mehavey
11-01-2013, 11:00 AM
I recently picked up an RCBS 45-270 SAA mould for my (3rd) Ruger 45 Colt in their New Vaquero.
Having several other RCBS moulds, RCBS name-designations were usually right on in terms of weight
(within the expected range difference of alloys).
This one was no different -- right at 266 grains using true Lyman#2 (90/5/5), and I'm adjusting my
QuickLoad record to modify a Lyman 255 Keith to that of the RCBS: 266gr & 0.711" length.
But......
Everywhere I look on the internet postings I see people saying the 45-270 actually casts
quite heavy (285gr+). Although I can adjust for the different specific gravities between pure
Lead and that of #2 alloy (11.35 vs 10.92), that still doesn't even come close to accounting
for the supposed difference. (In fact were I to take that 266gr actual #2bullet and cast
w/ pure lead, it would only come up to 276gr)
#2 = 266
1/20 Lead ~ 271.7
1/16 Lead ~ 270.4 (supposedly the RCBS Std for weight)
Pure Lead ~ 276.6
Am I missing something, or has the mould design changed over the years?
Having several other RCBS moulds, RCBS name-designations were usually right on in terms of weight
(within the expected range difference of alloys).
This one was no different -- right at 266 grains using true Lyman#2 (90/5/5), and I'm adjusting my
QuickLoad record to modify a Lyman 255 Keith to that of the RCBS: 266gr & 0.711" length.
But......
Everywhere I look on the internet postings I see people saying the 45-270 actually casts
quite heavy (285gr+). Although I can adjust for the different specific gravities between pure
Lead and that of #2 alloy (11.35 vs 10.92), that still doesn't even come close to accounting
for the supposed difference. (In fact were I to take that 266gr actual #2bullet and cast
w/ pure lead, it would only come up to 276gr)
#2 = 266
1/20 Lead ~ 271.7
1/16 Lead ~ 270.4 (supposedly the RCBS Std for weight)
Pure Lead ~ 276.6
Am I missing something, or has the mould design changed over the years?