Lyman Mold Dimensions, Alloy Choices, and Beagling

[Bigslug]

A common rant topic seems to be Lyman molds casting small. This and the recent Beagling tape thread got me pondering. . .

My understanding is that Lyman specs all of their molds for Lyman #2 alloy. Being 5% tin and 5% antimony, #2 is going to be highly resistant to shrinkage. Also, since it runs a 15 on the BHN scale, a lot of us tend to regard #2 as a rifle alloy and pour softer stuff for handguns - softer stuff that will tend to shrink more upon cooling.

So I have to ask the village elders with more alloy experience: Is it possible that the issue with Lyman molds casting small is not a Q.C. issue on Lyman's part, but merely a disconnect/lack of communication between Lyman and the folks who are using their products? Seems to me that a lot of this could be solved if they cut their rifle molds for #2 as they've been doing, and their pistol molds for cheaper, softer mixes. Since ya gotta size 'em anyway, where's the harm in dropping a little big?

[Piedmont]

They could get it right if they wanted to. They choose not to. They would rather bullets drop small and chamber in anyone's gun than make molds that are ideal or can be sized down to be ideal for anyone's gun. I have a couple older .45 Colt lymans that drop .456 or larger from plebian alloys. If they got it right back then, why can't they get it right now?

I do not buy the arguement that casting technique or the right alloy will make any Lyman a good mold. Why in the world would I want to waste my precious linotype to make a bad mold cast larger?

It makes a whole lot of sense to buy exactly what you need from the smaller makers on this board. You pay a little more up front, but you don't have to mess with beagling or wondering what size that mold you ordered will cast.

[Bigslug]

See? A common rant topic, just like I said.

Piedmont, I'm not trying to launch a Lyman vs. custom moldmakers thread. Most us have seen the difference and are sold on the custom houses for future purchases, but the fact is that the molds are out there, people own them, and those that do have to either upgrade or find ways to deal with their quirks - which is part of what I'm hoping to address.

One of those quirks is (or may be) the alloy that the mold was spec'd for. I haven't poured #2 into my small-casting 358429 because it doesn't seem like the right metal for the task - I am soliciting the feedback of those who have.

More simply put: Is it the mold that is wrong or the alloy? On the one hand, our alloy may be wrong because it's not what the molds were made for; on the other hand if nobody is using #2 in a vast class of molds (specifically non-super-magnum handguns), Lyman may need to wake up and smell the coffee on cavity diameter. The third possibility is general Q.C. issues.

I'm sure someone here has done the necessary experiments and I'd like to hear from them. Otherwise, I've got to gear up for science.

[runfiverun]

just give them enough time to catch up.
they used to regularly make molds that were a bit oversized [even with a ww alloy]
and you had to order a U designation for a more normal sized boolit.

I would understand them cutting their molds to 5/5 alloy if you could also order 5/5 alloy from them.......
don't care either way.
I have fixed all of their molds I have, that i needed to fix, to work with my alloy.
if I need something else, i'll pay the extra 20 dollars for a mold which will work
with the alloy I want it to.

[462]

I have some older Ideal and Lyman moulds that drop fat boolits and newer Lyman moulds that drop barely to spec, using wheel weight alloy. I doubt that their moulds will drop boolits that have discernible dimension differences, when cast of 12 BHN wheel weights or 15 BHN #2 alloy. Further, I think Lyman uses the #2 alloy as an excuse for a lack of quality control, and for not replacing cherries that have become worn past their low-end tolerances.

At one time, Lyman had it right. They could do so, again, if they wanted.

[.22-10-45]

I have nearly always found the old Ideals and very early Lyman moulds cast oversized..and sometime in the early 1970's I noticed moulds barely to correct size or even slightly under. My understanding was this was an economic move..the tool makers would make the cherry's as large as possible to give the longest service life to the tool..enabling the cutter grinders to re-sharpen many times over that tools life. As time went by, the cherry's naturally got smaller. But nowdays, there is no excuse for undersized moulds.

[GaryN]

I would vote for the quality control problem. It is not only undersized molds. It is molds out of alignment. Molds out of round. Sprue plate holes not deep enough etc. etc. I got a newer manufactured mold. I chose to work it over. I had to send it out to have it enlarged. Then I had to get a tool to make the sprue plate right. Now it is a good mold. But it should have come that way from the factory. Buy from them if you want. I won't again. Consider yourself warned. I have several from about thirty years ago that are fine.

[Ed_Shot]

Finally got my new Lyman 401654 DC yesterday (20 Mar 13) that was on backorder at MidSouth. My alloy is @ 3% antimony and 2% tin and they drop at .404 and very concentric. Weight is 156 gr and boolit oal is .550. The inspection sticker in the mold box was dated 4 Mar 13. I size to .401 w/2500+ lube. Took 100 to the range today with several loads. Perfect function in my G22 and accurate.

I hope Lyman is listening, if so......Thanks!

[918v]

I just bought this mold now on eBay. I hope it is as good as yours. My Sig .40 S&W has a .4045" throat. So I won't be sizing, I suppose. I figure 4grs of Bullseye should be a good start. What do you think? (I'm gonna run a 9mm recoil spring)

[rintinglen]

I have purchased half a dozen Lyman molds in the last 4 years. All of them cast at least to nominal size when filled with lyman No. 2 alloy. However, that poses a problem for me: Wheel weights are all but unobtainable here in LaLa Land, and linotype was obsolecent 35 years ago. Buying 90/5/5 Pb/Sn/Sb alloy is prohibitive. I wish that Lyman would revise their specs larger to account for the fact that we casters don't have access to inexpensive enriched alloys. That said, they make their molds so that a specific alloy makes boolits of a specific size. Where the whining comes in is when someone needs a larger boolit (think Marlin microgroove, for instance) and that diameter won't drop from a mold .003 smaller than what they need. "But it says .429, not .432," or so goes the explanation.
Tom at Accurate, Miha Previc at MP, and Al at NOE say "thank you." I've bought 6 NOE, 4 MP, and one Accurate mold in the last two years. Only two Lymans, and one of them was 20+ years old. Their business model is not the one to emulate.

[Larry Gibson]

The "common problem" for complaints of "undersize Lyman and other makes of moulds is most often the use of WWs (COWWs or a mix of COs & SOs). As mentioned that alloy is not what the moulds were designed to be used with. There is nothing consistent about the composition of WWs unless you buy new ones of the same manufature. Even then the % of antimony is high compared to very little tin in the alloy. The actual composition of used WWs varies greatly not only locally but across the country. Little tin in the alloy is most often the common thread there.

Because different alloys fill cavities and shrink in different amounts commercial mould manufacurers us a specific alloy for their mould designs; Lyman does use their #2 alloy. Lyman's #2 alloy will fill a mould better and have less shrinkage than WWs because there is a better balance of tin to antimony. Adding 2% tin to COWWs most often better balances the tin to antimony ratio. The tin mixes with the antimony and allows the antimony to go into solution with the lead much better up to a certain amount/%. This makes for a much better alloy with a higher BHN, gives much better fill out and less shrinkage. All that means is that with a proper alloy the mould will cast to nominal diameter or higher.

Additionally; poor casting technique can also be the culprit for undersize bullets from any mould even with the correct alloy.

Another "common problem" is some buy a mould for a nominal diameter and expect it to then cast bullets with a much larger than nominal diameter. I.E. they get a 429xxx mould and expect .432 diameter cast bullets, especially with WWs or recovered range lead. They then curse and blame the mould manufacturer for making "undersize" moulds when the problem is themselves. The real proble is they simply haven't taken the time to learn about alloy compositions affect the diameter of the cast bullet or they have not yet developed a proper casting technique or both. Surprisingly even very experienced casters seemingly have not taken the time to understand this. Reading the "metallurgy" articles in Lyman's #3 & #4 Cast Bullet Handbooks will give a better understanding. Yes I know those articles are very dry but a better understanding of alloys and there proper composition will lead to better cast bullets. The #3 CBH manual also has an excellent section on proper casting technique with bottom pour pots and with ladles. Lyman's #49 reloading manual also does as do most older Lyman manuals.

I have a standing offer to buy any newly made Lyman mould for what was paid for it + shipping costs to me if I can not get it to cast at least nominal diameter bullets with a correct alloy and casting technique.......I have yet to buy such a mould........

Larry Gibson

[Le Loup Solitaire]

I have a good number of Lyman molds from back in the day and they are excellent in every way. I do however concur with the above opinions of 462 and .22-10-45. When I pony up my cash for something I want/expect it to work the way I want/anticipate and not he way someone else wants it to. Add to that the stubborn position of the manufacturer to not do it any other way and the result is what we have. There is nothing to rant or rave about. If you want to be forced or confined to using #2 alloy and you are satisfied/happy with the result then fine and so be it. If you don't mind lapping and beagling or whatever it takes to get the bullets that you want then, again enjoy your mold. If however you prefer to not be funneled into those choices then its a simple matter to take your business and money elsewhere where you can get exactly want you want and pay for; this is what business competition is all about and you as the customer have the right to choose and be satisfied. As always, it is your call. LLS

[Bigslug]

Mr. Gibson, you have a good post there, and it's given me a better feel for how to proceed.

It is good to see that you have confidence in your ability to get these molds to behave properly, but at the same time rather disheartening to see the narrow path that must be followed to ensure it. There are many, MANY reasons why people get into casting, but COST has to be the one at the top of the list. Being freed from outside supply by running with scrounged metal has a great deal of attraction for folks, and that scrounged metal is usually perfectly suitable - when cast in a suitable mold - for 95% of the handgunning being done out there. A mold that drops big calls for the one-time purchase of an appropriate sizing die; a mold that drops small calls for an ongoing rejection of those nice, cheap (or free) alloys. Lyman seems to not be picking up that little bit of intel - I mean, one can assume they spec their .38 wadcutter molds for #2 alloy also. Is there any sense at all in that?

I guess there are those magnum pistol projects that will require a harder alloy when powder is poured in to the gunnels, and I now know (or at least suspect) that the current Lyman molds will serve under those conditions. I doubt I'll sell them off, but I doubt they'll get a great deal of use now that I have equivalent molds that offer more versatility. I was steeling myself to conduct hard science on this topic when NOE posted availability of their 358429 and 429421 variants with swappable nose pins. Every hobby has its learning curve, and I'm pleased to discover that mine resulted in only a few dust collectors. Lesson learned, money thrown at problem, moving on.

[Larry Gibson]

Bigslug

It appears you’ve mistakenly assumed there is a "narrow pat that must be followed"(?). If you are referring to a narrow range of alloys then there isn't one. One simply has to balance the antimony out (assuming a ternary alloy of lead, antimony and tin). That is very easy to do with the addition of a little tine where WWs are concerned. If you scrounge the tin then the cost is what you have in it from "scrounging". Even if you buy pure tin (easy to do through several sites) the cost is minimal. While the price of pure tin may seem high a little of it at 2% goes a long way. At 2% it requires 3.2ounces of tin for 10 lbs of WWs to make the alloy considerably better. One pound of tin will make 50 lbs of WWs a lot better alloy. Considering the cost of the firearm, the reloading equipment, the reloading components and the mould/casting equipment is the price of that little tin so prohibitive so we may produce quality cast bullets for which the mould is designed? Do we really have to reject those "nice, cheap (or free) alloys" simply to save on the little expense of 3.2 ounces of tin per 10 lbs of alloy? And allow a perfectly good mould to "gather dust"?

Having used COWWs for my own handguns for 45 years I have found that some batches do cast bullets to nominal diameter and are very suitable for even magnum (357, 41 and 44) level loads in handguns. I've also found more and more lots of COWWs in recent years that do not. Because the COWWs aren't a good alloy should we then trash the moulds? As to ordering an oversize mould for COWs to cast at nominal diameter you can if you want. I've been down that road and have sold off most of those moulds. Reason being is if I want to use a much better alloy and they cast larger than needed sizing down too much can be detrimental to good accuracy. Case in point; I acquired one of the 6 cavity GB 429421 moulds that was supposed to cast "a bit" over size. I found with a poor batch of COWWs it would cast .432, with a good batch of COWWs it would cast .434 and with either batch with 2% tin added it cast at .436 - .437. The bullets cast from the very soft poor batch were the only ones useable in any of my five 44s. Sorry but I sold that mould (advertised it as grossly over sized) went back to my RCBS and Lyman moulds even though they were single or double cavity moulds. I also have two other GB moulds for rifle bullets that were supposed to be .3o cal moulds that would also be "good" for .31 cal rifles. Both cast .316 and .318 size bullets with any decent alloy. That is a tudge more than I wanted to use with any of my 30 cals and additionally the nose of neither fits a .30 bore w/o sizing down. I’ve gone back to using the RCBS and Lyman moulds for my .30 cals.

The OP was asking about "common rant topic seems to be Lyman molds casting small". My post was in reference to Lyman moulds specifically and what the most often problem was with them "casting small". What custom made moulds cast to is outside that question.....yes it is time "to move on" now that we understand the real problem with Lyman moulds "casting small". I do agree with you that there are indeed many reasons persons get into casting bullets; cost being one of them. However, is appropriate to condem the mould for bad bullets if the caster is using an improper alloy? That was the subtle point of my post above; the caster should accept the consequenses, right or wrong, of his decisions. He should not blame the mould for his poor choice of an alloy that is not what the mould was designed for.

BTW; if you have any Lyman moulds "gathering dust" that "cast to small" I extend my offer to you. If you'd care to send them to me and they do not cast to nominal diameter with a proper alloy and casting technique (does not include "beagling" BTW) I will give you what you paid for them and the cost of shipping them to me. PM me for my address if you want to take me up on that offer.

Larry Gibson

[Bigslug]

BTW; if you have any Lyman moulds "gathering dust" that "cast to small" I extend my offer to you. If you'd care to send them to me and they do not cast to nominal diameter with a proper alloy and casting technique (does not include "beagling" BTW) I will give you what you paid for them and the cost of shipping them to me. PM me for my address if you want to take me up on that offer.

The BC/HG #20 .308 mold should arrive at some point this summer, at which point the unadulterated #2 will be melted down and tried in the 358429 for comparative purposes. If that doesn't fly the flag, we just might deal.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry Gibson