Veral,a kinda silly question-but I need your expertise!

[flintman]

Okay,you designed the LFN and the WFN.
 Is the purpose of the LFN more for longer ranges with the WFN more for shorter ranges?
 Or is there a lot more to it?
 I have your book and was trying to get the question answered,but really could not catch onto the answer.
 Thank you,
 Jeff.

[Veral]

You have it quite right, with the WFN the quickest game killer.  The WFN cannot be seated out as far as the LFN, thus, less powder room and velocity potential.  Some say it isn't as accurate as the LFN, but I've had many reports of one inch groups at 100 yards using the 300 gr 44 and 325 gr 45, and, I've accuracy tested all my bullets at 450 yards.  At that range chest shots on small deer are easy once you get the elevation.

  With the LFN seated out, and in the heavier weights, power and accuracy cannot be beat by any bullet ever made.  I'm speaking here of 41 through 45 calibers.  Many order WFN's for the 475 and 500's, but I prefer the LFN for them as the nose flat is very large, so it at least matches the smaller caliber WFN performance on game.  For 357 and smaller, stick with the FN, which is the WFN profile, except for iron targets, where a heavy LFN will perform best.

[sawfish]

Flintman,

Thanks for asking this "silly question", because I thought I was going to have to ask it myself! :-)

Sawfish

[flintman]

I'm usually good for asking silly questions and otherwise making a fool of myself.kinda like it's my livelihood almost!

[Veral]

No question about anything is silly if you think someone else has the answer or may help with ideas that point to learning the answer.  I have spent weeks of experimenting to find the answer to silly questions, and did that so much with cast bullets that silly questions never come up anymore.
   With that brag, better to ask me than experiment endlessly and perhaps never learn what the problem is.  Which doesn't mean my answer will be perfect, as our comunications both ways can skew what you hear!

[crash87]

I've cast bullets off and on for many years, with mixed results. Many myths and untruths were associated with my knowledge of the cast bullet. That was because I didnt have anyone to ask those "silly questions". A few years ago I purchaced Verals book, and since then a number of molds. I even started shooting cast in my rifles. Something I avoided for lack of knowledge. I used a competitors mold to cast and take my 1st head of big game, Bison, with cast. But I did use the "cast softnose" method in making those bullets. Something I never new existed or ever would have without Veral's experimentation. My 2nd bull fell to a LBT .45cal 400gr. LFN, at 1600fps, not 1800 or 2000fps as some would think it has to be. Your right Veral, it is a lot more fun shooting cast at efficient velocities instead of "recoil abuse" velocities and still get the job done, with certainty. Between your book and this forum, many of my silly questions have been answered.......correctly.  CRASH87

[Veral]

Thank you.

[sawfish]

Veral,

One of my favorite quotes is a statement attributed to the late Dizzy Dean "If you done it, it ain't bragging".  

Keep telling it like it is.


Sawfish