H&G 68 vs 200 SWC

[Pistolero]

When is a .45 caliber "200 SWC", intended for the .45 ACP market "an H&G 68"?

Of course, the truth is "when it comes out of a mold made in San Diego by Messrs
Hensley and Gibbs" and only then. However in more than three decades of shooting
IPSC and loading .45 ACP for that, we always shot the commercial .45 200 SWCs, which we called
'H&G 68s', and some smaller commercial casters used real H&G molds, and come to think
of it, I have a few of those squirreled away from about 1981 or 2, ran across a box the other
day. I have no really solid info on how close the various "clones" are to the real thing.

In any case, while casting with a new LBT 200 SWC mold, I wondered how close it actually is to the
H&G 68. Having a couple of real H&G 68 molds, and some current commercial "200 SWC" bullets
to compare to, it seemed worth learning a bit.

Here is a picture. The one on the left is the new-to-me LBT 200 SWC, the middle one is the real H&G 68
and the one on the right is a commercial 200 SWC, obviously a beveled base design, as are most commercial
bullet - probably to avoid having us see what a FB design would look like if they made in on their Master
Casters at 50,000 bullets an hour or whatever they do.


The LBT obviously is pretty similar, with the shallower lube groove as the first thing that jumps out at me. The commercial bullet is clearly longer in the cylindrical portion, and longer overall. Let's compare dimensions. Dimensions are hard to get accurately, so most are rounded to the nearest "reasonable"
dimension, typically a few thousandths from what the best effort measurement shows. Meplat is
essentially impossible to measure because of the radius, so it is my best guess-timate with the dial calipers held up there.
Overall length and cylindrical length are pretty accurate.

...................................H&G 68____LBT 200 SWC___Comm. 200SWC BB
base band length...........0.125________0.100__________0.090
front band length...........0.090________0.105__________0.090
cylinder length...............0.300________0.310__________0.330
overall length.................0.632________0.625__________0.650
nose length (calc'd).......0.332________0.315__________0.330
meplat, approx...............0.260________0.260__________0.250 (larger radius)
max (base) nose diam....0.405________0.380__________0.378
weight, mine in WWt........208__________205___________205

(sorry for the odd periods and underscores, the site software is "helping me"
by eliminating all the spaces, ruining my table! Grr!)

So, what is significant? IMO, LOA is adjusted by the individual user, but nose length is
a key item for feeding, along with meplat diam. The H&G68 and commercial
version have nearly identical noses - critical to feeding, and the LBT isn't far
off the mark, 0.015 shorter. Meplat diameters are pretty much the same, with the
commercial bullet having a larger round-over at the juncture with the conical
shape. Cylinder length isn't much different, and even length overall is only a
total spread of 0.025 for the three.

I like the thick base band on the H&G 68, but I will bet that the accuracy will be
pretty similar with all three and very likely all three will feed through a self-loader
if loaded well with a good taper crimp.

I'll be shooting some of these for accuracy and see how they compare to each other
and with .451 and .452 sizing diameters.

If you have a 45 ACP 200 SWC, it would be interesting to have the dimensions of that one.

Bill

 

[Brad]

I wonder how close the MP version is to the HG? Or the Lee?

I can send some of both if you are interested. I don't shoot the Lee as I don't care for the bevel base. The MP version is a good shooter for me.

 

[yodogsandman]

 

[Creeker]

I cast an Accurate 45-200-H.

 

[Rick]

Here is SAECO 068 BB. 200 gr with CCW +2% Sn - Casts at .4543" - Bearing surface .280"/45% - Meplat .250"/55%.



Here is the Lachmiller version. 202 gr in CWW +2% Sn - Casts at .4539" - Bearing surface .330"/56% - Meplat .250"/55%



As with Bill the meplat dimensions are a reasonably close approximation on what is really a rounded meplat.

 

[Creeker]

These were from a commercial mould only marked 68BB.

 

[Brad]

Red lube is Lee 200 SWC, green lube is MP HG 68 clone.

The Lee has a much smaller meplat.

 

[Pistolero]

It looks like the more accurate clones keep the wider base band. I think Creeker has the mold that my
commercial bullet came from, or one of it's many identical twins. The Lachmiller looks a LOT like a 452460,
which is another really good bullet, albeit with a bit more chance of a failure to feed - which was no big
deal in 2700 Bullseye with the alibi rule, but death to your score in IPSC with the "if it jams, tough, you should
brought a better gun" rule.

I wonder if anyone remembers the Hornady FMJ H&G 68 clone? The first time I saw that it let me
know that IPSC had "made the big time", since the H&G 68 was closely associated with IPSC and they
were burned in huge quantities of H&G 68s in the ".45 ACP is king" days, and apparently Hornady wanted
a piece of the action. Do they still make the 200 CT bullet? (Combat Target was what I always assumed
it meant).

No doubt that the Lee has a significantly smaller meplat, but I thought it had a longer nose, too, but clearly
it does not. NOE's version seems like a fairly loose interpretation. The MP looks like a really good clone,
and the Accurate bullet looks great as a bullet AND as a pretty good interpretation of the H&G 68, with the
technical limitation (lathe boring) of not making a very square WC shoulder, which should be entirely
irrelevant (I think!). The SAECO looks a bit wider in the nose, and both bands seem narrower, reminds me
of the RCBS 200 SWC or the 201, never can keep them straight.

Interesting stuff, guys. Wouldn't be interesting to do a 10 rd group with each design from a Ransom
Rest with 3.8 TG or about the same BE, in a good match 1911 and let the holes fall where they may?
Probably need five 10 shot groups with each to "prove" anything, and then a different gun would likely
have a different result.......maybe. Only Mr. Target knows all the answers, and he only answers them
one group at a time.

Just checked Hornady's site, the .451 200FMJ-CT is marked "temporarily suspended" along
with the 185 SWC target bullet in .451.

Brad, thanks for the offer, not looking for MORE 200 SWCs, already have WAY too many.
Haven't even shown the various shapes which are marked 452460 on the mold, the RCBS
200 SWC or 201, and another genuine H&G 68 mold, and more. Been scratching this itch
for 35 yrs or more, still fiddling, although I do know more now than I did then. I think.

Bill

 

[Creeker]

The MP HG68 BB

 

[Ian]

MP 453-200-SWC, 4c brass, flat base

 

[Pistolero]

Looks really good, Ian. How do those feed? Looks like a tighter TC than I use.
And how are the groups?

Bill

 

[Ian]

That dummy round is crimped to .265" with my contemporary Redding TC die, and as far as I'm concerned is unshootable. The Lee die you sent me works great, as does the RCBS seat/crimp die I've been using for to do it in one operation since Job was a pup.

The MP SWC shoots fine, but I wish it had a nose with a larger radius like the ORIGINAL H&G moulds. That little bit makes a difference, gives the ogive more surface area to absorb shocks from glancing off the feed ramp and top of the chamber.

I've pretty much settled on powder coated Lee 452-230-TC bullets for all my .45s, they feed and function in everything from convertible revolvers to Glocks to Smith MP autos to 1911s to my AR carbine with HK USC magazines.

 

[Creeker]

The pictures below are of the Accurate 45-200H (left)

& the MP HG68 BB (right).​

.





​

 

[HHD WV]

Those sure are pretty bullets. I can't wait to see how they shoot. Harles

 

[358156 hp]

The original H&G 68BB had a much more pronounced bevel. My San Diego 68BB got bubba'd by a previous owner, and I'm going to end up having to turn the bevel base off & surface the blocks to clean his "workmanship" up.

 

[Brad]

What did Bubba do? Got pics? Maybe fivers wife will post them for you!

 

[Creeker]

Those sure are pretty bullets. I can't wait to see how they shoot. Harles

Sized them .452" but it might be a few before I can shoot them. Other stuff gotta be shot first.

 

[358156 hp]

What did Bubba do? Got pics? Maybe fivers wife will post them for you!

He tried to vent the top parting line between the blocks with a file. This is a common fix, as long as you only break the edges lightly, but when dealing with a bevel base mould, you need to use a little extra common sense. As a result, there are slight pie cuts in the base area. If I cast with low pressure, one cavity is sort of acceptable, and the other is unusable. We're going to cut the bevel base out, and surface the blocks to get some use out of it. It's not a horribly rare mould, so I can live with the repairs. I had posted pics of the old girl several months back, but I couldn't find them last night. They're still here somewhere. I deleted my originals when I upgraded my hard drive last winter.

 

[Pistolero]

The Accurate design seems very close to the MP, and both look a LOT like a real H&G 68.
Accurate doesn't have as square a shoulder, probably an issue with lathe boring, and unlikely
to hurt anything.
Never have tried to compare BB with square base for accuracy.

Has anyone done any serious checking out of this different design feature?

Bill

 

[358156 hp]

Let's see if I've gotten any better at posting pics. Remember, this is from my messed up H&G68BB San Diego mould. You'll see a bit of flashing at the base, and the results of an overzealous venting attempt by a previous owner.