Well I think we'd probably agree on more then we disagree on. Just as a notation 538 yards is within my 500 meter limit.

I would also concede that the A frames are going to retain more weight then the Nosler Partitions, but I am getting 100% penetration with the Noslers, and I have been doing so since I was 12 years old. In all the years I have shot them I have recovered exactly one. Last year's elk. A 160 gr .277 from the 270 WSM, and it still weighs 129 grains. The 1st shot went clear through and left an exit of about 1-3/8". Not bad in my opinion. Swift makes 150 grain 270s. If I had used one of them and if I had recovered it I doubt it would weight muich more when it stopped. It might. But would that matter?
I know the Barnes X 150 gr would probably weigh more then either the Swift or the Nosler. Most of them retain about 97% of their weight and they still cost less than Swifts and are just as accurate (In the guns I have tested anyway) but again they don't open up much at 500 meters. A frames and expanding solids are at the top of their game when they impact animals at 300 yards and less.

So saying Swifts are "better" is subjective.

Do swifts kill animals within 1-2 seconds?
Yes!

Do they give good wound channels?
Yes!

Do they go clear through?
Yes!

So do the Partitions I have used since 1968.

And I have only 1 time in all those years shot an animal with more then one Partition (last year on my elk, 2 shots, 2 hits)and I have never had an animal get away, and I have never had one stay on it's feet for more then about 2 seconds after hit with one.

So how is the Swift "better"?
I will admit A frames hold more of their weight, but they also do not expand as well at 400 to 500 meters. So that's a trade off.

I would be happy to pay more if I thought I was getting more, but in my experience with the calibers I used, in the years I have used them, the Noslers are batting 1000 with me.

To me, Swifts are simply overpriced. If I were a rich man, and money was no object I would still not use them if I could get Nosler Partitions, Nosler Bonded or Hornady Bonded, or Barnes X bullets.

As I said I believe they are as well made as any bullet on earth, but over the spectrum of velocities I use them at, in the calibers I use, I think they are not quite as good "all around" as what I am using now. I have nothing against Swifts, but I don't think they are fully competitive.

Heck, if someone was to offer me 5,000 bullets of my own choice as a present, for free, and I could choose anything I wanted, I would still go with Nosler for probably 70% of them, and Barnes and Hornady for the last 30%

If I were to hunt larger game than moose there might be other bullets I would buy. But I don't hunt anything much larger than moose, and moose and buffalo are hunted very seldom for me now days. The largest game animals I have killed in the last 20 years were buffalo, and I shot them with handguns and cast bullets.

Next in line for size was moose. 2 with a 375 H&H, one with a 348 Winchester and one with a 62 cal muzzleloader.

One of those moose I shot 2 times with 285 gr Speer Grand Slams. One was shot with a 300 gr Sierra from my 375 (bullet failed)
One with a Hornady 200 gr flat point from my M71 Lever action (stayed in the body but killed the moose) , but only the one killed with the flintlock fell at the shot. The other 3 walked a short distance before falling. And the flintlock also gave me an exit.

I have written in the past that it's wounds that do the killing. Bullets (or arrows, spears and so on) make the wounds.
I stand by that as truth.

Bullet wounds have 2 properties that matter. One is cavitation and one is hydrostatic shock.
The shock effect is most evident when bone or "wet flesh" is hit. Cavatation is most evident when muscle and firm tissue is hit.
It's easy to see when you kill animals with guns that shoot WAY slower then modern magnums.

I have killed quite a lot of game with flintlocks and also with modern revolvers. The kills are quite fast in most cases. Even when velocity is only 1200 FPS.

That moose I mentioned above was killed with a 320 grain ball of hardened lead and the impact velocity was probably only about 1200 FPS, yet the moose hit the ground before the smoke let me see it fall.
That ball didn't do a lot of liquid compression to the moose ("shock") yet it hit the ground before the noise was done echoing.

Most of the bison I have seen killed were killed with big magnum rifles, and yet my 44 magnum and my 454 Casull put them down just about as fast as my friends 416 Rigby and several 338s I have seen used on them. My friend Colin shot one several times with 250 grain bullets from a 338-06 and it stayed on its feet for about 10-15 seconds. My 454 put 2 of them down in about 4-5 seconds. Colin recovered his 338 bullets. My 454s exited.

Does that mean the 370 gr LBT Hard Cast bullet is "better" than the 388 250 grain bullets?
No.

It means it works in a different way.

The 338 has more energy, but that energy was transferred faster and made shorter, larger diameter wounds. The 454 makes woulds about 1" down to 3/4 inch around, but they will go through a beef cow from end to end.

Both made killing wounds.

So saying something is "better" across the board is not always a good statement. If something can be "better" then logically there has to be a best.

But "best' depends on a situation.

That situation has a LOT of variables.
What kind of Animal.
Body Position.
Size.
Mental state of the animal.
Range.
Velocity at impact.
Place of impact.
Bullet construction.
Terminal trajectory within the animal.
Ability of the shooter (which is effected by MANY things, one of which is how much he can practice, as well as his natural abilities)
and probably about 10 other things I didn't list.

So we take our best guess as to what the future hunt will hold in store for us.

In that way I would agree that a bullet that works perfectly at close to mid range is more likely to be needed than one that works perfectly at long range. I can tell you from a lot of personal experience that a so-so bullet at a long range target is not ideal, but it usually works out. A Barnes X at long range makes a narrow hole, but as I just mentioned, so does a 44 mag. Both will kill----- and kill well.
Just maybe not as fast as we'd like.

Bullets that go all to pieces....I don't like them at any range or on any game bigger than 50 pounds.

A so-so bullet at a close range target is the kind of thing that can get you into trouble. On non dangerous game it leads to us tracking down the animal and having it suffer longer than necessary.

On dangerous game.........well that is the stuff of the stories. Not the good stories either.

In this I will concede that Swifts are excellent. When they don't expand well they still are at least as effective as a good broad-head, and history shows us that's pretty good.

But so are expanding copper solids, and in all the guns I own at least, so are "heavy for caliber" Partitions. I have killed game at very long range with them (Much longer than I will shoot now days) and had exits. The exit holes were still coin sized. I love them. And they have not failed me at close range ever.

One last thought.
I love the fact that today we have the option to compare these things. It's like the Super Bowl of bullets. In the 1960s and before, those that shot factory loads didn't have many options, and even handloaders had a lot fewer than we do today.

On a scale of 1-10 it is delightful to be able to try to figure out what bullets are in the 8-10 range, argue the merits of them against each other, ------- and ignore 1-8 all together.

That is a blessing we have today that shooters have never had in history.