429360

[JudgeBAC]

I just picked up a new mold. Marked Ideal 429360. Anyone out there have any experience with this mold in a .44 magnum?

[Glen]

Yes, I tried it in both .44 Special and .44 Magnum, and couldn't get it to group in either one. It turns out that the forward driving band on my mould was only .423".

[felix]

Never could get that boolit to shoot! ... felix

[Maven]

JudgeBAC, And I thought it was me! Glen's correct: The front driving band is indeed undersized for current .44mag. cyl. throats and forcing cones. However, it WILL group out of my Ruger @ 25yds., but target dispersion is greater than I'd like. That may be my fault, but I've got 20 or so sized & lubed so that I can retest them once our range reopens (closed for deer season). If grouping remains iffy, I'm going to sell it, which is sort of a pity since it casts so well. You may want to read more about #429360 here:

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

[felix]

Glenn might be right about the boolit being designed for another revolter of a bygone era, but I bet it could have been for a pre-lawyer lever gun having no freebore and short-abrupt leade. ... felix

[Glen]

Maven -- thanks for posting that. It got me to go back and read that piece again, and I found some mistakes in how it got posted on that particular webpage (I suspect that it will get fixed pretty quickly). The correct version can be found at:

http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=27

[beagle]

Glad other folks have the same experiences that Glen and I had.

I've talked with him on this via e-mail ...maybe last year.

At first I thought it was too short. I hollowpointed one and had the same results. At this time we were messing with opening bands on a mill so Larry opened the band to .432" and also elongated it to the same thickness of the 429421.

Again, even with these mods...no joy.

I once swore by this bullet back in the olden days of the 60s when I was blasting with a 6 1/2" M29. Notice I said blasting as I sure couldn't shoot one back in those days. After about 30 years of practice with the .44 Mag, I can now determine when I got bad ammo.

Even after all the messing around with the 429360, I have only gotten it to shoot marginally and that success came at the higer velocities. Even then, I'd get maybe 10% flyers at 100 yards.

It shot all right at 50 yards at higher velocities.

Based on these experimants over the years, I beleive there's something wrong with the basic bullet design. I don't know what. Someone smarter than me will have to figure that out.

Hope the remainder of you guys have good luck with it but I'll still stay with old Elmer and the 429421./beagle

[Maven]

Glen, Thanks for posting the correct version!

[Bass Ackward]

Boy I "feel" that I have a whole new out look on handgun bullet design now that I understand that handgun issue is one of stabilization. And this 429360 just drives it home. It sheds new light on some of the arguments that I have heard over the years such as square vs round grease grooves with both sides claiming accuracy improvement or degradation depending on the argument.

But I would think that the 429360 would be .... finicky. Anyone ever tried it in a rifle? If you can't drive it fast enough, or if the shortened bearing area can't hold the rifling when you try, no matter how hard you make it, then I would think that it never shoots.

The same thing with the old lube groove shape argument. Round lube grooves would make the bullet shorter for the same weight and heavier in the back half of the bullet where you wanted the weight to be if you were shooting lower velocity or if a reloader wanted wider load flexibility with more powder options. The round lube grooves would also allow better lube flow to the bore under slower acceleration where it was needed.

If you wanted a higher velocity bullet, the extra weight in the lube groove would now go towards increased bearing length of the bullet to better support any unsuported nose weight. This would also allow more surface area grip of the rifling at softer lead levels and provide more BC for better flight at longer ranges. The bullet would be spanked and the increased acceleration and rotation would cause the lube to go where it was needed.

So I suppose it really mattered from what point you argued based upon what you were wanting to do and what problem you created and were trying to solve. So both sides were probably right.

[Swagerman]

I have no trouble with my two cavity 429360 mould, but I do a lot of bullet swaging with my cast bullets, this can change the front band a bit when bullet is compressed to change the nose shape to different configerations.

My findings on accuracy with the 429360 has been positive, in fact very good.

The only problem with this mould is it cast the bullet too heavy, they are coming out 240 grain +...its supposed to be 232 grain.

Jim

[JudgeBAC]

Swagerman said "....but I do a lot of bullet swaging with my cast bullets..." Please explain.

[Edward429451]

Is that what it is about that boolit? Hmm. I have one use for that boolit and it isn't at 25 or 50 yds. I had limited to no success with it in 44 mag but I think I have an application for it in my CA Bulldog.

At spittin distance to 7 yds, it don't have to be super grouping. At 700 fps out of the Bulldog it has less recoil than any factory loading, loads faster from a speedloader than a 429421, and delivers what is essentially 38 special ballistics but heavier/punches a bigger hole. I can use it until I find something better.

The 429360 makes a pretty good Bulldog boolit.

[James Wisner]

I also tried the 429360.

The best I could do at 60 yards in my Model 24 Smith was about a 14 inch group..

Switched to the RCBS 250 SWC and shrunk my group to a 4 inch group at 60 yards.

Jim Wisner