Yes, I am a Keith basher. Actually, I probably would have liked Elmer if I had known him. What galls me is the way people put him on a pedestal and believe everything he said instead of thinking for themselves.

The 44 Keith bullets that I have tried in recent history include an NEI 240 grain which was fairly authentic, with the full size front band and the square bottom groove, and one of my own making, which was even more authentic. Neither demonstrated any magic qualities. Certainly some guns will shoot the Keith bullets well, but if I could have only one bullet mold, it sure wouldn't be a Keith.

Mountaingun--If not a "Keith" design, what would you choose?
Shuz

Dan-
Maybe it's time as a mold maker to get the original drawings and produce the Keith mold to Elmer Keith's specs. An authentic one, not fairly authentic, since none are around. Elmer could shoot too. Spend as much time shooting as he did and get some experience. You might find that Elmer was telling the truth. Other people embelishing him is not what he wanted, I believe, since I don't remember him doing that much crowing, just reporting what he did. Everything with a handgun that he did, has been repeated by others trying to duplicate what he originally did, so there's no hype there. Spend the time and components, you'll be glad you did. Now, how about an original cut Keith mold, cut to Elmer Keith specs?

45 2 1, I have never seen any drawings or well defined specifications for the so-called Keith bullet, and I rather doubt that they ever existed. If you think that you know what they are, don't be shy. Keith was a cowboy -- actually he was a sheepherder who liked to think of himself as a cowboy -- not a technical person. When I first got into handgunning, Keith was my hero, and I read all of his books and most of his articles, even dating back to the 1930s, and remember a lot of grousing about how manufacturers "basterdized" his bullet design but nowhere did he spell out a detailed set of design rules or a technical drawing. As far as I know, I am the only person who has attempted to create a formal set of mathematical design rules for the Keith bullet.

One correspondent sent me a sample bullet that was from a 1930 era 454424 Ideal mold that supposedly been designed by Elmer. Keith generally praised the Lyman versions of his bullet except for the radiused groove. Most of my Keith design rules are based on that bullet, combined with the general consensus of what a proper Keith bullet should be.



As for doing a lot of shooting, for the past 10 years I have spent my days off taking care of my daughter, and what used to be my shooting money now goes to my ex, so I don't get to do much shooting and hunting like I would rather be doing, but I wasn't born yesterday, I have more shooting trophies than I know what to do with, held my own shooting along side the likes of John Taffin, John Weston, Jack Belk, and many others whose names you would not recognize but were world class handgunners, used to shoot 25,000 rounds 44 mag per year, mostly the Lyman Keith bullets because it was hard to find anything else until Veral came along, have taken elk, deer, black bear, and numerous varmits with a wheelgun -- not a short rifle mind you, but real handguns that you can carry on your hip all day long -- and like Elmer, I don't feel like I have anything to prove.

As for what bullet I prefer -- I let the gun decide. My crappy M29 shows a definite preference for gas checked ogival flat points and bore riding ogival flat points. My pet Ruger Speed Six was loaded with a Lee GC SWC for years, and it shot fine, but I am switching over to a PB ogival flat point with an 80% metplat, because it shoots just as well, has more "slap", and doesn't need a gas check. It is really hard to find fault with the ogival flat points. I think the ogive may help to guide the bullet into the forcing cone. I don't worry about long range or low velocity stability for reasons that I will explain later, but if I did, I would choose something like a slightly heavy-for-caliber ogival flat with maybe a 70% metplat. My 80% metplat 357 bullet needs max velocity to shoot accurately, and the Ruger refused to stabilize an otherwise identical bullet with an 85% metplat, so there does seem to be a trade off between metplat size and stability.

I subscribe to Jeff Cooper's philosophy that shooting big game at long range is something we should apologize for, not brag about. The furthest shot I have made on big game is 180 yards -- with a rifle. Sure, I know how easy it is to hit a steel ram at 200 yards with a handgun, or hit a boulder across the canyon, just as Elmer liked to do. I also know how easy it is to miss at that range. So I do not allow myself to shoot big game at more than 50 yards with a handgun. Like many western ranchers, Elmer was not much of a sportsman or conservationist. By his own admission he sometimes wounded game on some of his long range shots. Elmer liked to shoot bald eagles, had no scruples about road hunting, and if I remember correctly, on one occassion he used a car to chase antelope. Not me. I hunt on foot, and enjoy the hunt more than the kill.

Elmer stated in his books that he sent drawings of his design to several mold making firms, Lyman among them. The editor of Handloader/Rifle seems to have found evidence of them also. I would try these first. Part of the problem with the design is with the original load instructions. He used a 10:1 to 16:1 (hard for his era) bullet which is considered very soft now. This hardness is less than wheelweights, and he used standard primers and Lyman ideal lubricant. Along with the old poor quality brass, it's a wonder that he got the level of accuracy that he did.
As far as your present condition, I would say that a large number of us are in the same boat. As far as your associates, not everybody is famous nor are they any better with a short gun than others who have put in that amount of practice or greater. Most of the gamesmen of the current shooting sports shoot much more than you listed in 2 or 3 monthes time. So don't assume that 25,000 rounds a year is alot. You do what you can, but I for one don't speak ill of the dead. No flame or snub is intended, just a matter of a difference of opinion!

An interesting thread.

As I mentioned previously, I'm planning on having a keith style SWC made for my 480 of ~270 grs. Glenn Fryxell did an excellent write up of the Keith SWC, with dimensions and the changes that have taken place over the years. I plan to have Dan cut me the mold, and I've discussed the idea with him several times. I've just gotten too busy with other projects, but I will get around to it one day.

The reason I want to use the SWC is not that I believe it has some magic qualities. The 310 gr LFN over 9.7 gr Unique for 950 fps has been such a phenominally accurate load, 1 1/2" 3 shot 100 yd group, that I don't expect anything better.

The reason I want a SWC is, I want more bullet in the case, so that I can get better combustion with lighter charges. The ogival wadcutters are IMHO the best for full patch loads as most of the bullet is out of the case, and the OAL is as short as possible for a given length. The SWC on the other hand is longer for a given weight, and takes up more case capacity, which I presume would make for superior mild the medium loads.

With all that said, an accurate gun is much more important than bullet shape. Scoped my SRH shoots 1" at 50 yds, and with irons I can hold 1" at 25 yds. My 357 blackhawk is doing really well with 2-3" groups @ 25 yds, and many run around 5". I've tried many different bullets with the 480, and with the proper load, they all shoot well. I've tried many different bullets and loads in that 357, and none of them shoot exceptionally well.

I'm very fond of Elmer Keith, and Veral Smith but I realize they are both men, with the associated limitations. There comments and statements were limited to the testing they did. I've found instances where there statements didn't match the results I've seen. That doesn't mean I have any less respect for them, simply that there comments only apply to what they have personally tested and seen. It's when one takes there words for gospel that you can get in trouble, or limit what you'll be able to do.

I agree with you, Paul, that accuracy lies mostly in the gun, not the bullet. However, bullet comparison tests in well made guns like the Freedom Arms tend to be pretty boring because they seem to shoot almost every bullet and load amazingly well. But when a crappy S&W pukes on one bullet design and shoots another design accurately and cleanly, I find that interesting. And since few of us can afford to shoot FAs and not every Ruger is a good one, it's useful to know how to get good results out of mediocre guns.

As for my opinions of Elmer, you guys haven't heard the half of it. Whether he is alive or dead doesn't matter because his theories and philosophies are still alive, unfortunately, and I frequently have to deal with them, and sometimes I get pretty frustrated about it, as you may have noticed.

If no one know for sure what a true Keith bullet is, then what difference does it make? The bottom line is that Keith mostly shot the Lyman version, and seemed to like it, even if it wasn't perfect in his mind.

I made one for Lar45 that had the truly square, deep grease groove, a genuine 24 carat original honest to god Keith design, that Elmer surely would have been proud of, and it wouldn't even stay on the paper at 50 yards. No doubt the results would have been different if we had used Elmer's 1:16 alloy instead of HTWW. Obviously, we we are lost, like little sheep, without our shepard Elmer to guide us. Funny thing is, a PB ogival flat point shot wonderfully with HTWW in the same gun.

Dave Scovill, a very devout Keith worshipper, seems to think that Elmer's grease groove was way too deep, and had RCBS make a Keith bullet with a moderate groove, which he now thinks is the ideal wheelgun bullet. He published a piece on it a month or two ago. Usually Dave and I don't see eye-to-eye, but he earned a little respect from me for being open minded enough to try something different and to admit that his deity may have been wrong. There may be some hope for Dave yet.

Of course, Elmer wasn't really wrong, it's just that lubricants weren't as good in the old days. Hmmmm... I wonder what would happen if I tried some of those old fashioned lubes in an ogival flat point?????

But back to the original topic -- a proven long range wheelgun bullet. I've traded emails with the guy who was one of the first, if not the first, to shoot a perfect score with a cast bullet in the IHMSA wheelgun competition. He used the RCBS 44 silhouette bullet 429-240-SIL, a kind of cross between an SWC and an ogival flat point, with a modest metplat. If that's not a good indicator of long range accuracy, I don't know what is. The gentleman said he often uses the Keith bullet for short range plinking, but it's not the best bullet for long range accuracy. But hey, what does he know? He probably wasn't using 1:16 alloy, either -- shame on him.

hi guys,
new to posting on this, but been watching for some time.

lar45- i saw your tests with the different noses somewhere before. good job and good shooting! now try grouping your bullets at 200 yd or more if possible. easiest to do informal rock shooting or something similar. be careful. i have seen wfn styles in 45 caliber dissapear! they seem to get to 2-250yd and go crazy. most will go to sides or down but an occasional one will go up as well. you need a good open range with background suitable for seeing the strike. its an eyeopener sometimes. i didn't know a bullet could shoot good at one range, then go wild futher downrange. then i tryed wfn's and lwfn's. lwfn's are the worst.

we tested them in different guns with diff. twist rates, diff. velocity (800- 1800fps), and diff. weights. if the design remained the same, the only thing that seemed to make a difference was weight. and it isn't the weight, but its the length of the shank. some of the "offenders" are made better by just shortening the shank. if a nose design is marginal, adding more shank length seems to make it worse yet.

i have tryed alot of semiwadcutters and keith designs and found many to be very accurate and some to be miserable. the one thing that seems to be almost universal is that the original keith usually shoots at least satisfactorily. it may not be super good but usually ok. having said that, i have used many copies of the keith and alot of them are just plain terrible. lyman goobered up some of the designs as well as other manufactures. so to me, it does appear that some of elmer's designs have been messed up over the years.

having modified some of the inaccurate ones to find out what went wrong has led to even more questions. long range accuracy in conventional revolver bullets appears to be influenced by meplat diameter, nose shape, and shank length in that order. one reason the ogival designs do well is they are simple. not much to disrupt flight. but... i need a hunting bullet and they dont seem to disrupt flesh very much unless the meplat is large. we shoot lots a critters of all sizes every year and it seems that the keith's are a little better in tissue than ogival fp types at low to medium velocity(700-1400). above those speeds, i dont have enough data.

in order of most likely to shoot good at long range it seems to be-
1) round nose,
2) ogival flat point,
3) lfn by LBT and a true keith seem almost equal,
4) wfn by LBT, (some calibers and weights aren't too bad. sometimes these produce fantastic 100yd accuracey but get worse as range increases)
5) lwfn by LBT (these are bad at long range. but they have the most weight out of the case and largest meplats so they are good for hunting)
6) full caliber wadcutters (these never seem to shoot much past 50yd. in 44 and 45 calibers)

what shakes out in the end is you need to decide what you need in a bullet, then test as many as you can that are close to what you are looking for.
hth, jeff

Quote:

---

I'm still planning to have a keith style SWC of ~270 gr made for my 480, so I can see how it performs in my gun, and will hopefully provide good groups when driven at 700 fps.

---

Just in case you have made some experience on accuracy with lighter bullets:
Which bullet shape could you recommend me to start working with?
.40 S&W , plain cast bullet, weight range: 170 -200 grains, velocity range 850 -950 fps, shooted from a 1911 Government barrel. Targets @ 3-40 yards

As I should get a new mould, it could be any of the currently offered by mould manufacturers.

Thanks for your advise

BA Shooter

BA,

Unfortunately, since I've never worked with a 40 S&W, I can be of absolutely no specific help suggesting what mold might be the best to start with. You have the added issue of not only finding a bullet accurate for the gun, but one that feeds reliably as well.

I would think that an LBT FN (ogival flatpoint) shape should work well, though you may need a slightly smaller meplat, and hence more ogive (essentially the shape of a ball round with a flatpoint), as well as perhaps a shorter length from the crimp groove to the cannalure.

I don't know what is available in Buenos Aires, but would suggest starting with Lee's 175 gr TC bullet. Lee molds are inexspensive, and usually my first choice. I've found them to generally be accurate bullets and I've never had issues with getting the molds to cast good bullets. The six cavity molds really crank out the bullets.

If you are looking for a custom design, Dan at Mountain Molds has very reasonable prices for molds cut to your dimensions. I've cast from several of his molds, and rate them as good as any. My preference is for the Aluminum blocks and steel sprue plate.

I think that Keith was the man. I love reading his stories and books. He did make a great contribution to the world of shooting, but I'm sure that he didn't intend to start a Keith cult. He had an idea for a bullet that was better than what was availible then. He used 2400 because it was about the best that he could get then. I'm sure that if Kieth could have gotten hold of a jug of WC820, he would have thrown the 2400 in the trash and never looked back. I'm sure that old Elmer would approve of progress and would give the nod to a bullet that worked well on game and was also accurate.

Like Dan said above the 'Keith' style bullet wouldn't even keep all the shots on an 8x11" paper target. So I won't shoot it in my 454. It was a really nice looking boolit though. I do have a Lyman version of a 44 Keith bullet and it shoots great in my Bisley and my buddies SBH and Puma 92 so we will use them.

I've been holding off until this thread got out of old Elmers hair. In my limited experience handgun bullet accuracy is mostly based on the same factors as bullet accuracy in general, (fit to throat, good SD & BC, long fully supported shank in relation to relatively light unsupported nose, heavy in the hind end, ect). There are however a few complications.
Handgun bullets are primarily low SD and BC to begin with. They are generally moving slow enough that meplat and/or hollow points are needed for effective terminal ballistics. In many cases they will drop through the sound barrier on the way to a distant target.
I shot a few of the .44 LBT 280 grain Ogival wadcutters which were sent to me to test for velocity and accuracy. They were wicked good thumpers, (even blowing dirt from the bank back out through the target), but I couldn't get any kind of accuracy past about 35 yards. Faster was better, but I couldn't get 1,300 fps without sticky cases. I've shot a few thousand of a custom Kieth type .44 280 grain SWC because it would size to .432 for my ex Redhawk. These were better, and would hold a 6" group at 100 from a rest. They'd do about 20" at 200 so I'd say they flew well. I was only launching them at about 1,200 fps so they may not have been dropping through the sound barrier. I've since shot several thousand 265 grain WFNs through my Dan Wesson 744 which replaced the old Redhawk, and which was custom chambered by DW to fit that bullet. These shoot far better than I can, and will hold 4" at 100 yards off the hood of my truck just about every time. They'll hold 8" at 150, but they totally fall apart at 175 yards, a 20 " group is doing good at 175. At 200 yards they are a hazard. Some shots hit the ground, some go way wide or high. I'd guess a 200 yard group, (if I had a large enough target), might run about 8 feet. I'm loading these 265 grain WFNs over 21.5 grains of my slow lot of WC820 giving me 1,320 15 feet from the muzzle. I am assuming that these bullets are definately dropping through the sound barrier at about 150 yards and they just can't stay stable through it. The same gun will group the Lee 310s out as far as I can see, but they're starting out at 1,200 fps or so, and while they have essentially the same nose, they have a better SD. My conclusion is that large meplats combined with low sectional density do not make for a long distance bullet at handgun velocities. IMHO this style of bullet just can't stay stable through the sound barrier. Happily this is not a large concern for me as I'm not shooting a hangun beyond 100 yards for any serious purposes, and if I do it for fun I'll use the Saeco 265 grain silly-wet bullet which has a meplat about the size of the one on Oldfellers 160 grain swede design. BD

Valdez..All things being equal, the old fashion round nose will probably deliver the highest level of accuracy. I did not say the others are inaccurate, but you asked for the best.