View Full Version : Ideal 457125 vs Lyman's current production

01-18-2007, 07:39 AM
Charcoal burnin' Guys 'n' Gals;

Maybe one of you can answer this one for me.

I'm starting to load real powder, Goex FFg and 20-1, 40-1 for my original Model 1884 Trapdoor.

Reading the late Spence Wolf's book "Loading Cartridges For The Original .45-70 Springfield Rifles and Carbines" he makes a point of there being a difference in the early Ideal 457125 and Lyman's current 457125 CV, but fails to mention what the difference is, only that the Ideal version is closer to the original Frankford Arsenal 500 gr bullet.

Do you know what the difference is in the two very similar designs, and would that difference really hinder loading 20-1 bullets over 70 or so grains of FFg?

Any other important tips and pointers are welcomed.


01-18-2007, 11:47 AM
it is a difference in the diamaters . I believe the newer ones are larger in the nose than the older ones .the new ones can be made to shoot in rifles as long as they will chamber in your rifle .. there seems to be a great variance in moulds cut today .. I had 4 and couldnt get any of them to shoot but I was pushing them hard . personally the saeco 1881 bullet has been a better bullet for me with black...Dean

01-18-2007, 06:27 PM
I have an 1884 Springfield that I shoot. It will do OK with the Lee version of the 1873 405 gr bullet and shoots the SAECO version of the 1881 bullet into nice small groups. However, it won't keep on the back board at 100yds with bullets cast from my Lyman 458125. When I measured the Lyman was casting a nice round .458, the SAECO just about .459, the Lyman was also heavier than the SAECO or original specifications at 524grs vs 500 (30:1 alloy) and longer (don't have the measurements handy). In my rifle one or all of these combined to make the Lyman a dud and the SAECO a champ. Others have reported excellent accuracy with the Lyman, and mine is a good shooter in my Sharps, but I think it has grown to be a borderline bullet for the slow twist of the Springfield, especially if the rifling and muzzle are a bit worn.

My 2cents.

Jerry Liles

01-18-2007, 07:06 PM
The biggest problem with this bullet (Lyman 457125) is the variation encountered. Most of the difference has been in the nose diameter. The Ideal version had a smaller nose than the present bullet (I have seen at least three distinctly different diameters). The smaller nose allowed for a fouled rifle. In other words, you could still load the rifle with a fouled barrel. Now that the emphasis is on accuracy the current trend is that the nose be bore diameter or slightly larger. This, of course, will require you to keep the barrel relatively clean. I have had excellent results with this bullet in more than one rifle and both 45/70 and 45/90.

However, it is not a particular favorite of mine for either hunting or long range (keep in mind that my experience at "long range" is limited to six hundred yards). Real "long range" of course, is 800, 900, and 1000 yards.

I loaded some heavy duplex loads in a friend's 45/70 Sharps, at his request, for work on Bison. I used this bullet and it worked extremely well. One shot, one kill... Range was about 100 yards. The bullet struck exactly where he was looking 1/4 way up from the bottom just behind the shoulder. broadside). The bullet took out a rib, blew the aorta and both lungs, taking a rib out on the way out. The bullet, perfectly expanded (30-1 lead-tin) was recovered under the hide on the off side. It is hard to better that performance. The buffalo bull (a large one) hit the ground at impact, struggled to its feet, wobbled a few feet and fell down for the count. The guide, who had never had a "sport" use an iron sighted buffalo rifle (only modern magnums) was absolutely astonished that it put the bull down at impact. Stated that unless the spine or brain had been hit, he had NEVER seen that. Cast bullets RULE!! (at least, with big bores and big bullets[smilie=1:).