158 gr LRN or SWC - Difference?

Steve in Vermont · Jan 18, 2012

I need to order some more 158 gr Hornady LRN but the last time I placed an order they sent me the last 3 boxes they had and haven't had any in stock since. I tried that particular round and like it; however, I couldn't see any difference in that and the SWC, of which they have plenty in stock. The question for those of you with experience using both, other than ease of loading is there any difference?

Jellybean · Jan 18, 2012

If you are only using them for target shooting there is no difference, except the SWCs cut a nicer hole in paper.

Maximumbob54 · Jan 18, 2012

Unless you are buying round nose bullets to speed up your reloads, there is nothing a SCW bullet can't do better for you.

venomballistics · Jan 18, 2012

I prefer flat pointed profiles like the SWC over any RN ... reduced deflection issues.
in fact, other than target shooting past oh ... 400 yards where the RN's BC starts to shine ... I see no purpose for them over SWC or TC designs, both of which reign supreme over RN in every other category of performance

cjw3 · Jan 18, 2012

I've used both styles in cast and swaged; just recently picked up a box of the Hornady LRN's you describe. Aside from the RN versus SWC debate about effectiveness for hunting, etc., there really doesn't seem to be much of a reason to pick one over the other. They are both swaged and must be of softer alloy to be used in the swaging machines, so velocities should be kept moderate.

For practice or general shooting, either is fine. I'm not real fond of the powdery lube on the Hornady as far as handling the bullets during the loading process, but it seems to work well regardless.

Forrest r · Jan 19, 2012

I perfer a rnl bullet in 38/357 myself. They feed better, penatrate better, hit harder & shoot flatter.

A good example of this is the lee tumble lube bullets. The rn bullet has a bc of .207 & the swc has a bc of .117. Plug those #'s into a ballistics calculator with both bullets moving @ 100fps with a 10mph crosswind. You'll end up with almost an inch less of drop @ 100yds with 2 inches less of wind drift while & have 70+fps more speed with the rn bullet compared to the swc.

chief38 · Jan 19, 2012

The Semi Wad Cutters make a nice clean hole in the paper, HOWEVER the Round Nose Lead will lead up the forcing cone & barrel a LOT LESS, I find them more accurate and they fall into the chambers easier. As a bonus they also look very nostalgic which I happen to like. RNL bullets are not good for self defense as they tend to skip right through, but for target shooting and plinking they are #1 as far as I am concerned.

Chief38

roundgunner · Jan 19, 2012

I know the RN is faster for speedloaders. If you are not hunting, SD or speedloading get what ever you can for the least amount & shoot them up as fast as you can. repeat.

M29since14 · Jan 19, 2012

If you are talking about .38 Special factory loads, I think sometimes the LRN will slightly outshoot similar LSWCs in some of my guns.

On a similar note, I use two cast bullets, 039 and 051. They are very similar in shape except the 039 is a traditional round-nose and the 051 is a SWC with a fairly big, flat nose. Both are great in both .38s and .357s, but I find the round-nose can be hard to beat over a wider range of different powders and velocities than the SWC. But there is not enough difference to offset that big, flat nose on the 051 if you are shooting at meat. The difference I have seen is small, and I have used a lot more SWCs than LRNs.

hawgleg · Jan 20, 2012

No difference in loading info with the two Hornady bullets. Since I mostly just punch paper I prefer the LSWC's.

J. W. · Jan 20, 2012

I load LRN, but only because I shoot polymer plates that are damaged by SWC.

TAROMAN · Jan 20, 2012

My 1947 Hand Ejector M&P definitely prefers the LRN bullets.
Could be because its digested a million or so of them in the past 65 years:

venomballistics · Jan 21, 2012

Forrest r said:
I perfer a rnl bullet in 38/357 myself. They feed better, penatrate better, hit harder & shoot flatter.

A good example of this is the lee tumble lube bullets. The rn bullet has a bc of .207 & the swc has a bc of .117. Plug those #'s into a ballistics calculator with both bullets moving @ 100fps with a 10mph crosswind. You'll end up with almost an inch less of drop @ 100yds with 2 inches less of wind drift while & have 70+fps more speed with the rn bullet compared to the swc.

yup .. RN does hold onto energy a little better. however the hitting harder part the raw numbers seem to show isnt exactly true.
a hard hit is better quantified by how much of that energy is deposited into a fixed thickness.
if a flat point makes contact with say 300 foot pounds of energy and stops at a depth of 10 inches its deposited its full 300 pound feet. if an RN has made contact with 350 pound feet of energy and sliced through the 10 inch medium retaining half its velocity its only put 175 into the target.

1" of drop and 2" of drift at 100 Y .... any marksman can compensate for this. it really dosnt matter much at this range as a 2" group at 100 out of a pistol is still praiseworthy ... I only start to agree somewhere in the 300 - 400 yard mark where drop and drift show themselves in an order of magnitude.

gwpercle · Jan 21, 2012

Since you asked,
I prefer wadcutter and semi- wadcutter designs. Used to shoot in bullseye matches and these cut nice round holes in the target, which made scoring targets easier. Also was a man named Elmer Keith that wrote a lot about the advantages of the semi-wadcutter in hunting loads and I guess his writings swayed my way of thaiking. I also like the way semi-wadcutters look.

Forrest r · Jan 22, 2012

Interesting #’s VB, but the #’s can be spun in either direction.
So basically you’re telling me:
When you see manufacturer has 2 different bullets for sale that cost the same you buy the bullets that are harder to use with a speed loader, loose 7% more speed down range, have 20% more bullet drop & 67% more wind drift because you’re a good enough marksman to compensate for the poor choice you made in your bullet selection.

I like what you posted with the flat point/rn & 10”media thing, nice. With a 10” hole in someone I really don’t think it matters if the slug stayed in them or not. The better question is when both bullets are 100yds down range which bullet is better designed (penetrate better) to make that 10” wound or even capable of doing so with their slower speeds. The flat nosed bullet @918fps or the rn bullet @982fps?

I like swc bullets but only in larger calibers where the bc’s are better in the bigger bullets. Call me old fashioned but a rn bullet in a 357 moving an easily doable 1100fps & sighted in at 5yds is the cat’s meow. Yup, 5yds for the sighted in point blank range, killer!!!

ArchAngelCD · Jan 22, 2012

I only shoot RNFP bullets from my Carbine. All my handgun .38's are SWC because they punch perfect holes in paper and will take small game better too. I see no difference at all in accuracy in my revolvers.

webley green · Jan 22, 2012

I like the LSWC in my model 66, haven't shot any RN in years. If I come across some RN bullets at a good price I'd shoot it.

venomballistics · Jan 22, 2012

Forrest r said:
Interesting #’s VB, but the #’s can be spun in either direction.
So basically you’re telling me:
When you see manufacturer has 2 different bullets for sale that cost the same you buy the bullets that are harder to use with a speed loader, loose 7% more speed down range, have 20% more bullet drop & 67% more wind drift because you’re a good enough marksman to compensate for the poor choice you made in your bullet selection.

I like what you posted with the flat point/rn & 10”media thing, nice. With a 10” hole in someone I really don’t think it matters if the slug stayed in them or not. The better question is when both bullets are 100yds down range which bullet is better designed (penetrate better) to make that 10” wound or even capable of doing so with their slower speeds. The flat nosed bullet @918fps or the rn bullet @982fps?

I like swc bullets but only in larger calibers where the bc’s are better in the bigger bullets. Call me old fashioned but a rn bullet in a 357 moving an easily doable 1100fps & sighted in at 5yds is the cat’s meow. Yup, 5yds for the sighted in point blank range, killer!!!

actually Im saying I actually shot things and killed some things with a wide variety of projectiles rather than just plug numbers into a computer and claim the results as gospel.
RN's look great on paper .. flat points do great in reality.
there are also RNFP profiles and TC profiles that'll work better with speed loaders than the SWC.
the terminal effects of flat points are too large to ignore.
In one case an FP design versus an equal RN load all center of mass hits on game, the FP filled the freezer while the RN made blood trails of wounded animals to track.
the ballistic calculators I have, and I have many, said NOTHING about this.

Forrest r · Jan 22, 2012

Well BV here we go with the marksmanship thing again, you got to use them marksmanship skills to hit um clean to be able to eat um. I’m sure you shoot more 38/357’s than me so you know which bullets are the best to use in the real world.

Here’s a pistol that I bought new back in 87, used wc’s to hunt rabbit with it & rn bullets to hunt deer with. Somehow I managed to kill 3 deer in 3 seasons with the rn bullets with no problem. I’ve only had to send this pistol back to S&W once to get it rebuilt back in 2006, wore the timing out. Note the lee rnfp bullets in the background.

What I shot this year & reloaded for next year/season. 38’s on the left of the coffee can & 357’s on the right. These are only the lyman 358311 158g rn bullets & the lee 158g rnfp bullets.

I’m just now getting started on the 38/357 wc loads/bullets/reloading. A pic of the lyman 358495 bullets being processed, extra lee 158g rnfp bullets already sized/lubed & my lyman 358311 rn bullet mold. I loaded all the bullets I cast in the 358311’s. Note the use of 4 & 6 cavity molds exclusively for the 38/357’s, volume shooting requires volume casting.

Now you want to talk about a real world devastating bullet, use a full wc bullet. These things get mid-evil on anything they hit (bigger meplat, you know the 10” & deposit all the energy thing). A sized bullet with a 38wc (left) for target/small game, a hot 357 wc load (center) for the revolver & hot wc 357 load (right) for a contender.

Yup, I need to get out in the real world more & do some real shooting/hunting & quit using those useless ballistic programs. The OP asked about the difference in bullets, I gave them a real world answer.

bmcgilvray · Jan 22, 2012

While I do like the SWC bullet and reach for them if given a choice, I'm going to have to say that the round nose isn't as bad as it's rumored reputation would suggest. I once had a cheap source for bulk quantities of 158 grain round nose lead bullets for an excellent price. I shot a lot of them for several years. They were accurate. I really couldn't tell the difference in using them and SWCs on the usual run of Texas varmints and critters, both being propelled to an 860 fps muzzle velocity. With good hits things tended to go down to stay using either style bullet.

I don't recall shooting any really big stuff with lead round nose bullets but they worked on other critters.

A very popular gun writer of the late 1970s/early 1980 once claimed that the .38 Special round nose lead bullet wouldn't effectively kill a cottontail, allowing many to "jump down holes," implying they were not recoverable. This was just a retarded thing to say about the .38 Special and round nose bullets. I used to enjoy taking .38 revolvers out for rabbit hunting for the table (back when there seemed to be more rabbits around these parts). Rabbits die good with 158 grain round nose lead flung at them from a Model 10 or Model 14. So does larger and tougher stuff too.

158 gr LRN or SWC - Difference?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads