Which 358429 to get?

[TXTad]

I have a hankerin' for a 358429, mostly for .38-44-ish loads for my Outdoorsman, and of course .357 Magnum loads for my longer-cylinder revolvers.

At first I was thinking that all I needed was a solid design, so Arsenal's version is the obvious choice.

The more I think I about it, and after reading Tank's 2019 article (https://gunsmagazine.com/our-experts/dial-keith-358429/), I kind of like the idea of the flexibility of the MP version. I have several molds from both companies and like them all. The all brass molds definitely feel heavy after a long cast session is really the only imaginable downside to the MP version.

Does anyone happen to know the approximate weight of the deep hollow point version when they drop from the MP mold?

I'm leaning towards the MP version just for the flexibility. Thoughts?

[VariableRecall]

I've heard nothing but good things regarding MP molds, with the obvious exception of the price tag. Still, the brand is well known for its quality and durability. Given .357 Magnum's shorter potential projectile length, I'm unsure how well they would fit in a cylinder, but I'm pretty sure it would fit fine. I'd say try it with loading a dummy round and see if the round can make it all the way around without binding up anything.

Edit: i've checked out the article and it looks like they crimp the .357 Magnum projectiles at the front driving band, leading to a shorter overall length. smart move, but could be tricky to set right.

Given the current shenanigans happening in Eastern Europe, you may want to snag that MP mold sooner rather than later, who knows if things may make a turn for the worse.

[TXTad]

I've heard nothing but good things regarding MP molds, with the obvious exception of the price tag. Still, the brand is well known for its quality and durability. Given .357 Magnum's shorter potential projectile length, I'm unsure how well they would fit in a cylinder, but I'm pretty sure it would fit fine. I'd say try it with loading a dummy round and see if the round can make it all the way around without binding up anything.

Edit: i've checked out the article and it looks like they crimp the .357 Magnum projectiles at the front driving band, leading to a shorter overall length. smart move, but could be tricky to set right.

Some of my .357s have longer cylinders that should accept a round with the bullet crimped in the crimping groove in .357 brass. I'm not worried about wrestling these with those that cannot.

Given the current shenanigans happening in Eastern Europe, you may want to snag that MP mold sooner rather than later, who knows if things may make a turn for the worse.

Not a bad thought, and one I had considered as well.

[Recycled bullet]

That bullet weighs 155 g cast of lyman number two with the deepest hollow point pins installed

[El Bibliotecario]

I don't know which mold you should get. I bought the Arsenal 358429 mold and think its the bee's knees.

I've had no problems loading this bullet in .38 Special cases for use in the relatively short cylinder of the S&W M28, using 38-44 level or mild entry-level .357 charges. I sense this practice is a hot button issue with many. I see this as a matter of individual choice.

[TXTad]

That bullet weighs 155 g cast of lyman number two with the deepest hollow point pins installed

Thank you. Sounds like an excellent bullet for 158gr load data for standard +P .38 Special loads.

[TXTad]

I don't know which mold you should get. I bought the Arsenal 358429 mold and think its the bee's knees.

I've had no problems loading this bullet in .38 Special cases for use in the relatively short cylinder of the S&W M28, using 38-44 level or mild entry-level .357 charges. I sense this practice is a hot button issue with many. I see this as a matter of individual choice.

I'll probably end up with the MP version, though part of me wants to get both and leave the deep pins in the MP.

As for .38-44 loads... Some people do get emotional about it. I do find it interesting that you never really hear about anyone blowing up S&W model 10s, 15s, 64s and 67s. I have always suspected that those guns in their later years were not all that dissimilar from the 13s, 19s, and 66s, though it is not my mission to find out.

I'm not even interested in the hottest of .38-44 loads for my Outdoorsman. For that, I'm looking for loads not much over regular .38 Special +P levels.

[TXTad]

...I sense this practice is a hot button issue with many. I see this as a matter of individual choice.

Here's an interesting forum post over at the Smith & Wesson forums: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-rev...8-44-ammo.html

I have no intention of ever feeding one of my K frame .38s any .38/44 loads, but I also don't worry that the world would end if I did so inadvertently. Especially since any .38/44 loads I make will specifically not be looking to expand the frontiers of .38/44 loads.

I've read where some people believe these loads were originally the equal of .357 Magnum loads as far as pressure goes. People often mention Keith's ridiculous 13.5 gr 2400 load. That's not a .38/44 load, that's research for the .357 Magnum.

From what I have found, 38/44 loads were advertised at 1,125 fps for a 158 gr bullet from a 6" barrel. From things that Larry Gibson has posted here and elsewhere, I think that's doable in the 25 to 28 Kpsi range. That is certainly a pressure level that is bad for K frame .38 Special guns, but probably unlikely to take them to catastrophic failure.

But all of this is off topic. I think I'll order up one of MP's 358429 molds this weekend.

[VariableRecall]

I personally have a wonderful 4 inch K-Frame Model 10-5, and I'd love to put some 158gn Keith projectiles in it. I've tested the projectiles manufactured and they were great with about 3.8-4gn win 231/HP-38.
My K-Frame's primary range food is 148gn wadcutters seated at the crimp groove, with around 4.1gn of HP-38, which is an estimated 850ish fps, and is no slouch when it comes to making the most of standard pressure range of .38 Special. No need to go completely crazy with pressures, as I want to keep my revolvers in working order for my lifetime and my future children's.

I don't have a .357 Magnum revolver just yet, but I'd love a classic Combat Magnum with some coke bottle stocks at some point. There's no telling how abused someone's used Combat Magnum would be, but here's hoping that the one I find was carried a lot and fired not so commonly. It'd be a great addition to my collection someday.

[TXTad]

I personally have a wonderful 4 inch K-Frame Model 10-5, and I'd love to put some 158gn Keith projectiles in it. I've tested the projectiles manufactured and they were great with about 3.8-4gn win 231/HP-38.

I love my model 10s. I recently picked up a 10-8 which came out of the NYC area of all places. With the model 10s, you either need to find loads that shoot the point of aim, or know how much to compensate for your load. Assuming you're straying away from the standard 158 gr 850 fps loading.

My K-Frame's primary range food is 148gn wadcutters seated at the crimp groove, with around 4.1gn of HP-38, which is an estimated 850ish fps, and is no slouch when it comes to making the most of standard pressure range of .38 Special. No need to go completely crazy with pressures, as I want to keep my revolvers in working order for my lifetime and my future children's.

I have more wadcutters loaded right now than anything else.

I don't have a .357 Magnum revolver just yet, but I'd love a classic Combat Magnum with some coke bottle stocks at some point. There's no telling how abused someone's used Combat Magnum would be, but here's hoping that the one I find was carried a lot and fired not so commonly. It'd be a great addition to my collection someday.

You can find them in good shape, but they have sure gone up in price. They're not going to get any newer or cheaper, so the sooner you get one, the better.

[44MAG#1]

I have a 4 cavity Hensley and Gibbs #43 mold that cast a nice bullet.

If this is an inappropriate post then I will remove it. Let me know by PM.
Thanks.

[TXTad]

I have a 4 cavity Hensley and Gibbs #43 mold that cast a nice bullet.

I bet that is a nice mold. Do you have any idea how old it is?

[44MAG#1]

I bet that is a nice mold. Do you have any idea how old it is?

It has to be from the late 70's.

If this is an inappropriate post then I will remove it. Let me know by PM.
Thanks.

[Bigslug]

I have a hankerin' for a 358429, mostly for .38-44-ish loads for my Outdoorsman, and of course .357 Magnum loads for my longer-cylinder revolvers.

At first I was thinking that all I needed was a solid design, so Arsenal's version is the obvious choice.

The more I think I about it, and after reading Tank's 2019 article (https://gunsmagazine.com/our-experts/dial-keith-358429/), I kind of like the idea of the flexibility of the MP version. I have several molds from both companies and like them all. The all brass molds definitely feel heavy after a long cast session is really the only imaginable downside to the MP version.

Does anyone happen to know the approximate weight of the deep hollow point version when they drop from the MP mold?

I'm leaning towards the MP version just for the flexibility. Thoughts?

My 358429 is an older NOE version. As I recall, the hollowpoints drop right around 160 grains. Proceed with 158 grain load data and carry on.

Were I to continue with the design, I would recommend MP. I have both of their hollow-based .455 Webley offerings and consider their flat-bottomed sliding pin system to be vastly superior to NOE's tilting arrangement with the hardware cluttering the bottom of the mold. Once you get the hang of them and learn to shake the mold and close it with the sprue plate up so the pins can drop uniformly to their proper height, they aren't too bad, but the MP system avoids all that.

The option solid/deep/shallow nose pins IS very nice. The deep cavities are mostly aimed at defense or varmint purposes - the shallow ones make for a nice medium game compromise.

I wouldn't order an HP mold in anything BUT brass unless there were no options. Heat retention is your friend!

[TXTad]

My 358429 is an older NOE version. As I recall, the hollowpoints drop right around 160 grains. Proceed with 158 grain load data and carry on.

Easy enough.

Were I to continue with the design, I would recommend MP. I have both of their hollow-based .455 Webley offerings and consider their flat-bottomed sliding pin system to be vastly superior to NOE's tilting arrangement with the hardware cluttering the bottom of the mold. Once you get the hang of them and learn to shake the mold and close it with the sprue plate up so the pins can drop uniformly to their proper height, they aren't too bad, but the MP system avoids all that.

The option solid/deep/shallow nose pins IS very nice. The deep cavities are mostly aimed at defense or varmint purposes - the shallow ones make for a nice medium game compromise.

I wouldn't order an HP mold in anything BUT brass unless there were no options. Heat retention is your friend!

I do like MPs pin system, and good to know about the brass and heat retention with the HP pins.

[lotech]

I've had the #358429 and #358439 for many years but prefer the original .357 Magnum bullet design, the H&G #51, a 160 gr. SWC. It works well in both .38 Special and .357 Magnum. It shoots as well as either Lyman design and there is no "make do" problem when using it in a .357 Magnum cylinder that is too short to seat the Lyman designs out to full length.

[TXTad]

Soon I'll have two 358429 molds: An old but possibly unused two cavity Ideal that I found for sale in an older listing in the swap forum, and a very lightly used MP with the pins that someone here reached out to me about directly. It will be interesting to compare them.

[Golfswithwolves]

Mr. Tad- I have a Lyman 358439 new issue mold which I got from Midway as soon as it became available a couple of years ago. It casts fine HP bullets which I like a lot for use in my S&W Heavy Duty revolver (as you know it's the same as your Outdoorsman except for no adjustable sights). This bullet has given good accuracy and it is easy to cast with. Bob

[TXTad]

Mr. Tad- I have a Lyman 358439 new issue mold which I got from Midway as soon as it became available a couple of years ago. It casts fine HP bullets which I like a lot for use in my S&W Heavy Duty revolver (as you know it's the same as your Outdoorsman except for no adjustable sights). This bullet has given good accuracy and it is easy to cast with. Bob

I bet that is a good mold. I'll have the MP version which is basically 358429 or 358439 depending on which pins you put in it. I'll be loading for my pre-model number Model 23 Outdoorsman.

[StrawHat]

I have a Lyman 358439 single cavity mold. When I got it, cheap, it had no pin for the hollow point. I made one and set up for casting. I cast several hundred acceptable boolits and used a standard 38-44 recipe and fired them in my 5” barreled, 1950 Heavy Duty. Very good accuracy and they hit hard. I also made up a pin to cast solids. Long story short, (I know, too late!) I came to prefer solids. I prefer not to rely on expansion. If I want something more than 36 caliber, I start with the diameter I hope to achieve.

Your thoughts may be different, and that is fine. I only use the 38s for light duty ie, small game and targets.

Kevin