B.C. of .431 keith SWC?

[TomAM]

Real Keith??
Who makes one??
Demosthenes didnt know anything about a Keith bullet regardless of his oratory capability.
Let me know who make a TRUE Keith and I'll buy two molds.

With the Keith design, people search for specifics which don't exist.
Keith's own description of the design requirements are rather vague, simply because tiny details are insignificant.

He simply specified maximum flat frontal area, a full diameter front band to fill the ball seat, and plenty of lube.
The large meplat was to be flat, and the shoulder atop the front band was to be flat.

He is known to have approved lathe turned prototypes which met these requirements, but that does not mean that they contained any magical formula which must be adhered to in every detail.

He did NOT specify equal length bands and perfectly square lube grooves.

He also did NOT kill a deer at 600 yds with one. That was done with a Remington factory load containing a factory RNFP with gas check.

[white eagle]

And i might ad Tom here has made me plenty of Keith SWC
and they were perfect and shot very well

[44MAG#1]

With the Keith design, people search for specifics which don't exist.
Keith's own description of the design requirements are rather vague, simply because tiny details are insignificant.

He simply specified maximum flat frontal area, a full diameter front band to fill the ball seat, and plenty of lube.
The large meplat was to be flat, and the shoulder atop the front band was to be flat.

He is known to have approved lathe turned prototypes which met these requirements, but that does not mean that they contained any magical formula which must be adhered to in every detail.

He did NOT specify equal length bands and perfectly square lube grooves.

He also did NOT kill a deer at 600 yds with one. That was done with a Remington factory load containing a factory RNFP with gas check.

While I am sure you are correct in you assertions When I say there are NO true Keith bullets I am basing that on what he told me about the bullet IN THE PHOTO of his SIXGUN book. That it was cast in an original Lyman Keith mold.
So unless yours or anyone else's bullet looks like the One In His Book it is not an original Keith.
Why not say "I produce a close copy of the Keith Bullet" instead of "this is a Keith Bullet". How simple would that be?
I am smart enough to know that subtile differences make little or no difference.
I know the 600 yard deer was with the first Remington ammo that Remington sent him.
Anyone that proclaims to be a student of Keith knows that.
The 3 flying eagles with 5 shots all around 100 yards were with his "Keith" bullet.
No what version of his Keith bullet he was using is up to debate.
Does anyone know what his 4 inch M29 was loaded with that day???
I am sure his ability was more important than subtile differences in his Keith bullet.
So what is wrong with saying "my rendition of the Keith"?

[TomAM]

Any bullet in my catalog which resembles a Keith is not true to his design, because I don't offer a flat front shoulder.
None of them are labeled as a Keith.

I was not in any way trying to promote my product with my post. Just trying to put some perspective on this issue. There simply is no blueprint, no formula which defines a "true" Keith. That's all I'm saying.

[Victor N TN]

To get the true ballistic coefficient of a bullet you have to fire it across one of the new type chronographs with the built in computer. Even if you change the bullet alloy the BC will change. That's partly why different books state this number different in each one.

[44MAG#1]

post a pic?
(ordered book. `had HIWT for close to 40 years)


postscript: I'm looking at a 1970 (effectively half century ago) Lyman 45th. The 429421 in that volume is by my eyes identical to the one in post#12 above. It is most definitely not anything like the NOE or H&G referenced therein.

Look also at http://www.lasc.us/fryxell44swc.htm Fig. 2.
That is the original "Keith" shape

I have two of those manuals.

[44MAG#1]

Any bullet in my catalog which resembles a Keith is not true to his design, because I don't offer a flat front shoulder.
None of them are labeled as a Keith.

I was not in any way trying to promote my product with my post. Just trying to put some perspective on this issue. There simply is no blueprint, no formula which defines a "true" Keith. That's all I'm saying.

You sir, are correct and I appreciate your honesty. Until the bullet looks like the one in his book SIXGUNS it is not a Keith.
Just like the ones that say H&G 503 is a Keith. Their last one looks more closer but I have a H&G 503 that has a narrow front band and two wider bands after it. They don't look the same.
So the quest goes. Who is going to solve the quest???

[TomAM]

To get the true ballistic coefficient of a bullet you have to fire it across one of the new type chronographs with the built in computer. Even if you change the bullet alloy the BC will change. That's partly why different books state this number different in each one.

This is absolutely true. I've been using LabRadar for a couple of years now. Measuring velocity of a shot at distances 100 yards apart allows accurate calculation of BC.
It's surprising how much bullet slump occurs when firing, and relative softness and velocity both have a very big effect.
True BCs turn out to be far lower than estimates based upon static bullet shape.

[mehavey]

[44MAG#1]

Look on page 286 in his SIXGUN book and you will see. That is as far as I am concerned as far as what I was told by Mr Keith.
Now we will hear from the experts of which I am not one.

[Artful]

http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_Chapter_12_KeithSWC.htm

http://www.lasc.us/fryxell45keithswc.htm

[mehavey]

I think that you've convinced me that "Keith" bullet
is (and was always) a state of ever-changing mind.

[44MAG#1]

I think that you've convinced me that "Keith" bullet
is (and was always) a state of ever-changing mind.

You are correct. Mold makers will always be saying "I have the Keith." Another one will say "no I have it over here". Another one will say "no no they are wrong I have it here".
And so the story will continue.
Demosthenes Would be proud of you.

[mehavey]

[44MAG#1]

The second from left.

[mehavey]

TOM: Can you make the #15 ?

[TomAM]

TOM: Can you make the #15 ?

No. Can't make square grooves or bands. My tooling requires a bevel. No horizontal surface except the meplat and base.
Elmer wanted maximum cutting edge for the frontal surfaces, and so a sharp, square shoulder on the front band.

If you can find a mold with deep, square lube grooves you will regret it because bullets won't release without a fight.
The 90 deg front band shoulder might not cause too much of an issue, but I just can't make it.

[outdoorfan]

I'm not sure why you need an exact BC of that bullet, but I'm going to guess that the posted .2 or so is pretty close. This is based upon firing other bullets over the chronograph at various distances, and extrapolating those results.

[sw282]

TOM: Can you make the #15 ?

My Hensley & Gibbs #503 California address mold is exactly like #15.. Square grease groove example

[44MAG#1]

My Hensley & Gibbs #503 California address mold is exactly like #15.. Square grease groove example

Show us a picture, please.