Be Sure to visit the store to see whats new

Author Topic: What about a 358156 but shrunk down for 32s?  (Read 435 times)

Squigie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Noe Guest
    • View Profile
Re: What about a 358156 but shrunk down for 32s?
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2019, 08:36:30 AM »
Good to hear.


I think it's possible to get the 'bore-riding' section back on the nose, while also eliminating the 90 degree corner on the front/driving band.  But, as I said earlier, I'm still re-learning the program.  I think the option is in there.  I just didn't want to play with even more variables earlier. 

(If you've never messed with TMT's Cast Bullet Design software, you probably wouldn't be aware.  But it's a finicky, temperamental, error-prone beast of a program.  It's great when it works, but if you get one thing wrong [or even just out of "proper sequence"] it'll bite you and, more often than not, make you start over.)

wheelgun

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Noe Guest
    • View Profile
Re: What about a 358156 but shrunk down for 32s?
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2019, 06:09:07 AM »
I think I prefer #4 drawing but with maybe a little wider meplat.

Why is the 90 degree on the front driving band bad? I understand the lube grooves not being true 90s to drop from the mold easier, but why the angled driving band? Wouldn’t a flat, sharp cornered driving band like on the 358156, or NOE 315-115 swc cut cleaner holes in targets and game?

Also why does the band between the crimp grooves have to be so wide? My 358156 copy measures around .060 (best I can tell), it’s narrower than the driving band, but same as the 3rd band.

Not trying to be argumentative, genuinely curious...
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 06:10:41 AM by wheelgun »

376Steyr

  • 1000 Dollar Club
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Noe Guest
    • View Profile
Re: What about a 358156 but shrunk down for 32s?
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2019, 02:29:16 PM »
"Also why does the band between the crimp grooves have to be so wide?"

The 327 is 0.125" longer than the 32 H&R.  If a fellow wants to use full power 327 loads in H&R brass, the distance between the two crimping grooves needs to somehow be 0.125"

The original 358156, loaded long in 38 Special brass, actually results in having less case capacity than in 357 brass, so a "Skeeter Skelton" load is actually loaded loaded a little lighter than a full power 357.  Skeeter's load was 13.5 grains of powder versus 15 grains.  Reducing the distance between the crimping grooves on this 32-sized clone would mean only "327 Lite" loads could be used, which seems an unnecessary complication. 

Additionally, keeping the loaded cartridge length as close to the 327 as possible seems like a safety feature to me.  Hopefully a long-loaded H&R case would stick out of the front of a wimpy 32 H&R revolver cylinder, and help keep bad things from happening.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 02:35:49 PM by 376Steyr »

wheelgun

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Noe Guest
    • View Profile
Re: What about a 358156 but shrunk down for 32s?
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2019, 04:15:13 PM »
Ok thank you, that makes sense.

I hadn’t thought of the heavier load, case capacity aspect. I don’t load Skeeter type loads with the 358156, so I guess it never occurred to me lol. I use it loaded out longer purely for OAL issues with a couple OAL sensitive lever guns.

My initial thought had been about using it to load longer 32 S&W Longs to feed through a finicky Henry. Then thought it should work the same for the H&R Mag too.

Squigie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Noe Guest
    • View Profile
Re: What about a 358156 but shrunk down for 32s?
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2019, 05:11:50 PM »
(...)
Why is the 90 degree on the front driving band bad? I understand the lube grooves not being true 90s to drop from the mold easier, but why the angled driving band? Wouldn’t a flat, sharp cornered driving band like on the 358156, or NOE 315-115 swc cut cleaner holes in targets and game?
(...)
It's not "bad".  It's just like lube grooves:  90-degree angles increase the chances of having a 'sticky' mold, because they force the bullets to move exactly perpendicular to the cavity, rather than being able to just kind of 'fall out' with some draft (angle) to the faces.

There isn't much difference between a square driving band and a few degrees of draft, when cutting paper. (In my opinion, there is no difference.)  Semi-wadcutters are a compromise, anyway.  They cut well on the meplat, but are more prone to tearing at body diameter than a full wadcutter.

Neither 'square' nor 'drafted' is right or wrong.  They're just different.
When I design bullets, I take into account everything that I can.  For me, trying to design a bullet that drops freely is high on the list.  Because if the mold is 'sticky' and I don't like casting with it, then I'm not going to want to use it and won't be shooting many of those bullets.

It's just my approach, my opinion, and how I do things.
But it's not the way this bullet has to be designed, if it isn't what people want.
The designs I posted were just for discussion and consideration.

wheelgun

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Noe Guest
    • View Profile
Re: What about a 358156 but shrunk down for 32s?
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2019, 07:46:37 PM »
Ok that all makes sense. I’m fine with either way, I was just wondering because the drawings of the others look to have a flat square driving band.

 Also thanks for taking the time to draw these.

Squigie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Noe Guest
    • View Profile
Re: What about a 358156 but shrunk down for 32s?
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2019, 02:50:33 AM »
Not a problem.
Even if I end up opting out on this one, I figured I'd lend a hand to fellow .32 gunners.

wheelgun

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Noe Guest
    • View Profile
Re: What about a 358156 but shrunk down for 32s?
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2019, 05:45:33 AM »
Just bumping to the top...

 



Castpics and Reloader's Reference