RCBS Molds

[joed]

Anyone use RCBS molds? I have 1, a .44 cal 250K. Nice looking but that mold just doesn't seem to cast to the correct size.

JoeD

[leftiye]

Yah, most everyone has one or two. Too big, or too little? How much? What alloy was used? Rcbs will replace it , I think (never sent one back yet, but they've got a great guarantee), especially if it's too radical. Look 'em up online (www.RCBS.com), get their phone #, and give them a call. I was on the phone with them the other day, most helpful, not too much of a wait, either.

[buck1]

I have a few they tend to run a tad small ;but lapping can fix that. I love em!!

[3sixbits]

RCBS uses the following alloy to set the advertised weight for their molds. For rifle bullet molds the alloy is Linotype. For pistol it's one in ten, one part tin to ten parts lead. For round ball, they use pure lead. Dia. is effected by the alloy. Give the mold what RCBS made them to, and you will get what they said the mold will cast.

[OLPDon]

If too small Beagle the Mold. Beagleing can be found @
http://www.castpics.net/RandD/mould_enhancement/mould_enhancement.htm
Don

[NVcurmudgeon]

I have three, 44 240 GC, 44 250 K, and 38 150 K. All excellent quality easy casting moulds. It wouldn't hurt if they were a thousandth or two larger diameter.

[Dale53]

Today, I had a wonderful day at the range. The weather was near perfect - 76 degrees, sun shining and hardly any wind.

I had a chance to compare the RCBS .32 98 gr SWC mould to the Group Buy 100 gr Keith. In my view, the RCBS bullet "looks better" from an esthetic viewpoint (whatever the heck THAT is worth[smilie=1:), but their performance was near identical. Both shot groups with "target" loads under an inch. The GB mould is, of course, a six cavity. Needless to say, six trumps two, all day, every day:drinks:.

This is the first time I have been able to shoot at 25 yards since I got the GB mould. To say that I am a happy camper is to understate things by a considerable amount:mrgreen:.

Last Thursday A.M, it was 23 degrees here. Today, 76 degrees. Whoopee!:-D

Of course, it is "back in the toilet" this coming weekend - rain, cold, a bit of snow, and back to shooting indoors at fifty feet.,...

What I really want to do is next try the GB bullet in my TC Carbine and the revolvers and TC Pistol at fifty yards...

Back on topic - RCBS makes fine moulds in good designs. I have several and like each and every one of them.

Dale53

[klw]

I REALLY like them. Have 29. I've worn a couple out over the years but the RCBS lifetime guarantee means that they ones I've worn out they replace.

[LET-CA]

I've got three of them. They're well made and cast good bullets.

[LAH]

I have a few. They don't throw a fat bullet for sure. In fact most were to skinny so I took them off my for sale list. I went round & round with RCBS on a 44-250-K mould. Three trips across the country and I gave up. Don't got time to deal with idiots...........Creeker

[Lloyd Smale]

Ive got a 44 250 kt myself and i dont know as casted size but i do know that a 430 sizer sizes it and i do know that its one of the most accurate PB swcs in the weight range in my guns.

[dubber123]

Just lubed some of the 44 250's yesterday from a new mold, and a .431" sizer just tickled them, just the way I like it. This mold is perfectly round, and casts great, I can't wait to try them.

[Uncle R.]

I have several sets of RCBS blocks and I like them a lot. They generally throw round bullets of useable diameter and fill out well.
I had one bad 7mm mould from them several years ago - it made seriously lopsided bullets that came out of the lubrisizer with the bands smeared off of one side and untouched on the other. The demarcation was right at the mould parting line. I sent a couple of "sized" bullets to RCBS with a letter. Their reply was quick and thorough - "Send us your mould, your lubrisizer, your size dies and top punch - we'll replace them all."
Whether you like "big green" or not - their warranty service is exemplary.
:-D
I have NO diameter issues with my RCBS blocks - most applications I end up sizing them down one or two thousandths (if at all) and that's fine by me. I confess I'm perplexed by the penchant for "fat" bullets that I often see on this board. I have somewhere an old article from The American Rifleman back when it was a good magazine. I believe it was written by E.H. Harrison, and titled "Sizing Damages Cast Bullets." The author used extensive machine rest testing to show that the more you size a bullet the worse the accuracy - and my limited real-world experience would agree. I LIKE my moulds to cast at the proper diameter. My biggest beef with many of my older Lyman moulds is that the bore-riding portion is too dang small - and the driving band diameter is too dang BIG. Sizing a .313 bullet down to .309 hasn never given me a good-shooting load yet. If a .30 caliber mould drops at .309 I'm happy - as long as the bore riding portion is .301 or close to it.
Flame Suit On...
:roll:
Uncle R.

[dromia]

I have three a 45 PP mould, a 577 minnie type and a .310 cadet heeled, they all cast near as damit but are never over size. They shoot very well. I don't need to size them down. Nice chunky sprue plates and smooth casters too, the Minnie and the PP obviously have core pins.

I find my Lyman moulds to be more likely to undersize casters than the RCBS ones.

[Bass Ackward]

I confess I'm perplexed by the penchant for "fat" bullets that I often see on this board. I have somewhere an old article from The American Rifleman back when it was a good magazine. I believe it was written by E.H. Harrison, and titled "Sizing Damages Cast Bullets." The author used extensive machine rest testing to show that the more you size a bullet the worse the accuracy - and my limited real-world experience would agree. Uncle R.


Unc,

What is amazing is that the shooting world (jacketed) can pretty much come to an agreement that it is an inexact science. But .... change .... that .... projectile material, and our brains go into over drive trying to justify and explain away failure. (Notice I didn't say "my" failure?) There has to be a reason other than me! Thus, theories come out the wazoo. That simple .... cast .... lead .... projectile will make you talk to yourself. :grin:

Every bullet I have ever shot in my life has been rapidly and abusively sized and deformed under the worst possible conditions imaginable. This abusive nose first sizer is called a barrel. What's a couple of .000 of loving care on my end?

We try and satisfy ourselves by establishing a logical set of parameters to prove what can't be proven. Using inexact science to prove theory. In the end, it is always gun and or condition specific. I know. I am probably more guilty than most. I "ALWAYS" find an exception. And then I come up with another test!

If there is an exception, then there is no rule. So look for another reason. Either that or just shoot and have fun.

[PPpastordon]

Bass;
Perhaps the beauty of when I couldn't hit anything was that it was much easier to "just shoot and have fun" than it is today. However, remembering those old days help makes it possible to still blaze away at times with bunches of fun.
'Course, its still great to cast those boolits that shoot great.

[9.3X62AL]

Some good info here.......and learning that RCBS rifle molds are "calibrated" on Linotype explains why they run a little "thin" for some rifles. Thanks for that, 3SixBits.

Uncle R's account of the RCBS warrantee offer is exemplary. RCBS has been VERY good to me on the few small questions I've had with them, but the actions listed above would be a substantial replacement.

I have several RCBS molds, and all are easy-casting, well-made tools. One of them--the 45 rifle/325 grain FNGC--is undersized, but it does cast @ .457" with Taracorp alloy (92/6/2), which is its "spec" target diameter using Linotype. It isn't the moldmaker's fault that riflemakers cut grooves and throats oversized--although some concessions to real-world situations might be a better idea. I cast with ACWW alloy and size them to .454" for the Ruger 45 Colt, and they shoot very well in the "roller". Beagling this mold makes the gas check shank too big for attaching checks......so I use this "lemon" to make lemonade.

[klw]

Some good info here.......and learning that RCBS rifle molds are "calibrated" on Linotype explains why they run a little "thin" for some rifles. Thanks for that, 3SixBits..

That is not quite right. RCBS 50-515-FN was designed for use with pure lead and doesn't do particularly well with linotype. But you can always call and ask about this for a particular mold.

[3sixbits]

Klw: you are correct about rifle bullets that are intended for black powder the RCBS molds are indeed made to be cast with pure lead, that is what they are calibrate with. High velocity rifle bullets used with smokeless are indeed calibrated by RCBS with Linotype 12-4-94. Thank you for the clarification.

[Uncle R.]

Unc,

What is amazing is that the shooting world (jacketed) can pretty much come to an agreement that it is an inexact science. But .... change .... that .... projectile material, and our brains go into over drive trying to justify and explain away failure. (Notice I didn't say "my" failure?) There has to be a reason other than me! Thus, theories come out the wazoo. That simple .... cast .... lead .... projectile will make you talk to yourself. :grin:


Bass:
You're right of course. Just when I think I have this game figured out something will happen that sets me back to beginner status. If you read through my old posts you'll find a lot of "in my experience" or "I never had any luck with it" kind of statements. I'm usually pretty careful not to draw wide ranging rules from just a few personal examples - I've been wrong too may times.
:roll:
Lee moulds are one area where I've had poor results - while RCBS moulds have generally been VERY user-friendly for me. I read posts here from scores of people who like their Lee moulds and claim good results with those bullets. I'm convinced that some of them probably would change their tune if they tried those bullets at 200 meters instead of 25 yards, but I'm not so vain (or stupid) as to think that just because I couldn't make it work nobody else could either. Discrepancies like that go into my mental "Does not compute - still needs to be figured out" folder.
My own Lee moulded pistol bullets shot in the 250s and 260s at 50 ft. bullseye. It wasn't until I started trying them on sillywets that I discovered their flaws. There've been other areas of casting that have given me fits - like bottlenecked rifle cases with small charges of pistol or shotgun powders. I never got better than dismal results - but I know some people have done very well with them. The loads and methods suggested by Richard Lee in his loading handbook finally opened the door to good results in those case for me.
I still have a lot to learn - that's what makes this game fun.
Uncle R.

[Bass Ackward]

Lee moulds are one area where I've had poor results - while RCBS moulds have generally been VERY user-friendly for me. I read posts here from scores of people who like their Lee moulds and claim good results with those bullets. I'm convinced that some of them probably would change their tune if they tried those bullets at 200 meters instead of 25 yards, but I'm not so vain (or stupid) as to think that just because I couldn't make it work nobody else could either.


Unc,

Well now we can get to your question about WHY this board prefers larger diameter bullets?

Simple. Lead bullets deform under pressure if they are not supported by steel. The more space there is for expansion, the more deformation takes place. Deform and you lose balance. Maybe the base even goes out of square. Especially if you have voids. This is why some guys prefer harder bullets. They deform less.

My experience is that the larger the bullet diameter, (closer to full support) the longer the range it will be accurate for. Especially at lower velocities which is where we tend to shoot cast. And .... the less finicky it will be to load imbalances.

Size to bore without throat support and you lose balance. Oh, more experienced guys can play with load and mix etc, but you have to have the patience to get it to work, and it is still finicky.

Size to fill the throat and you may lose some accuracy up close if your throats are way larger than bore, but it will carry on out and be less sensitive to load and bullet design.

Use larger than throat size by about .001 in a cylinder, and it will shoot like a rifle and you almost can't ruin a load. Cleaner cylinders and gun. Much better long range performance. But you have to have the gun strength to do this or load way light.

The problem we all have with cast is that it requires a different language. That language is called "satisfaction". What constitutes satisfaction for one guy might not be for the next.

Success reported here can mean anything from, it went boom, it went boom and didn't lead, to it hits the target some times, to most times, to it eats out a hole. Most guys never clarify for fear of being mocked on their results one way or another. So while we try to sift through the .... posts here, we will never know for sure. :grin: We simply get ideas to try for ourselves.

[Uncle R.]

Bass:
Good discussion! :)
I can understand sizing to fit the throats. It makes sense intuitively, and (again in my limited experience) it works. It's funny that the old manuals and handbooks from my youth stressed sizing to fit the bore, with few exceptions. I think it was P.O. Ackley who demonstrated that jacketed bullets could be several thousandths over bore size with good results and no danger to the shooter as long as the case neck had clearance in the chamber.
That chamber dimension and resulting neck clearance is a serious safety issue and I'm pretty paranoid about it. On the other hand I'm not in the least worried about sending a .309 or .310 boolit down a .308 bore. Besides neck clearance, the other size limit I've bumped against is seating die dimensions. Many of my seaters won't accept a boolit much beyond "normal" diameter without closing the mouth bell enough to scrape the bullet. Chamfering helps...
I'm not saying that skinny boolits are better than fat. I suspect that most casters would probably get much better results if they sized their bullets larger - or not at all as long as chamber dimensions safely allowed it. I'm saying that if you're going to shoot a bullet at .309 or .310 or whatever, you'll likely get better results if it casts at or close to that size instead of 5 thousandths bigger. But I have to admit I can't prove my theory...
:)
Gawd I love this board - I've learned more here in a few months than in years of Lyman handbooks!
:roll:
Uncle R.

[Bass Ackward]

I'm not saying that skinny boolits are better than fat. I suspect that most casters would probably get much better results if they sized their bullets larger - or not at all as long as chamber dimensions safely allowed it. I'm saying that if you're going to shoot a bullet at .309 or .310 or whatever, you'll likely get better results if it casts at or close to that size instead of 5 thousandths bigger. But I have to admit I can't prove my theory...
:)


Unc,

Sorry. I was gearing this towards handguns because I thought that was where you wanted to go. Rifles are the same same really.

There are three ways to shoot cast. 1st is like cast, with faster powders at moderate pressures and velocities. 2nd is to use slow powders at the same pressure levels in the first method and get higher than normal cast velocities. The 3rd way is to shoot cast like jacketed at same as jacketed pressures.

If you shoot the 1st method, life is pretty simple. Size up or seat into the lands and work up a load. Method 2 is still keeping pressures at normal cast levels but using slower powders so softer bullets can be launched at medium velocities. Here, you can get away with slightly over bore diameter if you seat into the lands because peek pressures won't occur until well after the bullet has entered the bore. But with the 3rd method, you need steel supporting your really hard (but still soft lead) slug or you will get massive deformation at pressures above 40,000.

So ideally, you want a throat configuration that supports smaller or closer to bore diameter size bullets. We don't always get what we want though. So if you can't have that for what ever reason, then you need larger diameter or rock hard bullets or both to avoid deformation until the bullet moves into a bore supported situation to achieve top velocities. Light to medium weights per caliber work best because it takes less time to overcome inertia of the lighter slug. (resulting in less pressure on the base)

Dan, at Mountain Molds, had a factory Remington 700 in 30-06 and was shooting the 3rd method. His gun had so much slop in the neck, that he eventually was sizing .318 for a .308 bore and obtaining his best accuracy. He tried everything right up the line until he got there. Once he did, he found that ACWW could be shot at very similar accuracy levels to hard bullets because steel was supporting and his lube didn't break down.

So the bottom line is what you need diameter wise depends on what you have to work with and how you want to shoot cast. Then you simply adjust your bullet hardness and powder speed to give your bullet the best chance of survival.

I shoot with the second method mostly with throats only .002 larger than bore, so I can get by with closer to bore size and softer lead.

[Uncle R.]

Bass:
I guess I've been using methods one and two - I load "pistol" cartridges and straight-sided rifle cartridges with the same powder and charge weights as the manuals show for j-words and I generally get good results - sometimes GREAT results - but those are pretty much in under 40K cartridges. My results in bottlenecks using method 1 have been awful - but a case 2/3 full of a powder about three clicks faster than the "normal" powder for that case often gives me very good results. (Thank you Mr. Lee!)
As for method three, well - er - I confess I've never tried it. I strongly suspect that I've never driven a silver boolit beyond 2100 fps, and probably never at pressures above 40K except for my evil and cursed attempts to use a few grains of shotgun powder in a big bottleneck case. THAT dang-near cost me a kaboom and scared me away from light rifle loads for a long time. (Bad Cess to YOU, Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook!)
Anyway, for years I've heard stories of people driving boolits at 2700 fps in 50K loads - but I guess I never really believed those stories were true. Kinda like gold at the end of the rainbow.
But after hanging around HERE for awhile I'm starting to think it might actually be possible.
GAWD I love this board - if I ain't careful I'm gonna bend my brain from learnin' too much...
:-D
Uncle R.

[Ricochet]

I strongly suspect that I've never driven a silver boolit beyond 2100 fps, and probably never at pressures above 40K except for my evil and cursed attempts to use a few grains of shotgun powder in a big bottleneck case. THAT dang-near cost me a kaboom and scared me away from light rifle loads for a long time. (Bad Cess to YOU, Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook!)
Would you mind elaborating on what happened?

[Uncle R.]

Would you mind elaborating on what happened?

Sure - I posted about it once before so I'll just cut and paste...


I've seen conflicting opinions and articles on Detonation/SEE/Wave Mechanics pretty much since I was old enough to read. I seriously doubt that anyone's figured it out for sure. I use the 2.7 grs. Bullseye load in my .38s with confidence but I'll tell you all that tiny loads of ANY powder rattling around in big rifle cases scare the crap oughta me... It only has to happen to you ONCE to make you a believer.
My first effort at a reduced cast load in a high-powered rifle was the RCBS 7mm 140 gr. Silhouette bullet in a .280 caliber Ruger 77V. The load was right out of the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook of that era - perhaps 1980. The charge was Green Dot in an unremembered quantity but roughly 17 grs. Initial accuracy was HORRIBLE with groups maybe 2" wide and three FEET high at 100 yards. Obviously wild velocity swings - but younger and none too bright I kept at it, experimenting with (among other things) roll crimps and magnum primers in an attempt to get uniform ignition.
The last round of my final session with Green Dot left a tell-tale wisp of smoke from the breech and the bolt handle frozen tight. I tried forcing it - first at the range and then at home but couldn't budge it with any reasonable force. Afraid I'd break it, I took it to my friendly local smithy.
HE opened the bolt out of my presence (?) and showed me the empty case. The head was expanded so far that the case looked like a belted magnum. The primer (what was left of it) just fell out of the greatly expanded pocket as soon as the case was pulled from the bolt head. Obviously WAY high pressure - maybe 70 or 80K? God bless Bill Ruger and that model 77 - and out the door went ANY interest in loading shotgun powder in rifle cases.
Double charge? I suppose it MAY have been, although I was an experienced and careful loader even back then. But given that wild vertical stringing who can doubt that some weird delayed ignition/wave effect could have taken place? I can't speak for anyone else but I'll stay away from such loads in MY rifles...

End of pasting...

Sorry to derail the topic. RCBS moulds? Like 'em!!
:-D
Uncle R.

[Ricochet]

Oh yeah, I remember that one now.

I'll bet Lyman in their testing followed the procedure of always elevating the muzzle before every shot.