FMJ Round Nose or Flat Nose? .40s&w

[JGus]

Excluding all other components, what is the advantage/disadvantage of a FMJ flat nose or round nose, for use in USPSA Limited?

Is one considered more advantageous than the other?

[The_Vigilante]

Sometimes the flat-nosed bullets don't feed well due to their shape.

[Steve RA]

Try them both and see which you like the best !

[ParaGunner]

Round nose is known to feed better.

[szhttm]

Just cuirous, but would the flat nose create a bigger and/or cleaner whole on the paper targets? If so, then for those shots close to the lines might just grant you a better score...

Good Luck And Be Safe!!!

[JGus]

I've only used the flat nose (been using them for quite awhile), but was told the round nose would feed better (which makes sense) but would also be more accurate. I don't know if that is true or not, that is just what I was told. I'm definitely not a ballistics expert. But, if a round nose can offer even the slightest improvement in accuracy, it's worth trying when I shoot Limited Major.

[Skins45]

Just on my knowledge of aerodynamics (its extensive), I would say round tip is more aerodynamic. However, I doubt it is enough to make much difference out to the normal 30-40 yards. At that point I would be more worried about drop and speed of the round.

[ltdmstr]

Bullseye shooters have used wadcutters and semiwadcutters for ages and they are plenty accurate. I have built .45s that were close to half inch at 25 yards with lead semiwadcutters. For what we're doing, I don't think it's going to make a difference either way.

[mjohn]

Hi Joel,

In my limited experience, I have never seen a FMJ 40. I have never heard of anyone shooting a FMJ 40 either. All I have seen is FP and JHP. I too was concerned in using a FP. However, the FP round has been 100% functional for me in my X-5 and M&P.

I too have read that a JHP is the most accurate. However, I think that at the distances we shoot at, it would be the equivalent of splitting hairs.

[OUshooter]

The HP are sometimes preferred because at a given OAL you can use less powder to get the same PF as say a RN or FP profile. The HP will be longer and in turn lowers the internal volume. The accuracy is likely of no consequence for our distances and target sizes. For Bulleye thats a different animal.

Mostly it comes down to personal preference and what your particular gun likes.

I had an XD that hated FP but ate any OAL of RN that would fit in the mag.

Lastly, here's your grain of salt.

Edited November 28, 2012 by OUshooter

[partyboy424]

I've never seen a round nose 40 in person. From my experience with flat point and round nose .45. If they both feed, go with flat point. It will leave an easier to see hole on the target and can help get the higher scoring zone on perfs. Not a big deal at Major matches where you can just call for a overlay, but at a lot of the local matches, especially around here where it's freezing and getting dark early, it's kind of a jerk move to hold everyone up for overlays and stuff. You'll want the easy to see holes.

[JGus]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'm an average skill shooter so it probably won't make a noticeable difference for me. But, if it can get me another 1/2" or so improvement on the occasional 20-25 yard shots it's worth it to me. I've hit No Shoots by just a fraction of an inch.

I bought some of the round nose .40s&w from a person in the area that loads and sells ammo (its the actual round in the photo at the beginning of this thread). He has tables set up at all the local gun shows and the ammo I've bought from him in the past has worked great, he does a great job (but it's always been FP). But, I've never tried the .40s&w round nose rounds. I was using a Sig X5 Competition model, and now use an X5 L1, using only FP, and have only had two issues I remember over the last year with feed problems. The X5's eat everything I put in them. I also have a Dawson Precision Competition Ready STI Edge that is somewhat finicky with ammo (again I've only used FP 40). Maybe the RN will help with the issues with the Edge.

Here are the specs on the RN .40 ammo I bought (this is exactly what was on the label):

40 s&w (Match)

180GR TMJ Match

4.7GR Titegroup

Est Vel 969

OAL 1.128

It definitely puts me easily into Major power factor at 174.

I'll post some results with pics with shooting the FP vs the RN as soon as I have a chance to hit the range.

[Lifeislarge]

Not sure about the Sigs, but I know the Edge likes a longer OAL regardless of bullet shape. Most guys load to 1.180 or longer depending on the bullet weight, shape and charge. The only failures I've had in my Edge came from trying to shoot some factory Remmington JHP's and Fiocci FMJTC factory ammo, all short. I've been so confused by all the options available for loading my own ammo that I haven't made a single round yet. Been buying .40 long from Atlanta Arms. I haven't seen round nose for sale anywhere, and I want to thank you for adding yet another frikkin choice to the mix.

[JGus]

Went to the range yesterday and shot two full mags (17 rounds each mag, 34 rounds total) into two different targets. All shooting was offhand, taking my time and shooting slow from 20 yards (obviously I'm no bullseye shooter). I shot 34 rounds into each target. The first target I used .40 180gr JFP, fps 940, 4.6GR Titegroup (with the flat point, of course). The second target I used .40 180GR TMJ Match, fps 969, 4.7GR Titegroup (with the round nose). The person that loaded these for me measured the FPS by shooting out of a 4.5" barrel Glock 22. I use a SIg X5 L1 with a 5" barrel, so I assume the FPS leaving the barrel of my gun would be a little different than what was actually measured by the person loading the ammo.

This is definitely far from scientific and lacking in controlled conditions, but, I did shoot a slightly tighter grouping with the round nose vs the flat nose. Again, all shooting was offhand at 20 yards and it may have just been pure coincidence that I had a better grouping with the round nose. However, with the results I definitely feel confident that by shooting the round nose .40 it won't adversely effect me.

[sargenv]

Most if not all of the ppl using a RN in a 40 do so obliviously or are looking to feed a revolver.. Otherwise at the distances we shoot, there is no difference between RN, RNFP, SWC, HP, etc.. your specific gun may or may not feed one of the mentioned.. but personally the Para that I shoot will feed just about anything.. including an empty case.. RN is generally for moon clipped revolvers and I would say 90% of the cheaper 40 ammo (WWB, etc) is of the Flat point or RNFP design. I've never seen a RN in any factory or remanufactured ammo for the 40. Higher performance ammo tends to be a hollow or soft point design, in general and will have a flat pointed profile, in my experience.

[FightFireJay]

The only round nose .40 I have seen has been plated. I have seen some round shoulder flat point ammo that I thought looked like FMJ in .40

I have used round, truncated cone, and hollow points in my Glock and M&P and have never had any feeding problems.

Round bullets I think can load a little longer and still fit in magazines, and usually can be loaded longer before touching rifling too... If I recall anyways.

But I like clean holes, so mostly I like TC / FP.

[pointofimpact]

I've been using Rainier RNFP for about the last 3K rounds and really like them. Feed great, accurate. No complaints. The noob's 2 cents.