Casting 359 Hammers
- Thread starter Recycled bullet
- Start date
Ya know, I have that mold sitting brand new in box and haven't even looked at it yet. Those are some nice looking bullets.
We have been loading up the 25+ pounds or so of the MP 359-640 HP's I poured up a while back, among other things. I run them over 13gr of AA-9 and they are very accurate from both the 357s and 38s, albeit the latter using around 4.5gr of Unique.
Right now I have an old meat slicer we are cleaning up all over the end of my casting table, so I guess it'll be a bit before I get to the Hammer still.
We have been loading up the 25+ pounds or so of the MP 359-640 HP's I poured up a while back, among other things. I run them over 13gr of AA-9 and they are very accurate from both the 357s and 38s, albeit the latter using around 4.5gr of Unique.
Right now I have an old meat slicer we are cleaning up all over the end of my casting table, so I guess it'll be a bit before I get to the Hammer still.
Recycled bullet
New member
I powder coated the bullets last night. I used one
coat of powder by the pound ultra durable clear and they turned out great!
After I sized the bullets 358, I had a revelation holding it aside by side with the Elmer Keith hollow points,
and it is that both the different designed bullets have similar distances from crimp groove to bullet base and both weigh 155 grains in my alloy.
Internal case volume capacity should be the same.
Bullet mass is the same.
If the hammers had a deeper crimping groove...woooweee! I don't want to trim 38 special brass and this far have avoided that delightful task. That's the only improvement I'd consider if I could... Then differences in case length wouldn't matter as much....
Like with the 358429.....I think that's why Lyman and Keith designed it the way it is.. with the super deep crimp groove... To catch different lengths casings and still crimp appropriately...Anyways...
The hammer bullets are overall shorter for the same mass and powder capacity. I think it may be designed to fit in 357 brass with out trimming, and the starting load data for the 38-44 I have been making may still be safe.
After the bullets age harden for two weeks then I'll see how they respond to H110 in the Blackhawk and 77-357.
Wouldn't it be wild if the hammers could be fed through a magazine feed automatic? I wonder how much modifications it would take to make it work in 357SIG or 38SUPER...[emoji7]
After I sized the bullets 358, I had a revelation holding it aside by side with the Elmer Keith hollow points,
and it is that both the different designed bullets have similar distances from crimp groove to bullet base and both weigh 155 grains in my alloy.
Internal case volume capacity should be the same.
Bullet mass is the same.
If the hammers had a deeper crimping groove...woooweee! I don't want to trim 38 special brass and this far have avoided that delightful task. That's the only improvement I'd consider if I could... Then differences in case length wouldn't matter as much....
Like with the 358429.....I think that's why Lyman and Keith designed it the way it is.. with the super deep crimp groove... To catch different lengths casings and still crimp appropriately...Anyways...
The hammer bullets are overall shorter for the same mass and powder capacity. I think it may be designed to fit in 357 brass with out trimming, and the starting load data for the 38-44 I have been making may still be safe.
After the bullets age harden for two weeks then I'll see how they respond to H110 in the Blackhawk and 77-357.
Wouldn't it be wild if the hammers could be fed through a magazine feed automatic? I wonder how much modifications it would take to make it work in 357SIG or 38SUPER...[emoji7]