CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
The #358477 has design aspects for plain-based castings that I deem essential for success. Chief among those is a thick base band, followed closely by healthy front and center drive bands. Very Keith-like, I know--I think Mr. Keith was correct. The "477" has a generous lube groove, but not ridiculously so like some Keith clones have. We no longer use bear tallow as bullet lube. It stinks anyway.
I have a Lyman #358429 that annoys me greatly. 163-163 grains (depending upon alloy), huge lube groove, and thin base band. In 92/6/2 it shoots well, degrades a bit in 30/1, and flat will not shoot at all when cast in pure lead. I'm not talking stalwart loads here--3.5 grains of WW-231 in 38 Special, 700 FPS stuff. It gets worse at 4.0 x 231. Same test sequence with "477" showed results to remain accurate and tractable throughout the shooting series. The only variables were bullet design/weight and base-band strength/thickness. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
I have a Lyman #358429 that annoys me greatly. 163-163 grains (depending upon alloy), huge lube groove, and thin base band. In 92/6/2 it shoots well, degrades a bit in 30/1, and flat will not shoot at all when cast in pure lead. I'm not talking stalwart loads here--3.5 grains of WW-231 in 38 Special, 700 FPS stuff. It gets worse at 4.0 x 231. Same test sequence with "477" showed results to remain accurate and tractable throughout the shooting series. The only variables were bullet design/weight and base-band strength/thickness. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.