What is your opinion on the ideal amount of Boolit sizing

[W.R.Buchanan]

OK I'm going to open this can of worms and hope to get some good responses from some of the more experienced casters.

There are two schools of thought on bullet sizing.

Some say you should cast bullets oversized and size them to your desired diameter. Thus insiuring they are round.

Others say you should try to cast bullets ON size and not size them at all, or if they do size, then as little as posssible.

I personally am of the former camp as unless a mould is perfect in every way the boolits are not going to be perfectly round. Sizing makes them round.

This eliminates all but the best custom moulds.

I know that many Scheutzen shooters have moulds made for their guns that are on size and do not swage to size afterwards. They are kind of the bench mark of Cast Boolit shooting so maybe they know something I don't.

I also know that the larger the bore the more oversized a bullet can be and also the more sizing it can take. IE a .461 bullet can size to .459 easier than a .312 bullet can size to .310. The larger bullet has a smaller percentage of swaging taking place than the smaller bullet. So ideally the smaller bullet should be cast smaller and sized less.

What is the educated opinion on this subject from those of you with vast experience?

Randy

[Reverend Recoil]

I say casting them the right size with no sizing required is ideal.

[noylj]

No sizing is best. I have never found a cast bullet that was more accurate because it was sized.
Back in the Jurassic period, the "rule" was never size down more than 0.002". I very quickly tested and determined that not sizing my bullets was best and I did a little alloy adjustment to change the bullet diameter. Then I got tired of cycling the RCBS Lube-Sizer and began pan-lubing. When LLA came out, I began tumble lubing.
Today, I hear about people sizing down in increments and wonder why use a mold that crappy? That and: have you ever tried a good mold and as-cast bullets?
Oh well, what works for me is not what will work for all, I guess.

[PacMan]

noylj can you explain why sizing would hurt accuarcy?

[noylj]

Explain why sizing makes a bullet less accurate?
Well, I put a bullet in my RCBS Lub-Sizer and size the bullet down from 0.454 to 0.452 and .453. My barrel had a groove diameter of 0.4505". I also take the as-cast bullet and lube it using a 0.454" sizing die that I buffed to about 0.454" so the die doesn't touch the bullet.
Over a rest, at 25 yards, for a string of 10 5-shot groups, as I remember, the sized bullets produced an average group of about 2.25" and the as-cast bullets gave me an average group of about 1.75". I tried this in 9x19, .44 Mag, .30-30 and ALWAYS found my as-case bullets were as accurate or more accurate than any sized bullet.
I could imagine someone inspecting the grooves and doing grain-structure shots of the bullets pre- and post-sizing and finding some "damage." I don't know. I just know that my guns, when I tested it, shot better with as-cast bullets.
Since my tests showed no benefit to sizing and I had no problems chambering the 0.001-0.002" larger bullets in any of my guns, I have just continued on--from pan-lubing to tumble-lubing.
YMMV and I always say that one should try it before going to the expense and hassle of sizing bullets. If your guns need sizing, then use the Lee or Star system. Push through almost HAS to do less "damage" that the down-and-up lub-sizers--the push-through just seems more self-aligning and easier on the comparatively soft alloy.
My biggest "complaints" about the current crop of reloaders are the hesitation to try anything different and to attempt to solve all the problems they might have by buying more equipment and complicating the reloading process on their search for perfection.
Fifty years ago, almost nobody would ask why. They would go out to their reloading bench and try it themselves and report their results. Many a good debate was had in the various magazines, particularly Handloader--which every reloader should be subscribed to.

[noylj]

Note: buffed the sizing die up to about 0.4545-0.455".
Can not edit my posts--stupid Windows

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I size boolits that need sizing, which is most of them.
it makes for uniform loading.

If a boolit is slightly 'out of round' but the correct size,
the Rifle bore will make it round as it's sized to the bore...am I correct ?
Jon

[PacMan]

noylj- i see your example as showing that your guns may prefer a bullet fatter than grove dia. which is not uncommon.Not sure if that answers the OP question. Now if you take an indentical mold but cast at .457 and sized that bullet to .454 and the bullet that cast at .454 was more accurate then i would come closer to beleiving that sizing a bullet hurts accuracy.

There are a lot of reasons to size bullets one of which you hit on was the fact that they would chamber in your gun. Not sure what gun you are shooting the .454 bullet in but the grove dia.of .4505 seems a little small.

A mold that cast larger than need dia. i would not consider crappy.Now a mold that cast under needed dia. i would consider crappy.

Yes there are some bullets that are affected more by sizing with a base first sizer but being the owner of a Saeco and a Star in have found no diffrence in accuracy using one over the other when used properly sizing handgun bullets.

[Bret4207]

I prefer not to size. It's not at all hard to get a boolit cockeyed in the sizer or to have an off centered TP. And what makes anyone think their sizer dies produce round boolits? Check that with a good mic, you might be surprised at just how "round" those boolits are. Then there's the question of variation between boolits- 9 boolits slide through the sizer with about the same pressure but #10 takes a bit more because you didn't have the mould closed quite like you did with the others. The boolit gets sized all right, and now it's measurably longer than the other 9! What's that do for your groups?

The final sizer is always the barrel. But thinking your barrel is "round" is wrong too. It's definitely not round at all. So IMO limiting the variations as much as possible and doing no damage is best. Sizing is a necessary evil to me. I do it when I have to, as little as possible. Most of my "sizing" is done to seat a GC and apply lube.

[PacMan]

Bret-with my limited experience i agree for the most part. Your example of the 10 bullets does make a point to a point.
My first thoughts are that when that harder to size bullet comes up it may need culling.Now by not sizing and not finding that larger bullet it can affect accuracy as much if not more than the slightly longer bullet. If your thoughts are that the longer bullet affects presure by reducing powder cayicity slightly you may have somthing there. At the same time the larger unsized bullet will increase case tension which will also affect presure.I guess it depends on how much it actually lengthens and in what direction.
Now if presure is not the problem when that bullet hits the barrel it will be sized anyway making it longer.
Almost looks like a draw

Just my thoughts on the subject

[Dan Cash]

If a mould is out of round thus casting an out of round bullet, sizing will only make the bearing surface round but not concentric to the bullet axis. It does nothing for the nose section and will not correct the core of the bullet, that is to say that if the driving bands are not concentric to the shank, sizing will not fix the problem.

[cajun shooter]

I am from the school that less is better. The comparisons by noylj saying to use a Star or Lee is not correct as they differ quite a bit. If he was referring to the fact that they both work with a nose first insertion then that is the only way they are similar. The Lee has a very small sizing ring and the Star die has a much longer sizing area so that the entire bullet is sized to as close to concentric as possible. The tumble lube process does not work on Black Powder bullets.
Back to the amount of sizing. I use custom built moulds to get away from the quality control of today's market moulds. Lyman could be trusted as the best and now they are just above Lee. The mould you start with has a lot to do with how much you need to size. I like to start with bullets that have a slight burnish to the exterior showing that they just barely touched the sides of the sizing die. This tells me that they are concentric and that no lube capacity has been loss from over swaging. I have seen the entire lube groove closed from too much sizing.
My 44-40 's which I shoot in SASS matches all slug at .427 and that is the size called for in that caliber. Some gun makers have the 44-40's at .430 so that they may shoot the same bullet as the 44 spl and mag but that is wrong.
I have Lathesmith make my Star dies to .429 which are really .4285 as that is the way it is done. My bullets are all sized at this which gives them close to .002 over bore which allows a good seal. This makes for accuracy and clean bores when firing BP. Sometimes I will have a bullet or two that only receives lube and no sizing. I know that this one is almost dead on to my goal size of bullet.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I personally would think the minimum a bullet needs to be sized is the amount it takes to make the driving bands complete. this will hopefully bring the bullet to the desired size.

Concentricity of the bullet is determined by the mould, not the sizing, as when you push a perfectly round bullet into a hole smaller than it's diameter it is swaged down an equal amount on all sides. If it wasn't round to start then the material will be pushed to the voids and the concentricty will be affected to the degree of the material moved.

This would show up more in a long bore rider style bullet where the bullet's shank defines it's primary rotational axis. If the driving bands are not concentric to that axis then it won't fly strait. This is pretty obvious.

However a roundnose pistol bullet that is short and fat is not going to be affected nearly as much by movement of the driving bands off it's theoretical axis of rotation. It doesn't spin as fast and areodynamically it is poor anyway, so I would expect to see less effects on accuracy from sizing than on the longer bullet.

If a bullet is round and is just being reduced in size then the driving bands are usually displaced into the lube grooves, however concentricity is not affected. Assuming a perfectly strait line introduction into and removal from the sizing die.

This is the reason I want to be able to size about .002. However if I could get the driving bands perfect out of the mould then sizing would only be about lubing the bullet. As there would be no need to actually change the bullet if it was the correct size and it was round.

My Mihec .44 SWC mould is the best mould I have. It drops at .433+. and the bullets are round within about a tenth, which is pretty darn close. All the rest are generic moulds from RCBS, Lyman, Lee and Lachmiller. And all of them make bullets that need to be sized.

The RCBS mould is the only one that does not make a bullet big enough to be sized and since they are not round this is a problem. They won't seal and the gas checks don't stay on. This is a case of too small a mould cavity.

I figure the rule of thumb ,,, at least for me, is to have bullets cast large enough that they must be sized .001-2 to make my desired .001-.002 above groove dia.

This rule also makes the mould more versitile as bullets can be sized to different sizes to fit different guns.

Also the larger caliber a bullet is the more sizing it can take as the percentage of material moved is smaller than a smaller bullet sized the same amount.

If a mould drops bullets that are perfectly sized for a specific gun then no sizing is required as long as those bullets are in fact perfectly round and complete in every way. I know there are moulds that will do this. My Mihec Mould is very close.

However I don't see this transfering to generic moulds as a general rule. I think they all must be sized to make up for the production mould's inadequacies.

My Lachmiller mould is a Lyman 311041 clone and it drops at .314. You have to be careful moving .004 in one sizing operation, as with these bullets you can actually bend the nose portion. This one would work better if if was .002 smaller.

.004 on a .44 or .45 cal bullet is not nearly as hard on the bullets as it is on a .314 bullet. Smaller percentage of moved material on the larger calibers induces less deformation.

Like to hear from Chargar and some of the other guys shooting .30 cal bullets into small groups on this subject and see what they do.

Good info so far!

Randy

[Bret4207]

Bret-with my limited experience i agree for the most part. Your example of the 10 bullets does make a point to a point.
My first thoughts are that when that harder to size bullet comes up it may need culling.Now by not sizing and not finding that larger bullet it can affect accuracy as much if not more than the slightly longer bullet. If your thoughts are that the longer bullet affects presure by reducing powder cayicity slightly you may have somthing there. At the same time the larger unsized bullet will increase case tension which will also affect presure.I guess it depends on how much it actually lengthens and in what direction.
Now if presure is not the problem when that bullet hits the barrel it will be sized anyway making it longer.
Almost looks like a draw

Just my thoughts on the subject

It all depends on what the sizer does or what the barrel does. Why size a boolit if it doesn't need it? Before I jump to sizing I want to see a reason to size it, other than . "Well, I got this sizer and it's going to waste just sitting there."

A long boolit is going to strike someplace different than all the other normal sized one. If the barrel is doing the sizing anyway, why do unneeded work? Most of my boolits are about .002 over groove, maybe a skoosh more. If they drop the right size, or a usable size from the mould why risk adding another variable to the issue?

[Bret4207]

I personally would think the minimum a bullet needs to be sized is the amount it takes to make the driving bands complete. this will hopefully bring the bullet to the desired size. Aren't your bands complete as they drop from the mould?

Concentricity of the bullet is determined by the mould, not the sizing, as when you push a perfectly round bullet into a hole smaller than it's diameter it is swaged down an equal amount on all sides. If it wasn't round to start then the material will be pushed to the voids and the concentricty will be affected to the degree of the material moved. That assumes the sizer is aligned perfectly and the TP is aligned perfectly and the operator doesn't cock the boolit.

This would show up more in a long bore rider style bullet where the bullet's shank defines it's primary rotational axis. If the driving bands are not concentric to that axis then it won't fly strait. This is pretty obvious.

However a roundnose pistol bullet that is short and fat is not going to be affected nearly as much by movement of the driving bands off it's theoretical axis of rotation. It doesn't spin as fast and areodynamically it is poor anyway, so I would expect to see less effects on accuracy from sizing than on the longer bullet.

If a bullet is round and is just being reduced in size then the driving bands are usually displaced into the lube grooves, however concentricity is not affected. Assuming a perfectly strait line introduction into and removal from the sizing die. Exactly!

This is the reason I want to be able to size about .002. However if I could get the driving bands perfect out of the mould then sizing would only be about lubing the bullet. As there would be no need to actually change the bullet if it was the correct size and it was round. Bingo. And the only way to know what size the boolit needs to be is to shoot and see, not assume it needs sizing to a diameter we choose!

My Mihec .44 SWC mould is the best mould I have. It drops at .433+. and the bullets are round within about a tenth, which is pretty darn close. All the rest are generic moulds from RCBS, Lyman, Lee and Lachmiller. And all of them make bullets that need to be sized.

The RCBS mould is the only one that does not make a bullet big enough to be sized and since they are not round this is a problem. They won't seal and the gas checks don't stay on. This is a case of too small a mould cavity.

I figure the rule of thumb ,,, at least for me, is to have bullets cast large enough that they must be sized .001-2 to make my desired .001-.002 above groove dia.

This rule also makes the mould more versitile as bullets can be sized to different sizes to fit different guns.

Also the larger caliber a bullet is the more sizing it can take as the percentage of material moved is smaller than a smaller bullet sized the same amount.

If a mould drops bullets that are perfectly sized for a specific gun then no sizing is required as long as those bullets are in fact perfectly round and complete in every way. I know there are moulds that will do this. My Mihec Mould is very close. Very few moulds will do this over a long course of casting. The variation in diameter and weight is just another issue we all contend with. I'd count myself very lucky to have a few moulds that cast perfectly round boolits of the exact same diameter over a long casting session.

However I don't see this transfering to generic moulds as a general rule. I think they all must be sized to make up for the production mould's inadequacies. I respectfully disagree.

My Lachmiller mould is a Lyman 311041 clone and it drops at .314. You have to be careful moving .004 in one sizing operation, as with these bullets you can actually bend the nose portion. This one would work better if if was .002 smaller.

.004 on a .44 or .45 cal bullet is not nearly as hard on the bullets as it is on a .314 bullet. Smaller percentage of moved material on the larger calibers induces less deformation.

Like to hear from Chargar and some of the other guys shooting .30 cal bullets into small groups on this subject and see what they do.

Good info so far!

Randy

One of my best shooting moulds is a late 70's Lyman 311316. Due to my wholesale belief in magazine gun gurus advice, I left my last boolits in the cavities and stored it away, certain no rust would appear. Sadly, I was dead wrong in placing any faith in the gun writer, who also told me I needed HARDCAST. So now I have a beloved mould that throws acne looking boolits that shoot into little teeny groups when the wind is down and the dope behind the trigger is having a good day. Unsized, lubed when the GC is applied in the sizer, but unsized. Not round either. But when a 1940's Savage bolt gun will plunk those booltis in 1/2-3/4" groups...I can't do any better than that. I have a Lee GB 6 banger that pops 35-180GC boolits in under an inch in 2 different rifles- unsized. I have either 2 or 3 8mm moulds that come in just under 2 inches on a good day for 5 shots and just over 2 1/2" for 10 in my Yugo 48.

I'm not saying all production moulds are works of art and I'm certainly not saying anyone HAS to follow my advice, but I think at least trying unsized boolits is worth a try. You may be surprised.

[largom]

I load an unsized boolit in a case and if it will chamber without force, I will not size the boolits. I size only if necessary to chamber the cartridge.

Larry

[W.R.Buchanan]

Bret: The problem I have is some generic moulds do what you need and some just don't. Therefore the most useful ones are the ones that make slightly oversized boolits that can be sized to a variety of more useful sizes.

Of the .44 cal moulds I have, the only one I have that is limited is Lee .429-240. It drops at .429 period. It worked well in my M29. it is OK in my Rugers ,and is useless in both my Marlin rifles.

Conversly my Mihec mould which drops at .433+ can be sized to be useful in all of the above guns.

My Lyman 429244 drops at .432 and works well in all cases, and requires minimal sizing and I could probably get by with none if I chose to try.

The RCBS 45-300 fngc mould I talked about in this and other posts won't size in a .459 die at all and won't crimp the gas checks on. It is useless to me, and my shooting results have been abismal to put it mildly.

If it dropped at .461 then it might not need sizing for my rifle,and it would probably shoot just fine.

My whole point is I'd rather have a bullet too big and have to size it, than not have enough to seal the barrel. IE: better to err on the high side than end up too low.

Randy.

[noylj]

Groove diameter of the first .45 Auto I did tests with was 0.4515.
Comments about wanting everything to be consistent: that is what I was mentioning--not being willing to try something and attempting to solve all possible problems without testing. Sorry, the rule of reloading is to test and NOT make assumptions.
I can allow that you might find sizing increases your accuracy. I DID NOT find it so in any of my guns, but it might be true for someone. It would be nice to see some data to show it and not just "I want everything to be consistent." All I see is the possibility to be "consistently" sub-optimum.
Even cast bullets of 0.359" will chamber in all my 9x19s (my first Browning High Power has a groove diameter of 0.360" and Browning said that was within tolerance).

[Bret4207]

Bret: The problem I have is some generic moulds do what you need and some just don't. Therefore the most useful ones are the ones that make slightly oversized boolits that can be sized to a variety of more useful sizes.

Of the .44 cal moulds I have, the only one I have that is limited is Lee .429-240. It drops at .429 period. It worked well in my M29. it is OK in my Rugers ,and is useless in both my Marlin rifles.

Conversly my Mihec mould which drops at .433+ can be sized to be useful in all of the above guns.

My Lyman 429244 drops at .432 and works well in all cases, and requires minimal sizing and I could probably get by with none if I chose to try.

The RCBS 45-300 fngc mould I talked about in this and other posts won't size in a .459 die at all and won't crimp the gas checks on. It is useless to me, and my shooting results have been abismal to put it mildly.

If it dropped at .461 then it might not need sizing for my rifle,and it would probably shoot just fine.

My whole point is I'd rather have a bullet too big and have to size it, than not have enough to seal the barrel. IE: better to err on the high side than end up too low.

Randy.


Well that's obviously what we all want. But there's a difference between HAVING to size and sizing because think we need to. As I mentioned, you can damage a boolit sizing, they aren't always "round" anymore than our barrels are...I guess it just makes some people feel better to size than not and vice versa.

[Char-Gar]

A few years back, I decided to try and determine for myself is sizing downgrades accuracy. I had two 311291 molds. One that cast large at .315 X .303 and the other that cast .310 X .300.

I sized the larger bullets to .310 X .300 with a press mounted sizing die and also a nose sizing die. I figured that was pretty extreme sizing. I crimped the gas check on them all and lubed in a .311 die.

I loaded 20 rounds each over a known good charge of 2400 and fired 8 five shot groups through a Browning Traditional Hunter SS in 30-30.

When it was all said and done, and the four groups for each bullet were averaged, there was only a very slight difference. The extreme sized bullet gave the smaller 20 shot average.

Since that day, the question was settled for me. It is not how much you size or whether you size that makes the difference, it is how you size. Nose first push through sizing is the way to go. I now real all the posts that say sizing destroys accuracy and you can only size so many thousands with a grain of salt.

I suppose if one were a bench rest shooter, there might be some kind of difference here. But the aggregate of the 8 five shot groups was a hair over 1.1 MOA with many groups being under MOA. The shooting was done at 100 yards. That is as good as I can do with that rifle and high quality jacketed loads.

[Bret4207]

I would agree that how you size is important. Nose first is good, base first can be too. Any sizing where the boolit is damaged, off center, not aligned, etc can cause problems. That why I say "CAN" cause problems, not "WILL" cause problems.

I did a similar test as yours Charles after reading Al Millers "Cutting them down to size" article in Handloader back in the late 70's.early 80's. My test was a boolit sized as I was told to do at .310 or unsized at .311+. The unsized shot better by far. That was proof enough for there was some merit to Al's recommendation. That's not to say I haven't sized a heck of a lot of boolits .002, .003 or even more over the years, I have and if you are careful it works. I'm just saying I don't see the sense in fixing something that ain't broke.

[PacMan]

Is it the act of sizing or is it that the gun will shoot a fatter bullet better? Would the results have been the same if the bullet had been sized from .313 to .311+?

I have found that my Marlin shoots a .3595 to .360 bullet sized down from a mold that cast .3625 as well as it does an identical bullet cast from a mold that cast at .359+ and only lubed by the sizer.

I would shoot the .360 only but i start geeting a little hitch in the feeding when i get much over .359.

Just an observation

[Bret4207]

If you want to size, fine, go for it. If you think sizing is magic or that it "fixes" things, you go right on believing it. If you think your sizer die and barrel are "round" and that an boolit sized off center and tilted at that will magically shoot as well as a boolit unsized (of proper diameter) just because it went through your sizer, that's great, have at it.

I apparently am not getting my idea across very well in this thread.

[MikeS]

I can't comment on sizing vs not sizing, but wanted to mention something in regards to how boolits are sized. I have a Lyman 45 sizer, and when I first got it, I had sizing dies, but no top punches. As I was sizing boolits that all had a flat top, I took a bolt that came with my Lee bench plate setup that is basically a carriage bolt with the head machined flat, and used that as my top punch. It worked fine. Now I see that Tom from Accurate Molds sells top punches that are flat as well, and he says that they're much better than normal top punches when sizing flat topped boolits, as they allow the boolit to go into the sizing die without the top punch trying to align the boolit, instead the sizing die does all the aligning, and he even has a picture on his website showing how if the sizer is misaligned a flat punch will still work fine. I think with this type of top punch (assuming you're using flat tipped boolits) that an in/out type sizer could size boolits about as well as a push thru type. After reading Tom's website, I think I'm going to go back to using the flat topped bolt, rather than the top punches I've since gotten.

[Char-Gar]

Let me polish up my post a little. Here is the commentary I should have added.

I don't think sizing helps a bullet. I also think sizing doesn't hurts a bullet, if it is done right and the starts and planets stay in alignment.

I would agree, that the ideal situation, is to shoot a bullet as it falls from the mold. In doing so, you have reduced the chances of a bullet being damaged by sizing to zero. I also don't think that if you need to size a bullet and do it the right way, there is no need for angst, nor to expect inferior performance.

[Char-Gar]

MikeS... Most of us old timers have gone to flat faced punches for bullets with a meplat for the reasons you describe. I am talking pistol bullet or rifle bullets of say 35 caliber and above. Long thin bullets can be bent and/or otherwise distorted by pressure on the nose from whatever design top punch. With these type bullets, nose first with pressure on the base is the way to go.

[PacMan]

(And some who say they have already eaten havent ate yet)
Will Rogers

[Le Loup Solitaire]

To quote Col. Harrison in his writing for the NRA some years ago, " the best bullets come from a good mold to start with". That is, it seems, becoming a rare occurence these days, but seeing some of the very fine work some of the vendors on this forum are creating, there is some hope for us. I agree totally with the last two posts by Chargar and those of Bret; if you have an "as cast" bullet that is delivering good/excellent accuracy, then there is no reason to size it or fix anything. Investing in a good mold to start with is preferable to struggling with undersize, oversize, or cockeyed molds with mismatched blocks and then getting stressed out/arguing with manufacturers who don't want to cooperate/ fess up. The modus operandi of H&G was to ask the customer what they wanted before taking the order, in terms of bullet alloy and desired casting diameter and you knew what you were getting as well as the best quality control and finished product. If for some reason you have to size then do it if possible with the best equipment that you can afford and consider what the old timers used to advocate that the less sizing...the better. LLS

[Bret4207]

(And some who say they have already eaten havent ate yet)
Will Rogers

I have no idea what that means Dwight, but let me try to rephrase my thoughts in a clearer fashion.

Provided the particular mould your are using drops consistent boolits, of acceptable quality, of the proper size for the gun/load you are using with your alloy, what is gained by sizing? I believe many people size to apply GCs or to lube, but it's not necessary to even touch the sides of the boolit to do that. A .311 boolit will slide through a .312 die without touching if you are careful, will apply the GC and lube will fill the grooves without making a mess if you are paying attention.

Now, it you have an over sized mould, a boolit that needs "bumping", flashing, a mould that doesn't line up quite right, if you are feeding an autoloader that requires absolute uniformity to function...fine, I see no problem sizing. But I also believe you should actually check a few boolits as they come from the sizer to see if they are actually being sized to the diameter required, are round enough for your satisfaction, that you aren't bending/distorting/altering the nose/off center or otherwise mangling the boolit.

I think a lot of people size because they are under the impression they simply have to to apply lube or a GC, that sizing is some sort of a fix for less than adequate culling or poor fill out. Like the "hardcast" advertising campaign, sizing is not a magic fix to a basic issue. It's a tool, and as the man said, "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

[PacMan]

Bret beleive it or not i agree a 100%. Please dont think that I was try to be obstinate in my replys.
I also beleive that not having to size a bullet is better if the mold is right. I pay special attention to sizing as most bullets that i shoot need some amount of sizing and maybe they would shoot better if i had molds that cast the bullet to the sized bullets that my guns like. Not enough money to ever know.

For most that are in my shoes it just makes,to me anyway, more sense to have a mold that cast a little larger and then size down untill the magic number is found.

An example which i am sure you and most others are aware of is 6 cavity Lee molds. Not slanting them but the one i had cast 3 different size bullets and to fire them unsized in a revolver was a night mare to me. When i took the larger and sized very little to fit life was better,not great, but better.

I shoot as cast .454 (.453) in my Rossi and it does quiet well but i think that it may do better at .454. May never know. You dont want to be a milk jug at 200 yards. Took out a coyote at just over 210 yars with it about 2 months back.

Any way as always i look forward to reading yours and several others post and replys here.I have learned a lot from you guys.
Thanks
Dwight