Elmer Keith question

[What Cheer]

I have read many times about Elmer becoming upset with Lyman for changing the design details of his number 429421 mould. Elmer then turned to Hensley & Gibbs to produce moulds true to his design.

The question, does anyone know what year or time period this took place?

Thanks,

What Cheer

[NuJudge]

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

[Firebricker]

Great link NuJudge ! FB

[Mk42gunner]

My understanding is that Elmer did not like the bullet that Lyman designed and advertised as a keith bullet for the .41 Magnum, (I think it was 410459). He then designed the Hensley & Gibbs #258.

Robert

[What Cheer]

Thanks for the input thus far. I have read Glen's .44 SWC article in which he states that Elmer went to Hensley & Gibbs in the early sixties. I have also read that this happened in the late sixties/early seventies.

Does anyone have a reference to Keith's writings of these time periods that may help to clairify the time period?

Thanks, and best regards.

What Cheer

[hammerhead357]

While I don't know about the year that this happened. I do know from talking with Wayne Gibbs several years ago that he had a letter from E. K. in which E. K. called the people at Lyman SOBs for changing his bullet design.
Perhaps our resident H & G expert will check in and shed some light on this. How about it Tom......Wes

[What Cheer]

hammerhead357,

Thanks for the post, I definately would like to hear from Tom on this subject.

Best Regards,

What Cheer

[anachronism]

From Keiths writings, I was always under the impression that they changed the design of the bullet when they adpoted it as a regular production mould, which would have been in the early '30s. They changed the design of the grease groove from square bottom to round, and made the front driving band smaller.

[machinisttx]

From Keiths writings, I was always under the impression that they changed the design of the bullet when they adpoted it as a regular production mould, which would have been in the early '30s. They changed the design of the grease groove from square bottom to round, and made the front driving band smaller.

This is what I understand from reading "Sixguns".

[Texasflyboy]

Perhaps our resident H & G expert will check in and shed some light on this. How about it Tom......Wes

Not much I can ad. In a few of the articles posted on the website, or an old email chain, Wayne reminisced about a story between his dad (James Gibbs) and George Hensley. James found George burning a lot of old correspondence one day and managed to save most of those old letters, many of which were from Elmer Keith. George just thought it was trash.

I've always found the "correctness" of any Elmer Keith design rather interesting in regards to Hensley & Gibbs. Since they made all their own cherries, and I've pretty much proven that those cherry designs were not set in stone, I've come to the conclusion that any Hensley & Gibbs design could be considered a "range" of characteristics, not hard specifications. In my collection I have a a very early #503 with round grease grooves. Very odd considering the source of the design. I have later designs with both square and round grease grooves. No set pattern at all as to why unless it what I've long preached "The customer got what the customer wanted".

If Wayne still has any of those letters he hasn't shared that with me. His emails are getting further and further apart as he's been dealing with family health problems in the last two years.

I'll add the Elmer Keith letters to my next bi-annual email to Wayne and see where it goes.

[Glen]

What Cheer -- As for Elmer's writings in which he describes this, get a copy of Gun Notes, Volumes 1 and 2. It's scattered in bits and pieces throughout his Gun Notes columns from that time period.

[hammerhead357]

Flyboy sorry to hear about Wayne having to deal with family illness. Hope that it isn't terminal. Please convaey my sympathy to him. I also thought that H & G had their cherrys cut by an outside tool and die maker. I think I remember someone on another forum that had the name of the die maker. I may be way off base on this one.

Now as far as moulds go I once had an 8 cavity #503 that had mostly square lube grooves, talk about a pain in the butt to get out of the mould, it was really hard to get the boolits out of the mould had to smack the mould handles several times with a plastic mallet each cast.

Finally ordered a custom matched pair from Wayne with the lube groove with draft and that cured the problem. Then I sold the old one. Wish I had kept it now.....Wes

[looseprojectile]

I bought a four cavity mould from H&G in 1956. I went to the shop in San Diego where they were buisy making moulds with over head belt machinery.
I knew little about moulds and boolit designs at that time. I had been reading Keith's writing and ordered one of them like Keith said. Square bottom grooves.
$18.00 included postage to have it sent to my home. And that included handles. 158 grain .357 SWC GC. I have shot several dozen thousand boolits from it and it still works as well as when it was new.

Life is good

[What Cheer]

Texasflyboy,

Thanks for your input, I definately would like to hear what Wayne would have to say regarding the letters from Elmer Keith.

Another question, are there #503 or #501 moulds from the San Diego period?

Thanks, and best regards,

What Cheer

[What Cheer]

Glen,

I have had both volumes of 'Gun Notes' for several years and have not been able to find anything specific in them regarding when H & G started producing moulds to Keith's designs.

I have read and enjoyed you articles.

Best Regards,

What Cheer

[What Cheer]

Texasflyboy,

Do we know what year the number 503 mould first appeared in the Hensley & Gibbbs catalogs?

Thanks,

What Cheer

[Glen]

What Cheer --

In Gun Notes Volume 1, on page 68 in the November 1964 column, Mr. Keith reports that "Hensley & Gibbs makes excellent gang moulds for my 220 grain bullet".

Mention of this bullet is also made on pages 82 and 83, in the October 1965 column.

He tells the story of going to H&G and asking them to make the .41 Keith in the April 1966 column, on pages 91-93.

In Volume 2,on page 50 in the Sept. 1973 column (on page 51) he says, "Hensley & Gibbs, Murphy, Oregon, still makes moulds to my original design in most calibers." He also complains about mould-makers (i.e. Lyman) changing his designs by making the forward driving band smaller in both width and diameter, and changing his square-cornered lube groove to the rounded design.

Later on, on page 65 (in the April 1974 column), he states "For the .44 Magnum the best load to my notion is my 250 grain bullet from Hensley & Gibbs...". (this is the first specific reference I can find to the #503 you asked about, then he goes on to complain again about mould-makers changing his bullet designs).

On page 112, in the Feb. 1976 column, he states, "Now only Hensley & Gibbs makes them that way (i.e. to his design), though RCBS and SAECO have original samples to cut new cherries for bullets of this design.". (this column provides a good summary of the history of his bullet designs)

On page 172 (Dec. 1978) he says, "When I returned home from the polar bear expedition I designed a copy of my old .357, .44 and .45 bullets for the .41 for Hensley & Gibbs." Later he goes on to say, "The abortive copies of my bullet with the round grease grooves do not accomplish this." (i.e. hold enough lube and center the bullet in the forcing cone as well due to the forward driving band). His trip to Alaska was written up in his Sept. 1963 column, so the .41 bullet was designed in late 1963, the others came after that.

He revisits this story on page 197 in January of 1981.

[MtGun44]

Thanks, Glen.

Nothing like original sources to definitively sort this stuff out.

Bill

[Texasflyboy]

Texasflyboy,

Do we know what year the number 503 mould first appeared in the Hensley & Gibbbs catalogs?

Thanks,

What Cheer

I think Glen pretty much nailed it. I don't have better information than what he surmised.

The factory ledger only makes reference to when a cherry was first cut for certain designs. Not all designs have that notation so its anyones guess as to when a design first appeared.

[Cord]

Thanks all; in reading this interesting thread, I have a question……

In Glen’s post #17 appears:
“In Gun Notes Volume 1, on page 68 in the November 1964 column, Mr. Keith
reports that "Hensley & Gibbs makes excellent gang moulds for my 220 grain bullet".
And then:
“Later on, on page 65 (in the April 1974 column), he states "For the .44 Magnum the best load to my notion is my 250 grain bullet from Hensley & Gibbs..." (this is the first specific reference I can find to the #503…”

So one bullet is 220 grains, but the one identified as a HG#503 is 250 grains.
My question is;
Was he talking about a 220 grain #503 or a different bullet altogether?

Assuming the event happened before Mr. Keith wrote about it, wasn’t that time period
(prior to Nov. 1964) too early for the 220 grain to have been a #258 .41 caliber?

And yet, to my limited knowledge, 220 grain weight doesn’t match any
of the other “classic” Keith styles, Ideal #422, #423, #424.

Just wondering……

[Glen]

(deleted duplicate post)

[Glen]

I'm sorry, I didn't make that post very clear -- the 220 grain bullet was for the .41 Magnum (i.e the #258), not the .44 Magnum (the #503). No, it was not too early since Mr. Keith was working with a couple of the first guns made in .41 Magnum before they were made available to the general public. That article appeared in Nov. 1964, and that hunt took place in Sept. 1964. He had been working with the S&W .41 Magnum revolvers since the summer of 1964.

[Cord]

Glen
Thank you very much for the answer- I understand now.

Thanks also for the many enjoyable and very readable articles
you have written, they are an education and also an inspiration.

[GLL]

Just for reference here is a very early IDEAL 429421 mould (#413) and bullet. The drawing is from a late 1930's catalog.

Jerry

http://www.fototime.com/E574E14FBE964F2/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/98111A583CB6C02/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/2A0E557AD2962DD/standard.jpg

[Catshooter]

When did Ideal start venting their moulds? I can't recall.


Cat

[Glen]

Venting came about in the 1940s, after WWII as I recall.