Keith & Thompson Boolit History?

[Ricochet]

Casting up those Thompson-designed 429244 boolits last night and loading some today, along with the associated discussion in that thread about Keith boolits, got me wondering: When were these boolits designed?

And, would you say they're original styles or refinements on earlier ones?

[Nueces]

I'm not where I can get it just now, but I remember the original Lyman cast bullet manual having a page on these designs written by Ray Thompson, himself. Right next to Elmer Keith's page. I believe Thompson was a forest ranger when he designed the boolits and wrote about them. I recall them to be of postwar design. In a few weeks, I'll have time to dig through old Rifleman mags to research interesting stuff like this.

Mark

[Ricochet]

Thanks, Mark!

I haven't seen it in a donkey's age, but I ought to have that manual around here somewhere...

[Char-Gar]

Ray was indeed a Forest Ranger and he also sold cast bullets. I can't put a date on his designs, but it was after WWII. Elmer's designs pre-date WWII.

I know one thing for certain when the t wo designs are compared. When the ranges stretch out to 100 yards and beyond, the Thompson turns in better accuracy and the longer the range gets, the more the accuracy differential.

I have a hollow point and a four cavity solid point molds his 357 and 44 designs and they will become a part of my estate.

When it comes to bullet molds, I doubt if there has been much really creative design since the days of Barlow, They all owe something to those who have gone before. But Thompson's designs were as original as any.

[Ricochet]

Hey Chargar, how does the accuracy of the hollow point and solid versions compare in your experience? (Recalling a recent thread here.)

[Dale53]

Since the cost of gas checks have gone through the roof, my preference is to use a plain base bullet for most of my pistol and revolver loads.

Right now I am working with the Lee .358"-158-RF for my .38's and .357's. I am still using Keith 250 -.44 bullets and of course, the "Big Smasher" the Lee C430-310-RF (gas check) for when I need to hit something REALLY hard.

I use nothing but plain base in the .32's (100 Keith GB and 120 RF-GB).

FWIW
Dale53

[floodgate]

Ricochet:

From my mould timelines, the Keith bullets first appear in Lyman/IdealHandbooks Nos. 29 (1929: #429421, #429422, #454423, #454424) and #30 (1931: #358429, #358431, #358439).

Ray Thompson's SWC GC designs show up in Handbooks #39 (1953: #358156), #40 (1955: #442490), and #41 (1957: #429215, #429244).

They are written up by their designers in the Lyman 1958 First Edition "Handbook of Cast Bullets" on pp. 88 and 89, respectively, and pictured in the pages that follow, with some loading info. Keith specified 1:16 tin / lead alloy.


floodgate

[Ricochet]

Thanks, Floodgate!

Sounds like Uncle Don had a very early #429244HP, right when they came out.

I did find my old Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook. Nothing about either Keith or Thompson in it.

[floodgate]

Ricochet:

The reference was to the original First Edition "Handbook of Cast Bullets", published in 1958; orange cover with a painting of a Sharps rifle on it, surrounded by boolits, and a painting of a man and woman in an old frontier-type home,she casting boolits in a scissor-type mould, he trimming sprues, on the back. Could be me and my wife, back in the '50's. This edition is well worth looking for at gunshows; not too strong on loading data, but lots of anecdotes and quotes from well-known shooters and experimenters.

For the 1973 Second Edition (cover shows a scoped rifle lying on a bench, with targets and ammo,) they switched the title around, so it reads "Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook". This is the one with the good photo gallery of many old and current boolit designs, with weights and top-punch recommendations - also posted on Castpics.

I keep "working" copies of both within reach next to the computer; they get pretty battered, but I have good copies stowed away safely, and am always on the lookout for spares.

Doug

The

[Shuz]

Have any of you been able to get this boolit to shoot as well as any of the Thompson or Keith designs?

[45 2.1]

Have any of you been able to get this boolit to shoot as well as any of the Thompson or Keith designs?

Not quite as well, but close in a hollow point mold.

[Char-Gar]

The cost of gas checks have indeed become a concern. But I don't plink with full snort magnum loads. I reserve those for serious field use and enought practice to keep my hand in.

I lucked out and bought 6K old stock Lyman 44 gas checks last year for $8.00 per K. These should last me the rest of my life. I am not going to shoot 6K of full snort 44 magnum loads in the rest of my life.

I plink with the Keith in the 44 and SAECO/Cramer #12 in the .357. I like to run these loads about 1.1K fps.

I am not a serious target shooter, but am convinced the HP version equals or betters the solid versions of the same bullets.

[Shuz]

After posting my quiery about the 429360, I happened to re-call a thread a while back on this subject, so I used the search feature on 429360 and was able to find lots of info on this boolit. There is an exceptionally fine article written by Glen Fryxell on .44 boolits and their history that is referenced on one of the posts. My experience with 429360 has been only fair. I have a HP version and a solid nose in the same block that have had the front driving band lengthened and "fattened". Results are still only fair.

[Ricochet]

For the 1973 Second Edition (cover shows a scoped rifle lying on a bench, with targets and ammo,) they switched the title around, so it reads "Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook". This is the one with the good photo gallery of many old and current boolit designs, with weights and top-punch recommendations - also posted on Castpics.

That's the one I've got. It had just come out when I got it, and I didn't know there had been a previous cast bullets book from Lyman. I had the regular Lyman handbook and thought that was it.

[Nueces]

Ricochet, here are shots of the cover and Keith and Thompson pages. I'm gettin' into this digital photography, cool stuff.

Mark

[MtGun44]

Ok, I'll jump in with a question. I have tried several different
Thompson molds in my various 44s. I started with a 429244 and
then since I couldn't get a single group that was decent, I searched
out a 431244 mold and tried it. Using the same alloys and diameters
and same guns, I have literally NEVER gotten a really decent group
(like 1.5" at 25 yds) from ANY combination with either the 429244
and 431244. At the same time I have 5 different versions of the
Keith 250 (429421 of several Lyman variations, RCBS and Saeco)
that generally shoot extremely well in multiple guns. I can regularly
get <2" at 50 yds from several molds and loads, and 1" at 25yds
frequently (both from pistol). We are talking about B92 & W94 carbines, a
Ruger SBH, two S&W 629s, a 329 and an Anaconda. I have annealed gas
checks, not annealed, left them off, tried various BHNs, lubes and diameters
that work great with many/most of the variations of Keith designs.

Yet - I keep hearing how the 429/431244 is a great bullet, maybe even
better than the 429421 and clones. I never once got a really good
group. Pretty much given up on them and haven't used either mold
in a couple years.

Any ideas on what I am doing wrong?

Bill

[Bass Ackward]

Ok, I'll jump in with a question. I have tried several different Thompson molds in my various 44s. I started with a 429244 and
then since I couldn't get a single group that was decent, I searched
out a 431244 mold and tried it.

Using the same alloys and diameters and same guns, I have literally NEVER gotten a really decent group.I have annealed gas checks, not annealed, left them off, tried various BHNs, lubes and diameters that work great with many/most of the variations of Keith designs.

Yet - I keep hearing how the 429/431244 is a great bullet, maybe even
better than the 429421 and clones. I never once got a really good
group. Pretty much given up on them and haven't used either mold
in a couple years.

Any ideas on what I am doing wrong?

Bill

Bill,

You sound like me, you are 44 poor.

As to why you aren't getting accuracy, you aren't holding your mouth right and I will bet you are trying to stand on both feet aren't ya?

I do best with Ray's designs, and I think he had input on the 429215 as well, when I make the lube smoke and the brass scream. Same with the 38 bore.

[Ricochet]

Thanks, Mark! I'll be on the lookout for that book.

[MtGun44]

Bass,

Well, as to number of .44s - has a bit to do with why I chose the
moniker. . . . Kinda like the big bores. Usta have a .44 Automag, too.

As to not holding my mouth right - open for any suggestions !!

And 'both feet on the ground' - naw, I mostly sit when I try to shoot
good groups.

Seriously, if anybody can think of something else to try, I'd do it, or
maybe I need to just sell the molds and move on.

Bill

[Bazoo]

This is some very interesting discussion, worthy of a 17 year thread revival!

I particularly am interested in the information floodgate shared, as it's exactly what I was looking for, thanks everyone for having contributed.