a 6 hole 311407 or 311291 is what we need.

[Char-Gar]

What this world needs is a good 6 hole 311291 or 311407. We could stop haunting Ebay looking for 4 hole Lymans. Now this would be a group buy!!!

[45 2.1]

Sounds like your the Honcho. A nice 311407 shortened to 311291 length would be good.

[BruceB]

Yes, I'd definitely go for one of these, IF, repeat IF, they'd just get the damned dimensions correct!

Something OVER .300" on the nose of the 291, and something OVER .312" on the bands of either one, and then we'd have something to work with. There are WAAAAAAYYY too many ".30-caliber" moulds that do not meet the critieria I just mentioned, and I swear I have a sizeable fraction of them right here in my shop. I've even taken to looking specifically for Ideal-brand moulds (meaning, "old") in the pious hope that maybe I can get one on the upper edge of the acceptable dimension range. It actually works, once in a while.

I have yet to own or use a Lee 6-cavity mould. This would be a good place to start learning about them. A decent high-production mould for one of these designs will do about 97% of what any of us need in a .30 cast bullet, barring us true "nuts" who enjoy beating our heads agin the wall time after time, after time, after time.....! I believe I'd lean to the 291, at this point....but I already have a 4-cav 311467, so I'm prejudiced.

Betcha we'd get the required number signed up in about three nanoseconds, too!

[MT Gianni]

I vote for the 407 or Bruce's specs for a shortened version. Gianni.

[Willbird]

If Bruce likes it, I want one :-)

Your gonna have to buy a skid steer to move your quench bucket with Bruce.....:-)


Bill

[Buckshot]

..........I'll have to measure the length of my 311407. As it came from Lyman it dropped at .312" on the bands. My vote, if it'd fit in a 6 cavity is an EXACT duplicate of the original design. If not, then shortened ONLY ENOUGH to fit the 6 cav. My 311407's from common alloy drop at 183 grs. Would be nice at 170grs or more, minimum.

..............Buckshot

[45 2.1]

..........I'll have to measure the length of my 311407. As it came from Lyman it dropped at .312" on the bands. My vote, if it'd fit in a 6 cavity is an EXACT duplicate of the original design. If not, then shortened ONLY ENOUGH to fit the 6 cav. My 311407's from common alloy drop at 183 grs. Would be nice at 170grs or more, minimum.

..............Buckshot

If you shorten the 311407 to 311291 length, then you would get that 170 gr, bullet, think about it.

[C1PNR]

What this world needs is a good 6 hole 311291 or 311407. We could stop haunting Ebay looking for 4 hole Lymans. Now this would be a group buy!!!
FOUR Cavity?? Shucks, I'm still trying to find a TWO Cavity, that I can afford.:)

[Dutch4122]

A 311407 shortened to 311291 length with a weight of approx. 170 grns? This group buy stuff is gonna break me yet. May need to go back to working side jobs again. ;)

[David R]

a 6 hole 311407 or 311291 is what we need.

MORE GROUP BUYS are what we need :)

I am in on 2 of them, but I didin't join the site before the order for the 311041 went in.

I'll prolly get this one too.

David

[Char-Gar]

Guys, I really had not thought about being the guy in the barrel on this one, but I will collect the money, make the order and ship the molds..IF..IF.. Somebody will

1. Get me a drawing we can post and send to Lee
2. Tell me who to contact at Lee.

If somebody can help with this..I will climb in the barrel.

[45 2.1]

Guys, I really had not thought about being the guy in the barrel on this one, but I will collect the money, make the order and ship the molds..IF..IF.. Somebody will

1. Get me a drawing we can post and send to Lee
2. Tell me who to contact at Lee.

If somebody can help with this..I will climb in the barrel.

1 & 2 can be done easily. The question is, what bullet and version. Both bullets will fit in the six cavity blocks as is. My 311407 (1.047") casts at .314" with all bands the same and will not seat in anything I have and not intrude into the powder space. If it was shortened to the 311291 length (0.969") it fits pretty well. The 311041 is another option also.

[Char-Gar]

Just one more word... I have several 311291 molds and they do quite well in a variety of rifles. If I were going to spec one it would run.

Nose: Not less than 301 or more than .302
Body: Not less than .315 or more than .316

I have no problem sizing .316 311291s down to .310 and get very good accuracy. I do use a nose first sizing set up and give the pressure to the base.

I have had good luck with 311467 in a variety of and I understand 311407 is just a flat point version of this for use with leverguns.

My 311467 runs .301 on the top two bands and .312 on the rest. This allows the nose and top two bands to ride on the lands. I never lube more than the bottom four grooves. This has done verry well in the 30-40, 30-06 and in 30-30 single shots and bolt guns.

[BruceB]

Yep, Chargar has it correctly for the 311467! Some may think his proposed dimensions for a LEE special-order .30 are too large, but I'd be very happy with them.

I'm at work so can't measure my own 467s, but his specs sound just about the same as what I get with mine. I've sized my 467s in a .314" die for .303s, and as small as .309" for some other rifles. Works great! Those many small bands don't seem to be damaged in any way that I can tell by this much sizing, and are perhaps less-affected by major sizing-down than boolits with wider bands. .315" would be just peachy!

My lubing practices are also the same as his, and it works well. Not only do the four grooves supply plenty of lubrication, but in most cartridges the lube is within the case neck, which is a plus.

In the proposed 6-cavity mould, the 407 might just get the nod due to slightly-reduced overall length, which may be desireable with the LEE block dimensions, plus its adaptability to lever guns and tubular magazines with the flat nose.

I have three versions of 311291, and they don't seem to have much in common, either in shape or dimensions. They're so badly assorted that I keep being tempted to buy ANOTHER one, just to see what the roll of the dice brings up this time. At any rate, a proper 291 with a PARALLEL-sided nose of .302 and band diameters of .315 would also be a primo bullet. Note that this roundnose design feeds perfectly in my Garand and a couple other semi-autos I've tried in the past, making it more versatile than it might first appear, with the roundnose and all.

Chargar, we'll all be in your debt if you take on this project.

[Char-Gar]

Another 311291 note. The reason I like .311291 with a body of 315-316 is I can size them .315 and they work well in my Rooski MN and Argentine 7.65. Both of these run .314 in grooves. There are also some Krags with grooves larger than .312. I seat 311291 out with top lube groove just inside the case neck and that works very well in military Krags and 95 leverguns. I just make certain these is no lube in the crimp groove..just let the crimp groove hang out. This makes for a very wide front band to fill those rifles with long thoats.

Being more body than nose, the bullet doesn't need the perfect fit of the nose to the lands to give good service. It is also a good bullet for Marlin MG barrels because of that reason.

Barlow made the first 311292 in 1905 and It is the most versatile 30 cal cast bullet I have found. In fact, I have never found a 30 cal rifle it did not do well in...well maybe the 30 carbine.

Do you get the idea I am stumping for a 311291?

[45 2.1]

Do you get the idea I am stumping for a 311291?

The drawing is the 311291 with the 311407 nose form and body form to your dimensions. You want some changes or is it ok?

[felix]

Bob, can you put the : Above crimp, below crimp dimensions on the pic? ... felix

[Char-Gar]

45 2.1 Well not really..that bullet is neither fish nor fowl. It is not a Loverin deisgn nor a Barlow design.

311467 has a short tapered slightly rounded nose that runs .298 at the widest point near the body. Then there is a scraper groove, and two bands of .301 and then five more bands of the same width of the top tow with a diameter of .312 and then one wider base band just ahead of the gas check shank. 311407 just cuts off some of the nose to make a meplat. Other than that, they are the same critter.

Any mold that calls it self a Loverin design that has all bands the same width is deviation from the true design. Loverin was playing with the old Pope and other multi groove/bands of the day, whereby the various bands got progessively larger down the body. These bullets were fine black powder target bullets, but Loverin simplified the design by using multi bands of just two diamters. Two bands rode thel lands, 6 bands filled the grooves.

The genius of the Loverin design is that is is "no nose to speak of" design. It is mostly body but the top two narrow band ride on top of the lands. If chamber is straight with the bore and bullet body fits the throat, the bullet will shoot well..Of course alloy, powder, etc. etc. are important.

The Barlow is about 55% base and the rest nose. The nose diameter is big enough to engrave or ride on most 30 cal lands, but not so long as the bullet is dependent on nose support for good accuracy. The short nose won't slump in a larger than spec barrel. That is why they work well in those larger Marlin MG barrels.

[Char-Gar]

There is no need for a crimp groove on a Loverin design. Just crimp in any one of those narrow grooves. Any of them make a fine crimp groove.

[felix]

Yep, agree. ... felix

[45 2.1]

Bob, can you put the : Above crimp, below crimp dimensions on the pic? ... felix

Nose 0.515" crimp groove 0.454" base.

I have no idea what body form you want (other than a straight 311291) Chargar, try to be more specific. Not all Loverins from Lyman match your description. Most I have measured do not. What your describing fit the Scheutzen style bullets by Hudson and others.

[Char-Gar]

I do not possess the equipment or the skills to make such drawing or even take the measurments with any degree of precision. I will send you a couple of bullets and you take it from there. That is about the best I can do...

[culexx]

Wow, A new 311407 boolet in a six cavity Lee. My suggestion is that the two nose bands at .301-302, the remainder at .315 diameter. I also like the orginal Loverin style band widths. Lets go for it. I need one. CULEXX

[Char-Gar]

45 2.1 Page 365 of Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook (Third edition ) has a good drawing of 311407. It will do. It shows seven bands of equal width and the then the gas check shank. It give a weight (No. 2) of 173 grains.

The max diamter of the nos3 in front of the scraper groove .298
Diameter of first two bands .301
Diameter of bottom five bands . 312 or whatever the group wants

If you don't have that book..give me a fax number and I will send you a copy of that page.

[45 2.1]

Modified 311407

[BruceB]

I just had a chance to measure my 311467s, cast hot and fast from a 4-cavity mould in straight WW metal. These figures make me very content, and frankly, are the reason I'd prefer a FAT 311291 for this project.

The nose diameter just ahead of the scraper groove is .3005, the first three bands measure .311, and the last ones measure .3135...AFTER a trip through a .314" sizing die. In my earlier post, I should have said they were "lubed" in a .314 die, not "sized". The forward bands were not touched by the sizer, of course. Anyway, as far as .30-caliber Loverins go, I'm OK, also owning a 150-grain 311466.

The 291 is a great classic design, and I'd very much like to have a version
which comes from the mould with the dimensions we now recognize to be the "correct" ones from our collective experience. It would remove the crap-shoot we engage in every time we buy an untried 311291 mould from any source. A direct copy of the design, running .302 on the nose and .315 on the bands, would be a wonderful thing to own! Do we have to tell Lee what alloy will be used to give these dimensions? If so, (no surprise) it should be set up for WW metal.

I vote "291"!

[Buckshot]

.............I measured my 311407 at 1.053", and .313" except the "Nosecone" :D. For sure will have to be shortened as that only leaves a thin little strip of aluminum between the cavitie's nose and the wide outdoors of about 50 thou (.050").

.............Buckshot

[Char-Gar]

45 1.2 I think you have got it, although I count one more band than I count on my Lyman 311467 or the drawing of 311407 I find in the Lyman book. First a couple of notes and then the group will need to make a decision.

Like all Lyman molds that have been in production for a couple of generations and a number of cherrys, the specs for 311407 and 311291 vary and we find those in the molds we have. I have two 311467s, one of them a U (undersized) and the the other a standard. It would apprear that Bruce's mold cast quite a bit larger than either of mine. I have four 311291s and none of them are the same. Therefore we can cut either or both the way we want them (plus or minus the quality of Lee's work).

THEREFORE..for starters.. we need to decide which bullet we want first. I don't have the money or energy to to both at once..but we will do the one that has the most interest and in six months to a year after delivery, I will t take on the other is there is interest after the first.

So..let vote and I will thown down some specs.

1. 311291

Nose: .301 - .302
Body: .314 - .315

2. 311407

Length: .1.047 - 1.050
Nose at widest point .298 - .299
Nose bands .301 - .302
Body bands .314 - .315
Gas Check Shank Hornaday

IMHO either of these bullets should prove to be a very accurate and versatile bullet in most .30 cal rifles including the fat ones like the Rooski and Argentine, plus do well in Microgroove barrels.

I have experience with both designs in the Lyman versions and both have proved to be equal in accuracy and are my "go to bullets" and I can live with either. For some reasons, I can't explain I would prefer the 311291, just because it "looks" more normal..but that is a silly reason.

So..Let's take a vote on which one (311291 or 311407) and we will post a final drawing and see if there is enough interest to put in an order.

Let me hear from you..!!!

[45 2.1]

Shortened version of 311407 so it fit in six cavity blocks right.

[BruceB]

Having already said this, I now repeat:

I vote for 311291, as per Chargar's dimensions posted directly above.

[B747]

Another vote for the "fat" 311291.

Should work good in the 7.62X54R for my Russian 91/30's and Finn M39's.

[bdoyle]

Well it just never stops around here...

311407 - as presently spec'd - I want two.

311291 - little too much nose dia for my single shots - but I will probably get one any way.

Brian

[Char-Gar]

bdoyle.. single shots can be problem children as they have no bolt caming force to engrave the nose on the rifling. I have a Browning Traditional Hunter in 30-30. The 311291 (U) works well as the nose is only .299. However, I licked the problem with a nose sizing die. I can size the nose or any bullet .299. Works like a champ. It will also size the .302 nose bands of my 311467 down to .299. This gizmo is a must item for 30 cal single shots. It was made by a fellow on this board.

Just for fun..I shot my 311291 (U) with a .299 nose and a .310 body (lubed but not sized) against my fat 311291 with a body of .316 sized down to .310 and a nose of .302 sized down to .299. The final dimensions were the same, but one had not been sized and the others had .006 removed from the body and .003 removed from the nose.

I fired four five shot groups with each bullet over 16/4759. The average of all groups was a hair under MOA with no measurable difference between the sized and unsized bullets. So much for gross sizing destroying the accuracy of a bullet. I learned it is not how much.. but how you size a bullet. I always size nose first now.

[Dutch4122]

FWIW-

I'll vote for 45 2.1's modified 311407.

[gutshot_again]

I'd take a #2. 311407

[Urny]

My VOTE is for the 311291, but think I will buy whatever the group decides on.

[Mel-4857]

Would like one of each but if it comes down to one I guess it would be the 311291. Mel

[madcaster]

having foolishly sold my 4 cavity and my RCBS 30-180-FN leaves me needing another mould!
Jeff.

[bdoyle]

Charles,
I'll have take a better look at nose sizing and nose first sizing. But when do you lube? Just wondering about the steps taken. Which ever way I'm in.

Brian

[David R]

I have a 311466, and tonight I measured the front bands, same as the rears. .310 front to back cast of pure lynotype. Nice boolit, but its not "Oficcially" a Lavern style I guess.

[B747]

bdoyle.. single shots can be problem children as they have no bolt caming force to engrave the nose on the rifling. I have a Browning Traditional Hunter in 30-30. The 311291 (U) works well as the nose is only .299. However, I licked the problem with a nose sizing die. I can size the nose or any bullet .299. Works like a champ. It will also size the .302 nose bands of my 311467 down to .299. This gizmo is a must item for 30 cal single shots. It was made by a fellow on this board.

I would be interested that nose sizing die --- do you have any contact
info / email address for him?

Thanks
Wally

[Char-Gar]

Wally..Try reaching out to Buckshot on this board. He MAY be able to fix you up.

I size the bullets body first in a nose first push through sizer.
I then size the noses
I then lube and seat the annealed gas checks in a Lyman 450 machine

Yep..I know that requires three steps..but this is a love affair and not a commercial venture to be rushed.

[Char-Gar]

Counting these votes/opinons require a bit of interpretation as some are hanging chads..but as near as I can make it thus far, I find folks interested in

311291 - 6
311407 - 5
Either - 2

Let the votes/opinions keep on rolling in.

[Buckshot]

..........I have set it for a 30 day run. We all oughta be sick of both of'em by then :D

............Buckshot

[fiberoptik]

Either/or/both? Whatever fits well in my Win94/Krag/Swiss/carbine....maybe not the carbine....

[MT Gianni]

Remember that the 311407 is an ebay bid through the roof item and the 291 is an over the counter item. Gianni.

[James Wisner]

I would be in for a 311407, shortened 6 cav mold

Saw the note in LEE's info that the bullet in the 6 cav length is resrticted to a max of 1.00"

Like someone said before, you guys and these molds. I think that we should ALL drop LEE a nice note thanking them for doing these special run molds.

Jim Wisner
Custom Metalsmith

[fiberoptik]

Remember that the 311407 is an ebay bid through the roof item and the 291 is an over the counter item. Gianni.

Then We beeeter piiik the 407.

[BruceB]

I'll certainly agree that that the 407 is a difficult item to find, and high-priced if we DO find one.

However, the appeal of a special-order 291 to me, is that after years of searching for a properly-configured and properly DIMENSIONED 291, we now have a chance of dictating the actual physical properties of the design. There'll be no hit-and-miss BS such as I've been going through for the last number of years.

The popularity of the 311291 design is no accident, but it surprises me, because of the wide variances among the various vintages or production runs. We literally are NOT shooting the same bullets if using the different-dimensioned moulds like the three 291s I have on hand.

Buying a 291 that I KNOW will be correct would be sweet indeed.

[45 2.1]

Bruce-
Not everything is a given on mold dimensions. I know someone who actually does have a 311291 with the dimensions given in the above posts. It doesn't shoot any better than any other 311291 with the odd dimensions that we all have. I doesn't shoot poorly or great, but just about the same as the others in several rifles. I'm not saying that it doesn't give very good accuracy, because it does, but it won't give as good as some other molds that are out there. WHY we don't know, but it has turned us off that design. On the other hand, I am searching for a 311041 that casts about 0.311" to 0.312" on the body and 0.301" to 0.302" on the nose. That bullet does test out better for us than the 311291. Unfortunately, we seem to find a 0.300" nose as the max on this one.

[BruceB]

.45-2.1;

In all honesty, never having had a "pure" 291 to test, I really don't know its capabilities.

BUT...now you raise an even better point, with the 311041. I would definitely be interested in a "true" 311041 for a six-cavity Lee special order, maybe even more interested than in the 291!

How about that, instead of the 291 alternative? My only reason for NOT selecting the 407 is just that I already have two serviceable Loverin moulds in the 2-cavity 311466 and 4-cavity 311467 versions, and I don't need a 407. I suddenly find the 041 very attractive....

I guess there really IS no end to this obsession.

[45 2.1]

I guess there really IS no end to this obsession.

Now that really is an understatement!!!!!!!!!

[No_1]

[QUOTE=BruceB]
BUT...now you raise an even better point, with the 311041. I would definitely be interested in a "true" 311041 for a six-cavity Lee special order, maybe even more interested than in the 291!
I suddenly find the 041 very attractive....

Bruce,
is this 311041 the same as the 311141? I found that 141 on castpics but did not see the 041.

Next question. Is 1.000 the MAX length projectile that Lee can cut a mould?

[Calamity Jake]

Count me in on one of whichever the group desides is best, or both if that is the case

[45 2.1]

Next question. Is 1.000 the MAX length projectile that Lee can cut a mould?

The six cavity 8mm Karabiner was 1.100" long and is about absolute maximum for length leaving very little mold material left. Less length than 1.100" would be better.

[BruceB]

Robert;

One of our historically-minded types can probably explain the "why" of this, but I think what you found on Castpics was the "31141"...note, only FIVE numbers when this design came out, not "311141". To make the designation fit Lyman's later record-keeping etc., they added a "0" in the middle of the designation to make it "311041", and I'm just using the current designation.

It's a highly-regarded design, but one with which I've never had any experience. Ergo, my thinking that this 041 would also be a prime candidate for our 'special-order department'.

Having already spent over $120 for jacketed practice and hunting bullets for this autumn, the cost of a few moulds pales into insignificance. That $120 represents the price of TWO custom six-cavity moulds, and the thousands of future bullets which the moulds would represent dwarf the measly few jacketed rounds I'll load with the money.

For one who loves to shoot, the art of casting is by far the biggest bargain in creation (and among the most misunderstood!).

[Tom Myers]

I am drooling already, been loking for a 311407 for quite a while. Even had one already drawn up on my bullet drawing machine. All that was needed was to shorten the length to 1inch, reduce the number of bands to 7 and the diameter of the two front bands to 0.3.

Anyhow, the attachments show the sketch and the calculated dimensions and estimated specifications. The weights seem to be coming out very close to actual alloys and dimensions.

As you can readily see, my vote is for the 311407

Tom Myers

[James Wisner]

I already voted for the 311407.

However would also go in on the 31141 mold.

Since LEE has done a mold already in a longer length perhaps another bullet we should consider down the road, is the 3589 Lyman.

I just love these mid to heavy 30 caliber cast bullets in a 308 to 30-06.

Although the wife may reduce my internet usage if too many of these molds get going.

Jim Wisner
Custom Metasmith

[Willbird]

I have a 31141 2 holder, and I really like that bullet, it will work in levers too which is a plus, I have never liked Laverne style boolits and gladly deivested myself of the one mold I had in my collection.


Bill

[No_1]

"Even had one already drawn up on my bullet drawing machine.
Tom Myers"

Damn nice work there Tom! You should be proud.

I am interested in the "bullet drawing machine" you have spoken of. Also interested in how you figure the sizes/weights based on the alloys. This is very interesting stuff to more of us than me I am sure. The members are always trying to figure designs then describe them to 45.2.1 so he can try to figure out what we try explain and get it on paper using autocad only to find out that what we are trying to say and what he sees is not always the same thing since that is the way life is. Everybody is trying to do their best but I am sure it get frustrating on all sides. Maybe you can share some knowledge with us that will make life a little easier?

Thanks for your time,

[Tom Myers]

Robert

Thank you for the kind words, it's always good to know that someone appreciates one's efforts.

First I should bring attention to an error in my previous post. The bullet volume should read 1.026 cc instead of the 15.8 (grams of water).

In order to calculate the weight, it is first necessary to determine the cubic centimeter volume of each portion of the bullet - base band, main body, front band, bore ride section and nose section. Then calculate and subtract the cubic centimeter volume of the grease grooves, crimp groove, hollow point, hollow base, etc.

After a precise bullet volume in cubic centimeters is determined, that value multiplied by 15.43236. This gives the weight, in grains, of an equal volume of water. Finally, to obtain the grain weight of the bullet, the water weight is then multiplied by the specific gravity of the alloy used to cast the bullet.

The most difficult part of that process is calculating the the volume of an ogival curved nose portion. The radius of the curvature in nose diameters must first be determined and then a series of calculations returns the volume in cubic inches which is then converted into cubic centimeters. If anyone is interested in the formulas used to arrive at a cubic centimeter volume, PM me and I will email a complete description. If enough interest is shown, I could post a sticky here describing the process.

In order to find the precise specific gravity of an alloy, the decimal proportion(by weight) of each metal is divided by the specific gravity of that metal and totaled. Then the reciprocal of that total is the specific gravity of the alloy.

Wheel weights typically are composed of 0.955 parts lead, 0.005 parts tin and 0.040 parts antimony.
The specific gravities of these metals are Lead = 11.345, Tin = 7.337 and Antimony = 6.70.

0.955 / 11.345 + 0.005 / 7.337 + 0.040 / 6.70 = 0.0908297
The reciprocal = 1 / 0.0908297 = 11.0096

The specific gravity of wheel weights.

The Bullet Drawing Machine calculates the 1 inch Lyman 311407 volume at 1.026cc * 15.43236 grains per gram = 15.839 grams of water.

15.839 * 11.0096 = 174.38 grains.

As soon as most of the bugs are worked out of the software, I will be offering an installation package for sale. A preview of the software is on my webesite at

http://www.uslink.net/~tom1/draw/draw.htm

The process is not really that complicated, just tedious. That is what we have computers and software for, those tools leave more time for us to cast boolits and then shoot 'em.


Tom Myers

[Newtire]

Count me in for a 311407. Have several 311291's with .299 noses and neither one of them are too great. Like the one 150 gr. Loverin design I have and since this kinda resembles a flat-nose that would go great with my 30-30 or 06, I think it would do it for me. I vote for longer version.

[Char-Gar]

I am still checking the voting each day..I just wanted to add a note about 311291. I have 4 of them and they cast, nose and body from No. 2

298X310 (U mold)
300X312
301X314
302X316

Buckshot hollowponted the .301X314 for me. I use the U mold in my single shot and cast scads and scads of the largest one .302X316. Sized .310 or .311 (nose first) it is a very accurate bullet in several 30-30s, 30-40s, and 30-06s. It does well in the Marlin MG (sized .310) and an Argentine 1891 (7.65) when sized .315.

The only other bullet I have that offers that level of versitility and accuracy is a DC 311467 that runs (.301 on the nose bands and .314 on the body bands). Not worth a hoot for the leverguns hence the need for a 311407.

311284 hase proven good for the 30-40 and 30-06 and RCBS 165 SIL works well in the .308 and .30-06. I have a number of other bullets that do well in one rifle or another, but nothing offers accross the board accuracy and verstility like the fat 311292 and the 311467 at the above specs. They may be others but I have no found them yet and I have about two dozen 30 cal molds.

I am encourage by the interest in these two designs and sooner or later we will do them both, but the question up for grabs now is which first? Looks like 311407 is pushing ahead..but we will have allot of time to go.

I just want a six holer that will throw a pile of bullets that I know work well in many rifles. Either of the group buy proposals will need that need for me.

[BruceB]

Well, I'm not a woman (last time I checked, anyways) but I do reserve the right to change my mind.

Having just "found" a 4-cavity 311291 on Ebay, I've decided that if THIS ONE doesn't meet my specs I am through with it for now. The main reason for that is because I've been having some discussions with 45 2.1 about the 311041 (31141 in its earlier incarnation) which is a highly-useful design as well, and in his experience, a more accurate bullet than the 291.

I therefore want to muddy the waters on this 6-cavity question by proposing that the 311041 might be a better use of our resources than the 291, and I now want to recant on my 291 vote and do a "write-in" ballot for 311041.

Nomex on, flame away, bruddas.

[Heavy]

New member here. Been in the background since you guys were on the old board. Got to say that a six banger 311041 sounds good. If it is a go - count me in. Been casting since 1971 and have learned more from this web site than all the books and experience. If you don't care I would like to tag along for awhile. Vote goes to the 311041.

[Scrounger]

Well, I'm not a woman (last time I checked, anyways) but I do reserve the right to change my mind.

Having just "found" a 4-cavity 311291 on Ebay, I've decided that if THIS ONE doesn't meet my specs I am through with it for now. The main reason for that is because I've been having some discussions with 45 2.1 about the 311041 (31141 in its earlier incarnation) which is a highly-useful design as well, and in his experience, a more accurate bullet than the 291.

I therefore want to muddy the waters on this 6-cavity question by proposing that the 311041 might be a better use of our resources than the 291, and I now want to recant on my 291 vote and do a "write-in" ballot for 311041.

Nomex on, flame away, bruddas.

Let's really muddy the water: I vote for an RCBS .30-180-FN and/or a SAECO 315.

[C1PNR]

I feel very strongly on supporting BOTH sides of this question, er, is that "all THREE sides?"

Anyway, I'm more hurtin' in the 311407 catagory than any other under discussion, with the 31141 a close second. My vote is for the 311407 first, followed by the 31141.
But I'll sign on for both of them, regardless of the order.:)

[waksupi]

Is there a side by side picture a guy could look at? The numbers are just a jumble to me, and pictures will register much better. I did see the Loverin style bullet, but no others.

[45 2.1]

You guys give me a few days and i'll post the 311407, 311407 shortened, 311291 and the 311041 to gether in one line for you to look at.

[45 2.1]

The new version of the 311041 provided by bdoyle, good looking bullet with correct dimensions.

[Mel-4857]

I like the new version of the 407 and the 041 . I could definitely use one of each. Mel

[Char-Gar]

45 2.1 Can you provide the the drawing I need as per spec in the new thread above?