Lyman, 2 cav., 452630 arrived today.

[Ben]

I was more than a bit apprehensive about the mould casting " sub - size ".
My experiences with the " Newer " Lyman moulds has not been good.

My concerns were wiped away when I cast about 20 nice looking , well filled out bullets with my 40 yr. old ACWW's. I put my mike on them, they mike .4535 ". Nice and round.

This mould design seems to be a clone of the H&G # 68.
I have no idea how close it is, but it certainly is similar in appearance.

These should work well in my 1911 , 45 ACP and my Ruger Convertible, 45 ACP.

 

[fiver]

the nose is shorter and stouter than the 68's.
you'll like this one no problem, I got rid of my 68 clone from Magma Engineering when I figure out all of my 45's shoot [function and group] this one just as well, and the mold makes 4 bullets not 2 at a time.

 

[Ben]

Great,

I'm feeling like the $40 ( shipped ) for this one may have been $ well spent.
The bullets don't stick.
This is a very smooth casting mould.
I'm a happy camper.

Ben

 

[S Mac]

Looks really similar to the 68 to me but I didn't think the 68 was a bevel base?

 

[358156 hp]

H&G 68s could be ordered either way. Most copies are generally standard base, but there are some advantages to BB as well. As long as you don't use an in and out sizer of course. My last two H&G 68s were BB.

 

[S Mac]

Didn't know that, thanks.

 

[Ian]

H&G 69 might have been the plain base, or the other way around, can't remember for sure.

Ben, Lyman didn't start having really bad problems with undersized and misaligned blocks as a "more often than not" thing until about 2007.

 

[Ben]

I can't say about the exact date that their quality control headed south, but I have been the unfortunate owner of a few of those moulds.

Basically ship ballast.

Ben

 

[358156 hp]

My BB moulds were all marked the same 68BB. H&G 69 is a 150 gr .270. There were also heavier versions of the 68 that were around 220 & 230 gr. This was primarily done by increasing the length of the base band. I've never seen one myself...

Swiped from Tom Dugas' site- "#69 - .270 Winchester. 150 grains at 1.075" length. Gas check base "Changed nose shape to #99 style, September 26, 1941" One grease groove, one crimp groove, no driving band forward of crimp groove. Long curved point nose."

 

[fiver]

woah...
I would swear I have seen a plain base 68 marked as a 69 maybe mistaken by the poster or myself but I have seen that reference before.

I'd bet wasalmon or Charles knows?

 

[Wasalmonslayer]

Sorry no help from me guys I have never seen a 69 mold in the wild.

 

[358156 hp]

woah...
I would swear I have seen a plain base 68 marked as a 69 maybe mistaken by the poster or myself but I have seen that reference before.

I'd bet wasalmon or Charles knows?

The SAECO # 69 is a .452 SWC, and the SAECO #68 appears to be a BB version of the same bullet. They are both H&G 68ish.

 

[fiver]

well that couldn't possibly confuse me none.

 

[358156 hp]

well that couldn't possibly confuse me none.

Not at all. Me either...

 

[Ian]

Me neither, especially considering the fact that H&G catalogs the #68 twice, second one available in three weights and two different kinds of bevel bases as well as a flat base. That's something like 11 different bullets with one number.

 

[fiver]

plus the Magma engineering copy of the H&G and the LEE copy of one of them.
I guess it don't matter a whole lot, they all seem to do the job pretty well.