Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Ammunition-Gunsmithing > Reloading
Forum Register Expert Commentary Members List


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-17-2010, 02:16 PM
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 4,087
Liked 4,020 Times in 2,233 Posts
Default TCFP vs RNFP lead bullets advantages or disadvantages?

In lead bullets what is the advantage or disadvantage, if any between the two shapes (TCFP or RNFP). I see the different profile but does one feed better in certain actions or what?

In a revolver I can not see where there would be much difference either way.
Why are some 40 SW FP and most 9mm are not?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-17-2010, 09:38 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,508
Likes: 2
Liked 161 Times in 129 Posts
Default

RNFP is an old style that has made a comeback with the rising popularity of cowboy action shooting, which uses primarily revolvers. TCFP seeems to work better in finicky autos that have a problem with feeding SWCs. I don't know if there is any real difference between the two feeding in autos, because I've never tried RNFPs in them myself, I do know that TCFP are more "modern" which may or may not have anything to do with it.

You are correct that there would be little difference in a revolver as long as they both have the same meplat dimensions.

.40 S&W was made to be fit into 9mm frames sizes which leaves them with a longer case and a shorter OAL, leaving less room for a long nosed bullet.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-17-2010, 10:55 PM
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,057
Likes: 107
Liked 371 Times in 180 Posts
Default

.40/10mm bullets tend to be TCFP. I imagine this was the bullet used to develop the original 10mm, and it's use has carried over to .40 S&W. I would use whatever feeds better in your pistol.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-17-2010, 11:32 PM
semperfi71's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central New Mexico
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 942
Liked 849 Times in 324 Posts
Default

In Cowboy Action Shooting, usually [although all wepaons vary] the RNFPs feed better in the lever guns than do the TCFP.

In a revolver I would shoot whichever is the most accurate and then stockpile enough to last a lifetime.
__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-18-2010, 09:49 AM
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 4,087
Liked 4,020 Times in 2,233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by semperfi71 View Post

In a revolver I would shoot whichever is the most accurate and then stockpile enough to last a lifetime.
Along with enough primers and powder of course. Perhaps I should not buy the next gun I have my eyes on and "stockpile"
But the ways things are going around here, there isn't many places to shoot anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-18-2010, 11:39 AM
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Pensacola,FL
Posts: 816
Likes: 780
Liked 194 Times in 104 Posts
Default

I think you'll find the TCFP more accurate . JMHO .
Andy
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-18-2010, 04:50 PM
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 4,087
Liked 4,020 Times in 2,233 Posts
Default

I have some boxes of each. I was using the TCFP but then got a Marlin 38.357 carbine and it only likes RN. I also use SWC but there is no way they will feed in the carbine.
So for regular target velocity loads I would just like one bullet for the revolvers and carbine. I have not tried the TCFP in the carbine yet to see how they feed..

Not that "looks" matter but I do prefer the look of the TCFP and they punch fine holes in paper.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-20-2010, 12:31 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 303
Likes: 21
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Recently, I've experimented with a 6" Model 10-5, a pair of 4" Pre-10s, and a 4" 1920s Model of 1905 4th Change. The 6" gun shot 158 gr. RNFPs VERY well and to point of aim at 13 yards, so I quickly moved on to the 4" guns.

All the 4 inchers grouped the 158 grainers tightly but 3 or more inches high at 13 yards, so I loaded several powders with 125 grain TFP cast bullets in an attempt to lower the point of impact. Some of the loads were too warm, dropping the p.o.i. below the point of aim. Others printed about right, vertically. None of them grouped the TFPs NEARLY as tightly as they did the 158 gr. RNFPs. Most groups with the 125 TFps were unacceptable and the worst of the groups out of the gun from the 1920s grew to 6+ inches.

Since last week's tests, I haven't taken the time to try 125 gr. RNFPs, but have warmed my 158 gr Trail Boss load up a bit to 3.7 gr. Titegroup. This dropped the point of impact to an agreeable level out of the 4" guns.

The view from my saddle right now, is that EITHER my opinion of TFP bullets may be a little different from at least one of those above, OR my old 4" Model of 1905 and its 4" successors don't like bullets weighing 125 grains.

I'll know more this week.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-20-2010, 11:01 AM
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 4,087
Liked 4,020 Times in 2,233 Posts
Default

I have a box of soft (12 BHN) 125gr TFP. They only guns I used them in was to "break in" a a J frame 442. Loaded with 4.2 gr of HP-38/W 231I shot the J frame better than I I ever have shot one. I also tried them in a 4 inch M 67 and they were dead on at 15 yards. So many variables, gun, barrel, powder, bullet etc it's hard to come up with the "perfect" load.

I loaded up 100 rds last night of soft 158 gr LRN with 3.2 grs Bullseye so will see how they do. It's so damn HOT here I think there is thermal updrafts at the range and make the bullets rise up.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-20-2010, 11:39 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montana
Posts: 2,229
Likes: 738
Liked 561 Times in 299 Posts
Default

Each gun is different for sure....my Uberti copy of a 66 Yellowboy that I use heavily in SASS matches feeds the TC incredibly well. Even better than the RN. Accuracy is a toss up in the rifle. I like the reliability of the lever gun with TC's....your experience could well be just the opposite. My Marlin for example did NOT like TC's at all....seems like my Marlin doesn't like much of anything come to think of it..
Randy
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-20-2010, 11:52 AM
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 4,087
Liked 4,020 Times in 2,233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by growr View Post
Each gun is different for sure....my Uberti copy of a 66 Yellowboy that I use heavily in SASS matches feeds the TC incredibly well. Even better than the RN. Accuracy is a toss up in the rifle. I like the reliability of the lever gun with TC's....your experience could well be just the opposite. My Marlin for example did NOT like TC's at all....seems like my Marlin doesn't like much of anything come to think of it..
Randy
Try these in your Marlin. Mine likes them. If you do not want to buy a box if you order some other bullets they will send a trial package or PM me and I will mail you some to try.

Missouri Bullet Company
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-20-2010, 11:53 AM
cp1969's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,369
Likes: 279
Liked 44 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCD1 View Post
I have some boxes of each. I was using the TCFP but then got a Marlin 38.357 carbine and it only likes RN. I also use SWC but there is no way they will feed in the carbine.
So for regular target velocity loads I would just like one bullet for the revolvers and carbine. I have not tried the TCFP in the carbine yet to see how they feed..

Not that "looks" matter but I do prefer the look of the TCFP and they punch fine holes in paper.
My 1894C will feed .38 Special semiwadcutters. Are you sure yours won't?

The only reason it won't feed semiwadcutters in .357 Mag cases is that they exceed the max OAL because I use the Lyman 358429 which is very long from the crimp groove forward. I intend to try (but haven't yet) some 158 gr. SWC's in .357 brass. I think they'll work.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-20-2010, 11:58 AM
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,201
Likes: 4,087
Liked 4,020 Times in 2,233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969 View Post
My 1894C will feed .38 Special semiwadcutters. Are you sure yours won't?

The only reason it won't feed semiwadcutters in .357 Mag cases is that they exceed the max OAL because I use the Lyman 358429 which is very long from the crimp groove forward. I intend to try (but haven't yet) some 158 gr. SWC's in .357 brass. I think they'll work.
My 44 mag with Octagon barrel will feed SWC (but maybe I was using 44 Spl. have not shot it for a while) but the 357 will not. I have not tried the 38"s in SWC yet.

But it's like 45 ACP I gave up on SWC and just use RN, I was tired of "tweaking" every bullet to feed in all my different 45's 1911's, striker fired guns and regular hammer decockers. Ball makes good enough holes for me.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-20-2010, 12:11 PM
cp1969's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,369
Likes: 279
Liked 44 Times in 29 Posts
Default

I agree that Ball ammo in a .45 acp makes a good enough hole for me, too.

However, I don't know if I've been lucky or what, but my 1911 Series 80 will feed 200 gr. SWC's just fine, unmodified. I started loading those to shoot bowling pins where the 230 gr load was a bit much for very quick shooting.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-20-2010, 12:19 PM
Snapping Twig's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 139
Liked 777 Times in 305 Posts
Default

Way back when Casull introduced their new .454 I bought one, and with it a Lyman mould they offered in TC. The literature stated that the TC was a superior hunting shape over the SWC or RNFP.

All these years later, I own virtually every shape possible but I like the TC and the RNFP and the SWC with almost equal measure.

I load a 230g TC for the .45acp and I swear by it. I use a 255g RNFP for the .45colt and it seems right somehow. The .44 mag gets a 265g GCSWC and there it is correct.

Bottom line for me is the metplat. All I shoot is cast, so a monolithic solid with a big flat front end is the winning feature, no matter the ogive shape.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
1911, 442, 45acp, bullseye, carbine, casull, crimp, j frame, model 10, model 10-5, sass, uberti

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Reloading Thread, TCFP vs RNFP lead bullets advantages or disadvantages? in Ammunition-Gunsmithing; In lead bullets what is the advantage or disadvantage, if any between the two shapes (TCFP or RNFP). I see ...
LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/142548-tcfp-vs-rnfp-lead-bullets-advantages-disadvantages.html
Posted By For Type Date
(1) 5earch - rnfp bullet Results This thread Refback 01-09-2013 04:39 PM

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Coated lead bullets-Precision Bullets Jamie Reloading 5 02-22-2012 01:20 PM
Looking for 180g RNFP bullets for 45 ACP. andyo5 Reloading 9 08-18-2011 10:55 PM
460 XVR and 200 gr lead RNFP duckloads Reloading 0 06-02-2010 02:53 PM
Hollow base bullets Benefits vs disadvantages?? Rule3 Reloading 10 01-02-2010 01:03 AM
8MM pistol lead bullets 500, 308,7mm,338, bullets added sparky1 Accessories/Misc - For Sale or Trade 10 05-27-2009 05:10 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:20 PM.


S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)