44 Russian Smith & Wesson Peanut Mold
- Thread starter BMur
- Start date
Original Black powder bullet
Ideal (later Lyman) No.429251 was introduced as the "standard" bullet for .44 Russian in 1904 (Ideal Handbook No.16) and remained in Ideal and later Lyman catalogs until 1960. From c.1887/8 until 1904, No.429184 was their "standard" bullet for .44 Russian. In 1914, when Ideal was under Marlin ownership, bullet No.429383 was introduced as the new "standard" for .44 Special.
Jim[/QUOTE]
Hey Jim,
I remembered where I had seen the improved 3 lube groove 44 Russian bullet. It’s from an 1896 Major Distributor catalog in my collection. See photo.
It’s listed as The improved 44 Russian heavy. Notice no crimp groove? It’s a late black powder number. So I suppose Ideal was forced to modify this design when they decided to load the 44 Russian with Smokeless.
So The 44 Peanut mold still could have actually had this bullet manufactured.
I’m also pretty sure my Winchester bullet mold has this same bullet design.I’d have to dig it out.
I don’t know who designed this bullet. It might have been Smith & Wesson or Winchester.
It also might have actually been introduced a little earlier than 1896.
Murph
Ideal (later Lyman) No.429251 was introduced as the "standard" bullet for .44 Russian in 1904 (Ideal Handbook No.16) and remained in Ideal and later Lyman catalogs until 1960. From c.1887/8 until 1904, No.429184 was their "standard" bullet for .44 Russian. In 1914, when Ideal was under Marlin ownership, bullet No.429383 was introduced as the new "standard" for .44 Special.
Jim[/QUOTE]
Hey Jim,
I remembered where I had seen the improved 3 lube groove 44 Russian bullet. It’s from an 1896 Major Distributor catalog in my collection. See photo.
It’s listed as The improved 44 Russian heavy. Notice no crimp groove? It’s a late black powder number. So I suppose Ideal was forced to modify this design when they decided to load the 44 Russian with Smokeless.
So The 44 Peanut mold still could have actually had this bullet manufactured.
I’m also pretty sure my Winchester bullet mold has this same bullet design.I’d have to dig it out.
I don’t know who designed this bullet. It might have been Smith & Wesson or Winchester.
It also might have actually been introduced a little earlier than 1896.
Murph
Attachments
Last edited:
TripleLock
Member
Murph,
Winchester wasn't noted for innovations of bullets, particularly for cartridges not of Winchester origin. If your Winchester mould casts the three lube groove design, I'd bet dollars to donuts they were following someone else's lead.
Jim
Winchester wasn't noted for innovations of bullets, particularly for cartridges not of Winchester origin. If your Winchester mould casts the three lube groove design, I'd bet dollars to donuts they were following someone else's lead.
Jim
Can you post better photographs of the interface between the mold and handle on the inside? Yes, the cut that is across the grain is, of course, across the grain, but I might expect a better fit in this location of the grips and mold. Perhaps this is an optical illusion? Also, can you photograph the channel created inside the grips for the mold once the peanut handle is removed? Once the handle is removed, a photograph of the back side of the mold where it fits into the handle would be welcome.
Despite this criticism, the condition of the mold and its handles are consistent enough to suggest that their being together since manufacture is likely
Edit: Photographs of the inside channel were posted Ed in Post #3. I’m surprised that the channel ends in a curve and not a 90 degree angle.
Is the channel bare wood or is there finish in the wood in the channel? I couldn’t tell from the photograph.
Last edited:
Bullet design
No doubt Jim,
I have no idea who introduced this design but there aren’t many sources left are there. Finger is pointing at Smith & Wesson. It wasn’t around for very long, that’s for sure.
Murph
No doubt Jim,
I have no idea who introduced this design but there aren’t many sources left are there. Finger is pointing at Smith & Wesson. It wasn’t around for very long, that’s for sure.
Murph
Wood fit
Ian,
The peanut mold was a well thought out design. You can see the comparison photos between the same period Winchester mold with wood handles.
Notice the burning of the wood on the Winchester mold. This is due to the design completely surrounding the iron handle and by doing so, exposing the wood to higher temperatures then it can sustain.
The peanut mold avoids this exposure by limiting contact with the hot iron handle.
Also the curved dead end is for expansion of the metal when hot. A 90 degree cut at this location would likely have expanded too much and caused the wood to crack at that location. So, they definitely had their thinking caps on with this design.
Oh, the wood is unfinished and usually there is slight burning evident inside the channel at the expansion area of the curved handle. Not normally visible so not unsightly and honestly not enough to damage the wood.
Murph
Ian,
The peanut mold was a well thought out design. You can see the comparison photos between the same period Winchester mold with wood handles.
Notice the burning of the wood on the Winchester mold. This is due to the design completely surrounding the iron handle and by doing so, exposing the wood to higher temperatures then it can sustain.
The peanut mold avoids this exposure by limiting contact with the hot iron handle.
Also the curved dead end is for expansion of the metal when hot. A 90 degree cut at this location would likely have expanded too much and caused the wood to crack at that location. So, they definitely had their thinking caps on with this design.
Oh, the wood is unfinished and usually there is slight burning evident inside the channel at the expansion area of the curved handle. Not normally visible so not unsightly and honestly not enough to damage the wood.
Murph
Attachments
Last edited:
