H&G 68 Clone and original design

[prs]

I noticed the Lee version has pretty severely beveled base. Is that just the way it is with this design. Is there a reliable/practical way to remove the bevel from the mould base? I kinda prefer the flat bottomed types, but that is not based upon practical experience, just asthetics.

prs

[243winxb]

Weight will increase about 12-15 grs. Many ways to remove it. Drill press, milling machine or a lathe. Some even use a carpenter utility knife. :rolleyes:

[runfiverun]

or find a H&G #68 which is the plain base version.
many times the little base roll is not an issue on a normally plain base boolit.
if it's shaped like this...v... it is still debatable whether it causes issues with either leading or accuracy.

sorry fly-boy i mistyped the number 9 instead of the 8

[prs]

So the original IS flat based! Thanks.

Hmmmmm. Any of the knock-offs true to the authentic?

prs

[Dale53]

prs;
The truth of the matter is that the original H&G #68 is bevel based. The H&G #69 is the flat based version. Many of us have been guilty of misnaming these fine bullets (including yours truly).

Many of us often state #68 flat base when describing the bullet. It's wrong but common...[smilie=1:

I prefer the flat base but admit that I have shot THOUSANDS of the bevel based bullets and both styles shoot well if they are alloyed and sized correctly.

I size mine at .452" and am currently using Mihec's flat base version with much satisfaction in both my 1911's and my 625 Smith's.

FWIW
Dale53

[gefiltephish]

I have and love mine from Accurate Molds. http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=45-200H-D.png Works great in my RIA 1911's. The Lee did not work in those guns due (I believe) to the very narrow nose. The bevel base presents an excess lube issue when size/lubing with a Lyman 450 or equivilent. I have the 5 cav aluminum mold and couldn't be any happier (well, maybe if it was 6 cav:) ). To answer your question, I believe it is very close to the original, but someone more knowledgable than I will have to verify. I could be mistaken but I think H&G 68's were available in both PB & BB. Seems to me there's a link at the top or bottom of the page for all kinds of info on H&G moulds.

[gray wolf]

Guys,
My H&G #68 4 hole is stamped #68 and it's a flat base.

[Texasflyboy]

?...

68 comes in plain base, bevel base, and gas check (rare).

69 is a different caliber than 68.


68 - .45 Auto. 200 grains. "By Crawford". Available in plain or bevel base. One rounded grease groove, no crimp groove, semi-wadcutter shoulder, then nose straight taper to slight round-off to meplat. Very popular, very accurate .45 ACP target bullet. See Outdoors Magazine February and September 1940 issues. Also "Roper, August 1940 issue American Rifleman". American Rifleman issue June 1948 page 46 "Giles .45 Shop-l 1/2" at 50 yards, 1 1/32" at 25 yards" "11/5/70--Don Scott, Clackamas, Oregon, machine rest tested twenty ACP's, all 2" or under at 50 yards".

#68 - "Heavy Specials". .45 Auto. Same configuration as standard #68, except for base bands and bevel bases, which are extended to acquire greater weight, yet retain the properties of the standard #68. #68BBA-has short bevel behind the added length section, for a weight of219 grains (207 grains in linotype). #68BBBB has a longer bevel base for 232 grains in wheel weights (219 grains in linotype). #68S--even more extended rear driving band, Plain base. 231 grains (218 grains in linotype). #68BBS extended base band and long bevel base. 239 grains (226 grains in linotype).

#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.

[shooterg]

My 2-holer labeled 68 is flat base.

[runfiverun]

balisticast has several H^G type molds and probably has what you need.
the magma engineering 68 copy has a slight edge roll also,and why i went to the lyman 200 swc it has a slightly shorter and wider based nose but feeds perfectly in my 1911's.

[MikeS]

prs;
The truth of the matter is that the original H&G #68 is bevel based. The H&G #69 is the flat based version. Many of us have been guilty of misnaming these fine bullets (including yours truly).

FWIW
Dale53

Dale, actually you're thinking of SAECO moulds. H&G #68 is flat based. H&G #68BB is bevel based. SAECO did the same thing with the #130, their 130 is bevel based, and the 131 is flat based. I might have the 130's reversed, I think the SAECO 130 was flat based, and the 131 was bevel based. It seems SAECO copied quite a few H&G designs, and even used the same mould numbers! I have a SAECO #265, and it too is a copy of the H&G #265. There are probably some others that I'm not aware of.

[huntrick64]

Back to OP question. You can remove the bevel. I have a MP-200-SWC plain base brass 4-banger. Most people (even Miha) call it a H&G68 clone. I just call it accurate!

[Dale53]

To all;
I hang my head in shame! :oops:

Thanks to all for the corrections! Truth is, I have two Saeco four cavity moulds (shared with a buddy) for the #68 Saeco (not quite the same bullet, but close). I'll not repeat the long story, but, many years ago I bought a four cavity H&G #68, had a "friend" pick it up and when I got it, it was a very nice #130 four cavity and the "friend" ended up with the four cavity #68. Fortunately, my guns fed the #130 perfectly, so I still have it. I have shot 100,000 of the Saeco's.

After many, many years, I was able to scratch that H&G #68 itch with the very close match, Mihec's version of the #68.

The last thing I want to do is give out misinformation...

Again, thanks to all for setting me straight.

Dale53

[243winxb]

#68 very popular mould. Bullet mould has many variations from standard. Special Weights include: 219gr, 232gr, 231gr,239gr. #68 most common in 4 cavity. Made in Plain & Bevel base.

http://hgmould.gunloads.com/casting/hgmoldchart.htm http://hgmould.gunloads.com/molds/68_15.jpg like Texasflyboy said.

[MikeS]

prs, actually the Lee's bevel isn't as much as the SAECO bevel. When I got a Mihec mould I was uncertain if I wanted a bevel base, or a plain base (he was offering both in the buy), so I got one of each. The Mihec bevel is the smallest bevel of them all. In fact if I have a dozen boolits standing up next to each other, 6 plain & 6 bevel you really have to look hard at them to see the bevel bases.

Slightly off topic, but the SAECO #68 mould I had was an earlier one, before Redding, back when their handles had walnut grips. Either they screwed up my mould, or a previous owner did, as it had a meplat with a sharp edge, not a rounded off one like every other #68 I've seen. It almost looked like somebody took a drill bit and cut off the rounded edges as the meplat also wasn't flat, but went up to a point in about the same shape as a drill bit.

And to all those that talk about the Lee, or Lyman or whatever clone of the #68 not being a 'true' copy of the H&G #68, somebody here once posted a picture of genuine H&G #68's, one from a 1930's era mould, and one from a 1940's era mould, and they didn't look alike, and IIRC the earlier one looked more like the Lee mould. So it's quite possible that when Lee designed their boolit that they copied one of these earlier boolits rather than a later one. I could be wrong, but I believe Lee didn't start making those moulds until an early group buy from this forum. I'm convinced that Lee also based their TL452-230-2R mould after the H&G #34 mould, and just changed it to a TL design.

[40Super]

Can anyone name these 200gr swc bullets.:-P

[Dale53]

MikeS;
I still have those two four cavity Saeco #68 moulds. They are bevel based and have a sharp nose. They were bought together in the Seventies when I was active in IPSC. They shoot very well.

As far as function is concerned, I don't want to offer an opinion. In my two 1911's (which were built up completely by a fine Cincinnati Pistolsmith, Harold Johnson, a retired Marine Gunnery Sgt. who did McMillan's guns) I got perfect reliability. However, those guns will feed empties, so that is no real criteria. My friends that also used those bullets also had Harold Johnson guns. Again, nothing to judge by.

In my revolvers, the Saeco #68, the real H&G #130's, and the Mihec #68 flat bases all shoot extremely well in my guns. The one thing I might mention, is that the Saeco and Mihec bullets cut clean holes in the targets, and the H&G #130 does not. The Saeco cut clean holes in flesh, too (one of my friends accidentally shot himself in the leg when a pistol malfunctioned). He has two .452" holes (in and out) 11" apart. Fortunately, the bullet traveled under the dermis and on top of the muscle - a flat out miracle, if you will.

Dale53

[Old Caster]

The Saeco Redding 068 is bevel and the 069 is flat based. I also have one of the group buy Lees and it is flat base and weighs about 190 cast. The Lee has a smaller front meplat and while they are both accurate, I will give the best tag to the 069, very very close behind would be the 068 and then the Lee. The Lee is harder to make a perfect bullet with although much faster. I use the 069 for long line and the Lee for the short line. I never seem to get the 068 out, and I have a Star so the bevel doesn't bother me. Even though I never use the 068 I would recommend it for most that are interested in extreme accuracy and a round base Lee for those that like accuracy but aren't shooting competetively and aren't worried about the last 1/2 inch or so at 50 yards.

[prs]

By golly there "Profs", I just got a fair education on the subjest. Didn't I? I've visited some of the mould maker's sites and boy 'O boy what selection we have to enjoy!

prs

[MikeS]

Dale, so my SAECO #68 was made that way, and not modified with a drill press later? That's good to know, as I kind of felt bad when I sold it, as I hate selling something that isn't 100%! I wonder why they made them that way?

[Dale53]

Dale, so my SAECO #68 was made that way, and not modified with a drill press later? That's good to know, as I kind of felt bad when I sold it, as I hate selling something that isn't 100%! I wonder why they made them that way?


Probably just to be slightly different. I used to know one of Saeco's top mould makers, Barry Darr. If we were still shooting together, I could maybe ask him. It has been several years since I've seen him (he may not be with us any longer) but he was a VERY talented guy, indeed!

Dale53

[skeet1]

I have the Lee 200 gr. clone of the H&G 68 and was concerned with the bevel base also but since I have been loading it and shooting it I think I was worrying about nothing. My Lee six cavity is probably my favorite mould.

Ken

[fcvan]

I too have the Lee version and it has shot well for me although I haven't cast many for it in recent years. I'm dying to try it with some plain based gas checks just because. Frank

[williamwaco]

Is there a reliable/practical way to remove the bevel from the mould base?

prs

I actually prefer the bb for the same reason you mentioned.

That said, if you will chuck up a 29/64ths drill bit in a tap wrench and VERY CAREFULLY apply it manually to the base of the mold, you can gradually enlarge the opening to .452 to .453.

If you go over a thousandths, don't worry, the sizing die will take care of that.

I have not used this method with the .45 but I have removed the bevel from a .30 cal and a .357 cal Lee mold with very satisfactory results.

DO NOT USE A HAND HELD ELECTRIC DRILL.

Obviously a drill press would make this procedure much easier and safer. BUT, I don't have one.