358429

[TXTad]

In the recent American Handgunner, Roger Smith penned an article called .38 & .357 Cast Bullet Origin Story. In it, he states, apparently regarding Keith's 358429 mold:

Elmer quickly learned 173 grains was a bit much. Instead of designing a shorter, lighter bullet, he created a 160-grain hollowpoint version, 358439, which also expanded spectacularly, and another 160-grainer, the 358431 hollowbase version. He strongly advocated either of those two as superior to the heavier original.

But he doesn't really explain that. At least for some applications, a hollow point bullet is superior to a solid bullet, but did he mean that 173 grains is literally just too heavy? Too heavy for .38-44? .357?

I think 358439 is the same external profile, so I'm going to order a 4-cavity 358-429 HP from MP molds and be able to cast either way.

Is my thinking sound?

[dannyd]

I use the 358429, have both Lyman moulds; one with the round lube grove and one with the square lube grove, also NOE 5 cavity. Been a very good bullet easy to cast and very accurate out of both revolvers and rifle in 38 special or 357 magnum.

[TXTad]

I use the 358429, have both Lyman moulds; one with the round lube grove and one with the square lube grove, also NOE 5 cavity. Been a very good bullet easy to cast and very accurate out of both revolvers and rifle in 38 special or 357 magnum.

I figure if your rifle will handle its length, it's probably a great choice for the rifle in .357.

I think the HP version should be perfect for .38-44, and not bad for .38 special.

[Mr Peabody]

I think you've got a good idea. My .357 likes that boolit as good or better than anything else I've used

[dannyd]

I figure if your rifle will handle its length, it's probably a great choice for the rifle in .357.

I think the HP version should be perfect for .38-44, and not bad for .38 special.

If you use it in a revolver no problem with 38 special and 357 magnum just crimp on the first band. Just make sure doesn't turn into a compression load by seating to far.

[45DUDE]

My 358429 4 banger Lyman has square lube grooves and very accurate from my long barrel 19-3. It drops a little hard but getting better. It was new old stock. Drops at 170 grains and .360. How do you guys size it for a Marlin micro groove?

[pworley1]

The 358429 works well loaded in 38 spl brass used it the 92 rifle.

[Ed_Shot]

I have a 4-cav 358429 (square grove) I got from a member here....great mold! For .357 I crimp in the crimp grove @ 1.659" which works fine in Security Six, 19-9 and Handi rifle but too long for GP100 and 1894C. Outstanding in 38 Spl as well.

[rintinglen]

If it was actually Elmer who said the the original was too heavy and not just gunwriter error, it may have been that Elmer thought the heavy boolit was too much for the 38 special. I don't when or if Keith actually wrote that, but the 358-429 works very well in the 38-44 at 900-1000 fps from a 4 inch barrel.

[TXTad]

If it was actually Elmer who said the the original was too heavy and not just gunwriter error, it may have been that Elmer thought the heavy boolit was too much for the 38 special. I don't when or if Keith actually wrote that, but the 358-429 works very well in the 38-44 at 900-1000 fps from a 4 inch barrel.

Yes, it was Elmer that said that. That's what I was trying to convey in my original post.

I am hoping I can make that a 1,000fps (or -ish) bullet in some .38-44 loads for my Outdoorsman.

I'll get the HP version of the mold, so it should drop HPs at just about 160gr or so. Not a tremendous difference, but much closer to the "standard" .38 Spl 158gr.

[gwpercle]

In the recent American Handgunner, Roger Smith penned an article called .38 & .357 Cast Bullet Origin Story. In it, he states, apparently regarding Keith's 358429 mold:

But he doesn't really explain that. At least for some applications, a hollow point bullet is superior to a solid bullet, but did he mean that 173 grains is literally just too heavy? Too heavy for .38-44? .357?

I think 358439 is the same external profile, so I'm going to order a 4-cavity 358-429 HP from MP molds and be able to cast either way.

Is my thinking sound?

All of this was going on pre-357 magnum .
The first 358429's at 170 (173) grain were being tested and used in stardard 38 Special revolvers at standard 38 special velocities ... and it's true ... that boolit isn't terribly accurate . They don't have quite enough velocity to stabilize . I don't know if it's the boolit weight or length or both ... but I've tried it in 38 special many times and was dissapointed at how poor the accuracy was in 38 special at 38 special pressure and velocities ... But bump up the velocity and things change ... .
But when you start getting into loading them in 38-44 , 38 special +P and then the 357 magnum ... the higher velocity gets you much better accuracy . 950 or 1000 fps seems to be what's required .
For 38 Special , at 38 special pressures and velocities ... 148- 150 - 155 - 160 grain boolits is your best bet .
My most accurate 38 special isn't a SWC but the Lyman 358432 an odd cross of SWC and WC!
Gary

[TXTad]

All of this was going on pre-357 magnum...
But when you start getting into loading them in 38-44 , 38 special +P and then the 357 magnum ... the higher velocity gets you much better accuracy . 950 or 1000 fps seems to be what's required .
For 38 Special , at 38 special pressures and velocities ... 148- 150 - 155 - 160 grain boolits is your best bet .
My most accurate 38 special isn't a SWC but the Lyman 358432 an odd cross of SWC and WC!

That's kind of what I figured. At the bare minimum I figured that bullet will be good for long cylinder full .357 Magnum loads.

Now, this 358432 sounds interesting....

Does it penetrate game well or does it tumble like full wadcutters are known for?

[Bigslug]

Part of what I believe Keith was going for with the 358429 was to increase performance of the .38/44 loads by moving bullet material out of the cartridge case and into the long nose, thus creating room for a bigger charge of 2400. For that, it works, but you do of course run into the dimensional problems of seating depth when using the .357 case. Yes, you can use the method of crimping over the front driving band, but if loading hot is your thing, this takes away 1/10" of your case capacity for full-case loads, which takes you right back to the .38/44.

Somebody MUST have crunched the numbers on this: keep the meplat diameter of the Keith bullet, but move the nose back and the base metal forward, using it to fill in the SWC "voids", thus turning it into an LFN of roughly equal weight but shorter OAL. The Accurate 36-165E is a decent approximation of this concept (36-170J is the Keith). The 36-171G maintains the Keith's base and overall weight, but shortens the nose.

The historical mystique of Elmer's bullet certainly has a draw, but I try to keep in mind that the 358429 is a pre-1935 bullet and the .357 Magnum is a post-1935 cartridge. We have A LOT of good bullet choices out there to address this - they just don't have Elmer's "headstamp".

[TXTad]

Part of what I believe Keith was going for with the 358429 was to increase performance of the .38/44 loads by moving bullet material out of the cartridge case and into the long nose, thus creating room for a bigger charge of 2400. For that, it works, but you do of course run into the dimensional problems of seating depth when using the .357 case. Yes, you can use the method of crimping over the front driving band, but if loading hot is your thing, this takes away 1/10" of your case capacity for full-case loads, which takes you right back to the .38/44.

Somebody MUST have crunched the numbers on this: keep the meplat diameter of the Keith bullet, but move the nose back and the base metal forward, using it to fill in the SWC "voids", thus turning it into an LFN of roughly equal weight but shorter OAL. The Accurate 36-165E is a decent approximation of this concept (36-170J is the Keith). The 36-171G maintains the Keith's base and overall weight, but shortens the nose.

The historical mystique of Elmer's bullet certainly has a draw, but I try to keep in mind that the 358429 is a pre-1935 bullet and the .357 Magnum is a post-1935 cartridge. We have A LOT of good bullet choices out there to address this - they just don't have Elmer's "headstamp".

Part of what I'm going for is "the look", but the 36-165E and 36-171G are very nice. I wish the 36-165G did not have the gas check base. 36-165N seems like a pretty good general purpose bullet for both .38 and .357.

[TXTad]

I wonder if the MP 358-165-RF might be a better all-purpose bullet for .38, .38-44, and .357 loads:

https://www.mp-molds.com/product/mp-...-multi-choice/

[Bigslug]

Part of what I'm going for is "the look", but the 36-165E and 36-171G are very nice. I wish the 36-165G did not have the gas check base. 36-165N seems like a pretty good general purpose bullet for both .38 and .357.

That's just an incredibly simple matter of emailing and saying "Mr. Tom Sir? Make plain base please". All Tom's molds are made to order and customer tweaks to his existing mold blueprints is how his catalog got so big in the first place. I'm still vectoring in on the variables, but the TL 36-158F with some minor tweaks is currently being considered as my "The One", though I may have him change one of the 165's to a tumble luber. Got some cylinder throats to spec out first.

[TXTad]

That's just an incredibly simple matter of emailing and saying "Mr. Tom Sir? Make plain base please". All Tom's molds are made to order and customer tweaks to his existing mold blueprints is how his catalog got so big in the first place. I'm still vectoring in on the variables, but the TL 36-158F with some minor tweaks is currently being considered as my "The One", though I may have him change one of the 165's to a tumble luber. Got some cylinder throats to spec out first.

Dangit! Why did you have to tell me that?!

[Bigslug]

Dangit! Why did you have to tell me that?!

Oh yeah. . .and you also get to tell him what alloy you're using to get your bullets to fall out of the mold at your specified diameter. Have fun spendin' money!

[farmbif]

for a semi wad cutter in the 38 357 mag I prefer the 358156 it works very well in rifles and pistols, the weight is right and with gas check can be pushed to max velocity.

[Potsy]

As much as I wanted to love the 358429, the Lee 358-158RF outshoots it in my Mod.15 (both over 4.7 grns. Unique).
I'm sure Lyman's lovely .355 front driving band doesn't help. I've the 429421, the 454424, and the 358429 and all are undersized. Don't even use them any more except loading the occasional batch of 429421's for my buddies 69 Smith. They shoot good enough for him.
I've got enough Lee .38's to last a while, but next go round I'm looking at the Arsenal 360-162RF. Also experimenting with Ramshot True Blue. Way more consistent metering and more consistent over the chronograph. Yet to see what it does on paper. Probably going to PC (first time!) this next batch as well.