44 Rem Mag Beginner Bullets

  • 18K Views
  • Last Post 23 September 2016
Bongo Boy posted this 13 January 2015

I'd like some recommendations if you don't mind. I don't own a revolver and never have, but I soon will, if things go according to plan. I'm gonna need to pour projectiles pronto. I've had very good experiences with Accurate and MP molds, gas checks aren't something that I want to get in to or that make sense to mel for revolvers, I lube with an RCBS lubrisizer and don't care for the look or concept of tumble-lube. I don't hunt and never will, and enjoy punching nice holes with round-nose flat points in the 45. I have well over a  1/2 ton of lead on the garage floor, so don't mind heavier bullets. My experience is these are easy-shooting anyway, relative to lighter ones. So, with that introduction, I'm really looking for a recommendation for a bullet yo629-5u think can be loaded up to say a '7' or '8' on the scale of decent 44 Mag loads in terms of manliness, still be accurate using #7, #9, 800X, or 2400, yet not be so heavy as to waste lead given I'm going to be range shooting most of this. Right now mihec appears to have nothing, so Accurate is where I'm looking.

With absolutely no experience yet, I'm looking at something about 240 gr, roughly, with a round nose flat point profile. I like to load bullets that I find attractive, and in cast bullets I find 'ball' style and wadcutters the least appealing.

I'm currently all over the board in a way regaring what I'll be shooting these magic bullets in, and while I know it's a little silly to ask for recommendations without even hinting at the gun they'll be fired in, I can't narrow it down much. It will be something like a 629 4” to 8". The list of most likely firearms in order of decreasing likeliness are 629 'Hunter' 7-8” (depending on how many $1000 of dollars someone is willing to subsidize me), down to the shortest option which is something like a 4” 629 of some sort. All of these quirky desires can be easily overridden by “mold can actually be purchased now". I need to be casting. Life is short, and lead is going up.

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
tturner53 posted this 23 September 2016

delmarskid1 wrote: Nothing wrong with that. Hold that in front of your chest and you'll see what I mean.What he said!

Attached Files

Bongo Boy posted this 23 September 2016

Without question, I can say this:

  • I like casting
  • I really enjoy handloading
  • I absolutely LOVE shooting, and
  • I can easily crumple up targets with crappy groups faster than my ego can bruise.

So. We move on down the road, order a few more 1000 primers, and call it good.

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 16 September 2016

most of the ” keith swc ” molds i have used are not optimized for fit .

fit is king ... we think . usually.

not only are the bands not throat ( not barrel, please note ) .... snug fitting, but that large mass nose just hangs out there and is not supported by the rifling.

i don't fiddle with my pistols that much but still like at least 3 inches at 25 yards. ( bean can of angle ) ... my best keith types in any caliber have been throat snug and the nose feature shows a bit of rifling at the base of the nose. that of course reduces the sharpness of the target holes . in general i try to buy truncated cone molds now.

that are snug in throat ( g ) .

ken

Attached Files

Bongo Boy posted this 16 September 2016

Well it's been a while and I've blown several hundred rounds downrange since. Seems the Keiths I've been casting are a bit small (and ugly) and the roundnose flat points just doing fine. So, H110 is on its way, finally, in quantity. 800X, what's left of it, will go into my garden as fertilizer, and I'll live to see another day of experimenting. Crimping has no clear impact on anything at all, lube has not clear impact on anything at all, and the only advantage of the Keith bullet seen so far is oh my god it does punch a nice clean hole in paper. Pretty sure I could crimp, not crimp, lube, not lube and results would be not impacted in the least little bit. The Keith mold has been the only expenditure I can think of since i started handloading that I'd consider a complete waste of money...since it's an ugly bullet to begin with IMO and doesn't do anything at all right compared to my RNFP, except s**k up a lot of lube which I personally feel is also a waste of time and effort. Elmer must have lived in a universe quite different from mine.  

Attached Files

imjimo posted this 23 December 2015

I don't know about that I have shot cast gc bullets in 357 mag 44 mag 45 lc and 454 casull most of them north of 1300 fps with out a leading problem .   

Attached Files

billglaze posted this 25 April 2015

I guess I'm kind of echoing Joe, but I've shot the self-same Lyman 215 gr with a gas check since I bought the .44 Mag Smith in 1956.. Only shot cast with 24 gr. 2400; a real magnum load. Still have the pistol (a 5 screw Smith), and it's still tight and smooth as new. BTW: It's a 44 Magnum, not a model 29. They started calling and serial numbering as a Mod. 29 in 1957. (I keep my guns a long time, if I like them). In later years, I have backed down to 22 gr. 2400; got nervous when the manuals started calling 22 gr. as a max. This load also works great in my Desert Eagle; no malfunctions, no leading. However, I experienced moderate leading in a new Ruger S.A. in 41 Mag.; severe leading in a Smith .41 Mag. Ruger changed out the barrel; no argument. Smith, OTOH, said it was all my fault. (I can still see the roughness in the barrel; guess their service person suffers from near-sightedness) Typical, these days, I guess. Changed powders, (suggested in a magazine article) to 296; no help. Finally started putting a gas check on the bullet; end of problem in both revolvers. Back to 21 gr. 2400. Coward's way out, maybe, but, whatever works, works. Upside: Began working with James Sage; what a pleasant, co-operative gentleman. A whole separate story. Bill

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. My fate is not entirely in Gods hands, if I have a weapon in mine.

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 31 March 2015

I agree, slight zinc contamination of less than 1% is unsightly, but harmless for ordinary utility use. Key is to use a thermometer when melting raw wheelweights into ingot and keep the heat within 730 +/-10 degs. F so you can skim the zinc weights off the top before they melt!

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Bongo Boy posted this 24 March 2015

Executive Summary: One should allow shooting to stay fun.

Each and every time I find the fun factor low, I find the ego and pride factors high. A causal correlation. :)

The challenge is to observe the two at the same time.

Conclusion: Buckshot groups caused by poor attitude.

Attached Files

delmarskid1 posted this 20 March 2015

There is never a wrong to go shooting. Sometimes there is a wrong time to shoot well. Sometimes when I'm not shooting as well as I'd like I cheat and use a rest until my confidence comes back. My wife got me a 5” 629 fr Christmas and I'm in love with both of them more every day. I threw a spring pack in it (revolver of course) and double action is a hoot with mild loads. I think I'm making them go at about 900 fps. I put up blank sheets of paper and step back about 10 paces and blast at them with out really using the sights. I just look at the target over the guns barrel and rip away.

Attached Files

Bongo Boy posted this 19 March 2015

Thanks for the input and suggestions. I honestly think it's all me--and there are a couple of reasons. First, I was taking time off work which stresses rather than relaxes me. Second, I was quite hungry by the time I got to the range, and that has never been a plus for my shooting. Third, I put down the 629 and picked up the Glock 20, which I generally shoot well. Those shots were positively awful--although these were first-time ever loads and they could be garbage.

So, first the bullets and loads.

All bullets were poured at the same time and from the same pot--that pot being probably a 50-60 lb melt and it's unlikely any significant lead was added to the pot over the course of casting 500 bullets, if any.

I have not ever tested lead hardness, so I don't know what these are, but again, they should all be equivalent. I expect they are somewhat on the soft side, since easing them into the sizer with a flat top punch leaves about 60% or so of the meplat 'polished'--so they're definitely responding to very minor pressure. My top punch surface is actually very slightly convex--not perfectly flat.

Based on poor memory, the small groups were obtained after shooting for a bit--maybe 60 rds or so--but they definitely deteriorated and I could see all kinds of signs I was tiring. Gun floating at a higher rate, less smooth floating, etc.

So, getting tired meant trying to hold the target even longer in the hopes of settling down, making things even worse.

Ah, back to things other than shooter. Leading. I cleaned the bore last night with a bore brush but found some minor leading at the muzzle (the only place I can see it). I brushed a bit more but not a lot. I think the bore today was probably in about the same shape as it was when I got the smaller groups last week, but I can't be sure. When I did get a light in there after cleaning the previous time, the bore looked like it was chromed--extremely bright and glass-smooth. It was noteworthy because I don't believe I've seen a barrel quite so finished.

This was strictly SA...I'm putting in a little SA practice but very little with this gun. It's hopefully never going to be pressed into sd duty and to me is more of a rest-it-on-the-bag and take your time kind of gun.

Fun with a capital F, tho. I'm going to chalk this up to 'wrong time to go shooting', and wait until I feel the time is truly mine. We'll see. Maybe I buy a hardness tester.

Attached Files

corerf posted this 19 March 2015

Any leading while shooting the 2.5 in group? Did accuracy improve over the course of fire or did it decline?

When you went to fire the 4-5 in groups was the bore in same condition as the 2.5 in session?

Have you tested the bhn of the bullet lot 24-48 hours after casting and also today or recently? Was there a big change in hardness?

If the bullets you cast for the small group were substantially softer you could have have a big difference btw sessions. Doubling group size would be attributed to shooter error if all other particulars were consistent. That's ok, I prefer it.

If not shooter error, then a variable has snuck in to fouls the works. Not sure if water dropping was employed so maybe aging is not much of a consideration.

I have in the past shot soft bullets that were aging and had better results than with the fully aged bullets. All conditions otherwise identical. From a bench,with a 1lb trigger, in a rest, it's hard to error heavily from a baseline accuracy level. I've gone back and shot with soft bullets and found better results, consistent results. That load needed softer alloy in my case and I adjusted. Leading increased as well with the aged bullets.

Not pointing a finger, just offering ideas on what could have doubled group size aside from shooter error. And shooter error is better than load/bullet problems all day. I like it when I make the group bigger, then I get to fix me, not an unknown variable like load data, process, etc.

2.5 offhand with a 6 inch barrel at 15 is pretty good!

Was that single action or DA shooting?

bTw: those are some good looking bullets!!!!

Attached Files

Bongo Boy posted this 19 March 2015

Well, I just got back from the range in an effort to tighten that 2 1/2” group, and after 30 minutes was just able maintain 4- or 5-inch groups. I packed up my back and got back to work.

Some days....:(

Attached Files

delmarskid1 posted this 18 March 2015

Nothing wrong with that. Hold that in front of your chest and you'll see what I mean.

Attached Files

Bongo Boy posted this 18 March 2015

At this point I'm having a conversation with myself, but this was the best I was able to do so far at 15 yds freestyle ('offhand'). I have high confidence this crazy 'group' can be tightened up with more patience. For me, this is pretty good. It's a 2 1/2” group but my excuse is there's a couple of flinches (the 6 o'clocks) and one pure trigger jerk (the 3 o'clock). The rest I don't have an excuse for...but I'm thinking of one.

http://s182.photobucket.com/user/Bongo_Boy/media/Shooting/240%20gr%20RNFP%2044%20Mag_zps3lzz1hxp.jpg.html>

Attached Files

Bongo Boy posted this 06 March 2015

Okay. I continued adding random samples of lead to my pot last night and noticed things were getting just slightly 'stringier' as I added in ingots from a particular source--so I stopped that, and added in a 10 lb block of likewise unknown stuff that I recalled being pretty good. Wow...the entire surface of the melt changed immediately to a super-smooth glass-like surface. The pour from the ladle showed almost no signs of the nasty zinc 'string'. So I ran with it, and was able to get about 500 poured before I gave in.

http://s182.photobucket.com/user/Bongo_Boy/media/Handloading/Accurate20240s_zpsk5pxdh2f.jpg.html>

Attached Files

Bongo Boy posted this 16 February 2015

I got the pot down to maybe 10-15 lbs and loaded in a bunch of ingots I remembered as being 'pretty good', and sure enough the bullets straightened out a lot.

Man oh man...I started out with these 240s over 12.4gr of 800X based on comments regarding that load at handloads.com. Shooting was okay but not great, but I just attributed that to the fact I was quite sick that day at the range and was fatiguing badly.

Well, went to the range with those same loads today, plus another 100 that were loaded to 12.8 gr 800X. The lighter loads were still as mediocre as before, but the heavier ones--wow. Oooooh baybeeee...what a difference that .4gr makes! Nasty groups went away as long as I didn't try to unload 6 rounds without taking a rest. Tightened right up.

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 06 February 2015

Key in reducing zinc contamination when rendering your wheelweights to ingots is to use a thermometer on the melt and keep the melt temperature below about 740 degs. F, then the zinc weights will float on the top of the melt and can be skimmed off.

Then flux well, and clean and flux again when putting the ingots in the pot. If you have ingots which slight zinc contamination in them as yours show, blend some clean alloy into the pot, add a bit of tin, flux again and run the temperature up a bit, but stay below 750 degs. F so that you don't oxidize off the tin.

Remember that Dilution is the Solution to Pollution!

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

Bongo Boy posted this 06 February 2015

Dumb zinc. :X

Attached Files

corerf posted this 05 February 2015

I hate zinc.

Attached Files

onondaga posted this 05 February 2015

http://www.castbulletassoc.org/view_user.php?id=3348>Bongo Boy Looks like a little Zinc, maybe 1/2 of 1% or less. But you you doing well with it.

Gary

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Close