H&g 115

[Burnt Fingers]

I picked up this H&G 115 on the auction site a week or so ago.

I braved the heat today and went out and got it hot and started pouring.

I have to say this is one bullet that really gives me pause. It's a 9mm bullet, mine are dropping at 125 gr, but it has very little bearing surface.



Here's some pictures. What are your thoughts on this bullet. I know that H&G retired/modified the cherry as they weren't happy with the size of the front driving band.

[Plate plinker]

Looks nice but there sure isn’t much band. If it doesn’t work you could probably have it modified.

[jsizemore]

Had to have it. How do they load and shoot?

[Burnt Fingers]

I need to finish coating them. I should have a range report next week.

[Burnt Fingers]

Looks nice but there sure isn’t much band. If it doesn’t work you could probably have it modified.

Yep. If I have to have it modified I'll have the bevel base removed.

[Dragonheart]

I have a #115, but acquired a #7 shortly thereafter, so I haven't taken the time to load any #115 and run them through the Ransom Rest check for accuracy. My guess is they will shoot just fine. As far as altering the mold it will take equipment better than mine to do a proper job and I would end up with a bullet about the same weight of the #7 or even heavier if I removed the grease groove. The H&G #7 shoots better than me, this is 5 powder coated rounds, from a S&W 1911 in a Ransom Rest at 25 yards .

[Burnt Fingers]

I try and pick up H&G molds as the funds allow.

Maybe one of these days I'll find a #7 when the time is right.

[Dragonheart]

It took me several years to find a H&G #7, but when I did it looked like it had been hardly used at all. Even longer to find a 7mm #80. A #7 , 6 cavity sold on Ebay a few weeks ago, one of the guys on this site picked it up and got a great mold. If properly cared for the H&G molds will last for generations and produce excellent bullets, assuming the gun grabbers don't melt them down along with the guns.

[FISH4BUGS]

I picked up this H&G 115 on the auction site a week or so ago.

I braved the heat today and went out and got it hot and started pouring.

I have to say this is one bullet that really gives me pause. It's a 9mm bullet, mine are dropping at 125 gr, but it has very little bearing surface.



Here's some pictures. What are your thoughts on this bullet. I know that H&G retired/modified the cherry as they weren't happy with the size of the front driving band.

You may have seen this, but I'll copy and paste it just in case. This is from Tom Dugas' H&G mould sheet that he did in Word:
"#115 – 9mm, 125 grain, Round Grease Groove, no crimp groove. Bevel base or plain base available. Info from mold owned and sold on eBay – summer 2004. Not on List from Wayne Gibbs. . Entry by T.D. Update Feb 2009: Wayne Gibbs finally solved mystery. Design #115 was dropped from ledger in late 1980’s and evolved into design #331. Wayne told me that he never like the original thin driving band at the base of the ogive on #115. He finally adjusted the cherry design to a fatter driving band, and gave the modified design its own number and retired #115 from the ledger. If someone wanted a #115, he gave them #331 which performed better. Entry by TD Feb 2009. There exist two designs of #115, the original “thin” front driving band style, and the later “fatter” driving band style which became Mould #331."
I have owned and cast with both. The 4 cavity #115 was my original 9mm for submachine guns and 9mm compact carry pistols, so accuracy was really not much of an issue.
I stumbled across an 8 cavity #331 and bought it.....the only reason was production - period. With as much 9mm casting and reloading I was doing, the extra cavities made a difference. In discussions with Tom, I learned about the #115 and the skinny driving band and the change to the #331.
I don't see a problem with the #115 as long as you don't short stroke your press. I load on a Dillon 550 and found that unless I go solidly right to the bottom of the down stoke, precise seating and crimping became an issue....but then again, that is true with ANY caliber you are loading.
Consistency of movement is paramount to good reloads.
As for the bevel base I'd leave it alone. Accuracy won't suffer or improve with plain base or bevel base.....as far as my own personal experience goes.....and you won't have to bell the mouth of your 9mm quite so much with a bevel base bullet.

[starreloader]

I have both the H&G #115 and the H&G #331.. Can't actually tell any real difference, but then most of my 9mm shooting is 25 feet or less.. Both designs are bevel-base and they load fine.. Winchester brass (all same style) and W231/HP38 is all I use for both boolit types.. Don't think you will need to modify your H&G #115 4-cav.. Like all other things when it comes to loading, find out what works best for you and your firearm.

[Dragonheart]

I have both the H&G #115 and the H&G #331.. Can't actually tell any real difference, but then most of my 9mm shooting is 25 feet or less.. Both designs are bevel-base and they load fine.. Winchester brass (all same style) and W231/HP38 is all I use for both boolit types.. Don't think you will need to modify your H&G #115 4-cav.. Like all other things when it comes to loading, find out what works best for you and your firearm.

Excellent advice. I have a number of 9mm bullet molds, not just H&G, and every mold I have taken the time to develop a load for will shoot better than I can.

[Burnt Fingers]

You may have seen this, but I'll copy and paste it just in case. This is from Tom Dugas' H&G mould sheet that he did in Word:
"#115 – 9mm, 125 grain, Round Grease Groove, no crimp groove. Bevel base or plain base available. Info from mold owned and sold on eBay – summer 2004. Not on List from Wayne Gibbs. . Entry by T.D. Update Feb 2009: Wayne Gibbs finally solved mystery. Design #115 was dropped from ledger in late 1980’s and evolved into design #331. Wayne told me that he never like the original thin driving band at the base of the ogive on #115. He finally adjusted the cherry design to a fatter driving band, and gave the modified design its own number and retired #115 from the ledger. If someone wanted a #115, he gave them #331 which performed better. Entry by TD Feb 2009. There exist two designs of #115, the original “thin” front driving band style, and the later “fatter” driving band style which became Mould #331."
I have owned and cast with both. The 4 cavity #115 was my original 9mm for submachine guns and 9mm compact carry pistols, so accuracy was really not much of an issue.
I stumbled across an 8 cavity #331 and bought it.....the only reason was production - period. With as much 9mm casting and reloading I was doing, the extra cavities made a difference. In discussions with Tom, I learned about the #115 and the skinny driving band and the change to the #331.
I don't see a problem with the #115 as long as you don't short stroke your press. I load on a Dillon 550 and found that unless I go solidly right to the bottom of the down stoke, precise seating and crimping became an issue....but then again, that is true with ANY caliber you are loading.
Consistency of movement is paramount to good reloads.
As for the bevel base I'd leave it alone. Accuracy won't suffer or improve with plain base or bevel base.....as far as my own personal experience goes.....and you won't have to bell the mouth of your 9mm quite so much with a bevel base bullet.

Thanks. Is the mold I have the thin band or the thick?

[FISH4BUGS]

Thanks. Is the mold I have the thin band or the thick?

If you have the #115 you have the thin band. I have cast and loaded probably ten thousand #115's and really the only thing I can say is what I said earlier about short stroking your press.
I only reason I went to the #331 because of production - period (8 cavities vs. 4) .....and boy does it produce!
I also learned from TD that the #331 is far less common than the #115, by an estimated factor of about 10:1. I really don't think that matters too much....unless you are a hard core collector/hoarder of H&G moulds.....but then we don't know anyone like that do we?

[Dragonheart]

I really don't think that matters too much....unless you are a hard core collector/hoarder of H&G moulds.....but then we don't know anyone like that do we?

LOL. Hey, I don't need to come here to be called names. I can stay at home and my wife will do it for free.

[flydad]

You have the thin band version. I have a 10 cavity version that throws 118 grains. I powder coat all mine and they are very accurate, better than me as are all HG molds.

[flydad]

yes sir that was me and I have already cast 1000 and shot about 100. Very accurate, mine is dropping 134 grains.

[Burnt Fingers]

I shot 150 of them today. I only tried one load. The H&G 115 didn't like that load. I'll have to play with them some more.

[Dragonheart]

I shot 150 of them today. I only tried one load. The H&G 115 didn't like that load. I'll have to play with them some more.

To save some time, for a starting point I would suggest trying HP-38 or WSF powder with the H&G #115 bullet. I haven't worked up a load for the H&G #115, but I have on a similar Saeco #115 -125 grain bullet. The Saeco did well (under 2" groups at 25 yards) with either 4.6 grains of HP-38 or 4.9 grains of WSF using PC .356" bullets, .750" Win. cases, Federal SP primers and 1.165 OAL. Test gun was a S&W 1911 Elite. Obviously, your results will vary but a place to start.

[Burnt Fingers]

To save some time, for a starting point I would suggest trying HP-38 or WSF powder with the H&G #115 bullet. I haven't worked up a load for the H&G #115, but I have on a similar Saeco #115 -125 grain bullet. The Saeco did well (under 2" groups at 25 yards) with either 4.6 grains of HP-38 or 4.9 grains of WSF using PC .356" bullets, .750" Win. cases, Federal SP primers and 1.165 OAL. Test gun was a S&W 1911 Elite. Obviously, your results will vary but a place to start.

Thanks. I'll give that a try.