NOE British Mk 1 38/200 & 358430 Clone GB

[Landric]

We just recently completed a 38/200 group buy for a 200 grain .364 RN clone of the NEI 169A mould that was intended for the British .38 S&W/.380 Revolver cartridge. While that buy was going on there was some discussion on the "correct" boolit for the original British .38/200 .38 S&W loading. It seems that the NEI mould, while sized correctly for Webley and Enfield revolvers, actually had more of the shape of the Mk. II .38 S&W, which used a 178 grain FMJ rather than a 200 grain LRN. During those discussions LouisianaMan found some drawings of the original 200 grain MK. I boolit, and it had a different profile than the buy we just did. To my eyes it looks similar to the Lyman 358430 200 grain RN.

So, I am looking for interest in a group buy for the original MK. I boolit. I've spoken to Swede Nelson at NOE about this and he would be willing to offer two different diameters on this so more people could use it. I was thinking .360 for traditional .38 caliber cartridges and .363 for .38 S&W/.38-200. Here is the drawing NOE provided. I think in order to keep this somewhat sane, we are just going to offer PB moulds on this, but if there is a lot of interest in gas check moulds, we might decide to offer those as well. RG and traditional hollow point moulds would be available.



Here is the information that LouisianaMan found on the original Mk. I boolit:



Those interested:

1)Landric 4 Cavity 4PB .360
2)Landric 2 Cavity 2PB .363
3)klcarroll 5 Cavity 5PB .363
4)boomstick hillbilly 2 Cavity 2PB .363
5)dominicfortune00 4 Cavity 4PB .363
6)Dead Dog Jack 4 Cavity 4PB .363
7)linotype 2 Cavity 2PB .360
8)happy7 5 Cavity 5PB .363
9)LouisianaMan 3 Cavity 3PB .360
10)Piedmont 4 Cavity 4PB .360
11)Daddyfixit 2 Cavity 2PB .363
12)13Echo ?? Cavity PB .360
13)GLL ?? Cavity PB .360
14)5 RING 4 Cavity 4PB .???
15)Blov 2 Cavity 2PB .363
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)

[klcarroll]

Hey Landric

Count me in for a .364 Four Cavity!! (....Unless a Five or Six cavity mold is offered!)


Kent

[happy7]

I would rather see it be a .363. Nominal sizing is .361, and I have about five very different revolvers. A .364 will not chamber in any of them. .363 will chamber in some. If we request .364, .365 will be in spec, and sizing down .004 is more than I like to do.

[Landric]

I don't have any problem with .363 instead of .364. Do you think .360 is still reasonable for traditional .358ish cartridges?

Klcarroll, there will be a 5 Cavity available (but not a 6). I'll put you down for a 5 cavity. How do you feel about the .363 vs. .364 issue?

[klcarroll]

I don't have any problem with .363 instead of .364. Do you think .360 is still reasonable for traditional .358ish cartridges?

Klcarroll, there will be a 5 Cavity available (but not a 6). I'll put you down for a 5 cavity. How do you feel about the .363 vs. .364 issue?

I'd be OK with .363.

I do have an Enfield that shows me a .363" bore and throats, but I typically don't shoot that particular weapon with any great expectations regarding accuracy: ......The rest of my 38/200s are in the .361" to .362" range.

Kent

[Landric]

OK, pending approval by NOE I think we are going to go with .363 for .38-200 and .360 for traditional .38 caliber cartridges.

[happy7]

I don't have any problem with .363 instead of .364. Do you think .360 is still reasonable for traditional .358ish cartridges?

I personally wish all my 38 spl molds would cast at .360. I think it is ideal.

[boomstick hillbilly]

landric I would be in for a 2cav .

[Landric]

landric I would be in for a 2cav .

OK, which diameter would you like?

[dominicfortune00]

Put me down for a .363 4 cavity.

[Dead Dog Jack]

Of course you can put me on the list! 4 cavity, .363, PB. Yee haw!


PS. If we are voting on the crimp groove issue...I vote for NO crimp groove as per the drawing example.

[linotype]

Put me down for a 2 cavity .360 PB

[happy7]

I would like a five cavity .363. Thanks.

[LouisianaMan]

Hi Landric & fellow heavy-.38 fans!

Put me down for a 3-cavity, plain base, .360. I appreciate your work & NOE's efforts on these designs!

BTW, do you know if Al ever received the bullet samples I sent him (a .38 S&W, 200g Western brand "specially adapted for police use," and a .38 SPL Super Police, 200g Winchester brand)? If so, any feedback from him on how the .38 S&W bullet compares with the original British Mk. I design?

Thanks,
LouisianaMan

PS--although I haven't yet cast from the previous GB mold, it looks absolutely first-rate!

[boomstick hillbilly]

sorry .363 PB thanks

[Landric]

Hi Landric & fellow heavy-.38 fans!

Put me down for a 3-cavity, plain base, .360. I appreciate your work & NOE's efforts on these designs!

BTW, do you know if Al ever received the bullet samples I sent him (a .38 S&W, 200g Western brand "specially adapted for police use," and a .38 SPL Super Police, 200g Winchester brand)? If so, any feedback from him on how the .38 S&W bullet compares with the original British Mk. I design?

Thanks,
LouisianaMan

PS--although I haven't yet cast from the previous GB mold, it looks absolutely first-rate!

Al did get the samples and they served as a template for the drawing. They look the same to my eyes and the picture of the Mk. I boolit you found.

I'll put you down for a 3 Cavity.

[LouisianaMan]

Landric,
Glad to hear it all came together. The bullets look so similar to me that I can figured they were the same thing, but I lack the tools and skill to match anything very exactly--guess I should have paid more attention in Geometry class!

I look forward to loading these to duplicate the old Mk I and seeing how they do. IIRC, I ran across something that said the Brits used a 13:1 lead:tin alloy with it--I need to look that up. I wonder if it's a tumbler? And if so, does that tend to increase or decrease target effects when compared to the 200g LSWC GB bullet, which I like very much indeed.

[Piedmont]

I don't own a .38 S&W, but do own .38 specials. If one were to use this in the special, where would it be crimped? Over the front band?

[happy7]

I was looking at the pictures, sort of dreaming about what the bullet will look like, and realized we haven't really finalized the design yet. I would like it to remain as original as possible. I guess the way I look at it is that we already, most of us, have the other 200 grain mold that was just shipped to us. The only real purpose for this one is to duplicate the original lead bullet more closely. Improving on the design with crimp grooves, etc, kind of defeats that purpose.

So what I am saying is that I would prefer a design without a crimp groove and with two lube grooves, not three, just like in the drawing that LouisianaMan provided.

I know of no way to really nose pore a round nose bullet or I would even suggest that it be an RG mold so we could also incorporate the hollow base.

Because it is such a short case, I think it would be best if the lube grooves were moved lower on the bullet (narrowing the bottom band), like in the original. That would give more flexibility in seating depth. Making the bottom band wide enough to accomdate a gas check is not necessary. I agree with Landric that we can dispense with it. I mean, a gas check is totally out of place on this cartridge.

[Dead Dog Jack]

The only real purpose for this one is to duplicate the original lead bullet more closely. Improving on the design with crimp grooves, etc, kind of defeats that purpose.

Exactly!