Tried my "Beagled" Saeco RG-4 @ 50 yds.

[Maven]

All, My almost new Saeco/Cramer RG-4 mold casts like a dream, but alas, is undersized for all of my .30cals. (.3085" body, .2995" nose). After "Beagling" it, the dimensions improved enough (.3095" body, .301" nose) to try it in my .30-06. I sized 22 of them to .309" (die barely touched the CB's), seated them to 3.47" OAL over 18.5gr. WC 820 (#11 rotor in my Lyman pistol powder measure) in unfired WCC '52 cases. The results @ 50 yds., truly made my day since 20 went into a 7/8" x 1 1/16" hole. Two fliers (cold bbl. & operator error) opened things up, but I'm tickled with the results. I'll next try the "as cast," i.e., smaller version, to see if it's as accurate. Btw, 5 of the WCC '52 cases had burn-throughs ~3/16" above the web, which prompted me to trash the remaining ones. I don't know whether this was a quality control problem or simply a case of embrittlement, but if you have old brass on hand, be especially careful with it.

[beagle]

Sounds like you got that old RG4 cooking. Jumptrap had one and the dimensions on it were horrible. Think it was a toolroom sample. We never did get it to shoot.

If you need .30/06 brass, PM me./beagle

[Maven]

beagle, Thanks for the generous offer on the '06 brass, but I'll pass for now since my present stock seems adequate. As for the RG-4 and Saeco's quality control, I'm a bit surprised that two such molds are undersized because their reputation suggests otherwise. Is it possible that older molds were cut smaller? (The Redding catalog lists the present incarnation of RG-4 as .309".) This too is surprising since the RG-4 design was the darling of .30cal. CBA shooters in the late 70's and early '80's.

[Bullshop]

beagle, Thanks for the generous offer on the '06 brass, but I'll pass for now since my present stock seems adequate. As for the RG-4 and Saeco's quality control, I'm a bit surprised that two such molds are undersized because their reputation suggests otherwise. Is it possible that older molds were cut smaller? (The Redding catalog lists the present incarnation of RG-4 as .309".) This too is surprising since the RG-4 design was the darling of .30cal. CBA shooters in the late 70's and early '80's.

I got a very old saeco mold last winter in an estate sale. I bought all the boolit molds and swaging supplies and still have only gotten to a few of the molds. The Saeco I thought was going to be the rg-4 but turned out not so. It looks the same but is a bit fatter at .3145" bands and .304" bore ride at 180gn in ww. This mold has no vent lines on the block faces only on the tops. The sprue plate is marked Saeco over custom precision over NO - HB170. This must have been for the metric 30s. It is the same quality we expect to see from Saeco. Do they still show this one in the catolog?
BIC/BS

[sundog]

BS, sounds like a very likely candidate for .303 Brit. sundog

[Maven]

Redding's 2005 catalog shows #301 with this description, "196gr. TCGC...Duplicates Original (sic) RG4." It's to be used with a .309" sizing die.
Btw, Redding/Saeco designs do change slightly over time. E.g., my friend Vly's Saeco #315 (slightly tapered Loverin body, TC nose) has a shorter gas check shank than the one I have, but I haven't seen any difference in performance because of it. Moreover, it's now called #305, is to be sized to .311" and is for the .303 British. At least they got the dimensions right on #305 aka #315 as mine casts ~.3115" and can be used in most of my .30cal. rifles.

[9.3X62AL]

A .309" 30 caliber boolit as dropped from the cavities is not much use to me. My 30-06 (Win 70/post-64/pushfeed) has a .311" throat, as did the 1948 version it replaced. My 30-30 (pre-AE/post-64/M-94) has a .310" throat. The Marlin M-62 in 30 Carbine couldn't use the boolit anyway, but it has a .310" throat and MG rifling.

Thankfully, my primary 30 caliber molds all fall out fat--.311" plus. It seems to me that unless your clientele consists of target shooters with rifles chambered with tight tolerances, a mold maker should have the majority of his production adhere to a .311"-.312" drive band dimension.

[Vly]

Maven - A mould with those smaller dimensions may work well in the Swiss. Did you try that yet? The smaller nose will let you seat it out. My Lyman 311332 has a small nose and works real good in the Swiss.

[Maven]

Vly, Unfortunately the body is a bit on the small side for the Swiss. I measured an "unbeagled" one again today and it's barely .3085." It may work in the K-31, but I've got better CB's (#315, #311466, the Lee wadcutter, even #311291) available for it. "Beagling" works, in that it increased both nose & body dimensions enough for me to try it in my '06 with excellent results, but I had too many culls to suit me. I wasn't thrilled with the glue seepage either.

[BruceB]

Like a lot of us here, I seem to be plagued with .30-caliber moulds throwing undersized boolits. Particularly in designs with land-riding noses, this is a critical failing.

I have a recently-acquired SAECO .30-cal which looks a great deal like the RG-4, but I disremember its number (and I'm at work just now). It is also undersize with WW alloy, just as Maven describes his RG-4. I have many others in the same boat.

WHEN will the mould makers EVER get the message that "slightly oversize" is vastly superior to"'nominal" or even somewhat undersize??? A bit larger than needed offers a caster a range of options to play with. Undersize moulds on the other hand require heroic and largely undesireable measures to obtain useable bullets, or else the discarding of the mould. Beagling is a great technique for salvaging some utility from undersize moulds, but it's a stopgap...a very useful one, mind you, but still a stopgap.

Most of my .30 rifles thrive on bullets of around .311", although my Krag seems to like .309 just about as well. Many of my .30 moulds, of varying vintage and manufacture, do not cast bullets that large.

I do hope Lyman is listening on this site. Maybe we can get some properly-sized moulds in the future. It's disheartening to find that a much-desired mould, when finally located, will not perform the function for which we got it.

[Maven]

Prior to sending my mold away to be enlarged, I cast ~50 "unbeagled" bullets with it (.308" body, .2995" nose) just to see how they would shoot. Btw, they were sized in a .309" H & I die, which left them untouched. Today I finally had a chance to test them. Powder & primers were as before: 18.5gr. WC 820 (thrown), WLR & Fed. 210 primers. However, the narrower RG-4's needed to be seated to 3.53" (v. 3.47" for the beagled ones) in order for the body to be engraved by the rifling. The nose wasn't engraved at all. The results @ 50 yds. weren't bad considering the poor CB:bore relationship, but 18 unbeagled CB's went into 1" x 1.25" with a flier (my fault) opening the group to 1" x 1.5". This isn't too bad, but I seriously doubt they'd have done as well @ 100 yds.

[44man]

Maven, if you have cases that old and that stretched, it is no wonder you have a problem getting groups. The capacity of that brass is so different from stretching that it is like mixing every make all together.
I'm an old cheapskate, but I think you beat me out.

[Maven]

44man, I think you misread my posts. Firstly, the groups were impressive for the "beagled" RG-4's, a bit less so for the ones I fired today. Secondly, although the cases were WCC '52, they were unfired until my original post (5/19?). Third, after the burn-throughs near the web of the aforementioned cases, I squashed the necks shut and tossed them into my recycling box (for brass). Oddly enough, I got no fliers in spite of that problem. In fact, I like mil. brass and in 20 yrs. of using it, have had very few failures. With CB loads (midrange for me), it will last for up to 15 reloadings. Btw, I picked 60 once-fired Rem. & Fed. '06 cases out of the brass bbl. at the range today. Cheap? I don't think so. Thrifty, you bet!

[Bass Ackward]

Cheap? I don't think so. Thrifty, you bet!

Paul,

I .... a .... gotta write that down.