Need a new .357 mold

[cwheel]

Hi all, first post. Figured I'd join and ask the experts. Cast 38's for more than 50 years now, but need to buy a new mold. My IMI timberwolf only seams to feed round nose boolits well. Because this thing goes almost 1800 fps ( through a chrono ) with a pistol load, thinking I need to run GC's as well. Looking at Midway at the Lee and other molds, can't seam to find a round nose in the 150-160gr. range with a gas check. Is such a thing made ?? Would like to run a 6 hole, but would settle for a 4. Any ideas ?? I now run most 38's with a old ( grandfathers ) Lyman 158 GC semi wadcutter mold. These things work well with everything I have except that Timberwolf .357. Semi wad cutters don't feed at all in that. Would appreciate any ideas, thanks,
Chris

[johnly]

While not a GC mold, the Lyman 358430 is a 195 gr. RN and the velocities with the heavier bullet might be reasonable for a plain base mold. Another option might be the RCBS 180 gr GC Sillywet mold.

John

[MikeS]

Another option if you can't find exactly what you're looking for in a production mould would be to check with Tom of Accurate Molds, and see if he can make what you're looking for. He makes custom moulds for about the same price as some of the better production moulds, and you'll be able to get exactly what you're looking for. Checkout his website:
http://www.accuratemolds.com
If you see a design you like, but it isn't a GC design, that's no problem Tom can make any of his designs for a GC. And if you don't see what you're looking for, just email Tom, he can make what you need even if it's not in his current 'catalog' of moulds. BTW, I have no affiliation with Accurate Molds, I'm not even a satisfied customer at this point (but I hope to be one soon, just have to find the money first!), just relaying info I've learned here.

[462]

Not a round nose, exactly, but Lee's 358-158 RNFN is a bevel base design that will readily accept gas checks (an unintended dual purpose design?) and is available in a six-cavity configuration.

[cwheel]

I need to stay away from the heavy boolits because I only want to have 1 load on hand for any given cal. Be able to interchange the rifle loads in pistol and have both do well. When I run a batch in the dillon, a minimum run will be 1000. 38's or .357 will all start at 2500+. The same round will be used in a 2 1/2" S&W model 66 or 6" S&W model 686, on the pistol end as well. Thinking the custom mold might be the way to go in the end. Would be nice to find a Lee 6 hole somewhere, not much money in those. Still have some time to look, working on the last of 10K 230 45acp rounds. Will be ready to start .357 first of the year or so. Thanks for the ideas.
Chris

[FN in MT]

I don't know if your goal is simply something to plink with, or a hunting load, or?

IMHO your LIMITING yourself with this "One Load" idea.

Most anything you fire in the rifle will chrono +200 to +250 FPS faster than out of the pistols anyway. But if you want to get the most out of the rifle a slower powder would work better. Yet that load isn't really optimum in a short pistol bbl.

I'd do TWO loads.

FN in MT

[462]

Chris,
Just to clarify: The Lee 358-158 RF weighs a nominal 158-grains and has a round nose/flat nose profile.

Midway sells the six-cavity for less than $40, however the picture they show is not current. The newer design has a more rounded nose and a bevel base. The picture shows a larger meplat and a plain base.

Midway link: http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=172810

[GabbyM]

Would a Saeco #354 RNFP-gas check 180 grain fit? Or would you want to go that heavy?
To get away from a gas check I’d guess you’d need to go heavier to reduce the velocity. There is the 195 grain Lyman #358430. I don’t even know what a IMI Timberwolf is so have no idea what bullets would work. I’ve both of the mentioned bullets if you’d like to try them out.

[Bula]

Hey 462, that Midway pic looks just like my newer production Lee. The bevel is slight, and the meplat is right on.

Also, I can't seat checks on mine (Hornady's anyways).

Great mold, but accuracy goes out the window when pushed hard in my carbine. 99% of its use is in .38 specials for me.

[462]

Bula,
Perhaps it's my eyes, but it appeared that the Midway picture shows the older, plain base design. You're right, though, that the bevel is slight and much less than that pictured on Lee's web-site.

A gas check will slip onto my boolits, but the bevel may be different than on yours. Try setting the gas check in the sizing die, first, then the boolit.

[MBTcustom]

Not to steer you in another direction, but there is an effective trick that I just heard about on another post that some swear by. If you take a regular cast boolit and put a measured charge of cream-o-wheat between the powder charge and the boolit, it acts like a gas check and will seal the bore. I am going to try this if for no other reason than that it is a heck of a lot cheaper than paying for gas checks. IMHO-FYI
:drinks:

[Wayne Smith]

Chris, you are new here. I would suggest you hang out and perhaps post down in the Group Buy area unless you are in a hurry to get a mold. You can usually find, or ask for and one of our designers will design, just what you need. Usually a whole bunch of others find that they need the same thing! Now you have a group buy going.

If you can't wait call Tom at Accurate Molds or go to Mountain Molds and design your own.

[cwheel]

Not in a hurry at all. The .357's are on the list and will come up sometime after the first of the year. Yes, I realize that the 1 load thing somewhat limits performance. I normaly load about 4K of these at a time and store loose in 4 50cal ammo cans. Would like to be able to just grab rounds from a can, load them in anything, and have them be safe and acurate in any of the firearms I own. More important is when I'm gone, would like the grandkids to be able to use what is left over in the same way and be safe in any of these firearms. What gets lost here is the ability to get up to 1900 - 2000 fps out of this round in a rifle using slower powder and different boolits. The IMI timberwolf looks like a Remington 870 shotgun, only about half the size. Not in production anymore. This pump rifle holds 10 .357 rounds in a tube mag under the barrel, nice fit on the saddle scabbord for a outing with the horses. Very lite weight, and they are a take down design. It is just very picky about what it will feed, and a round nose 150-160 gr seams to work best in this rifle. I also have a Martini single shot falling block rifle with a 24" micro grove barrel. This is early production .310 martini cal that has been rebored to .357mag. This is the rifle I usualy work up loads in. Generaly if it works well in the Martini, it works well with everything else including the pistols. Only exception seams to be the Timberwolf won't feed semi wadcutters well. No, not in a hurry, still have about half of a 10K run left to cast for 45 auto using a Lee 225 round nose. After that a short run of 30 carbine rounds ( 2K ) for the kids to shoot when they visit. All of that should take me into the first of the year. If I can find a new mold by then, can move on to the .357's. I know it doesn't make any sence to do GC for pistol rounds. But I think these same rounds with a GC will do much better in the 18" ( Timberwolf ) and 24" barrels ( Martini ) for hunting, don't mind spending the extra penny or two for this. Thanks for your thoughts,
Chris

[MtGun44]

Until you prove that the GC will do what you say, you are just guessing. I have shot
Lyman 429421 (plain base) in my Win 94 trapper at 1750-1800 fps with excellent results.
Just sayin - you may need a GC at that velocity in that particular gun, but maybe not. For
me the hassle of installing the little boogers is a much bigger deal than the cost. I despise
them and only use them on for real rifle loads that have shown me that they really need
them to work accurately. Some definitely DO need GCs for best results.

Bill

[cwheel]

I agree Bill. But I'm thinking it would be smarter to buy a new mold that is set up for GC and not use them than buying a mold that doesn't have the GC cut and need one. My boolits are harder than most by adding 4X babit to the mix. Still would like to have the option when I work up the new loads. When mixing lead to cast, there is no way to tell what I have, the lead goes back as far as 3 generations of us casting. The old melt out babit acts as a hardening agent, and gets the density right for the weight of the mold. No hardness tester other than the test my grandfather showed me at 10 years old. Hit a boolit with a ball pean hammer, said it should crush to about half and not split or fracture. When this happens, and the weight is right, I cast them. Never a leading problem yet, but would like to have a GC option on a .357 round nose weighing in at 150-160.
Chris

[MtGun44]

Why make them so hard? Are you responding to a real need with your gun - like it won't
work with wheelwts - or just falling for the old wives tale that 'harder is better'? I would
worry that a GC design without the GC would work far more poorly than a PB design. I use
straight wwt alloy for most, but significant amounts of range scrap alloy (~8-9 BHN) now.

I'm all for hardness if it is needed, but in most of my applications (which are pistols) I have
found that I can make almost anything work just fine as far as hardness goess. When I get
great groups and no leading with near max velocity loads in .357 mag at 8 BHN, and
it works in at least 4 different pistols, I just can't buy the "gotta be hard to drive fast"
story. Totally busted as far as I am concerned, at least up to mag pistol velocities.

I would ask some experts here that use GC molds if they have good results with a GC
design without the GC. I do not know the answer to this, only own three pistol GC molds
and never use them, should probably put them on the sale page. Your idea of 'better
safe than sorry' may not actually work if a GC design without a GC doesn't work. My
bet is that somebody here has the answer to that one, at least for their mold and gun.

Bill

[cwheel]

Hardness is a good question. I have lead ingots that date back before WWI. Family has collected and saved lead forever, myself included. I have ingots that have come from almost anything made from lead, melted and poured into ingots at some point in their history. WW's battery, cable sheathing, bullet scrap, plumbers, linotype, you name it. No way to identify what any particular ingot is. I know they all cast soft and heavy for any given mold. What I do is mix these ingots with what I do know is melt out 4X nickle babit. This stuff is hard and lite. Mixing in lots of 40-50 lbs, I'll add the babit until the weight of the mold is matched within 1%. I always thought that if the weight matches the mold, then the density of the lead was close to right. If it passes the grandfathers hammer test, it is cast into small ingots to use in the 2 Lee electric pots I use to cast boolits. If I was to just use the ingots as they are, boolit weight would be all over the place. Getting the " density, and hardness " right gives me something consistant. An example of this is the first pour before mixing in a Lee 45 acp mold that should weigh 225 weighs in around 245 gr. Way to heavy even if the lead was hard enough to shoot without leading the barrel. Most likely all here have noticed that when casting out of any mold that there is a small tolerance boolit to boolit. Using the same example, I notice my 45 auto's are running 223-227 gr. I can live with that in a pistol, and a rifle. 245 gr would alter the loading data somewhat. I like the first round I loaded to match the 8500 round as close as possible. I can shoot some of the 38 special loads my father loaded with 5 gr of Unique under a 158 gr. Lyman semi wad cutter in the 1960's and have them print in exactly the same place rounds I loaded in the 80"s. I'd like to continue that with my grandson. Note worthy is that both print 3/4" groups @50 yards out of my Martini single shot rifle with iron sights. I could be casting them to hard, but it matters more to me that I am casting the intended weight as close to what the mold should be. Back to the new .357 mold. A gas check might not be necessary with all hardnesses of lead as cast. But if needed, would be better to have a part of the mold and be able to use it than need to use it and not have it a feature of the mold. At 62 years old still have much to learn about boolit casting. Grandfather gave me a good start around 10. Never had input from anyone other than grandfather and father on the finer points of mixing and casting. Been winging it for the last 50 years or so. Any ideas always welcome.

[cwheel]

Bill, didn't answer one of your questions. In molds I have with gas checks, they always group tighter than when fired without. Also leading in .357 semi wad cutters is there without, and gone with the GC. Not a fair test because I'm not compairing to a plain base with the same loads. Also, I cast 265 gr 38-55 with gas checks. The 38-55 shows the difference the most when speeds pass 1500 fps. ( normal load is 1500 fps ) heavy leading in the barrel and key-hole shots without the GC. Still not a fair compairason because shots are with and without a GC from the same mold. What is the real answer ?? Don't know. Over the years I can see a pattern developing here though. On a retirees budget, I don't want to end up with a pile of molds I can't use. Think the mold pile is now well over 16.
Chris

[MtGun44]

"even if the lead was hard enough to shoot without leading the barrel"

Hardness has very little to do with leading the barrel. It sounds like you have developed
a reasonable method to get a consistent alloy, but you do need to get past the old wive's tale
that you need 'a hard enough alloy to prevent leading'. This is often repeated as wisdom,
but is not correct. You don't prevent leading by using a harder alloy.

Fit, design and lube are what prevent leading, with hardness being at best 4 or 5th place.
Hardness can play a role for some barrels with shallow rifling in the accuracy situation, but
rarely is a major player in leading. The biggest cause for leading is usually undersized and
too hard, followed by poor lube or poor boolit design.

Bill

[MikeS]

Chris:

Why are you so hung up on making the boolit weight match what the mould maker says it should weigh? It's only a suggested weight, when cast with the specific alloy the mould maker uses to spec their moulds. For example, Lyman uses (or at least used to use) their Lyman #2 alloy when determining the weight of boolit from their moulds. Lyman #2 is 90% lead, 5% tin, and 5% antimony. RCBS uses several different alloys to spec their moulds depending on what it's intended use is (the use one alloy for their 'regular' moulds, another for their 'cowboy' moulds, etc. SAECO moulds uses a commercial alloy called Taracorp Magnum Alloy (I think that's what it's called, I'm doing this from memory) which I believe is 92% lead, 2% tin, and 6% antimony, so if you're mixing your alloy so the boolit weight matches the weight the mould maker says it should weigh, you'll actually have several different alloys depending on who makes your mould. If you have a standard alloy that YOU use (for example 90% lead, 10% babbit) it makes no difference what the mould makers say the boolit should weigh, only what they weigh when using your alloy.

I've standardized on using Lyman #2 alloy for all my casting (other than when casting for muzzle loaders, then I use pure lead), and rarely does the weight the mould is 'supposed' make boolits at, and what my boolits weigh are the same.

Another thing, I don't recall seeing what size you're sizing your boolits to. When shooting a 357 Magnum, if you're sizing the boolits to .357 then you stand a good chance of leading unless you use a fairly hard alloy. It's normally better to size the boolits .001 to .002 larger than the bore diameter of your gun (or in a revolver sizing larger than the cylinder throats). If you have a properly fitting boolit for YOUR gun, then there's no reason to make the alloy very hard. As I'm sure your know by now, no 2 guns are the same, so a boolit that fits YOUR gun perfectly might not fit perfectly in mine!

So I would say the first thing your should do is decide on an alloy you want to use, and standardize with that, so that a boolit cast from a Lyman mould will be the same hardness as one cast from an RCBS mould. Then slug the barrels and/or cylinder throats of your guns to determine what size they should sized to.

I mean no disrespect to anyone in your family, but it sounds like you're using a method of mixing up your lead that's well over 100 years old, and a LOT of advancements in boolit casting have happened in that time, so it would be silly to continue doing it that way just because that's the way it's always been done. 100 years ago cars had spark advance and mixture adjustments done from within the passenger compartment, now they're done for you automatically by the car itself, when you buy a car, do you specify that it should have a mixture adjustment screw on the dashboard, or that spark advance be on the steering column? So why do your bullet casting using 100 year old (or older) methods either? Just something to think about.

[GP100man]

NOE`s 360-180 RNFP has worked in all that`s been tried .

I have no exp with the Timberwolf , but have shot it thru a finicky Marlin & it feed & shot well !!

[cwheel]

Thanks Mike, no offense taken, I'm here to learn. And you are also right about my methods being well over 100 years old. In fact that comment make me think I should buy a hardness tester with the next Midway order. Guess I cast enough to justify one. I notice in my pile of old molds that were passed down, I have a old Ideal single cavity mold. This mold is marked 358250. It looks like a 38 cal round nose with 3 grease groves and a plain base, round nose. This mold was stored with a boolit cast in it and oiled, still in great shape, rust free. I can't ever remember anyone using this mold, don't know who bought it or when. Took the boolit out this morning after finding the mold and it weighed in at 155 gr. Have to try to look up the mold by the # and see what it is. None of my books reference anything with this number. Might make for a interesting experament though. Next time I heat the pots up, I'm going to pour 50 or so and see how these do, take several .357's out for the test. This would prove or disprove the need for a gas check. If the plain base works out, could change the 6 cavity mold I'm looking for. Yes I do size at .357 with the old Lyman 450. It would be easy to make a .358 sizer die and give that a try as well. Before I discount this plain base design, will make up a .358 sizer and give that a try as well. Thanks to all, think I have some work to do on this. Will heat the pots up again next week and try to get done with the 45's, cast some of the 38's, see how they come out.
Chris

[cwheel]

One thing I didn't address, the comment on matching the mold weight. I'm not really hung up on that so much as I am hung up on working up loads that are " repeatable ". I usualy reload in what I consider large lots. Thinking that the weight of the bullet determines the FPS with any given load and would like round number 1 to perform the same as round #10,000. These loads are listed in the lids of the .50 cal storage cans, and are repeatable by my son and grandson just looking at the lable in the can. I think any good alloy would work, but mixed into the lots, they would shoot all over the place. What I'm really trying to maintain is a standard ?? The same standard that was maintained for me. When I work up a new round or cal, try to spend enough time to do it right and set a standard. I'm sure that some of the stuff I have on hand will eventualy be shot long after I'm gone. Safe, accurate, and consistant is what I'm really after. Alloy of the week isn't going to get it here, need to set some sort of standard and keep repeating it. Only thing I can come up with so far is matching the mold weight. Always open to a better idea though, fairly open minded. A good example of this in practice is some of the old reloads I still have from my grandfather made in the late 40's. ( 38-55 ) I can use the same mold, still have it, load and shoot mine mixed with his and have the same point of impact @100 yards. His old stuff has a little more drop. Thinking that has more to do with old powder and primer than anything else. Still less than 2". That rifle has taken many deer. Never had to adjust the sights, load and shoot. All of that is why I fuss with maintaining bullet weight.
Chris

[Matt_G]

Chris,
First, welcome to the forum.

My Ideal boolit poster here in my loading room shows that 358250 as being a 155 gr. boolit originally designed for the .38 S&W Long.
Top punch #311 is what that one calls for.

[longbow]

Just another option thrown in the mix.

You might consider a good PB mould then if you get gas cutting or leading indicating a gas check is needed, get one of Pat Marlins PB gas check makers.

I haven't used them myself but have been reading good reports on them and Pat Marlin is not the first to do this either. Ed Wosika and Paco Kelly were doing this many years ago with good results:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=83451
http://www.lasc.us/TaylorFreeChec.htm

Longbow

[GLL]

Chris:

Here is a custom 358430 GC 175 grain round nose mold I had Bruce at BRP cut for me. It is a lighter version of the original 195 grain LYMAN 358430. It is a great bullet in my .358MAX carbines !

The bad news is BRP has stopped production ! :( :(

Jerry

175 grain GC on left...150 grain PB on right
http://www.fototime.com/DC76820B289C703/orig.jpg

[JIMinPHX]

Here's an off the wall idea that you might want to consider if you find a mold that throws a boolit that you would have liked if it had a gas check on it - http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=76745

[MtGun44]

Your idea of making consistent loads is a very good one. But I think you might be surprised at
low little difference small changes in hardness or weight will actually make.

It may be worth running a small experiment. Mix up a small batch of alloy that goes pretty
light and another that goes pretty heavy, say a 10-15 gr difference for a .44 or .45 cal, and
see if they shoot to different POA or different group sizes. If they do in your gun(s), then
you do need to worry about it . If not, maybe you can spend a little less time blending and
worrying about matching boolit weights. Me, I'd don't worry about it very much, never seems
to make much difference if I have moderate alloy changes in hardness or density. you
may have different results, but it may be worth checking.

Bill

[cwheel]

Some great ideas on this board. Thanks Matt G. for IDing the mold. I would have never guessed 38 long colt. Also looks like the bullet left in the mold was exactly what it was supposed to throw, 155 gr. To bad it is a one hole. Looking through the parts box with the Lyman 450 sizer, there is a #311 top punch. Must have been a 38 long colt in the family at one time, but it was gone by the time I got there. Thanks as well to Jim for the link to the mold mod. Great and easy change. I have a home machine shop, mill and lathe. Would make this mold except it wouldn't make sence to make the tooling just to make one mold. Weeks work for a $50 part. What I am going to do is test this bullet with a plain base and see if it works out without leading at .357 speeds. If it does, will buy a Lee 6 hole cheap and just use it. If it does need gas checks, do the mod to the mold. Some day in the next few months, I'll post the results. Seams I asked the question in the right place, thanks to all for the help and ideas.
Chris

[runnin lead]

Chris
As far as testing hardness ,this works.

http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=75455

[MikeS]

Chris:

I agree with you about repeatability, and not using the 'alloy of the week' which is one reason why I choose to use Lyman #2 alloy. It's 90%lead, 5% tin, 5% antimony, and has been since it first came out. The same can not be said for wheel weights, as they have changed quite a bit over time. Some of the older H&G moulds from the 1940's or so say they were designed to cast with wheel weights, but the weights back then had a much different makeup than weights do today. Also, documentation is your friend. If you load up some loads, and as an example cast a 453460 boolit cast from Lyman #2, and use 25gr of XYZ powder, and write that down on the box of ammo, than 40 years from now your great grandchildren finding the box, and mould, could conceivably duplicate the load assuming XYZ powder was still available, and that lead was still legal to cast with! Another point, you say you like to cast the boolit so that they're the weight the mould maker says they're supposed to weigh. Well, that's great except for one small problem. Some mould makers mark their moulds with a numbering scheme where the weight is on it, others don't. As an example, the mould you just found, the 358250 with boolit that weigh 155gr in it, according to an online listing of Lyman moulds shown here:
http://www.three-peaks.net/bullet_molds.htm
that mould is supposed to cast a 156gr boolit, so the 155gr boolit you found is pretty close. But what if the boolit wasn't in the mould, AND that website wasn't available? How would you know what it's supposed to weigh? If you standardize on an alloy, it wouldn't matter what it's supposed to weigh, only what it weighs with your alloy. As long as the alloy you standardize on is well documented by you, then any/all loads you make should be repeatable by anyone in your family that finds your moulds/ammo/notes, etc.

Whatever alloy you standardize on, or even if you standardize on one, is your business, but I would suggest that if you do, you should give Lyman #2 a good looking at, it hasn't survived as long as it has because it was a bad general purpose alloy. I don't know how many alloys Lyman came out with, but I have to assume there was a Lyman #1 alloy at some time, but it apparently wasn't as good as #2, as I've never seen a formulation for it, and have no clue what it was.

[cwheel]

Mike S. I like your idea about being able to repeat the alloy. But I have a small problem with that. I have lead stored out back in ingots. These ingots were cast from junk well before I was born in 1949. Some have ww mixed with plumbers lead, lynotype, cable sheething, and any given ingot could be made from anything that has ever been made from lead and salvaged. I'm just guessing, about 1500 lbs of this. One ingot casts heavy, one lite, one soft, one hard. Only way to tell is get a few ingots melted into the pot, cast and weigh. As I melt this stuff and flux it some of it comes clean in the first try. Other ingots have so much junk that they get fluxed 4-5 times to come clean. My contributon to the pile has been 4X babit that I have kept seperate. Could start from scratch I guess, go out and buy some lead and make up or buy lyman #2. But so far, my mixing trick, matching the weight of the boolit cast to the mold has worked well for more than 25,000 rounds made ?? I end up with a boolit that is a little harder than most, but doesn't lead bores, is safe, and accurate. It would be hard for me to throw away 1500 lbs or so of lead stock and start fresh. Won't begin to argue that mine are anywhere near as good as some others, but they sure do work well. The only thing I have been able to duplicate time after time is the weight of the boolit, load, primers. When I load anything in a given cal. I'll load thousands of rounds at a time, no less than 1000 is worth setting up for. Most loading takes place in a dillon 550. Of course that is after the loads are worked up or I'm using old trusted load data. Powder for all handgun loads is Unique. Documentation is a big deal, and after loading a can full, will write down full info and date on a sticker that goes inside the lid of the can. ( 50 cal can ) This run of 45 acp will use almost 350 lbs from the pile. Unlikely I'll ever get to cast all of it in my lifetime. A neighbor is bringing over several more ingots to get rid of next week. Who knows what might be in those. I'll just say thank you and take them. Lead quality control is difficult working like that. Sure can and have documented the loads well, and the same documentation was done as far as 2 generation back, still use some of those old loads. Thanks as well to Runnin lead, I have a full set in my drafting stuff and will give it a try. Good education here, I'm learning a bunch, thank you all.
Chris