NOE 360-172-SWC & 360-176-SWC Why both? What am I missing?

[maglvr]

These 2 seem so close I have to wonder what I am missing here? Other than 2 great shooting boolits i'm sure.
Was one designed to remedy some short fall of the other?
Just wondering.
Thanks in advance

[david s]

I believe the NOE 360-172-SWC is a Lyman 358429 clone designed by Elmer Keith. The NOE 360-176-SWC is from a bullet blank that Elmer Keith had made up in the mid 1970's. Elmer didn't like the modifications that Lyman had made to his design so he had the bullet blanks made up to be truer to his original design. Both NOE moulds are very similar as you've noted. The moulds NOE made to the 1970's bullet blanks were offered in 38-41-44 and 45.

[maglvr]

Very interesting stuff! Many thanks for sharing that info.

[gwpercle]

I printed out both boolit "Shop Drawings" to compare side by side .
There are subtle differences in overall length , meplate diameter , nose length , driving band widths , lube groove width , lube groove depths , crimp groove depth ...until I printed out the two dimensioned drawings I thought they were both the same ... they aren't ...just about every dimension is different ... only slightly ... but different . Both are square bottom lube grooved .
I'm not sure why there are differences or which one is to be preferred or which one might be Elmer Keith's design but I'm sure there must be a reason ... Maybe Al Nelson could tell us .
Gary

[dannyd]

Have both the NOE and Lyman 172 the only difference is the lube grove is round on the Lyman and Square on the NOE. Both cast good bullets.

[david s]

I have a NOE version and a Lyman version of the 358429 mould I also purchased the four different calibers of the NOE Keith bullet blank moulds. There is a bit of read about this on page 12 of the NOE "GROUP BUY DISCUSSIONS" titled "REAL" Keith bullet moulds that gives some background. On this NOE group buy discussion there is a link to this site and the STICKY above titled "REAL" Keith Bullets. At the time I was trying to get a group buy together on NOE's site for a 41 caliber clone of the H&G #258 mould and this buy with the 41 Keith SWC torpedoed it so I remember it well. I don't want to start any disagreements but Elmer Keith changed what he considered a real Keith bullet minorly over time not just the mould manufactures. The differences are fairly minor but they are there between these two versions. I personally think either would serve it's owner well.

[maglvr]

Thanks everyone for the input!
I will ck out the articles mentioned.
Many thanks

[Sailormilan2]

The “176” has a shorter front end, from crimp groove to end of the nose. It is more than likely designed for the large frame S&W revolvers which have “short” cylinders. The length is short enough so that some 357 SWC bullets will extend past the front of the cylinder when loaded in .357 Mag cases.

[maglvr]

Can anyone verify that the "176" does in fact fit in the N-frame S&W's in 357 brass (when crimped in the crimp groove) without sticking out the front of the chambers?
Many thanks

[Sailormilan2]

I measured the cylinder on my Mod 28, and it’s 1.63” long. Nominal length for a .357 Mag case is 1.29”. Add the .351”, or so, of the crimp groove to the nose of that 176 design, and it looks like it probably won’t fit.

[maglvr]

Sailormilan2 Thank you much, for measuring that.