Which do you prefer (and why) the Lyman 429421 or 429667

[Wallyl]

I have both and have found that I always go back to the 429421, even though I have never had any issues with the 429667. The 429667 casts beautiful bullets that easily drop form my DC mold at .431". In terms of accuracy, I have never found that either one is superior to the other. The bevel base on is is minuscule and I have no issues with lube on the base, that same cast bevel base bullets have. The mold produces bullets with a deep square grease groove and the crimping groove is a deep tapered groove...one that I favor. I think it'd be interesting to hear from others who can share there thoughts on this intriguing subject.



429241 429667

 

[Brad]

Never shot the 667 but that nose style sure feeds well in a levergun. A Lyman mould that drops at .431 is a good thing! Most drop true at .429 when many 44 cal guns want bigger.

The bevel base isn’t a big deal to me. I would go for a 667.

 

[fiver]

both.
I pretty much have a swc and a rnfp style bullet for all of my hand gun lever gun combinations.
the swc's don't always feed so well, but they do shoot nice.

if I had to make a choice and could only have one.
or if I were new to the caliber and looking for a mold I always pick the rnfp over the swc style.

the rnfp design has certain advantages [especially in a sloppy revolver] and does a fine job in the field.
you can debate a square shoulder design all you want but it is the meplat that does the read terminal performance work.

 

[Wallyl]

fiver I have both as well and enjoy casting/shooting them. I was just curious what experience others have had using them. The fact that Lyman still makes teh 429667 seems indicative that their is a steady demand for it.

 

[Brad]

I mostly shoot a bullet similar to the 429421 in my 44 special. For My 44 mag revolver I have a rnfp that shooter better.
By nature I think the rnfp shoots better. The SWC has nostalgia on its side.
For hunting it doesn’t matter if they both have the same size meplat.

Lyman likely sells lots of the 667 to cowboy action shooters.

 

[Wallyl]

Brad Most interesting that you shoot better with the RNFP. Looking at other forums, most insist that the Keith bullet was always more accurate. As for me, I have found no appreciable difference

 

[Brad]

MY SRH has some minor alignment issue and the rnfp self aligns far better than the swc. That is shooting off bags at 100 yards. That revolver has never been a big fan of the swc.
I tend to be mould poor and like to find a single mould that a gun likes and just stick with it. I rarely use more than a single bullet in any one gun. I tend towards doing the same with loads, find one that works and just make a bunch of it.

 

[Wallyl]

I have thirteen .44 Caliber bullet molds. I have 5 different guns to shoot 'em all in--3 pistols/2 rifles. I enjoy doing comparisons using two different bullets in the same gun and determining which is better. It sounds a bit foolish...but do you know what.... it makes me shoot far more carefully and precisely. I also will skip a day and do the comparison again to see if I get the same results. In my pistols the "lowly" Lee 214 SWC always wins....however I don't want to change the subject/discussion. Shooting the Keith vs the RNFP I have never had any significant difference between them.

 

[Ian]

The RNFPs have consistently shot better than SWCs in my .45 Colt revolvers (most are SAA clones with a little bit of cylinder wiggle) but it's a wash in the rifle/carbines. The only .44 Magnum bullets I've shot are the Ideal 429421 hp and plain, and the heavy, Accurate bullet Brad has. They all grouped fine at long range from my Model 29.

 

[fiver]

there probably is a good demand for the bullet.
all of that series is a favorite of mine.
the 452664,429667,358466 I have all of them in 4 cavity molds and keep a bucket full of them on hand.
kind of wish I had them powder coated [shrug] but they ain't and it isn't that big of a deal.

what they all do, do, is feed and shoot in my lever rifles as fast or as slow as I want to throw the lever or push the bullet out the barrel.
and,,, they all do it with relative ease in casting and loading and the group size is what you'd expect from the platform and the shooter.
uuuber accuracy?
I have shot some very good groups with all of them, better than I would have thought possible, and I know they are capable of taking game in the field.
what more could you want?
I kind of keep the swc's in the revolvers and the rnfp's in the rifles for the most part,, but I have modified more than one lever rifle or load length to make sure the swc's work in the lever guns too.
is it worth the trouble,,, meh not really, I didn't gain nuthin.[shrug]

 

[waco]

I have four 44 molds. Lyman 4 cav 429421
Accurate copy of the Lee 310 only PB
Accurate 240gr rnfp TL
Lee 200gr RNFP
The last two get ran through the leverguns pretty much exclusively. The 429421 is the main diet for my M29
The 310 sees some lever time but mostly the Ruger Redhawk.

 

[Bret4207]

I don't have the 667 but I do have a somewhat similar Cramer I think, might be another brand. I gotta say, the 421 has done everything I've ever asked, including normally feeding pretty good in my '92 clone Rossi. I have a 4 cav mould too, drops around .431+ IIRC. It just plain works for me. But then, I like SWC's and have a both a nostalgic bent and a bit of hero worship for St Elmer. Not everyone does.

 

[CZ93X62]

What Bret said, mostly. I can't make the Keith SWCs run reliably in my leverguns, even when crimped around the bullet's front shoulder edge. Thompson SWCs crimped into the upper groove feed wonderfully. Go figure.

Over time, I am getting more round flatnose moulds in my fleet. I hate to admit this--St. Elmer acolyte that I am--but the round flatnose is probably a better all-around design for general usage than the SWC. That might (GASP!) even apply.......to.......REVOLVER USAGE. There, I said it. The heresy is complete. Oh, the infamy.

The round flatnose has been around since cartridges came on scene in the mid-19th Century. They load and feed easily in gate-loader leverguns and single-action revolvers. They do likewise in swing-out revolvers. They run well in autopistols and bolt rifles. SWCs can't make that claim. And let's not forget the late Ken Waters' bit about "shoulderless" round nose bullet designs "self-centering in forcing cones" of revolvers whose cylinder-to-barrel relationship might be a bit flawed.

I need to become a better shot--or buy better revolvers and rifles--before I could tell a difference between downrange performance of SWC and RFN designs. I have shot lots of critters over the years, and none benefited from a bullet impact of any shape/caliber/weight.

 

[RicinYakima]

"Over time, I am getting more round flat nose moulds in my fleet. I hate to admit this--St. Elmer acolyte that I am--but the round flat nose is probably a better all-around design for general usage than the SWC. That might (GASP!) even apply.......to.......REVOLVER USAGE. There, I said it. The heresy is complete. Oh, the infamy. '

Well it has only been the last 20+ years that RNFP bullets had a throat diameter area to align the bullet. All the early ones were less than bore size in front of the case.

 

[Bret4207]

That does it Al! You are officially on report and can look forward to severe reprecusions for your heresy! Hot irons and a cat 'o-ninetails are a bit difficult to do over the internet, but we can give you the same punishment those who take a hammer or Bleach Bit to subpoenaed evidence faced! So.......well, so there! Take THAT Mr. Heretic!

 

[Wallyl]

Ricin Yakima It would seem to make sense that the RNF would be the best design for accuracy in a pistol, as it is self centering. Some RN designs have a body that is a cylinder with a RN ogive; others have a RN that taper out so that the round portion "marry" with the sides of the bullet (below are 2 Lee .38 Cal bullets showing the difference). The 3rd picture is of a .38 Cal RNF bullet which clearly shows its' "self-centering nature". The RNF offers the "hitting" power of a SWC due to its' flat top tip. Yet most prefer the SWC design.

 

[Bret4207]

There are a lot of things that would seem to make sense in this game that don't.

 

[Edward R Southgate]

429421 all the way . Dance with the one that brung ya' ! It's what I started with and I haven't found anything that is any better for my use . I have a number of others but never found a real advantage over the 421 . I have all the versions in all the calibers except the hollow base , never had the need for that one . And you should be able to tell from my avatar that I am an Elmer Keith fan .

 

[Wallyl]

Many sure agree with you. I was on the bandwagon for years until I tried other types and found that they worked just as well. Nothing wrong with your choice, however the 429667 has worked just as well for me in all my .44's.

 

[Klaus]

i use this 429667 Mould ( 4 Banger) with great success for my 44-40 Blackpowder load in my 1860 Uberty Henry.
very accurate and due to the high volume of lube this round could carry with a top of the line Bullet for Black Powder schooting .

Klaus