C358-158-SWC to plain base

[Ready on the Right]

I've searched every word combination I can imagine, but can't find any results from plain basing a C358-158-SWC. I found some reference in a 2007 thread about Milling out the step or milling off the top, but no results, or if it was ever done. My question is, has anyone altered that mold by either method? If step is milled out, should it go to the next band, leaving a wide base band, or milled out shallow to create a (new) narrow lube groove? If anyone has tried, how did it shoot at various velocities? My intent, for those that will ask "Why?", is to obtain a 6 gang, plain base, heavier than 158 grain, conventional lube grooved boolit for up to magnum velocities in revolvers, and seeing what I can get without leading in a Rossi carbine. Something similar in performance to a 358429. I don't mind sacrificing a $20. mold to experiment, but would like to hear others experience if its already been tried. Thanks.

[gefiltephish]

Search for "removing bevel base".
This and many other came up in seconds:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=133388&highlight=remove+bevel+base

[Iron Mike Golf]

...If step is milled out, should it go to the next band, leaving a wide base band, or milled out shallow to create a (new) narrow lube groove?...

I did not do searching and researching, so I don't know of others' experience in doing this. But as to the question above, I think I'd go for a thick base band.

Look at the various weight RCBS 44 Keith style molds. They vary the weight by altering the base band thickness.

I don't think I'd try to mill another lube groove in that location. I'd want to avoid a too-narrow base band. I might be off in that feeling, though.

[fecmech]

Why not just get the 358429 in a 4 cav from Lyman?? I get 1250 fps and 2" 50 yd groups in a GP100 and at 1630 fps 3-4" 100 yd groups in my Rossi 92. Just a thought.

[Ready on the Right]

Thanks 'Phish, thats good info there, but nothing specific to the C358-158-SWC performance after altering.
Iron Mike, I'm of the same thought, even though someone elsewhere opined that a wide base does not obturate well, Beagle in his "Bare Bottomed 358156HP" article states that he likes a wide base band. I would be inclined to follow his expertise with that regard, but have heard of 30 cal. molds modified to have a narrow base and result in the extra lube groove when a portion of the check step was removed. I figured I could start with a narrow band and extra groove, shoot to test, and remove more or all of the step if results are less than desirable.
Fecmec, THAT'S the kind of results I'm hoping for! Just hoping to get it out of modifying a mold I already have, if possible. I think the weight will be close, if the performance doesn't suffer. If it doesn't work, or has failed miserably for others, (if it has failed marginally, I may still try; for as it is written "Every gun is a law unto itself ") I'll have to get a 358429 four gang. Of course I'd experiment with a 2 cavity Lee before altering my 6 cavity. I was thinking I could get ~1600 fps out of a plain base in the Rossi with proper fit/alloy/powder. You happen to be using something around the burn rate of 2400?
Thanks for all your input.

[fecmech]

I was thinking I could get ~1600 fps out of a plain base in the Rossi with proper fit/alloy/powder. You happen to be using something around the burn rate of 2400?
A little slower, WC820 and 296 (my batch of 820 mirrors 296).

[Ready on the Right]

Is 820 similar to 296 in that it doesn't download well? Either would be okay. I don't mind using a particular powder for a specific purpose. I have enough other options for lesser loads when needed. As an all 'round boolit, how's 358429 with plinkin' loads. I've got a skinner low pro, and even though I did away with the band mounted front and dovetailed an XS white stripe in, I don't like drifting for windage between plinking and heavier loads. Do you get similar POA/POI with lesser doses of something in Unique or HS-6 range or switch to another design for lighter loads? I like the idea of single digit doses of Unique (as compared to "teens" doses of slower burners) for high volume shooting, but don't want to labor intensly with sight adjustments back and forth. Any wisdom from your experience? Thanks again.
All you tinkerers out there feel free to share thoughts on altering that mold before Fecmech talks me into buying another one!

[Ole]

The 358429 has a longer than average nose profile. May give you OAL problems if your revolver has a short cylinder. Most lever guns also have very tight OAL limitations.

[Ole]

I'm playing with H110 and the Lee 158 TL mold in my Marlin 1894. I'll get back to you on my initial results the next time I take it out shooting.

That Lee 158 RNFP bullet is a dandy. :mrgreen:

I'm working with the TL mold first because I appreciate a good challenge. :drinks:

[williamwaco]

You don't need to alter that bullet to use it without a gas check.

Just do it.

It works fine.

Accuracy is fine and if you lube with ( any brand ) of Alox you should have no leading problems.

( Assuming your sizing fits your revolver. )

[Ready on the Right]

Ole, If Fecmech is running them in a gp100 and Rossi rifle, 358429 OAL shouldn't be a problem in a security-six, vaquero, and M92, IF I go to the Lyman. I'll have to agree on the TL being a challenge. My experience has been less than satisfactory with the TL designs, even though I have found good use for LLA in conventional lube designs. Think I'll leave the TL158 tinkering to someone else; good luck to you with it. The RNFP certainly is a wide meplat, but I've understood that longer range accuracy is better with the SWC.
William, I have had some success with that Boolit sans GC in revolvers, but less satifactory in the carbine at upper end. Any tips for ~1600 FPS rifle loads w/o checks, acheiving +/- 3"@100?

[PacMan]

You are talking about a Rossi carbine here not a revolver right?
If so,many others will disagree, stay with the GC bullet.

[Ready on the Right]

Hey dwight, really like to make use of the same load in both revolver and carbine. With the right combination, I think ~1600 fps plain base is achievable in .357 mag. Same sizing fits in both revolvers and rifle, and I think I can compromise a BHN to work in both, using a slow/ low pressure powder. BUT I'll take first hand knowledge and experience from anyone that has something to offer! Gas checks are dandy little devices, but with a little work, I'm of a belief that plain bases can perform within the 1600 fps limit, if I'm wrong, yall tell me what you know!

[fecmech]

If Fecmech is running them in a gp100 and Rossi rifle, 358429 OAL shouldn't be a problem in a security-six, vaquero, and M92,
When using 358429 in mag cases I load to an oal of 1.638" and taper crimp on the front drive band. If you crimp in the crimp groove it's too long for the Rossi and some revolvers (My GP being 1 of them).

Is 820 similar to 296 in that it doesn't download well?
The batch of 820 I'm using is no longer available, 296 and H110have some room to play with at the upper end but I don't think work well as medium speed loads. I have had good luck with 2400 and AA9, they are more flexible to download.

As an all 'round boolit, how's 358429 with plinkin' loads. I've got a skinner low pro
I have had absolutely no luck with 358429 as a plinker in the Rossi I believe due to the 30" twist. IMO you either run it all out and it's great all the way to 200 yds. Slow it down to 1100-1200 fps and it may hold together at 50 yds but my 2 rossi's pattern at 100 yds with .38 level loads of 358429. I get my best results for plinking in the Rossi's with the Lee 125 RNFP. In the revolvers it shoots good with the old standby of 5.0/Unique. My experience with .357 rifles (I've got 3 of them) is that elevation varies dramatically between velocities and different bullet wts., windage very little. I have a "target" elevation knob on the peep sights of 2 of my rifles so that I can run the sight up and down depending on range and load. If you are shooting 50 yds or less you may only have 3-4" difference in POI between loads, at 100 yds easily 1 foot between a .38 spl and .357 mag.

[Ready on the Right]

Fecmech, the length problem my be another benefit of the Lee alteration. I've been well pleased with 2400 under 158 grainers, but would not be opposed to H110 or possibly 296 for a heavier boolit load. Veratility of one design is always good, but variety is good too! Downloads with another bullet/ powder combination is not a problem. Thats one of the many benefits of our reloading/casting illness; we can customize to our needs, and expand our knowledge and understanding along the way! Chasing a new possibility gives another excuse to shoot, too! Thanks for everyones input. Looks like I may have to order up a 2 cavity Lee mould to try my theory on. I'll post a report of the findings when I get there. Still open to suggestions though!

[Larry Gibson]

Fecmech, the length problem my be another benefit of the Lee alteration. I've been well pleased with 2400 under 158 grainers, but would not be opposed to H110 or possibly 296 for a heavier boolit load. Veratility of one design is always good, but variety is good too! Downloads with another bullet/ powder combination is not a problem. Thats one of the many benefits of our reloading/casting illness; we can customize to our needs, and expand our knowledge and understanding along the way! Chasing a new possibility gives another excuse to shoot, too! Thanks for everyones input. Looks like I may have to order up a 2 cavity Lee mould to try my theory on. I'll post a report of the findings when I get there. Still open to suggestions though!

I would suggest having another mould that is PB'd is the best solution. Given the cost of Lee moulds why alter a perfectly good one? Besides, with the magnum level 2400 and H110 loads you may appreciate the GC'd bullet, especially with soft alloys for expansion and with a HP'd bullet. I use PB'd bullets for low and medium range loads and cast them hard for top end prcatice loads. However, my serious hunting loads are with soft cast GC'd HPs. Having the option of either is the better solution.

Larry Gibson

[Ready on the Right]

Well now, thats a point that's hard to argue with. Soft cast does benefit greatly from gas checks, even when practice rounds cast a bit harder can be PB. So, maybe I don't need to alter this one. Really don't need anything heavier for Alabama Whitetails out of the Rossi. As Wiiliamwaco noted, downloaded without checks they shoot good for plinking; maybe need another 158 PB mould just to cast harder for upper limit practice rounds. Thanks Larry! By the way, I really respect your opinion on things. I haven't posted alot, but I've studied quite a bit and have come to trust a few members here. I've noted a good many of the tidbits you have shared, and have made good use of them, so "Thanks" for more than just your comments on this.