358 Winchester cast bullet data

oscarflytyer

Well-Known Member
TAC has an accurate counterpart called AA-2495 which has an IMR counterpart called IMR-4895.
I'd probably look at 4064 with 225gr bullets just cause that's how I am, and it should make a good all around type setup.

Have I4895 and I4064. And agree those look like book good for 225. I would really like to find someone's experience with the Speer 180 in the 2500-2650 odd range that is accurate. May just have to start and shoot and see. but the bullets are getting hard to find!
 

fiver

Well-Known Member
and stupid expensive now that Remington owns them.
I was just looking at some Sierra 150's for 30$ a box and some Speer 150's 3' over for 20$ a box..

I almost bought the Speers' out of habit of seeing something at a good price and just buying it.
then remembered I have something like 2-3,000 empty jackets sitting here and can make them for nothing but a little time.
I'd buy some Hornady [first] or Speer bullets [second] to hunt with.
 

oscarflytyer

Well-Known Member
SAD that Remington owns them. I didn't keep up/missed that. I certainly hope someone buys Speer and keeps the bullet line. Speer has always been my favorite/go to. Love them and always had excellent performance from them! I def want to get more of the 180 HCs if I can find them.
 

Ian

Notorious member
Cerberus still owns Remington Outdoors Company who also owns Barnes Bullets along with Remington Arms, Marlin, Bushmaster, DPMS, AAC, H&R, Para Ordinance, Parker, and Dakota Arms.

Are we warm and fuzzy yet?

Savage, Mossberg, Ruger, and Magpul among many others have maintained their sovereignty, thank God.
 

Jäger

Active Member
Platform is a Browning BLR (if that matters).

I heard that... the barrel really looks fat in this picture but it isn't. It's a BLR in .308 I bought NIB back sometime around 1993 when a big chain store decided to get out of the gun biz, and I had a whole bunch of Bullet Bonus and Mortar Money burning a hole in my pocket after a deployment.

I asked my gunsmith/hunting partner/dual sport motorcyle touring buddy benchrest and F-Class competitor to put the skinniest .358 Win Barrel on it that would not cause me any angst. My wife is a Left Paw, plus I wanted her to stop trying to make my Husqvarna Featherweight in 35 Whelan her own... And I wanted something she could practice inexpensively with, as well as remove the scope at times when going into the alder thickets here for various reasons. Our house is about a 30 minute drive from the west entrance to Glacier Park, and there's lots of places around here that if you go hunting or camping, or walking through the alder thickets, you can suddenly have grumbly bear problems... A good bear wrench is handy to have in the toolbox around here at times.

The replacement .35 barrel is longer than the original .308, but when I look at that pic it looks something like a fat .40 caliber Mexican Mauser or something like that.

358WinScoped.jpg




358WinIronsCloseup.jpg


Teaser...

358WinLoads.jpg


Anyways, long before the Residential Sergeant Major appeared in my life, I bought some bullet moulds for my .35 Newton and .358 Norma Magnum, and used them as well in the 35 Whelan that followed along a bit later.

I didn't know much about bullet casting back in the early 80's, but as a young 30'ish dude who didn't blow ALL his paycheque on beer and loose women of questionable morals (similar to mine), I did have a subscription to Handloader Magazine and a credit card. My favorite reloading flavour at the time was Bonanza press and benchrest dies. It all tasted Red. But Green was apparently pretty cool as well - and while Bonanza didn't make make bullet moulds, RCBS sure did. And there was a Saeco casting pot and Saeco lubrisizer....

So getting to the question of casting for 358 Winchester. I already owned those two RCBS moulds: .357-180-SIL and 35-200-FN for my 35 Newton and Norma Mag. Had ridiculous amounts of fun shooting ground squirrels with them - until I discovered that the bulk commercial 158 gr. SWC I loaded for the Distinguished Matches in PPC worked just as well. So I put the moulds away and concentrated on shooting instead.

Enter the Residential Sergeant Major and the .358 Winchester a few years later. Life changed. Not the kind of wife who stays home while you go out hunting, shooting, flyfishing, etc. The good side of that (expensive buying women their own rifles, their own fly rods, etc) is she demanded that she be allowed to cast bullets to go shooting as well.

Challenge accepted. Life is good.

I don't know what or if the RCBS bullet moulds have any kind of a reputation amongst the .35 fans in the cast bullet hunting fraternity. But I do know that, as far as accuracy goes, these two moulds have performed very well in all my .35 caliber rifles. The RCBS 200gr FN isn't the most impressive looking WFN design out in the Cast-o-sphere as far as hunting goes, but I have no doubt it would do just fine on any moose, elk, or deer around here.

Full disclosure. All my hunting with .35s is done with Barnes bullets, either 200 or 225 grain TTSX bullets these days. The Residential Sergeant Major does hers with the 180 grain TTSX in her .358 Win BLR. Anyone who calls a 358 Winchester "just a bush rifle" really hasn't been paying attention or has only been using factory ammunition. Other than practicing on sod poodles in the off season with cast bullets in the hunting rifles, I don't feel a need to hunt with cast bullets in these rifles.

HOWEVER... there's no reason that you couldn't hunt out to 200 yards with either of the two RCBS cast bullet designs I've used - or many other mould designs of WFN design from other manufacturers specifically intended for hunting.

BTW, there is load data for both of the RCBS cast bullet designs I've mentioned above for use in the .358 Winchester. Their data for their two bullets tops out around 2150 fps. You can do better than that with proper bullet fit and load development... I'm a casual amateur at best, and it wasn't all that hard to figure it out in a few tries. And that was long before I discovered powder coating...

358CastLoad.jpg
 
Last edited:

Ian

Notorious member
Jäger, you get bonus points for the Speer shot capsule load. Over 40 years of reading and over a decade on the internetz I never came across that before. Closest was working with a fellow on another board who wanted to adapt my method of forming shot wads from milk jug plastic to his .45/70 for grouse hunting after he moved to Utah.

You guys are killing me with all the .358 Winchester rifle porn. I may have to finally break down and put one together, but as much as this southpaw loves his levers it will probably be an M1A or LR-308. BliksemE sure has piqued my interest with his AR-10, waiting to see how that works out for him.
 

fiver

Well-Known Member
I don't know why it wouldn't work just fine.
remember Tim building that M-14 in 358?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian

Jäger

Active Member
Jäger, you get bonus points for the Speer shot capsule load.

I didn't invent the idea - I almost certainly read about it in Handloader Magazine at some point, in some 35 caliber or other. Then just started messing around trying to emulate it.

I don't use them very much any more. First, the pattern is pretty feeble anywhere around 15 yards and beyond.

Second, you have to be a little bit careful loading them.

And third, a caterpillar fart gallery load with a heavy bullet ambling along at somewhere around 500 fps or so could probably be developed that would hold Minute Of Grouse Head at longer distances - and probably be even quieter.
 

Jäger

Active Member
@Spindrift; it's the Residential Sergeant Major's rifle now - she's the South Paw.

The only lever action I have is my Grandpop's Winchester Model 1895 in 30 U.S. I shouldn't show you the mess - you'll just have to believe I was looking for something and had everything torn apart. I don't reload or cast in a mess like this. Trying to figure out a way to guaranteed to the correct elevation at the rear aperture sight after moving the sight elevation. Those hatch marks on the sight and the cute little pointer are pretty much useless.

I'm thinking I have a solution that will easily fit in my pocket...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz4.2.jpg

Same rifle about 1928 or so... my Grandpop would have been in his early 50's at the time. Now that I have Old Man Eyes... I wonder how the hell he ever pulled that razor blade thin front sight down into the slit in the bottom of the buckhorn rear sight. I added the Lyman replica rear aperture sight specifically because I couldn't even see the sights well enough to sight the rifle after Dad passed the rifle down to me when he died.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.JPG

My father with the same rifle about 1935 or so. Looks like my Grandpop and Gramma had him wearing puttees of all things. Today, November 30, would be Dad's birthday if he was still with us to celebrate it. Love ya Dad...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz8.jpg

My taste in rifles runs more towards more classic bolt jobs. Like this particular favorite, a Husqvarna featherweight chambered in 30 Newton. Just about the perfect sheep, elk, moose, and deer rifle. The older I get, the lighter I like them...

(Dad favoured a BSA Featherweight in 30-06 for most of the decades we hunted together. It was a big day in the house when that new rifle arrived in a box, mail order! I was only about four years old, but I can still remember being in the kitchen and the excitement when that shiny new rifle came out of the shipping box!)

5-68.JPG
 
Last edited:

Brother_Love

Well-Known Member
Jager,
The Winchester 1895 is a work of art, an era of craftsman and artisans building fine firearms. I know we all have and use the polymer and plastic guns now but that walnut and blue steel is heartwarming to me.
Thanks for the photos and great story too!
Malcolm
 

Glaciers

Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
Jäger,
I'll second what Malcolm said. I've got a 95 in 30-40 takedown with the Lyman side site which is safe to say, a fair amount more on the beat-up side then yours. I see you have a Providence Lyman reproduction on your 95. I have a Providence repo side site I purchased from Buffalo for use on a 336 in either 35 Rem or 30-30, have not decided which yet. They look good, just need to make up my mind and get it installed. How do you like it so far?
 

Jäger

Active Member
They look good, just need to make up my mind and get it installed. How do you like it so far?

It has been a while since I had a chance to closely inspect the original Lyman sight this is a replica of. So I can't be sure about comparisons of manufacturing quality, etc.

I CAN say that without it, my senior citizen eyes would barely be able to use the original sights at the range, with good lighting, and a carefully chosen pair of glasses. And my eyesight isn't all THAT bad - I can drive and get through the day without glasses, as long as I don't have to do a lot of reading and the font isn't a little on the small side.

So: I love it. It gets taken for a walk regularly during hunting season. I just pick days when I decide to hunt the thicker stuff for elk and deer; the 30 Newton stays at home and the 30/40 goes hunting. This sight allows definitive use of the front sight in most reasonable ambient light conditions.

(you know you've admitted to yourself that you're an old fart when you go out in the bush when it isn't even hunting season yet to see how well you can see the sights with varying degrees of forest closure, cloudy days, etc. You start planning for EVERYTHING, just to make sure that what you think will work, actually DOES work. Remember when you just grabbed a rifle and your packboard and ran out the door at oh dark thirty to race to where you were going to hunt that day? Good times, eh!!)

5-59.jpg

The date you can barely see stamped on the frame below the sight body is 'Aug 98'. I'm not a collector, I'm a shooter, so I don't know if that has any meaning whatsoever.

I do know for sure that the reproduction does not have the dual rear aperture design with the flip down fine aperture that I have seen on the Lyman originals. I would have found that most useful for doing load development. Lacking that, I went pure Montucky.

I glued a little piece of black card stock across the rear aperture, then poked a hole through what I could best guess was the middle of the actual aperture using a Mk. 1 squinty eyeball. I found the right size ahead of time by trial and error with an assortment of dangerous sharp pointy objects. I was a little off both for elevation and windage, but I was on the butcher paper backer I was using to shoot my test groups on, so it didn't really matter. After I was done testing loads, I just pulled the card off and was back to the one and only actual rear aperture.

To actually use the rifle for it's intended purpose, hunting, the aperture the sight comes with is about right for all reasonable ambient lighting conditions. In my opinion, of course. But I have logged a LOT of time in the military and in service rifle competition shooting with aperture sights in different ambient condition. This aperture (and the width of the replacement front sight blades) are very similar to that of the service sights on my Long Branch Lee Enfield. I haven't bothered to measure, but the sight radius is almost the same for both rifles and they look very, very similar when you're behind the sights.

I'll hazard a guess here that, with a lot of experience fighting the Boer War, the Second and Third British-Afghan Wars, and two World Wars with various marks of the Lee Enfield, when they decided on what width of front sight and I.D. of rear aperture would be best for the Mk. 4 No. 1, they put a LOT of thought and testing into what combination was best for TPBI. Based on about half of my 30 years of service having aperture sights prior to the transition to optical sights, I think they got it right.

My long winded way of saying the rear aperture is about right for shooting at living things in all kinds of weather.

The original rear buckhorn got in the way of the line of sight of the aperture sight, perhaps because the rear aperture couldn't depress far enough to get a proper point of aim with the original razor blade sight. Which my eyes couldn't see well enough in many lighting conditions, particularly forest cover.

So I had my gunsmith/hunting partner remove the rear buckhorn and fill the dovetail with a metal blank. The front sight was replaced with a much thicker blade that was just high enough to get a proper zero at 200 yards, with a little bit extra to play with. Those parts went in a labeled bag and are still there for whoever the next owner of the rifle will be after I'm taking the long dirt nap. Neither my brothers nor myself ever had children, so at some point the search will have to begin to find a proper future owner of this and some other family stuff.

The second thing is, should you actually use the elevation adjustments, the hash marks on the side of the sight body and the cutsey little pointer are pretty much useless for anything resembling a return to zero, or moving to a new zero.

It would be fun to have a few new in the box examples of this rifle in 30-06, 30 U.S., and .303 British. There's at least two chamberings there that have a long history of involvement in international shooting competition. And of course the rifle takes spitzer/ball ammunition. So it would really be interesting how that long barrel and sight radius allows the rifle to shoot at 300, 400 etc yards. But this sight wasn't designed for that. My guess is the hatch marks and the cutsey brass pointer predated white wall tires as the useless sales features of their day.

I'll also guess that, after the original owners bought one of these original Lyman rear sights, they played with the adjustment a couple of times at the range throwing bullets high and low, then zeroed their rifle and never touched the adjustments again unless necessary. Reality is a cruel teacher...

But (with my rifle at least), I have once again come up with a solution that is pure Montucky engineering: a set of pocket feeler gauges.

My rear sight body sits just barely above the high point of the top of the receiver. Find out which feeler gauge fits between the underside of the sight body and the rifle receiver, and now you have your "return to zero" feature. You could do that with adjustments for different ranges, but I'm going to be pretty happy with leaving it at a 200 yard zero. Just record the gap in case the tensioning lever comes loose and the sight is suddenly adjusting itself for 1500 yards...
 

Glaciers

Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
Jäger, you know what they call this, right. Thread drift. Oscar started with the 358.
But, oh well.
If you give me your serial number like 123xxx I will date your rifle for you.
Your referencing your aperture is it simply a drilled hole? Or is it tapped?
My Lyman 21 on my 95 is tapped for screw in aperture disks. The repo Pattern 21 by Providence Tool Co. Just has a small hole and is not threaded.

image.jpeg

As you can see in the Providence paper work they use a picture of there site, but it has threaded disk. I guess I'm going to have to drill and tap mine.

That "August 98" looks like the beginning of the second line of patent dates. Lift your site and see if the stampings match. If not it was someone's idea of a good time. Winchester did not date their firearms.
 
Last edited:

Jäger

Active Member
Jäger, you know what they call this, right. Thread drift. Oscar started with the 358.
But, oh well.

I DID at least start out with some posts about a bunch of different loads for a .358 Win BLR. Then somebody said "nice lever action there, sonny". Which led to me saying it's the wife's, and my only lever action is this old Model 1895.

Do they call that honest thread drift? It seems I enjoy reading what comes out of thread drift more than I do straight answers to straight questions anyways... Unless I'm the guy that started the thread with a question I had, of course...

If you give me your serial number like 123xxx I will date your rifle for you.

22760

Your referencing your aperture is it simply a drilled hole? Or is it tapped?
My Lyman 21 on my 95 is tapped for screw in aperture disks. The repo Pattern 21 by Providence Tool Co. Just has a small hole and is not threaded. As you can see in the Providence paper work they use a picture of there site, but it has threaded disk. I guess I'm going to have to drill and tap mine.

As far as I can see while squinting at it downstairs, it is simply a drilled hole.

I like the idea of drilling it, followed by a threaded disk. Not trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but I seem to be shooting the 95 almost as much as the Long Branch these days in my 'golden years' (who the hell came up with THAT idea that senior years are golden?). It's not an honest long distance rifle like the Long Branch is with ball ammunition, but sod poodles offhand getting out past a 100 yards was more than a lot of fun when I was kid with a single shot Cooey Model 39 .22 rimfire, so I think "heavying up" for big bull gophers in the tall grass has high fun potential.

Without getting into the minutia of hole and thread sizes (which wouldn't mean a lot to me right off the bat), are those threaded rear disks readily available without having to sacrifice a virgin (if you can find one) at the stake before being allowed to buy one? A sort of target disk(s) that could be replaced once big game season began with a simple threaded bushing aperture might work very well if readily and inexpensively available.

I do have a couple of Parker Hale 53 variant adjustable aperture rear sights for Service Rifle competition: got pretty excited when I thought I might already have the goodies on hand. Then I went back down into the basement to try mocking it up...

zz25.jpg

zz28.jpg

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz1.jpg

Well... so much for that being an easy peasy fix requiring nothing more than some drilling and tapping... A quick look at Fleabay to see what might be similar also showed me what my vernier rear sights are suddenly worth these days. I better go change my will first thing tomorrow for crying out loud. Or maybe find somebody with an original Lyman for the Model 95 that would like to swap...

Even with my steam powered old cell phone, the pics it takes of this rear aperture make it look cruder and cruder every time I look at it. That windage adjustment... talk about trial and terror to finally get it right on center on the target... wasn't sure whether I was going to run out of patience or ammunition first.

That "August 98" looks like the beginning of the second line of patent dates. Lift your site and see if the stampings match. If not it was someone's idea of a good time. Winchester did not date their firearms.

I will take a soft pass on elevating the sight for now - I haven't gotten my hands on a set of leaf feeler gauges yet to be able to measure the gap between the bottom of the sight and the top of the receiver to return to zero after elevating the sight from the hunting 200 yard zero.

The font and appearance of the stamping is completely different from all other markings on the rifle. Most of those markings look more like roll stamping, and the depth is much deeper.

The date, now that I have rummaged around and found my high tech Swiss quality watchmaker's bino spectacles I got at Harbour Freight is:

AUG 23 . 98

The stamp looks, for lack of a better term, better than arsenal stamping like that on my Long Branch for example: the letters and numbers are perfectly aligned, the spacing between characters is consistent with no characters canted in any direction, etc., and the date stamp appears to be pretty much aligned and parallel to the lines of the receiver. My uneducated guess would be the stamps set into and then clamped in a stamping fixture, for repeated stamping of multiple rifles on that date. Which wouldn't have to be Winchester; some entity may have received a lot shipment of a number of these rifles.

About ten years ago, a casual collector of Model 95s asked about my rifle; he said something about these particular rifles as far as the stocks they have now didn't start out that way. They were stocked/set up differently, the contract or purchase changed, and they ended up in the form we have now. Can't change the caliber, but I guess it would be easy to at least change the forestock wood either back at the Winchester factory or elsewhere after a shipment was refused, a sale fell through, etc.

If the story on a purchase falling through and the rifles being altered is true, I guess I could speculate that perhaps the date stamped on the receiver is the date the rifle's original setup was altered with changes to the stocking? But that would assume there's a bunch of other Model 95's out there, chambered in 30 U.S., with a similar date stamp on the receiver.

BTW... sight minutia... the replacement sight blade on the 95 is about .135" by the verniers with me squinting in the less than perfect lighting in the basement. The rear aperture on this Providence sight appears to be about .09" squinting and trying to align the edges of the verniers over the edges of the aperture hole while holding on to the rifle with the other hand. Sight radius about 31"

Front sight blades on a Long Branch No. 4 Mk 1* are .055", rear aperture on a C Mk 3 battle sight is about .07", same method of measurement. Sight radius 28" and change.

Your mileage may vary (particularly dependent on your age and eyesight), but the original blade on the Model 95 was just too fine for me for hunting now, even with the replacement at the back with the aperture sight.

It was nice for target work after smoking it with a carbide lamp, but that just didn't work while out hunting. So if you decide that the geometry of blade and aperture sizes along with sight radius isn't quite right for you with your Model 95, that's what I found works at least for me (my younger brothers - younger being a relative term - also approve with their long history of using aperture sights).

Anyways, interesting stuff for me at least. Now I'm going to pack it in and head to bed. There may be a whitetail out there tomorrow that wants to test his luck...