Which mold material? How many cavities?

358156 hp

At large, whereabouts unknown.
Hello Jim, and welcome. I've been reading and watching your thread with great interest. Fiver makes a couple of excellent points in post #29 that I'd like to expand on a bit. Iron moulds are often preferred by long range shooters for their consistency when casting. Once they are up to "operating" temperature and your alloy temps are stable, they can produce nearly identical bullets all day long once you get your rhythm down. I used to shoot handgun silhouette ages ago and found my greatest weight and overall quality consistency with iron moulds. I do have some aluminum moulds, but they are for 9mm class calibers, and are generally 4 cavity or larger. 9mm & such are rarely required to shoot sub-MOA so their quality is only secondary. Brass is a good option, but I've found them considerably fussier to work with until you break their spirit.

Long range buffalo rifle cast shooters I've know in the past all seemed to prefer single cavity iron moulds, cast by ladle. They also commonly used different weight bullets for different distances, the longer the distance, the heavier the bullet. For long range, bullet design is critical. MOA at 100 yards is a good start, but that particular design may not be anywhere close to that performance at 200 yards or beyond. Mass produced moulds like RCBS, Lyman, and the economical LEE probably won't deliver the performance you need. You'll also want very consistent alloy as you stretch your range. I don't remember if you specified which alloy you're using, but bitter experience has taught me that sometimes foundry sourced alloy is worth it.

If I may, there is a group of great guys I interact with occasionally that could certainly expand on the specifics better than I can. I confess to being a bit out of my league beyond the actual bullet related mechanics, so I'm not making any recommendations outside of my comfort zone. If you haven't contacted them yet you might visit the forum at American Single Shot Rifle Assn. at https://www.assra.com/
 

BudHyett

Active Member
In short with the molds I own:
  • Brass four-cavity: Works great but very tiring due to weight.
  • Brass single-cavity: Works great.
  • Aluminum four-cavity: Works great.
  • Aluminum two-cavity: Works great.
  • Aluminum three-cavity: Works great.
  • Meehanite two-cavity: Works great.
  • Meehanite four-cavity: Works great, but tiring due to weight.
  • Iron two-cavity: Works great once the temperature is stabilized.
  • Iron four-cavity: Works great once the temperature is stabilized, but tiring due to weight.
The qualifier is most molds have a personality. Some molds work better within a temperature range, you must work with them to establish their preferred temperature range. I like to work two molds at a time for productivity, but sometimes have to do only one because the molds I want to use work best at greatly different temperatures.
 

JonB

Halcyon member
I ahve found that most of the "well established and known" is based upon using the Holy Grail Black Powder, not smokeless, and I am running Accurate 5744. In addition, pretty much ALL the "well estbalished and known" is based on using conventional lubricants, and especially SPG, while I really want to use powder coating.

So, I am finding that the "well established and known" is not very helpful to me!

Hello Jim, and welcome. I've been reading and watching your thread with great interest. Fiver makes a couple of excellent points in post #29 that I'd like to expand on a bit. Iron moulds are often preferred by long range shooters for their consistency when casting. Once they are up to "operating" temperature and your alloy temps are stable, they can produce nearly identical bullets all day long once you get your rhythm down. I used to shoot handgun silhouette ages ago and found my greatest weight and overall quality consistency with iron moulds. I do have some aluminum moulds, but they are for 9mm class calibers, and are generally 4 cavity or larger. 9mm & such are rarely required to shoot sub-MOA so their quality is only secondary. Brass is a good option, but I've found them considerably fussier to work with until you break their spirit.

Long range buffalo rifle cast shooters I've know in the past all seemed to prefer single cavity iron moulds, cast by ladle. They also commonly used different weight bullets for different distances, the longer the distance, the heavier the bullet. For long range, bullet design is critical. MOA at 100 yards is a good start, but that particular design may not be anywhere close to that performance at 200 yards or beyond. Mass produced moulds like RCBS, Lyman, and the economical LEE probably won't deliver the performance you need. You'll also want very consistent alloy as you stretch your range. I don't remember if you specified which alloy you're using, but bitter experience has taught me that sometimes foundry sourced alloy is worth it.

If I may, there is a group of great guys I interact with occasionally that could certainly expand on the specifics better than I can. I confess to being a bit out of my league beyond the actual bullet related mechanics, so I'm not making any recommendations outside of my comfort zone. If you haven't contacted them yet you might visit the forum at American Single Shot Rifle Assn. at https://www.assra.com/
Jim,
358156hp stated what I would have liked to say, but I don't have all that in my head.
Let me put it more concisely (that's how my brain works).
While some of the "well established and known" practices of Long Range Buffalo Rifle cast shooters won't cross over to you and your PC bullets pushed with AA5744, the "actual bullet related mechanics" will likely cross over to your 600 meter shooting.
that's my 2¢
 

fiver

Well-Known Member
in some of the psotings on the forum that many forum members think Lee was wrong about this

he wasn't wrong.
he was quoting the shear strength that engineers use,, improperly for the context.
it sorta works for what we do, just because lead is soft and malleable until it's brittle,,, but it's wrong thinking and it's sucked in more new guys than a vacuum.

so what you have to start thinking about is not BHN, but alloy makeup, and what the parts and pieces of the alloy will bring to the table for your situation.
 

fiver

Well-Known Member
alright so lets see what we got to work with here.

a 45-70 with your average every day saami throat [one that's very short, and fortunately cut by everyone from browning to the guys in the khyber pass]
it's a known [and cussed] quantity, and it's been measured from all 40 directions,, no need to work on anything other than the assumption you got the same one.

you wanna use Powder coat [shrug] that's fine.
so you now have to shift your thinking back to the alloy makeup once again.
see what's working for the powder coat guys... low content alloy, and sizing closer to bore diameter.

your gonna burn 5744 powder,,, whatever your just gonna have to find where it doesn't do what you want it to anymore, and re-think the launch situation.
no big deal, the manuals are full of loads using everything from bulls-eye to 4895.
one of them isn't gonna slap your bullet around like a hungover pimp making collections on Sunday morning.
 

358156 hp

At large, whereabouts unknown.
he wasn't wrong.
he was quoting the shear strength that engineers use,, improperly for the context.
it sorta works for what we do, just because lead is soft and malleable until it's brittle,,, but it's wrong thinking and it's sucked in more new guys than a vacuum.

so what you have to start thinking about is not BHN, but alloy makeup, and what the parts and pieces of the alloy will bring to the table for your situation.
Yes. Alloy strength is not synonymous with alloy hardness. If fact excessive hardness actually makes lead based alloys brittle.
 

Mitty38

Well-Known Member
Richard Lee has done a lot for our gun related community.
I used his methods when I first started. Got me started and going good enough to give a base line. Something that worked good enough to refine my skills with.

But then for folks like us that are not herd animals, there comes a time to learn more, to grow.
You either outgrow his teachings and some of his equipment, or just remain stagnant.
 
Last edited:

Rally

NC Minnesota
It seems that mould storage is a product of your environment. I live in bog country, and could reach two lakes and two running creeks with a .22 short. Anything gets a coat of oil, grease, or wax, when not in use, I even wax my log chains. All my moulds are coated in synthetic two cycle oil when not in use. I have a small “Mr. Coffee” I get hot water from , with lemon dish washing detergent and a toothbrush, to wash my moulds before use, ( I rarely drink coffee), then wash in alcohol before use.
I’ve come to believe what a mould is made from is like asking one’s preference for blonde, redheads, or brunettes, just read the posts above! I have several of all of them, some disliked by others that I love, they all have their quirks. Personally, I loathe casting with two cavity aluminum moulds, find them quite “cumbersome”, but cast many 7/8 oz Lee slugs, and find them disposable after a couple years use. Like CW posted above, a well made brass mould to me, is a work of art, and the weight is not a problem. Unlike CW, I get along just fine with NOE’s RG4 moulds. Lol, blonde, brunette.
Welcome to the forum.
 

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
he wasn't wrong.
he was quoting the shear strength that engineers use,, improperly for the context.
it sorta works for what we do, just because lead is soft and malleable until it's brittle,,, but it's wrong thinking and it's sucked in more new guys than a vacuum.

so what you have to start thinking about is not BHN, but alloy makeup, and what the parts and pieces of the alloy will bring to the table for your situation.
That's the most diplomatic way of terming it I've seen.
 

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
alright so lets see what we got to work with here.

a 45-70 with your average every day saami throat [one that's very short, and fortunately cut by everyone from browning to the guys in the khyber pass]
it's a known [and cussed] quantity, and it's been measured from all 40 directions,, no need to work on anything other than the assumption you got the same one.

you wanna use Powder coat [shrug] that's fine.
so you now have to shift your thinking back to the alloy makeup once again.
see what's working for the powder coat guys... low content alloy, and sizing closer to bore diameter.

your gonna burn 5744 powder,,, whatever your just gonna have to find where it doesn't do what you want it to anymore, and re-think the launch situation.
no big deal, the manuals are full of loads using everything from bulls-eye to 4895.
one of them isn't gonna slap your bullet around like a hungover pimp making collections on Sunday morning.
He's talking about fit. FIT is KING in this game. Bhn is a part of fit, but it's not numero uno! Do a search for fit here and I think you will find a thread about "What is Fit?" or "Define Fit" something like that. It'll explain it.
 

JonB

Halcyon member
He's talking about fit. FIT is KING in this game. Bhn is a part of fit, but it's not numero uno! Do a search for fit here and I think you will find a thread about "What is Fit?" or "Define Fit" something like that. It'll explain it.
I posted a link to Ian's Article #4, bullet fit and design, in the 3rd comment of this thread.
 

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Sorry I missed that Jon. That'll make it easier for him though. There are other threads running along the same lines too.
I posted a link to Ian's Article #4, bullet fit and design, in the 3rd comment of this thread.