Keith Bullet Question???

[LAH]

Is the Keith Bullet old-fashioned & perhaps obsolete? I would ask the same for the Gould style?

You guys are among the best I've read so give me your thoughts. Thanks & God Bless.


Joshua 1:9
Dry Creek Firewood

[peerlesscowboy]

I hope not.....I just bought a new RCBS 38-150-SWC.

[Char-Gar]

Creeker... You are kidding right?

[woody1]

Huh??

[Bullshop]

They will be when the 30/06 becomes old fashioned and obsolete.
My older boys think I am old fashioned and obsolete but I think I still have a few good shots left.

[Hickory]

The Keith boolit is not obsolete.
It is perfection.

[44man]

That boolit will never go away and rightly so. It has faults but is still a good boolit.
Besides that it looks good. With some guns I have to wonder if that is the best trait?
Other guns like them. :drinks:

[Reg]

If Elmer had thought it was obsolete he would have come up with something better.


:lol:[smilie=2::lol:

[mdi]

Yep, just like the .44 Special and .45 Colt are obsolete...:kidding:

[Blammer]

yea they're obsolete don't let the old fogies fool you. The new rage is trun cone nose. :)

[degruix]

There are better designs then Keith's out there now.

You can't stop progress...

[Bullshop]

But the trun cone looks so naked.

[44man]

There are better designs then Keith's out there now.

You can't stop progress...
Personally, I want the boolit nose to center everything but I have made the Keith shoot but OH MY, it can be hard and depends on the gun too.
I have become too old and lazy to work with them for a year or to find the perfect gun.

[LAH]

June 2000 was a time of great change in my life. It was then I was married. It was then I really found the internet. It was then I found a real need for someone willing to cast & sell a Keith bullet.

AND it was in June 2000 I was told by maybe the best know & most respected gun rag writer that the 45 Colt, 260 Keith, the 335 Keith, & the 360 Gould style were old-fashioned & perhaps obsolete.

[stubshaft]

Like Degruix said there are better designs that offer easier centering and wider meplats for better terminal performance.

[peerlesscowboy]

AND it was in June 2000 I was told by maybe the best know & most respected gun rag writer that the 45 Colt, 260 Keith, the 335 Keith, & the 360 Gould style were old-fashioned & perhaps obsolete.
Common knowledge in 1960 was that cast bullets were obsolete :violin:

[buck1]

I wont dispute 44man as his groups speek for themselves. From my shooting the keith style boolits in .44, they shoot very well and kill very well.
I have a few styles and most shoot well but none -out- shoot the Keith.
I dare say not obsolete but could be out of fashion.
But then again I am obsolete and out of fashion. :groner:

[fredj338]

Nope, maybe not in vogue, but not obsolete either. Really, to many, shooting an all lead bullet is obsolete.:CastBoolitsisbest:

[MtGun44]

LOL! You've GOT to be kidding.

Bill

[Dennis Eugene]

Yep, obsolete, but on the other hand if I shoot them in My OM Flattop .44 mag then there brand new. Dennis

[Catshooter]

A round nose feeds better in an auto.

A full wadcutter is best for Bullseye.

A WFN kills better.

A long spire point penetrates better, the round ball is better for silent loads.

But, if you want an all around, do it all boolit, none do as well as the Keith. That's what he designed it to do, and he knew what he was about.


Cat

[LAH]

Keep them coming guys I'm making notes & wiping tears. HEE HEE

[fecmech]

I started with 2 molds in 1970, both in 4 cavity, a 358495 and 358429. I still have the 358429 and in fact cast about 500 bullets with it 2 days ago. It's kind of like an old dependable friend, if I'm shooting a magnum load in the .357 it's very rare that 358429 is not in the case.

[giz189]

There are better designs then Keith's out there now.

You can't stop progress... Would you name a few of those better designs for me?

[cbrick]

AND it was in June 2000 I was told by maybe the best known & most respected gun rag writer that the 45 Colt, 260 Keith, the 335 Keith, & the 360 Gould style were old-fashioned & perhaps obsolete.

Well . . . That explains that silly idea. :groner:

Rick

[stubshaft]

Would you name a few of those better designs for me?

LBT's LFN and WFN series.

[Big Boomer]

Perhaps there are slightly more aerodynamically shaped boolits like the Gould and LBT LFN, but I still like the the Keith SWCs, though for my larger caliber revolvers (45Colts) I prefer the LBT WLN (340 gr. gc. boolit). Not as good way out there, but plenty good in normal, open sighted work with revolvers. I've shot 8 inch groups at 219 paces (off sand bags) with a Bowen built 5-shooter in .45 Colt and another Bowen built 6-shooter (tight chambers) and a Dan Wesson in the same caliber. They all seem to like the LBT WLN, but I would never turn up my nose at a good Keith SWC. Only Keith SWC I cast now is for a S&W .357, though I still have Lyman made Keith SWCs moulds for .41 Mag. & .44 Mag. plus some Lees. 'Tuck

[Dale53]

I have been a Keith and Keith bullet fan all of my life. Elmer was the "Real Deal". All of my game shooting has been with Keith bullets and they have always been reliable killers for me.

On the other hand, I would NEVER discount the opinion of 44Man. I have a couple of LBT bullet moulds and they have done what I asked of them. However, my 240 gr WFN four cavity bullet mould was obtained AFTER I did all of my deer hunting, so I have no "real world" comparison. They shoot very well and just FALL from the mould when casting. They also look really well. If I were to deer hunt again, I certainly would give the LBT a good trial.

FWIW
Dale53

[white eagle]

Keiths are just getting a second breath
why all the copycats ????

[RobS]

A Keith has history/tradition and as the 45 Colt cartridge will simply not go away neither will the Keith design. Another example, I shoot the 375 H&H and recently the 375 Ruger has come out as a ballistic twin...............I bet money the 375 H&H will live on.

Keith obsolete, hardly, however other designs are proven just the same. I've shot tons of 45-270-SAA style Keiths or better put 45 2.1's 283 grain Keiths and they shot very well even though it took more load development to “get there” vs my current designs (modified LFN designs). I think of the Keiths I've shot as old birds that can fly with the best of them under the right conditions.

[Bret4207]

AND it was in June 2000 I was told by maybe the best know & most respected gun rag writer that the 45 Colt, 260 Keith, the 335 Keith, & the 360 Gould style were old-fashioned & perhaps obsolete.

And just who was this idiot, whoops!, I mean oracle? The best known and most respected gun writers I can think of were Keith, Whelen, Crossman, O'Connor, Page, Skelton, Waters, Miller, Brown, etc. Most of them were dead by 2000. I certainly hope you don't mean Askins Jr, Libourel, Boddington, Simpson or any of those other morons.

[pdawg_shooter]

The Kieth design is just as outdated as the M1911. 100 years old and STILL the best design for a combat handgun. John Moses is still the greatest firearms genius to have ever drawn a breth!

[LAH]

And just who was this idiot, whoops!, I mean oracle? The best known and most respected gun writers I can think of were Keith, Whelen, Crossman, O'Connor, Page, Skelton, Waters, Miller, Brown, etc. Most of them were dead by 2000. I certainly hope you don't mean Askins Jr, Libourel, Boddington, Simpson or any of those other morons.

http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?magid=24&tocid=321

[44man]

I will always have a soft spot for the Keith! :holysheep
I still think the old 429421 and 358156 have never been beaten by all the variations and weight changes.
I was using the original boolits starting back in 1956 with my flat top and S&W 29, I was shooting 400 yards and better back then. I was hitting very tiny targets at 100 yards from prone with my S&W .357.
Elmer showed what a revolver could do and I have never stopped proving him right. I grit my teeth when anyone shoots a cannon at 20 yards! :bigsmyl2:
Yet I do get better groups with modern boolit designs and they are easier to work with. I have found that as calibers change to larger, the Keith style gets worse.
I will never make a mold with a paper punching shoulder for my guns, it is not needed. Just take the ogive to full boolit diameter. That little shoulder does zero on game or for alignment.
Remember that Elmer wanted a good killing boolit but also wanted round holes in paper like a wad cutter.
My question to all of you is "what is the shoulder for."

[crash87]

There are better designs then Keith's out there now.

You can't stop progress...


Personally, I want the boolit nose to center everything but I have made the Keith shoot but OH MY, it can be hard and depends on the gun too.
I have become too old and lazy to work with them for a year or to find the perfect gun.

These 2 quotes pretty much sum it up, in my book. To add; The Keith is and probably, always will be popular and the standard to which many, if not all, have been and will be judged, also I think, because of the inventor the most publisized of them all, Kind of like the 270 Winchester all those years ago. Could someone, or, has someone come up with something BETTER, answer; YES to both, but it would depend on your definition of BETTER. Obsolete, never, just look how everything, and I mean, EVERYTHING old becomes new again, especially in the casting, reloading. guns, shooting world. CRASH87

[Shuz]

Remember that Elmer wanted a good killing boolit but also wanted round holes in paper like a wad cutter.
My question to all of you is "what is the shoulder for."[/QUOTE]

You've answered your own question!

[Thumbcocker]

Does anyone know how to get a letter to Mr. Ross? His hitting things articles in the 70's and 80's got me hunting with handguns. I want to thank him.

[jlchucker]

Have you seen any lately that have bounced off a game animal , plinking target, or even a bad guy? I imagine that Lyman, RCBS, and others still sell lots of Keith-style molds. Some things just never go obsolete, except in the writings of some gunrag writers.

[chboats]

If you dought that the Keith is still popular, just look at the group buys. The Mihec 44 Keith was for over 150 molds. Almost double any other GB.

[ColColt]

When I first tried my hand at casting back in the mid 70's the 454424 was the second mold I bought. I still have it and wouldn't sell it for any amount. It was accurate when I had a couple of 45 Colts(Ruger Blackhawk and S&W Model 25-5) and still is.


I have been a Keith and Keith bullet fan all of my life. Elmer was the "Real Deal". All of my game shooting has been with Keith bullets and they have always been reliable killers for me.

The real deal indeed. At the risk of repeating myself, I met this icon many years ago at the 1974 NRA Convention in Atlanta. I was in awe standing before him and actually shaking his large hand as he autographed a Guns&Ammo magazine for me. Young "whippersnappers" can't appreciate or respect great men like Elmer Keith who was so instrumental in the shooting and hunting sport and development of more powerful cartridges. Little do they know the mega blasters they love to shoot today are a result of his ongoing expertise and continual development of the magnums cherished by so many. He was a man's man and there will be none that follow him. For me, the Keith style SWC still reigns supreme but, that's just me and I won't change my opinion.

[LAH]

Does anyone know how to get a letter to Mr. Ross? His hitting things articles in the 70's and 80's got me hunting with handguns. I want to thank him.

I'm not sure how to reach him but this could be the place for all I know.
http://www.landandwildlife.com/59653MORGAN-LAKE-ROADLA-GRANDEOregon/61320/ORWildlife

[mdi]

I have found only one boolit I like better than the 429421, and that's Ranchdog's 265 gr. FPGC, and it ain't by much, either...

[44man]

Many good gun writers back then and the farther back you go, the better they were even though they all had opinions. But they backed it up and did the work.
There I was, 18 years old with a .44 shooting over 400 yards. Who was my favorite writer? Elmer, of course. Because of him I never fooled around at 25 yards and still don't. Because of him I actually took a pile of hair off a running woodchuck at 550 yards, off hand, with my flat top, off hand, using the 429421.
Have we improved his boolit? YES, but it is nothing against the great man and what he did.
Today you get $1000 pictures, 25 yard Ransom groups with factory loads and NOTHING to tell you about how to make the gun shoot. 1 page or 1-1/2 pages at the most just to satisfy advertisers.
I never thought I would see the day when it takes 5 minutes to finish a gun rag before tossing it.
I wish Elmer was still with us!

[Piedmont]

I find it interesting that Ross thinks Elmer's bullet was obsolete yet Brian Pearce, who has also used the WFN-type bullets, believes the cutting shoulder does cut in game. Both have killed lots of game.

I'm on Pearce's side here. The whole jello-fluid-spray model would not apply when the bullet contacts ligaments, tendons and bone, at least in my opinion.

[Dale53]

I think both bullet designs (LBT and Keith) will do the job. One or the other MAY be marginally better than the other (I don't have enough experience with the LBT's, yet, to say) but I would feel amply armed with either in a revolver of my choice when properly loaded.

The most important thing for most of us, is just to get out there and shoot, a LOT! Without continuing trigger time and maintenance of skill levels the whole argument becomes moot!

Dale53

[44man]

I find it interesting that Ross thinks Elmer's bullet was obsolete yet Brian Pearce, who has also used the WFN-type bullets, believes the cutting shoulder does cut in game. Both have killed lots of game.

I'm on Pearce's side here. The whole jello-fluid-spray model would not apply when the bullet contacts ligaments, tendons and bone, at least in my opinion.
The shoulder does NOTHING in game because of the pressure wave off the meplat. A Keith and a WLN does exactly the same if the meplat is the same.
It is what the boolit does in the gun that makes one better then another for accuracy ---ONLY.

[Bret4207]

http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?magid=24&tocid=321

Blah, blah, blah. Seyfried got his start through Elmer, was Mr. Cool for 4-5 years and then fizzled. Hardly the best of the best. Good when he got started and full of himself when he got some time under his belt.

[Bret4207]

I will always have a soft spot for the Keith! :holysheep
I still think the old 429421 and 358156 have never been beaten by all the variations and weight changes.
I was using the original boolits starting back in 1956 with my flat top and S&W 29, I was shooting 400 yards and better back then. I was hitting very tiny targets at 100 yards from prone with my S&W .357.
Elmer showed what a revolver could do and I have never stopped proving him right. I grit my teeth when anyone shoots a cannon at 20 yards! :bigsmyl2:
Yet I do get better groups with modern boolit designs and they are easier to work with. I have found that as calibers change to larger, the Keith style gets worse.
I will never make a mold with a paper punching shoulder for my guns, it is not needed. Just take the ogive to full boolit diameter. That little shoulder does zero on game or for alignment.
Remember that Elmer wanted a good killing boolit but also wanted round holes in paper like a wad cutter.
My question to all of you is "what is the shoulder for."

The 156 is a Ray Thompson designed gas check boolit. You might be thinking of the 358429 which is a Keith design.

[Dale53]

Blah, blah, blah. Seyfried got his start through Elmer, was Mr. Cool for 4-5 years and then fizzled. Hardly the best of the best. Good when he got started and full of himself when he got some time under his belt.

Well, he was World Champion IPSC when it was a martial art. I talked with Bill Wilson shortly after he returned from the World Championships in South Africa (we were shooting at the Winter Nat'ls IPSC match at Cincinnati at the time). Bill candidly told me that there was Ross Seyried in a class by himself and then there was all of the others (Bill finished in the top five, as I remember).

Make no mistake, Ross knew what he was talking about, and I have seldom found him saying anything that didn't agree with my experience. He was a full time rancher at the time and no doubt had his hands full with his "day job"...

FWIW
Dale53

[Rafe Covington]

The Keith boolit is not obsolete.
It is perfection.

Totally agree

Rafe:redneck:

[W.R.Buchanan]

I get a kick out of this type of discussion.

Obsolete means that "it works, but there is much better stuff to do the same job. Thus it is no longer needed". We must throw it away.

Tell that to the DC 3 or the B52 or the C130 or the Jeep. How about the .30-06? They all still work just fine!

Keith bullets fall into this category easily.

There may be a couple of bullet designs that work very well in some circumstances. I like WFN's. BUT, and this is a big BUTT, They don't work "THAT" much better than Elmer's Boolits in those circumstances, and they certainly are not as versitile and work well in as many guns. No animal you shoot will ever know the difference!

You've got to get up early to best that man. He actually "knew what he was doing" something we see less and less of as time goes by.

When you start talking about Elmer Keith you need to speak in reverant tones. He kind of wrote the book. The statement "Hell I was there" doesn't begin to cover his influence on modern firearms. He was certainly, and with out doubt, one of "them that knows".

When I think of men like him, I only wish I could contribute one Perfect Iota of what they did for the sport, to anything. Hell,,,I would feel like I had accomplished something meaningful, if people remembered my name 2 weeks after I'm gone.

His name will live as long as there are guns.

His bullets will become obsolete when no one remembers who he was.:Fire:

I didn't know him, but I miss him.:lovebooli

Randy

[StrawHat]

Is the Keith Bullet old-fashioned & perhaps obsolete? I would ask the same for the Gould style?

Joshua 1:9
Dry Creek Firewood

Old fashioned, of course. Obsolete, not so much. Many of the firearms related items from the same era have been improved upon but the "old fashioned" bullets still acoount for much of the shooting done by members of this forum.

I first got serious with a handgun in the 60s after reading the books and articles by Keith and McGivern. I was able to satisfy my long range needs with the Keith bullets, 358429 and 454424. I no longer have the Lyman double cavity molds with those numbers but I do have 6 cavity molds for those bullets. And several other Keith designs. I have no doubt the Keith bullets have been surpassed by something. I just find the old styles still work. I grew up with them, I find them comforting. Perhaps the newer styles will work better but I have no need of them, the old styles still work fine.

As for the Gould bullet, the only Gould design I have used is the 457122 and that is a fine bullet for it's intended purpose but I don't believe that is the Gould boolit specified.

[Bass Ackward]

The really funny thing is that people don't study history. The wheel of history goes round and round.............

Look at bullets from the 1800s and you will see bullets designed like those of today that people call LBTs or some such. They were really olgival variants for the most part with smaller meplats or round noses because they couldn't stabilize large flats at BP velocity levels.

Those designs were made obsolete by the Keith and other semi-wadcutter designs. As smokeless in the smaller cartridges of the day increased velocity the handgun began to transform in purpose. Cartridges didn't run bullets fast enough in short barrels to stabilize well. The rearward weight of a semiwadcutter allowed the use of a wider meplat and still made longer range stabilization (accuracy) easier. So for decades, all you could buy were basically semi-wadcutters. Why? Gun companies didn't want to alter twist rates for shorter barrelled handguns, so bullet design change was a must. Remember, Elmer wanted "ONLY" 1200 fps and asked Remington to cut back their factory offerings for the 44 Mag when they came out with 240 grains at 1300 fps. Too much power!

Now today with the evolution or the transformation for the purpose of a "handgun", thanks to the punishment we survived from the magnum rifle craze days of our youth, we are at it again and have cartridges that create enough velocity that we can actually over stabilize a semiwadcutter. So the olgival family returns to use and LARGER meplats on them become possible.

So when someone speaks of a bullet design becoming obsolete, we know that they simply aren't educated enough on bullet design in general or they caught the disease that has mutated from magnumrifleitis that plagued this nation in the 60s and 70s to what is now called handgunpowermeplatitis. This disease has about another 10 years to run before we develop and immunity.

Me, I shoot what the gun says works at the velocity level I want to go, no matter who's name is associated with the design. Yes, I am .... a bullet slu.t.

The next craze? Powerassistarrowitis with Excalibur as the head. Them deer keep getting tougher.

[Bret4207]

Well, he was World Champion IPSC when it was a martial art. I talked with Bill Wilson shortly after he returned from the World Championships in South Africa (we were shooting at the Winter Nat'ls IPSC match at Cincinnati at the time). Bill candidly told me that there was Ross Seyried in a class by himself and then there was all of the others (Bill finished in the top five, as I remember).

Make no mistake, Ross knew what he was talking about, and I have seldom found him saying anything that didn't agree with my experience. He was a full time rancher at the time and no doubt had his hands full with his "day job"...

FWIW
Dale53

There are or have been many gun writers "in a class by themselves". Bill Jordan for instance. Then there are those that just think they are in a class by themselves. Either way, while Seyfried may have been a fine competitor, had access to many guns most of us could only dream of and might have been a good writer saying what we all thought, that doesn't make him the most "best known and most respected gun writer". Where is he today? As I understand it he pretty much burnt out and called it quits. Keith and Whelen both wrote for what? 50+ years? Maurice Decker was the longest running gun columnist I know of, writing at Fur Fish Game for over 50 years, maybe it was 60. Guys like Milek, Hagel, Wooters, Grenell, Jamison, Brown, Page, Donaldson, Landis, etc. wrote for decades and said what we all thought too. A short time ago the best known and most universally respected gun writers were Keith, O'Connor, Page and Whelen. A guy with a 5 or 6 year career is pretty much a flash in the pan compared to guys like them.

The thing that really gets me with this is the disrespect from Seyfried. Elmer talked him up, gave him his start and then he turns and stabs him in the back? Not the first time Elmer got the knife, but it's still wrong. It could have been put a lot differently.

You know what? After giving it a little thought I'm pretty sure this was just a money article- write something people will find controversial and make some bucks. It's just like Petty or whoever it was that wrote the article saying the 1911 was obsolete and Scoville writing that he'd never read a word of O'Connors and never intended to. Kind of like Judas and his bag of silver.

Obsolete? Take a look at the B+M designs of the 20's and 30's and them look at some of Verals stuff. (BTW- Seyfried gave Veral the "Big Start". Was this Keith bash a way of supporting his call?) Look at the obsolete Cramer moulds and the sprue plate hold down and then look at Verals hold down. Obsolete? Nothing is truly obsolete, we just don't realize the value or have the need for what it is that's declared obsolete.

[44man]

The 156 is a Ray Thompson designed gas check boolit. You might be thinking of the 358429 which is a Keith design.
That is true but it is still based on Elmer's semi wad cutter. Everyone tried to copy Elmer and Ray was successful in designing a good boolit that is still good today. Who was first? I don't remember, too stinking old and too much water has gone over the dam.
Ray knew the .357 was harsh on a PB with the softer lead used then.
Elmer used soft lead with a little tin added, great killing boolits. But does anyone think of what the boolit looked like after it left the gun?
I can show you and you might be surprised that it is a far different boolit then what was loaded unless pressure was kept very low. Seems as if millions of Keith boolits were turning into truncated cones before the forcing cone and grease grooves were wiped out.
Have you wondered why Keith boolits were designed with large, deep grooves? I think it was to keep lube after slump.
Am I crazy? Don't know! But can you show what actually exited Elmer's barrel? How many of you know what comes out of your barrels? Just how many are loading a Keith and really shooting an LBT?

[44man]

Now, guys, what is the problem with the Keith today? It is that we use harder lead and the boolit does not slump as much so the shoulder is the guiding part at the forcing cone. The nose is too small to touch the cone and rifling to align the cylinder. You need perfection with cylinder alignment at the shot. Take your Keith and stick the nose in the muzzle and see how much it wobbles back and forth.
Just what does that mean? It means you must SLUMP the boolit into an LBT to achieve alignment. :takinWiz:
Slump will remove the GG's so you need very large ones.
Now you open another can of worms. Slump means a soft boolit will skid the rifling past the base band so the Keith had a large base band but Thompson added a GC.
Does anyone see how easy it is?
In all the years I have been at shooting sites, I have yet to see a sub 1" group with a Keith at 100 yards from a .44. I did it with the 358156 because of the GC.

[Piedmont]

Obsolete? Take a look at the B+M designs of the 20's and 30's and them look at some of Verals stuff.

Yes. And before Keith came up with the Keith bullet he designed a couple of really blunt flatpoints (but with a rounded edge). But they didn't shoot well at longer ranges so he gave up on them. The exact same problem folks have with shorter WFNs and ogival wadcutters that are supposed to be so cutting edge.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Keith made an all-rounder and now people run it down because in a very specialized application it might not be quite as good as something else. Yet their hot new design isn't an all-rounder.

[Bret4207]

That is true but it is still based on Elmer's semi wad cutter. Everyone tried to copy Elmer and Ray was successful in designing a good boolit that is still good today. Who was first? I don't remember, too stinking old and too much water has gone over the dam.
Ray knew the .357 was harsh on a PB with the softer lead used then.
Elmer used soft lead with a little tin added, great killing boolits. But does anyone think of what the boolit looked like after it left the gun?
I can show you and you might be surprised that it is a far different boolit then what was loaded unless pressure was kept very low. Seems as if millions of Keith boolits were turning into truncated cones before the forcing cone and grease grooves were wiped out.
Have you wondered why Keith boolits were designed with large, deep grooves? I think it was to keep lube after slump.
Am I crazy? Don't know! But can you show what actually exited Elmer's barrel? How many of you know what comes out of your barrels? Just how many are loading a Keith and really shooting an LBT?

Sorry, but other than the basic SWC shape the Keith and Thompson designs differ like night and day. And thats not Keith design in the attached pic. Thompson came along in the late 40's-early 50's. Keiths designs came out in the 30's IIRC. Completely different designs.

I've recovered a lot of Keith designs and Thompson designs. Unless I hit something solid I find a boolit that still is identifiable, not a TC. It is my belief that a balance between velocity/pressure and alloy will maintain the boolits basic shape. That doesn;t mean I ahve to resort to rock hard alloy either.

[44man]

Yes. And before Keith came up with the Keith bullet he designed a couple of really blunt flatpoints (but with a rounded edge). But they didn't shoot well at longer ranges so he gave up on them. The exact same problem folks have with shorter WFNs and ogival wadcutters that are supposed to be so cutting edge.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Keith made an all-rounder and now people run it down because in a very specialized application it might not be quite as good as something else. Yet their hot new design isn't an all-rounder.
Not true! My most accurate long range boolits are WLN and WFN. Whitworth, Bioman and I consistently shoot under 1" at 100 yards with a WFN and I have shot them to 500 meters with accuracy.
The very hardest boolit to get long range accuracy with is the Keith and I can't do it with confidence except from the exceptional gun.
It is the old bugaboo of trying to shoot a boolit too slow for the twist. Will the Keith shoot great from 800 fps to 1450 fps? Get real. Neither will a WFN.
I wish I could find an "all rounder" boolit. I can tell you that the Keith is the last I will look at.
57 years of shooting revolvers has not proven to me that a Keith is best. It is nothing more then a decent boolit and can't do any more.
I really, really hate to ask this, but can you show what you do with some pictures? Can you prove groups? Have you ever shot to 500 meters? (547 yards.) I will be happy with your 50 yard groups! :kidding:
Darn, how I hate to ask that from anyone but it is important to see what they say is true. Ask me and I will go right down and shoot, then take pictures and post them. I feel it is so very important to show, not just tell. It bothers me that some with so much knowledge have never, ever posted any pictures.

[Piedmont]

Not true! My most accurate long range boolits are WLN and WFN. Whitworth, Bioman and I consistently shoot under 1" at 100 yards with a WFN and I have shot them to 500 meters with accuracy.
The very hardest boolit to get long range accuracy with is the Keith and I can't do it with confidence except from the exceptional gun.
It is the old bugaboo of trying to shoot a boolit too slow for the twist. Will the Keith shoot great from 800 fps to 1450 fps? Get real. Neither will a WFN.
I wish I could find an "all rounder" boolit. I can tell you that the Keith is the last I will look at.
57 years of shooting revolvers has not proven to me that a Keith is best. It is nothing more then a decent boolit and can't do any more.
I really, really hate to ask this, but can you show what you do with some pictures? Can you prove groups? Have you ever shot to 500 meters? (547 yards.) I will be happy with your 50 yard groups! :kidding:
Darn, how I hate to ask that from anyone but it is important to see what they say is true. Ask me and I will go right down and shoot, then take pictures and post them. I feel it is so very important to show, not just tell. It bothers me that some with so much knowledge have never, ever posted any pictures.

If you will actually read and comprehend exactly what I say and not fly off the handle you'll certainly have to type less. You have twice on this page selectively addressed something I wrote. You are creating a straw man and misrepresenting me.

The first time I ignored you. Go argue with yourself.

[Tazman1602]

+1 Hickory


The Keith boolit is not obsolete.
It is perfection.



Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

[44man]

If you will actually read and comprehend exactly what I say and not fly off the handle you'll certainly have to type less. You have twice on this page selectively addressed something I wrote. You are creating a straw man and misrepresenting me.

The first time I ignored you. Go argue with yourself.
Please don't think that. Not my intention at all.
But I have shot Keith style boolits for more years then most of you have been alive. They are not easy to find accuracy with and there are so many versions that you will give up on many.
But how can anyone say my request for pictures is wrong? I don't think that is asking for much. I post so many that I have to delete them or I run out of room.
Face up and post pictures of 50, 100 and 200 yard groups instead of getting nasty. I really hate to call anyone a keyboard shooter!
If you think my posts were personal and aimed at you, you might have a problem! :holysheep
I never get personal, I only dispute with explanations to the best of my ability.

[waksupi]

If there are no pictures, it never happened.

[44man]

During the next few days I am going to load semi wad cutters and see what I can get at 100 yards. I will take pictures.

[44man]

I loaded my most accurate velocity load for this boolit. It is the RCBS 44-245 SWC. 23.5 gr of 296 was the best at 50 yards.
I shot 10 shots at 100. I taped a paint can top about where the X is to aim at with my red dot. I used sandbags.
The pattern was 9-1/4" and is about average with every Keith style I have tried in the .44 and .475. I would not be shooting at deer much past 50 yards!
Now compare to what I get with the Lee 310 gr and my other boolit. Both groups are 1-1/4", The first shot in the black was from a clean barrel, I have to ignore it. That is the same as I get with the RD 265 gr at 100.

[bowfin]

I am just a little mouse in the corner on this one, (until now) but I do think 44man is setting up a straw man to knock down by asking for pictures. If your groups are better, is it because of the bullet design?...

...or the load? Or the alloy/sizing/lube? Maybe more accurate firearms? A better and more experienced marksman? A better shooting day? Easier to see targets? Or a combination of any of these?

Too many variables go into shooting a good group to say, "The bullet design was the difference!"

44man, I don't know you from Adam, but I do know one can't compare X and Y with any hopes of a convincing result without eliminating all other variables that would throw off said result. The fact that you would choose to ignore all of these variable and substitute a picture as proof positive leaves me scratching my head.

So I will go waksupi's post one better: If I'm not there, it never happened. (But I will take you word on what works best for you.)

[44man]

I am just a little mouse in the corner on this one, (until now) but I do think 44man is setting up a straw man to knock down by asking for pictures. If your groups are better, is it because of the bullet design?...

...or the load? Or the alloy/sizing/lube? Maybe more accurate firearms? A better and more experienced marksman? A better shooting day? Easier to see targets? Or a combination of any of these?

Too many variables go into shooting a good group to say, "The bullet design was the difference!"

44man, I don't know you from Adam, but I do know one can't compare X and Y with any hopes of a convincing result without eliminating all other variables that would throw off said result. The fact that you would choose to ignore all of these variable and substitute a picture as proof positive leaves me scratching my head.

So I will go waksupi's post one better: If I'm not there, it never happened. (But I will take you word on what works best for you.)
I can't deny that you make a point. I have fooled with all kinds of Keith designs since about 1954. .44 since 1956.
IHMSA changed how I worked with revolvers and my goal has been only accuracy since.
A few thousand or more tests with everything and anything you can stuff in a revolver is not comparing X to Y any longer. Been there done that, over and over.
My loads work so well that Bioman and Whitworth both shoot 1/2" groups with their 44's at 50 yards and hit beer cans at 100 every shot from the bench.
I am not looking for a straw man, I am looking for proof that the semi wad cutter shoots best. Not much to ask and all are invited to post pictures and give load info.
I have satisfied myself and my friends that we can't make it happen, the Keith is too touchy.
This is boolit against boolit ONLY, would you join in? Use any revolver, any shooter, just show results of one boolit against another. The only limitation is stay away from 25 yards and you can use a Ransom rest too.

[bowfin]

Not much to ask

About 20 years ago, I set out to answer some questions on shotgun patterns. I own a lot of shotguns, have brothers who own even more than me, private access to a trap range that is two miles from my house and sits idle all the time, and unlimited patterning paper. So I shot everything I could get in my hot little hands. I even held competitions and patterning days at the range so I could see the results all those other people's guns and loads. Now, after all those shells, the endlessly bruised shoulder and everything else, I don't believe I would change opinions on what I have seen and what I have done based on a post or two on some forum.

I don't think you are any different. So asking for a couple of posts with a couple of pictures to change YOUR opinions based on 50+ years of experience makes me believe you are not being sincere.

So, I would suggest you get Keith's book, look at the targets there, read what he has to say, and put his half century against your half century, your tons of lead downrange against his tons, and in the end agree to disagree.

[ColColt]

44Man-If you can get 9 1/4" groups at 100 yards using cast bullets without a scope, I don't see your problem. I can't get 9" groups at 35 yards much less 100. I'd be tickled pink if I could hit a paint can...better yet, a barrel at that range-Elmer Keith I ain't.

[44man]

About 20 years ago, I set out to answer some questions on shotgun patterns. I own a lot of shotguns, have brothers who own even more than me, private access to a trap range that is two miles from my house and sits idle all the time, and unlimited patterning paper. So I shot everything I could get in my hot little hands. I even held competitions and patterning days at the range so I could see the results all those other people's guns and loads. Now, after all those shells, the endlessly bruised shoulder and everything else, I don't believe I would change opinions on what I have seen and what I have done based on a post or two on some forum.

I don't think you are any different. So asking for a couple of posts with a couple of pictures to change YOUR opinions based on 50+ years of experience makes me believe you are not being sincere.

So, I would suggest you get Keith's book, look at the targets there, read what he has to say, and put his half century against your half century, your tons of lead downrange against his tons, and in the end agree to disagree.
I AM being sincere! I really do want to know if anyone can get consistent groups at all ranges.
I have all of Keith's books, remember that I followed him. He was the reason I dumped 25 yards and shot at long range. This is not about the man, this is to see what each boolit does for everyone.
I don't care if you shoot 15" with one and 12" with another. What counts is what boolit shot 12".
Doesn't EVERYONE want to know? I do and after all of these years I am still learning.
Don't you think it is a fair test to get everyone shooting all kinds of boolits and showing results?
If you say you get a semi wad cutter to shoot good and then sit back in your cubby with how you do it, why do you deny me the information? I know you have a camera and can write the information.
A picture is worth 1000 words! Seeing is believing!

[44man]

44Man-If you can get 9 1/4" groups at 100 yards using cast bullets without a scope, I don't see your problem. I can't get 9" groups at 35 yards much less 100. I'd be tickled pink if I could hit a paint can...better yet, a barrel at that range-Elmer Keith I ain't.
Well, with my old eyes, I need a red dot! :bigsmyl2:
This is why it is so important about loading information and boolit choice. IT MIGHT NOT BE YOUR SHOOTING and that is why I work so hard and offer suggestions to try. I am not in this for myself alone, I am in this to help everyone shoot the revolver as good as it can do. I also need to learn more.
I have been a part time gunsmith forever and had guys come that could not hit a barrel at 20 feet from a rest, yet with the right loads they were amazed and shot like crazy.
I posted a request for testing and pictures, more then I can do myself, for knowledge to help all here but it seems I get the short end of the stick, being accused of funny stuff.
If I did not show results and just said what I get, I would be cheating you. The keyboard has a lot of numbers and letters but a picture does not lie and the very last thing I will do is to lie.
One day we were plinking, getting ready for deer season. I put a pop can on the rail and forgot about it while we busted rocks and plastic bottles in the woods. Got to my 200 yard bench and I said the can is still there so I put my sandbags down and shot the can with my SRH. Yeah, I am crazy like a loon! [smilie=l:
It was the can in the middle but the other cans were also shot at 200 with other revolvers. KEITH BOOLITS, NO WAY!

[Bret4207]

You know what? I'm just not gonna say anything other than this- what works for one guy isn't necessarily going to work for another.

[45 2.1]

It was the can in the middle but the other cans were also shot at 200 with other revolvers. KEITH BOOLITS, NO WAY!

Jim, believe whatever you want. Keith knew quite a few things you probably will never learn. His boolits were not meant to be shot with hard alloy we use now nor the lube either. Those Keith boolits will indeed shoot very well ( less than MOA) provided you do it right in the right gun. NO, i'm not going to explain how either, Keith and Seyfried did a good job of that theirselves. As for knowledge being passed on, there is a regular catfight here when someone posts things that seem impossible. It's not worth the effort to try to tell them why and how it seems.........................

[45 2.1]

You know what? I'm just not gonna say anything other than this- what works for one guy isn't necessarily going to work for another.

Awww Bret..... I saw the post before you changed it and I know who you were talking about. I would wager that if you put your gun up against his... that you would loose yours in short order. The SKS's can shoot cast quite well. Some of them are under MOA guns with cast. I know that for fact.

[Catshooter]

The very hardest boolit to get long range accuracy with is the Keith and I can't do it with confidence except from the exceptional gun.


I have highlighted and enlarged the most important word in your post.

I am not claiming that I can get anything to shoot "at 500 meters with accuracy" like you can. And I am not doubting your shooting abilities, I believe you can shoot like you say.

What I am saying that lots have reported over the years that they can get the same results that old Elmer got. He perfected his boolit in the early 30s. That was a very long time ago, plenty long for lots of people either prove the truths of what he claimed, or show him to be a liar.

Could everyone do what Elmer could? Hell no. But enough could that it showed he was telling the truth. From 500 to 1200 fps his boolits perform like he claims.

I'm sorry you can't get his results, but all that shows is that you can't. Not that others can't and he couldn't.


Cat

[45 2.1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44man http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images_acps/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?p=1214107#post1214107)
The very hardest boolit to get long range accuracy with is the Keith and I can't do it with confidence except from the exceptional gun.


I just love it when ya get caught. No Jim, the hardest to get long range accuracy with is the humble wadcutter that flies like a piece of sheet metal past a certain distance. Just because you haven't been able to do it means just what Catshooter said. Guns aren't too exceptional either. We hear verbage of "one in a million gun" when the fella talking doesn't believe what he heard. Most guns will do that provided they were put together right and fed the right stuff along with someone that really knows what to do with it.

[44man]

Can we step back in time a little? I shot what Elmer did and back then I would never have hit a pop can at 200 yards. Once in a while, maybe. I did make some shots that were crazy but not an every day thing. My eyes were so good the sights and target were all in focus yet most long range shots were at large targets. My favorite was a 20 gallon water tank at 200 yards, not a pop can.
I did use his alloy and powder, even the same lube. Leading was a huge problem.
But NOBODY shot MOA groups with a revolver past 25 yards! It could not be done.
Then along came a few that set out to find MOA groups at 100 yards. I still have the magazine. A special barrel and all kinds of work to the gun. Many, many groups shot and it took a long time and many groups to finally get a 1" group at 100. A ONE INCH GROUP, not a bunch. But do you know the best thing? NOT CAST! [smilie=p:
So will you fellas step back and load what Elmer shot and show us some groups at 100 yards? Or do I ask too much? Remember that a MOA is not quite 1" at 100.
Are you game?

[44man]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44man http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images_acps/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?p=1214107#post1214107)
The very hardest boolit to get long range accuracy with is the Keith and I can't do it with confidence except from the exceptional gun.


I just love it when ya get caught. No Jim, the hardest to get long range accuracy with is the humble wadcutter that flies like a piece of sheet metal past a certain distance. Just because you haven't been able to do it means just what Catshooter said. Guns aren't too exceptional either. We hear verbage of "one in a million gun" when the fella talking doesn't believe what he heard. Most guns will do that provided they were put together right and fed the right stuff along with someone that really knows what to do with it.
Your ON, show me! I will not even try it. I know I can't do it. I threw the ball to anyone that can.

[frankenfab]

Remember that a MOA is not quite 1" at 100.
Are you game?

Not quite. It is 1.047":brokenima

[Bret4207]

Awww Bret..... I saw the post before you changed it and I know who you were talking about. I would wager that if you put your gun up against his... that you would loose yours in short order. The SKS's can shoot cast quite well. Some of them are under MOA guns with cast. I know that for fact.

I have a pretty good BS meter Bob. What was claimed was BS. Lots of that going around these days, but it comes from both sides of the issue- "I can, but you can't." and "Nobody can". That gets old when you or someone else proves them wrong. And, the guy you are thinking of backtracked on a lot of things later on. Other people haven't learned their lesson yet.

[45 2.1]

Your ON, show me! I will not even try it. I know I can't do it. I threw the ball to anyone that can.

Like Catshooter said............................ Keith wasn't all alone in that and several others did it at that time.


I have a pretty good BS meter Bob. What was claimed was BS. Lots of that going around these days, but it comes from both sides of the issue- "I can, but you can't." and "Nobody can". That gets old when you or someone else proves them wrong. And, the guy you are thinking of backtracked on a lot of things later on. Other people haven't learned their lesson yet.

No Bret, it is quite possible........... another 44man addict. This is the exact reason nobody wants to tell anybody something new or improved. The " You can't do that, its not possible" is ruining this place. I guess were left with the trivial 2" at twenty-five handgun crowd and 3 inches at one hundred rifle crowd then. Enjoy it as thats all you'll get to see.

[GLynn41]

wow -- lots of excite ment-- -- I am a hunter who is happy with 3" groups at 100 yards-- but never tried for better-- there are parts of an animal that do not splash-cartilage- or the plate on a boar-so maybe shoulder works there-- my bullets do not slump as I catch them and recast- I do not cast hard never semed to need them that way---my lwn do make bigger holes--but both shoot through- deer and normal pigs- and my Keiths make decent holes- I do not like the.250 meplat my Lyman has- and do not under stand the idea that we must keep them small--but that is the point-others do- shoot what you like- I have used and still have some .41 Keiths from Creeker :)--- I have some leadheads-
230 k- and a hp' 410459 - have considered Mount Baldy's --I have made about 100 Keiths over Mountain Mold on his design-- but have not bought one-- I have no intention of not using a good Keith bullet-because for me they work at what I want-- and i like the way they look as I do my TC from MIha or my LWN from Dan--

[44man]

Yep, see how fast guys back out, make comments?
I really think there is a fear of proving what they say. Kind of like reading a gun rag! :kidding:
I can't make a semi wad cutter shoot like I want and admit it but then I am told it is because I don't know how--yada, yada, yada!
Then the few back each other up and must get a warm feeling from it. [smilie=1: They know secrets and voodoo that they refuse to share and are certainly afraid to show. I think I scare them when I ask for proof.
Along comes a man that wants to know, I give my opinion and go out of my way to show results by making many tests. I drop everything to do it. That raises hackles and creates more comments from the keyboard crowd.
No, I never get angry, I just laugh when so many statements are made and wonder how many actually believe them.
Oh well, maybe someone else has the gumption to make side by side tests and show results. I would like to settle the boolit differences once and for all even though there are some that only prove I am wrong with words. :coffeecom
Now I have to warn all of you if I actually get them to show anything. They will show pictures of Keith loads and then shoot groups with a 240 gr XTP and claim they were shot with the Keith.
I really have fun with a few, they prove the pen is mightier then the sword.
The B.S. meter is your keyboard. Just why do I scare the hell out of some when I ask for proof?
One other thing, I do agree with some things they say and even will keep things calm if they are wrong because the point is so small it does not matter. Then I see them repeating what I have said claiming they knew it all along. Then after repeating me, the next post they will say I am wrong. Kind of confusing!
Why are you hiding fellas? Why do you rub each others back? Is it the Taffin syndrome? :bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2:

[bowfin]

Now I have to warn all of you if I actually get them to show anything. They will show pictures of Keith loads and then shoot groups with a 240 gr XTP and claim they were shot with the Keith

I CALLED IT!:2_high5:

You demanded pictures, and then tell everybody in advance that you won't believe they prove anything even if you see them.

[LAH]

44man......Front & Center please.

The Keiths I shoot were loaded as follows.

358429..........5.5 grs. of Unique or WW231.
429421..........20 grs. 2400
429421..........23 grs. H110

These are both in the longer magnum brass.

The 357s were shot in a 4" M-19 & a 6" M-586. I shot these from the bench with the factory open sights. 25 yard groups are 1 1/4" with some near an inch. At 100 these two sixguns grouped 4 to 5 inches with some going toward 3 inches. I would not call it a 3 inch load however & if pressed for an overall answer I'd call it no better than a 4 1/2" load.

I've used both 2400 & H110 in these two but really only sighted them at 50 yards & never shot them for real groups. These loads were used for plinking & varmits. I would say off the top of my head they shot 'bout the same as the Unique & 231 loads.

I used the lighter loads for hunter pistol silhouettes, which if memeory serves only requires 6 MOA to clean the course?? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The 44 loads group about the same with 2400 & always slightly better than H110. So this is how my Keiths shot. For me the smaller Keith shot better than the larger one.

Are my results more or less yours?

[LAH]

BTW guys I only wanted your opinions concerning the writer statement about the Keith & Gould bullets being old-fashioned & perhaps obsolete? I will admit the rest is gravy & I've enjoyed it.

Keith & his bullets are legend. I don't doubt he did with them just as he said. Then on the other hand we have 44man. He's posted pictures, has others who have done the same as him. Am I to doubt him?

He's put his cards on the table; my hat is off to him. Wish we live close, I'd love to go to the range with him & maybe learn a few things.

[44man]

I CALLED IT!:2_high5:

You demanded pictures, and then tell everybody in advance that you won't believe they prove anything even if you see them.
Would you believe a keyboard shooter? :bigsmyl2:

[Dale53]

Gentlemen, gentlemen....
This is degenerating into a "he said, I said". It's getting personal and NOTHING will be learned by anyone with so much acrimony flowing.

Lighten up a bit fellers and gals, lighten up!

We are all friends here, let's start to act like it again, PLEASE!

Dale53

[Bass Ackward]

Wow, an argument and I didn't cause it. Feels good.

Not fear. I think that reluctance to show pictures is just that people will claim that the range was closer. Or was that 3, 3000 shot groups with one group shot under water? People want to see what they want to see. And they want others to fail because they fail. Some people simply don't LIKE experimenting. And that's why we got jacketed.

But pick any topic you want with cast, anybody that argues for one way, or a best way, best design, lube, or all guns has simply settled down to one train of thought. IF they are like me, they probably forget the failures. When a guy reaches a barrier, then the barrier is real and not him or what he is doing.

Kinda like datin women and then picking one to settle down with. Learn how to do what she wants and life is good. Doesn't make her a saint, just try something else and see. Same as cast. You just have to learn how to get along with each woman. Or not. Your choice.

The fun for cast these days IS doing what people here say can't be done. Just to be different. It's kinda like cheatin without getting in trouble. Beauty of it is, failure can be forgotten and it all cleans out anyway.

[LAH]

I agree Dale, kinda sorry I brought it up to begin with.

[felix]

And, I agree with BA! ... felix

[bowfin]

Would you believe a keyboard shooter?

...and you know which guys are keyboard shooters by...???

I'll tell you what: I'll get back to you this summer, as proving or disproving your theory isn't high on my list right now. It does intrigue me though, and I know of a .41 magnum Contender that needs gainful employment in the upcoming months.

[45 2.1]

...and you know which guys are keyboard shooters by...???

I'll tell you what: I'll get back to you this summer, as proving or disproving your theory isn't high on my list right now. It does intrigue me though, and I know of a .41 magnum Contender that needs gainful employment in the upcoming months.

If you have the Super 14 barrel for that you will find it extremely accurate.

A 44man........... your out of line in my opinion, but that is just my opinion. I have no intentions of buying a digital camera to put pictures on here... not that pictures are believed here anyway. There are five members here (that post regularly) and several more (who only post a little) that have seen me shoot rifles and handguns. None of the above is a fabrication.

[44man]

44man......Front & Center please.

The Keiths I shoot were loaded as follows.

358429..........5.5 grs. of Unique or WW231.
429421..........20 grs. 2400
429421..........23 grs. H110

These are both in the longer magnum brass.

The 357s were shot in a 4" M-19 & a 6" M-586. I shot these from the bench with the factory open sights. 25 yard groups are 1 1/4" with some near an inch. At 100 these two sixguns grouped 4 to 5 inches with some going toward 3 inches. I would not call it a 3 inch load however & if pressed for an overall answer I'd call it no better than a 4 1/2" load.

I've used both 2400 & H110 in these two but really only sighted them at 50 yards & never shot them for real groups. These loads were used for plinking & varmits. I would say off the top of my head they shot 'bout the same as the Unique & 231 loads.

I used the lighter loads for hunter pistol silhouettes, which if memeory serves only requires 6 MOA to clean the course?? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The 44 loads group about the same with 2400 & always slightly better than H110. So this is how my Keiths shot. For me the smaller Keith shot better than the larger one.

Are my results more or less yours?
You have done GREAT with the Keith and you are at the very limit of it's accuracy. I really did do better at 100 with my old S&W and the 358156 but never had another .357 do the same. My .44 did what yours does with that boolit.
I feel you are shooting so good that a boolit change is all you need.
I have gone into great detail why the Keith has failings and you need better steerage at the forcing cone and must avoid slump and boolit damage.
Others just defer to what someone else shot and printed.
Could you be so kind to test different boolits and see if one works better?

[44man]

If you have the Super 14 barrel for that you will find it extremely accurate.

A 44man........... your out of line in my opinion, but that is just my opinion. I have no intentions of buying a digital camera to put pictures on here... not that pictures are believed here anyway. There are five members here (that post regularly) and several more (who only post a little) that have seen me shoot rifles and handguns. None of the above is a fabrication.
I don't feel that way. I want a total and complete definition as to what boolit design is best from a revolver. Nothing more, nothing less.
Can you explain why it causes so much friction?
Then you say you do not believe my pictures! That has to be the lowest thing you have ever said.
Just who is out of line?

[45 2.1]

I don't feel that way. I want a total and complete definition as to what boolit design is best from a revolver. For which revolver and for what use. Your gut busting loads won't do a target shooter much good, nor is it any good in a 32 ACP, 32-20, 38 Spl, etc. Now if you want to shoot a bear, then maybe your doing right, but not for most uses of a revolver. Nothing more, nothing less.
Can you explain why it causes so much friction? What is "it" that you refer to?
Then you say you do not believe my pictures! You probably should reread what I said... until you understand it and comprehend what was written. That has to be the lowest thing you have ever said. Positively not, in person I can be rather BLUNT.......... and to the point about people (to their face if possible, not much backup if you catch the drift).
Just who is out of line? Not much left to be said on that one.........

[44man]

I don't feel that way. I want a total and complete definition as to what boolit design is best from a revolver. For which revolver and for what use. Your gut busting loads won't do a target shooter much good, nor is it any good in a 32 ACP, 32-20, 38 Spl, etc. Now if you want to shoot a bear, then maybe your doing right, but not for most uses of a revolver. Nothing more, nothing less.
Can you explain why it causes so much friction? What is "it" that you refer to?
Then you say you do not believe my pictures! You probably should reread what I said... until you understand it and comprehend what was written. That has to be the lowest thing you have ever said. Positively not, in person I can be rather BLUNT.......... and to the point about people (to their face if possible, not much backup if you catch the drift).
Just who is out of line? Not much left to be said on that one.........
WOW, you have gotten touchy! This whole discussion is about whether the Keith is better then the LBT style.
I would love to have you here, at my home, to have a few beers and to shoot together. I would love to have Bret too.
Just maybe both of you would agree with me and either way, we could have fun.
I still stick to my guns that the Keith is not the best.

[crash87]

No, I never get angry, I just laugh when so many statements are made and wonder how many actually believe them.
Like this one, and i am backing things up a bit, but totally insane, uneducated, rhetoric, for no other sake than to be heard is somewhat unsettling to me. Just a pet peeve of mind.

I find it interesting that Ross thinks Elmer's bullet was obsolete yet Brian Pearce, who has also used the WFN-type bullets, believes the cutting shoulder does cut in game. Both have killed lots of game.

I'm on Pearce's side here. The whole jello-fluid-spray model would not apply when the bullet contacts ligaments, tendons and bone, at least in my opinion.
I'm glad your on the side of your hero article writer because of statements continually coming out like that, your zero article writer needs all the help he can get, Scovil isn't going to be around forever you know. When they made the mistake of publishing that waste of words, did you read about his scientific test? I did, and it was the only time I ever sent a letter to a magazine to wonder where I could get some of that wild western ditch weed he was smokn'. I have never seen so many petty jealousy's that run amuck in the gun world. If you can't see it, I therefore can not spell it out to you because in your own admission your on Pearce's side therefore your judgement is clouded and you have no abiltiy to actually comprehend. At least in my opinion.

The shoulder does NOTHING in game because of the pressure wave off the meplat. A Keith and a WLN does exactly the same if the meplat is the same.
It is what the boolit does in the gun that makes one better then another for accuracy ---ONLY.
Let me emphasis---ONLY! Just because someone says it,Pearce, does not make it right. But, for him to say it shows he knows little about the subject. 44man, you are not the only one with the opinion on keith bullets, others feel the same, as do I. but I also still shoot em. It just seems there are those who just have to have the last word on the subject. 5 pages and counting, entertainment at its finest, for sure, aint cast boolits fun? :roll: now if you will excuse me i need to go out and pit Mr. Keith boolit against Mr. LBT's and come up with the definitive winner for all to hear, so that I may have the last word on the subject, RIIIGHT!! :Fire: CRASH87

[BABore]

Here's a pic of a roughshod group fired from my 480 Ruger SRH 9 1/2" with an UltraDot sight. It was shot with the solid version of the BRP 478-400 SWC boolit pictured below which is a Keith-style SWC. The load was with coupious amounts of WW 296 powder, CCI 350 primer, 50/50 WW-Pb alloy air cooled for 10 bhn and sized to the throats at 0.478, LBT Blue soft lube for a chronographed velocity of 1,251 fps. This swinging plate is 10" x 10" and was at a lasered 200 yards. It was freshly painted and one rifle round impacted near the top, left corner prior to this. IIRC, 2 cylinders full were fired from the bench. It's my gun and load, but the group was fired by 45 2.1 during April of 2008. Witnessed by myself, Dutch4122, my shooting buddy and property owner Rex, and a few others. Following this 12 shot group both 45 2.1 and myself went on rolling a 20 lb propane tank til our hands were sore. Dutch only shot a couple rounds but complained he couldn't see that far (needed glasses bad) and as a prison guard only needed to see and shoot at 7 yards.:mrgreen: I use the same load, alloy and sight setting for my BRP 478-400 GC which is more of an LBT-style boolit. It shoots just as well as the Keith-style. We even mixed them up in the cylinder.

During our 2009 get-together in IL, I used the same Keith load to smack turkey and ram silhoutte targets at 285 yards. They were NRA 100 yard, 1/2 scale targets IIRC. I gave Cast-a-lot, Dutch4122, and 357Maximum a run for their money. We were all shooting offhand and they used OS rifles.

I've never had trouble getting a Keith or LBT type to shoot well in any of my wheelguns. It doesn't always work out that you can use the same load, alloy, and hardness. I treat every new design like I have never shot the gun before. It gets worked up from scratch and adjustments are made til I can make it shoot at longer ranges. I try not to bias my load development based on prior experience with another design, alloy, or gun.

There you go 44Man, a picture. And witnesses for everybody else.

[44man]

Here's a pic of a roughshod group fired from my 480 Ruger SRH 9 1/2" with an UltraDot sight. It was shot with the solid version of the BRP 478-400 SWC boolit pictured below which is a Keith-style SWC. The load was with coupious amounts of WW 296 powder, CCI 350 primer, 50/50 WW-Pb alloy air cooled for 10 bhn and sized to the throats at 0.478, LBT Blue soft lube for a chronographed velocity of 1,251 fps. This swinging plate is 10" x 10" and was at a lasered 200 yards. It was freshly painted and one rifle round impacted near the top, left corner prior to this. IIRC, 2 cylinders full were fired from the bench. It's my gun and load, but the group was fired by 45 2.1 during April of 2008. Witnessed by myself, Dutch4122, my shooting buddy and property owner Rex, and a few others. Following this 12 shot group both 45 2.1 and myself went on rolling a 20 lb propane tank til our hands were sore. Dutch only shot a couple rounds but complained he couldn't see that far (needed glasses bad) and as a prison guard only needed to see and shoot at 7 yards.:mrgreen: I use the same load, alloy and sight setting for my BRP 478-400 GC which is more of an LBT-style boolit. It shoots just as well as the Keith-style. We even mixed them up in the cylinder.

During our 2009 get-together in IL, I used the same Keith load to smack turkey and ram silhoutte targets at 285 yards. They were NRA 100 yard, 1/2 scale targets IIRC. I gave Cast-a-lot, Dutch4122, and 357Maximum a run for their money. We were all shooting offhand and they used OS rifles.

I've never had trouble getting a Keith or LBT type to shoot well in any of my wheelguns. It doesn't always work out that you can use the same load, alloy, and hardness. I treat every new design like I have never shot the gun before. It gets worked up from scratch and adjustments are made til I can make it shoot at longer ranges. I try not to bias my load development based on prior experience with another design, alloy, or gun.

There you go 44Man, a picture. And witnesses for everybody else.
That is what I ask for, thank you. It adds to things we need to know.
Show more pictures all of you. Can anyone change my thoughts about a Keith? I don't know, maybe.
Bruce, you have not answered one thing though. A 50-50 Keith with a large amount of 296 from a .480 could be an LBT before it leaves the cylinder.
Do you have any recovered Keith boolits to show? Is the shoulder still there?
OUCH, OUCH, OUCH. :veryconfu

[BABore]

Yep. And they look just like a Keith boolit too.8-)

I don't have any saved that I know of. I'll try to get you one sometime. Most have a pretty good mush on nose, but the shoulder and bands look good except for after bbl dings.

[44man]

Yep. And they look just like a Keith boolit too.8-)

I don't have any saved that I know of. I'll try to get you one sometime. Most have a pretty good mush on nose, but the shoulder and bands look good except for after bbl dings.
I have a bunch in my boolit trap. I also refuse to open the stupid thing because of the work. At least until it has a hundred pounds of lead in it. :drinks:

[fecmech]

These are BHN 5 (358429 cast from pure lead wire) Keiths from a .357 GP100 over 15 grs of 820 fired into snow. Velocity was about 1250 fps. I have recovered 30/1 lead tin HPs from the snow years ago (429421) that were RNFPs, 25 /296 was the load for 1400 fps out of a 7.7" SBH. At some point acceleration forces overcome the ability of unsupported metal to hold it's shape.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30281&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1299793381

[44man]

These are BHN 5 (358429 cast from pure lead wire) Keiths from a .357 GP100 over 15 grs of 820 fired into snow. Velocity was about 1250 fps. I have recovered 30/1 lead tin HPs from the snow years ago (429421) that were RNFPs, 25 /296 was the load for 1400 fps out of a 7.7" SBH. At some point acceleration forces overcome the ability of unsupported metal to hold it's shape.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30281&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1299793381
WOW, is there a Keith in there?
Some of the noses were really offset too and GG's were wiped out.
Thank you my friend, your picture is worth 1000 words.

[GLynn41]

all this is interesting-- the LBT style is at least as old as the Keith -- and that has been stated -- some were called stake splitters-- anyway -- I do not know about ultimate accuracy -- but both can be accurate ///as accurate as .44man and the LBT style-- I do not know -- all I have is a hp keith but will try it for accuracy out of my DWA-- maybe this week end-- anyway I do not like WFNGC- period-- i do like LFN or LWN and of course my Keiths-- if I had to pick one mold and style for my different .41s--- it would be LWN next LFN -- then Keith-- for me this would be the most practical choices-- but I do not have to do this :)

[Bret4207]

You have done GREAT with the Keith and you are at the very limit of it's accuracy. I really did do better at 100 with my old S&W and the 358156 but never had another .357 do the same. My .44 did what yours does with that boolit.
I feel you are shooting so good that a boolit change is all you need.
I have gone into great detail why the Keith has failings and you need better steerage at the forcing cone and must avoid slump and boolit damage.
Others just defer to what someone else shot and printed.
Could you be so kind to test different boolits and see if one works better?

Could I point out, AGAIN!, that the 358156 is NOT A KEITH! :holysheep

[Bret4207]

No Bret, it is quite possible........... another 44man addict. This is the exact reason nobody wants to tell anybody something new or improved. The " You can't do that, its not possible" is ruining this place. I guess were left with the trivial 2" at twenty-five handgun crowd and 3 inches at one hundred rifle crowd then. Enjoy it as thats all you'll get to see.

You missed the point Bob. The guy we're talking about made really wild claims and then restated the the whole event a couple years later. I have no problem with believing some people can do some things with some guns. That's part of why I find 44s posts so irritating- nobody else can do what he does and you can't do anything with a Keith at all, they're just junk. Well, some guys get good results from Keiths. Some guys have won matches with Keiths. A lot of game has fallen to Keiths
and will continue to fall. This habit of laying out absolutes is the problem. There are very few absolutes in this game and those who state only one kind of boolit will or won't work are fighting a battle they will loose. Every single time someone says you can't, someone else comes along and shows it can! It's often not as simple as HARDCAST! or a magic oil or powder, but I think if anyone would know about people being a bit skeptical, it would be you.

I can't see well enough to shoot 1" groups at 100 yards from any of my revolvers, in fact, I don't know a single solitary person, even the ones with scoped Contenders and Rugers that can come close to 1" groups even with jacketed. So my spider sense tingles when I read about people claiming they can do it day in, day, easy as pie as long we prostrate ourselves at his particular alter. Maybe he can, maybe he can't. Pictures mean absolutely nothing BTW. I can show you pictures of me, Ben Franklin and Elvis doing handstands in Angelina Jolies bathroom, it means nothing. Witnessed groups at sanctioned events are proof. Witnessed groups with disinterested parties doing the witnessing are proof. BTW- a "group" is not a beer can with a hole in it. A "group" is at least 5 shots on a target at a measured range if you want people to buy into your schtick. I can believe some people with the time, knowledge and effort can fine tune some guns to do fantastic things. What I don't understand is why the people that claim to be able to shoot 1" groups with cast at 100 yards aren't winning matches right and left and signing big contracts with the gun makers. After all if the man can hit a running woodchuck at 550 yards OFFHAND then Jerry Miculek should be unemployed and Brian Enos should be flipping burgers.

[fecmech]

Went through my collection of bullets and found a couple that show slump. I'm pretty sure these were ACWW fired over a max load of Blue Dot out of the GP 100. On the left is an H&G #39 158 RN and the right is 358429. BTW I happen to like the Keiths and all my magnum loads are Keiths. My GP averages just under 2"@50 yds with 50/50 ww/lino Keiths and my win 94 will do 3"@100 yds most of the time with ACWW.

[PAT303]

Like Catshooter said............................ Keith wasn't all alone in that and several others did it at that time.



No Bret, it is quite possible........... another 44man addict. This is the exact reason nobody wants to tell anybody something new or improved. The " You can't do that, its not possible" is ruining this place. I guess were left with the trivial 2" at twenty-five handgun crowd and 3 inches at one hundred rifle crowd then. Enjoy it as thats all you'll get to see.

I would really really like to have you post up some info on getting accuracy out of cast in standard military rifles and give me some idea's as to which way to go to improving my loads.I started getting anal about the straightness of loaded cartridges after the swede thread and the number of flyers I got went down a great deal. Pat

[45 2.1]

I would really really like to have you post up some info on getting accuracy out of cast in standard military rifles and give me some idea's as to which way to go to improving my loads.I started getting anal about the straightness of loaded cartridges after the swede thread and the number of flyers I got went down a great deal. Pat

That information has been in the archives for several years, articles by me and BABore. You have a PM also.

[degruix]

I want to say thank you to LAH for posting this question. This is one of the most entertaining and informative threads I have read on this website. The pictures of slumped bullets are awesome.

All web forums have their sacred cows, a good example is this thread on benchrest.com, http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?73113-why-is-it-a-DQ
If you even question why the rules are written the way they are, you get ganged up on by hysterical members and your question taken totally out of context. It was not even a question as to how to make the rules better, just a simple question as to the reasoning why one rule was written the way it was in the first place.

I was once on a motorcycle forum, and if you even mentioned driving on the highway for any distance other then going directly across the road, you risked being banned. Even if you were only driving 40-50 yards to pick up your trail, to make the moderators/site owner happy you had to drive in the ditch, not the road.

This thread is so entertaining because a guy asked about a bullet design and people get bent out of shape, take the question out of context and start acting like one question seeking knowledge was a direct attack on Elmer Keith.

44man, I take my hat off to you sir.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Today you get $1000 pictures, 25 yard Ransom groups with factory loads and NOTHING to tell you about how to make the gun shoot. 1 page or 1-1/2 pages at the most just to satisfy advertisers.
I never thought I would see the day when it takes 5 minutes to finish a gun rag before tossing it.
I wish Elmer was still with us!

We've had our share of differing opinions, but this statement is brilliant!!! I only get one magazine anymore, Handloader, and the level of technicality is way down in it. The best magazines these days, IMO, are Precision Shooter and Varmint Hunter, but they both dote on rifles. There's nothing of similar quality, honesty, and technical expertese for handguns. American Handgunner used to be a little, but no more - 1 big commercial, as 44man says...

I think a cross between the WFN and LFN (the WLN) is best of that breed (really like the Lyman 429640), but I only find a benefit in them of squeezing the most powder volume out of the case (because they move weight out into the nose vs a same-weight Keith). So, if you're chasing max velocity, especially in a small-capacity case, these are better than a Keith.

As far as fit, they're no better than a properly sized and seated Keith. In fact, depending on the ogive shape and interaction of the seating depth, ogive, and throat beginning, the Keith may be better (especially if it's front drive band is wide, such as on a heavy-version of the Keith).

[44man]

I would really really like to have you post up some info on getting accuracy out of cast in standard military rifles and give me some idea's as to which way to go to improving my loads.I started getting anal about the straightness of loaded cartridges after the swede thread and the number of flyers I got went down a great deal. Pat
Runout is a big problem with any gun but most of the time with a rifle, it is the size die that over sizes the neck and then when you pull the expander out, it bends the shoulder.
It is not that much of a problem with straight wall brass because you insert the expander from the top. There is no shoulder.
It is still a problem when you see a revolver case bulged more on one side then the other when you seat a boolit. That is when the seat die is not doing it's job. Press alignment can also do it.

[44man]

Went through my collection of bullets and found a couple that show slump. I'm pretty sure these were ACWW fired over a max load of Blue Dot out of the GP 100. On the left is an H&G #39 158 RN and the right is 358429. BTW I happen to like the Keiths and all my magnum loads are Keiths. My GP averages just under 2"@50 yds with 50/50 ww/lino Keiths and my win 94 will do 3"@100 yds most of the time with ACWW.
Those boolits are not that bad even with a little slump.
Imagine what 20 to 1 or 16 to 1 would do.
Water drop your boolits and accuracy should increase.