Keith's 429421 bullet- Some thoughts....

[Hardcast]

Been kicking an idea around in my head for a while and I would like to hear what you guys think. Now all of us pistol boolit caster know that the Keith 245-250 grain .430" boolit is one of the most popular ever. I have an RCBS 2 cavity mold that makes acceptable Keith style boolits. However, I have always had a yerning for a gang mold that produces an original, meaning as Keith designed it, except with a little bigger meplat. Keith must have designed his boolit to penitrate deep or completely in about anything. Most Keith 44s have only a .250-270" meplat. Here in Indiana, we don't have many bears or buffalo so we don't need that much penitration. I am thinking I about a .300" to 320" meplat. I am not interested in doing a group buy until we are all done with the 452423 Lee group buy. I have funds for 12 molds on that group buy, so we are making progress, but it will be a while before it's done. So just for conversation, what do you all think of a Keith .44 with a larger meplat?

[Bass Ackward]

So just for conversation, what do you all think of a Keith .44 with a larger meplat?

HC,

You have to ask this in context to what you are trying to achieve.

Supposedly, Elmer designed his bullet to be stable at longer range. He took a wadcutter bullet that became unstable at 50 yards or over 1000 fps and put a nose on it that increased aerodynamics enough to allow the bullet to stabilize. As much as Elmer shot, one can only assume that he tried various versions of his bullet before he put his stamp of approval on it.

Because of the uncertainty of stabilization, I would recommend another design, like a TC or an olgival, that has been proven in the market place over a few decades now. Still, I wouldn't go over a 70% meplat myself. Those stabilize well to almost any range you care to attempt and at almost any velocity range.

We have a 240 LBT, WFN which is 80% and it has to be pushed full bore just for 100 yards. Sometimes it tumbles in game too, which negates the purpose of that wide nose. So, if you go wide, go heavy so you get some BC too.

[beagle]

Take a look at Ballisticast's H & G designs. Look at #326 and #328. The first is a 275 grainer and the other is a 320 grainer. They're both Elmer designed when he was PO'd at Lyman for changing hs designs.

The 320 grainer has a very wide meplat.

One of the two might be what you're looking for.

I have these both in H & G blocks and they're shooters.

No, not for sale./beagle

[Hardcast]

Take a look at Ballisticast's H & G designs. Look at #326 and #328. The first is a 275 grainer and the other is a 320 grainer. They're both Elmer designed when he was PO'd at Lyman for changing hs designs.

The 320 grainer has a very wide meplat.

One of the two might be what you're looking for.

I have these both in H & G blocks and they're shooters.

No, not for sale./beagle

Beagle,
I think I have a sample bullet from the 328 mold. I was speaking to H&G about buying a new mold several years ago, and they sent me a sample from a mold they had in stock. It's a 300 gr Keith style with a .300" meplat. I did not buy that mold, instead I had Veral make a 280 gr WFN GC for my oversize throated S&W 44 Mag. Since H&G closed up about a year later, I wish now I had bought the H&G. Although there is nothing wrong with the LBT mold, the H&Gs are quite desirable.
Back to the discussion, it's common opinion that WFN's, which have a .340" meplat in .430 cal, have to be pushed hard to maintain accuracy past short range. However, the LFN's which have a .300" meplat in .430 cal. shoot fine at reduced velocities. My friend JimL has an LBT 265 gr LFN in .430 cal, and he says it's a real good shootin' boolit.

Bass Ackward, I was thinking of the Keith style boolit for 2 reasons. They are extremely popular, and second, they are just plain good lookin'. If the idea does not fly, it's not a problem. But, I would not assume that Elmer tried various meplats before deciding on the final version. He may have, but I would not assume that. Maybe someone who knows more about Elmer's life can shed some light on this.

[44man]

I have played around with the LBT WFN and the WLN in all calibers and in every case, at every distance, at every velocity, the WLN is far more accurate. I have shot them to 500 meters and hit steel. I use them for deer and none have complained. The meplat is plenty wide enough for any game. I think it has something to do with the center of balance. They shoot much better then the Keith boolit day in and day out. I use a lot of Keith boolits for light loads and plinking but it is hard to find the exact one he designed. The 429421 was one of my favorites years ago but still was wrong.
I think the WLN is the best boolit ever designed. For a condom bullet, the XTP is the most accurate, even better then all the silhouette bullets. I have 56,000 heavy loads from just one .44 mag and have owned 8 since 1956. I now have the 45-70, .45 Colt and a .475 also and use LBT style boolits from all of them. They shoot great from the Marlin too.
The Keith is a great boolit and set the standard but I think the LBT is better.

[44man]

If you look at the picture of my .475 on my posts, that is a 50 yd group with my home made LBT style boolit.

[Bass Ackward]

Bass Ackward, I was thinking of the Keith style boolit for 2 reasons. They are extremely popular, and second, they are just plain good lookin'. If the idea does not fly, it's not a problem. But, I would not assume that Elmer tried various meplats before deciding on the final version. He may have, but I would not assume that. Maybe someone who knows more about Elmer's life can shed some light on this.

HC,

You are right because I am just assuming.

But I draw my conclusions from two things. First, Elmer said his favorite molds were brass. Those .... weren't Lymans or if they were he had some clout. Second, was that Elmer not only lent his name to that design but .... loaded these bullets for special people. Some made trips to Africa. Now I hardly doubt that he would have put his name to something and then loaded it for friends when his reputation meant so much to him as a writer. I know I would have tried several things if it were me. But it's a small point really.

What is important that up until this period, the olgival reined supreme essentially being an elongated round ball. The semi wadcutter had virtually killed the design. So much so, that Veral Smith was ignorantly credited with the design by some writers.


44Man,

I am sure that you know that there are two main factors to stabilization. One is velocity and one is twist rate. Since twist rate is fixed, our only control is velocity and how to maintain it. If your bullet does not follow the mechanics to achieve velocity, accuracy starts failing at some distance. To maximize this, we need BC. To achieve BC, we can either make a more aerodynamic nose or lengthen our bullet. Sometimes this causes problems based on what people are willing to accept. That was why I had the conditional statement of what you were trying to achieve.

You can't make a wide long nose in a 240 grain bullet. And it's hard as all get out to reach 1000 fps with a 4 5/8" barrel with a 320 grain WLN. So there are situations where ..... compromise must be found. What makes a bullet easier to stabilize is weight on the back half of the bullet. Lighter bullets go faster than heavy ones. This was the reason for success for the semi wadcutter.

You achieve conditions that allow you to favor the WLN design. But statistically, your handgun conditions are probably less than say 5% of total hanguns in existance. We know that it is much easier to market to the large segment. And because of these statistics, you will always have folks that can produce groups like yours that declare the semi wadcutter the supreme design. Basically, it's what ever works for you under those conditions.

[Willbird]

Also involved in loooooonge range handgunning is how well the boolit handles dropping from supersonic to subsonic, amoungst rifle shooters it is often assumed that no useable accuracy can be had after the bullet drops subsonic........but the brits I think do it in competition, and anybody that shoots a pistol in typical pistol ctg. at long range does it too.

Elmer tried stuff out at long range to see how it worked, BUT he also I gather thought some kind of full dia cutting shoulder was needed to do the job, so I assume the Keith design was the best compromise of differant trial designs....IE the most accurate at 300+ yards boolit that has a full dia cutting shoulder and would fit into the guns Elmer used.

I have a single cavity 429421 with the round bottom grease groove that I am intending on tuning up, it is beagled .0025" I would like to enlarge it (cast .434) , and lengthen the front band in front of the crimp groove, also going to look at boring out some of the radius on the bottom of the grease groove to make it a flat bottom. I think it can be done, worst case is I create a set of blocks to make a brinell test sample mould from.

Bill

[44man]

How true! I have made two molds that are almost identical except for a slight change in the grease groove or location of it. One will group like crazy and the other is just so-so. Same with the Keith boolit. If a company changes their design and still calls it a keith, there is no guarantee that it will group. If you find one to group from your gun, never part with it. Mold companies don't understand just how touchy a tiny change can make a boolit. They go for ease of cutting and appearance rather then function.
I don't profess to know why the WLN shoots best for me and it doesn't matter if it weighs 300 or 440 grs. Some guys might find the WFN better in their gun. I made a boolit for the .475 that has a meplat between the WLN and WFN and it shoots good but the nose is longer then the WFN.
Just one of the mysteries that make this game fun.
And don't get me wrong, the Keith is a great boolit, just have to find the one that shoots from all the choices out there.

[Bret4207]

If you read "Sixguns" and "Sixgun Cartridges and Loads" by Keith you'll see how his designs developed. Of course I don't think he mentioned the failures and theories that didn't pan out. And I get the feeling, nothing really says this, that Elmer got lucky on the "Keith" design and quit there. The guy was not wealthy by any stretch and even in the 20's and 30's it cost some bucks to have a mould made. He mentions several designs he did early on that worked OK but weren't what he wanted. I imagine after putting the $$ into a few designs he hit what he considered close enough to right with the "Keith" design and called it a winner. I'd do the same. And you have to admit he darn sure wrung the design out. The man shot and shot and shot. It was his passion and he did a lot of it. Between the sheer number of shots, apparenlty good eye sight and an area in which he could "walk" his bullets onto target at long range he learned the hows and whys to his satisfaction. There are other records of guys shooting at 300-600 yards with revolvers and hitting the mark. In fact there was a leauge of sorts who shot at turkey shilouettes I think at 600 yards in the east back in the 20's or earlier. IIRC Jim Floral did an article on this in a Gun Digest a few years back.

At any rate the Keith design will shoot for a lot of folks. There were earlier designs he did or used that very much resemble the WFN Veral Smith type bullets. If you find any old cuts from a Belding and Mull mould catalog (Castpics??) you'll see the Smith bullets grandfather. Nothing against Veral, I'm not flaming the modern day "Keith". Just noting the basic design has been around for about 100 years. What Veral did is offer good, solid high quality moulds in diameters suited to the specific gun. We all know the difference a nice snug fit makes. I've not had the chance to shoot any of the Smith bullets in a revolver so can't speak first hand, but there's scads of anecdotal eveidence that shows the nose deigns work well.

Now if you take the Keith design, Smiths and the other really sucessful designs in handgun bullets like the Thompson 358156 or the Phil Sharpe designs you'll see they are more alike than different. Good strong shoulders, fairly long for the caliber (bearing surface), and good square base or gas check and adequit (or even a bit too much for todays products) lube grooves. The nose is where they departe. I'll leave it to others to argue over metplat size. I just don't have enough experience on game to say how big is too big. Add in hollow pointing and the field opens up to a vast range of discussion and cussin'. At this point I can state I think Elmer was pretty much right on no need for a gas check, a strong shoulder and base to keep thing aligned and that fairly heavy for the caliber equaled good penetration. He and Veral differ on just what the nose profile does to game and I kind of lean towards Verals theory on that. Am I right? Got me. But I'll keep playing and reading up on all of it. I wonder what Elmer would use today?

[Paul B]

Interesting question. What would Elmer use today? You know what I think? He'd keep on using his own design. Now, I mean no disrespect to Elmer. I wish I'd had the opportunity to meet and talk with him. But, he did suffer a bit (?) from the "little man" syndrome. In his case it made him famous, so who's to say it's a bad thing.
I don't necessarily agree with his feeling that a gas check in not needed for his design. I have one .44 Special S&W 624 that will absolutely not shoot a plain based bullet of any style. Of the six .44 Mag. sixguns I have, some will not shoot a gas checked bullet worth spit, some won't shoot a plain based bullet worth spit and some will shoot either just fine. The big problem is remembering which shoots what. The best shooting bullet in any of my .44 Mags is an LBT 240 gr. round nose flat point. I haven't gotten around to trying it in the Special yet as it may be a bit too long in the nose. It comes quite close to peeking out the front of the cylinder on my Ruger old model flat top.
Interesting thing about Elmer. In his 1936 book BIG GAME RIFLES, the 30-06 was a decent round for game up to elk size. In his 1946 book KEITH'S RIFLES FOR LARGE GAME, the 30-06 was a ***. Even after better bullets came on the scene, like the Nosler Partition, he never relented in his dislike for the 30-06, considering it fit only for varmints and small deer. He was a stubborn man. That's why, BTW, I hold the opinion that he would stick to the bullet he designed.
Paul B.

[Willbird]

maybe in that 10 year period Elmer ran across a few more Alaskan Brown Bears that as he was fond of saying "took some killing"

also to change to a different bullet and or load would to some extent mess with the hardwired ballistic table he developed with all that shooting.

Mr. John Ross says that the Keith design gives up about 25% accuracy to the most optimum boolit for 44 magnum, and he is close buds with a guy (Kent Lomont) that Elmer keith figuired had fired more 44 magnum ctg. than any other man alive. But John uses his H&G molds because he bought them in Keith designs before he knew what he knows today about boolits.

Bill

[44man]

I can put it this way, I have 56,000 rounds from just one of the .44's I have owned since 1956. The bullets that have given me the best accuracy are the 240 and 300 gr. XTP's and the LBT WLNGC's, no contest at all. A good Keith will be a close third place. Still a good boolit and I like them, but for hunting, I use the heavy LBT style.

[Hardcast]

I can put it this way, I have 56,000 rounds from just one of the .44's I have owned since 1956. The bullets that have given me the best accuracy are the 240 and 300 gr. XTP's and the LBT WLNGC's, no contest at all. A good Keith will be a close third place. Still a good boolit and I like them, but for hunting, I use the heavy LBT style.

44man,
Have you compared the LBT LFNs against the WLNs ?

[Willbird]

Well this is an interesting discussion, and another thing came to mind as well, that is the quality of the multi cavity moulds used. John Ross says the Keith gives up 25% in accuracy, and that means 4-5moa insted of 3-4, BUT that is with bullets cast in an H&G mould, which John paul Jones claims is clearly not the equal of a original saeco 4 cavity meehanite mold.

SOOOOO the only to really ever know is to buy an LBT Keith type mold and an LBT LBT type mold and test them in every gun we can. One thing about the LBT style boolit, it is sure easier to bore that cavity, it has far fewer "features" than a Keith type.

The LBT is performing to a higher level of accuracy from what people say, and it is doing it in multi cavity format with boolits mixed from the cavities, 44man is making his own molds with a single cavity which oldschool says is more accurate.

I always had it in my head if I bought a new LBT 4 cavity to ask Veral if he can discretly mark the first cavity (or the last) somehow so I can take especial care filling the that hole and then have a way to easily seperate them afterwards for "match loads"

and to make it extra clear, I love round flat LBT style boolits, I wish I could buy 6 cylinder plain base molds in that style to cast a medium weight boolit (158 in 357, 250 in 44, 250 in 45colt) for every revolver I have. Lee makes the 357 already, and sort of makes the 45 (too small tho only .452ish)


Bill

[44man]

Hardcast, yes I have and I found one today that shoots good. Most shoot fair, but today I matched the WLN boolits. A friend sent me these to try and I have to make a mold to copy them. Go to the cast boolit forum to see a picture of my target. I still think it is a subtle change in grease grooves or something that will make one shoot REAL good and another just so-so.
Looks like I can't say the WLN is better any more! Like I keep saying, you have to try a bunch to see what happens in your particular gun. I was surprised today.

[9.3X62AL]

I am a bit conflicted on these sorts of questions. I have generally had very good luck in my revolvers using some kind of SWC design--Keith, Thompson, or other in "traditional" weights per caliber--150-160 grain in 38/357, 210 grains in 41, 240-250 in 44, 250-260 in 45 Colt. I have very little experience with the heavy-for-caliber RFN designs, so really can't comment on them. My actual experience on game is minimal--one each whitetail deer, a buck with 44/240/WFN and doe with 357/146/SWC--both jacketed, and both went through-and-through. Both deer were on the ground within seconds and within 10 yards.

I took a hint from one of Ken Waters' articles on loading the 32-20 WCF for revolvers. He indicated that in "problematic" revolvers or calibers a round-nosed design often produced better results than SWC or WC. He attributed this to the RN profile's seeming ability to "self-center" in the forcing cone better then a design with a sharp shoulder. Perhaps the radiused profile has an advantage in situations where cylinder/forcing cone alignment might be less than perfect, too.

In my 32-20 revolvers, the RN boolits produced INSTANT improvement in grouping. This occurred with both the Lee 100 grainers and more recently with the MM Short Fat Thirty 115 grain RFN.

I'm not sure a strong argument can be made one way or another in favor of the meplat-only WFN or meplat and sharp shoulder SWC as being a better "stopper" or "harvester". I think both do pretty good work, and placement is a larger issue than nose profile. I also think that either design made heavier for caliber will enhance lethality via enhancing ability to penetrate as a function of sectional density, but if my standard weight bullets fully penetrate, what is gained by lengthening the bullet past "old-school" configurations? In cases where "stem-to-stern" penetration is needed, this would make sense--but I try very hard to set up shots at no more than "quartering" angles. I don't need to take or make every shot presented--I've already taken a lot of deer, considering the small amount of time I've spent afield attempting same.

How heavy is the question. The WFN design was a feature of the immensely popular WCF series of cartridges in the 19th Century, and I'm speaking here of the 44-40 WCF in particular. This caliber in its 1873-vintage loading accounted for a whole lot of game animals for my great-grandfather and grandfather over the years. Its 200-217 grain 43 caliber boolit at around 1100 FPS from its carbine barrel would be considered an anemic hunting REVOLVER round by today's standards, and I have been cautioned by several other hunters to not use the rifle on deer due to its weak ballistics. I guess there were fewer gunrags around in the early 20th Century, because my folks and the deer and bear they harvested with the caliber didn't get this message at all from the rifle's performance.

A lot of shooters are very happy with the heavy-for-caliber WFN designs. More power to them, and by all means they should continue the use of same. I will continue my reliance upon the mainstream SWC's, and upon mainstream weight WFN/RFN designs in selected instances. If shot placement is correct, I think a lot of this discussion resembles medieval debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Use enough caliber--use enough velocity--and place it right--and there will be meat.

[John Ross]

Just discovered your site.

Well this is an interesting discussion, and another thing came to mind as well, that is the quality of the multi cavity moulds used. John Ross says the Keith gives up 25% in accuracy, and that means 4-5moa insted of 3-4, BUT that is with bullets cast in an H&G mould, which John paul Jones claims is clearly not the equal of a original saeco 4 cavity meehanite mold.

I have no experience with the Saeco molds you describe, but I cannot imagine anything being much *better* made than an original H&G.

I have never met Mr. Jones but we emailed each other a bit, and one thing that puzzled me is he always talks about his long affiliation with Star Machine Works and his expertise at rebuilding Star loading tools, yet last year he told a Star group poster that Star had never made a rifle tool.

I saw my first one at Jurras' Shelbyville plant in '73 and two more at Kent Lomont's place shortly thereafter. In 1982, Kent told me Star was running another batch of rifle tools and to call them if I wanted one. I bought one for $1500 and received it some time in late '82 or early '83. It's still on my bench. It seems odd that Star's largest distributor would be unaware of the existence of these tools.

Of the living gunwriters, the one whose opinions I put the most faith in concerning handgun bullet design and effectiveness for hunting is JD Jones. He says the meplat is what cuts and the tiny shoulder is irrelevant. This seems logical. It's why he went to the self-centering TC design, and his SSK bullets shoot about 1 MOA tighter in my guns than Keiths. When I design a bullet, I add a bore rider, and these appear to be even better, though not by a lot. We are approaching the limit of the gun.

I concur that Hornady XTPs are the most accurate revolver bullets I've found. I've only shot .357, .44, and .500, but a LOT of those.

BTW I'd planned to try custom Lee 6-cavs for .500 bullets of my design, but it's one of those "back burner" things. I planned to use 4-5 at a time so as not to overheat.

It looks like you guys are always doing group buys. Any comments on the 6C Lees for big, heavy bullets, like .44s and .45s of 300 grs & up? Lee says any bullet up to 1 inch long and IIRC .52 caliber. One inch is a 500 gr. .500.

JR

[grumble]

John, do you have any connection to "Unintended Consequences?"

Just curious. I think it's a great book.

[Willbird]

I am here to tell you that John signed one of my copies of UC

BruceB and lots of the other guys run the LEE 6 cylinders wide open John, by just quneching the sprueplate and somethimes the mold block on a wet terry clothe towel you can just keep hitting the same mold, doing thus I have cast well over 1000 in an hour with an rcbs promelt 22 lb pot, and an aluminum saucepan on a hot plate to pre-melt lead to top off the pot.


http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview....readID=1710189

there is a link to the old board where the whole deal is laid out, I can testify that it works well, altho I prefer to dip in liquid metal to top off the pot....drop the boolits into water from the mold for a nice hard boolit

Bill