Got to love those old IDEALs ! !

[Char-Gar]

So what was the composition of #1 alloy?

Ideal Bullet Metal No. 1 - 80 parts lead, 7 parts antimony and 3 parts copper

Ideal Bullet Metal No. 2 - 90 parts lead, 5 parts antimony and 5 parts tin

This per THE AMERICAN RIFLE by Townsend Whelen (1918)

[Larry Gibson]

Piedmont

So why is there so much variation in cavity sizes of Lyman made molds over the years if they spec'd them for #2 alloy? Wouldn't they all measure the same? They don't. And why do the cherries vary so much in design from one to the next when they use the same cherry number? If they hold the diameters so tightly for #2 as suggested, why can't they hold the design the same?

Lyman didn't make the change to #2 all spec'd moulds all at once. It occured over quite a period of time. As the cherries wore out the were replaced with new ones cut to #2 alloy spec. The cherris were hand made and probably just had to be close to the same design. Its not easy to make a reamer or cherrie by hand so there was some leeway. Also they were made to + spec tolerences so they could be sharpened and used numerous times before hitting minimum spec. I imagine the newer cherries are made on CNC machines and now can be made to much tighter and more consistent spec's.

Bullet casters are natural cheapskates. Wheel weights have been the easiest and cheapest to procure alloy since what, the 1960s? (The popularization of them was NOT due to internet forums!) Why then would Lyman expect us to use an expensive alloy? Who in their right mind would use an expensive alloy when they could use a cheaper alloy?


Back "in the day" Alloys were not very expensive and there was no hasmat BS to put up with. Lyman manuals gave a lot of instruction on making alloy from batteries, linotype and WWs, sheet lead and many other sources. WWs back in the '60s also had a higher antimony and tin contect than the ones we've had for some years now. The popularization was also helped along by Lyman. Also back then we understood that we had to ask questions and learn to make our alloy work with the mould. We understood what the moulds were made for and learned how to make them work if we used omething ifferent. Today we just go on the internet and complain about the product. I've tested several 14 Lyman moulds that were thought to be "undersize" from my standing offer. All of them cast to nominal diameter + when COWWs (todays) + 2 % tin was used. I have not bought a single Lyman mould under my offer as all the owners wanted them back when they saw how easy it is to get properly sized bullets from them. A pound of tin does seem somewhat expensive if you are "cheap". But that 1 lb will do at 2% 50 lbs of COWW alloy. The much better quality of bullets, much less rejection and easier casting amazes everyone who trys it. If one wants to use "cheap" bullets from a poor alloy that's fine. But when you think you'll get better accuracy with the cheaper and poorer alloy if the bullet was only a couple thou larger then you've another thnk coming. If you want quality accuracy you need tostart with a quality alloy. COWWs can be a quality alloy if you add the 2 % tin. Sometimes "cheap" can be good but most often it is just "cheap". If you want to dance you have to pay the band.

Make all the excuses for Lyman you want to. They dropped the ball long ago and I for one am happy to support the likes of NOE and Accurate Molds, who give me what I want, not what they feel like giving me because they are nearly the only game in town. Save all that tin and linotype money and spend a little more for the mold to begin with.

I make no excuses at all for Lyman, if they make a bad mould i call it. Same with RCBS, Saeco, Mihec, NOE, Lee, Accurate or any other, they make a bad mould I call it. However, I do not condem the product when the problem is obviusly one of "operator error". You put garbage in you get garbage out. All those moulds cut for COWW or COWW + lead at 50/50 will cast much larger bullets when the COWWs run out and you have to use another alloy. The COWWs will run out as they already are/have in many parts of the country. You then will have excessively large bullets with other proper ternary alloys or you will have to start making your own poor quality COWW alloy. That will prove just as "expensive" as you think making a good proper ternary alloy is today.

Many like just okay cast bullts cast from whatever alloy is available on the "cheap". Trust me, I shoot a lot of those also. But I know what to expect from them. If I want a qualiy cast bullet for quality accuracy from any firearm I understand the 1st thing to start with is a quality alloy.

Larry Gibson

[Nrut]

Ideal Bullet Metal No. 1 - 80 parts lead, 7 parts antimony and 3 parts copper

Ideal Bullet Metal No. 2 - 90 parts lead, 5 parts antimony and 5 parts tin

This per THE AMERICAN RIFLE by Townsend Whelen (1918)

Thanks for posting the contents and ratios for the Ideal #1 alloy..
Seen it referred to a few of times but no formula..
Wonder how they blended the copper in without tin..

[williamwaco]

So what was the composition of #1 alloy?

3%Cu, 7%Sb, 90%Pb

[Char-Gar]

Piedmont,

I attribute the wide swing is mold sizes over the production life by Lyman as the consequences of poor quality control.

It is my understanding that Lyman didn't make or sharpen their cherries, but outsourced this critical machining. Over the course of decades, Lyman used a number of different machine shops to do this work.

I suspect, but can't prove, that Lyman didn't have master drawings but sent molds or cast bullets to the machine shop. Smith and Wesson didn't have master drawings until 1957. Before that, measurements were taken from master parts in the vault and machines were set from those measurements. Small differences were resolved by hand fitting. Lyman of course can't hand fit the mold cavities, but take what the cherry gives.

Over the production life of Lyman molds, you will find not only differences in body and nose diameters, but in the total design itself. Many of these differences are quite visible. I have six different 311291 molds made over a 50 year period and they are different in many regards.

Bullet casting did not pick up in popularity until after WWII when many of the returning vets took up shooting and reloading. Lots of advances in reloading knowledge and equipment were made during that period of time.

In the early 60's the American Rifleman published a large number of bullet casting articles, many of them by Col. Harrison which were very authoritative. He called attention to the large size of Lyman molds and the damage done by sizing. The result was a call for molds that cast small bullets and dies that didn't shave bullets when sized. Lyman accommodate this demand.

Lyman was the 500 pound gorilla for several generations and they became somewhat arrogant, figuring folks would buy what they made and be grateful for it. They paid the price for their arrogance and are now a much smaller player in the field. They are now trying to play catch up ball and have not got their game together yet. They took their customers for granted for far to long.

[Char-Gar]

Thanks for posting the contents and ratios for the Ideal #1 alloy..
Seen it referred to a few of times but no formula..
Wonder how they blended the copper in without tin..

I have no idea how the blending was done. I am not a science guy, but I have always thought that No. 1 cast larger than No. 2 due to the extra 2% antimony. Antimony contracts when hot and expands when cool, quite the opposite from most other metals. That is why it was used in various type metals. It helps fill out the molds. Tin will also help in this regard, but not like antimony.

[Larry Gibson]

#1 alloy (called "Ideal Bullet Metal" at the time) is 80% lead, 10% Tin, 7% Antimony and 3% copper by weight. Per Ideal Manufacturing Company, Lt. Townsend Whelen (1909) and Phil Sharpe.

Larry Gibson

[Green Frog]

Many of my favorite moulds have been by Ideal. When I was first shooting in the Schuetzen game I bought just about every Ideal mould I could find for the 32-40 in hopes of finding the one that made me a great shooter (yeah, I know it would have been better to practice, but "hope springs eternal...") I still have about 6 or 7 of those moulds, all single cavity and several with the handle and block made together. I also had to have a couple of good moulds each for 45, 44, and 38/357 and at the time preferred the single cavity versions for "greater precision" though my pistol shooting was nothing to write home about. By the time I got on my 32 S&W/327 Fed Mag kick I was looking for double cavity moulds to increase production, and although I have a great mould from NOE and a beautiful work of art from Mihec, I still love my old Ideal moulds for that bullet family as well. Altogether I have about 18-20 Ideal moulds and would be hard pressed to let any of them go, even though the 4 custom moulds I have for Schuetzen and the 32 revolver get a lot of use as well. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Froggie

[williamwaco]

I have no idea how the blending was done. I am not a science guy, but I have always thought that No. 1 cast larger than No. 2 due to the extra 2% antimony. Antimony contracts when hot and expands when cool, quite the opposite from most other metals. That is why it was used in various type metals. It helps fill out the molds. Tin will also help in this regard, but not like antimony.

Not a metallurgist, and not disagreeing, but the old printers in the 1950's told me the antimony was to make it hard because without it, the presses would "smash" and distort the type letters in the type blocks.

[Char-Gar]

Not a metallurgist, and not disagreeing, but the old printers in the 1950's told me the antimony was to make it hard because without it, the presses would "smash" and distort the type letters in the type blocks.

Back in the early 60's I bought linotype metal from a foundry in Houston (Sterling Type Metal and Rule) and they told me the high antimony content helped with the fill out of the small type letters. That is where I get that from.

With a printing press you certainly would not want an alloy that was highly malleable for sure. But antimony remains in crystals in the alloy which makes the alloy hard but brittle. Shoot a deer with a lintotype bullet at rifle speed and most likely the nose will shatter on impact. I suspect that linotype used the antimony to help with the fill out and help to keep the letters crisp and sharp during the printing process.

[williamwaco]

Back in the early 60's I bought linotype metal from a foundry in Houston (Sterling Type Metal and Rule) and they told me the high antimony content helped with the fill out of the small type letters. That is where I get that from.

With a printing press you certainly would not want an alloy that was highly malleable for sure. But antimony remains in crystals in the alloy which makes the alloy hard but brittle. Shoot a deer with a lintotype bullet at rifle speed and most likely the nose will shatter on impact. I suspect that linotype used the antimony to help with the fill out and help to keep the letters crisp and sharp during the printing process.

I expect both are correct.

Back in the 50's and 60's wheel weights were much harder than now. I have no idea what the bnh was but after we got enough smelted to make a pot, we would cast half dozen bullets and let them cool.

They we perforned the "smash test". Place a bullet on the concrete floor or on a brick and smash it with a hammer.
If it crumbled, we diluted that pot 50/50 with plumbers lead or telephone cable. If it flattened, we made bullets with it.

[ohland]

#1 alloy (called "Ideal Bullet Metal" at the time) is 80% lead, 10% Tin, 7% Antimony and 3% copper by weight. Larry Gibson

Huh, I thought copper was bad ju-ju in lead. Suppose not.

[ohland]

#1 alloy (called "Ideal Bullet Metal" at the time) is 80% lead, 10% Tin, 7% Antimony and 3% copper by weight. Per Ideal Manufacturing Company, Lt. Townsend Whelen (1909) and Phil Sharpe. Larry Gibson

OK, so what are Lyman #3 and #5? Lyman #2, #4, and #6 are in the '58 LHCB, IIRC.

[SniderBoomer]

Fantastic thread, deserves to stay around... Wondering how a home-caster can make up some #1 Alloy.

[MtGun44]

Love old Ideal molds, and I would really like to thank Larry for that education. I was
entirely unaware of that information, and appreciate learning more about this hobby.

I often say "You can learn something new every day, if you will pay attention." Thanks
for today's learning, Larry.

As to overall quality - Miha's molds are spectacular, and the quality is just amazing, but
I do have to say that of the production molds, RCBS's mehanite is just a wonderful material.
Seems to be a lot harder and wears better than the Ideal and Lyman iron, which seems very
soft and I do worry about damage, as I see damage around the corners on old molds I
buy.

There are lots of different styles and materials out there, and I have managed to make good
boolits with just about all of them, aluminum, brass, iron, mehanite, Lyman, NOE, NIE,
MP, Saeco, RCBS, Ideal, Lee and more. We are indeed fortunate in our hobby to have so
may choices of good tools.

Bill

[Larry Gibson]

Lyman #3 alloy is 1-10

Lyman #5 should be 1-30.

Larry Gibson