358495 vs 358091

[Michael J. Spangler]

i've done a lot of reading and they seem to be pretty much interchangeable.

any experience with one being better than the other? accuracy wise? loading wise?

i have a 4 cavity 358495 on the way and a 2 cavity 358091. i figure if i really like the 091 i could just ream the bevel base off of the 495 to make use of the 4 cavity right?

any pics of these sweet little wadcutters to hold me over till mine get in would be much appreciated.

happy new year all!

[bhn22]

There's rally nothing wrong with the bevel base wadcutters. The two designs appear identical except for the base, you could have the bevel reamed if you want to.

[gcsteve]

I have a 4 cavity Ideal 358495. Its a 141 grain button nose wadcutter with a plain base. I don't own the 358091, but I believe it to be a button nose wadcutter at 148 grains with a bevel base. Other than that, hey are nearly identical, with the 148 grain version being somewhat more common. My 358495's are plenty accurate and make very nice round holes.

[Michael J. Spangler]

thanks guys.

i guess i could always trade off what i don't want. or i can throw it on my Bridgeport and make the one i don't need into a much smaller wadcutter
; )

[GBertolet]

I have the 35891 in 4 cavity. It is a button nose bevel base. I have had excellent results with it, along with 3.6 gr 231. Which just happens to be the recommended load for the 38spl for the 148 gr, in the Winchester manual. My only criticism is the bevel tends to collect lube when going through the sizer.

[Michael J. Spangler]

i've lubed a whole bunch of bevel base 40 cal in my star and haven't noticed the lube build up on the bevel base
is this something that's normally seen with a lyman type sizer instead of the star sizers?

[bhn22]

The Star is a straight through type sizer. The Lyman pushed the bullet into the die, then pushes it back out from the same end it entered. Big difference.