Lyman sizer dies - mislabeled?

[hanover67]

I cast 148gr wadcutters for .38 Special used in a Colt Officers Model which has a tight .354" barrel. I've used both .354" and .356" Lyman sizing dies in my RCBS lubrisizer, and in both cases boolits were undersized, .353" and .354" respectively. Also, the .356" die seems to drop boolits out of round, .355" X .354". I'm using range lead with added 50/50 solder, of unknown hardness.

I don't know if it is my technique, the dies, or the lead, but it is frustrating to wind up with inconsistent results. Does anybody see anything obvious that I've missed? I also have .357" and .358" dies, but I haven't used those for the Officers Model revolver. Maybe Lyman dies are on the small side and I just need to go up in size?

[Yodogsandman]

Maybe sizing too soon after casting?

Film on dies?

Maybe you didn't zero the calipers? (I do this)

[Larry Gibson]

Different springback of your alloy is the problem. Lyman's are cut for #2 alloy. Easy solution is to slightly hone out the sizers for the size you want with the alloy you use.

Larry Gibson

[Char-Gar]

Just a little feedback;

1. Lyman sizing dies out of spec are not uncommon.
2. As Larry said, different alloys will have different springback.
3. Now here is the big one, ready.......354 or .355 barrel groove diameter is the norm on vintage Colt revolvers. HOWEVER, you will get better accuracy and results if you size the bullet to fit the cylinder throats which are usually .358 to .359 on the same sixguns. So, size your bullets .358 or even .359. No, it hurts nothing if the bullet size down in the barrel. That was going to be your next question right?

[azrednek]

It just might be because my mold, guns etc are different. I've been shooting the Lee 148 TL style since the 80's. I get the best shot to shot accuracy shooting them as cast. I lube using Lee's Tumble Lube, don't bother with sizing and dust them well with Motor Mica. The dusting does nothing for accuracy, not really necessary but makes the castings easier to store.

I generally cast the 148 WC's with scrap lead of unknown alloy and hardness. I shoot them on the mild side with 2.7 - 3.0 grs of Bullseye. If you're not driving them hard. I suggest you try some skipping the sizing. With all the possibilities of anything from bore size, hardness and even a steady hand at the range. You might or might not see an improvement. The improvement I saw was significant enough that I haven't run the 148 WC's through a sizer in years.

[hanover67]

I did zero the calipers. I measured the cylinder throats, which are .357" and I'll try to size boolits accordingly and see what happens. I have a .358" sizer die which, if past is prologue, should produce .357" boolits. Boolits drop from my mold at .357"X.358". I don't know how well the chambers line up with the barrel - I don't have a range rod for the .38. The back of the barrel is square and sharp, so I'm considering using a Brownell's revolver deburring tool to slightly chamfer the front of the forcing cone. I can also use it to eliminate lead spitting from a Colt .32-20 Army Special barrel as well. The Brownell's product description says it improves accuracy.

[Char-Gar]

I did zero the calipers. I measured the cylinder throats, which are .357" and I'll try to size boolits accordingly and see what happens. I have a .358" sizer die which, if past is prologue, should produce .357" boolits. Boolits drop from my mold at .357"X.358". I don't know how well the chambers line up with the barrel - I don't have a range rod for the .38. The back of the barrel is square and sharp, so I'm considering using a Brownell's revolver deburring tool to slightly chamfer the front of the forcing cone. I can also use it to eliminate lead spitting from a Colt .32-20 Army Special barrel as well. The Brownell's product description says it improves accuracy.

Calipers will not give an accurate measurement of the inside diameter of a round hole. That takes a hole or pin gauge. Having measured scores of vintage Colt, I can tell you the cylinder throats are .358 - .359.

As far as the Brownells tool goes, I have a set and it can be useful from time to time. But don't start removing metal unless there is a problem. As for improving accuracy, recutting the forcing cone may or may not do that. If used improperly it can degrade accuracy. When you use one of these tool, you have to go the entire way and recut the entire forcing cone, until there is a smooth transition to the lands. Just cutting a little bit, most likely will leave a sharp edge in the cone that will strip lead from the bullet and cause leading like mad.

Fixing non-existing problems is a popular thing to do these days, but I don't hold with that practice. Sometimes problems are induced in the process of fixing those that don't exist. The people at Colt, knew a great deal about making revolvers and were not idiots. Unless you have hard proof there is indeed a real problem with your sixgun, don't go cutting on it.

The Colt Officers Model was Colts pre-war target pistol offering. It was replaced after the war with the Officers Model Match. Both are very fine pistols and expert shots took home lots of medals and trophies using box stock handguns.

I currently shoot a 1931 vintage Officers Model and it has not been modified in any way. It shoots far better than I can hold. Here is a pic of the Officers Model along with one of my Colt Army Special (1913) in 32-20, which also has not been altered. They are both fine shooting pistols.

[hanover67]

Char-Gar is correct. I re-measured my cylinder throats with pin gauges. The largest gauge that would fit all of the bores was marked .359" but it actually measured .3583".

I appreciate the advice to not start fixing non-problems. Old Colt double action revolvers are known as "Swiss watch revolvers" because they were hand fitted at the factory, and internal parts are not necessarily interchangeable. I certainly don't want to have to go looking for a replacement barrel.

My Officers Model .38 is the "Heavy Barrel" version, made in 1919. My Army Special .32-20 dates from 1923. It is the same gun used in John Barsness" article on the .32-20 in Handloader #297 in April of this year. I have another Army Special .32-20, but it is damaged and not shootable.

[Char-Gar]

I am glad things are going the right way for you, and I am glad to be of assistance. There is some benefit from being a sixgun nut for 55 years. I can also tell you most of what I know was learned the hard way, i.e. from making mistakes. I have learned very little from doing it right the first time.

Good shooting.....

[hanover67]

After some research, it seems that the range lead I'm using is too soft and that somehow the sizer dies squeeze it down several thousandths less that the diameter stamped on the die. This result is consistent with all 4 of the .38 caliber dies I have used. I do have some Lyman #2 and I'll try it after I empty my pot. I found lots of information about how different lead mixtures cast in terms of diameter, but almost none about how they size.

[Char-Gar]

For your purpose, the barrel groove diameter is irrelevant. The key number for accuracy is the diameter of you cylinder throats. The idea is to have the bullets to big to drop through the cylinder kerplunk, but catch in the cylinder throat. If you can push them through the cylinder throat with a dowel or pencil, they are just fine. If you can's push them through, they are too big.

If you want numbers, .358 works in almost all Colts and .357 works in almost all Smith and Wessons.

Most range scrap is about the right hardness for your purposes. No. 2 is too hard for your purposes and won't obdurate/slug up to seal the throats with any pressure you would want to use in that fine old Colt. You will likely get a good dose of leading and it will be difficult to get out due to the hardness of the No. 2 alloy.

No 2 is a good rifle alloy for high end loads, and full snort magnum handgun loads, but other than that, it is not useful at 38 Special velocity/pressure.

Do you own a good micrometer? If you are using your calipers to determine the size of you sized bullets, you may be getting bogus numbers. Good high end calipers can give good result, but they are no easy to use. Light pressure needs to be kept on the closing wheel as you take the reading. If you left up, they will bounce back a mite giving false reading. Micrometers won't do this. If you put too much pressure on the caliper blades, they will dig into the alloy bullet, and the softer the bullet, the easier it is to dig in.

After a press, some dies, a good scale and powder measure, the micrometer is the first tool a handloader should add.

A bullet no matter the hardness will be sized the diameter of the die. The bullets won't come out smaller than the hole they were shoved through. What will vary is how much the bullets springs back after compression. This will vary on the alloy, but in all reality I have never know it to be more than a couple of ten thousands, not enough to make any difference.

I have to be honest and say that it makes no sense that your softer alloy will come of out the die two thousands off, either smaller or larger. I would bet a good steak dinner that your measurements are incorrect. It would be pretty certain I would get a free steak out of the deal.

My earnest counsel to you is to lube and size your range scrap bullets in your .358 die, load to about 700 to 800 fps and go shooting. Shoot a couple of hundred rounds and then sit down and see where you are. Don't obsess or numbers, but rather holes in the target are what is important. I think you will decide you don't have any problems after that.

If you have it or can get it, use Bullseye power 3 to .3.2 grains.

[Echo]

^^^ Plus a big ONE!

[Larry Gibson]

hangover67

Because there can be a wide discrepancy between the cylinder's chamber throat diameters and the barrel's groove diameter I have to disagree a bit; fit to the revolvers chamber throats is not always best. If the throats are .003+ over the groove diameter then accuracy will not be good because the bullet, particularly the base, is being squeezed down and misaligned to much on transition from throat into the barrel. In the case where the throats are .003 or larger than the barrel's groove diameter I've found that bullets cast hard and not over .002 over groove diameter most often produce the best accuracy. Best to know both diameters if there is a question about it.

Also "zeroing" calibers at "0"/"0" does not guarantee they will measure correctly at diameter, especially in the .350 - .460" range. I have checked against certified pins in that range numerous quality dial calipers and in particular the electronic calipers that when "zeroed" at "0"/"0". I have found some are as much as .004" off in the .350 - .460" range. If you have a doubt and don't also have a certified micrometer take a jacketed bullet in the .350 - .460" range to a machinist and have them measure the diameter with a quality certified micrometer. Then you can check your calipers against that.

Larry Gibson

[hanover67]

I appreciate all of the comments so far, even the ones that suggest "operator error." I'm learning all the time. I do have both a caliper gauge and a micrometer, and I'm careful about taking measurements. This started out as a question about the accuracy of labeling Lyman resizing dies used in an RCBS lubrisizer, as boolits seemed to have been sized to a diameter smaller than the advertised die size. I had never measured sized bullets before, and was surprised by this result. Further, I found that this result was consistent for dies measuring .356", .357", and .358" the latter being the biggest diameter die I have, which sized boolits to .355", .003" short of the goal. So, it did not appear to be a problem with a given die. I got/found a lot of comments about relative hardness of lead and casting size, but little about sizing.


I'm using range lead, and I just got a Lee Hardness tester which indicates a BHN of 14.3, close to Lyman #2 alloy. Now, this measuring system may not be the most accurate in terms of hardness, but 3 different boolits and ingots of the same lead all measured the same. My theory is that the lead I'm using is soft and for some reason gets sized down more than the die would indicate, perhaps due to lack of " springback." So, I'm going to try hardening the lead by adding 50/50 bar solder to it and see what happens. I live near a Rotometals outlet, so I can also buy Lyman #2 locally.


One goal is to produce lubed boolits of .358" diameter of the throats on my Colt Officers Model revolver. I slugged the barrel at .353". There seem to be a lot of moving parts to this problem. As far as measurement is concerned, I have a set of pin gauges. The .359" gauge fits my Colt cylinders, but my micrometer says the gauge is only .3583". I don't want to try honing out sizing dies - I'd rather buy a bigger die.


I always assumed that boolits sized in a particular die would come out that diameter, but I was wrong. We'll se what imcreasing the hardness does, and take it from there.

[Mal Paso]

Springback on my water dropped 44 cal boolits is .0005" max over air cooled soft boolits. Air cooled come out the same size as the die.

Try your pin gauges on the sizing die.

Lyman dies are chancy. Get one of our machinists here to make you one or hone one for you. Buckshot comes to mind.

Pin gauges are usually + or - the actual dimension. Minus to measure the inside of a hole.

[Char-Gar]

At the risk of being redundant, I have had a few Lyman size dies over the years that have been off .001 one way or another, but never more than that. I am talking about maybe two or three of the scores I own. I certainly have never had a series of them off. That is what motivated me to think about measurement error.

Perhaps Lyman has gone round the bend with their quality control. I really can't say, as I have not bought a sizing die from them in the past 15 years. I have quite a collection and they don't wear out.

Lee makes a .358 press mounted push through die that works well and is fast to boot. They are also quite cheap. You should consider getting one and see what that gives you. I use one frequently and my bullets comes out spot on .358. Various tumble lubes can be used with conventional design bullets and work well for 38 Special loads.

The suggestion to have Buckshot make one is also a good one. He can make a die for press mounting or use in your machine. They will be spot on and that is a promise.

I will further note, that sizing dies are not made to accommodate "springback" with alloy. They are made in the exact size as the intended bullets. It there is any "springback", it will produce a bullet larger than the ID of the die, not smaller. Therefore the notion that "springback" will produce bullets smaller than the ID of the die, makes zero sense to me.

As far as the proper size of wadcutters to be fired in Colt Officers Model or Officers Model Match goes, I have substantial experience with these stretching way back to my Bulleye Match shooting days in the early 60's. The Colts were popular on the range in those days.

Colt and Smith and Wesson had different notions about how these handguns should be made to bring home the gold.

Smith used cylinder throats in the .357 range and Colt in the .359 range. Colt used barrel of .354 groove diameter and Smith of .357 groove diameter. The width of the lands were much smaller in the Colt than the Smith. Therefore the amount of lead displaced as the bullet went down the Colt barrel, was considerably less than the wider Smith lands. Colt and Smith barrels had rifling twists that turned in different directions, as did the cylinders.

For all the differences between the two, both brought home the gold, and while each had their fans, one was not clearly superior to the others. Both fired the same factory wadcutter ammo and when handloaded, .358 was the standard diameter of the bullet for both revolvers. Shoving .358 bullets down a .354 Colt barrel, produced the same level of accuracy as shoving them down a .357 Smith barrel.

Some Smith shooters did prefer .357 bullets because of the smaller cylinder throats.

Cast bullet alloys were quite soft with 40-1 (lead to tin) being most common. I have learned though hard experience, that hard alloys cause more problems than they solve in handguns at velocities below 1,000 fps.

Lots of folks have lots of theories about how things should have been done, but when these old match pistols were on the line every weekend, this is how it was done. Theories don't matter much anyway, just how many bullets go into the X ring.

I get very frustrated with some threads on this board, as they devolve into conflicting theories, and theories are not holes in the target, they are just theories which are really nothing more than opinions. The foregoing information is not my opinion, but rather is my experience. At any rate, I have done all I can to help you along the way with your fine old Colt, so I will take my leave of this thread.

Great shooting and keep them in the X-Ring.

Charles Graff
Deep South Texas.

[Jared]

With lack of quality of several semi recent Lyman bullet molds that have passed through my hands, I would not be the least bit surprised at out of spec sizer dies.

Between the the out of spec molds, and lackluster customer service experiences I have had, I seldom buy anything made by Lyman anymore. If I do it is because they are the only game in town for that particular product.