"Real" Keith Bullets

[LAH]

The group buy for a 357 Keith mould has prompted me to post this.

There's lots of debate about Mr. Keith's bullets. People say the real thing has this or that. As some know we cast these 4 years commercially. All the writers testing these were happy. Most considered our bullets to be bullets Elmer would have been pleased with. Were the moulds I used what Elmer wanted? Would he really been pleased?

Below is a note sent us by a source I'll leave un-named. Living in WV I have no way to do much checking so I sent a copy of this note to John Taffin and we discussed the matter. He said, "There's no reason not to believe this is true." Enough said, take the note below for what it's worth. I made no attempt to change spelling, only taking out names to protect the innocent . Hope you enjoy.

Lynn..........Dry Creek



I stumbled onto your web page and was glad to see that you are producing
Keith Bullets which are VERY close to the actual designs. A bit of
history.......

Before Elmer took sick and died......( I was a cop in Salmon, grew up
and lived there and we often visited over matters of the bullet):

Elmer used to get incessed with the bullet manufacturers and we were
talking about the designs and what always seemed to go wrong with the
bullet makers. I listened to him, and could see his point. He would
tell them how they should be made, and they (the bullet and mold
makers) would leave Salmon, go back and low and behold they turned out a
bullet that wasn't even close (worse yet, they always seemed to have
those dam round lube grooves ! ) I suggested to Elmer, that it might be
a good idea to make up some bullet masters and then make the bullets as
he wanted them, which according to everything I know.....the designs
were VERY sound. I had no idea what I was getting myself into, as it
took MONTHS to do this ! I soon found out, that Elmer could not and
would not work on paper.....he had to hold it in his hand and look at it!

SO....the masters were made by hand, on a lathe, one at a time, with
many repeats and modifications over some months until they were just
right......what a pain. All I wanted to do, was see that things got
straightened out and the correct bullets be made available. No wonder
the people who came to see him never could get it right ! To make a long
story short, I had XXXXXX make the molds and for a time, I made
bullets and molds available to the public. I gave the steel bullet
masters to XXXXXXXXXX (XXX company) and as far as I know, they are
still with the company, even though it was sold to another gentleman who
has it now. I just wanted to make sure they were available to the
public. I don't know where you got your designs, but I can tell some of
them are terribly close to the actual designs.....so close, that I can't
help but wonder if they aren't exact copies......which is not only fine,
but to be commended. In fact, some of the actual designs (.357) won't
work in all revolver throats.....due to the length of the front driving
band, which won't let the forward band clear the chamber throat when
normally seated, with some revolver chambers.........but according to
Elmer....that front band was critical at magnum velocities.....and the
dimensions of that front band was one of the things that he had stressed
but USUALLY got thinned down by the manufacturers..... The steel masters
were made, for the then four major magnum pistol calibers.....357, 41,
44 and 45........only.

Anyway..glad to see that you make some really good designs
available.......that are as true as I have ever seen, short of the
actual masters I gave to XXXXX...... Thought you might like to know...

kind regards
XXXXXX

[45 2.1]

Nice, BUT why didn't this anonymus fellow put those dimensions on paper for everyone? All that trouble and we still don't have what Keith thought was right, just what someone thought was right and produced. Looking at a picture doesn't tell you if it fits right. Another thing was the way Keith loaded his stuff, the only man to tell us seems to have been Ross Seyfried. 16:1 alloy was hard to Keith and he used standard primers.

[felix]

Lynn, thanks for reporting that letter. Stands to reason why there is so much confusion amongst the various designs. I personally don't care how they look, but I do care if I have the most "accurate" one. Which design is that? Round grooves, square grooves? Long and wide scraper band? Yes, it is unfortunate that engineers hate to document anything. Gets into the way of a thought process. Gladly, the science lab types do document, otherwise there would be no generic drugs. ... felix

[LAH]

Nice, BUT why didn't this anonymus fellow put those dimensions on paper for everyone?

This fellow is only "anonymus" because I make him that way. The same with the mould maker. The main reason is I'm after the steel masters. HEE HEE.

Dimensions? Brian Pearce and I spoke at length about this. One of the things we agreed on was the driving bands, they should be .100 wide.

Keith's alloy I think was published in some of his writings. I know I've read it and perhaps it's in Sixguns or the two book set of Gun Notes.

[Beau Cassidy]

I have read that (or semething very close) somewhere before recently. Just don't remember where....

Beau

[StarMetal]

Lynn,

Like Beau signs all his posts: If you love something, set it free. You aren't doing that. You said yourself that you want the master moulds hee hee. Fact is you're greedy or you'd share all the info, including the guy's name that mailed you and the company that does/did have the moulds plus the dimensions, but no, moneyand greed enters the equation along with fame. Our little group here is responsible for, so far, more moulds then you've designed I'll wager. You have alot of guys on here asking questionsabout everything. Is this post to tease?

Joe

[LAH]

OH Joe..............I'm shamed into admitting it, I'd love to have those Masters. I'd be putting forth a falsehood if I said different HEE HEE.

I do feel, from what I know, this whole thing is true. I couldn't make money off bullets or moulds............or I would still be in business..........but I want the masters for my collection of Keith stuff I have stashed away. Like he said, there's nothing on paper from Keith's end other than a rough drawing... that's who knows where. I'm sure though the guy who made the moulds at one point or another had measurements for his cherries.

Once I'm settled in my heart they don't have the Masters I'll be happy to let the company name out and I could care less about the measurements. I purposed in my heart long ago the two Lyman 429421 moulds I have are all I need to play Keith with. The same for the L-358429 mould I now have. NEI cut our 41 and Ballisti-Cast our 45 so I'm happy if I never find the "secert" measurements. Can't believe I said that.

It's the bullet casters that have lead following in their blood, who eat and sleep cast bullets, who dream of cast bullets, who never quit seaching for the perfect cast bullet..........like all the NUTS who hang out here that will never rest. Gosh I love you guys...........Lynn

[carpetman]

I can't tell you who all of those XXXX's in the letter represented,but one was none other than Col Sanders. Think we will ever know the real secret? You will really have doubts about the authenticity of this when I tell you my source. You aint gonna believe it but a talking golden retreiver told me,said something about long time family secret.

[StarMetal]

I'll take my shot at guessing and say it's RCBS

Joe

[Bass Ackward]

I think that the reason there is nothing concrete about Keith bullets is because a Keith bullet was always fluid and changing. He did this because he was experimenting. And .... because he had different models of guns with different cylinder lengths. You couldn't put a wide drive band on some designs with shorter noses without them looking like a wadcutter. So comprimises had to be (and were) made by Elmer himself.

Elmer fancied himself an expert. So if you had a mold that was considered a Keith design that didn't shoot, .... well ..... that wasn't his "true" design. Because his design was always accurate. The mold maker ruined it.

Remember, this is from a guy that could have put anything into print he wanted. If you wanted "YOUR" design to live on, wouldn't you have put it in one of your books? Remember, this is a gentleman that had an addendum cut to "Sixguns" so he could make it current for the day to include new handguns of the period. When the addendum was cut for "Sixguns", Elmer claims Lyman had ruined his mold 20 years before that. Now I ask you, if you felt your bullet design was that important, and you wanted to set the record straight for history sake, don't you think you would have cut another adendum?

Nope. This is supposed to be one of life's mysteries. Like the lost Dutchman's mine. Or the Holly grail. It existed, but is gone forever.

[LAH]

Bass Ackward said: This is supposed to be one of life's mysteries.

You could be correct. One would think a designer would have a "blueprint" so his design could be copied & repeated to live forever. I had more than one talk with the XXXX who sent the letter and he made it known to me that Elmer didn't want to work with numbers or paper.

[Catshooter]

turns your crank, ok. Go for it.

What I want to know is do you have anything to contribute to our efforts to come up with true Keiths?

Well do ya?


Cat

[LAH]

Catshooter said: Well do ya?

Catshooter I have my opinions but they are just that and most don't like them. It's my personal view the Lyman 358429 design is as good as it gets. Another bullet to consider is the NEI #146. I use both these bullets and they are GREAT. The 146 has a shorter crimp to meplat measurement and a shallower lube groove. I find no difference in their performance. Still I think the Lyman is closer to what we consider a quote: Real Keith.

Now the part shooters don't like. If you want to shoot a "real Keith" get a "real sixgun". And by that I mean one with a cylinder long enough to handle the bullet loaded in 357 brass and seated to the crimp groove. The 586/686 S&W and the Ruger BH can do this. The 27/28 S&W won't. OMBH's are close. I'm told the GP 100's are close but I can't personally confirm. The M-19/66 will handle the Keith but not a steady diet of Keith type loads. I use 5.5 grs. of 231 in my M-19 for 1050 fps from the 4" barrel. It's a medium load and does most things a sixgun needs to do here in the hills. If I need more, I carry more sixgun. In short if you want to shoot a "real Keith" in a 357, get a sixgun it will work in.

I know you guys want a bullet that will work in the short cylinders and still be as close to a Keith as possible.

Catshooter said:What I want to know is do you have anything to contribute to our efforts to come up with true Keiths? This is what I came up with and I hope it helps in your efforts.

The bullet is already out there and requires no work your behalf. Read note at bottom on the right side of this page. http://www.ballisti-cast.com/Bullet%20Designs%20Page%207.htm and see bullet here http://www.ballisti-cast.com/Bullet%20Designs%20Page%204.htm as #890

I know the drawings are crude but look at 651 and 890. Note the shorter nose of the latter. I think this is what you're looking for? Call Bruce at Ballisti-Cast and they can send you a blueprint of 890 and you can work from there. They are nice people. Tell them that Lynn from Dry Creek sent you.

[BlueMoon]

I have a GP100 and cast the Ly. 358429 and crimp in the crimp groove with a .357 case and a OAL of 1.660". Works well in my gun.

Bill

[Beau Cassidy]

The 358429 bullet by Lyman is THE bullet for more than one of my .357's. It is the most accurate bullet in my GP-100 - 5.0 Unique in a .38 case. Oh what I would give to have the master himself in on these discussions!

Beau

[Catshooter]

no, I'm not looking for a short nosed Keith. Early in the thread, 45 2.1 pointed out that many revolvers' cylinders are to short for the full meal deal K. That's important for people who might want to get in on the buy to know. I knew that. Notably the Smith 27 & 28. That's fine, there are lots of guns that are long enough.

Mmmm. The balisticast looks good and claims to be true Keith. Maybe it is. Is it available in a six cylinder or more, oversized (!)for about $56 and fit Lee handles?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but these are points that are important and they're why I want to get this design done this way.

So, can you help? We need as much info as we can gather. That's why 45 2.1 is going to such lengths.

Well?


Cat

[LAH]

http://ourworld.cs.com/BHALSTE/creekerpics/things/Lyman+358429+Blueprint+2.jpg

[LAH]

Don't ask how I got these. Perhaps they will help. Also have one for the 429421 somewhere.

You might just have Lee open the driving bands to .361. Not sure how well this will view but it's as large as allowed. If someone wants it via email let me know. Beware the orginal is 311KB and 1616X1275.

Cat said: Mmmm. The balisticast looks good and claims to be true Keith. Maybe it is. Is it available in a six cylinder or more, oversized (!)for about $56 and fit Lee handles?

I can't speak to the Lee handles. You can have 6 cavity for 245.00 or 4 cavity for 155.00. These can be made to the diameter you want. You'll not get them for 56.00.

[beagle]

Boys.....this is getting interesting. Made me go back and look through my Keith moulds theis morning.

I have a feeling that when Keith submitted his design to Lyman through Mr. Pickering, they made it to his specs as well as some toolroom samples. Then as testing progressed, they found that a .100" full diameter driving band caused problems in some of the rearly guns.

All of my 429421s have a front driving band of about .085" and that includes some olf square groove Ideals that go way back.

Now, the H & G #326 and #328 (278 grains and 320 grains) have full .100" bands. The #328 barely fits in a Super Blackhawk crimped in the crimp groove lengthwise. A Model 29 will take it only if the cases are trimmed to the "trim to" length. I have a feeling that Lyamn axed .015" off the driving band to make things work out./beagle

R: 429421HP Square Groove
Center: #326 H & G
L: #328 H & G

[LAH]

I have a feeling that Lyamn axed .015" off the driving band to make things work out./beagle


I have a feeling ya is right.

[Catshooter]

Now you're talking! Now we're making some progress.


Cat

[Dick Burns]

Elmer said in "Sixguns" (Chapter 5, first paragraph):
"Long range shooting is the real test of any revolver or pistol. True, some loads were never intended for any but short ranges, but in the main, long range shooting will prove both gun and load."

Looking at drawings and steel bullets will prove nothing about a Keith style bullet. Load it and shoot it in your gun AT LONG RANGE. That's the test.

From first hand experience, the .452 320gr Keith from Dry Creek fails that test miserably. It won't shoot past ~300 yards, give or take. Others I've tested pass with outstanding results out to as far as you can see the dust kick up, 1000 yards plus.

IMO, try 'em in YOUR gun before you buy mass quantities of a bullet that is said to work based solely on opinions and speculation.

Dick

[felix]

What are the others, and how do they compare in measurements? Personally, I can't see beer cans at 150 yards anymore, and at 300 yards I'd need an elephant sized target! ... felix

[beagle]

felix...I hear ya. I'm at about the gallon white Chlorox jugs at 200 yards. After that, It has to be BIG.....like a 5 gallon white plastic bucket./beagle

What are the others, and how do they compare in measurements? Personally, I can't see beer cans at 150 yards anymore, and at 300 yards I'd need an elephant sized target! ... felix

[Dick Burns]

What do the measurements have to do with it? Shoot it!!
I don't understand what the measurements have to do with performance.
????

Mt. Baldy Bullets in WY makes a .452 310gr Keith that will shoot as far as you can see. I use a Sage brush or a large rock and shoot at it, coming up until I hit it. I'll shoot for a while and then sometimes pull out the rangefinder and see how far it is. Sometimes I don't care how far it was.

So far, every Keith bullet I've received from Mt. Baldy passes the test (357, 44, 45, 475, 500). I don't cast, so I need a bullet maker that produces bullets that do what I want them to do. The ability to shoot at long range AND penetration on game animals are absolute necessities.

Back to the measurements thing, the Dry Creek 320 and the Mt. Baldy 310 look almost identical, but one shoots and the other doesn't. Go figure.
There is soooooo much more info on this type of testing I/we could share, but I really hate typing.

Good luck, Dick

[Catshooter]

Well Dick,

Possibly the measurments Felix was asking about was group size?

You don't cast? Did I hear right? :???: On this site that constitutes complete and total religious heresay and you can be stripped of an amazing amount of things you'd really rather keep. [smilie=l:

Actually (and please don't spread this about) I have used commerically cast bullets in the past, but never with much success. I much prefer to cast my own, I think I get much better quality and of course I can control the OD more closely.

YMMV.


Cat

[Dick Burns]

Kind of hard to judge the "group size" at 600 - 1000 yards on a sage brush or a rock. I judge my work by the ability to hit my target.
My mentors have taught me to practice at long range in the manner I've mentioned (and closer work as well) and when that elk jumps up at 75 yards, no problem.

Just out of curiosity, where are you guys located?

Dick

[LAH]

Welcome Mr. Burns. The DC 45-320-K probably isn't the same bullet as Frank is casting, though I've never asked him. Test show the DC bullet to do fine as you say, to 300 yards, and would be fine for a 75 yard elk. It doesn't remain stable after that. I think being base heavy is the problem. The holes aren't round way out there. The DC 45-355-K didn't have that problem, nor the 45-275-K or the latest RCBS 45-270-SAA we've cast.

These guys are wanting moulds, not bullets. They like to do group buys so they get what they want and get it at a price they can afford. They need bullet measurement to present the mould maker. Got any?

Welcome to the board, you live in a pretty state. Creeker be from WV.

[Dick Burns]

Lynn,
To me, providing measurements of someone else's bullet design or obtaining some for the same purpose would be considered stealing. Frank works very hard and spends a lot of time creating a particular bullet the hard way. Making test bullets on the lathe, loading and shooting them and repeating the process until it works at long range. Then the samples go off to the mould maker.
Taking measurements from some one elses design with out permission isn't right. Elmer provided those steel samples for a reason. Now if you called Frank and asked if you could use his design, that'd be different.
I think half the fun would be creating a bullet from scratch and seeing what makes it fly. Then, when that sample went off to the mould maker, it would be of my own design.

Just my 2 cents.

[LAH]

I wasn't aware Frank did his own design so I understand where you're coming from. I would also consider them Frank's property. I designed our 475 and 500 bullets but don't mind providing samples. What I do, anyone can. Bullet design and casting isn't like getting to the moon.....but it can be time consuming..........HEE HEE

[45 2.1]

A little background behind the Keith designs might help here. Keith used what he considered med to hard alloy, which in his case was 16:1 lead to tin as medium and 10:1 lead to tin as hard. Wheel weights in todays usage is soft to us and has age hardening components in it. Keiths alloys remained the same if it didn't have trace amounts of something else in it. Keith recommended sizing to barrel groove diameter. This negated problems with chambering a long front band in the cylinder. This is very important to this current discussion. If we order a fat bullet that has a full "fat" front band, we will run into the same problem that all our forebears ran into, THEY WON'T CHAMBER". This is why Lyman probably shortened and reduce the front band in diameter. This issue needs to be understood and resolved BEFORE FINALLIZING THE DESIGN or we will have the same problems. To whit, we either follow Keiths alloy and size recommendations or use a harder modern alloy and reduce the front bands length and diameter. Keith had absolutely no problems with the way he did it (his long front band fit in his cylinders due to groove diameter sizing and they slugged up when fired as necessary) and it worked at long range as intended. We on the other hand won't follow his path, but want his design. EVERYBODY READ THIS UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT, IT WILL MAKE OR BREAK THE DESIGN.

[LAH]

Very well said 45 2.1. It's either size the small enough or shorten the front band.

[Dick Burns]

45 2.1,
First off, a name to address you as would be nice or are you hiding your identity for some reason?

"We on the other hand won't follow his path, but want his design."

Why not follow his (Elmer's) path? What path are you refering to?
Is there something I'm missing?

[45 2.1]

Dick-
Since that is how you sign yourself off, that is what i'll address you as. My name, as you've asked for is Bob, but I do like the handle I picked for myself and sign off useing it also. There are very few people who give their name as their handle on the web, you are one of those, everybody is different and not the same as you, be tolerant please. Read Elmers many books and you'll find his path.
Show me just how many 16:1 or 20:1 lead to tin Keith bullet suppliers you can find advertising that alloy. Not many as most, with exceptions, say "hard cast". Not many people know what Elmer did let alone try it out. Most questions are "are wheel weights too soft". Wheel weights are alot harder than what Elmer did for sure. I posted to inform the group about what Elmer did and wrote about so an informed decision could be made. You, just as with everybody else, can decide what you want to do yourself.

[Dick Burns]

45 2.1,
Give Mt Baldy Bullets a call (307.754.5255) and talk to the owner about his knowledge of Keith designs/alloys/"paths". I think you'll be surprised that there is a "commercial" bullet maker (I'll use that term loosely as he casts most everything by hand) out there that follows the "path".
Have a look: Mt Baldy Bullets (http://www.mtbaldybullets.com/)

[45 2.1]

Dick-
I don't buy bullets from anybody at all. Mine are better than any i've seen and they won't make them the way I want them. I've been over most all the paths and down the yellow brick road past the Emerald City into cast bullet dream land. I've had samples from Mt. Baldy before and talked with him over the phone, interesting guy.

[Catshooter]

Interesting, 45. Well worth thinking about.

Dick, if that is your real name then you may be a bit new to the internet. Most people don't 'hide' behind their screen names, using your own name on the net is very poor security. And some of us have names a bit more unique than yours :smile: . Hopefully you'll never get the hard lessons available to one using their own ID.

You may also find a bit friendlier reception on the boards is you remember that the printed word is much more limited that the spoken. For instance, I suspect you meant no rudeness with the title of your first post 'Can anyone here read???' . (I hope I have quoted it correctly) I can think of many ways you could say that to someone and have zero offence taken, but since we don't know you and you can't say it to us, well, it's easy for misunderstandings to occur.

No offence intended.


Cat

[harley45]

Other than the sizing aspects are there any other advantages to using Keith's Alloy types as in terminal or accuracy performance?

[Dick Burns]

and the name is Richard Burns. Most everyone calls me Dick.
Yeah, lots of ribbing in my latter days of schooling. My wife calls me Dick quite a bit, and even calls me by my name sometimes.

Internet security is what you make of it.

My words and phrases are very carefully chosen. They are intended to offend those who are looking to be offended, and intrigue those seeking more. After many, many years working with the military, I've learned the pen is mightier than the sword (or Keith bullet).

Glad no offense was taken by you.

[45 2.1]

Other than the sizing aspects are there any other advantages to using Keith's Alloy types as in terminal or accuracy performance?

Keith shot pretty well with them and killed alot of targets of oppurtunity with his beltgun. The right alloy in conjunction with the right pressure range can do wonders, the trouble is in your finding it.

[felix]

Dick, your driving a forklift off of the company dock obviously grabbed some attention. Nothing wrong with that except for the corporate expense. However, expenses mean nothing when profits result. You do know what is expected of you now, right? ... felix

[Hardcast]

Gentlemen:

First, I must say this is one of the most interesting threads ever on the Cast Boolit Forum, and it is great to read the opinions of several experienced Keith bullet devotees. So here's my 2 cents: What is it about the Keith bullet that atracts us to it? For me it is aesthetically pleasing to the eye, and yet a reasonably good general purpose performer. Now many will tell you that an LBT LFN will generally out-perform a Keith, and is more efficient to boot. However, we, placing importance on good looks and the opinion of the Godfather of the .44 Mag, still shoot a lot of Keith bullets. And apparently, it makes us happy. :)

[ddixie884]

"Keith" bullets are hard to beat for general use in a revolver. Target loads with Bullseye, Carry loads with Unique, or full house loads with 2400, all give good accuracy, and performance. JMHO

[MGySgt]

There is a long post, some of it heated, on the Greybeard site under 'Ask Veral'.

The bottom line is that Veral even admits after a long discussion that there isn't much difference in performance between the LFN and the Keith style as they both have about the same metplate (65% I believe). He believes his design is more accurate, might be, but I know you have to drive them hard, where as the Keith works well over a large velocity spread.

Normally it is realitively easy to get a 'Good' load out of the Keith and most guns will shoot them well, where as the LBT style is a different story.

http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/phpbb2/viewforum.php?f=114&topicdays=0&start=0

Look under 'Big Bear'

Drew

[Bret4207]

Been a looooong time since I stopped by GB. I wish Veral all the sucess in the world, but to bad mouth the "gun rags" while doing his own snake oil salesman act is a bit hypocritical. His religious views are a bit different too, but a mans faith is his own and sacred as far as I'm concerned. I'm just glad he has some faith. As far as his boolit designs go, his salesmanship exceeds Keiths by a long shot. If Elmer had been as blatant as Veral he'd be fried more than he is.

I have one LBT, a 264-90PB RN. Got it cheap. Nice mould, limited usefulness. But it was an LBT and at the time Veral was in prision and his future uncertian. I guess it was a bit of speculation. Some of Veral claims have panned out and some are clearly salesmanship. I do like the quality of his moulds, but will put a good NEI up against a good LBT any day. But I won't sell off my Keith type moulds and buy LBTs jsut 'cuz Veral says his work better. Dick Burns pots on this thread as GB are to the point, you've got to try it yourself and make your own decision as to which type works best for you in your gun.

[Bret4207]

I meant Dick Burns POSTS on this thread on GB.... Jeeze I wish we had spell check, it's embarassing.

[LAH]

Gentlemen:

First, I must say this is one of the most interesting threads ever on the Cast Boolit Forum, and it is great to read the opinions of several experienced Keith bullet devotees. So here's my 2 cents: What is it about the Keith bullet that atracts us to it? For me it is aesthetically pleasing to the eye, and yet a reasonably good general purpose performer. Now many will tell you that an LBT LFN will generally out-perform a Keith, and is more efficient to boot. However, we, placing importance on good looks and the opinion of the Godfather of the .44 Mag, still shoot a lot of Keith bullets. And apparently, it makes us happy. :)

Well Hardcast, when I decided to purchase my first mould in 1973 I looked at the Lyman catalog and picked the L-358429 because it looked like I thought a bullet should. I didn't know Elmer Keith at that time, never heard of him. So for me, it was looks.

[44man]

The reason Elmer made the front band wide was to let the boolit touch the end of the chamber at the start of the throat, the boolits being larger in diameter then the throats. Thus there was no jump to reach the throats. Since not all chambers are long enough, his boolits will not chamber in all guns. The thing to do is to find a Keith boolit with the proper band length and diameter to fit your individual gun. To size the boolit to enter the throats will not give you the same results as Elmer got. I can't say it is bad for a boolit to fit through the throats because I make my moulds that way and get extreme accuracy.
Someday I will make some oversized boolits to see what happens.
This is a very interesting discussion. There are so many versions of Elmer's boolit and some shoot great and others don't, depending on the gun.
I can understand why so many are different because of differences in chambers and throats. It would not be good for a mould maker to have his boolit only fit several guns.

[LAH]

44man, one of the best shooting bullet I've cast was a Lyman 429421 with a round lube groove and a front band that was half the width of the middle & base bands. With 21 grs. of 2400 and a CCI 350 primer it was one of the most accurate loads I've fired.

[44man]

Lah, I agree because I also shot thousands of those myself. I was only giving the reason why Elmer designed his boolit that way, not that it is the only way. It is an interesting concept and deserves looking into though. Since I make my own moulds, someday I will design one to fit my gun.
I have tried other Keith style boolits over the years and none shot real bad, but some were a lot better then others. The 429421 was and is a great boolit. Sadly, I sold the mould years ago when I went totally into archery and muzzle loaders. Of course, that didn't last long because I found IHMSA and replaced all of my guns and loading equipment.

[LAH]

It's like you said: This is a very interesting discussion. There are so many versions of Elmer's boolit and some shoot great and others don't, depending on the gun.


I can agree with all that. Especially the depending on gun part. HEE HEE

[Dick Burns]

Everyone who has posted in this particular thread needs to get the current issue of Handloader and read Dave Scovill's column titled "Proper Bullet and Chamber Fit".

It mentions the problems associated with using too hard of an alloy, why not to have round bottom lube grooves, throats, chambers, obturation....

An excellent read.

Dick

[MOA Shooter]

Nice, BUT why didn't this anonymus fellow put those dimensions on paper for everyone? .


Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black. Where's the old f'etc when you need him.

Someone with a cad program should be able to scan them, find one dimension and get them all. [?]


MOA.

[MOA Shooter]

Everyone who has posted in this particular thread needs to get the current issue of Handloader and read Dave Scovill's column titled "Proper Bullet and Chamber Fit".

It mentions the problems associated with using too hard of an alloy, why not to have round bottom lube grooves, throats, chambers, obturation....

An excellent read.

Dick

Might you be able to paraphaze that text here? Many do not think the palpry sum they charge for that rag is worth the investment.

Sounds like Scoville is passing along his internet reading again.

MOA.

[Buckshot]

............Does this guy ever have ANYTHING nice to say about anything? Jeez, it gets wearysome.

.............Buckshot

[waksupi]

Seems real quiet, now.

[LAH]

wearysome

HEE HEE.........hang in there Buckshot.

[Dick Burns]

Did I miss something here?

[waksupi]

Just some aside comments. You missed nothing of interest.

[45 2.1]

Just some aside comments. You missed nothing of interest.

Quite an understatement there.

Dick, look under MOA name.

[Willbird]

I like Veral and all, but I have a deep suspicion that the fact that the round/flat type design lends itself much better to making with a tracer attachment like he uses has a lot to do with him ending up with that design. It may in fact be the best bullet profile to produce with a tracer attachment, and it also may work just as well as any other design.

Bill

[PatMarlin]

I think with sucha exspressive group we autta be able to hold a groug cyber seance, and call up old Elmer. All ya gotta do is log him in and make em' an avatar.. :wink:

-more instructions on that here:

SoYouWanna hold a seance?
This step-by-step article teaches the novice believer how to hold a proper seance, including setting up the space, summoning the spirit...
www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/seance/seance.html


:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[9.3X62AL]

Seance.......I can only imagine what some of the now-deceased writers would say if they could. I think most of them wouldn't take great exception to much of what gets posted here, but would likely explode into profanity for what the mainstream gun press prints these days.

I sure miss Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton.

[LAH]

I'd say you is right Deputy

[C1PNR]

I sure miss Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton.
After the movers picked up everything in the house in CA, I was left with only a couple of boxes of OLD magazines in the garage.

While waiting for the house to sell I had a LOT of time to read over those old "gun rags." Many an afternoon and evening were spent with Skeeter, and some others too be fair. But Skeeter was always my favorite.

As an aside, last Sunday I saw a copy of his book, "Good Friends, Good Guns, and Good Whiskey" (I think that's the correct name) for sale at the Fort Boise Gun Show for $100.00.:shock:

[Old Jim]

Creeker,
I bought some of your 230 gr 41 Keith style bullets and they shot as well as any I have ever had. What was that mold or was it a custom design?

[LAH]

Hey Jim..........NEI mould. 41-220-?......... I don't recall the finishing letters. One look on their site and you won't have any trouble picking it out. Glad the bullets worked for you. Never had a complaint on these so it must be a good design.

[ddixie884]

I really like to read opinions, everyone's own ideas are worth considering, all input is usefull.

[LAH]

Took the time to read this whole thread again so I'll bump this back to the top. Maybe someone might enjoy reading it again or maybe even post something about the group buy.

God Bless
Creeker

[Chargar]

Odd, I never read this thread, when it first saw daylight, but I was not interested in the "ins and outs" of the design. I have some old Lyman/Ideal molds for the design and didn't feel the need to get in on the group buy.

Like others I found this to be a good bullet, but problematic in some sixguns.

I started life as a small bore match shooter and later high power. I beat the roads to Camp Perry, back in the day when Elmer Keith, Al Barr and others were in attendence. They were always surrounded by a gagle of folks and I never butted in. I was a youngster and didn't have the confidence to break through a bunch of folks and interject myself into the conversation. We are talking mid to late 50's here.

I did meet Keith later at an NRA convention and split a bottle or two with him, Bill Jordan and a few others. I was smart enough to take a fly on the wall approach and just listen. I don't remember much, as those were in the middle of my serious drinking days. We did correspond some in those years. I may or may not have those letters, I was not much on saving stuff in those days.

I started casting for handguns around 1960 or so, maybe it was 1959, I just can't get it that close. Serious rifle bullet casting came much latter.

The material on this thread has pretty much nailed down the original design and Keith's unhappyness with the changes made by Lyman. He got pretty POed at Lyman and recommended folks get Hensley and Gibbs molds as they were true to his original design.

It is fun to kick up dust "way out there" with a sixgun, but very few of us can hit well enough at 300 yards and beyond to take advantage any theoritical advantge a true Keith might have. Many more folks talk and write about long range sixgun shooting that actualy do it.

Elmer Keith didn't have the corner on good bullets in the 38/357. Both Phil Sharpe and Ray Thompson turned in excellent designes. In 1964, I bought a 3 hole SAECO #12 mold, which was a carry over design from Cramer. It was a Sharpe tyle bullet and I have never fired SWC bullet that was any better for accuracy and performance up to 100 yards. I still use this mold and it is as good as they day I bought it.

When you get past 100 yards, the Ray Thompson gas check design (358156) tends to fly straighter for me.

When it comes to pure accuracy in the 38/357 I have never found a SWC or a WC that can beat a good 150 - 160 grain RN. I have Lyman (358311), Hensley and Gibbs and Cramer molds in this design. They are not game bullets, but for small groups and hitting what you shoot at, way out younger, they are the best.

Elmer Keith was a seminal figure in sixgun shooting, but he was not infallible or without error in this thinking. He was a prolific writer and never in doubt as to the superiority of his thinking over that of others.

Keith has become an icon for the younger set of shooters. Keith made himself an icon, often at the expense of his peers. We get so twisted up in the ins and outs of "original Keith" design, that we often forget Elmer Keith the man.

He was a nice man, but he took himself very, very seriously. Today, we take himself just as serious as he took himself. That would please him greatly.

Now Bill Jordan was a giant of a man in any way you want to measure that, but that is another thread......

[frank505]

One of my measures for calling a bullet a Keith design is it MUST be accurate at long range, which to me means 200 yards and beyond. There are lots of bullets, named Keith or not that will not even get to one hundred yards with any accuracy. For those of you that have attended the Linebaugh seminar in Cody, the "Ballistic Invitational" will open your eyes as to what we do with our sixguns and why we shoot, make and love Elmer Keith bullets.

[Lloyd Smale]

frank makes a good point. Elmer liked to shoot out to long range and it was one of the main things he was looking for in a bullet. I dont think hed have negitive things to say about some of the other bullet designs we have now that will do the same. Like Frank said a trip to whyoming will really open your eyes up to some of the good and bad bullet designs out there and will show you that even altering elmers mold in the most minute ammount can drastically effect the way it flys. I dont know if he got lucky or was just good or if he had to use alot of trial and error but most of his designs do well at long range. Now im not saying that only elmers designs will shoot way out there. there are other swc and lfns that do just as well. But like frank said especially in a swc you can get a lemon and go to a wfn and ill gurantee you one. Frank is no dummy himself when it comes to designing a good swc. Ive got his 512 keith mold and have shot his 475 version and believe me he did well with them. There my two favorite bullets in each of those calibers. One of my group buy 475 molds is heading his way for some side by side comparisons and im anxious to see the results.

[frank505]

Thanks for the kind words Lloyd, an awful lot of credit must go to Jeff Oakland even though he is Norwegian

[LAH]

It is fun to kick up dust "way out there" with a sixgun, but very few of us can hit well enough at 300 yards and beyond to take advantage any theoritical advantge a true Keith might have. Many more folks talk and write about long range sixgun shooting that actualy do it.

AMEN

the "Ballistic Invitational" will open your eyes as to what we do with our sixguns and why we shoot, make and love Elmer Keith bullets.

AMEN AGAIN

an awful lot of credit must go to Jeff Oakland even though he is Norwegian

AMEN THE 3RD TIME

[GLynn41]

hay Creeker I still have a few of your boolits left --but not for long --they still very well--I even have some in wheel weights you made for twillis

[Texasflyboy]

Now, the H & G #326 and #328 (278 grains and 320 grains) have full .100" bands.

@#%$$%@!!!!

Can I have some better pics of these two for the website? I still have the originals you sent me years ago, but would like to add more pics of the projectiles.


:-D

Thanks in advance...

[45nut]

I think with sucha exspressive group we autta be able to hold a groug cyber seance, and call up old Elmer. All ya gotta do is log him in and make em' an avatar.. :wink:

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Hmmm,,I wonder if that would work?

[Elmer Keith]

Hmmm,,I wonder if that would work?


You wonder if what will work? :Fire:



[smilie=1:

[MT Chambers]

Well I'll be.....Elmer your alive!!!!!! Remember when we hunted Alberta together? What do you think of all these new big handgun cartridges, kinda makes your .44 look small....just kidding!!! You were right when you said you would trade away velocity for bullet wieght and/or dia. anyday.

[Lloyd Smale]

Jeffs long range experiments with handguns and his results as to what bullets work and what dont would be a gold mine of info for the people on this fourm if you could persuade him to post it pal. Sure would save alot of people alot of money on **** molds and bullet designs.Thanks for the kind words Lloyd, an awful lot of credit must go to Jeff Oakland even though he is Norwegian

[Bass Ackward]

Jeffs long range experiments with handguns and his results as to what bullets work and what dont would be a gold mine of info for the people on this fourm if you could persuade him to post it pal. Sure would save alot of people alot of money on **** molds and bullet designs.


No you wouldn't Lloyd. Because people don't study the laws of flight and physics. What is never told is what the designer was trying to achieve when he designed a particular bullet. Long range was not always the goal. Sometimes accuracy isn't either. With rifles we learn to look at BC. Somehow that isn't supposed to apply to handguns. When it comes to handguns, we look at a bullet as a bullet.

What most people don't do is to analyze WHY something isn't working. Is the cause from everything up until the projectile is launched? That is correctable by us through load or sometimes design. If alignment is an issue or over sized throats, then an olgival can solve problems. The wider a meplat is the less the angle on the olgive and thus the stronger the design is to impact to correct alignment. Maybe you get better fit too. Or is the problem because of stabilization once the projectile has left the launcher that only BC can cure?

That can be very hard to diagnose. It involves targeting at various ranges that only the long range will give you. How long is long? To maybe a blind guy that's 50 yards. And that's why you get so many .... different opinions. And as soon as you or I call one design .... ****, along will come someone that will say it is the only thing that has worked for them. Why? Because it solved their particular problem. And that's all that guy cares about.

Trust me, if long range like with rifles was the only thing handguners had to deal with, bullet design would be FAR different.

[Lloyd Smale]

Bass i guess my thoughts on handgun bullets are a little differnt then the average guy. For about 90 percent of the handgun shooter and the used for a handgun shooting cast bullets about any flat nosed bullet of midrange for the caliber weight will do the job and shoot accurately enough to hit a deer at 50 yards. Were only talking about the need to shoot 3 inch 25 yards groups and most guns will do that with any load. But the other 10 percent of the handgunners have to have a little more. I want a handgun that can take an animal out to 100 yards and just about each and every one of my handguns are used to shoot rocks and dirt clods out to 500 yards and more. When your pushing out past a 100 yards bullet stabilty as you know really comes into to play. Jeff has done some pretty extensive testing on various bullets using all kinds of loads alloys ect and even has bullets filmed in flight. He knows all the tricks and what works and what doesnt in bullet weights and velocitys. His work is some eye opening stuff as anyone thats seen it will attest. There are some bullets that just wont fly no matter what you do with them and some of them are bullets that you think would and some of them are very popular molds that even i have bought. To me with my thoughts on handguning and what i do with a handgun i have way to much load developement to do as it is and time spent on the bench is wasted shooting time to me. I dont want to waste the time working up a load for a bullet that shoots 2 inch at 50 yards if it isnt going to fly no matter what i do at long range. I just cant see it when i can do the same with a bullet i know that will fly. I want a load for a gun that does it all. Shoots accurately hits an animal hard and flys long range. I hear all the time that wfns are the ticket for hunting. Ive shot enough animals at under a 100 yards with wfns lfns and swc out of handguns of various calibers to say its bunk and if hit in the exact same spot with the same gun at the same velocity ive yet to see an animal that didnt die from any of them. So why deal with an inferior bullet design that is lacking in one aspect of what i need a handgun to do. Same thing with dealing with a bullet design of any kind that is lacking in some aspect. It isnt just wfns that im picking on here. Ive seen a couple rare ones that shot and ive seen some swcs that didnt. Im more of a swc fan that any other bullet. Maybe its the old school in me but i make no excuses for it. I have to say though and maybe frank can jump in here and correct me but I yet to see an lfn that didnt accomplish about everything i need in a handgun bullet. The only small exception to that is theres just guns that dont like a certain bullet and wont shoot it no matter what you do.

[LAH]

Jeff's the one who said our 45-320-K [BC#938] wasn't accurate at long range so we sent him some 45-355-K which he said would make round holes to 1300 yards. The BC#938 uses a rather large base band [left picture] and is for all pratical purposes a BC#1101 with added weight at the base but the 45-355-K has equal width and diameter driving bands [right picture].

[Lloyd Smale]

I dont know if many of you realize it or not but Frank is the owner of mt baldy bullets and is one of the biggest casters of true keith bullets still in business. Lynn produced some fine ones too but unfortunately for the guys who dont cast there own doesnt anymore. Frank and Jeff have proably done more long range testing of keith bullets (along with just about every ohter design) then there rest of us shooters in the US have combined. Youd do real well to pay attention to what he has to say about what makes a cast handgun bullet work.

[LAH]

Youd do real well to pay attention to what he has to say about what makes a cast handgun bullet work.

Well said.......Creeker

[frank505]

Tom stopped by yesterday with some results, went to our Cody range to sight a 223 for his wife and of course had his 500 with. Built by Dustin, 4.5 inch stainless Bisley grip frame(ouch). He sat down and tried the 300 yard man target. It is kinda small, I need to go and measure it. Fist two shoys were low and the next three were hits. The bullet was our 450 grain Keith and am not sure the powder charge. Probably WC 820. I did not use Tom's last name since I have not asked his permission. By the way he sold all handguns except for his 1911 and the 500.
Maybe an lfn will do this but a lot of **** will not so why shoot it? And if a bullet will not stable in thin air what will it do in game?

[LAH]

And if a bullet will not stable in thin air what will it do in game?

Nice touch Frank.

[Bass Ackward]

What I find is that no matter how expert you are, whether you film things or not, the very same guns will show different results with different loads using the same bullet designs. What's my proof? We have been shooting lead for over 400 years. If one design was clearly superior, it would be hard to find another design on the market. Unless everyone that came before us were a bunch of dummies.

Look, I have no intention of insulting anyone. I have no idea who these gentleman are or what their actual beliefs are. I personally believe that you must shoot a lot of long range with everything, especially rifle, to fully understand as rifle removes handgun variables and shows you the .... "truth" of long range bullet flight. And if you can shoot high velocity rifle with cast, (2500 - 3500 fps) which I myself have done once or twice, even better. You learn how velocity affects BC which is all we are really talking here if we limit the discussion to long range flight.

If you stick strictly to testing handgun you lose perspective. Why? Because as I said load sensitivity can change everything, and you need to UNDERSTAND what you are seeing.

Look at Elmer's 44 classic, often acknowledged as a fine long range design. Shoot it with 7 grains of Green Dot and it will just cut holes out to about 50 yards in most guns. Try that load out at 100 yards and 7 out of 10 guns won't hold an 8X11 sheet of paper.

How do I know for sure? I own or have immediate access to 10 different 44s and that is the actual result. Except for one 357, all I shoot is 44. SO ..... is the "long range" failure the fault of bullet design, gun, or load? Now guess what? Use the same load and change the hardness of those bullets and now maybe 5 out of 10 would not hold an 8X11 sheet of paper at 100. Quite a percentage improvement, but it drops again out @ 200 yards.

So handguns are MUCH more load dependent than a rifle. How do you get to understand that difference? You have to shoot both long range handgun and rifle to know. In the end, sometimes you STILL guess wrong. At least I do.

[PatMarlin]

Yes, but what I want to know is what Bassackward John looks like in real life.

Has anyone ever seen a pic? Does anyone know?.. :confused: ...:mrgreen:

[felix]

Yeah, I'd bet his cat would whoop your cat! Well, maybe we will never find out. They just got hauling off about 50 folks to jail up the road for participating in cock-fighting....hold on, now, the chicken kind. Dang, that house on TV was a hotel for some really fancy chickens I did not know existed. ... felix

[LAH]

In the end, sometimes you STILL guess wrong. At least I do.

Bought that T-Shirt myself...........more than once. HEE HEE.

[Lloyd Smale]

yup bass your right to a point. Some guns wont shoot any bullets well and some will shoot a certain bullet much better then another design. But for the most part when we shoot hadguns at long range we are using fairly stout loads usually in the 1200 fps range as weve found that light loads usually dont cut it. Im no ballistic expert myself but i would imagine that it has to do with stability. One thing is about certain though. If you find a bullet design that goes crazy at 2-300 yards out of a sixgun its going to do the same out of any sixgun and no ammount of load develpement is going to change it enough to make it into a working bullet design. You might make it go crazy a few yards sooner or a few yards farther but it aint never going to make 500 yards shot at any speed from any gun. Now if a guy could stick that bullet in a rifle and shoot it 2500 fps it might change everything but thats not what were talking about. Im refering to velocitys that can be obtained in a normal sixgun.What I find is that no matter how expert you are, whether you film things or not, the very same guns will show different results with different loads using the same bullet designs. What's my proof? We have been shooting lead for over 400 years. If one design was clearly superior, it would be hard to find another design on the market. Unless everyone that came before us were a bunch of dummies.

Look, I have no intention of insulting anyone. I have no idea who these gentleman are or what their actual beliefs are. I personally believe that you must shoot a lot of long range with everything, especially rifle, to fully understand as rifle removes handgun variables and shows you the .... "truth" of long range bullet flight. And if you can shoot high velocity rifle with cast, (2500 - 3500 fps) which I myself have done once or twice, even better. You learn how velocity affects BC which is all we are really talking here if we limit the discussion to long range flight.

If you stick strictly to testing handgun you lose perspective. Why? Because as I said load sensitivity can change everything, and you need to UNDERSTAND what you are seeing.

Look at Elmer's 44 classic, often acknowledged as a fine long range design. Shoot it with 7 grains of Green Dot and it will just cut holes out to about 50 yards in most guns. Try that load out at 100 yards and 7 out of 10 guns won't hold an 8X11 sheet of paper.

How do I know for sure? I own or have immediate access to 10 different 44s and that is the actual result. Except for one 357, all I shoot is 44. SO ..... is the "long range" failure the fault of bullet design, gun, or load? Now guess what? Use the same load and change the hardness of those bullets and now maybe 5 out of 10 would not hold an 8X11 sheet of paper at 100. Quite a percentage improvement, but it drops again out @ 200 yards.

So handguns are MUCH more load dependent than a rifle. How do you get to understand that difference? You have to shoot both long range handgun and rifle to know. In the end, sometimes you STILL guess wrong. At least I do.

[Bass Ackward]

Now if a guy could stick that bullet in a rifle and shoot it 2500 fps it might change everything but thats not what were talking about. Im refering to velocitys that can be obtained in a normal sixgun.


Lloyd,

I am no expert. But what the rifle teaches you is that it's not the velocity, but the pressure.

No matter how hard a cast bullet is, it's still going to obturate. Obturation can move to deformation causing the bullet to lose balance. An outtat balance bullet reacts to air more the wider the meplat is.

35,000 from Bullseye creates a different looking bullet than 35,000 from 2400. But 35,000 isn't needed from 2400 for 1,200 fps like it maybe from Bullseye. And here is the key. 2400 creates a different looking (center of balance) bullet from 296. And that difference is do to all the mechanicals AND barrel length of that specific gun. The longer the barrel, the lower the pressure at the muzzle and the less there is to wobble a slightly deformed bullet. If the base is outta square, the effect is similar to a bad crown. The less pressure, the less wobble (instability) effect. Once the bullet wobbles enough to slow below the rate of stabilization from a certain twist rate at " X " range, it destabilizes. That's why wadcutter shooters use a 10 twist to extend wadcutter flight. There are two ways to eat up twist rate. Extending bullet length or weight and increasing meplat size. Both are equally effective.

Let me use an example. Say you have two guns and are filling the throats. But on one gun the throat is say .002 over bore while the other is a straight shot. The bullet that is required to size down and deform to the rifling is going to slow ever so slightly during this process. The base of that bullet is going to fill that cone and be screaming, get me the hell out of here as it continues forward! Any molding defect will show up sooner.

The other bullet is already ahead of that point just having to engrave and maintaining dimensional integrity and balance. Chances are it's base remains closer to square. (why you tend to see harder bullets as more accurate) Or why worn guns tend to do better at longer range if dimensions are way off. Or why taylor throating can smooth this transition? Tayloring makes little accuracy difference up close, but often offers significant long range advantages. And why Elmer recommended bore sizing up to .001 over. Most people never realize these looking only at short range results.

Both bullets end up with close to the same velocity, but the bullets may now be altered which will change BC and center of balance and flight characteristics. In a rifle, you can slow acceleration and use barrel length to use a lower pressure more favorable to balance and thus long range shooting. This is particularly taught by high velocity cast shooting.

Bottom line is that one gun may require a stronger body design or a harder bullet or a softer launch. So what is a raunchy or **** design to one gun is music to the other. It's not what the bullet looks like coming from the mold but what it looks like coming from the muzzle. And it will still fly differently from both guns magnified by distance.

It's the bullet's pressure reaction and effect on bullet balance that long range rifle teaches. Not the velocity advantage. Now can you appreciate the long range accuracy advantage of a line bored and dimensionally close or rifle like, Freedom Arms huh?

[felix]

Sounds pretty expert to me, BA. ... felix

[Lloyd Smale]

definately some good points in that post and I thank you for posting it.

[MakeMineA10mm]

BA - Good post and I generally agree, but I do have a couple questions:
1. Why, then do modern experts recommend sizing to the throat dimension of the cylinder (and bore diameter be damned - although if the bore is larger than the throats, they admit you are pretty much out of luck on ever getting accuracy). Basically, if you've got a 44 with .434" throats and .428" bore, you should size to .434" and the accuracy will be better than if you size to .429"... (I'm guessing what you are going to say is that you really need to find a revolver dimensioned like a Freedom Arms, where this is all understood and compensated for, and the revolver in my example, even though it will shoot better with .434" bullets, will still not shoot as well as it would if the throat and bore dimensions matched up more precisely..... right???)

2. How do you explain a gun that just shoots well with everything? I have a Marlin 1894SS in 44 Magnum, and with Blazer factory ammo shooting jacketed bullets, it was hitting a 2" circle at 85 yrds (with the factory iron sights, in the cold Winter), and I just took it out on Memorial Day and was shooting empty shotgun shells (12 & 20 ga.) at 30 yrds with 44 Special handloads using a 210gr RNFP I casted last Winter, again with the iron sights... This rifle just SHOOTS, and the accuracy has been verified by four different shooters being able to shoot it that well, and with three or four different loads, including factory, handloads, cast and jacketed bullets. (I know I'm fortunate to own such a rifle, but my question is, why does it shoot everything I feed it so well, when you outline so many things that can make accuracy go wrong... I know I didn't put any effort into accuracy/consistency when casting those 210gr RNFPs, because I was casting for speed as the bullets were planned to be used in CAS [not a lot of accuracy required] and I needed them done for a couple seasons in one casting session.)



As far as the original topic of Keith bullets is concerned (and I know that the GBs have already gone, so it's a little after the cow is out of the barn to throw in my $.02 now...):

I always thought that the driving bands should be equal width and not narrow, plain bases are mandatory, square lube grooves that are "big enough to carry enough lube" (whatever that means), and a SWC nose.

Personally, I think the drawings of Lyman SWC noses that look like they slightly taper back in at the beginning of the first driving band are the sexiest-looking SWC noses, but I haven't seen any that actually cast like that. (I also imagine that if a mould were actually cut like that, this feature would cause bullets to stick in the moulds.)

I recall that Keith suffered much consternation that the front driving band was shortened as well as the SWC nose length, due to the bullets not fitting in cylinders (especially the 45 Colt, but I believe there is a shortened Keith for the 38/357).

I think the driving band width issue would depend on the caliber. As the bullets get wider for larger bores, they would get longer in length to maintain the width-to-length ratio. This, in turn, would demand wider driving bands that maintain the proper length of bullet to driving band width ratio. Hence, driving bands on a 44 Keith bullet would be wider than the driving bands on a 358" Keith bullet, and so-on and so-forth...

In addition to the issue of alloy and obturation that have been brought up about Keith (using 1:16 tin:lead alloy), it's also wise to remember that he designed his first bullets for the 38 SPECIAL (not the 357 Mag) and the S&W Outdoorsman, and the 44 SPECIAL (not the Magnum) in the Colt SAA and S&W Triple Lock. We (and actually it started long before most of us were into reloading and casting) are now applying his bullets to guns with longer chambers in same-length cylinders, which means the throats are shorter. That complicates things because we have problems getting a full-length Keith nose to work with longer brass in the same-length cylinders...

Combining it all together, it would seem that perfect would be a 44 Special Freedom Arms, so that we have a long enough cylinder throat and properly dimensioned and aligned chambers and barrel. At that point, I don't think we'd have to worry a whole lot about a WW+1% (or 2%) tin alloy being too hard to obturate properly at moderate pistol pressure levels...

In my opinion (and I'm not claiming to be the brightest bulb in the pack). :mrgreen:

[Bass Ackward]

MMA10MM,

1. Most of the handguns and rifles I own in 44 caliber were purchased from someone else and most of the bores were highly leaded. Why do you think they were up for sale? If those people understood everything talked about on this board, they could have diagnosed the problem and would still be shooting them.

Why do modern experts recommend filling the throat? I haven't read Lyman for awhile, but I remember reading their position was that more than .002 over bore was counter productive. Do I have loads that support that position? Yes. Do I have loads that make that look like BS? Yes. Is that still Lyman's position? Obviously, because their molds would throw bigger bullets than they do. (You can always size down) What size bullets do other mold manufacturers throw for 44 caliber? I would say other companies don't think much about .... sizing over bore either. So what modern experts are you referring too?

2. No one has all the answers. No one has the same standards either. Don't misunderstand this, but I know guys that wouldn't accept 2" at 100 yards as an acceptable standard. We have them here too. 44 rifles tend to present far less problems than handguns because of the mechanicals. Unless you want to shoot heavier bullets or go on out with them too. Then the 38 twist can get you.

But a good definition for an accurate gun is one that everyone can shoot as well as you claim what ever that claim is. One handgun I owned once couldn't be shot by anyone, but slap that baby in a ransom and it just cut holes. What good is that? I didn't have any mechanical friends to sell it to. So it was redone.

Accurate with lead can be misleading too. Every bullet lives in a controlled world until it leaves the muzzle. Then BAD things can happen. The wider the nose and the worse the center of balance, the more effect air has. And this is the advantage to semi wadcutters, especially at longer ranges, they can go to sleep sooner if destabilized by load. I had a load, that with a big enough target, was a 6" performer at 200 yards. Not bad with open sights huh? At 25 yards that load had trouble holding 3" and the holes weren't round. I will bet that 80% of longer range shooters believe that their guns / loads shoot in one hole at 25 yards. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

Develop AND TEST your loads for the range you want to shoot.

We, to include myself, recommend stuff here every day to get a majority of shooters to be successful shooting lead. It's basically kept very basic and you don't hear accuracy standards thrown around much, so the information is designed more for fun and expansion of the sport. I get criticized from folks all the time for being .... anal in my testing. OK, I can live with that. My mom has said a lot worse.

The coarse and the Professor becomes a lot more intense if you want to do better or to go on out. :grin:

[Dragoon]

MMA10MM,

I had a load, that with a big enough target, was a 6" performer at 200 yards. Not bad with open sights huh? At 25 yards that load had trouble holding 3" and the holes weren't round.

That seems a little far fetched to me.

[Lloyd Smale]

Bass has brought up a very very good point here. What is an accurate load? I get asked all the time to recomend a load for a certain handgun that will be accurate. Its a question thats impossible to answer as especially in a handgun there are just to many variables. Bullet design,alloyand quality of the casting all play a big role as do powder and primer crimp strenght and many other small variables which anyone of can change everything. Another thing a revolver guy is deal with is the fact that he doesnt have one gun he has 6 differnt ones in the same package and if your shooting 6 shot groups and one isnt right no matter what you do you wont get good groups. Now to bullet design, what this post is about. Some guys again will ask me what is an accurate load and i have to ask for what? Are you looking for inch 25 yards groups or groups at a 100 yards or the ability to hit rocks at 600 yards. Because if you want to hit rocks with your gun for the most part thats where your load development belongs not at the bench at 25 as just as bass said ive seen just to many times where a load at 25 yards that shot an inch fell on its face at a 100 or long range and ive also just like him seen where a load that shot 2-3 inch at 25 outshot anything out at 600. I used to be real anal about loading for handguns and sit on the bench for days looking for that majic one inch group and wouldnt give up till i found it. Problem is sometimes i didnt like my results. the load wasnt good for what i wanted to do with it. LIke say a wad cutter or even a wfn happened to shoot one inch but the gun was going to be used for long range shooting so i basically wasted alot of time. I just buy to many new guns anymore to deal with taking every gun and working up 3 different loads for differnt situations and ajusting sights every time. Its fine for someone that has only one or two handguns but its not for me. When i get a new gun i assign it a purpose and that purpose is what the load developement is keyed toward. I dont get all radical trying to really fine tune a load once i find a good one. I honestly feel a guy is better off shooting his gun and honeing his skills and getting used to that particular gun then you are trying to make a gun that shoots 4 inch 100 yard groups do 2 inch. Dont get me wrong ive learned alot on the bench i still believe its a great thing for a beginning handgunner to spend alot of time at. It is about the best way possible to learn proper trigger control. You can dry fire a big bore till your blue in the face but when your out shooting and shoot the second round out of a 500 linebaugh all the dry firing in the world isnt going to keep you from flinching. Firing on the bench gives you time to think about proper trigger control and the fact that the gun is going to go off and bellow but isnt going to physicaly hurt you when it does

[Dale53]

>>>I honestly feel a guy is better off shooting his gun and honing his skills and getting used to that particular gun then you are trying to make a gun that shoots 4 inch 100 yard groups do 2 inch.<<<

AMEN!!

Dale53

[MakeMineA10mm]

Thanks for the reply BA. I see what you're saying. I was pretty impressed with 2" groups at 90yds with a 44 Magnum rifle, because of a prejudice I have that pistol-caliber rifles shouldn't be that accurate. This results in my being impressed/suprised when they are merely reasonably accurate. I really should have known better, because I have handguns that are that accurate, and there's no reason to think a carbine would be less so, when it has a longer barrel and is easier to shoot...

As far as stability of the bullet, I think you are right in your descriptions, but I also harken back to one of my instructors who taught us a technique for long-range pistol shooting wherein we imagined the pistol's sights and barrel are in a pipe, and if you hold correctly, align the sights correctly, squeeze the trigger, and have reasonably consistent and accuracy-supporting fundamental skills, one can shoot very respectable groups at virtually any range. Applying the same principles to closer-range shooting results in ragged-hole groups.

The modern-day experts I'm speaking of when I describe sizing bullets to chamber throat diameter are folks who write for Handloader magazine, like Mike Venturino, Dave Scovill, and Brian Pearce. I know some here don't think much of any gun rags, including Handloader, but they are about the only ones who publish any articles about casting that go beyond "buy such-and-such brand commercial cast bullets." They actually talk about casting, moulds, sizing, loading techniques, etc. By the way, the example I used in my post above was an exageration, but it illustrated my point.

[Lloyd Smale]

youve got to keep in mind that theres a small group of guys here that have forgot more about casting bullets then most of the gunwritters have ever known. Not to knock them as some of them are more knowlegable about other aspects of the sport then they are. I personally have probably casted more bullets then all the ones youve mentioned combined and there are guys on here thats knowlege compared to mine is like comparing a preschooler to a college graduate.

[frank505]

20 years ago I got my custom 45 colt just in time for a month in the hills guiding hunters. had some 310 keiths loaded. 15 years later jeff and i measured the cylinder throats and were surprised to find throats that started at 451 and ended at 455 or so. no wonder i have had to set the barrel back twice in 20 years of shooting it hard. now i wonder how inell i have hit anything with that sixgun, it has made some really good long range hits over the years despite having reverse funnel throats.

[Lloyd Smale]

Frank i can tell you a simualar story about a bisley vaquero box stock 5.5 inch gun that was as sloppy as a rattle the day i got it new. Had excessive end shake and side to side play and the chambers were all to tight. Thing is the gun shot and shot well. As a matter of fact it was one of the most accurate out of the box rugers ive ever owned and is for a fact the most accurate out of the box 45 colt ruger ive ever owned. I shot the snot out of that gun with heavy loads that id never publish and being plagued with sloppiness out of the box did nothing but get worse. Thing is it would still shoot and had become one of my favorite guns. I sent i to dave clements had him shorten the barrel to 4 5/8s recrown it recut the forcing cone throat the cyinder to 4525 and tighten the gun up. It came back a beauty i had him also round but it and case harden it. I had a pair of scott Kolars french walnuts taht i had dave fit to it when he round butted it. I was dammed proud of that gun when i got it back. It is flat beautiful. But does it shoot better NOPE! It shoots some loads as well as the best loads did before but it is a much more finiky gun to load for now. Before a guy could about throw some sand in a case and cap it with a rock and it would shoot under 2 inch at 25. Now it has maybe 3 or 4 loads that will do the same. Just goes to show you that the minute you think you have all the answers you find out you dont even know what the questions are! John Linebaugh will tell you that some handguns are possessed by the devil and no matter what you do they just wont shoot. Sometimes without an explanation and i beleive it myself. Probably a good reason why FA or none of the custom gunsmiths would ever gurantee an accuracy level in there guns. You can do everything right sometimes and its wrong and you can have about everything wrong sometimes and its right. The best a guy can do is to aquire all the knowlege he can and apply it and hope for the best. Thats whats nice about this site. A guy has to wade though a little bs but there are a few people on here that even an old dog can learn new tricks from if hes willing to open up his mind.

[45r]

interesting thread about long range keith boolits,shot some saeco 255GC boolits with the smallest drive band you ever saw and a short nose with a fat metplat in my 454 casull and that boolit shoots 1 inch groups at 50 yards in 45 colt brass or casull brass.you wouldn't think such a short boolit could be so accurate with everybody saying got to have a long boolit.the casull brass likes 16.3 hs-6 and the45 colt brass likes 20.0 2400.1 inch groups at 50 yards don't come easy with short boolits.really liked the picture LAH had up on that 45 keith heavy weight with equal lenght bands that could shoot round holes at 1300 yards.great looking boolit that could harvest any game animal out there.the rcbs 300GC shoots 2 to 3 inch groups at 100 yards out of my model 83 and havn't tried practicing further out but never had to since bucks around here will come within that range if ya put your tree stands in a good spot.some day I might go out west and try that type of hunting but in the midwest woods where I'm at ya got to put your deer down quick or somebody else might add more holes to em by the time you get to your deer.I'm a big fan of the high shoulder shot.no tracking needed.

[Dale53]

>>>You can do everything right sometimes and its wrong and you can have about everything wrong sometimes and its right. <<<

I had an old friend many years ago that made match quality muzzle loading barrels. He was a shooter, also. I asked him one day (I was but a lad) what he did when a gun wouldn't shoot in spite of all he knew. His reply was priceless, "Well, Dale, THOSE guns you just sell. I only keep the shootin' ones!":mrgreen:

I have personally been blessed. It has been RARE when I had a gun that wouldn't shoot. However, I have had a gun or two that I couldn't shoot. They would shoot just fine from the Ransom Rest but in my hands they wouldn't. I would find a good home for those...

Dale53

[dromia]

I have nothing to add to this thread other than to say when I had pistols my .357 magnum was a Colt Python that just loved the Lyman 358429. I got the 4 hole mould and didn't hand it in when the ban come in, I'm going to get an underlever in .357 Magnum some day to shoot that bullet again.

Anyways this thread has been the best read I've had in a long long time, thank you all for the education.

[AKtinman]

Fellas, I've enjoyed this thread. I haven't had time or space to do much loading and shooting in the past 3 years, but I am still accumulating molds and reading up on subjects like this in anticipation of doing a lot more shooting in the near future.

I started casting in 1970 with a single cavity 358156 and have been hooked since. I still have LOTS to learn and appreciate all the knowledge shared on this forum.

My favorite molds (not necessarily favorite boolits) are LBT. They are light weight and allow a high production rate. I have NEI, H&G, Lyman, Ideal, Saeco, and Lee as well.

I have to chuckle when I look at an LBT mold and see Veral's logo - LBT within a Keith bullet profile. Veral told me that HIS .44 Keith design was a TRUE Keith (how many have made that claim?) and really wasn't promoting that mold design. I did buy one of those as well as the 250 gr LFN and one day will do some serious accuracy comparisons between those two. Most of my shooting is at paper, so accuracy is #1, followed by production.

From WW alloy, the LBT Keith is difficult to fill out, but no problems with the LFN, so I am predisposed towards the LFN.

This stuff is fun!

[LAH]

From WW alloy, the LBT Keith is difficult to fill out, but no problems with the LFN, so I am predisposed towards the LFN.

I have Keith moulds in Ballistic, NEI, and Lyman. All of these fill well with W/W metal but seem to work better at 725 to 750 degrees......Creeker

[AKtinman]

I have Keith moulds in Ballistic, NEI, and Lyman. All of these fill well with W/W metal but seem to work better at 725 to 750 degrees......Creeker

Thanks, Creeker. I'll try varying the temps next chance I have to do some casting.

My old 429421 I bought in 1977 never gave me any problems with fill-out.

The recent afternoon I spent casting was the first time I had poured any boolits in about 3 years, so I am a little rusty.

[LAH]

Understand, just try a little warmer and see if that helps.

[45r]

Smoking aluminum molds with a butane lighter helps fillout for me also.If that don't work sometimes a little mold release sprayed on very lightly and the cavities brushed out with a soft toothbrush and then smoked has worked well for me.Go very light on the mold release so you don't reduce the diameter on your boolits.If you over do it brushing out with the toothbrush will remove most of the graphite.You can remove all of it with denatured alcahol if you don't want it on later or it didn't work.