fiver
Well-Known Member
Brad:
you missed the part where the 3.51 more expensive mold come with mold lube and a top punch.
now I dunno what top punches cost, but I'm sure it's more than 3 bucks.
I'm far from a LYMAN hater if you look in my reloading room and for sure look in my casting area you'll see how much I really like them.
they used to be that one notch above average and about one below custom stuff.
and they were consistent.
both of my 358477's pour the same diameters with the same alloy's.
my 429241's also do the same thing even though one is a 2 cavity and one is a 4 cavity mold.
I refer to them by full mold number from memory and rely on them to keep just about everything I own shooting.
it's just when I see bad I say it's bad.
if you wanna hear about my dislikes ask me about Remington.
you missed the part where the 3.51 more expensive mold come with mold lube and a top punch.
now I dunno what top punches cost, but I'm sure it's more than 3 bucks.
I'm far from a LYMAN hater if you look in my reloading room and for sure look in my casting area you'll see how much I really like them.
they used to be that one notch above average and about one below custom stuff.
and they were consistent.
both of my 358477's pour the same diameters with the same alloy's.
my 429241's also do the same thing even though one is a 2 cavity and one is a 4 cavity mold.
I refer to them by full mold number from memory and rely on them to keep just about everything I own shooting.
it's just when I see bad I say it's bad.
if you wanna hear about my dislikes ask me about Remington.
9
9.3X62AL
Guest
There is lots of "orange" on my reloading bench and casting table. Most of it is good stuff, but I'm careful about what I buy from whom. I expect Lyman moulds to be undersized, and will buy them for applications where a skinny-grooved barrel needs feeding--my Ruger 77R in 6.5 x 55 comes to mind in this context. I bought a Lyman #266469 about 3 years ago, its castings in 92/6/2 "clean up" a couple tenths over .265", which is right where things need to be for that rifle. It had been 5 years+ since I bought any Lyman moulds before the "469" came home.
I have had few needs for Lyman warrantee repair services or parts purchases. They did a bang-up job on an OLD steel Lyman receiver I sent them for refit, total cost about $22 and 3-week turnaround. Mould parts (screws and sprue plates, mostly) were at full retail but they usually had them--a thing not true of MidwayUSA or Graf's. There are thicker/better aftermarket sprue plates out there, but the OEM stuff has served all right so far. I would rate Lyman's CS as "decent" overall, but it is no RCBS/Huntington's or Ruger.
To place the Lyman situation in a more fair context.......not many makers or vendors of firearms or their accessories have been especially helpful to their customer base over the past 8-10 years. Lyman is far from the worst in this regard. We know as long-time hobbyists that Lyman is perfectly capable of producing quailty mould blocks, because they have done so in the past and still excell at making other products in their line that do fine work. There is no real excuse for their uneven mould quality other than lack of attention to detail or failure to retain skilled workers. BOTH are corporate failings easily solved--pay for the skill, and fang for the screw-ups. It ain't rocket science.
I have had few needs for Lyman warrantee repair services or parts purchases. They did a bang-up job on an OLD steel Lyman receiver I sent them for refit, total cost about $22 and 3-week turnaround. Mould parts (screws and sprue plates, mostly) were at full retail but they usually had them--a thing not true of MidwayUSA or Graf's. There are thicker/better aftermarket sprue plates out there, but the OEM stuff has served all right so far. I would rate Lyman's CS as "decent" overall, but it is no RCBS/Huntington's or Ruger.
To place the Lyman situation in a more fair context.......not many makers or vendors of firearms or their accessories have been especially helpful to their customer base over the past 8-10 years. Lyman is far from the worst in this regard. We know as long-time hobbyists that Lyman is perfectly capable of producing quailty mould blocks, because they have done so in the past and still excell at making other products in their line that do fine work. There is no real excuse for their uneven mould quality other than lack of attention to detail or failure to retain skilled workers. BOTH are corporate failings easily solved--pay for the skill, and fang for the screw-ups. It ain't rocket science.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
One last thought, I guess I would have to say that their moulds just are not "dependable" as to their size. I shot my first cast bullet benchrest record with the Lyman 311644. Mine would make a .301" nose and .311" driving band with linotype, just perfect for the '03 I would shooting in Mod-Iron class. Everyone panned the design and hated the bullet, but for me it work great in that rifle, especially at the 200 yard line.
Maven
Well-Known Member
#311644 was indeed a great CB design, Ric. Even though mine (made in 1998) never cast larger than .3095" (WW + !% Sn), it was quite accurate out of my Win. Mod. 70 "Westerner" (blind mag.). You've pretty much summed up the problem with many Lyman molds: inconsistent dimensions. However, their RB molds show no greater variation in diameter than anyone else's.
Klaus
Member
Hi Gent`s,
regarding this Lyman Mould Article i think i got another issue.
I have an older Lyman 457132 Postell Mould in use.
This Mould drops nice looking Bullets with Dia. 458/.458,5
Head measured .448
Alloy 1:30 Toprooflead / Tin
I`ve been happy with this Bullet and was looking for a Brothermould to speed up my casting process a bit.
But unfornatunately all my behavior failed because the Bullet weight are not the same.
The standard 457132 drops with 530/535 grs
But my Mould drops with 490/491 grs.
I have done some investigation and found out that Lyman had run this Mould with 415 grs,475 grs and 535grs but not with 490 grs
have already post this "Problem" in other Forums but got no final info for me
Maybe here is somebody who have an explanation
Klaus
regarding this Lyman Mould Article i think i got another issue.
I have an older Lyman 457132 Postell Mould in use.
This Mould drops nice looking Bullets with Dia. 458/.458,5
Head measured .448
Alloy 1:30 Toprooflead / Tin
I`ve been happy with this Bullet and was looking for a Brothermould to speed up my casting process a bit.
But unfornatunately all my behavior failed because the Bullet weight are not the same.
The standard 457132 drops with 530/535 grs
But my Mould drops with 490/491 grs.
I have done some investigation and found out that Lyman had run this Mould with 415 grs,475 grs and 535grs but not with 490 grs
have already post this "Problem" in other Forums but got no final info for me
Maybe here is somebody who have an explanation
Klaus
fiver
Well-Known Member
lyman has strayed from their original designs so many times it's hard to know which mold someone is talking about even if you have the same number.
I have different iterations of a few of their molds with the same number on them.
like Ian said go to a custom mold cutter to get what you want 20 bucks one way or the other to guarantee diameter and roundness as well as correct weight and lube groove design is money well spent in the long run.
I have different iterations of a few of their molds with the same number on them.
like Ian said go to a custom mold cutter to get what you want 20 bucks one way or the other to guarantee diameter and roundness as well as correct weight and lube groove design is money well spent in the long run.
quicksylver
Well-Known Member
lyman has strayed from their original designs so many times it's hard to know which mold someone is talking about even if you have the same number.
You got it Fiver !
When I got my new Lyman 311332 and saw how bad it was out of alignment and heavy the bullet was I asked Al if he could do a run on that bullet.
After he said yes I went back to my old books and sure enough the original 311322 was the smaller brother of the 311334, but the bullet cast with the Lyman 31332 mold was
actually the early 311334.
You got it Fiver !
When I got my new Lyman 311332 and saw how bad it was out of alignment and heavy the bullet was I asked Al if he could do a run on that bullet.
After he said yes I went back to my old books and sure enough the original 311322 was the smaller brother of the 311334, but the bullet cast with the Lyman 31332 mold was
actually the early 311334.
I like the older Lyman..and especially the even older Ideal moulds. Funny thing...a few years ago, I called Lyman in hopes of finding a manufacturing date for a mould I have..they couldn't help me..but when the nice gal on the line found out I had older Lyman and Ideal moulds..she got real excited! Told me there were a few fellows there who would be willing to exchange serious deniero for them. Now thats funny..here's a company over 100 years in business equiped with up to date machine tools and they get real excited over some 75 to 100 year+ moulds.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
Everybody appreciates quality.
I spoke with Bill Loos..at one time he owned just about every Ideal/Lyman mould there was..He told me he new a fellow who worked at the Lyman plant when they were thinning out and "upgrading" their mould line. Said there were gons filled to overflowing waiting to be hauled out for scrap...mould cherrys!
yodogsandman
Well-Known Member
The only problem I've ever had with Chinese mfg items is if it's size is in "mm".
L
Lost Dog
Guest
Well I've heard all the horror stories about Lyman, but no one spoke badly about Lee. Personally I have little use for Lee items. Just today I took the second bottom pour furnace to the trash. No, it wasn't a leakage problem like some folks discuss. It was constantly clogged and I had enough. I tossed it. Went back to an open top furnace made for dipping.
There's a shoebox filled with Lee moulds that have failed me with their poor heat retention and disgusting misalignment crap. Their "Factory Crimp" dies are fine on jacketed stuff but crush cast rounds into undersized waste of time. Loading dies are often over bored or polished too much making them oversized and thus useless. Too much plastic and aluminum in most of their gear. For many years I've tried to like Lee's stuff but more times than not I've simply been let down and ultimately disappointed in the end.
There's a shoebox filled with Lee moulds that have failed me with their poor heat retention and disgusting misalignment crap. Their "Factory Crimp" dies are fine on jacketed stuff but crush cast rounds into undersized waste of time. Loading dies are often over bored or polished too much making them oversized and thus useless. Too much plastic and aluminum in most of their gear. For many years I've tried to like Lee's stuff but more times than not I've simply been let down and ultimately disappointed in the end.