.45 ACP Lee Mold suggestions

[clerkofkirk]

I just got a RIA 1911 and would like to shoot it more than buying pre-cast lead bullets will allow. (I know...I'm cheap.) I took up bullet casting briefly to cast bullets for my mil-surp rifles so I have some experience and the basic equipment.

Midway has 6-cavity Lee molds on sale and I was wondering which one to get. My commercial defensive load will be 185 grain so I was wondering if I should get something close to that.

Also, any tips regarding loading these cast bullets for a 1911 would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[docone31]

Suggestion,
As you are asking what mold would be best, I am presuming you do not have much casting experience. No disrespect at all there, it is how I started.
I highly reccomend
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=789762
I am not saying use that vendor or not, just that casting.
My experience with that mold,
With water quenched wheel weights, excellent performance. I use Blue Dot.
Casting, following the directions that come with the mold, great casting. I rest the mold in the melt untill the lead does not stick to the mold, then cast.
Watch the sprue, when it shrinks into the mold some and then turns grey, cut the sprue and drop into water.
I pan lube, and size .452 using the Lee Push Thru Sizing System.
My only ACP mold.
Same point of aim as ball ammo.
Easy on the firearm, no leading.
If I were starting out on my ACP, I would use this mold. Actually it is the one I started with and I use it to this day. I also use 185gn Hollow Points for carry and this casting duplicates the performance of my 185s.
I avoid the six cavity molds. Just my way. I can cast a bunch of two cavity castings with comfort and quality.
Just my 2c.
Good luck and enjoy.

[CSH]

If your RIA will feed that profile the mould docone recommended is a good one. I have a LBT with a similar profile and it shoots great. The only production Lee 6 cavity 45 ACP I have is the 228 grain RN (1R). It casts easily and feeds well in the 6 1911's that I own, and is very accurate. Another choice that will probably be recommended is the H&G 68 and clones. It drops at about 200 grains, and is probably the most accurate bullet available for the 45 ACP.

[NuJudge]

I like the Lee copy of the H&G 200 grain Semi-Wad Cutter (SWC):
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=336035

Lee used to make a copy of the Lyman 452460 in 2 and 6 cavity. I get excellent results from that bullet, but Lee stopped making it. The Lyman 452460:
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=583831

If you are casting .452" bullets bullets 6 at a time, you'll need more than basic equipment. You'll need a 20 pound pot, and you may need that to cast from and another 10 pound to act as a melter. Using just one 10 pound pot will suck it dry very quickly.

If you are casting bullets in quantity, get some of the BullPlate sprue plate lube available in the Swapping & Selling section near the bottom of the list of pages. Use very small amounts. If you don't use some sort of lube on the top of the mold blocks/bottom of the sprue plate, you will get a form of adhesive wear called galling.

Decide how much you are willing to spend to lube and perhaps size your bullets. Are you shooting these indoors or out? If you are shooting indoors in the .45 acp and use my favorite lube (NRA formula 50% Beeswax/50% Alox 2138F) through a lubricator/sizer, you'll get a lot of smoke. The Lee "Tumble Lube" system works and gives a lot less smoke, and has low capital investment, but the lube builds up in your Seating Die, and cleaning the Seating Die will lose adjustment, except if you use a Dillon Seating Die. There are other lubes which create less smoke, but they tend to be ones that require a heated lubricator/sizer. Really, with .45acp, just about any lube ought to prevent Leading, but it has to give accuracy too.

When I cast in quantity, I drop the bullets from the mold into a 5-gallon bucket of water, if only for material handling purposes. Drop them from the mold into an old towel, and the towel gets full, and they start dinging each other.

[putteral]

I agree with docone31 it is a great bullet for shooting paper. Makes neat round holes and the 200gr RNFP feeds wonderfully in both my .45'S. I also use the double cavity and after a few castings I can produce 400 boolits in about 2hrs or less. I just use my coleman stove and casr iron pot. I like 4.6 grs of titegroup or 5.2 grs of HP 38 with the 200 gr .45

[azrednek]

I agree with docone31's choice. It is what I use as a plinking round for both my 45ACP autos and revolvers. I shoot them un-sized and tumble lubed. Not 100% reliable but fine for the range. If I take the time to size them and remove the exposed excess lube from a finished round. I can't recall having a hang-up in an auto.

[clerkofkirk]

Thanks for the info! That was fast. I checked and I only have a 10# pot (Lee Production Pot IV). So I'll go with the mold docone31 recommended. I will get a Lee Lube and Size kit http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=116429 since that is what I have used before. Do I need anything else? I have a Lee 3-die set. Do I need any kind of crimp die for the ACP?

[Willbird]

Your Lee 3 die set has a factory crimp die according to Lee, so your good to go.

Bill

[docone31]

I do not use the crimp die. I got leading the last time I used it. I have not had an issue not useing it.
Pan Lubeing is simple once you get used to it.
The important issue is to get the castings, and lube up to the same point and let them cool slowly. Then push them nose first through the cake.
I set a sheet of wax paper in the pan, then heat the castings, then pour in the lube. I then size at .452.
BadaBing BadaBoom.

[Cloudpeak]

I had some FTF problems with both designs (TL and conventional) of the 200 gr SWC bullets out of the Lee 6 cavity mold in both of my Springfield 1911's. They were very accurate, though. They aren't an accurate copy of the H&G 68, IMO. If you buy a Lee mold, I'd recommend the 6 cavity. You'll want Bull Shop sprue plate lube for sure with aluminum molds.

If you're in shooting 45's for the long haul and going to be shooting a lot, I'd recommend the Lyman 4 cavity, either 452260 or 452630 (which is what I have: http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=161788&t=11082005 ) The initial cost is more but they will last forever and aren't as delicate as the Lee molds. I've had zero FTF over several thousand rounds with this bullet. I size .452" with a Lee push through sizer and lube with LLA. If you decide to sell the mold, I think the Lyman will hold it's value. On the other hand, the 6 cavity Lee's are reasonably priced and will pay for themselves quickly.

I have two Lee 6 cavity 9mm molds and have cast thousands of bullets through them. Both molds have quite a bit of "wear" on them. In my experience, there's often differences in bullet diameter with the 6 cavitity Lee molds. But, that's why we size. Life got so much easier when I bought the sprue plate lube.

Cloudpeak

[Ricochet]

If you're planning to use 200 grain bullets, it seems sensible to stay with that. Personally I have good results with the 230 grain truncated cone tumble lube boolit. I like the six hole moulds, you can make lots of boolits fast!

[Bloodman14]

I love Lee's 6-cav .45 230 gr. mold. I tend to stick with "as issued" bullet weights. 4.5 gr.s of Tite-group in my RIA .45, and I'm nailing 8" X 8" steel plates at 50 ft.
Gunnerd

Lead Forever!

[35remington]

Let me point out something that's very relevant to a 1911 shooter.

It was designed to run, orginally, with a 230 grain roundnose with a 2 radius ogive.

Several of the suggested bullets above, especially the 200 grain weights, produce a nonstandard bullet that results in a much shorter than standard overall length. These were intended to function in revolvers for cowboy action shooters, not in the 1911.

These may shoot and feed fine. However, then again, they may not.

If you're looking for a bullet to feed, choose a bullet that is most similar to what the gun was designed to feed.

If I had to make a bet, the 1911 you own will be much more likely to shoot with a Lyman 452374 (230 RN, 2 radius) or a Lee 230 - 2R than many of the other suggested designs, which really aren't 1911 bullets.

A thorough discussion would take up too much room, but the 1911 was designed to run better with cartridges in its preferred range as to length. Too many of the suggested designs here get away from that, and may require tweaking and nonstandard magazines to get them to shoot. Nonstandard magazines are in and of themselves a reliability compromise; a double whammy you don't need.

Best advice? Shoot the bullet the gun was designed to run with and play the best odds.

Not to pick on anyone specifically; I'm just going with a design more likely to feed in an untuned 1911, which the OP has.

[sundog]

35Rem, you may be correct, but everything I have ever seen said the 45acp was originally a 200 grain load.

[hedgehorn]

I like the Lyman 452460 as well as the Lee 230 grain truncated cone mold. Both feed well in my Kimber.

[35remington]

Sundog, no argument there (1905 was the 45 ACP's introduction with the 200 grain) but I'm speaking of what the 1911 was designed to use; the military wanted a heavier 230 bullet, and the 1911 was designed to accomodate it well after the cartridge's introduction.

That would be the 230 roundnose rather than the 200 in the 1911, which is the gun the original poster's using. The 230 later became standard because that's what the gun firing it was designed to use.

We got all these various shaped magazines with varied release points and varied shapes when the bullseye shooters wanted to shoot 185 SWC's and tried to make the gun and magazine fit the bullet rather than the other way around.

Complaints about reliability have occurred ever since. 20 different manufacturers producing parts with widely varying specifications hasn't helped either.

[windrider919]

If you look at the FPS and energy of the various 45 cal loads the 185gr seems to be a good choice. However, browse the various sites on TERMINAL ballistics and it is a different story. You might find that the FBI penetration studies showed that the 185 weight bullets had erratic performance and something as simple as a leather coat could cause bullet failure. IE: no penetration and little or no expansion which would not even minimally impair an assailant. Other tests on auto glass or the thin sheetmetal doors caused failure to perform. None of us want a bullet to go through several walls and possibly hit an innocent person but there are scenarios where we might have to shoot through a door jam or piece of furniture. The 200 gr bullets do much better in performance and usually have better accuracy. Personally, all my 45s have feed better with 200s, while the 185s always had a jam at random in 300 or 400 rounds. Pretty low odds but what if it happens in a real defense situation? So I shoot 200gr cast for practice and carry 200gr jacketed for defense. I load my cast bullets medium hot to more closely simulate the recoil and blast of the defense loads.

[Willbird]

Let me point out something that's very relevant to a 1911 shooter.

It was designed to run, orginally, with a 230 grain roundnose with a 2 radius ogive.

Several of the suggested bullets above, especially the 200 grain weights, produce a nonstandard bullet that results in a much shorter than standard overall length. These were intended to function in revolvers for cowboy action shooters, not in the 1911.

These may shoot and feed fine. However, then again, they may not.

If you're looking for a bullet to feed, choose a bullet that is most similar to what the gun was designed to feed.

If I had to make a bet, the 1911 you own will be much more likely to shoot with a Lyman 452374 (230 RN, 2 radius) or a Lee 230 - 2R than many of the other suggested designs, which really aren't 1911 bullets.

A thorough discussion would take up too much room, but the 1911 was designed to run better with cartridges in its preferred range as to length. Too many of the suggested designs here get away from that, and may require tweaking and nonstandard magazines to get them to shoot. Nonstandard magazines are in and of themselves a reliability compromise; a double whammy you don't need.

Best advice? Shoot the bullet the gun was designed to run with and play the best odds.

Not to pick on anyone specifically; I'm just going with a design more likely to feed in an untuned 1911, which the OP has.

The Lee 200Rf seems to be a 230 RN with the end lopped off, I left my bullet seating die exactly the same today between the 200rf and the 230 round nose and it worked out quite well. How the bullet contacts the feed ramp is more important than the OAL. Most modern 1911 are made to run all kinds of different bullet shapes, it has been a long long time since out of the box 1911 were throated strictly for hardball ;-)

Bill

[kingstrider]

I really like the Lee 230 grain RN but the 230 grain TC is another good choice. I'd recommend buying the 6-cavity mold of whatever design you settle on. They are better built and you can crank them out faster than the 2-cavity designs.

[Willbird]

I really like the Lee 230 grain RN but the 230 grain TC is another good choice. I'd recommend buying the 6-cavity mold of whatever design you settle on. They are better built and you can crank them out faster than the 2-cavity designs. I agree, and you can even crank them out a lot faster with a 10lb pot :-). If your using air cooled bullets you can lube size while the pot melts another batch :-)...or premelt with another method.

[35remington]

How the cartridge functions is affected by many things, but even the early release magazines have a note in their packages that suggests not going too short. Length does indeed play a role with nonstandard bullets IME - and the 200 RF Lee offers hits the frame ramp differently than the 230-2R or ball ammo (I have both Lee designs). There's a limited amount you can do to a 1911, as many things can't be changed. There's things you can do to increase the odds of reliable function, and one of these things is to use ammo that requires the fewest modifications to the gun to feed.

The poster's gun likely isn't manufactured with all the "gunsmith upgrades" intended to help functioning with nonstandard ammo. And short ammo with a wide flat meplat loaded to shorter than standard OAL's isn't most likely to feed in the wide variety of 1911's out there. Standard ammo is, in my experience.

Which is why I suggested the standard bullet for the first mold. It's just plain logical.

I dare say that had you to bet on reliable functioning, you'd lean my way. A first mould should have a low chance of failure.

The OP should try several types before purchasing a mould, truthfully. Then he'll have an idea of what's what. If he can't do pre purchase testing, then standard first. Nonstandard later, if the gun proves out.

[Willbird]

How the cartridge functions is affected by many things, but even the early release magazines have a note in their packages that suggests not going too short. There's a limited amount you can do to a 1911, as many things can't be changed. There's things you can do to increase the odds of reliable function, and one of these things is to use ammo that requires the fewest modifications to the gun to feed. The barrel ramp is just one thing - other factors play a role.

The poster's gun likely isn't manufactured with all the "gunsmith upgrades" intended to help functioning with nonstandard ammo. And short ammo with a wide flat meplat loaded to shorter than standard OAL's isn't most likely to feed in the wide variety of 1911's out there. Standard ammo is, in my experience.

Which is why I suggested the standard bullet for the first mold. It's just plain logical.

I dare say that had you to bet on reliable functioning, you'd lean my way. A first mould should have a low chance of failure.

The OP should try several types before purchasing a mould, truthfully. Then he'll have an idea of what's what. If he can't do pre purchase testing, then standard first. Nonstandard later, if the gun proves out.

If Pistolsmiths can make a 1911 work with 38 special full wadcutters, and they can and do, it is not a finicky beast that has special needs. The idea that the 1911 will only work with hardball went out 30 years ago :-). The only newish 1911 variant I ever bought was a series 80 Officers model lightweight, but I never found any ammo it would not work 100% with, any kind of HP, semiwadcutter, or FP I tried worked just fine.

Bill

[35remington]

You're completely missing my point.

I'm not suggesting that roundnose ammo that duplicates ball is the only thing that will feed. I'm suggesting it is the most likely ammo to feed in an unknown gun, as here. If you have any further disagreement, please address this point, as it was this point I was making.

Bullseye shooters get alibis - and .38 wadcutter shooting 1911's were never, ever the most reliable 1911 variant. Paying attention to those cartridge characteristics that increase the odds of reliable function is always worthwhile.

[Willbird]

You're completely missing my point.

I'm not suggesting that roundnose ammo that duplicates ball is the only thing that will feed. I'm suggesting it is the most likely ammo to feed in an unknown gun, as here. If you have any further disagreement, please address this point, as it was this point I was making.

Bullseye shooters get alibis - and .38 wadcutter shooting 1911's were never, ever the most reliable 1911 variant. Paying attention to those cartridge characteristics that increase the odds of reliable function is always worthwhile.

My point is that the 1911 and it's magazines has increasingly been designed to work with a different cartridge than you are talking about, 1911's today typically are designed to work with a truncated cone type of bullet, most modern defensive jhp are either a truncated cone or a roundflat profile from the side view.

Bullseye shooters get alibi's because they use 3.5 to 4.0 grains of bullseye and a light recoil spring instead of a full service load and recoil spring.

Bill

[35remington]

Bullseye shooters get alibis because their favored bullet - short or button nosed 185 grain SWC's - result in overall cartridge lengths and feeding geometry that required magazine modifications in a gun not originally designed to feed them. Reliability is poorer with short target SWC's (such as the 185 grain match rounds) in a 1911. Most especially an unmodified one. This is universally understood.

Problems was that in modifying the magazines release timing was made much earlier, and the cartridge could no longer take advantage of later releasing tapered magazine lips to make the rear of the cartridge rise as it went forward. The result was to steepen the cartridge feed angle and abruptly release the rear of the round from the magazine's control when the rim was further away from the extractor - throwing the rim at the extractor, in effect, and at a sharper angle, to boot. You hope it gets under the extractor most of the time. Inherent reliability suffered, and the cartridge did not feed exactly as is originally intended, but that was okay - it's a target gun, not a home defense tool.

Further, we know nothing about the OPer's gun nor magazine preference. Is the frame ramp deeper as some gunsmiths modify it to catch nosediving rounds and improve reliability using magazines with unskirted front followers that have this tendency? We don't know. What's his magazine preference? Mec-Gar? Tripp? Wilson? Wilson ETM? McCormick Power Mag? McCormick Power Mag Plus? Whatever the Filipino manufacturer decides is close enough to whatever is supposed to be standard in 1911 magazines these days? (whatever that is, as everyone has a different idea of what's right?).

There is no magazine standard. Not all of these magazines work the same way. In fact, most of them have distinctly different release timing and feed angles. Some work better than others.

Given all this, I think you can see why I think reliable function is not a cut and dried deal with a 1911 given the great variety of guns and magazines out there.

Which is why in such instances my suggestions as to a bullet go to the well tried and proven. The Lee 200 RF isn't there yet as a cast bullet. There are better shapes in the "more likely to feed" category IMO for an unknown gun and magazine, as here.

[Ricochet]

I dare say that had you to bet on reliable functioning, you'd lean my way. A first mould should have a low chance of failure.
Actually, where I have to bet on reliable functioning, I use factory loaded "hardball."

[35remington]

No argument there about factory ball.

It's about odds. Always has been.

The magazines were tweaked (and in so doing, offer as many drawbacks as benefits these days) and the barrels were ramped (more accurate than saying throated) in the attempt to get them to feed other things. A lot of this works well if you know what you're doing, and know how feed characteristics vary with different magazines.

But the fact remains, a lot of the gun is still as it was (like the frame ramp angle).

In an unknown gun, with unknown magazines, I'll always suggest something proven over something short, blunt, having a different ogive strike point, different feed timing and being less proven. Just playing the odds again, and explaining my preferences.

[686]

HOW about the h&g 230 gr rn bb? it is a good ball match bullet.