most accurate 44 cal boolit

[Oklahoma Rebel]

I read an article by john ross, I think his name was, about the basics of loading for the 44. he mentions that while the keith boollit is accurate, a rnfp with a bore riding nose section, like the jd jones ssk boolit were more accurate.does accurate molds have one similar to the ssk design, and are the accurate to 100 yards? I know some of thos boolits have huge meplats and may not be stable out to that distance. if anyone has any opinion, info, or tips, let me know. ps I will be shooting a bisley SBH hunter w' 7.5 in barrel. don't know if I am going to use a scope or not yet. never fired a revolver with optics. anyways, thank you-Travis

[Hickory]

For me it has been the #429421 in most every thing I have shot it in.

[shoot-n-lead]

Unless you are an exceptional shooter...and you may be...the 429421 will be as accurate as you are. But, get the mold that you want, that is one of the great things about casting...we can shoot the bullet that we want.

[Oklahoma Rebel]

well I do like the keith, the thick grease groove and the even bands,(on some) I know lyman says they are 240 or 245 gr. but what do they end up weighing in real life, I cast for pistols with 1:20 , that happens to have 1.9%sb

[Oklahoma Rebel]

oh, and do you know where I could look at some ssk type designs? does accurate have some? I know they will say , this boolit is a copy of the 429421 and so on with some of the boolits. I wonder if they have any that are advertised as being like the ssk's. I don't think I have ever seen one and they are out of business if I am correct?

[Hickory]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...03-clone-rerun

You can pickup a very high quality Keith style mould here.

[RobS]

A RNFP design in a revolver works well. I personally design molds with a tangent ogive as to help the boolit align into the forcing cone and I also prefer a design with the length (weight) to ensure the nose is fully engraving the lands/rifling before the base leaves the cylinder throat. Designed as such accuracy has always been superb for me in a variety of different calibers. A meplat of around 72%, which is typically what a Keith SWC design is at and also the LFN style design is around the same meplat diameter, you will have slightly less bullet drop out to 100 yards. A meplat of such diameter has been proven adequate for hunting applications.

I've found it is easier to achieve accuracy when the ogive of a boolit helps ease/guide the front end of the boolit straight into the barrel while having a long/heavy enough boolit to keep the base still in the cylinder throat until the nose has worked into the lands/rifling. Think of a straight launch if you will and this is all dependent on having a revolver that is put together mechanically correct.

[Thumbcocker]

I have used the NOE Ranch Dog with conventional lube grooves and they shoot well past 200 yards. I have shot similar distances with Keiths.

[marlin39a]

My go to bullet for accuracy is the Ray Thompson 429215 GC.

[Oklahoma Rebel]

is ray Thompson a company name , could I look up ray Thompson bullets? and thumbC, aren't those ranch dogs grooved for tumble lube?

[Larry Gibson]

From another thread;

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CLASSI...TS.-a078130011

LaChuk says of Ray Thompson, "One person who helped fuel the renaissance of the .44 Special was Ray C. Thompson of Grand Marais, Minn. Ray was an avid handgun hunter, bagging beasts from wolves to moose. To overcome the bore leading problems that we all shared when shooting high-velocity pistol loads, Ray designed two .44 caliber pistol bullets with gas check rebates at the base. The Thompson #431244 weighed 254 gr. in solid point, 225 gr. with a hollow point. The Thompson #43 1215 weighed 214 gr. solid and 200 gr. hollow pointed. I found Thompson bullets to be extremely accurate and free from the lead fouling."

Thompson was a full-time forest ranger which gave him plenty of opportunity to test his bullet designs. In 1952, four of Thompson's SWC bullets were added to the Lyman catalog. Besides the .44 designs, the others were #358 156 for the .38 and .357 Magnum, and #452490 for the .45 Colt and .45 Auto Rim. Thompson's .38 bullet has two crimping grooves, the top one for use in .357 Mag. brass and the lower one for .38 Special brass.

[shoot-n-lead]

is ray Thompson a company name , could I look up ray Thompson bullets?

Are you thinking of hunting with these 215gr bullets?

Not saying that you can't...just wondering.

I have some of these, powder coated, out on my bench, somewhere. I use the 429421 for hunting and my guns shoot the 200gr full wadcutters better than the Thompson bullet, at the ranges that I plink ( 50yds)...so, I have some that I have never shot.

[Blackwater]

IME, accuracy is a function of the combination of gun, load and shooter. Yes, particular bullet styles MAY come into play, but they're a very minor factor. I once had the Saeco 245 gr. (#441 IIRC?) SWC and a buddy had the Lyman 429421. The Lyman has a longer nose and the Saeco seats more deeply into the case with its shorter nose. A buddy also had a Super B, and this time, as luck would have it, my gun shot the Saeco best, and his shot the Lyman best. Sometimes, you just get lucky.

But I've shot all sorts of bullets in my Super B, and seldom has bullet design mattered very much. How WELL the bullets were cast or swaged often DID make a difference. Powder charges are also a factor. Some powders just seem to produce more consistent accuracy than some others in any given caliber.

The main thing, though, will be fit of the bullet in the throats and cylinder alignment with the bore. Barrel/cylinder gap can affect velocity in determining how much gas blows out there, but I've never noted any big advantage in a very narrow cylinder gap, when it comes to accuracy. Mostly, it's about good bullet fit to the cylinder throats, and a bore that's no more than .001" smaller than the cylinder throats, and good lube, and good, nearly "perfectly" formed bullets that are consistent in wt., and a good powder charge that's proven accurate. Other than that, I've never found any "magic" in any other factors, including nose conformation. Yeah, some have features that others lack, but like Shakespeare, I find it "much ado about nothing." Sorry if this disappoints, but that's my experience.

[shoot-n-lead]

IME, accuracy is a function of the combination of gun, load and shooter. Yes, particular bullet styles MAY come into play, but they're a very minor factor. I once had the Saeco 245 gr. (#441 IIRC?) SWC and a buddy had the Lyman 429421. The Lyman has a longer nose and the Saeco seats more deeply into the case with its shorter nose. A buddy also had a Super B, and this time, as luck would have it, my gun shot the Saeco best, and his shot the Lyman best. Sometimes, you just get lucky.

But I've shot all sorts of bullets in my Super B, and seldom has bullet design mattered very much. How WELL the bullets were cast or swaged often DID make a difference. Powder charges are also a factor. Some powders just seem to produce more consistent accuracy than some others in any given caliber.

The main thing, though, will be fit of the bullet in the throats and cylinder alignment with the bore. Barrel/cylinder gap can affect velocity in determining how much gas blows out there, but I've never noted any big advantage in a very narrow cylinder gap, when it comes to accuracy. Mostly, it's about good bullet fit to the cylinder throats, and a bore that's no more than .001" smaller than the cylinder throats, and good lube, and good, nearly "perfectly" formed bullets that are consistent in wt., and a good powder charge that's proven accurate. Other than that, I've never found any "magic" in any other factors, including nose conformation. Yeah, some have features that others lack, but like Shakespeare, I find it "much ado about nothing." Sorry if this disappoints, but that's my experience.

I agree, Blackwater, and there are few folks that can extract max accuracy from gun/load combinations...despite all of these claims we see posted. There seems to be a lot of shooters and fishermen that like to exaggerate...being nice, using "exaggerate".

[Thumbcocker]

The NOE version of the Ranch Dog has conventional grooves. I shoot mostly plain based ones.

[Oklahoma Rebel]

no,shoot-n-lead, those are far too light for my, my min. for hunting is 240, but would rather find a 250 for average shooting, and deer hunting, and an accurate molds 43-295B truncated cone w/72% meplat. could you guys take a look at that one and let me know what you think. I believe it would keep itself straight while it guides itself into the barrel like you were talking about

[shoot-n-lead]

no,shoot-n-lead, those are far too light for my, my min. for hunting is 240, but would rather find a 250 for average shooting, and deer hunting, and an accurate molds 43-295B truncated cone w/72% meplat. could you guys take a look at that one and let me know what you think. I believe it would keep itself straight while it guides itself into the barrel like you were talking about

That bullet would probably shoot very well. Years ago, I shot a LOT of 295gr truncated cone bullets...not that mold...but pretty similar...they were as accurate as I am, out to 100yds. I don't shoot bullets that heavy in the .44, anymore...I don't need more than the .250gr 429421 for my deer.

[RobS]

Nose of bullet likely too long. SBH's max out at about .400" nose length and there really isn't a crimp groove on that design.

[RobS]

A Truncated (TC) design is not my cup of tea for revolvers however the above is the following:

275 grains Wheel Weight Alloy
As cast diameter: .432"
72% meplat or .311"
Nose Length: .400"
Over All Length: .775"
Front Drive Band: .100"

[Oklahoma Rebel]

well, the 295gr would be for the hogs, and if down the road i get a chance to go elk hunting with my dad in the next few years, i will carry both pistol and rifle, incase one gets within pistol range my accurate mold will be 2 cav. of a keith design (250j) actually weighs 260 and one cav of the heavier 295 since it will be used less. RobS what company's design is that?