Some testing of 358156-HP Boolit

[pps]

I've been taking a hiatus from RF for a while, but not from shooting or hand loading.

For anyone here who reloads or casts for the .357mag/38 special the 358156 bullet might be a great all around bullet for your needs. It's what I find myself using for most of my 357 needs, and even some of my 38 special needs (I have a version of this mold that drops a bullet with a plain base) My molds can drop this bullet with a flat point, the penta point that really is not that deep of a cavity, or with a DEEP hollow point spud.
The bullets tested were with an alloy of wheel weights +2% tin air cooled and sized to .359 (as the same alloy sized to .358 tended to lead my revolvers barrel). The bullets are 151 grains after they are sized, lubed and gas checked. The lubricant is bees wax, lard, Johnson's paste wax and enough Vaseline to make it sticky and flow nicely through the lube sizer.

There was no leading in my revolver, or my Marlin 1894. Everything below 1200 ft/sec only expanded to .40" with about 12-14" penetration, while the rounds between 1200-1300 ft/sec went between 14-16" and expanded to .50" diameter. The slower rounds could have benefited from a softer alloy or deeper hollow point, but would most certainly sacrifice on penetration. The bullet on the bottom of the picture below was traveling 1600 ft/sec from the 18" Marlin and penetrated 17", with a recovered diameter of .50" though it shed a lot of lead for a recovered weight of 114 grains.

Below are the results of this round with some jacketed bullets recovered from shredded rubber mulch. I KNOW… it's not ballistics gel; but it's cheap, reusable, and I find it to be a useful tool to compare bullet performance. Expansion in this media is not as consistent as it is with ballistics gel, as some bullets, such as the Barnes (top of picture at 1550 ft/sec), and the Federal HST (bullets in the middle of the picture) tend to get clogged with material… though I RARELY see the Barnes get clogged like the round pictured here. These 147 grain HST's were only hitting 930 ft/sec out of my M&P Shield, and perform much better than this when run through my full size CZ75B… which I did not have today. The 90 grain .380 FMJ on the middle far right and far left, fired out of my little Sig penetrated 16" lol

With this alloy/bullet/hollow point combination an impact velocity of 1200-1600 should give a nice balance of penetration and expansion. If I were using this bullet on pigs, I'd opt for a flat point. Here is my cheapo testing set up (until I get the time and refrigerator space to whip up some ballistics gel), if anyone is interested.

 

[Jim Puke]

Good and useful info on a popular bullet.

I have the 358156, 358477 and 358429...358429 being my favorite, primarily due to the weight as my mold tends to drop them at 180gr...and they SHOOT.

 

[cadillo]

Many of us are familiar with and even cast and load the Lyman 356156 bullet, but it is neither a plain base, nor a hollowpoint, so that mould that you are so proud of is not a Lyman. So, why then don't you tell us something about the mould, such as who made it, block material and design, cost etc.?

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Slenk]

I think I saw something on these molds and bullet over at cast boolets.
Been a while so my have to do search.
http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/

 

[pps]

Many of us are familiar with and even cast and load the Lyman 356156 bullet, but it is neither a plain base, nor a hollowpoint, so that mould that you are so proud of is not a Lyman. So, why then don't you tell us something about the mould, such as who made it, block material and design, cost etc.?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Although Lyman used to make a hollow point 358156; I never said my mold was a Lyman mold. The dimensions are based off the Thompson design. The mold was purchased off of the "cast boolits" web site, and it's the Mihec brass mold (Cramer type design) and drops bullets .360" in diameter.

As far as the plain base, "not being a Lyman", I really do not care. I never claimed it to be a Lyman. This might be the reason I referred to the plain base as a "VERSION" of this mold. I like the characteristics of the Thompson design and like having the option of not messing with a gas check for lighter loads.

Here is the mold in question.

This machinist does fantastic work.

 

[Slenk]

http://www.mp-molds.com/

 

[Jimbo357mag]

Great post.

The bullets are 151 grains after they are sized, lubed and gas checked. The lubricant is bees wax, lard, Johnson's paste wax and enough Vaseline to make it sticky and flow nicely through the lube sizer.

If you use Crisco instead of lard you will have less cholesterol in the lube mix.

The rubber mulch seems to work excellent.

 

[pps]

Great post.

The bullets are 151 grains after they are sized, lubed and gas checked. The lubricant is bees wax, lard, Johnson's paste wax and enough Vaseline to make it sticky and flow nicely through the lube sizer.

If you use Crisco instead of lard you will have less cholesterol in the lube mix.

The rubber mulch seems to work excellent.

My Ruger likes LARD! It's my Smith and Wessons that have to worry about Cholesterol.

I have a TON of lead bullets through this revolver. It's my first handgun, that my dad gave to me when I was 15. It's been on MANY a back pack/fishing/hunting trip. Felt good to get it in my hands again... it's been a few years that I've been on a S&W kick.

 

[cadillo]

Many of us are familiar with and even cast and load the Lyman 356156 bullet, but it is neither a plain base, nor a hollowpoint, so that mould that you are so proud of is not a Lyman. So, why then don't you tell us something about the mould, such as who made it, block material and design, cost etc.?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Although Lyman used to make a hollow point 358156; I never said my mold was a Lyman mold. The dimensions are based off the Thompson design. The mold was purchased off of the "cast boolits" web site, and it's the Mihec brass mold (Cramer type design) and drops bullets .360" in diameter.

As far as the plain base, "not being a Lyman", I really do not care. I never claimed it to be a Lyman. This might be the reason I referred to the plain base as a "VERSION" of this mold. I like the characteristics of the Thompson design and like having the option of not messing with a gas check for lighter loads.

Here is the mold in question.

This machinist does fantastic work.

I never said that you said it was a Lyman mould. Go back and read my post slowly. But, you did say that it was a 358156, which you do at least by now know is a Lyman designation. Those of us that are familiar with the Lyman 358156 knew right away that your bullets came from a mould that was indeed not a Lyman, but rather something else, and since you brought up the subject, I was curious to know who had made it, something that you would have done well to have revealed from the start. Or did you just try to bait someone into asking a legitimate question, so that you could make a cute comment as it now appears?

And, yes I am familiar with the moulds made by Miha. I have three of them. They are indeed nicely machined, but I never use them due to his choice of material for the blocks. Nicely machined or not, brass blocks are just too much of a pain for me to use. They have to be run very hot, and they produce far more culls than any iron mould I have ever used.

That said many people like Miha's moulds, and don't mind waiting for them. I had ordered the same mould less the HP feature via a group buy on the Castboolits Forum, but after waiting for a year with no response from Miha as to when he would ever, if ever, begin machining blocks for that group buy, I dropped out of the group buy and got a Lyman 358156, which drops a lot of pretty and great shooting bullets very quickly, and with almost no culls.

I wonder how many people held out for that mould, and how long they had to wait, especially if they signed up for the group buy early like I did?

 

[Rodfac]

I've got the Mihec two-cavity version ... MP 360-156 ... is the number on the blocks. They work as well as my Lyman 358156 gc and at the same heat level to produce great quality bullets. Break-in was negligible; less than 25 bullets from the cleaned and preheated mold, far less than my old Lyman. Cull counts from either are about the same.

Accuracy is the same from either mold, from my Marlin 1894...13.5 gr of 2400 in Magnum brass will give 1-1/4" gps at 50 yds with a 2.5x scope mounted. I use the same load for my .357 Magnum's of S&W and Ruger make...grouping usually sub-2" from 25 yds. I size them all, rifle and hand gun right at 0.360" and get virtually zero leading.

It's a damn fine bullet no matter who made the mold. I use the same alloy too...usually straight WW's with a pinch of tin for good mold fill out.

And before I forget: nice report, great pics too...how did they shoot, accuracy wise, from your Marlin? Many thanks for the work you put into this.

Best Regards Rod

 

[Bucks Owin]

Miha Prevec builds the finest bullet mold available IMHO. Absolute works of art... 8)

 

[pps]

I've got the Mihec two-cavity version ... MP 360-156 ... is the number on the blocks. They work as well as my Lyman 358156 gc and at the same heat level to produce great quality bullets. Break-in was negligible; less than 25 bullets from the cleaned and preheated mold, far less than my old Lyman. Cull counts from either are about the same.

Accuracy is the same from either mold, from my Marlin 1894...13.5 gr of 2400 in Magnum brass will give 1-1/4" gps at 50 yds with a 2.5x scope mounted. I use the same load for my .357 Magnum's of S&W and Ruger make...grouping usually sub-2" from 25 yds. I size them all, rifle and hand gun right at 0.360" and get virtually zero leading.

It's a damn fine bullet no matter who made the mold. I use the same alloy too...usually straight WW's with a pinch of tin for good mold fill out.

And before I forget: nice report, great pics too...how did they shoot, accuracy wise, from your Marlin? Many thanks for the work you put into this.

Best Regards Rod

I'm getting pretty darn good accuracy, in line with what you describe. They feed quite nicely through the Marlin...absolutely no hang ups. The 358156 is a pretty versatile design.

I was tempted to warm up this load a bit, but it performs well enough that I'll probably leave the load as is for now.

 

[john guedry]

Bucks you got it right, that mold is a work of art.

 

[pps]

Miha Prevec builds the finest bullet mold available IMHO. Absolute works of art... 8)

Yes it is.

I caved in to the temptation to warm up this load. 15:1 lead:tin with a stout load of 2400 (still less than what Skeeter Skelton published) for 1390 fps from a 5" barrel and 1800fps from the marlin. No flattened primers, no leading, and cases almost fall out for extraction. Groups just as tight as the loads tested above.

 

[Paul B]

I think the one complaining about calling the bullet 358156 probably would have been happier if the OP has said a 358156 clone but no matter.
I like that bullet and use it a lot in .38 Spl. and .357 Mag. but only in handguns, not that there is anything wrong with a .357 Mag. rifle I just don't have one.
My comment are more in line with the bullet metal. A couple of years back I was given two buckets of wheel weights, a metal milk container of "cleaned" wheel weights plus a 100 plus pound sheet of pure lead. 8) A while back I ran a batch of 358156 bullets using his cleaned wheel weight. Cast up maybe 500 bullets after adding a bit of tin to get better fill out. Without checking hardness I lubed and sized and gas checked the whole batch. Then it dawned on me, "WOW! :shock: I never checked the BHN level of those bullet." Well to make part of the story short they ran 8 BHN on the LBT hardness tool. Probably OK in .38 Spl. loads but probably too soft for the .357. About this time a friend asked me to load up a box of .357 Mags for him. I said OK but the bullets I have are too soft and may lead your barrel badly. I told him I would "get the lead out" if that happened. He picked up the ammo and went shooting. Called me that night and said it was the most accurate ammo he'd ever shot. No leading at all. I called it a fluke but loaded up a box for my self and sure enough they were accurate in two .357's I have and absolutely no leading. Shot a couple into a couple of milk jugs full of wet fine sand and they gave nice expansion to a hair over half inch. As I recall, Elmer Keith said he shot a 16/1 ratio lead/tin mix in his full power .44 Mag. loads. Some have guessed that mix fan 10 or 11 on the BHN scale but somehow I think they might be too high. As soon as I find time (I'm working on several other projects at this time) I;ll run some up for the .44 Mag. and see if they work that swell in them.
Paul B.