How pointy are your recent 452374 bullets?

[35remington]

I've seen, in Handloader magazine and elsewhere, bullets that were identified as Lyman 452374's that threw bullets that were considerably pointier than my particular 452374 mould throws, but it's an older mould.

I consider my old mould a correct relatively close copy of the GI cartridge's ball profile, essentially a 2 radius ogive. These new moulds look like they throw far too pointy a bullet if they appear as in the pictures and I wonder if Lincoln Riley, he of Wisner, Nebraska and the original designer of this mould way back when for the 45 ACP 1911 pistol, would approve?

If they truly throw a bullet as pictured in that magazine I bet old Lincoln (he was in his 70's in the 1920's and was a local doctor) is rolling in his grave right now.

Ball ammo of the proper profile ain't anywhere near that pointy. Tell me it ain't so with your recent examples of Lyman's 452374!

[MtGun44]

I have not seen any cast that seems to accurately match ball profile. My 4 cav Lyman
452374 which is at least 30 yrs old is definitely more pointed than ball, but not to any
serious extent. Many of the commercial 230 cast are much 'blunter' than ball to my
eye.

All seem to feed just fine.

Bill

[Grapeshot]

That's why I went to a Truncated Cone for my .45ACP cast bullet loads.

[35remington]

MtGun, I agree, my 452374's are a little pointier than ball but the recent pictures look a LOT pointier than what I've got. I'm just wondering if some significant change has occurred.

Aside from whatever weaknesses it might have with the TL bands and the "need" to use LLA (I lube mine in a lubrisizer with 50/50), the Lee 230-2R is pretty darn close to ball profile.....closer than most.

[NVcurmudgeon]

35 remington, could this just be the common variation in Lyman cherries? If you want to really scratch your head get hold of sample boolits from several Lyman 311291 moulds. Some variations don't even look like they are made to the same designs! A bullet design that has been around for 100 years has had cherries replaced many times, by many tool makers. My single cavity 452374 is definitely fifty years old and looks like a clone of issue ball, but the next artist may have a different idea.

A Rifle #251 (July 2010) article about .32/20 Winchester loading has a photograph showing "a cast bullet." Author John Haviland, in his load table, mentions only the Lyman #3118 cast bullet. I have some sample 3118s from a friend on my bench right now, and they have a much blunter nose than the one shown in Mr. Haviland's picture. I guess with these old bullet designs we have to allow Lyman a little poetic license.

[ChuckS1]

Mine is pretty pointed when compared to my 452400. That seems to be closer to the H&G 34, which I understand was supposed to replicate the ball profile.

[35remington]

curmudgeon, you could be right, but I'd like to think the guy cutting the cherry, at some point, would be reined in by thinking, "Whoa! I've gone way too far this time! It's a ball type bullet for the automatic to duplicate ball feeding characteristics, not a javelin!"

Those pictured 452374's I saw looked awfully pointy.....to the extent that the ogive just didn't have the "fatness" to it I like to see. Can't help but wonder about it.

These seemed to butcher Mr. Riley's original intent quite a bit. Less "poetic license" than "complete subversion."

[Dale53]

Lyman has "strayed" way to far, many times over the years. It can be disconcerting at best, and actually can cause serious problems when the original design is changed to the point that pressures are seriously affected.

Handloader Magazine #260 (June-July 2009) has a very good article by Roger Smith that covers some changes of the serious type regarding the great Elmer Keith bullet design for the .45 Colt - Lyman 454424. It is worth a read...

Dale53

[theperfessor]

Not to hijack this thread but has anybody compared the bullet profile of different brands of factory 230 gr FMJ ball ammo? I haven't as the only .45 ammo I've ever purchased has been a few boxes of "high performance" stuff but I'd be curious to know how close it compares to the original GI specs.

[Piedmont]

These cast RNs are set up to weigh in the 225-230 grain range. They are denser than hardball. Ever look how thick the jackets are on ball when you are melting down range scrap?
If the length is the same and the weight has to be the same, it seems to me the profile would have to be more pointy.