Cliff,
Yes you need to get it listed that way, so people will find it in all of the clutter.
As for John, I looked the other day and I think there is only one attributed to him. You might want to still give him attribution even though it is a improved version. If the folks who did the improvement want to be listed you could say "Improved by XXXX". There are also variations on his .44 bullet on there that need to give attribution. A lot of people would gravitate towards those designs if they knew those were his. John contributed a lot and never asked for very little, he deserves the recognition..
I can't believe how many total designs are in the catalog now, it's insane, how would anyone choose?
Thank you for sharing this. One of the things I want to do is create a list for us we can put in the Dark Arts section that will list the successful bullets suitable for BP. John never had the success he wanted with the Mav Dutchman which I believe actually started his design work looking for an accurate long range .44 WCF bullet. I'm not sure we can get a Mav Dutchman analog unless we get Lee or someone else to do it again.
And I agree with you on the bearing surface at the base. If you have access to older .38 Grease wagon bullets you will see they had a shorter bearing which "grew" longer at some point of time. Further more the Mold we could buy was not exactly the same as the original design, however I like the smaller diameter nose on the bullets I was getting 10 years ago and 2 years ago. They seem to feed well, maybe it's not an issue I have never run tests with the different variations side by side.
Thank you again for adding this.
~Mako
Mako, you could say this bullet is the 32-20 version for Johns 43-215C in relation to the 44-40. I'll probably contact Tom and see if he will add a description to it so people realize what it is. People are buying the original version John first put in the catalog without realizing we did an updated version.