Finally going to get a Keith .44 mold

[Bigslug]

The big issue for the Keith fans seems to be authenticity. Like TomAM says, the full diameter front band was a major component, as was a substantial rear band and a big, square lube groove.

The problem with a lot of the Lymans is they reduced the front band diameter for easier fitting across a wider range of guns - and you don't know what you're getting until you measure its output. I don't know if it crept into the 429421, since that bullet has a massive cult following that would complain, but a some of the other Keith designs ended up with rounded lube grooves for easier casting. Keith was big on lube capacity, but in truth, if you have good fit to the gun and good lube, his bullet packs more than is needed.

Accurate has the dual advantage of giving you the blueprint (the 43-250J claims to be the baby), AND allowing you to tweak the blueprint to suit your gun and alloy. I am not a powder coater and know little of the quirks of that process, but the ability to adjust the diameter of the mold's output to account for your "paint" may have some advantages. If not Accurate, then at least go for a mold company that provides you with a blueprint of what you SHOULD be getting.

Many of us have moved on to WFN/LFN designs, and I'm personally a fan of tumble lube grooves for speeding up production. There's a lot of good .44 slugs out there and we can debate them endlessly, but much like a .30-06, a quality Keith SWC is never a mistake, and if you gotta have "Elmer's bullet", it's easily understood.

[murf205]

+1 for Accurate molds. If you order a mold with some of your own specifications, Tom will make it just that way. Exactly that way.
Larry, are you using newly manufactured 2400? I finally used up my batch of 1970's and '80's 2400 and bought a new jug that is faster burning that the original. 22 grs of the new stuff gives me between 75 and 100 fps more chronograph checked speed that the older 2400. It is enough that I backed my max, with that boolit, back to 21 grs.

[TXTad]

The big issue for the Keith fans seems to be authenticity. Like TomAM says, the full diameter front band was a major component, as was a substantial rear band and a big, square lube groove.

The problem with a lot of the Lymans is they reduced the front band diameter for easier fitting across a wider range of guns - and you don't know what you're getting until you measure its output. I don't know if it crept into the 429421, since that bullet has a massive cult following that would complain, but a some of the other Keith designs ended up with rounded lube grooves for easier casting. Keith was big on lube capacity, but in truth, if you have good fit to the gun and good lube, his bullet packs more than is needed.

Accurate has the dual advantage of giving you the blueprint (the 43-250J claims to be the baby), AND allowing you to tweak the blueprint to suit your gun and alloy. I am not a powder coater and know little of the quirks of that process, but the ability to adjust the diameter of the mold's output to account for your "paint" may have some advantages. If not Accurate, then at least go for a mold company that provides you with a blueprint of what you SHOULD be getting.

Many of us have moved on to WFN/LFN designs, and I'm personally a fan of tumble lube grooves for speeding up production. There's a lot of good .44 slugs out there and we can debate them endlessly, but much like a .30-06, a quality Keith SWC is never a mistake, and if you gotta have "Elmer's bullet", it's easily understood.

I'm not worried about authenticity so much as works well. After posting this thread, I've have learned that the most important part of that equation is the diameter of the front band.

The second thing that is important to me is simply "looks right". I've loaded thousands of the machine cast lead bullets that I used to be able to get for reasonable prices at local gun stores, and while they've punched holes and clanged metal just fine, they never looked like the loads in the articles by Pearce, Taffin, Venturino, and others.

[lightman]

That bullet shoots well in all of my revolvers. I think you will like it. Tom, at Accurate Molds, makes a really nice mold. He typically ships sooner that what his web site quotes. I have a few of his molds.

[TomAM]

I can certainly relate to wanting it to look right.
Years ago I bought many custom molds from Veral Smith (LBT), of various diameters and weights and usually gas checked.

Veral isn't a big fan of the Keith, but he was kind enough make those customs in the Keith format, because that well defined front band and reduced weight nose were exactly what I wanted.

[Larry Gibson]

+1 for Accurate molds. If you order a mold with some of your own specifications, Tom will make it just that way. Exactly that way.
Larry, are you using newly manufactured 2400? I finally used up my batch of 1970's and '80's 2400 and bought a new jug that is faster burning that the original. 22 grs of the new stuff gives me between 75 and 100 fps more chronograph checked speed that the older 2400. It is enough that I backed my max, with that boolit, back to 21 grs.

It's been a while since I I tested Hercules 2400 against Alliant 2400 with the "Keith Load". Keep in mind I related the psi's were within test to test and lot to lot variation of each other. The fps also varies as is expected. While an increase in fps many times indicates an increase in psi it is only a valid assumption if the test is conducted under the same conditions at the same time.

Data of my test is in post #10 in thread https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...92s-load-tests

Additionally keep in mind, considering 75 to 100 fps difference between a chronographed test some years back is essentially meaningless compared to a similar load test conducted with probably difference components (such as a lot of 2400) and under probable different conditions is easily within the expected norm. Even back to back tests of the same ammunition will produce variations of pressure and velocity. Also, unless a meaningful sample is taken during the tests [3 or 5 shot test strings are not sufficient samples] the "average velocity" can vary in and of itself. Essentially, the test results from an "old " test can easily vary that much in fps from the results of a "new test, especially if a revolver is used.

Suggest if you have any of the "old 2400" left you load up the same load with it and with the "new 2400" in at least 10 shot test strings of each and test both back to back on the same test session.

[murf205]

I don't have any of the old 2400 to retest with but from what I took from your test was the fact that I didn't record the temperature of either test I ran. My mistake. I dawned on me while reading the test results that this could have easily resulted in the 2% velocity differences you stated. What I was surprised with was the pressure of the 22 gr loads not being as hot as I (and a lot of other people) thought it was. Other than that my components were just like yours but shot in a revolver instead of a T/C barrel like yours. Additionally, I had to use 2 different chronographs since the first one died a horrible death but a check with a 30-06 showed equal velocities with the new chrono so I forged ahead.
The other indicator was more flattened primers of the same lot. I am aware that that is not always a decent sign but considering all the other similarities, it led to the conclusion. Great test, btw and it is awfully nice to have the Gibson Test Facility do the dirty work for us. We, here, do not take you for granted!
BTW, apologies for the hijack. David

[smokeater]

TXTad,
went thru the same ordeal about 10yrs ago. Heard the very same negative things about Lyman molds and quality. Finally said what the heck and ordered a 2 cavity 429421 Lyman mold. Up to that point I had only used LEE molds. Call it luck or whatever but my Lyman mold never gave me a hint of trouble from first casting till I sold it cause I sold my only 44cal handgun. Threw 2 bullets at .430 sometimes a hair or two larger, weight was around 255grs. Shot some of my best ever handgun groups with that bullet and gun combo. Just recently bought a Lyman 358477 and it is a good mold as well. Not knocking anybody else molds just telling you my experience. Got me a MP 173gr Hammer mold just last week for my 357Mag. One can get a lemon in any brand so go with your best decision and desires, if you don't, you will never be happy. Good Luck and Happy Casting.

[Bigslug]

I'm not worried about authenticity so much as works well. After posting this thread, I've have learned that the most important part of that equation is the diameter of the front band.

The second thing that is important to me is simply "looks right". . .

The Accurate option then allows you to stack things nicely in your favor. Tom's brass molds are wonderful to cast with. The critical thing dimensionally with the full diameter front band is - or at least can be - having your bullet sized to slip-fit through your (hopefully) uniform cylinder throats rather than hanging up there preventing your rounds from fully chambering. Given that magnum revolver bullets lock us into seating depth with their crimp grooves making our only recourse trimming back the brass, it's good to have all that mic'd out ahead of time.

But since that throat diameter on .44's seems to vary from as low as .427" to as much as .432" or more, the custom order from Accurate would seem to be even more the path to treating yourself right.

Maybe I've gotten overly obsessive on bullet fit, but I've got to tell you that life is better with a set of pin gauges and V-anvil micrometers to check your bore diameter, throats, and offset-lands bore slugs with. It makes for getting the right mold the first time a lot easier, and also lets you know if the gun needs doctoring.

[T-Bird]

I sold 2 early 2000's Lyman 429421 2 cav. on Sand S last month. Both were good molds. I own a 4 cavity Lyman (20 or so years ago I bought another 429421 2 cavity to go with my existing one with the idea of using 2 molds at the same time and saving money by not buying a 4 cav. Not as desirable as I hoped it would be) that drops great .430 bullets with coww. It's ....maybe 2016?

[TXTad]

The Accurate option then allows you to stack things nicely in your favor. Tom's brass molds are wonderful to cast with. The critical thing dimensionally with the full diameter front band is - or at least can be - having your bullet sized to slip-fit through your (hopefully) uniform cylinder throats rather than hanging up there preventing your rounds from fully chambering. Given that magnum revolver bullets lock us into seating depth with their crimp grooves making our only recourse trimming back the brass, it's good to have all that mic'd out ahead of time.

But since that throat diameter on .44's seems to vary from as low as .427" to as much as .432" or more, the custom order from Accurate would seem to be even more the path to treating yourself right.

Maybe I've gotten overly obsessive on bullet fit, but I've got to tell you that life is better with a set of pin gauges and V-anvil micrometers to check your bore diameter, throats, and offset-lands bore slugs with. It makes for getting the right mold the first time a lot easier, and also lets you know if the gun needs doctoring.

I think slugging my favorite .44 Special, my Lipsey's 5.5" Flattop Blackhawk, is probably the next thing I should do. A long time ago I got a throat reamer and gave my .44 Magnum NM Blackhawk a little attention, but I haven't returned to that project in 15 years. It's probably also time to look at that one.

I got my Lee pot and molds out last night and I've definitely lost the touch since last I cast bullets. I used to be able to make some passable looking bullets, but not one in 20 pours last night was worth a politician's opinion.

Maybe my other research project should be what casting equipment is favorite these days. There may be a website where I can learn about that.

[murf205]

TXTad, I see that you said you were thinking about a mold with 2 PB and 2GC cavities. I believe you also said that most of your boolits will be for 44 spl Skeeter Skelton loads. If that is the case, the plain base boolits will serve your purpose and be quite accurate without the added step of putting on gas checks. Like Bigslug said, the most important part of a new mold selection is determining proper diameter to match your guns dimensions. Pin guages are the best for the cylinders for sure. A shameless plug for our custom mold makers is that you can order a mold that drops a boolit a couple of thousandths over and allow you to size to what diameter you need. IF....you buy another revolver with really large throats later on, you will still be in business. My late 1920's S&W Hand Ejector has .432 cylinders and my 629 came with .429 cylinders and 2 were .428! So the versatility of the larger mold paid dividends.

[TXTad]

TXTad, I see that you said you were thinking about a mold with 2 PB and 2GC cavities. I believe you also said that most of your boolits will be for 44 spl Skeeter Skelton loads. If that is the case, the plain base boolits will serve your purpose and be quite accurate without the added step of putting on gas checks. Like Bigslug said, the most important part of a new mold selection is determining proper diameter to match your guns dimensions. Pin guages are the best for the cylinders for sure. A shameless plug for our custom mold makers is that you can order a mold that drops a boolit a couple of thousandths over and allow you to size to what diameter you need. IF....you buy another revolver with really large throats later on, you will still be in business. My late 1920's S&W Hand Ejector has .432 cylinders and my 629 came with .429 cylinders and 2 were .428! So the versatility of the larger mold paid dividends.

Upon further reflection, I think I'll get a 2 or 4 cavity Keith mold, and then the GC mold will be a WFN design for .44 Mag.

[derek45]

I have shot my powder coated Keith bullets to 1400fps without leading. ( H110 and good old 2400)

no gas checks needed anymore

[TXTad]

I have shot my powder coated Keith bullets to 1400fps without leading. ( H110 and good old 2400)

no gas checks needed anymore

This is kind of what I'm hoping. Nice looking loads and rig there, BTW.

I've got an old 4-5/8" blue .44 Mag Blackhawk, but that 5.5 stainless sure looks good!

Eastwood Ford Blue?

How do you apply your powder coat?

[smokeater]

TXTad,
Your 44Spec is the same one I had. Chambers and throats were right on the money. Also, I agree, you won't need gas checks. I ran mine w/o checks just a smidge over 1200fps without leading but most accurate 2400 load was in the 1150-1175fps range. According to my LBT hardness tester, my usual alloy is right around 12bhn sometimes I miss and wind up with 11bhn. My Lyman mold was of the three same thickness driving bands with squared cut lube groove. I also bought a 44cal Miha MP Mold of same bullet so I could cast hollowpoint bullets but it cast no better bullet than the Lyman did. YMMV.

[derek45]

This is kind of what I'm hoping. Nice looking loads and rig there, BTW.

I've got an old 4-5/8" blue .44 Mag Blackhawk, but that 5.5 stainless sure looks good!

Eastwood Ford Blue?

How do you apply your powder coat?

Eastwood blue, or smokes, ...shake n bake

[Bigslug]

If you're at the point of making throat uniformity adjustments, you're not far off of lapping out frame crush. . .

Assuming you have a straight, unchanging diameter from cylinder throat to groove all the way to the muzzle - or better still, one that gradually constricts slightly - and you have a decent understanding of bullet fit and choosing alloy hardness appropriate to your pressure levels, then there's really nothing going on at the .44 Magnum operating range that requires a gas check. Checks are handy for working around fit issues or shooting soft alloys for expansion, but I generally think of them as a PITA best saved for 2000 fps level rifle loads.

[Larry Gibson]

I shoot a lot of PB cast bullets (421429s and 44-250-KTs) in my 44 Magnums up to 1400 fps using 2400 and H110 also. Accuracy has always been excellent and using a proper lube I've never had any leading but a "harder ternary alloy was needed for best accuracy. I have hunted with them and have killed numerous big game. However, the terminal effect was never as good as when a softer 16-1 alloy cast 429224HP or 429640HP (Devastator) was used.

With 357 and 44 Magnum level loads, particularly in the 1350 - 1400+ fps range or when used in SSs or a rifle, the real benefit to the GC'd bullet is better accuracy with a softer malleable alloy for better terminal effect on game. For many years now the softer binary alloy cast GC'd bullet, especially if properly HP'd, is my chosen bullet for hunting deer, pigs, elk and larger varmints when using the 357 and 44 Magnum cartridges. It also was in my 41 Magnum Until GCs became unobtainum.

[billmc2]

Right now my current favorites are a couple of Arsenal molds. I'm thinking either a:

* 429421 SWC 255 Gr. KEITH - http://arsenalmolds.com/44-Keith-Bullet
* 432-264 SWC - H&G 503 Clone - http://arsenalmolds.com/index.php?ro...product_id=138

Probably four cavity in brass, may be 1/2 and 1/2 plain and GC base.

I see that in a later post you mentioned you might just get two 2 cavity molds instead of the half and half. I'm still new to all this. Most of my molds are from Arsenal; I like them. The first mold I bought was a 32 cal Keith from Arsenal. I specified half and half, and left it at that. I don't know if this is his usual practice or if I should have specified better, but On the 4 cavity mold I received, the two outer cavities were the plain base while the two inner cavities were for gas check. I would have much preferred that the two-alike cavities were next to each other.