#258 Hensley & Gibbs for 41 Magnum

[Onty]

I would appreciate help from few lucky ones that have original #258 Hensley & Gibbs for 41 Magnum. Would you please check dimensions on original #258 and let me know how that bullet compares with this one I designed:



Basic data:

Band dia. (all): .413”
Weight: 211 gr. (WW)
Meplat dia.: .280”
Meplat to crimp groove: .395”
OAL: .708”


All bands and grease groove lgth. .090”. Please make note that I “cheated” a bit on front face of the front band; it is conical 10°. I made it to get bullet drop easier from the mould. Seems to me that some other SWC-s recently designed (here) had something similar, and my friend who is long time in casting suggested the same.

As far as I know, #258 is the bullet Keith designed and apparently is more accurate in most revolvers than any other cast bullet in this calibre.

I found that Balisticast makes #858 http://www.ballisti-cast.com/Bullet%...20Page%205.htm , but, oh boy, they are asking $211 for 4-cavity with cross venting. Anybody else makes this mould today?

Thanks, Onty.

[Glen]

Meauring from the mould, and not from the bullets (which I have some cast up, but can't find them at the moment):

Band dia. (all): ~.413”
Weight: as I recall it weighs about 220 grain cast with WW alloy
Meplat dia.: ~.290” (hard to measure exactly because the edge is rounded slightly)
Meplat to crimp groove: .405”
OAL: .760”


All driving bands .100”
grease groove .120"

NEI makes a .41-220-SWC that is VERY similar to the H&G #258 (~220 grains, .300" meplat, .395" crimp groove to meplat, .110" driving bands, .110" lube groove, OAL = .740). Mountain Molds could make you one to your specs.

[GLynn41]

Leadheads 230K is also very close to the NEI- I have measure to know the difference while I have the lyman 410459 I too would some time like to get one a little Keith ier

[GLynn41]

btw NEI told they me have about a 3 week turn around at least when I asked-- Mountain Mold has 6-10 weeks but you can design your own NEI is about $90 and MM is 85

[rkrcpa]

What do you mean Keith ier than a 410459, I thought that was as "Keith" as you could get

[Glen]

Nope, Elmer Keith did not design the 410459, and was upset when Lyman released it calling it a "Keith" because he did not design it, and he did not like a number of its features (i.e. small meplat, uneven driving bands, and rounded grease groove). He went to H&G and drew up the #258 (making it the "real" Keith SWC for .41 caliber), and then H&G went back and picked up his original designs in .357, .44 and .45 and brought them out as well (with a couple of subtle improvements, like changing the bevel on the grease groove and adding radiused filets to the bottom of the grease groove and crimp grooves).

[GLynn41]

yeah what Glenn said-- but the bullet is very accurate-- and the wide front band has given me some trouble in a tight chambered 4 5/8s Bhawk I have-- the 410459 would be a Keith type I guess-

[Onty]

yeah what Glenn said-- but the bullet is very accurate-- and the wide front band has given me some trouble in a tight chambered 4 5/8s Bhawk I have-- the 410459 would be a Keith type I guess-

Did you check chambers' dia? If chambers are .412 or .413 you should consider yourself as a lucky. Simple solution; just size bullet down; .001" less than what you have now will solve the problem. I have two moulds and tried another three bullets and all of them have front band less than 1/16" length and max .409" dia. Other bands were sized on .412".

Some years ago one well know gun-rug writer complained: he couldn't load round in chamber and blasting mould maker for "bad" bullet design that causing him a problem?!

[GLynn41]

I never really have-- it is my son's gun and it is rarely shot --ought 2 though--to make my self clear--the 410459 gives no problem-- but with the NeI mold keith has