Trying to ID a mold.

[mikesdad]

I am a NEWBIE. First Post. Be Gentle.
I have a 2 cavity Lyman mold #358495. The numbers 736 and B9 appear on the mold. It looks like a flat base wadcutter. I need to determine the weight of bullet that is cast from this mold. I cannot find it in the Lyman catalogue.

Thank you for the help.
Mikesdad

[Jon K]

358495- Lyman 45th Edition says 141 grains.

Have fun Shooting,
Jon
:castmine:

[Nueces]

Welcome aboard, newbie. When you've been here a whole month, like I have, it'll be Newbie. :mrgreen:

This are where it at. I'm still mining old posts and loving it.

Mark

[MT Gianni]

If you follow the bottom links and go to castpics there is a chart of all LY bullet moulds there as well as a whole bunch of neat stuff. Welcome aboard, Gianni.

[floodgate]

mikesdad:

That bullet (#358495, 141-gr. wadcutter) was a very popular one for target work, made from 1955 through 1997; I'm surprised they discontinued it when they did - I guess pure one-handed target shooting on paper was being replaced by the "defensive" style shooting by then. The "736" should appear in small numbers on both of the blocks; it is used to keep the pair together after cherrying, through finishing, assembling, packing and shipping. The "B9" is a code for the specific cutter ("cherry") used to bore the cavity; with a popular bullet like this one, they probably had two or three working at a time, and that let them know which ones were due for sharpening or discarding. Some moulds have another number or letter identifying the machine operator, and - for the past several years - they have also added the month - year of manufacture: e.g. - "7-04" for July 2004.

floodgate

[MtJerry]

My Ruger GP100 and my NEF 357 Max absolutely LOVE that bullet.

Ruger - 5gr of W231
NEF - 4.5gr of W231

[Dale53]

Floodgate;

>>>That bullet (#358495, 141-gr. wadcutter) was a very popular one for target work, made from 1955 through 1997; I'm surprised they discontinued it when they did - I guess pure one-handed target shooting on paper was being replaced by the "defensive" style shooting by then.<<<

That kind of decision by Lyman, and others, is hard to understand. You would think that they would keep their "core standard" bullet moulds available. For many years, our American business decisions have been entirely too much "Bottom line TODAY" oriented for my taste. I believe that is why American industry is in a decline. I think all of these business majors have studied from the same book (and it is the WRONG book). We need a new "Business Model".

As an example, Lyman had discontinued a good many older style bullet moulds. F&M Reloading is a small outfit, and Frank Siefer, of F&M, in cooperation with Lyman, had Lyman build them a goodly number of the older design bullet moulds. Frank had to buy a certain minimum number to get Lyman to run those moulds (with tooling that they already had). Now, the upshot of this, is Frank sold everyone of those discontinued bullet moulds and made money. Lyman made money on the transaction, also. The question is, why Lyman (much, much larger with far greater assets) can't do this on their own? Makes no sense to me whatsoever. The truth is, Lyman COULD have but they were unwilling to "take a chance".

It's downright discouraging, is what it is...

To get this back on topic. This particular bullet was an excellent choice for target use and also makes a dandy small game bullet. Most edible small game are shot at under fifty yards (if we tell the truth, much closer than that:mrgreen:) and a wadcutter maximises "stopping power" without excess damage to meat.

C.E. Harris is now retired and living in the country. He has written much about his walk around rifles and handguns and he typically loads them with wadcutters.

P.S. Lyman now offers the 358091 wadcutter mould (148 grains) which is a button nosed wadcutter. I guess there is some wisdom in reducing redundant products to stream line things. However, that explanation "will not fly" when you realize that they have also dropped their double ended wadcutter mould (35863). A button nose wadcutter is not suitable for .38 automatic use (Model 52 S&W), so those users are driven to other bullet mould producers.

Rant over...

Dale53

[floodgate]

Dale:

I agree; it's also discouraging that - in these days of CAD/CAM - Lyman can't make the same bullet consistent from cherry to cherry. I am currently working on another track - the twists and turns Lyman went through to avoid the Pacific / RCBS mainstream in their bench presses, from the old Ideal "Armory" model down through the All-Americans, with their proprietary - and not very good - shell-holders and primer feeds and - in the earlier tools - odd-ball dies and threads. They really had the reloading world by the tail; and dropped it like a hot potato!

I enjoy your stuff in the ASSRA "Journal".

Doug

[Glen]

Dale -- Another example of what you're talking about is Lyman dropping the Keith and Thompson HP's. The demand for these moulds clearly still exists (look at the frenzied bidding these moulds generate each and every time they show up online). Even though Lyman still has the cherries to cut these moulds (they sell LOTS of the SWCs), they steadfastly refuse to cut HP versions of these moulds because it's no longer in their business plan. Add to that their discontinued designs for the 454 Casull (452629) and .44 Magnum (429640), two of the finest cast bullet designs for the handgun hunter (dropped right when handgun hunting was starting to get really popular), and it leaves you wondering how these corporate decisions get made....