ARE WFN BULLETS SLOWER?

HAVE BEEN GETTING DISAPPOINTING MV READINGS IN MY LINEBAUGH RUGER REDHAWK 45 COLT CONVERSION USING WFN BULLETS. THAT LINEBAUGH REDHAWK SEEMS TO SHOOT SLOWER WITH CAST BULETS THAN SOME OTHER 45 COLT CUSTOMS I HAVE BUT THE WFN STYLE BULLETS SEEM TO BE MORE PROLEMATIC. GOOGLED THE SUBJECT BUT DID NOT COME UP WITH ANY ANSWERS. ARE WFN's SLOWER THAN WLN's? THAN LFN's? THAN KEITH STYLE SWC's? IF A WFN MAY BE INHERENTLY SLOWER, WHY? THE FAT ORGIVE?

Assuming that they have the same bearing surface as the other bullet, and the same weight....velocities should be very similar, until longer distances are involved! memtb

Can you give specific load data and chronograph readings? I wonder if the bore might be a bit rough or loose.

Maybe just a slow gun, whats the cylinder gap?

IN YEARS PAST I SHOT 250gr XTP's OUT OF THIS REVOLVER AT OVER 1,500fps, BUT LATELY THE MV's HAVE DISAPPOINTED. GOING TO TEST A FEW MORE LOADS IN THIS AND A CUSTOM BISLEY AND TRY TO ELIMINATE THE BULLET AS THE CULPRIT. NOT SURE OF THE CYLINDER GAP, MAYBE THE GUN NEEDS A "TUNE UP" AFTER SHOOTING A LOT OF HEAVY LOADS IN THE PAST?

WFN, LFN, etc. of a given weight have more of their volume in the nose OUTSIDE the case compared to older designs of the same weight. That leaves greater volume INSIDE the case. If the powder charge is the same, the greater inside volume should give lower pressures and velocity. Just one possibility.

LAST NIGHT I COMPARED A 306gr SWC TO A 300gr WFN AND THE SWC SEATS A LOT DEEPER IN THE CASE THAN THE WFN, AND SIMILAR POWDER CHARGES WITH THE SWC, ALBEIT IN A DIFFERENT REVOLVER, GAVE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER MV's. AM THINKING I NEED MORE POWDER WITH THE WFN TO GET WHERE I WANT TO GO (1,200fps OUT OF A 5 1/2 INCH REVOLVER). I HAVE A BUNCH OF 300gr WFN's THAT HAVE BEEN GATHERING DUST FOR YEARS AND I AM DETERMINED TO SHOOT 'EM ALL.

That seems like the most likely explanation I have heard.

I would think one way to test it would be to seat the bullets to a specific internal volume as opposed to OAL and try them out. The WFN would probably look a little wonky due to being seated deep, however it should give a pretty good apples to apples comparison.

I WAS CHECKING SOME OLD LOAD/CHRONO DATA FROM 1996 AND I THINK I MAY HAVE FOUND THE ANSWER TO MY MV ISSUES, BACK THEN I WAS USING LARGE DOSES OF 296 AND RECENTLY HAVE BEEN USING INADEQUATE DOSES OF N110. BACK THEN I WAS PUSHING 300gr JACKETED BULLETS TO OVER 1,400fps WITH A LOT OF 296, MORE THAN I WANT TO "PUBLISH" HERE.

AFTER SOME SHOOTING AND CHRONOGRAPHING THIS PAST WEEKEND, I THINK MY PROBLEM WAS NOT ENUFF N110. N110 SEEMS TO WORK BEST WHEN THE BASE OF THE BULLET PRESSES DOWN A LITTLE ON THE POWDER. YOU KINDA KNOW WHEN YOU ARE GETTING TO THE SWEET SPOT WHEN YOU QUIT GETTING UNBURNED POWDER. FOR ME THE SWEET SPOT IN 45 COLT WITH N110 IS A RUGER ONLY TYPE LOAD, DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO USE IT IN COLT SAA, S&W's AND THE LIKE, FOR THEM THERE ARE FAR BETTER CHOICES THAN N110.

GOT 1,180fps IN TOP BRASS CASES, FED 155M PRIMERS, 21.5grs N110, AND THE 300gr WFN IN THE 5 1/2 INCH LINEBAUGH 45 COLT REDHAWK, AND VERY ACCURATE (SUB 1 INCH 3 SHOT GROUPS @ 25 YARDS OFF A REST). SAME COMBO AND GUN, BUT WITH 26grs 296, I GOT 1,263fps, ACCURATE BUT NOT AS ACCURATE AS THE N110 LOAD. GOING TO GO WITH THE N110 LOAD.

GOT 1,323fps OUT OF A 5 1/2 INCH BRAD SHERMAN CUSTOM "NIMROD" STYLE RUGER BISLEY USING A 260gr WFN, STAR LINE CASES, FED 155M PRIMERS AND 26grs OF 296. SHOT VERY WELL, ENUFF SO THAT I LOADED UP 100 OF 'EM SUNDAY NIGHT. A LITTLE FASTER THAN I LIKE MY CAST BULLETS TO TRAVEL, BUT NOT TOO MUCH FASTER. SHOULD BE A DEVASTATING LOAD ON HOGS, AOUDAD EWES AND WHITETAILS.

IT WAS AN EXCELLENT WEEKEND AS I DEVELOPED A LOAD FOR THE REDHAWK AND A LOAD FOR THE BISLEY.

Nice!