Ever use Lyman 358416?

[LongWalker]

I swapped into a 4-cavity mould for Lyman 358416.  Per the books, this was the bullet used in the 38 Colt Special (nominally 158 grain RNFP).  In profile it looks like 454190's baby brother. 

It looks like a natural choice for a levergun, but I'm more interested in using it in a revolver.  Has anyone tried it, and if so, what kind of results did you get? 

Thanks,
Jim

[Black River Smith]

Here is what I have from one of my saved websites, called Lyman and Ideal Mold Descriptions.

358311 Standard bullet for revolvers using .38S. & W. Special and .38 Colt Special Cartridge. These two wide bands are strong and hold the rifling well. Case should be slightly crimped in bevel groove. (PB, RN, 158

358416 Colt special type used to same sizing diameter and with same charges as 358311. The flat point is desired by many humane societies for purposes of animal destruction. A very accurate and satisfactory bullet. (PB, FN, 158

So it appears that the 358416 is just a close FN design from the 358311 RN.  Both have one grease groove and a beveled/tapered crimp groove.

I use the 358311 bullet exclusively for standard 38Spl's.  Just like the looks.

[Professor Marvel]

I myself got the Lee version, because I am a cheapskate frugal



I don't need to size it, it has a large meplat , which I like, and a nice big grease groove, it's cheap, and looks very old-timey.
Big Flat noses are nice.

did i mention it is not expensive?

yhs
prof frugal

[LongWalker]

Thanks guys!

Professor Marvel, have you done any accuracy testing with the Lee version?  If so, at what level of loads/velocities?  I still have fantasies of finding a "universal" bullet for all of my .35" handguns . . . .

I ran across mention of the Lee bullet, but the bevel base kinda threw me for a loop--I've never had much luck with those.  The Lyman version I have is plain base and has two narrower grease grooves (or a grease groove and a crimp groove).  That seems like a modern thing, but the old pictures show it this way so maybe it wasn't as much a factor as we think.  Or maybe (more likely) folks using BP with this bullet didn't shoot more than a couple rounds, so fouling wasn't as significant a factor. 

Were it a hundred years ago, I'd much rather have this bullet than 358311: the 158 round nose is what gave the 38 special a reputation for lousy stopping power. 

[Professor Marvel]

Professor Marvel, have you done any accuracy testing with the Lee version?  If so, at what level of loads/velocities?  I still have fantasies of finding a "universal" bullet for all of my .35" handguns . . . .
....
Were it a hundred years ago, I'd much rather have this bullet than 358311: the 158 round nose is what gave the 38 special a reputation for lousy stopping power.

The round nose apparently helped for "speedloading" in the "then new " swing-out cylinders.... but seemed to cause deflections , such as off wiindshields, as least, according to ancient anectdotal reports.

The nice flat meplat on the Lee helps a lot, ( at least on water bottles!) but especially casting it in soft lead. The flat point also lends itself to DIY hollowpointing (if desired).

I have used it in smokeless .38 spcl, but lately, my eyes and skinny wobbley arm-things ( not to mention my body swaying in the breeze)
are leading to less-than-optimal accuracy testing. I can't bring myself to spend the bucks on a Ransom Rest, and have not yet found a cheap frugal alternative,
So I am resorting to sandbags, but that does not adress the ol' eyeball issues.

Even so, I seem to be one of the ONLY people running the paper back to 60 feet and doing "slow fire".  All the X-gen, Y-gen and etc seem to want to play
"mag dump" at ~ 12 feet 

I do have a modernisch 8" long-barrel for my Dan Wesson that I plan to hang a scope on, so that, along with sandbags (and the insanley wonderful trigger ) should alleviate
the "me " factors.

As far as any leading issue when using pure or very soft lead, Since I don't  am no longer shooting "that fast" or "that much" at a time, leading and cleaning
is not  a great  difficulty for me. I have also found that fitting the lead bullet to the bore, and keeping the velocity under 1k fps, and/ or not using a really hot (temperature wise)
powder seems to keep leading from occurring.
And good lube.
And holding one's tongue in the right corner of the mouth.

yhs
prof wobbly

[LongWalker]

Thanks Professor!

The 38 RNs had their good and bad points, but I think this bullet would offer a significant improvement in terminal effects.  (Actually, that gives me an idea: I may do some side-by-side comparisons of the velocity/accuracy/terminal effects of both bullets.  Might be a fun way to pass some time.  I can throw in the Colt 38 long for fun as well--always meant to play with that one.) 

My assortment of 38s and 357s has had me casting several different bullets that were "best" in each gun.   It would be ever-so-nice to have one bullet that averaged acceptable accuracy in all of them.  If this one will yield acceptable accuracy and minimal leading up to ~1,100 fps, I'll be happy.  I'll probably start with LBT Blue for smokeless and one of the saponified oil-beeswax mixes for BP (because I've already got those lubes in my lube-sizers.  I'm not "lazy", I'm "efficient".)

This mould came in a "mixed box" I swapped into recently, but I think the rest of the moulds were a bit more common.  It looks like the original owner was a fan of the .38, as they were all that diameter.  If I had a Master Caster I'd be set for WC!

Thanks again.  I'll try to post updates on how the test goes.