Anyone Else Have Accuracy Problems with the 454424?

[35 Whelen]

I cast/shoot a 454424 bullet for my two 45 Colts, a 4 5/8" Ruger NM Vaquero and a 4 3/4" Uberti SA. This bullet just barely shoots OK at 25 yds. (3" - 4") and at 50 yds. I have a hard time hitting my 12" steel disk. I know it's not the revolvers because they both shoot 45-270 SAA from a Miha mould very well.
The 454424 mould is a 4-cavity NOE I recently purchased and it seems to cast really good bullets which causes me to question the design. Varying the sized diameter, lube and bullet hardness seems to make little if any difference. Thoughts?

35W

[osteodoc08]

What is it sized at? Throats?

[454PB]

I'm with osteodoc08......I have that design in a Lyman, and it's the most accurate boolit I've found for .45 Colt/454 Casull.

[35 Whelen]

I've sized it at .452" and .453". The throats of the NM Vaquero were done by the cylindersmith and seems they are .4525" or so. The Uberti hasn't been touched. Like I said, both these revolvers shoot the 45-270 like gangbusters. I REALLY wanted this bullet to shoot because the 4-cavity mould makes casting so much more productive and I wanted a lighter bullet with which to practice (255 grs. vs. 283 grs.).

All indications point to the bullet, but they look fine and cast at consistent weights.

35W

[RobS]

I shot both the 454424 (BRP IIRC) and the 45-270-SAA (both the RCBS and a 45 2.1 version from BRP). The 454424 will shoot well when you find the right load but it's not as easy to find as the longer bearing surfaced 280 grain Keith. I also shot mostly water quenched WW alloy boolits with those designs. Now I shoot a LFN style design with a bit shorter nose length than an original LFN and my design also has a slight wider meplat. I can't remember what the loads were with the Keiths but the reason I switched over was initially because of the lever action rifles but I later come to find that the LFN style designs made it easier vs the Keiths SWC's to find various different powder/boolit combos that were very accurate.

IIRC 45 2.1 also designed a LFN style 260 grain boolit with the Keith bottom and the LFN top side both carrying a .320" meplat

[RobS]

What load(s) are you trying to shoot with the 454424?

[Treetop]

35W, maybe your guns would prefer a different powder charge or even a different powder with that 454424 boolit. I have the Ruger OMBH in .45 Colt and a 4 3/4" Uberti in .45 Colt. they both like Unique and the Ruger OMBH likes IMR 4227 behind that boolit. My mold is an older original Lyman DC 454424.

[Bohica793]

I cast and shoot from that exact NOE 454424 mold in my 7.5" Blackhawk with <2" groups at 25 yards. I size it to .452 and load it on top of 13gr of BlueDot.

[44man]

Alloy was not mentioned either. Is "slump" showing up? The Keith is harder to work with. Powder choice alone can have a huge affect.

[35 Whelen]

I've been shooting typically 8.0 - 8.5 grs. of Unique or 20/28 either of which give good groups with the aformentioned 45-270 and an RCBS 45-255. I dislike the thought of having to treat one certain bullet different than the others. I usually keep Unique or 20/28 in one of my power measures so I can load and shoot at will rather than swapping powders around. But, I may be forced to try something different.

35W

[MT Gianni]

It is my most accurate bullet in 45. If cylinder alignment is out a rf will enter the bore with less misalignment.

[35 Whelen]

It is my most accurate bullet in 45. If cylinder alignment is out a rf will enter the bore with less misalignment.

Since both revolvers shoot well with other bullets, I've pretty much ruled out a y problems with the revolvers.

[44man]

I have 3 of the most accurate revolvers made, BFR's with perfect dimensions and alignment. I have been sent many Keith style boolits and none will shoot like I want.
Even my old SBH needs a Keith at 28 to 30 BHN before I can group. I cut my forcing cone to 11* in the SBH and making my boolit with as close to an 11* ogive for alignment has shown super accuracy.
Yes I shot the 429421 long ago from my first .44's, Flat top and 29 back in 56 but I did not really know how a revolver could shoot either. Maybe the first, early guns were built better, I don't know. I shot to 400 and 500 yards back then but targets were pretty large.I thought an old water heater at 200 at the dump was good shooting.
The exception was a 27 with the 358156 HP that I could hit 1" targets at 100 yards from prone. 8-3/8" ribbed barrel with a Bushnell Phantom scope.
The shoulder on a Keith will not pull a cylinder if too soft. and even .001 to .002" out of line will wipe off the shoulder so the boolit is not straight in the bore. Watch boolits in flight with a good spotting scope will show you.
Ever stick the nose of a Keith in the muzzle and see it wiggles side to side? The ogive does not steer a boolit at all. It is under bore size. you are left with a weak shoulder to align a boolit.
The Keith is dead today. It was a compromise for a cut hole in paper.

[Vulcan Bob]

Cannot speak for the 454424 but rather for it's new version 452424 sized at .452". I have noticed that it likes to be run fast (925-950 fps) for best accuracy.

[9.3X62AL]

"The Keith is dead today."

In your world, perhaps. Not at my house. #454424 in 2 ideations has shot VERY well in two 45 Colt revolvers of mine over a number of years. Of course, I don't shoot 1 inch groups at 100 yards with ANY of my handguns, either--none of them wear glass sights, and none are likely to do so. I use rifles for long distance, and sometimes THOSE get glass sights--but less than half of my long guns wear glasses. Quite frankly, glass sights on a handgun are like camper shells on Ferraris AFAIC. The only upgrade even more preposterous than glassware on a handgun is a battery-operated gizmo on the damn thing.

[Cornbread]

I have an old Lyman 454424 my Ruger convertible loves them sized .452 over a load of 4227. Most accurate load I have ever shot out of it. My 454 Casull (BFR) absolutely hates that bullet. I can't get it to group under 4" at 50 yards no matter what I try. I gave up trying to get my BFR to shoot that bullet. All of my 454s and my 45 colts love NOE's PB RNFP bullet though so that is what I shoot the most of. I have a friend here in town who tried both out of his Uberti 45 colt. I cast him up 20 of each in the same alloy to try out and his gun loved the RNFP and hated the 454424. So he shoots purely the RNFP now. This is the one by NOE that all my guns love:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/AndyTheCornbread/NOE_255gr_RNFP_PB_zpsda1f2e06.jpg

[DougGuy]

35, have you ran a tight patched jag down the bore to feel for thread choke at the frame? Either that, or the forcing cone has got something going on it seems to me.

[9.3X62AL]

Doug, he mentioned other cast bullets shooting well in the OP. Sometimes, revolver quirks don't make a lick of sense.

[35 Whelen]

"The Keith is dead today."

In your world, perhaps. Not at my house. #454424 in 2 ideations has shot VERY well in two 45 Colt revolvers of mine over a number of years. Of course, I don't shoot 1 inch groups at 100 yards with ANY of my handguns, either--none of them wear glass sights, and none are likely to do so. I use rifles for long distance, and sometimes THOSE get glass sights--but less than half of my long guns wear glasses. Quite frankly, glass sights on a handgun are like camper shells on Ferraris AFAIC. The only upgrade even more preposterous than glassware on a handgun is a battery-operated gizmo on the damn thing.

That's funny...glad someone finally said it! Anyhow...

Background on the revolver: Cylinder throats have been opened, the tight spot in the barrel fire-lapped, and I very recently cut the forcing cone to 11°. I've tried the bullet both from ACWW (~12 Bhn) and WQWW (~22 Bhn) The revolver WILL shoot with other Keith style bullets.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Ruger%20Vaquero/Vaquero50yds700-Xedit_zps0df89563.jpg (http://s60.photobucket.com/user/308Scout/media/Ruger%20Vaquero/Vaquero50yds700-Xedit_zps0df89563.jpg.html)

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Ruger%20Vaquero/Vaquero50ydsedit_zps7a33f3a7.jpg (http://s60.photobucket.com/user/308Scout/media/Ruger%20Vaquero/Vaquero50ydsedit_zps7a33f3a7.jpg.html)

Maybe after deer season I'll mess around with some different powders. I'm tempted to find a used Lyman 454424 and try some bullets from it.

35W

[DougGuy]

Have you tried an RF design? Lee C452-255-RF specifically. You have the perfect gun for it.

OR the NOE design that cornbread posted..

[44man]

Revolvers need a whole new line of thinking, hardest ever to work with. It took me years to get the hang of what they want.
Long ago it was the Keith, nothing else was made and the looks of a loaded round just LOOKED deadly.
Then Veral came along and the RNFP came along to show what could be done.
I still think why many like the Keith is appearance. I know for a fact that I will never make a semi wad cutter mold or buy one. They will do good from a perfect gun but I don't consider a pie plate at 50 "good."
As far as sights, get as old as me to see a fuzzball Grinch on the sights and no sights at all in dim light for deer, you sure will get a red dot or stay in bed. Scopes don't work in dim light either.
Back in my IHMSA days I could focus both sights AND the steel. In Dec I will be 77 so don't tell me you will see as good then.
When a BFR will not shoot a Keith, what do you do? It lived a good life but has died.
Nobody was shooting to 500 yards in 1956 with a .44 like I did. Only Elmer and I still love the guy. He was the reason I did what I did, took hair off a running chuck at 550 yards once, off hand, open sights. But he did not have the perfect boolit, he wanted a cut hole in paper along with a good meplat for hunting, knew the wad cutter was not the way. So his was a compromise.
Some believe the shoulder cuts meat but if you get your head on straight, the wave from the meplat pushes flesh away from the shoulder. It does NOTHING!
How can the shoulder pull a cylinder to alignment? Why not use the whole ogive?
None of you will admit it is appearance and not function.
A good alignment for the cylinder. My 330 at 200 yards, yes 1-5/16" that would make your 25 yard groups look silly. 121503
The most accurate bullets ever made are the XTP's, darn funny they are not a Keith style, those bullets died out.
Time to let them go.

[GoodAlloy]

"the Keith is Dead Today" !!
Please refrain from this slander!!!
The Keith is just as good as it ever was. The best Keith load against any other best load is a context of what load development you gravitate towards. If you just want to hit small things way out there you can work up a different design and get good results. However, if you are looking for one of the best all around designs that will actual do something when it gets there its hard to best the Keith design. I will say that the due to not wearing a gas check that the art of cast boolits loading with concerns to powder choice and alloy is more important. However, no check also means less cost and less hassle in the making and loading department, not to mention recoil. Yes checks increase friction & help powder dedagrate by increasing internal pressure but also kick alittle more. As for me if I could only have one design it would be a Keith !!!!! There are others out there that work great in one displine or another. But show me one design that can do it all very well and it will be a Keith !!

[GoodAlloy]

Comparing Boolits to XTP's has no context. Condoms are a whole different situation.
If you are wanting the recoil and muzzle bast of the 330 grs boolit then yes it will out perform a 250 grs Keith or anything else for that matter due to its B.C. and mass. Show me a 250grs of another design that will perform as such. It will not. Now if you had a 330 grs Keith and ran it accordling that would be interesting!!
Oh and by the way the shoulder is not there to cut meat it is there to scrape carbon and debris from the bore with ever pass and cut nice holes in paper. As for dynamic fluid movement yes the meplat does the work as it does with any design. The Keith also allows more powder capacity due to alot of wieght out front.
I rarely shoot at 25 yards. However, my Keith does me well at 100 with 1.5" groups and quart oil bottles at 200. I believe that the difference in opinion is due to what you want from your revolver as opposed to what someone else wants from theirs. Not everyone wants to use 330 grs of pb+sn at pop.

[44man]

"the Keith is Dead Today" !!
Please refrain from this slander!!!
The Keith is just as good as it ever was. The best Keith load against any other best load is a context of what load development you gravitate towards. If you just want to hit small things way out there you can work up a different design and get good results. However, if you are looking for one of the best all around designs that will actual do something when it gets there its hard to best the Keith design. I will say that the due to not wearing a gas check that the art of cast boolits loading with concerns to powder choice and alloy is more important. However, no check also means less cost and less hassle in the making and loading department, not to mention recoil. Yes checks increase friction & help powder dedagrate by increasing internal pressure but also kick alittle more. As for me if I could only have one design it would be a Keith !!!!! There are others out there that work great in one displine or another. But show me one design that can do it all very well and it will be a Keith !!
My large caliber boolits are PB but NOT a Keith style. I shoot PB from the .475 and .500, shot to max. I designed the boolits and made my own molds. They have done as small as 1/2" at 100 yards and I am the loose nut. I just can't see or hold as good anymore.
I have shot the PB from my 45-70 revolver and the .454 at over max. yet a Keith will NOT work. Sorry, no Keith will match a good boolit. It kills no better then a WLN either. When you get over 62 years with a revolver, get back to me.
It is not slander, it is old ideas that no longer fit.

[GoodAlloy]

I see your piont with all the statements you have made. You have spent alot of time and effort in you endevors that much we all know. I just think that the Keith is a good all around boolit. If trying to find a specialty boolit for a special circumstance & job takes you in a differnet direction. Then it is awesome that you can acheive what you have! But for my money for the average guy that wants a boolit to pretty much do it all and do it well, with a off the shelf design. I will stick with the Keith. As for "old ideas that no longer work" I disagree, the Keith is as good now as it was at the start, and it is still working just fine in my book.
Good luck on all your future endevors!! Keep up the good work!!

[DougGuy]

Think about it.. You have a cylinder throat, a forcing cone, and rifling. The ojive of the RF boolits are not nearly as sharp and no corner edge exposed like the Keith, it provides a much more practical approach to the transition from cylinder to barrel than any square shouldered design, and it has a longer bearing surface which stabilizes better than a short sided boolit. If any of the ojive of the RF boolit gets damaged by the forcing cone it would just blend it into the boolit below where it took the hit instead of wiping off 40% of the side of the boolit into the lube groove.

Not saying that Keith cannot be made to shoot accurately, but I have MUCH better luck with the RF than the KT.

I really couldn't give a rodent's hindside what my pistol does at 100yds on a plate, if it isn't putting meat in the freezer what's the use?

As far as the OP of this thread, I think he has worn out about everything there is to try with getting a 424454 to shoot from his already dimensionally corrected Vaquero, THE GUN is saying I DO NOT LIKE THIS BOOLIT! Time to try the RF or RNFP and see what it does!

[35 Whelen]

I haven't because I wanted to use a Keith bullet for hunting.

[DougGuy]

I haven't because I wanted to use a Keith bullet for hunting.

Have you seen any of the recovered boolits from the RF molds? Quite impressive! You shoot a perfectly suited alloy for the twist in the Ruger barrel, soft enough to dig a fingernail in, and the RF design works extremely well in both my Rugers, .44 and .45 calibers. I have always said there is a direct relationship between alloy hardness, twist, and velocity. When you hit on the good combo, the GUN itself will tell you that you have found the secret. I hit on it with mine, you will know when you get there because it will be a night and day difference. Instant gratification. The RF will kill em SO DEAD it ain't funny. I don't think a Keith has any advantage at all over the wide meplat of the RF boolit. The wound channel is the size of a golfball generally, and there is a pressure wave in front of every boolit, I have heard it said that the pressure wave in front of the Keith pushes flesh away from the shoulder. I guess this would also really depend on the velocity of the Keith, at less than supersonic it may not exhibit such action.

One of my guys that brought two NM Rugers for cylinder throating and 11° forcing cone recut and polish loves the Lee 255 RF, his guns and yours are set up perfectly for this design. I would find some samples and give it a shot. Or two. Or twenty. Pun intended. I think you may be quite pleased with the results. Felix or other soft lube recommended.

[FlatTop45LC]

All I have shot in my Flat Top 45 LC is the Keith. With 9 grains of Unique it shoots well enough I am able to break a clay pigeon every shot at 50 yards in field positions.

I don't need any better....

[Char-Gar]

I am a handgun shooter of the old school, holding the handgun in my hands and standing on two legs, and not some kind of bench rest shooter looking for the smallest possible groups at distances I don't shoot. Frankly I see no reason to try and turn a handgun into a rifle, but what do I know. Different folks see things different.

Back to the issue at hand. I an very satisfied with the accuracy I get from Lyman 454424 and RCBS 270 SAA. I cast both bullets out of ACWW and size them to fit the charge hole throats, either .452 or .454. Powder charges with both are either 20/4227, 8.5/Unique or 6.2/Bulleye. These days, I mostly use the Bulleye charge.

I don't worship the Keith bullet but have used it for many years and it does all I want and need a bullet to do out of a 45 Colt revolvers. I see no reason to buy and new mold for a different design, that might produce a little better accuracy that I don't need and can't use.

[35 Whelen]

Lots of different subjects at once here....

The revolver, like the other dozen or so I own, WILL shoot Keith bullets, I've proven that many, many times. Last year, my first season to deer hunt with a revolver cartridge, (.44 Special) I killed three deer with Keith type bullets. Here's the would in a shoulder of the last buck I killed last season:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Hunting/buckshoulder-1_zpscbe93d7f.jpg (http://s60.photobucket.com/user/308Scout/media/Hunting/buckshoulder-1_zpscbe93d7f.jpg.html)

So in my mind, there's no need to try anything else.

I do have a .44 caliber RNFP mould:

http://noebulletmolds.com/NV/images/1111-116-432200GrRF.jpg

While I haven't tested it extensively, it hasn't shown nearly the accuracy as Keith bullets. Wanting to use it for a practice bullet, I've tried it in my primary Uberti SA and my CA Bulldog. It just didn't shoot nearly as well as any of the SWC's I cast and load. It did shoot fairly well in a Uberti 1866 rifle I owned for a while though.

I'm a realist; iron sighted revolvers are short range tools of opportunity that can be used for hunting to maybe 100 yds....at most, but 50 or so yards is much more realistic. As such I have no interest in developing loads that shoot tiny groups from a bench rest. For that type shooting, I'll grab a rifle. If I can shoot fist-sized groups at 50 yds. from a field position, I'm happy because that type accuracy will easily work for deer hunting. I have a 200 yd. steel target here at the house and have become fairly proficient at hitting it with my revolvers, but that's just for fun.

I'm also a minimalist and prefer to have two good bullets and loads for my revolvers; one for practice and general loafing in the woods, and one for hunting. I also want the two bullets to have enough visible difference so I can tell my loads apart at a glance. I've accomplished this with my .44 Specials by using an NOE 429421 for practice/field carry and either an RCBS 44-250KT or Miha SWCHP for deer hunting. Works perfectly. My Vaquero shoots wonderfully with the Miha 45-270 in a 283 gr. SWCHP, but that's way too much bullet for shooting targets, practice and loafing in the woods. That's why I bought the 454424 mould. The only thing I haven't tried with the 454424 is a softer alloy down in the 10 Bhn range. That may be next on the list.

35W

[Char-Gar]

Well, you certainly have been successful in your hunting with a handgun and your range and theory are spot on with mine. The idea of having two bullets visual different has lots of merit.

While this may draw fire from some quarters and support from others, I have never found the need for bullets harder than Bh 10 unless we go to full snort magnum pressure and velocity. That means 99.99% of my shooting is done with Bh 9 or 10 bullets, which is what my ACWW give.

I do not water drop bullets and don't think the idea has much merit for general shooting. It does enable a fellow to handle his bullet quicker is that is a concern which it is not for me. Softer most often is better for the average shooter. However I am all for a fellow doing whatever he wants. The problem comes in when folks get stuck in their particular rut and think everybody has to do it a certain way.

Good luck and I see no reason why your 454424 Keith at Bh 10 should not shoot well in your pistol over 8 to 8.5 grains of Unique, sized to fit your charge hole throats.

[44man]

My reason for accuracy is because almost every shot at deer is off hand. Add poor groups to my shakes and it is luck. By the boolit going to the sights, I can hold under 6" at 100 on average. Many times better depending on the day. Some days a little water bottle at 100 is easy, other days I need a gallon jug. It only gets worse. So accuracy is all I worry about because it takes me out of what the gun will do. I trust the gun but not me. i have taken deer over 120 yards off hand. But a 4" pattern at 25 would keep me from even pulling the trigger. If there is no confidence in the gun I would limit shots to hand shake distances. If you shoot 4" or more at 25, a 100 yard deer should never be tried even with a rest or scope.
One day a friend was here and we were done shooting but I had three shots left for my .44 so I shot my steel plate at 100, off hand. Yeah, 3/4" for the three.121527 it is confidence that allows hunting and if you miss it is only YOU.
We are weak for sure and don't ever ask me to do it on demand, that is stupid, but there are those days. Yet it comes to what you make your gun do first. I swear I could toss my revolver on the bench and it would hit if it went off.
You like a keith, fine but have you EVER shot 3/4" at 100 off hand?
My loads work in the SRH and any Ruger. My friend has a new Ruger Hunter and he shot every group at 1/2" at 50 yards while we sighted the gun. My friends shoot better then me.
We finished an IHMSA shoot and were fooling with a cardboard chicken at 200 meters. I had two shots left for my .44 and shot them, Creedmore, open sights. 121532 Hit low but to hit a chicken in the leg at 200 meters is crazy. Ever shoot at a pepper speck? No, I cant do it anymore but I have memories you will never have. I used to shoot pop cans from the bench at 200 yards with a SRH.
No, a Keith never did that.

[44man]

The other holes in the chicken were from my 10" Wichita 7R, open sights, Creedmore. Yeah, the revolver did better.

[35 Whelen]

You know, on second thought, I could buy the inexpensive Lee 255 gr. RNFP and at least try it. It'd be a fairly inexpensive experiment!

35W

[Vulcan Bob]

You know, on second thought, I could buy the inexpensive Lee 255 gr. RNFP and at least try it. It'd be a fairly inexpensive experiment!

35W

On a whim I bought the Lee 255 gr RNFP, with my alloy mix it came out to 265gr and just big enough to size to .452. It has a nice big meplat but the shallow lube grooves made me think that it would not work out in the longer barrel guns. Well as it turns out with SPG lube the dang cheap thing shoots nicely and dose not lead the bore in revolvers. It does run out of lube in my 24 inch rifle barrel about three inch's from the muzzle and has very light leading, nothing a few swipes with a dry bore brush doesn't remove. This made me rethink the whole Lee mould thing.

[9.3X62AL]

I do not and did not argue that the ogival-form bullet doesn't/won't facilitate systemic alignment. That is empirically obvious. I make use of round flatnose castings in my several levergun calibers I load for.......VERY user friendly in the k'boy rifles.......and in my 44 Magnum levergun I can realize the "ideal" of feeding sideiron and carbine the same ammunition, and that ammunition feeds and shoots well in both systems.

A lot of shooters seem to think that Veral Smith rendered Elmer Keith's design obsolete. I don't think there is a bit of difference between the two bullet designs as a game-taker or man-stopper. Both make use of a wide meplat to do their work, and for hunting I cast both as softpoints to enable potential expansion. I want it all--wide meplat, large caliber, heavy-for-caliber weight, and the potential for expansion. Smithbullets and Keithbullets both do fine work, I won't disparage either design.

[DougGuy]

You know, on second thought, I could buy the inexpensive Lee 255 gr. RNFP and at least try it. It'd be a fairly inexpensive experiment!

35W

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Either the mold or get some samples from one of the members here and just see what the gun thinks of them. May I recommend 50/50+2% for a BHN of about 10-12? Just soft enough to scratch with a thumbnail. For some reason, this style boolit at that hardness seems to really click with the Ruger rifling and twist in my guns.

P.S. that RNFP, at the hardness I described, is one VERY good hunting boolit!

[44man]

Elmer knew what it took to kill and the meplat was right. That alone was one of the best things and he did a lot for us hunters.
My favorite boolit in 56 and for years was the original 429421. For the .357 it was the Thompson 358156 HP. I can't deny that both shot as good as I could shoot. I wish I still had the molds.
It was not until I started IHMSA that things changed for me. I was as bad as the rest of the revolver shooters, darn lucky to hit half out of 40.
I went to work with a lot of thought while loading. Imagination did a lot as I kind of seen what was going on. Soon I was shooting 38's to 40's and went from unclassified to International class very fast. I shot every shoot in Ohio and into PA, even went to Quantico a few times. Kim was a Marine so I planned visits around a shoot.
Moved here and only one club shot IHMSA, long drive and got too expensive. Piedmont Sportsman Club in VA. Met some of the best shooters and people ever. An experience most of you missed.
All is now put into hunting and the same things I learned are still what makes a revolver shoot. Cast or jacketed, same things apply. I still can't make a Keith shoot as good as a boolit that just has the ogive blend to the drive bands.
Elmer lived in the day of paper punching and to cut a nice hole made measurements easier. It is why he made the shoulder. The meplat is what made the boolit a good hunting thing. He was right on for his day.
I still love the look of a Keith boolit load. It just seems right.
Few here are old enough to have Elmer's influence on their shooting. But face it, he would be shooting LBT's today if he was with us.

[Wally]

I have shot many .44 Caliber Keith 429421 bullets....however I have discovered that the Lyman 429667 240 RNF shoots just as well, if not better. The Metaplat is slightly larger and this is a "self-centering" style bullet. It is quite accurate in all my .44 Caliber guns.

[Piedmont]

Few here are old enough to have Elmer's influence on their shooting. But face it, he would be shooting LBT's today if he was with us.

That second sentence is one of the silliest statements you have made on this board. For all his attributes Elmer had an ego. It was a KEITH bullet! You and many others conveniently forget Elmer's very blunt Belding and Mull designs that preceded the Keith design, which was Elmer's improvement on them. The blunter Belding and Mulls didn't shoot well at long range.

[RobS]

Well the thing here is there are people who have never shot anything but a Keith SWC or possibly very little of another design and have given their advice. I've shot many, many Keiths both the 454424 and the RCBS 270-SAA or the various group buys variants of this RCBS design and had very accurate results from them. The 454424 had only a few loads that worked with great accuracy, one being a 2400 load and the other being a 4227. The longer 280 grain Keith was much more forgiving and I had 3 to 4 loads that worked very well with that design. The big difference I've noted is that the LFN's/RFN's seem to be able to have more boolit/powder combos that make it more forgiving to find equivalent accuracy so it becomes a more useful design to me as a person who loads his own.

35 Whelen you mentioned you have the NOE 200 grain RFN and are comparing it's accuracy to a 240-250 grain Keith. This really isn't a comparison since the two are not in the same weight area and I'm pretty sure the Keith would have more bearing surface as well. The longer bearing surface of the heavier Keith may keep the boolit base in the cylinder throats as the nose makes contact with the forcing cone where as the lighter RFN may not have the cylinder throat support at the base of the boolit. This very reason is why I prefer heavier designs.

I have the 45 2.1 designed 454640 (453640) that is the ars end of the Keith 454424 with a LFN style design nose profile and with the same .320" meplat. I would more than happy to cast some of these up from the BRP mold I have. This is a nice 260ish grain area design that I lean to when I shoot this weight of bullet. The Lee 255 grain RFN is also a good accurate boolit too but I don't have the mold any longer as it didn't cast at .454 so it didn't quite fit my needs.

If you ever want to experiment I'm sure that many here would send you out a few hundred boolits to play around with no questions asked. Let me know if you ever want to try some of the 454640s.

[44man]

That second sentence is one of the silliest statements you have made on this board. For all his attributes Elmer had an ego. It was a KEITH bullet! You and many others conveniently forget Elmer's very blunt Belding and Mull designs that preceded the Keith design, which was Elmer's improvement on them. The blunter Belding and Mulls didn't shoot well at long range.
He DID have an ego but was still a great man and instrumental in my shooting long ranges unheard of.
You still read the same today where a WFN will go unstable past 50 yards and that is not true since I kept every WFN on a steel ram at 500 meters. They are my most accurate boolits.
I believe Elmer would be shooting a better boolit today. He was close but his cigar went out.

[9.3X62AL]

In the stated interest of not disparaging a pioneering bullet designer, I should also add Ray Thompson to the list--right along with Elmer Keith and Veral Smith. I have no idea how many #358156 and #429244 I have sent downrange through my Magnum handguns, but it is in the "many thousands". Do those two EVER shoot!

A question for those more learned on Lyman history......is Lyman's #452490 (SWC/GC) also a Thompson design? It differs a bit, not having its suffix number indicate nominal grain weight and in having a step shank for its gas check. It sure shoots well in my Ruger BisHawk x 45 Colt, and even did so before I opened the throats to .453".

[Piedmont]

You still read the same today where a WFN will go unstable past 50 yards and that is not true since I kept every WFN on a steel ram at 500 meters. They are my most accurate boolits.
I believe Elmer would be shooting a better boolit today. He was close but his cigar went out.

How heavy and how fast? To stabilize the large meplat you need speed and a long bearing surface helps. Did you ever wonder on your cork screwing Keiths about their size? Most of those 429421 Ideal and Lyman bullet molds were undersized for the cylinder throats of the day. The base band will bump up with high pressure loads, but the rest won't. If it doesn't fit it will cork screw in flight because it was started tipped. That isn't a fault of the bullet but of the person who loaded them and didn't understand they needed to be large enough in diameter that they did not tip when started.
I guess we can partly blame the mold maker or the gun maker and those older S&W and Rugers had throats that were in the .432-.434 range. Back then even fewer understood how to make a revolver and load accurate.


I would bet when you do up one of your home made WFN molds that it fits your cylinder throats. And I know you use heavy bullets and push them fast. Even if you sized them .431" the longer bearing surface can't tip as much if it is undersized.

The Lyman 424454 that is the subject of this thread uses a larger meplat in terms of a percentage than the .38, .41 and .44 versions. If everything isn't perfect it is logical that accuracy would go to pot more often than with the smaller meplat versions.


Brian Pearce has stability problems (accuracy) with normal weight WFNs (240-260 grains) in .44 at 50 yards, not 500 from his .44 mags. I worked with an Ogival Wadcutter .44 (a WFN but more of the same that dropped at 230 grains from wheel weights) and could never get it to match other bullets for accuracy at even 25 yards from my revolvers. I have a 280 grain. .44 WFN that has shot fine for me but I never shot it past 100 yds. and mine fit my cylinder throats.

If I were designing a revolver bullet for long range accuracy I think I would go with a round nose with a long bearing surface and it would fit my cylinder throats. Elmer went with the flat nose for his all around bullet because he wanted if for game shooting, but he discovered back in the 1920s not to make the meplat too big, or it wouldn't shoot at long range.

[44man]

How heavy and how fast? To stabilize the large meplat you need speed and a long bearing surface helps. Did you ever wonder on your cork screwing Keiths about their size? Most of those 429421 Ideal and Lyman bullet molds were undersized for the cylinder throats of the day. The base band will bump up with high pressure loads, but the rest won't. If it doesn't fit it will cork screw in flight because it was started tipped. That isn't a fault of the bullet but of the person who loaded them and didn't understand they needed to be large enough in diameter that they did not tip when started.
I guess we can partly blame the mold maker or the gun maker and those older S&W and Rugers had throats that were in the .432-.434 range. Back then even fewer understood how to make a revolver and load accurate.


I would bet when you do up one of your home made WFN molds that it fits your cylinder throats. And I know you use heavy bullets and push them fast. Even if you sized them .431" the longer bearing surface can't tip as much if it is undersized.

The Lyman 424454 that is the subject of this thread uses a larger meplat in terms of a percentage than the .38, .41 and .44 versions. If everything isn't perfect it is logical that accuracy would go to pot more often than with the smaller meplat versions.


Brian Pearce has stability problems (accuracy) with normal weight WFNs (240-260 grains) in .44 at 50 yards, not 500 from his .44 mags. I worked with an Ogival Wadcutter .44 (a WFN but more of the same that dropped at 230 grains from wheel weights) and could never get it to match other bullets for accuracy at even 25 yards from my revolvers. I have a 280 grain. .44 WFN that has shot fine for me but I never shot it past 100 yds. and mine fit my cylinder throats.

If I were designing a revolver bullet for long range accuracy I think I would go with a round nose with a long bearing surface and it would fit my cylinder throats. Elmer went with the flat nose for his all around bullet because he wanted if for game shooting, but he discovered back in the 1920s not to make the meplat too big, or it wouldn't shoot at long range.
Never had corkscrewing Keiths. Size was correct back them. I did have great accuracy to what were my standards then. However I still cast a hard boolit. I think hardness is the key for a Keith, don't wipe the shoulder on the cone. My early .44's had great dimensions and alignment. Elmer's guns were mostly hand crafted customs. I think the better the alignment the gun has, the better it is for a Keith. It brings the question, were guns built with more care long ago? Seems my old rifles were the same, deadly and nothing new can match them.

[35 Whelen]

It's interesting this whole "Keith bullets are out of date, no longer relevant, etc." yet when you look at commercially available moulds, and I'm talking about moulds that are kept in stock at places lime Midway, the overwhelming majority of them are SWC's of one flavor or another. What works, sells. End of discussion. If a bullet design won't provide good accuracy, then no one will use it.

Regarding the other design I may wind up trying something different. I'm certainly open to it.

35W

[Char-Gar]

That second sentence is one of the silliest statements you have made on this board. For all his attributes Elmer had an ego. It was a KEITH bullet! You and many others conveniently forget Elmer's very blunt Belding and Mull designs that preceded the Keith design, which was Elmer's improvement on them. The blunter Belding and Mulls didn't shoot well at long range.

Ever since the WFN bullet came on the scene, folks have been saying the Keith bullets is over, done and kaput as a game bullet. Ego is not confined to just Elmer Keith. Each side of this says they have proof positive their idea is better.

This whole argument is an exercise in opinion mongering, chest beating and ego boosting. Disciples line up to join one cult or another and are taught the holy writ of each position, complete with pics of targets and dead critters.

It is my opinion that the dead critter doesn't give a fig about the shape of the bullet that killed it. Dead is dead and there is no deader. I think it is a lesson in human nature, that some folks actually believe that one these bullet shapes is clearly superior to the other. Not only do they believe it, but they will defend their position with their last breath.

There is one thing of which I am fairly certain, and that is Elmer Keith would not be shooting ANYTHING he did not design. Everything he designed was better than anything designed by somebody else, at least in his opinion.

[DougGuy]

You also have to figure that every good shooting load is a combination of boolit shape (design) hardness, rifling, rifling twist, powder, primer, etc and only when you have things working together will the gun shoot good.

That means that for every crappy shooting Keith boolit, if you mess with the other variables, you will eventually hit on a combination that causes it to shoot well. In the same gun with the same brass, powder, and primer that it shot badly with. Miss one part of the combination, and all goes out the window.

Same with the RNFP and LFN designs. EVERY BOOLIT needs the right combo or it will not shoot to it's best.

Saying xxx is better than yyy is a moot point unless ALL of the other variables are taken into consideration.

[GoodAlloy]

I cast/shoot a 454424 bullet for my two 45 Colts, a 4 5/8" Ruger NM Vaquero and a 4 3/4" Uberti SA. This bullet just barely shoots OK at 25 yds. (3" - 4") and at 50 yds. I have a hard time hitting my 12" steel disk. I know it's not the revolvers because they both shoot 45-270 SAA from a Miha mould very well.
The 454424 mould is a 4-cavity NOE I recently purchased and it seems to cast really good bullets which causes me to question the design. Varying the sized diameter, lube and bullet hardness seems to make little if any difference. Thoughts?

35W
What powder charge are you running at.
most times to get the best accuracy out of the Short bearing Keith's you have to run it a little warm and use at least a hardness of around 14 or 15 Brinell.

[GoodAlloy]

The more bearing surface you have the softer Alloy you can run. the less bearing surface the harder you gotta use to grip the rifling and get started straighter

[9.3X62AL]

What powder charge are you running at.
most times to get the best accuracy out of the Short bearing Keith's you have to run it a little warm and use at least a hardness of around 14 or 15 Brinell.

This may be part of why the Keiths shoot well for me--my general-purpose alloy is 92/6/2, which runs about 13-14 BHn.

[Piedmont]

44man, Refresh my memory. I remember you writing (not in this thread) of watching bullets corkscrew at longer ranges through a spotting scope. I wrongly remembered it to be with Keiths. What is the story?

[44man]

44man, Refresh my memory. I remember you writing (not in this thread) of watching bullets corkscrew at longer ranges through a spotting scope. I wrongly remembered it to be with Keiths. What is the story?
I did say that but they were 240 gr jacketed from the S&W 29's. The twist is 18-3/4" and the silhouette loads were too fast for the rifling. Going to a 250 gr stopped it.
It was overspin that went to sleep at long range. The extra length and weight brought down velocity just enough.
I shot the 429421 with 22 gr of 2400 without a problem.
Now look at these targets shot with the RCBS 44-245-SWC. Might be a little hard to see but a softer Keith of 20-22 BHN shot the same at 25 as a 30 BHN did at 50. I started with air cooled WW metal and worked up to water dropped and then to a harder alloy. Across the board, as lead got harder, accuracy increased.
25 yard groups with 30 BHN were super. 121839121840
I used the same loads of Unique, 25 yards on the left and 50 right.
I can only surmise after many of these tests that if I keep the shoulder hard, they shoot good. The ogive does not touch anything for guidance and is why Elmer wanted a band in the throats but since few guns have perfect alignment from throats to forcing cone and rifling, what would you take away from it?
My favorite load with this boolit is 7 gr of Unique, pop can accurate at 50 but it does not do well with a hefty load of 296 or 2400.
Now look at the RD 265 at 50 and 100 yards. 121844 I hit low at 100 so aimed higher for the last shot, the boolit has done many 3/4" groups at 50. 22 gr of 296. Shoots great from a S&W too.
Then my 330 gr boolit at 200 yards, made my own molds. 121846
21 gr of 296. The ogive is cut to match my 11* forcing cone angle but it still shoots from any Ruger. Common to get 1/2" at 50.
I have no ego, I do this work to help everyone and my work will never stop.
You might like a Keith but nobody has ever shot it to my liking, if you do, please show us.

[44man]

I also get a laugh from those that want a mild kicking load with heavy boolits so I took one that was posted, touted to shoot good. I first tried with the Lee 310 as posted and moved to my 330 gr. A revelation about what some guys do.121849 Yeah, the boolit that did 1-5/16" at 200 does this at 50 when not spun up.
Wonder why I tell you that a 300+ boolit will not shoot at 1000 fps or less?

[Piedmont]

44man, How did you reach the conclusion that the inaccuracy of your 240 grain loads was a twist issue?

[44man]

44man, How did you reach the conclusion that the inaccuracy of your 240 grain loads was a twist issue?
Now Hang on a little, the 240 Hornady bullets would do 1/2" at 50 meters from all the 29's I owned. Over spin does no harm. The only thing I noticed was as distance changed the POI was a tiny bit different depending on where in the rotation the bullet was.
But it could be seen in the spotting scope. It is a strange thing to watch and is very fast.
Going to a heavier bullet and all I could see was the base going nice and even. A Ruger did not have the rotation with a 240 gr.
UNDER SPIN is nasty for accuracy so what ever boolit you shoot, it will want it's own velocity and spin. I prefer a faster twist myself for a heavy boolit so it does not need driven so fast.
A 300, 310 or 320 in the .44 Ruger with a 1 in 20" twist must go 1300+ fps. Mine are 1316 fps.
99% of stability problems come from not shooting a boolit fast enough.
If you want a Unique load for the Lee 310 or the LBT 320 I will just say go buy a can of 296.
The cardboard target I showed was my 330 gr boolit grossly UNDER SPUN.
You get similar results with real short barrels where you can't reach stability velocity for certain boolits. I have always said that as a barrel is shortened the twist should be faster.
Sadly most revolver shooters ignore twist. I have never seen a little over spin to hurt a thing.