358429 HP in the 9mm - Inconsistencies with Keith's "Sixguns"?

[Bigslug]

I read Elmer Keith's 1955 book Sixguns for the first time about 7-8 years ago. Just got around to trying this:

He briefly discusses this, almost in passing, as something other folks have been doing. . .

1. "They" had been loading the 160 grain hollowpoint version of the Keith SWC in the 9mm. What else could this be but the 358429 with a nose pin for making HP's?

2. "They" were sinking the bullet into the case so all bands were contained in the brass.

3. Charge mentioned was 3 grains of Bullseye.

My 358429 mold is an earlier one from NOE, marked as a 358429 - not with Al's later numbering schemes. It is running the three basically equal length, full-diameter bands, the square lube groove, and with the deep-cavity pins, it does in fact drop them right at 160 grains.

Knowing that this bullet would not leave much room in the case, and not being suicidal, I decided I would work the charge up from 2.6 grains. Since the standard 9mm seating die for round nose bullets was crushing the HP cavities inward, I used a flat-meplat seating die from a 10mm set. Worked great on the dummy set up rounds, but the noses got crushed when I put powder in. Reason: ain't no room in the case for both that bullet and 2.6 grains of Bullseye. As for sinking all the drive bands, forget it. I didn't get so far as figuring out exactly how much powder I could get in and still have the front band in a place that cleared the throat, but I suspect anything above 2.2-2.4 (ish) grains is going to be compressed to the point of not compressing any more.

On hand, I had CCI Blazer, Winchester, and a Brand X of brass. I used the Blazers because they were the lightest on the scale, so theoretically, had more internal volume. Ultimately, I did a small batch with a 1.8 grain charge, and another at 2.0 to chrono and jug test with. I'll get the test data up on those once I shoot them.

So I can only conclude from this experience that possibly:

1. Elmer was discussing another "Keith" bullet.
2. NOE was making something else.
3. 9x19 brass changed or Bullseye got bulkier since 1955.
4. Elmer put out some bad data.

Was wondering about the experiences of the Hive Mind with this.

[steve urquell]

Heres a thread with pics of the loaded rounds.

https://czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=46995.0

[Delkal]

I wouldn't even try that bullet in a 9mm considering the fact (or myth?) of Bullseye blowing up 38 Special wadcutters.

You would be experimenting with the same thing. No headspace on an overly deep seated bullet. Why?

[walnut1704]

I don't have my notes in front of me but I tried the RCBS 150-KT in the 9mm figuring it's close to the standard 147gr. Mine drop just shy of the nominal weight. They functioned well in my 1911 Springfield, and were very accurate. I seated mine to the middle of the front band. That Springfield I have will feed and seat anything that fits in the magazine. Not so much in other 9mms. Ultimately I asked myself "Why?".

The recoil was very soft. It was like I was waiting for the slide to cycle. I just did a short test and decided to stick with bullets designed for the 9mm.

[Bigslug]

I wouldn't even try that bullet in a 9mm considering the fact (or myth?) of Bullseye blowing up 38 Special wadcutters.

You would be experimenting with the same thing. No headspace on an overly deep seated bullet. Why?

#1: a study into some historical context of Keith's writings. I'm pretty much right there with you on the "WHY?" given the options for bullets we have these days, but his writing on the topic gave me a bug.

#2: The dots that got connected in my brain is that this combo of bullet and cartridge had the potential to be the equal of the 1970's .38+P "FBI Load". . . in an autoloader. . .about 20 years before that load actually showed up. . .and about 30-35 years before we actually had the gelatin testing protocols in place telling us what our bullets SHOULD be doing.

Keith said nothing about velocities attained however. Just that good results were being claimed on small game and varmints. But again, these inconsistencies arose when I started trying it, soooo. . .inquiries.

[steve urquell]

#1: a study into some historical context of Keith's writings. I'm pretty much right there with you on the "WHY?" given the options for bullets we have these days, but his writing on the topic gave me a bug.

#2: The dots that got connected in my brain is that this combo of bullet and cartridge had the potential to be the equal of the 1970's .38+P "FBI Load". . . in an autoloader. . .about 20 years before that load actually showed up. . .and about 30-35 years before we actually had the gelatin testing protocols in place telling us what our bullets SHOULD be doing.

Keith said nothing about velocities attained however. Just that good results were being claimed on small game and varmints. But again, these inconsistencies arose when I started trying it, soooo. . .inquiries.

There's nothing wrong with experimenting if done cautiously. I worked up loads for the Lee 158RF for 9mm awhile back. Unfortunately they will only cycle in one LW G34 barrel I have with a huge throat.

[Barry54]

I wouldn't even try that bullet in a 9mm considering the fact (or myth?) of Bullseye blowing up 38 Special wadcutters.

You would be experimenting with the same thing. No headspace on an overly deep seated bullet. Why?

IMG_8959.jpeg

Why? I wanted quiet in a carbine without a can.

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...n-9mm-subsonic

[376Steyr]

I don't have a copy of Sixguns to refer to, but I won't let that stop me. I'll throw out some other possibilities:

5. "They" were using 9x19 brass that had greater capacity than modern cases. "Balloon head" cases, perhaps?
6. "They" were using some other European 9mm other than 9x19 Parabellum. 9mm Largo? 9mm Steyr? Just eyeballing the pictures, it looks like a 9x23 case could cover the bands on a 358429.

[steve urquell]

IMG_8959.jpeg

Why? I wanted quiet in a carbine without a can.

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...n-9mm-subsonic

Thanks for posting that. I had almost forgotten I got 180gr to work in 9mm. Bullet as long as the case lol.

[Mk42gunner]

Been a while since I read "Sixguns".

Could the bullet have been a hollow based 358429? Seems like he had three versions, the standard at ~170, and both the HP and HB at 160 grains.

I know there were both HB and HP versions of the 429421, and I think there were both versions of the .38 bullet too.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with it. I can't see how a 9mm pushing 160 grain projectile would be as strong as even a .38 Special.

Robert

[MT Gianni]

Elmer designed the 358429, the 358439 HP and a HB I don't recall what #[358431]. Lyman later came out with the 358429 HP which weighed about 163 gr. IIRC the 358439 weighed in about 159 gr. You never know with old cherries and Lyman numbers, but I had a marked 439 and the nose was shorter than the 429 I owned. Unless you really have to, I see no reason to go heavier than 135 gr in 9mm.

[gwpercle]

Been there ... tried that !
Tried several Keith SWC's in the 9mm Luger ... just to see if they would feed in a WWII Walther P-38 ... tried the 150 gr, 160 gr and 170 gr, Keith SWC boolts .
The 150 gr. (358477) SWC worked best , but not great ...feeding and just a little too heavy a weight . The 160 gr. and 170 gr.ts booli just don't work well at all ... too heavy , too long , feeding issues , powder space issues .
The best boolit is a 124 gr. Truncated Cone ... by a wide margin ... it made all my 9mm Boolit loads ... Work and shoot well... not too heavy , not too light , it's a Baby Bear Boolit ... It's Just Right !
Gary

[Bigslug]

Been a while since I read "Sixguns".

Could the bullet have been a hollow based 358429? Seems like he had three versions, the standard at ~170, and both the HP and HB at 160 grains.

I know there were both HB and HP versions of the 429421, and I think there were both versions of the .38 bullet too.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with it. I can't see how a 9mm pushing 160 grain projectile would be as strong as even a .38 Special.

Robert

I suspect the hollow base theory might have some merit. As I said in the OP, this notion of the "160 grain hollow pointed Keith" got the barest mention in the book - two, maybe three small paragraphs - and it wasn't even Elmer's personal project.

Could well have been a game of "telephone", where Elmer was told the wrong thing, heard the wrong thing, wrote the wrong thing, or his editor perceived the wrong thing. If you say "hollow base bullet" to the layman, you're probably going to have to explain yourself.

Balloon head cases? I have my doubts that they were still an in-production thing by the time 9x19 came around. I may know where there's a dilapidated box of WWI German stuff laying around that I could dismantle for the sake of the brain trust. All I know at this point is the mentioned 3 grains of Bullseye isn't going to allow a functional 9x19 COAL with a 358429 unless the firearm in use had a very generous throat.

[MT Gianni]

FYI, the 9x19 mm cartridge was introduced in 1902.

[Larry Gibson]

"Inconsistencies with Keith's "Sixguns"?"

Such heresy.........

[nicholst55]

Hmmm, I do believe that I have a set of Lyman 358439 mold blocks in storage out there. Maybe I should dig it out and warm it up? It's just the one-at-a-time thing...

[Eddie Southgate]

I wouldn't even try that bullet in a 9mm considering the fact (or myth?) of Bullseye blowing up 38 Special wadcutters.

You would be experimenting with the same thing. No headspace on an overly deep seated bullet. Why?

Not sure what you are talking about . I have used Bullseye with .38 special wadcutters for 57 years and have never blown anything up .

[376Steyr]

In a strange coincidence, the rash of 38 Special wadcutters blowing up guns happened just as the handloading market was flooded with new progressive reloading machines.