Home › Forums › NOE Forums › NOE Archive › Historical Archive › Group Buys › Group Buy Discussions › What about a 358156 but shrunk down for 32s?
- This topic is empty.
-
CreatorTopic
-
2018-12-28 at 23:39 #489830
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
2018-12-30 at 19:39 #511431
brianadams
Participant::Now that’s an interesting idea. Are you thinking about using 32 H&R Mag brass and loading to 327 Mag overall length using the back crimping groove? Plus that relatively short xxx156 nose should help folks with cylinder length problems. I’d think an RG4, with both Pb and GC cavities, could take care of almost all a fellow’s .32 needs.
2019-01-03 at 22:45 #511432zanesullins
Spectator2019-01-04 at 20:09 #511433robertpedersen1
::Wouldn’t adding another crimp groove to the existing 314-119-RF be about what you’re looking for?
Shrinking the 358156 to .314-ish should result in a bullet of roughly 132-138 grains. If you want something lighter, you’ll need to modify the features of the 358156, and possibly lose some of the perceived utility.
2019-01-05 at 06:12 #511434zanesullins
Spectator::I could probably handle it being 130grs, but would prefer lighter. If I’m not mistaken the 314-119-rf is a copy of Lyman 311316 and used to be labeled as such. The few times I tried the 311316 it never shot very well for me. The NOE 315-118 SWC with an added driving band would be close and I would think could possibly be kept around 125gr.
For a RF profile I’m more interested in the Ranch Dog TLC313-115RF but it’s seemed to have died in the Ranch Dog section with no interest.
2019-01-05 at 20:27 #511435robertpedersen1
::Same here, for an RF. Though, I’m pretty satisfied with the 315-118-SWC (formerly 315-316?).
I think the problem is that we had about 20 different .32 cal ‘handgun’ bullets discussed and about 10 that got produced in roughly the late 2014 to early 2017 time frame, and there were just too many designs to keep up with.
Time. Money. Storage space.
All factors, in one way or another, for different people.Hell… I still have one of the RG4 90 gr HBWC molds sitting here (now called 315-91-WC), that I’ve never gotten a good drop from. It’s not the mold’s fault. I just haven’t had the time to work out its “personality” yet. Too many other molds to wrestle with, in the time I have available.
Anyway…
I’m still not sold on this one. But I am interested. That’s why I’m sticking around.I think I would prefer something around 130 grains. I already have half a dozen molds in 115-120 gr.
Does anyone have some good dimensions on the 358156?
I’d like to take a stab at drawing up the .314/.315 version, even if only to satisfy my own curiosity.If not, perhaps I’ll draw up the 315-118 and tweak it a bit.
2019-01-10 at 19:48 #511436zanesullins
Spectator2019-01-11 at 21:51 #511437
Full.Lead.TacoKeymaster2019-01-12 at 02:29 #5114382019-01-12 at 02:40 #511439brianadams
Participant::Well, I think it worked. Here’s what I came up with. It needs that disportionately large band in the middle to get a .125″ distance between the front and back crimping grooves. 327 Magnum brass is 1.200″ long, 32 H&R brass is 1.075″ long. The nose needs to be a little stubby to meet the 1.450″ over all length of a 327 Magnum. Please check my math. I think everything adds up.
Update: I think you need to be logged in to see the attachment
2019-01-12 at 17:12 #5114402019-01-12 at 18:13 #511441brianadams
Participant2019-01-12 at 18:47 #511442robertpedersen1
::I’ll attempt to copy 376Steyr’s dimensions in a little bit, and see what it comes out as (and how close I can get).
Here’s my interpretation of the basic goal, which probably doesn’t have exactly the right dimensions. I haven’t used this program in several years and, as other owners know well, it has a very steep learning curve.
I’m also not sure, exactly, what you guys are looking for to cycle .32 H&R through the Henrys. (.327 COAL, I assume. …But that wasn’t clear.)
I also don’t know what you guys are looking for with the meplat. I don’t run .327 Federal through a lever gun and my future plans for a bolt rifle wouldn’t work with this bullet, anyway. So, as far as I’m concerned, the meplat could be massive.Oh, and one note: There’s a slight slope at the base of the nose that I added to eliminate a 90 degree corner on the top band and possibly increase the likelihood of clean drops from the mold. It looks funky, but wasn’t a mistake.
PB (123 gr), GC (126 w/ GC), and if you bump the PB to 131 gr by lengthening the body:
(Edited for typos.)
2019-01-12 at 19:05 #511443robertpedersen1
2019-01-13 at 03:12 #511444brianadams
Participant::Squigie,
Thanks for drawing these up. I heartily endorse all the bevels you put on the bands. I wanted to show those, but ran out of time and patience with my limited CAD skills. I approached this project looking for the following:
1. Have enough distance between the front and rear crimping groove so if a fellow can’t find 327 Magnum brass, he could load 32 Magnum brass to the same overall length, the way the original 358156 allowed 38 Special cases to be used for 357 Magnum loads, Skeeter Skelton-style. I think all your designs accomplish that.
2. Keep the front band and nose length under 0.250″, to meet the overall length of loaded 327 Magnum. All your designs do that.
3. Try to keep the appearance of the original 358156. I got the 0.210 meplat on my drawing by scaling down the meplat on a 358156 clone in the catalog. The 358156 also uses, right or wrong, a single lube groove. I like designs that have a lot of lube exposed to the bore.Of your five drawings, I like #5: “My_Designs_315-158_SWC_(D)_117_gr_Sketch the best, with #2: My_Designs_315-130_SWC_GC_(D)__121_gr_Sketch a real close second. Thanks again!
2019-01-13 at 08:36 #511445robertpedersen1
::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.)
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.