The Three Keiths

[44MAG#1]

Accurate mold 43-250J looks nothing like the bullet in Keith's Sixgun book. It looks as a generic of the many claimed to be a Keith bullet.
There are no Keith 44 bullets today that look like the bullet in his book.

[dogdoc]

But his original was by Lyman in the 1920s and that mold represents it as close as your going to get . The bullet is a concept and it has evolved some over time. Read the handloader article. I think you will enjoy it

[44MAG#1]

No, any mold maker worth his salt with the means to lathe Bore a mold could make one or offer a mold to the dimensions in Keith's book. It isn't like one he has the correct dimensions it would be difficult to make one for us half cracked casters wanting something as close as possible and willing to pay for it.
I am a fan of Pearce but he hiccuped bad on this one.

[44MAG#1]

. Hensley and Gibbs #326 six cavity "Keith".
Notice I put Keith in Quotes.

[dogdoc]

What I am saying is the mould in sixguns was not his original. The Lyman mould started it all and was made to his spec long before sixguns was published in the 1950s. A lot of his sixguns exploits would have been with bullets from a Lyman 429421 that was made for him in the 1920s that he would term his bullet. Whose says the picture in his book is correct? It certainly is not the original one he designed in the 1920s for that one was a Lyman mould. We are probably splitting hairs anyway as the basic concepts are similar. I imagine both bullets would perform well? He may of modified it later and had someone make him a mould for that bullet in sixguns. I imagine accurate moulds could make you something similar to the one in the book if you can spec it from the picture pretty close. My new mould looks great quality.

[dogdoc]

That is a sweet h and g mould! Probably hard to find

[44MAG#1]

The bullet in his book Sixguns was from an original Keith mold. In my many calls to Keith over the years he said so when I asked him. The mold was later identified as the 429421 as a means to idenrifiy the mold.
They had to use a mold number just like they did on all the other molds that Boser and others designed that Lyman made.
Do not care whether you or anyone else believes me but Keith himself, over the phone, said that bullet in the book Sixguns was cast in an original Keith mold.
The point comes down to whether you believe I am lying or not. If you believe I am lying then that isn't the original Keith in the book. Or you believe me and it is. I am at peace with myself on this and I got to hear "The Man" himself tell me it is.
Where did the #326 bullet come from? Care to venture a guess on this?

[Blackwater]

Keith bullets do indeed vary from one mfg. to th enext. I believe I remember Brian also writing once that perhaps the most comparatively authentic "Keith" bullet made today by the major companies, was the RCBS 250K, but even this one is a bit different from Elmer's original specs. The problem, as I understand it, is that Elmer specified a big, deep and square bodied grease groove. I suspect he sometimes improvised his lubes, living as he did and being the "improvise and oveercome type," generally, and this was a specific spec that he simply demanded. The longer nose was designed to be as long as his cylinders could tolerate without risking a bullet pulling out in recoil. It also left him more powder room, too, and he was after maximizing all he could get out of these guns, so .... that's the why of the long (some say overlength) nose. The equal driving bands were just his idea of the best way to utilize the sides of the bullet and keep it aligned and yet well lubed for its entire length of the trip down the bore to the muzzle. The fact that the forward driving band was outside the case let it align the bullet with the cylinder throats, and this definitely helps accuracy in revolvers. Anything one can do to keep everything concentric and on center aids accuracy in any gun.

And the long, oddly tapered nose kept the front end of the bullet light enough so that it would likely carry well out to very long handgun ranges, which Elmer and some pals liked to shoot at, just to see how far was "too far" for them and their handguns and loads. It turned out to indeed be a fine long range performer. And the flat nose of decent size was to increase the "whack factor" on impact, which is a very well established criteria for game bullets of pistol caliber, in particular.

It is and always will be, when fitting a particular gun's cylinder throats, a fine choice for hunting or any very long range handgunning. There are definitely other designs, most of whom claim "advantages" over the Keith bullet, and not without some valid theory at the very least. But Keith's bullet was NEVER INTENDED to be "the perfect bullet" for anyone but HIM, and he designed it to serve much more than a single purpose.

Other bullets have and will continue to come and go, but I think the LBT type designs will probably stay for a long time, like Elmer's bullet. And I've even read of them doing well at very long range, too. But Elmer's bullet had a big enough grease groove that if one ever came across a time where it was difficult to get really good lube or components, that Keith bullet with its wide, deep grease groove would almost surely utilize a lower grade of bullet lube more effectively than other designs with more conventional or "conservative" lube grooves. And that deep, wide crimp groove is welcome when adjusting the seating die, too, and surely makes for a good, strong crimp, which Elmer also liked, especially when shooting 2400 or other slower burning powders. We also need to remember he cast many if not most of his bullets of simple lead/tin alloys, and liked them better than harder antimonial alloys such as WW's, too. He liked his bullets to smush out on impact, and his binary alloys of from 1-10 to 1-30 did that very well, and held together very well to boot, to penetrate deeply, which he always insisted on. He liked to see both entrance AND exit holes in his game.

He did a grand job, and while other, newer bullets may get a lot of hubaloo in order to sell today, Elmer's bullet just keeps marching on, and doing an excellent job. No bullet has probably ever touched quite as many bases at the same time as Elmer's did, and it still does. Personally, I find it satisfying to shoot a bullet that's STILL about as good as it gets. No bullet is perfect, including Elmer's or the LBT types or any other nose/bullet designs. They're ALL a compromise of one sort or another. But Elmer's bullet sure combined one whale of a lot of excellent criteria for an "all around" bullet in the magnum calibers for SURE!

[dogdoc]

Yes to above. I do not care if one varies a small amount for another one. As long as the basic principles are there, the rest is just is splitting hairs. I have the rcbs 250k, Lyman 429421 from recent manufacture and now a close copy of the original Lyman 429421 made by accurate moulds. I will load them all pretty much the same and I am sure they will put down alabama whitetails just fine and all be accurate. There is no one and only Keith mould except maybe that first Lyman he had made with Pickering (sp?) guy at Lyman in the late 1920s. I imagine every maker in those days had small variations since cherrys were custom made. As time went on I am sure there small changes. Who cares?It is the basic principles that matter

[44MAG#1]

Yes to above. I do not care if one varies a small amount for another one. As long as the basic principles are there, the rest is just is splitting hairs.

You are right. But here is the deal, you have this mold maker saying "I have the Keith bullet". Then another says no, over here I have it, then another saying no no they are wrong I have it when no one has the Keith bullet but close or closer copies. Why not just say "I make a copy of the Keith with my own ideas applied".
Then let it lay. But, everyone want to be making the Keith bullet so badly that their innards are aching to be the only one.