H&G 68 vs 200 SWC
- Thread starter Pistolero
- Start date
358156 hp
At large, whereabouts unknown.
A trip through the lathe to remove the bevel should clean up the worst of the finning at the base. It appears to be more pronounced because ol' bubba didn't think the project out before breaking out his farriers file. Venting the blocks should of course be so minute so as to be practically unnoticeable. Then it's just surfacing the blocks, and the sprue plate. I hate to modify an older H&G mould, but it beats throwing it away. Fortunately, H&G 68 moulds are not yet especially rare.
9
9.3X62AL
Guest
Cool thread and subject.
I do NOT like a beveled base on any bullet. I have a few of them, and do use them, but if given a choice in the matter I would always opt out of the design feature. All that said, my Lee clone-ish interpretation the H&G #68 has that feature. I've never understood the rationale for the element. My newest Lee mould--their plain-base 250 grain .375" rifle design--also has a beveled base. Profoundly disappointing, that. let the Carnauba Red get over-warm in the 4500, and whatta lubey mess. The place for a boat-tail is on a Sierra MatchKing or my Triumph 170CC.
I do NOT like a beveled base on any bullet. I have a few of them, and do use them, but if given a choice in the matter I would always opt out of the design feature. All that said, my Lee clone-ish interpretation the H&G #68 has that feature. I've never understood the rationale for the element. My newest Lee mould--their plain-base 250 grain .375" rifle design--also has a beveled base. Profoundly disappointing, that. let the Carnauba Red get over-warm in the 4500, and whatta lubey mess. The place for a boat-tail is on a Sierra MatchKing or my Triumph 170CC.
Ian
Notorious member
Makes them easier to seat. Less damage to the critical base angle when shipped commercially. Neither are valid reasons in my book, I share your distaste for the feature. The only sensible reason to have a beveled base that I've found is when powder coating and standing them up to cure in the oven, because any minute coating "flashing" on the part contacting the foil or parchment paper is in an inconsequential location.
358156 hp
At large, whereabouts unknown.
Bevel bases were especially popular with bullseye shooters. Many of them did not resize their cases, and the bevel base made it possible for them to flare case mouths very slightly, reprime the case and load it. A lot of the bullseye type bullets in the old days also cast oversize, wadcutters were especially well known for casting in the .360s+. Likely by design. These were also the pre-carbide sizer days, and steel sizers would slightly taper the cases. Most carbide sizers over (under) size handgun cases. There are so many different ways to accomplish the same results that the options were, and remain almost endless.
oscarflytyer
Well-Known Member
I have what apparently is now called the MP 453-200-SWC. Got it in a group buy from Mihec. All I can say is, it feeds/shoots great in any and all 1911's I have fed it to - 3 of mine, and a buddy's - + a 45 revolver. Push it by 5.0 grn of Bullseye and backing off my next batch to 4.5 BE. Don't expect to see any diff at all.
btw - was my very first ever mold, and I don't particulary care for a bb bullet...
btw - was my very first ever mold, and I don't particulary care for a bb bullet...
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
I have noted several short notes in Guns and Ammo by Patrick Sweeney, another old-time IPSC shooter,
about the H&G 68. He comments that the most important things to remember are "1.250 and 0.468, set the
LOA to 1.250 and the taper crimp to .468...."
Yep, pretty much my view, too.
I like about .001 or .002 tighter on the TC, and a few guns may like 1.255 or even 1.260, but
Sweeney's numbers pretty much match what I learned loading several hundred thousand of
these bullets for competition where there are NO alibis.
Sweeney reports that Bill Wilson says that, properly loaded, the H&G 68 is a MORE
reliable a feeder than 230 military ball. I don't think I would claim that, but I have found it to
be essentially 100% reliable for feeding, if loaded correctly in a properly put together 1911.
Bill
about the H&G 68. He comments that the most important things to remember are "1.250 and 0.468, set the
LOA to 1.250 and the taper crimp to .468...."
Yep, pretty much my view, too.
I like about .001 or .002 tighter on the TC, and a few guns may like 1.255 or even 1.260, but
Sweeney's numbers pretty much match what I learned loading several hundred thousand of
these bullets for competition where there are NO alibis.
Sweeney reports that Bill Wilson says that, properly loaded, the H&G 68 is a MORE
reliable a feeder than 230 military ball. I don't think I would claim that, but I have found it to
be essentially 100% reliable for feeding, if loaded correctly in a properly put together 1911.
Bill
oscarflytyer
Well-Known Member
Originally use COAL of 1.250". Now use 1.225" for all my new/tight bbls and works great. My crimp is .468 or .469 I think
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
Those are really tight throated bbls. I used 1.260 for decades until I got my first Dan Wesson
1911.....they need 1.250 and the other guns don't care if it is .010 shorter. Even my old
Wilson Combat LE Comp is happy with 1.260, but apparently a lot of other folks, possibly
with Barstow barrels, liked the 1.250 length, even back in the early 1980s.
Bill
1911.....they need 1.250 and the other guns don't care if it is .010 shorter. Even my old
Wilson Combat LE Comp is happy with 1.260, but apparently a lot of other folks, possibly
with Barstow barrels, liked the 1.250 length, even back in the early 1980s.
Bill
oscarflytyer
Well-Known Member
Bill - the two current tight throats are both Rem R1s. And the 1.225" will also work in my Ruger BH Conv 45 ACP cylinder.