Lyman 225415...what's the real weight??

[MTWeatherman]

I've got a couple of rifles I've considered dedicated jacket bullet shooters...ones a .300 Win and the other a .223. I rely on them for their flat trajectory, have pet loads, and the zero on both hasn't had to be changed in a long time. I've liked it that way. I don't expect .300 will ever see cast. However, given the success with the .223 of number of board members, I thought, what the hell, why not give cast a try? How hard is it to remember the number of clicks to change a zero (actually I'd better not trust my memory...I'll write it down)?

I decide I'd like a bullet of about 55gr with a decent meplat. Midsouth is out of the special order Bator from Lee and the Lyman 225646 which lists at 55 gr. doesn't have much meplat. The RCBS at 60 gr. looks good but ,at least in pictures, appears to have limited bearing surface. 225415 looks a bit better in that regard, has a decent meplat, and has enjoyed a good reputation. However it is a 45 grain bullet...or at least I thought so.

225415 has been around a long time...data for it is in my original Lyman cast manual #1 from the 50s. Depending on alloy (45 grains advertised with Lyman #2 alloy) and actual mould it can run a bit higher...but never over 50 gr. that I've every heard of. It's still there in Cast manual #3 from the early 80s...45 gr with #2 alloy.

But, wait a minute...Midway now lists its weight at 55 gr. I expect it's an error since I wouldn't think Lyman would change the mould without changing the mould number...right? I check Midsouth...55 gr. So, its straight to the source. I check the Lyman site. Lyman now lists 225415 at 55 gr. with #2 alloy.

What gives?? Has anyone bought this mould lately and checked their bullet weight? Has this bullet really been on a high calorie diet the past 25 years...and, with no name change, gained 10 gr. of bullet weight?

[9.3X62AL]

I had Lyman #225415 in the early 1980's, and they weighed ~53 grains cast from 92/6/2.

[35remington]

No, it really hasn't. I have two of their moulds for this bullet, one old, another three years old. Both bullets weigh around 50 grains w/gc. Lyman used to advertise it at 45 to 50 grains in most of their old literature (just rechecked some of my references), and this around 50 number was and is closest to the truth when moulded out of their #2 equivalent.

My samples say 55 is a bit high.

[JeffinNZ]

I get 47gr out of mine in "no. 2 alloy".

[Bullshop]

I get 55+ from WW.
BIC/BS

[HORNET]

MTWeatherman,
Mine are from an ancient (even older than me :) ) Ideal mold and run about 48.5 grains out of WW. I noticed that Lyman changed the designated weight from the old 48 gr to 55 gr in their #48 manual as well. I figured that they might have finally lengthened the gas check shank so the gas check doesn't bottom out on the bottom of the rear driving band. As usual, Lyman's cherry grinders tend to view print dimensions as suggestions rather than requirements (wonder if they used to work for Lee?) and, as Floodgate will probably tell you, what you get is what you get.:roll:
They'll probably still shoot pretty good although, for your requirements, you might want to check RCBS for the 22-055FN. It looks very similar ( uses the same top punch) and carries a little more lube for if you get frisky.[smilie=1:

[Larry Gibson]

I've an old single cavity purchased in the late '60s. Bullets of WWs (back then) with Hornady GC and lubed with Javelina weigh right at 55 gr. If I recall correctly cast of linotype the bullet alone was 45 gr. Mine drops the linotype bullets at .228" from the mould so I have used them with success in a .22 Savage also.

Larry Gibson

[Bullshop]

Hornet
That was interesting what you said about the gas check shank. I think you nailed the main difference. My mold is possibly 15 years old and with gas check on has a gap between the top of the check and the bottom of the drive band that is about equal in width to the grease groove above it. This gives it two grease grooves of equal width when lubed.
I weighed two this morning, one in 30/1 alloy checked and lubed @ 55.1 and a second of 6/1 alloy checked but no lube 6ww/1monotype @ 53.3.
As have apparently many others I have been searching for what I feal to be a superior design. I like my Lyman but feel it is a bit too long especialy for a 1/16" twist and lower velocities of say 1500 or so. It has worked very well from a 1/14" twist at 1800 and above.
I was excited about the Felix project but after some time felt I may not be in the world long enough to ever see it happen. For this reason I have ventured forth on my search privaly seaking the ultimate design. From other designs tried I had a good idea of what I wanted. I felt the NEI #4 came very close in basic design having the desirable Loverin type body with multiple drive bands and grease grooves but fell short on two points.
First it has a tiny meplate that I felt inadiquite for hunting and second because of the ogive that ends in nearly a point it was a tiny bit too long.
As luck would have it I did a special order for a 458 Lott customer from CBE and was very impressed with the quality. That led me to searching his designs in 22 cal and came up with # .225/55. This design matched exactly what I had in mind. It has a body much like the NEI #4 but with shorter ogive and a meplate about the same as the Lyman. Best of all even at 55 gn it is substancialy shorter than both the NEI and the Lyman.
So far we have tried it in the 22 Cooper, 22 hornet, and 223 and all gave excellent results easily with correct charges of any suitable powders. Have not yet tried it in a 1/16" twist but I am quite confident it will also do well here.
I think my quest is over with this mold, I am well satisfied! This is a quality tool made of brass. It is a three cavity droping boolits from each that are as consistant as I can get from any 22 cal single. Total cost shipped from down under a very reasonable $85.00 US.
We start our anual harvest of snow shoe hair this time of year where the older boys and I stay out all night. We have gone a couple times now till about 3am each time bringing home about 15 bunnies. I with the Cooper, Tony with a hornet , and Jr. with his wonderfuly accurate Rem 788 in 223.
At speeds between 1850 with the Cooper and 2500 in the 223 this new design is prooving to be just what I was looking for.
BIC/BS

[MTWeatherman]

Thanks for the quick replies...based on them I'm in agreement with 35Rem. Lyman could better advertise the mould as a 50 grain. With WW, it looks like the range is from 48gr to 55 gr. plus.

Hornet, to me that gas check issue would be an important one so appreciate your comment on it. I'm of the school that says the benefit of a gas check is due to its lead scraping abilities as much as its "gas checking"....and the gap between it and the driving band enhances the scraping ability as well as providing additional lubrication. If the check butts up against the driving band on the newer 225415 thats a big negative in my book. However, I still may go for it based on reputation. Bullshop supports the increased shank theory...anyone else confirm it??

The reason I ask is that both Al and Larry have early moulds dropping heavier bullets. That leads me to suspect poor quality control on Lymans part. The gas check length may simply be the luck of the draw. I expect some variation in bullet weight from different moulds due to manufacturing tolerances, but a 15% variation seems a bit much...especially since diamters should all be reasonably close. That leads me to suspect the variation is largely due to bullet length...variations in gas check shank lengths could be a likely cause. I'd like to think that, in recent years, Lyman decided to put some quality control on the shank to guarantee the longer length...and discovered the new weight was closer to 55 gr. when they accomplished it. Yeh, I'd like to think that...but seems to me Lymans quality control has gone down in the past 25 years...not up.

[35remington]

I was pondering the shank length on my 225415's, so I whipped out my handydandy electronic calipers and measured the distance between the bottom band and the front end of the gas check and came up with around .045", which don't sound like much, but it's nearly 2X as wide as the lube groove.

And yeah, mine shoot pretty darn well at high velocity. So if my checks are doing any lead scraping, then there's plenty of room for some accumulation of scrapings.

[Bass Ackward]

I'm of the school that says the benefit of a gas check is due to its lead scraping abilities as much as its "gas checking"....and the gap between it and the driving band enhances the scraping ability as well as providing additional lubrication. If the check butts up against the driving band on the newer 225415 thats a big negative in my book. However, I still may go for it based on reputation. Bullshop supports the increased shank theory...anyone else confirm it??


MTW,

There has to be a balance. If the check is right up against the last drive band, then there is no place for the lead to go that is displaced by the rifling. Personally, I prefer to have my lube as far up the bullet as possible. This does two things. It allows you to use less lube. And it keeps the weight back on the back of the bullet for stabilization purposes. Besides, on a heavy for caliber bullet, the longer the shank, the weaker the shank once hydrolic pressure is lost around the GC. I have tried all manner of shanks to include MM step shanks, and I find I want the shortest, strongest shank for a bullet that is to be stomped.

Years ago I bought a 30 caliber, 160 grain, LBT spitzer off of ebay shortly after they opened for business to do high velocity trials with. When I got it, I was sick. There was almost no gap between the check and the band. When I wrote to Veral and asked him why, his reply was that that bullet was probably taylored for someone who wanted a match bullet. His comment to me was that it would be useless for my purposes or for anything over 1900 fps. He said of coarse that he could send me another one that WOULD work. Well I still own that same mold today. And it works to about 2600 fps at 14BHN. And it doesn't scrape for squat, but it don't have to. So scraping action in this case isn't very important.

[MTWeatherman]

35Remington...thanks for checking that gap out...appreciate it. Actually, I think .045 is a pretty respectable gap and more than enough to keep me happy. Hell, that's damn near the difference in bore diameter between a .30 and .35 Remington. Since you've got both an old and new one...the longer shank length must have been in the initial design.

I'm going with the Lyman so hope that shank is long enough for some gap on this one...if not I'll live with it. I checked out the RCBS and discovered I was wrong on the weight at the first glance...60 gr was for the .228 bullet, the .224 is really 55. I do like RCBS moulds, however, would like more meplat than the semi-point shows. So, its either Lyman or invest the cost and time in a custom mould like Bullshop finally resorted to.

Bass, you make a good point on that gas shank length and I certainly agree. The debate on how a gas check works is an old one, and I'm not going to revisit it here. There's a "checking of gases" side and a "bore scraping" side and some believe both argruments have validity...I'm with the latter group. I just feel that that scaping action is the final guarantee of a reasonably clean barrel prior to each shot so that offsets any possible benefits to me of a short shank and butted gas check. With a smooth and uniform barrel, perfect bullet fit, right alloy, good lube, right pressure curve etc, you may achieve zero leading at relatively high velocity and that LBT bullet proved that. However, in most cases, I expect some leading is likely as one pushes the velocity envelope on lead and that final scraping as the bullet pushes down the barrel is a big help there.

I've also got a mould with an extremely short shank. Its a Saeco 124 gr. 9mm GC. I got it for use in a carbine. The shank is actually shorter than the sidewalls of the Hornady check, leaving an air gap between the gas check and bullet base after the check butts the rear driving band. Gas check bases are concave after lubrisizing. I fail to uderstand why Saeco designed it that way. However, no leading was evident with their use...the check accomplished its intended purpose. I recovered some bullets and discovered that although those checks were unable to scrape in the usual sense, they had lead smears on them. Limited lead removal was evident more due to a "soldering" effect than scraping. Limited was enough for the 9mm. However, although those bullets drop at .358, my immediate assumption was they wouldn't be of much use at potential .357 carbine or .35 Remington velocities (increased leading would likely require the "scraping" action). Based on your experience with that .30, I may have been wrong. However, I don't have a .35 Rem to test it and the .357 is a handgun. The bullets work well in it and I use that 9mm as a light weight GC in it to eliminate the leading at the ports.

Thanks to all who provided input. Without this board, I wouldn't have even been aware of the potential gas check length issue.

[StarMetal]

I think the gascheck does both. I mean you don't have to be a genius to realize that if you shoot a bullet that has all or part of it made of a metal far harder then bullet lead alloys, that it HAS to scrape some of it out, especially if it has a forward sharp square edge. But I also believe that the base of the bullet unprotected isn't strong enough, but in hardness and melting, to stand up to the high pressure hot gases that are pushing on it. So I think the gaschecks also seal off the bullet. I think like you said that if the bore has optimum conditions, the bullet fits right, the lube is good and does it job, and the load you selected is good, that there won't be any leading, but it's hard to tell if the gascheck scraped lead out of the bore or not. I've pushe my 7mm-08 pretty darn fast and the bore was AS clean as if I shot jacketed out of it, in fact cleaner because there were no copper streaks.

Joe

[w30wcf]

I have an old single cavity IDEAL 225415 which drops bullets that weigh 51 grs. w/gas check made from ww+2% tin. It drops @ .229" dia. from the mold. I lube in a .228" dia. die and then resize in .225" dia. die.

A friend of mine has a 225415 that he bought about 10 years ago and there is a noticeable difference between bullets from his mold and my IDEAL. The gas check shank is longer AND the meplat is noticeably larger on bullets from his mold.

w30wcf

[floodgate]

There's also the Lyman / Ideal #457102 (see the picture on CASTPICS > Researcha nd Data > Lyman Moulds) which is floating around among the "brethren" (I think 45 2.1 has it at present); it is a four-grease-groove 445- gr. flat-nose with a deep base band followed by a VERY short step; it must be for a gas check, but the step is only about half the length of the sidewall of a Lyman or Hornady GC - like the 9mm the weatherman from Montana mentioned above. WHYINNY"ELL would someone design a bullet like this???

floodgate

[Trigger44]

I have a 225415, bought about 4 months ago. Bullets from it run 54 grains W/O
gas checks. With #2 alloy. When used in a 1:12 twist hornet its one of the best
shooting cast bullets of the 5 types that I have. 12gr of H322/225415 sized .225
will shoot sub MOA at about 2120 FPS. The best shooting load is 4.2/HS-6/225415
and small pistol primers. Averages .375" at 50 yards, vel. about 1620 FPS. I also
shoot the RCBS SP-55 but in the its does not shoot as well.

I am comming to the end of a custom 22 BR 1:12" twist Douglas premium XX
barrel. This gun is being built for both cast and jacketed bullets in the weight range of 45-60gr. I hope to have that gun this week.

Other moulds that I have are the Lyman 225438 and the NEI #2 and #4. By the way I use for the target loads, Ace hardware wheel bearing grease and never get any leading. A little messy but works great. I have been casting bullets and reloading since 1959

[MTWeatherman]

Trigger44:

Welcome to Cast Boolits!!! I notice that post was your first...couldn't let it go by without extending the welcome. As I'm sure you've already figured out, there is a good bunch of knowledgeble and helpful casters here.

Based on your post and w30wcf's (as well as previous), I'm hopeful that the gas check shank was lengthened. Thanks for the load information also...good to hear another positive report on the bullet.

Floodgate:
I'll second that "WHYINNY"ELL of yours. Bass's explanation would seem to provide the best insight...but in a 9mm or .45-70 bullet?

Planned to place the order for the 225415 a few days ago with Midsouth as I wanted to pick up a 8mm Karabiner special order mould while at it. Then discovered they're out of .22 gas checks ...and so is Midway. I am in a holding pattern for a week or so hoping they hit their inventory. If not, will have to go with F&M or somewhere else for the mould and checks.

Anyone know why the shortage on the .22 checks?? Seems to me that Midsouth has been out of the Hornady's for some time now...plenty of time for Hornady to restock them.

[MTWeatherman]

Just an update:

Midsouth finally got some .22 checks in last week...Lyman. I usually go with Hornady on checks but since the Lyman's are now just cloned Hornady's, paid the $2 premium for them and ordered the 225415 mould and checks.

Based on replies here, seems to me that Lyman may well have modified the mould at some time in the past with a lengthened gas check shank...yielding heavier bullets today.

Just to confirm what others have already reported on the new moulds. I got the mould on Monday and cast some bullets up yesterday...WW +1% tin. Average weight of 10 bullets....54.1 grains. Nothing short about that gas check shank...there is a good gap between the check and rear driving band. My calipers showed a .055 gap and as .35 Rem already pointed out...thats significantly wider than the lube grooves.

So, it would appear that the real weight of the Lyman 225415 is indeed approximately 55gr...not the 45 grains reported in older manuals.

I find it surprising that Lyman would modify a mould without changing its number, but it appears that may have been the case. Maybe the gas check shank is not considered a major enough modification to justify it.

[catkiller45]

I noticed in that #1 manual they mentioned hard for the bullets. I wonder just what they mean by that.??��

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I noticed in that #1 manual they mentioned hard for the bullets. I wonder just what they mean by that.??��
"they" is C.H. Lark.
On Page 92, He mentioned in his notes about the 225415 and his data for R-2 Lovell and 222 rem, "All bullets are Tin, Antimony, and about as hard as I can make them"

[MostlyLeverGuns]

Back in the 60's, I had a 225415 single cavity that threw 52-53 grain bullets with 50-50 COWW- pure lead. Very accurate in a scoped Savage 219 .22 Hornet with a 1-16 twist.

[nanuk]

Back in the 60's, I had a 225415 single cavity that threw 52-53 grain bullets with 50-50 COWW- pure lead. Very accurate in a scoped Savage 219 .22 Hornet with a 1-16 twist.

Wouldn't your 219 have a 1/14" twist??

[oldblinddog]

I check the Lyman site. Lyman now lists 225415 at 55 gr. with #2 alloy.

What gives?? Has anyone bought this mould lately and checked their bullet weight? Has this bullet really been on a high calorie diet the past 25 years...and, with no name change, gained 10 gr. of bullet weight?

Mine is 4-5 years old. With #2 alloy mine are 58 grs lubed and checked. Very accurate in my Remington 700 .223 1-12 twist.