I do hang on to molds that arent stellar anymore. Ive to many times gave away or sold a mold and still had a few bullets and found out that a certain gun really liked the bullet and didnt have the mold anymore. I guess if i really need a few bucks id part with some but that hasnt come as of yet. By the way ive gots some 44 and 45 lfns that arent the greatest designs too. Again all to light for the caliber. For the most part its light for caliber bullets that give me more trouble then a certain design.

by the way you got to like a guy that likes a dog!

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
by the way you got to like a guy that likes a dog!

Considering that generally speaking, dogs have better character than people.......

my wifes famous for asking if there was a flood would i save her or the dog. She doesnt really want to hear the answer!

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
by the way you got to like a guy that likes a dog!

Considering that generally seaking, dogs have better character than people.......

quote:

Posted 25 March 2010 16:58 Hide Post
my wifes famous for asking if there was a flood would i save her or the dog. She doesnt really want to hear the answer!

Me too!
I am going to admit something. There is one mold I wish I still had from back in the early 50's. It was a 358156 HP. I sold it when I quit shooting .357's. To give an idea how long ago, I had a 6" nickel plated S&W. Someone gave me a pile of factory .38's. One didn't get out the barrel and the muzzle split. I sent it to S&W and had the nickel removed, S&W bright blue job and an 8-3/8" ribbed barrel put on.
Total cost was $35. That thing was a shooter!

Careful, BFR; your veneer is peeling!

I have never hunted/shot any game with Keith-style bullets, but in April I will hunt in Africa with "Keith-style".

After reading the posts - I`m looking forward to compare the Keith`s with anything else I have tried within the years.

quote:

Originally posted by shadob:
I have never hunted/shot any game with Keith-style bullets, but in April I will hunt in Africa with "Keith-style".

After reading the posts - I`m looking forward to compare the Keith`s with anything else I have tried within the years.

What gun, bullet snd load will you use?

What country and what game are you going to shoot?

Ruger SRH, 255 gr/1250 fps.

South Africa.

Don`t know - but will limit the size of animal to zebra.

Hi to all. VERY interesting thread. Although, I agree that when big, bad boar , bear or any other large animal is in front of the muzzle, LBT design is proven bullet. However, it’s also true that, as number of you stated, most of present SWC, that pretend to be Keith design, are actually poorly designed, with very short front driving band, that is also frequently undersized for as much as .005 or more. Just take a look on these 45 SWC-s http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell45KeithSWC.htm . Old Keith had done his homework and had very good reason to specify that all driving bands should have same full diameter, and all driving bands and grease groove should have same width. In addition, he made another important statement that bullets should be sized just to pass through the cylinder throats with just slight finger pressure. Well, to illustrate how some so called “experts” know about this issue, the best example I found in the article where well known “gunwriter” complained about “poorly design moulds”. Why? Because he couldn’t load revolver, round wouldn’t chamber!? Nothing about checking that chambers are not undersized, never mind that any half serious shooter will make sure that all his cast bullets are sized to fit particular revolver(s).

As for Keith style itself, old man specified that he wanted single, universal bullet that will cut nice, sharp, full dia hole on the paper target, and also work well on the game. Now, some folks do not want any change on Keith’s bullets, going directly against his main philosophy; keep improving and innovating whole life. Just take a long, hard look how much he contributed to shooting fraternity and industry. How? Consatntly improving, inovating and inventing.

Now, learning from others’ successes and failures, I started thinking about what could be done to further improve SWC? “In search of excellence” I created few SWC-s sticking to Keith’s well proven features. Important note; these are just my suggestions, none of them were made yet, and you are welcome to participate in further discussion.

41-245-K, 44-265-K and 45-285-K:



http://castboolits.gunloads.co...owthread.php?t=79556

Here is heavier 45, similar is already available, see thread bellow:



http://castboolits.gunloads.co...owthread.php?t=61356

And icing on the cake, 502-440-K:



http://castboolits.gunloads.co...owthread.php?t=79627

All very nice boolits that will shoot well but there is still the lack of guidance at the forcing cone that all Keith designs have.
There is no reason what so ever for a shoulder on a boolit other then appearance. Who cares if they cut round holes in paper if the holes are far apart?
Yes, I have made some shoot but I don't bet on it. The revolver must be PERFECT but that is rare and something I would bet on.

I like them all, especially the .41. I sincerely believe somewhere around 250 grains is optimal for that much under-appreciated handgun caliber. And I am also of the opinion that there is very little new under the sun... Elmer Keith knew exactly what he was doing, and there isn't a darned thing wrong with his original designs. My H&G moulds in his design prove that all the time!

Have you considered having anyone cut moulds using these drawings? I would be interested...

Lack of guidance at the forcing cone? What the heck is that?

quote:

Posted 08 April 2010 17:06 Hide Post
Lack of guidance at the forcing cone? What the heck is that?

Lack of guidance means the nose does not guide the boolit and you are depending on the little shoulder to straighten to boolit into the bore. Instead of the boolit turning the cylinder as it enters the forcing cone, the little edge can deform and start the boolit off center.
Stick the nose of your Keith into the muzzle and you can wiggle it back and forth, it will not even aid once in the bore.
The farther forward the ogive contacts the (Ogive, not wad cutter edges.) forcing cone, the more accurate the boolit will be. It is a plain and simple mechanical advantage.
If you want to prove how good your Keith is, shoot some 50 and 100 yard groups for us and post the pictures. I am not asking much and it should be easy for you to do.

If I had a Ransom rest I would gladly do that. Sadly, I do not, and with soon to be 56 year-old eyes, the groups would represent nothing more than my shooting ability (or lack thereof).

You are using a projectile to align a barrel with a cylinder??? That is nuts! Shoot revolvers that have the cylinders line bored through the frame (Like the FAs you love to bash so much) and lock up like a bank vault. See how they shoot SWCs.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:Shoot revolvers that have the cylinders line bored through the frame (Like the FAs you love to bash so much) and lock up like a bank vault. See how they shoot SWCs.

Bank vault-like lock-up isn't necessarily an advantage unless you have absolutely perfect alignment. If the cylinder isn't aligned perfectly, a little slop allows it to align itself while the bullet is passing through without shaving itself. I have a sloppy Smith & Wesson that shoots like a house on fire. FA isn't infallible.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
All very nice boolits that will shoot well but there is still the lack of guidance at the forcing cone that all Keith designs have.
There is no reason what so ever for a shoulder on a boolit other then appearance. Who cares if they cut round holes in paper if the holes are far apart?
Yes, I have made some shoot but I don't bet on it. The revolver must be PERFECT but that is rare and something I would bet on.

The point is that some shooters WANT shoulder to cut nice hole in paper target, and load same boolit for handgun hunt. That’s the reason why SWC we have it today was created. Personally, I shoot on paper just to find out how good is my load, and I do not need SWC to figure out do I have 1” group or 6” one.

I had seen your groups and some of them are outright spectacular, like this one:



However, from what I could see, you are shooting GC bullets, using scoped handgun, and charge is probably full throttle that makes any shooting without ear protection disaster for hearing. And that’s fine because results speak for themselves.

Now, there is another group of hand gunners that want packable handgun, no more than 3 pounds. All they need is a decent accuracy that allows them to hunt up to 100 yards or so, bullet velocity 1200 fps max. at muzzle, no GC, and they want muzzle blast to be no more than 30-06 from rifle so in case they fire the shot or two in a hurry, their eardrums wouldn’t be shattered. So, in their views, moderation is the way to go and this is why I agree with John Linebaugh http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=12, http://www.customsixguns.com/writings.htm, and this is why some of folks in this group prefer 45 over 44. Further to this, I found information that LBT has better accuracy with top loads, but reduced ones using SWC were more accurate. Last several years, full throttle 44 factory load was fired from my Redhawk only by friends, just to show them how it feels to fire full power 44 Magnum. Last time I fired full throttle magnum (again, factory load) was 6-7 years ago from S&W 66 when I visited a friend because that was the only ammo he had.

As for accuracy itself, I do not think that LBT bullet is required to have laser level accuracy because of the relationship between bullet and forcing cone. Some best groups fired in bullseye competition, from revolvers and semiautos, earning championship to many shooters, were done using WC. Long range is different story, but this is where other bullets have the edge.

On top of that, many LBT moulds are cut for GC, and done the best way; turning on the lathe. Contrary to that, most of SWC moulds were done using cherry. And just that makes a big difference in accuracy, especially on long ranges. Now, I am not saying that conventional method using cherry cannot produce excellent moulds. Heck, H&G and some others proved that it could be done on regular basis. My point is that majority of SWC moulds we use are at least sloppy in design and manufacturing; out of round, too short front band, undersize front band, etc.

On the end, I would like to emphasize that this thread was started by those who prefer SWC for their shooting and hunting, and if I can do something to improve SWC to make it better, I’ll do it any time.

In other words, if anybody prefers SWC over WC, LBT or TC (truncated cone; I prefer it over any other design), that’s OK, but I wouldn’t look down on him. Who knows, if I get perfect SWC mould that produces MOA on few hundred yards, I will be on SWC side, using fire, earthquake, tsunami, tornado and whatever it takes, to defend SWC “nation” against WC, LBT, TC, and other “insurgents”…

quote:

Bank vault-like lock-up isn't necessarily an advantage unless you have absolutely perfect alignment. If the cylinder isn't aligned perfectly, a little slop allows it to align itself while the bullet is passing through with shaving itself. I have a sloppy Smith & Wesson that shoots like a house on fire. FA isn't infallible.

Another poster who ascribes to the opinion of BFR Shooter... Whitworth, you are apparently a very fine revolver shot, as attested to by at least one other individual on here. But the statement you make about FA not being infallible smacks of prejudice. The entire reason that FA cuts the chambers by inserting the cylinder into the frame, then boring through the frame, is to ensure perfect alignment.

No, FA isn't infallible. But they make one helluva single action revolver; they may not be the absolute best, but it doesn't take long to call roll in their class.

Finally, yes, I have a Smith that shoots like a house afire, too. It is a Model 57, and it does it with SWCs: the Lyman 410459, a four cavity, with all the sloppiness and inherent inaccuracies that you and BFR snub cut into all four cavities.

The above isn't personal at all, lest it be construed to be. I just see us as having very different opinions, and like the Onty post directly before mine says, this thread was started by SWC devotees. We didn't desire (or need) those with other opinions trying to change our minds.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Bank vault-like lock-up isn't necessarily an advantage unless you have absolutely perfect alignment. If the cylinder isn't aligned perfectly, a little slop allows it to align itself while the bullet is passing through with shaving itself. I have a sloppy Smith & Wesson that shoots like a house on fire. FA isn't infallible.

Another poster who ascribes to the opinion of BFR Shooter... Whitworth, you are apparently a very fine revolver shot, as attested to by at least one other individual on here. But the statement you make about FA not being infallible smacks of prejudice. The entire reason that FA cuts the chambers by inserting the cylinder into the frame, then boring through the frame, is to ensure perfect alignment.

No, FA isn't infallible. But they make one helluva single action revolver; they may not be the absolute best, but it doesn't take long to call roll in their class.

Finally, yes, I have a Smith that shoots like a house afire, too. It is a Model 57, and it does it with SWCs: the Lyman 410459, a four cavity, with all the sloppiness and inherent inaccuracies that you and BFR snub cut into all four cavities.

The above isn't personal at all, lest it be construed to be. I just see us as having very different opinions, and like the Onty post directly before mine says, this thread was started by SWC devotees. We didn't desire (or need) those with other opinions trying to change our minds.

My point is that FAs aren't the end-all, be-all. They aren't infallible, but neither is any other revolver manufacturer. You can get a fine revolver for less, and you can have one built for the same money (or more). So, to each his own. Nothing wrong with Freedom revolvers.

I know what line-boring is, and most custom smiths do it, save for a couple. I would rather spend $2K + on a custom, but that's just me.

Now, where did I ever make mention of my shooting ability????? More here can attest to my abilities (or lack thereof ) than just bfrshooter........

This thread may have been started by SWC enthusiasts, but if they did not want the opinions of others, they should not have posted on a public forum.

I agree 100% that none of this is personal and that is as it should be.
I understand all about vision, I am over 72.
But no matter how you shoot or see, that was not what interests me. I just would like all to prove for themselves that a WLN, WFN or RNFP will all shoot better then a Keith. They are easier to work loads for and are accurate as far as anyone cares to shoot.
Only boolit testing is interesting so if the best you can do is 2" at 25 yards with a Keith, I don't care but I firmly believe you can take it to 1" with a better boolit without any change with what you do or how you shoot.
So fellas, stop the challenge stuff, that is not my reason for asking to show groups. Shoot all the boolits side by side and see what you get, I don't care if groups are 6". I don't care how anyone shoots, just if a better boolit helps. This is more scientific then traditional.
Line boring a revolver has not solved a thing and experts say it is not as good as other methods. Line boring through the frame means nothing if the barrel that is installed later is off. A little play in the cylinder is far better. Line boring is just a ploy to charge more money. Even thread alignment between the frame and tool is iffy.
I have shown this before, it is a line bored revolver, individual chamber test that sucks.

Line boring really helped didn't it?
Now how about 5 shot groups using all chambers from a cheaper gun. These shot at 50 yards, not your famous 25 yard Ransom rest junk.
Then the Keith shot at 25 and 50 yards. This is the very best I can do with them, shooting them since the early 50's.

Keith and line boring lovers have a great fear showing what they talk about. I don't know why.
I thought we are supposed to advance the revolver, not stay with old stuff because it looks nice.

I lost the picture of the cheaper gun shot at 50 yards using all 5 chambers.

By the way Onty, I make my own molds using a hand made cherry. All of my best groups are shot with my own boolits. Why do you think a lathe bored mold is better? Strange how some believe all they read!

Another fallacy, the boolit needs a wide base band and a wide front band. Look at my cherry cut boolit for the .475 with the narrow base band. Two shots in the can at 100 yards and five at 50 yards in the target.
The Keith shown can not do this at 20 yards!

This has been a very interesting discussion,thanks for everyones input.Now here is my experience and I am not trying to step on anyones opinion.
I have tried a few kieths in 44 but a LBT style from MBW is what goes through it until it is converted.Its accurate, hits hard,it just works.

Now for over a year I have been pounding a 45colt with a 4 5/8"bl.More than 600 rounds have went through it.I tried several bullets called keiths and keith style from 255-310grs and not one have been impressive.I shot some berry cast round noses that were good,but I am looking for better.

I am just working on some LFN loads and I am going to see about my accuracy then.It hasn't been bad with 6-8" @ 75, with the kieths and kieth styles, but the berry cast shotless than 4"@100,but IMO its not a hunting bullet. I feel this gun is better.

I am just turned off by the keiths and kieth styles i have run into.I believe time has moved on,technology too and I know there has got to be better available.All this is just the rumblings of a swampbilly so take no offense,please.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
By the way Onty, I make my own molds using a hand made cherry. All of my best groups are shot with my own boolits. Why do you think a lathe bored mold is better? Strange how some believe all they read!

Now I know what’s going on. Well, as I said, excellent moulds could be done using cherry, but you are probably taking EKSTRA care when you are making them. As for lathe made moulds; why LBT, Mountain Molds and others do that? Because they can make them better than average cherry mould maker and still sell for a reasonable price. In other words, they found a nice balance between quality, manufacturing cost and affordable market price.

We, ordinary mortals, we have to use of the shelf moulds. And guy who makes living by manufacturing moulds will probably go broke if he makes them the way you do and selling them to compete with RCBS, Lyman, etc. On top of that, many folks do not want to bother with single or double cavity moulds.

As for handgun for hunting or for backup only, the best in my opinion are these ones:



See others here http://www.beltmountain.com/punch.htm

They are all LBT, they leave maximum powder space, they have bronze jacket and big hard meplat that would not deform. Such jacketed bullet is a big plus IMHO in hunting because when you fire round(s) you do not get all that lube and lead particles into mouth and lungs, and over hands, face and clothing. Now, $2.50-3.00 for a single bullet is bit too much for my taste, so I was thinking about making my own mould to swage 375 rifle bullet into something similar. But, this is another topic and I would like to stay with this one.

Also, regarding FA revolvers and line boring; it’s out there for those who want them, and it was done because some of the shelf revolvers have problems with proper chamber alignment. If I or you have excellent S&W, Ruger, Colt, etc, that doesn’t mean that all of them are like that. I had Bisley 357 that will make with six shots 3 two shots sub-groups, (if I remembered correctly) each was no more than 1.5” but overall group was 3” or more, no matter what’s the load; a clear indication of using 3 different tools to make chambers. Again, this is also another topic and I will stop here. If I want this discussion, I’ll start another thread.

As for

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
Another fallacy, the boolit needs a wide base band and a wide front band. Look at my cherry cut boolit for the .475 with the narrow base band. Two shots in the can at 100 yards and five at 50 yards in the target.
The Keith shown can not do this at 20 yards!

In my limited personal experience, any cast boolit, SWC or TC (except one), with short front driving band did not work well in MY handguns (41, 44 and 45 Rugers), especially when front driving band is undersize. My 44 Redhawk was in particular finicky, and as soon as I got old style 429421 sized on .432 my groups did improve considerably. Contrary to that, folks in my club and I personally have excellent experience with SAECO #398, and that boolit has a short front band, with its dia is in range .352-354”. And we use it in anything chambered in 357, including Contender and old Sauer & Sohn revolver. So, despite hawing such good experience with #398, none of us will call fallacy anybody’s statement that wide or short front (or any other) driving band works better in HIS revolvers, because we had seen both sides.

The bottom line is; I think it’s OK to express here, in this thread, personal preference for LBT, or any other boolit, over SWC and show us why. But I would stop there, and I will not go any further than that, especially I will not start some sort of campaign against SWC boolits and folks who are shooting them. SWC-s work for many, and they have a valid reason to stay with them. Just look have many shooter prize 410459, and how fast this mould goes when somebody is selling it. Are those folks out of their minds? I do not think so. If they feel that something better is needed, they will look for better solution. Heck, they are all adults. Until than, long live SWC boolit and my hat off to its creator who paved the way for handgun shooting we enjoy today. And let’s leave this thread to those who like SWC. If I have something more to say here, it will be just how to make them better, or how to make a better load using them…

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
I like them all, especially the .41. I sincerely believe somewhere around 250 grains is optimal for that much under-appreciated handgun caliber. And I am also of the opinion that there is very little new under the sun... Elmer Keith knew exactly what he was doing, and there isn't a darned thing wrong with his original designs. My H&G moulds in his design prove that all the time!

Have you considered having anyone cut moulds using these drawings? I would be interested...

My apology for late reply. You strike a chord. Of all revolvers I have or had, I like 41 Bisley more than any other. It’s a “shooters” caliber, perfect for plinking and in strong revolver and with right boolit capable of taking anything that should be hunted with revolver. See here what could be done in strong 41 http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/41magnum.htm, http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/41heavy.htm. 200-250, or even more rounds in a single day; 200-220 grains at about 1100, 1200 fp max, is not problem for me. Shooting 44-250 at same velocity, well, after 100 or so, I feel fatigue. Now these days I shoot mostly 357 Contender because I cannot get decent 41 boolits. My friend stopped casting and gave everything to his brother, and local casting outfit was sold somewhere else. On top of that, last batch I bought from them were crappiest boolits I had ever seen.

Yes, I am looking for a good 41 mould, and would like to get 4 cavity 410459 or Saeco #410, because I would prefer something in 200-220 gr range. I shoot mostly half scale silhouettes so this weight range is about right for me.

As a matter of fact, two group buy (GB) are active, see http://castboolits.gunloads.co...owthread.php?t=68943 and http://castboolits.gunloads.co...owthread.php?t=62477, but none of them are my cup of tea. First one has no front driving band at all and second one is not Keith as far as I could se on drawing. I wish if they make a copy of H&G #258. According to folks who have noted mould, this boolit is top notch in any 41 revolver.

If there is enough interest to make a GB for noted 41-245-K I designed, or tad heavier, I’ll join you. To gather interest, the best way is to join that forum and post what you want. Also, you can start the same here and contact one of manufacturers directly. If you need separate picture of that boolit, I’ll make it for you. Cheers, Onty.

Ive allready voiced my opinion on most of this so i wont bore you. What i will address is lathe cut vs cherry cut molds. I would hands down by a cherry cut mold before a lathe cut mold anyday. Why? because when the mold wears out and ive wore out quite a few lbts its about impossible to get the exact same bullet when he makes a new one and for the most part load developement is out the door. Some of the nices and most precisely made molds I have are ballistic cast molds and they are cherry cut and i dont care what anyone says there hands down 5 times the mold an lbt is.

I have never bought an LBT mold but I did buy a lot of LBT boolits and I have to admit something. Many of my boolits with a change in the ogive are MORE ACCURATE then the LBT. Accident? Yes. I use a file to make the ogive on the cherry until it looks right. I have no idea what it will do until I shoot it.
For my .44 I tried to get the ogive close to the forcing cone angle and that is the boolit that shot the 1-5/16" group at 200 yards.
I really have no idea what I will come up with when I make a mold. Most work is done on the lathe, not on paper.
All I have learned is that about any boolit I come up with will out shoot a Keith. So will a lot of boolits from cheap Lee molds.
I shot these with a Lee RD 265 gr boolit with my .44. Target at 50 yards and the can at 100. I was hitting low so I aimed higher for the last shot.
Can anyone show targets with the Keith that match or better this?

To the "original" question...I would only be using two loads with the said 240-250 Keith bullet.

#1 would be I believe 9-10 grains of Unique to give 1000-1050 fps from a 4" gun...this would do for all small game shooting target work and personal defense.

#2 would be a full charge of H110/296 so that the bottom of the bullet just slightly compressed the powder charge...this would probably be in the 24 grain area but would have to load some up to be sure.

As NE450 knows I have not been much of a .44 shooter since 1980 or so when I sold my 29-2 and went completely over to .41 Magnum. This is a picture of a group shot in 1983 on a range where NE450 and I used to shoot. 25 yards, offhand DA from a 4" M57. The one outside the group was my fault not the guns. The trigger broke just as I went off line... The bullet was a 220 Keith bullet weighing in at 211 grains of pure linotype metal made by Vern Dual who was one of the heads of the Cast Bullet Association at the time. I still have about 500 or so of these beautiful bullets left.



My other favorite .41 bullet is the 255 CPBC WFN-GC. It is a LBT design but the only one of its kind as the area ahead of the crimping groove is full caliber to the ojive...



Notice the rifling almost to the nose... That bullet went through six gallon jugs of water, a 3/4 piece of marine plywood and then berried itself in a 4x4" post... It has also proved to be an accurate bullet.

Also I am not sure if it makes any difference but that compressed slug that BFR posted is of course not a Keith but a Lyman/Thompson I believe.. Used to shoot lots of those from my 29-2...not a problem hitting what I wanted to at 200 yards...back in the "younger days"...

As to killing ability...don't think it makes a difference...

Bob

Onty, check your PMs...

This is a great thread!

I haven't done extensive testing with various 357 or 44 mag cast bullets. But I did do extensive testing with the 480, because when I first got mine there wasn't much data out there, so experimenting was fun. The majority of bullets I shot out of it were lbt styles, and I settled on a 310 gr lfn over 9.7 gr unique @ 1000 fps for practice, a 400 gr lfn over 21 gr H-110 @ 1200 fps for hunting, and a 460 gr wfn over 19 gr H-110 @ 1050 fps for a stopper load. All those loads would group 5 shots into 1" at 50 yds, I think the 310 lfn @ 1000 fps was capable of 3 shot 1" at 100 yds, but I never shot well enough to realize what that load could do.

I shoulda/oughta been content, but I really want an accurate 700 fps light bullet load. I figured that since the keith swc takes up more powder space it should allow me to drop to 700 fps and still retain velocity. So reading various articles on what a true keity swc looks like, I plugged dimensions into Mountain Molds online software, and had them cut me a .476" 275 gr swc, holding as well as possible to a scaled up keith design.



275 swc on top, 400 xlfn (.51" canlure to meplat hence extra long flat nose)



275 swc, 310 lfn, 400 xlfn, 460 wfn.


Unfortunately my theory of more bullet in the case did not result in steller 700 fps loads, infact I never got steller accuracy with any combo of Unique I tried.

I did find that 13 gr of blue dot will push the 275 swc 1000 fps and cut nice tight groups.

For a given weight, lfn/wfn style bullets will take up less powder space than a swc, hence generate lower pressures, require less twist to stabalize and allow the heaviest for caliber bullet designs.

Elmer was great (my favorite writer), the swc is a fine design, but IMHO, there have been improvements in cast bullet design in the past century.

BTW, I wouldn't hesitate to take a deer w/ the 275 gr .476" swc @ 1000 fps.

PS, the 310 gr lfn that was the most accurate of the many accurate bullets I shot out of the 480 was dropped from a 4 cavity balisticast cherry cut mold, out of a factory ruger srh. Bullets visually inspected, and cylinders chosen at random with 5 rounds loaded.

BTW, 390 gr lbt lfn, 400 gr lee rf and 400 gr mountain mold xlfn gc all shoot 5 shot 1" at 50 yds loaded over 21 gr H-110. So mold type realy doesn't matter that much, so long as it's a good bullet design.

No matter what boolit you use, soft lead is death to accuracy.
But 25 yards is not a test of any boolit. Not hard to put a Keith into almost one hole at 25. Take the boolit out to longer ranges.
Yes, I could hit stuff out to 200 yards with them but it had to be a large target.

I swear I am going to break out my 410459 mould, load some up at about 1800 fps and shoot them out of my 10-1/2" FA Model 654 Silhouette. I am!!!

quote:

After reading the posts - I`m looking forward to compare the Keith`s with anything else I have tried within the years.

Shot 4 Blesbok, 1 Impala and 11 warthogs with 255 Keith.
Found only one - after it almost had penetrated diagonally through a blesbok which was shot at 95 yds.

Keithstyle did not show me lesser capasity than other bullets I have used.

I could not see any difference between waterdopped/not w.dropped bullets

The Keith is a decent boolit and kills good. I have had too many molds to count, been sent boolits to test, shot hundreds of thousands of them.
It is that they don't have the cutting edge accuracy I want.
Bottom line is that they are good enough, just not the best.
To me an inch difference in a group is a big deal.
I will not say it is a BAD boolit because I just used too many of them myself.
Just never attribute magical powers to it, it is just a boolit.
They are like jacketed. I can make the XTP shoot better then a Sierra or a Speer, others are the opposite with what shoots best for them.
I bought some special BR bullets once for a rifle and they shot like junk when I got sub 1/2" groups with Hornady's.
I don't want to change anyone's mind, do your own work.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
I recently ran an extensive test comparing old Hercules 2400 and new Alliant 2400 in the 44 Magnum with RCBS 44-250-K bullets cast of WW + 2% tin. The test handgun was a TC Contender and an Oehler M43 was used to measure preasure and velocity.

The test was of 10 rounds of each powder using 20.5, 21, 21.5 and 22 gr of each 2400 powder. The Alliant 2400 did not cosistantly give higher pressures than the older Hercules 2400. Basically the variation between powders was very consistent and remained within accepted lot to lot variation. The 22 gr load of Hercules 2400 gave 27,000 psi(M43) and the 22 gr load of Alliant 2400 gave 27,900 psi(m43). The Technician I talked with at Alliant stated the formula for Alliant 2400 had not been changed from the original Hercules formaula. My testing confirms that.

This is just for your information only. When the newer Alliant 2400 came out one writer stated in a magazine that it "appeared hotter" than Hercules 2400. Since that time the load has been dropped to 21 gr and now down to 19/19.5? for what reason I don't know. I still use 22 gr under the 250 gr Keith bullet without any problems what so ever.

Larry Gibson

I wonder what the pressures would be with the 2 versions of 2400 useing a jacketed bullet?

I think Larry is right. I have used many pounds of both. I think some of the early loads were too hot to start with and there were differences in bullets to what we have now.
Too many other variables like seating depth, jacket thickness and lead alloy, etc.
The solution is always work loads for your gun and bullet.
Going into an old book with all the old stuff used is not a good idea. Even brass has changed.
I have an old Speer book that has loads that are SCARY!