Weights of H&G 130 and 68 bullets

[johnho]

Interesting comments by Texasflyboy. I wonder if H&G did the same with the 130 molds too. I have a 4 cavity 130 that will drop bullets at 194 grains using range lead whereas my 8 cavity 68 drops them at 198 grains with the same range lead. It's kind of hard to justify casting one over the other with these weights so close but since I have the molds I do it anyway. My 130's are a tad more accurate but not enough to make a difference to me.

[Dale53]

I would prefer the #68 (really just a cosmetic thing, I suppose) but I had an opportunity to get a 4 cavity H&G #130 complete with handles at a VERY good price from an estate, so I took the deal.

I have been very happy with this mould. It works better than any mould that I have used and THAT is a bunch. They just roll out of this mould like shelling corn.

My weight is close to yours (195 grs with my alloy) and the accuracy is exemplary. I have also shot several thousands of the #68 H&G and that is also a GREAT bullet. My two full size 1911's both were built by a real craftsman and they will feed ANYTHING. So, the #130 feeds just as good (in my guns) as the #68. However, for those marginal feeding 1911's out there, the #68 is probably a better choice as the bullet contact points at the barrel feed ramp are as near identical to the standard military round nose as possible.

I just ran a few hundred (less than a thousand) of the Saeco #68 and it is just a bit more of a bother to cast with. It doesn't drop the bullets well until it is up to heat (and higher heat than necessary with the #130 mould). I have two #68 Saeco moulds. They are kind of a clone of the H&G #68 but not quite the same. The Saecos do cut a considerably cleaner hole than the #130's in the paper but accuracy is a toss up between all three designs in my Autos AND Revolvers.

These days I most often shoot the revolvers (625's) as it is just more fun for me (AND no picking up brass with the revolvers:mrgreen:.

FWIW
Dale53

[Le Loup Solitaire]

Both cast, feed and shoot well for me in two autos and two revolvers. Better in the revolvers though.The rejection rate is never more than 1-2% with WW and a tad of tin. One of the major problems with 45ACP brass is that it is chronically too short, Dean Grennell in his writings complained bitterly about it and went to (and wrote up his work) cutting his own brass from .308 casings to proper length using a homemade jig for his table saw (using a carbide blade). His writeup is in one of his early books in the series "the ABC's of Handloading". He reported much improved accuracy with the longer cases. So why are current manufacturers still making them too short? The answer must be written in the wind. LLS

[Tedbytes]

I too am a fond reader of the late Dean Grennell and also read his articles. Knowing that the 45 ACP does indeed headspace on the length of the case, I have not found of late,these issues that were raised by Dean in his early almost 40 year old research. New and current Midway,Starline and even foreign cases adhere now to the standard length. A simple test in your gun barrel will determine your headspace. Most old time reloaders will tell you to headspace the HG 130 bullet on your lands and grooves,the case length be damned!! This is indeed true. I have five 45's from SW,Glock,Kimber and Colt,all are different in OAL,but this regimen when knowing your dimentions for a particular gun will pay dividends. My load of choice with a HG 130 is 4.5 Bullseye. The length will vary with your barrel. It's simple, drop a cast and sized bullet in your barrel,hold it in place and measure from the muzzle to the nose of the bullet,then load accordingly. Works for me these last 40 years. Ted

[oger]

My 130 drops right at 200gr with WW+1% lead. The 68BB drops at 215gr with the same mix.