eye target a little quicker and with a little less drop or drift. Otherwise, I don't see a reason to prefer one over the other. The wadcutters, as their name implies, are made to cut clean holes in paper for scoring, which they do. The double-ended wadcutter has the theoretical advantage that its geometric center and center of gravity are co-located so that any bullet tilt in the barrel should not move the CG off center, as it does in other shapes. Off center CG produce drift, but pistol ranges are short enough that you don't normally have big errors from this anyway.
As to ballistics, the sharper point will have a higher ballistic coefficient than a wadcutter. For that reason, if the velocities match, it gets to a 50 yard bull's eye target a little quicker and with a little less drop or drift. Otherwise, I don't see a reason to prefer one over the other. The wadcutters, as their name implies, are made to cut clean holes in paper for scoring, which they do. The double-ended wadcutter has the theoretical advantage that its geometric center and center of gravity are co-located so that any bullet tilt in the barrel should not move the CG off center, as it does in other shapes. Off center CG produce drift, but pistol ranges are short enough that you don't normally have big errors from this anyway.
TC's are mostly for pistols and absolutely fabulous in pistols. TC's are primarily about feeding not accuracy though. Doesn't make much difference in a revolver. In a tube mag the only part that matters is that the flat bit of the bullet is bigger in diameter than a primer. A TC would probably feed a bit better than an RN, but that's a giant WHAG.
However, nothing is as accurate as a cast WC out of a .38. They're just not usually 158 grains.
However, nothing is as accurate as a cast WC out of a .38. They're just not usually 158 grains.