H&G # 73 Mould
- Thread starter Ben
- Start date
Wiresguy
Active Member
The Accurate Molds #31-100H was "inspired" by that one.
www.accuratemolds.com
Bullet Design Details | Accurate Molds
www.accuratemolds.com
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
The H&G #73 is a 38 Special class bullet (.357") so it's form is that of the Accurate #31-100H (with a plain base) but that Accurate 31-100H is only .315" diameter.
Wiresguy
Active Member
Hah! Right you are!
A lesson for me to post only a couple of hours after coming out of anesthesia for a tooth extraction! Glad I wasn't making any financial decisions.
Looking at Accurate's website it does say that the 31-100H was inspired by the H&G #65. Don't know how I morphed that into the H&G #73. Sorry.
A lesson for me to post only a couple of hours after coming out of anesthesia for a tooth extraction! Glad I wasn't making any financial decisions.
Looking at Accurate's website it does say that the 31-100H was inspired by the H&G #65. Don't know how I morphed that into the H&G #73. Sorry.
Wiresguy
Active Member
Thanks, Ben. It has been a great day. That tooth has been giving me problems for awhile and the soonest appointment I could get for extraction was 6 weeks out, but only 4 weeks if I was willing to drive the 45 miles to the facility. Yup, no brainer! Professional staff and the traffic on the trip wasn't bad.
Back to the H&G #73. You might email Tom at Accurate Molds and ask it he can scale the 31-100H up to the size you want and incorporate the changes you desire. Other than that, I'm all out of ideas.
Back to the H&G #73. You might email Tom at Accurate Molds and ask it he can scale the 31-100H up to the size you want and incorporate the changes you desire. Other than that, I'm all out of ideas.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I bet you can get pretty damn close to that form with a custom Accurate mold.
Here's a starting point:
accuratemolds.com
Here's a starting point:
Bullet Design Details | Accurate Molds
accuratemolds.com
bruce381
Active Member
Ben on ebay now
Hensley & Gibbs 4 Cavity # 73 38 Sp 357mag 145 gr. Bullet Mold | eBay
<p>The last two images are data taken from Hensleygibs.com just to make sure description matches the mold. This is good overall condition but signs of rust on the handles and outside of the mold. Inside cavity looks great, should still serve for years to come.</p>
www.ebay.com
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
I've pondered having Accurate Molds make me a 125-130 grain .359" round flat-nose with gas check to help duplicate that FBI Load in 357 that is still Coin Of The Realm at my shop and at many other places that allow the 357 Magnum. Our 38 Special carry load uses a 125 grainer as well, and shouldn't require a GC for its 950-1025 FPS real-world velocity. Gas checks cost, all right--but commersh redcoats are far more so. I see a 4-cav design......2 with gas check shank, another plain-based.
Heresy time again. You knew I'd do this, so let's not winge and moan. I have put in the hours (47 years) with the 38/357 revolver family and have arrived at some semi-valid ideas about their behavior and demeanor.
The critters are ACCURATE. That cannot be argued. This is NOT a feature displayed by all bullet weights, though. There is a sweet spot, certainly--my reckoning places that between 140 and 180 grains in weight In the Special and Magnum the makers arrived at 158 grains as the best nominal bullet weight for both calibers. Why not 160 grains? GMBTA.
Saint Elmer arrived at another uneven nominal bullet weight for his 38/44 masterwork (Lyman #358429)--173 grains. Almost 90 years on it a great one. My own Group Buy 180 grain FNGC is remarkably accurate in both my 357 Mag Ruger BisHawk x 7.5" and the Henry Big Boy/same cartridge.......and with enough fuel can launch the 180 to 1550 FPS in the wheelgun and almost 1900 in the long arm. Those loadings will not EVER see print. God forbid that a load like these find their ways into a J-frame Smith or repro Win '73.
I've had a round nose Lyman #358430/195 grain variant since I started this addiction sequence in 1981. It is one of the most accurate 38/357 bullets in my reloading garret. From 700-1300 FPS, it has been a tackdriver, and it does not lead the barrel. My load is right from the W-W data c. 2000--12.4 grains of WW-296 and CCI 550 primers (swapped the WSPM caps years ago). From the 4" 686 it clocks an honest 1100-1125 FPS; in the Ruger 7.5" it approaches 1300......about a 1275 mean. W-W claims a 1200 FPS in its literature, and these will feature highly in my 6" Python's test drive. I suspect the load will achieve that.
Now for the opposite end of the spectrum--bullets under 140 grains. Since the 1960s we have been besieged by ad copy and gunrag bully-pulpit-ing that touted the supposed virtues of the 'Super-Vel' ammunition in a number of calibers, especially that crowd-pleaser the 38 Special. Enhanced velocity (achieved via lightened projectile weight) would (of course......) enhance the expansion potential of these REVOLUTIONARY JACKETED HOLLOW POINT REVOLVER BULLETS that the Super Vel ammo and its many clones and imitators were loaded with.
My shop issued the W-W 110 grain JHP +P Super-X load for its 38 Specials when I began my slog with RSD in 1977. It remained in place until c. 2010--when W-W discontinued it. Next came the Rem 125 grain JHP +P, and it remains in service to this day.
Do these light-bullet wonder cartridges suck canal water? No, they don't--if you are willing to accept the marginal abilities of the 38 Special +P to produce a 1st place finish in an exchange of finality. It does beat throwing rocks or foot bail, certainly.
The 38 Special to me is a target and sporting caliber, and this perspective more than implies ACCURACY. IME, the 110 and 125 grain 38 bullets come up short in the accuracy department in comparison to my results in my arms with the 140 grain+ bullet weights--and it isn't even close.
This is pure speculation--and I know there are folks that own revolvers capable of driving tacks with these lightweights. I'm speaking of my experiences here. My opinion is that the 110 and 125 grain bullets are shorter than heavier-weight slugs, and for this reason I believe that their base clears the cylinder throat prior to ogival engagement with the barrel's forcing cone. This unsupported condition likely leads to yaw or cant--resulting in skewed entry into the barrel--and induced error to bullet shape and concentricity. When this marred bullet clears the muzzle its targeting integrity can be negatively affected.
The lightweights don't group as well as the heavier bullets, and shoot lower on target relative to where the sights are directing the event. Given that most exchanges of finality occur between bad-breath distance and 7 yards, this is small potatoes.
The 38 Special and a host of other light-tackle choices for dark alleys and evil recalcitrants come from a time when most of our opponents were running away--not in our faces. In the words of Tommy Lee Jones in the 1998 film 'U.S. Marshals' to Robert Downey Jr.--"Lose that nickel-plated sissy pistol and get yourself a Glock!" I would add "In 40 S&W, 45 ACP, or 10mm Auto caliber."
If you insist upon using & carrying a 38 Special snub--carry the FBI Load--the 158 grain SWC +P. It may not expand, but it will penetrate. Also, make sure your life insurance premiums stay paid and keep your Last Will & Testament current.
Heresy time again. You knew I'd do this, so let's not winge and moan. I have put in the hours (47 years) with the 38/357 revolver family and have arrived at some semi-valid ideas about their behavior and demeanor.
The critters are ACCURATE. That cannot be argued. This is NOT a feature displayed by all bullet weights, though. There is a sweet spot, certainly--my reckoning places that between 140 and 180 grains in weight In the Special and Magnum the makers arrived at 158 grains as the best nominal bullet weight for both calibers. Why not 160 grains? GMBTA.
Saint Elmer arrived at another uneven nominal bullet weight for his 38/44 masterwork (Lyman #358429)--173 grains. Almost 90 years on it a great one. My own Group Buy 180 grain FNGC is remarkably accurate in both my 357 Mag Ruger BisHawk x 7.5" and the Henry Big Boy/same cartridge.......and with enough fuel can launch the 180 to 1550 FPS in the wheelgun and almost 1900 in the long arm. Those loadings will not EVER see print. God forbid that a load like these find their ways into a J-frame Smith or repro Win '73.
I've had a round nose Lyman #358430/195 grain variant since I started this addiction sequence in 1981. It is one of the most accurate 38/357 bullets in my reloading garret. From 700-1300 FPS, it has been a tackdriver, and it does not lead the barrel. My load is right from the W-W data c. 2000--12.4 grains of WW-296 and CCI 550 primers (swapped the WSPM caps years ago). From the 4" 686 it clocks an honest 1100-1125 FPS; in the Ruger 7.5" it approaches 1300......about a 1275 mean. W-W claims a 1200 FPS in its literature, and these will feature highly in my 6" Python's test drive. I suspect the load will achieve that.
Now for the opposite end of the spectrum--bullets under 140 grains. Since the 1960s we have been besieged by ad copy and gunrag bully-pulpit-ing that touted the supposed virtues of the 'Super-Vel' ammunition in a number of calibers, especially that crowd-pleaser the 38 Special. Enhanced velocity (achieved via lightened projectile weight) would (of course......) enhance the expansion potential of these REVOLUTIONARY JACKETED HOLLOW POINT REVOLVER BULLETS that the Super Vel ammo and its many clones and imitators were loaded with.
My shop issued the W-W 110 grain JHP +P Super-X load for its 38 Specials when I began my slog with RSD in 1977. It remained in place until c. 2010--when W-W discontinued it. Next came the Rem 125 grain JHP +P, and it remains in service to this day.
Do these light-bullet wonder cartridges suck canal water? No, they don't--if you are willing to accept the marginal abilities of the 38 Special +P to produce a 1st place finish in an exchange of finality. It does beat throwing rocks or foot bail, certainly.
The 38 Special to me is a target and sporting caliber, and this perspective more than implies ACCURACY. IME, the 110 and 125 grain 38 bullets come up short in the accuracy department in comparison to my results in my arms with the 140 grain+ bullet weights--and it isn't even close.
This is pure speculation--and I know there are folks that own revolvers capable of driving tacks with these lightweights. I'm speaking of my experiences here. My opinion is that the 110 and 125 grain bullets are shorter than heavier-weight slugs, and for this reason I believe that their base clears the cylinder throat prior to ogival engagement with the barrel's forcing cone. This unsupported condition likely leads to yaw or cant--resulting in skewed entry into the barrel--and induced error to bullet shape and concentricity. When this marred bullet clears the muzzle its targeting integrity can be negatively affected.
The lightweights don't group as well as the heavier bullets, and shoot lower on target relative to where the sights are directing the event. Given that most exchanges of finality occur between bad-breath distance and 7 yards, this is small potatoes.
The 38 Special and a host of other light-tackle choices for dark alleys and evil recalcitrants come from a time when most of our opponents were running away--not in our faces. In the words of Tommy Lee Jones in the 1998 film 'U.S. Marshals' to Robert Downey Jr.--"Lose that nickel-plated sissy pistol and get yourself a Glock!" I would add "In 40 S&W, 45 ACP, or 10mm Auto caliber."
If you insist upon using & carrying a 38 Special snub--carry the FBI Load--the 158 grain SWC +P. It may not expand, but it will penetrate. Also, make sure your life insurance premiums stay paid and keep your Last Will & Testament current.
Last edited: