H&G 6 cavity #503

[44MAG#1]

“Later, in the early 1960s, Elmer Keith was frustrated with the changes that Lyman had made to his SWC designs, so he turned to H&G and commissioned them to reproduce his original SWC designs. The results were the H&G #503 (.44 SWC), the #501 (.45 SWC) and the newly designed #258 (.41 SWC) for the brand new .41 Magnum.”

Link:

http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell44SWC.htm

MP 432-256 is allegedly true copy of HG#503. (??)

Which #503 is the one he commissioned ?

[lightman]

H&G made a really nice mold. All of mine cast like a dream.

[FISH4BUGS]

Which #503 is the one he commissioned ?

OK....so let's see what we have to date:
The #503 IS the Keith designed bullet.
Different manufacturers of moulds may have made some minor changes to the design over time.
It would appear that H&G is the TRUE bullet design but it may have changed a bit over time.
Different manufacturers do different things to designs which apparently pissed off Keith.
Not that it really matters in the big picture but staying within the H&G design, are they all the same with the slightly narrower front drive band?
Or...are there variations on the #503 within H&G?

[Don Purcell]

Look at my earlier post and it tells of the two different styles of the H&G #503's that I have from the late 70's to late 80's to the Ballisticast #1503 from around 2000. My later H&G and Ballisticast are more true to Keith's wishes than my first H&G even though it shoots very well regardless.

[44MAG#1]

OK....so let's see what we have to date:
The #503 IS the Keith designed bullet.
Different manufacturers of moulds may have made some minor changes to the design over time.
It would appear that H&G is the TRUE bullet design but it may have changed a bit over time.
Different manufacturers do different things to designs which apparently pissed off Keith.
Not that it really matters in the big picture but staying within the H&G design, are they all the same with the slightly narrower front drive band?
Or...are there variations on the #503 within H&G?

As I have said several times on this site that I have two different designs of the H&G #503 molds myself. So with Don Purcell saying there were two and Me saying there were two we know there was at least two different #503 H&G molds.

[mattw]

I would love to get my hands on the 41 mag version, but I can't justify the cost and I have to many great performing 41's already. The Saeco 411 being my favorite so far.

[Mal Paso]

OK....so let's see what we have to date:
The #503 IS the Keith designed bullet.
Different manufacturers of moulds may have made some minor changes to the design over time.
It would appear that H&G is the TRUE bullet design but it may have changed a bit over time.
Different manufacturers do different things to designs which apparently pissed off Keith.
Not that it really matters in the big picture but staying within the H&G design, are they all the same with the slightly narrower front drive band?
Or...are there variations on the #503 within H&G?

The MP 503 clone was copied from a H&G 503 mold that Dale53 supplied. The original MP run was a group buy right here.

Elmer designed the 503 for 44 Mag and the 429421 for 44 Special as 44 Mag did not exist yet.

Lyman reduced the forward band to reduce chambering issues which had an effect on accuracy. I like the forward band just inside the throats.

Elmer used tin/lead alloys and sized .429". Most of us use antimony/tin/lead alloys and .430-.431" seems to work better but tight throats could result in more chambering issues. So forward bands get reduced and chambers made longer. Fit is King. LOL

[44MAG#1]

"The MP 503 clone was copied from a H&G 503 mold that Dale53 supplied. The original MP run was a group buy right here.

"Elmer designed the 503 for 44 Mag and the 429421 for 44 Special as 44 Mag did not exist yet."
Lyman reduced the forward band to reduce chambering issues which had an effect on accuracy. I like the forward band just inside the throats.

Elmer used tin/lead alloys and sized .429". Most of us use antimony/tin/lead alloys and .430-.431" seems to work better but tight throats could result in more chambering issues. So forward bands get reduced and chambers made longer. Fit is King. LOL"




When was the #503 H&G designed for the 44 Mag by Mr. Keith?

[Mal Paso]

"The MP 503 clone was copied from a H&G 503 mold that Dale53 supplied. The original MP run was a group buy right here.

"Elmer designed the 503 for 44 Mag and the 429421 for 44 Special as 44 Mag did not exist yet."
Lyman reduced the forward band to reduce chambering issues which had an effect on accuracy. I like the forward band just inside the throats.

Elmer used tin/lead alloys and sized .429". Most of us use antimony/tin/lead alloys and .430-.431" seems to work better but tight throats could result in more chambering issues. So forward bands get reduced and chambers made longer. Fit is King. LOL"




When was the #503 H&G designed for the 44 Mag by Mr. Keith?

You would ask that. I'm up to early 1969 and he's still touting the 429421, all 3 versions so it would be after that. His H&G 41 Mag bullet was already in production then as was his connection to H&G. The article: Elmer Keith picks his favorite loads for handguns. I have everything I ever found on Elmer archived it's just finding the right piece.

The 503 is in the 1975 H&G catalogue, still looking.

The 1990 H&G catalogue shows a wider front drive band than previous drawings and claims to be an Original Keith Design. The illustrations are all hand drawn sketches though.

[44MAG#1]

You would ask that. I'm up to early 1969 and he's still touting the 429421, all 3 versions so it would be after that. His H&G 41 Mag bullet was already in production then as was his connection to H&G. The article: Elmer Keith picks his favorite loads for handguns. I have everything I ever found on Elmer archived it's just finding the right piece.

So going that he is up to 1969 and he is still touting the 429421 then the 44 mag had been out since 1956, I believe. So he evidentially worked up the "Keith Load" with the 429421.
I wonder which one of the 429421 bullets he used? How many versions of the 429421 had there been up to the 44 Mag introduction?

[Mal Paso]

The Keith Load is mentioned in the 1969 article written by Keith. He was absolutely right! Magic happens at 22g. I've has ESs of 10 fps across 2 6 shot strings at 1500 fps! It's also above max pressure for 44 Mag. He also says the wide full front band was to reduce skidding as the bullet engages the rifling and spins up.

[44MAG#1]

The Keith Load is mentioned in the 1969 article written by Keith.

Since around 13 years the 44 Magnum had been in existence in 1969 the "Keith Load" must have been developed shortly after 1956. I don't know the exact date but the "Keith Load" had been in existence for several years. I still wonder about the birthdate of the H&G 503 bullet.

He was absolutely right! Magic happens at 22g.

I wonder how he worked up the "Keith Load". On paper then at distance shooting at objects etc. to confirm his load?


I've has ESs of 10 fps across 2 6 shot strings at 1500 fps!

That is a screaming load. What barrel length? Have you tried different "lots" of powder just to see the differences? Did you use standard primers?


It's also above max pressure for 44 Mag.

If it is should a person use it? There are others that say that it isn't over maximum . We know, according to Mr. Keith his load ran around 1400 fps with 34,000 CUP pressure when tested by H.P. Whites labs.

He also says the wide full front band was to reduce skidding as the bullet engages the rifling and spins up.

Mr. Keith used an alloy that was 1-16 tin and lead (around a 10.5 BHN alloy) to work up the "Keith Load" which by todays standards is a soft alloy. If one is using a 15 or 18 BHN alloy would a more narrow front band control "skid" just as well? If not, has anyone done an accuracy comparison of a narrow front band bullet and the wider front band bullet?

Some of my questions have been injected in the quoted feature.
In all of this my main question still is: When was the H&G 503 bullet added to the H&G lineup? Did Mr. Keith ever use the narrow front band H&G 503 bullet or were the bullets he used all the "normal" wider front band?
What did the first Ideal 429421 bullet look like and what year did they change the design for the first time? How much did they change it? What version did Mr. Keith use in working up the "Keith Load"?
I find all this interesting.

[Mal Paso]

6 inch, 4 inch about 100fps slower. There is lot to lot variation in 2400 and I have recorded faster.

Your pics.

[44MAG#1]

6 inch, 4 inch about 100fps slower. There is lot to lot variation in 2400 and I have recorded faster.

Your pics.

Do you have the mold on the left? The "Keith Bullet" in the center photo what variation is it?

[Don Purcell]

I have on old Gun Digest from the early 60's that in the back list many manufacturers. I remember a listing of cast bullets from the old Markell Cast Bullets and the show the 250 grain Keith listing it as "a man's bullet" and it looks like the Keith with all wide bands and squared grease groove but I don't remember if they list which mold company. I will try to find it and see.

[derek45]

EDITED -- The Blue bullet is an OHAUS, not an IDEAL, I was mixing it up with my 368477

Here's an old OHAUS 44-250-K, compared to my ARSENAL #503

In my mind, the 503 is what Keith described, and the OHAUS has deviations from the Keith design.

smaller crimp groove
smaller front band
smaller rounded lube groove.

both shoot well, but I sold the OHAUS 2 cavity, as I wanted more production.

I think the ARSENAL 503 is just right.

( IDEAL is blue, 503 is clear coated)

[44MAG#1]

What about the bullet in my #14 post?

[derek45]

another pic of a naked ARSENAL 503 pushed thru a sizer

you can see the front band is getting resized also

[derek45]

Attachment 267151

Looks like
3 equal full diameter bands
big crimp groove
big squared off lube groove

..just what the doctor ordered

[Texasflyboy]

There is a previous thread on this subject from 5-8 years ago. Username: "GLL" took incredible photos of all the different 503's he owned and posted them here to Cast Boolits. After a long back and forth what I recall was we all agreed that in the time before ISO 9000/9001 standards, there was significant variation in "official" projectile designs from *everyone* including Hensley & Gibbs. Wayne Gibbs told me their "design ledger" was a piece of plywood with the actual bullets of each design sitting in shelves. When they needed a new cherry, they took the bullet down from the board and cut the cherry....by hand.

Here is a photo of the Hensley & Gibbs Bullet design board:



I have 503's from the 50's to the late 90's. And the only ones that appear to be true to the "three equal driving bands" were the ones from the late 80's to business closure (1999). All were made by Wayne Gibbs.

This mould is from the early 1990's, best I can tell. And the front driving band is the thicker style.



Here is the link to the mould photo:

https://www.hensleygibbs.com/TCD/hol...s/image005.jpg

This is a early 60's mould. Regard the thin front driving band: