Lyman 358477 being returned

[groundsclown]

Hhmm. Just got this from Midway Friday & was looking forward to shooting some of these this weekend thru a 38 snub. Cast up a few handfuls & ran them thru the lube/sizer & thought wow, theres no resizing resistance at all. (size my stuff to 358)
Grabbed the mic & this is what I've got. Needless to say it's going back to Midway next week...Guess Lymans QC was asleep during this run.

http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/groundsclown/lyman358477.jpg (http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/groundsclown/media/lyman358477.jpg.html)

[bhn22]

I believe Lyman proofs their molds with lino nowdays. What alloy did you use?

[Ben]

I believe Lyman proofs their molds with lino nowdays. What alloy did you use?

They may do that, but seems they are cutting molds with worn cherries that should have been thrown away a long time ago.

Lyman molds throwing small dia. bullets is nothing new.

I have a 2 cav. Lyman mold 358477 that is .355 by .358 " . Out of round by .003"

I'm finished with Lyman. Way too many other mold makers out there ( THAT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A QUALITY MOLD )

For me, it just isn't worth the frustration and disappointment of trying to use a Lyman mold anymore. I have some of the old IDEAL's that are wonderful molds and I wouldn't sell them.....the new ones.... that is another story entirely.

It is a real shame, at one time Lyman was at the top of the heap in bullet molds.

[WallyM3]

Before I read your last line, I was going to say what a shame it is that this is so.

Some industries can export their cheaply done work. Whither Lyman?

[detox]

Thats a more expensive four banger mould also. I bet the front scaper band is smaller than the two measured in picture.

['74 sharps]

Shrinkage varies with alloy. Lino & Lyman#2 shrink .0025, and lead shrinks .004.

[Longone]

Got this from the Lyman web site,

"Over the years, Lyman has used several different lead
alloy materials as standards for bullet-making. These
alloys varied in their composition and were identified
as #2 Alloy, #4 Alloy, and #6 Alloy. Today, only the
hardest of these alloys, #2 Alloy, is recommended for
all centerfire rifle and pistol loads."

It's not mentioned what alloy was used but it is worth a try. I recently picked up a 454190 and it cast well with #2.

Longone

[groundsclown]

I believe Lyman proofs their molds with lino nowdays. What alloy did you use?

COWW with a little solder


Thats a more expensive four banger mould also. I bet the front scaper band is smaller than the two measured in picture.

Surprisingly its pretty concentric, only about .001 out of round & all 3 bands are at .355-.356

Yeah I could try using a different alloy just to get a proper size but in the end I'd still have a mold that dropped way undersize imo.
I'm a simple guy. I dont want to get into using different blends for different molds/guns. I figure if I cant make it work with COWW, a little solder if needed & a sizer then its got no place in my mold pile
I've honestly been satisfied with lyman molds until this one...2 or 3 run slightly out of round but once sized they work for me.
I've already made up my mind its going back to Midway. To bad I didnt read the other thread(s) about undersized molds before buying this one. I might have waited or skipped it.
This is more for the next guy looking to buy a 358477...maybe he'll be "smerter" than me & use the search function here & see this.

[Ben]

WW's are still the most common alloy used by casters today ( for how much longer I don't know ? ? )

Why a mold manufacturer would make their molds spec'd with an alloy that very few casters have access to is beyond me.

It is a funny thing that you'll seldom see an old IDEAL mold that throws " sub sized bullets." They will usually be round and the as cast diameters .002" or so on the + side.

An Ideal 38/357 pistol mold will often times throw , with common wheel weights, a .360" bullet.

I'd much rather own a mold that is .002" + in as cast diameter than a mold that is .002" under spec.

I think the employees at Lyman ( IDEAL ) back in the 30's , 40's and 50's communicated better with casters ( as to their needs out in the field ) and obviously took more pride in their products that they produced.

[Larry Gibson]

Conversations with Lyman's technical people provide they do use # 2 alloy to base mould designs on. Nominal diameter with #2 alloy should be .358. COWW composition vary considerable depending on how many times and how much of the alloy was recycled over the years. Also depends on the care taken during smelting so as not to lose the antimony and especially any tin that may be present. Basically not all COWWs are of the same composition across the country.

Adding 2% tin to the COWWs would probably then cast to nominal. However, the OP does not want to do that so selling the mould to someone who will use the correct alloy for the mould is probably the best course of action for him as he mentions.

Larry Gibson

[bhn22]

Lymans "Pistol & Revolver Handbook", all First, Second, and Third Editions all show linotype for almost all 38 Special & .357 bullets, including wadcutters. Lower pressure loads like 38 S&W, 38 Auto, and curiously 38 Super, show #2 alloy. I'm not doubting the mold is undersized if his alloy didn't produce usable bullets. I'd try sending it back to the seller, claiming it's defective (it is) if possible. The return process would be much quicker than dealing with Lyman direct.

[Ben]

Like I said earlier........... frustration and disappointment.

[groundsclown]

I'd try sending it back to the seller, claiming it's defective (it is) if possible. The return process would be much quicker than dealing with Lyman direct.

Exactly like I said. Its going back to Midway. They've got a good return policy. I've thought of contacting Lyman & sending them a picture but then they'd want the mold & just turn into a bigger hassle.

I'm not upset nor here to bash Lyman. I'm more surprised that of the several molds (lyman & rcbs) I do have, all throw them oversized with plain ol coww...no voodoo, incantations or special octane/blends of alloy.
I agree with Ben. I think this one and probably several more just got thru when the cutter should have been replaced.

I almost got the same rcbs mold but wanted a 4 banger & not a 2. Oh well. It'll go back, I'll get a refund to my account, I'll purchase something else & life will go on.

[John Allen]

I have recently started going to the NOE molds and some others. It seems there quality control is much better and they are responsive to problems. They are only a little more than a lyman and in my opinion well worth the extra money.

[HeavyMetal]

Lead alloy doesn't really make a big difference in diameter, at least not the .003 to .004 this mold would need to be up to speed.

Years ago I had a single cavity Lee 44 HP mold that dropped them at a lopsided .428 429, it was out of round and really heavy on the .428 side, LOL!

I tried several alloys and never got this thing to "grow"! Alloys included 50-50 solder, lino and foundry type.

I then sent it back to Lee, who returned it to me in a week saying it was fine and cast a perfectly round .429 bullet and what was my issue?

I could have done a lot of things with that mold, but I put it up for years and never used it, I moved on to other boolits in my 29 including an HP version of the 429421 which has worked very well for me.

A couple years ago I postd about 10 or 12 molds here that I no longer needed and this went to a sit member with the disclosure that it wasn't right.

Never did hear from him but suspect he lapped it, which I could have done.

Bottom line here: it isn't right send it back, bad QC is still bad QC no matter which company it is. Lyman, unlike Lee, may make this right and each manufacturer needs the oppertunity to correct these kinds of issues.

How a company responds to a warranty issues is, IMHO, what makes or breaks a company.

I still buy some of Lee's stuff I just look much harder at it before I pay for it and then expect to make it right on my end if it's not up to speed.

[Piedmont]

One nice thing about our Swappin & Selling section is you can ask what something casts. If the seller doesn't know, don't buy it. When I was selling off a bunch of molds last year I generally listed what diameter the bullets from the mold were. This helps a lot.

My last new Lyman from a couple of years ago was a 4 cavity Keith .357 that dropped two bullets with a base band of .356" and the other two at .358". How they accomplished that is beyond my comprehension.

[Larry Gibson]

Lead alloy doesn't really make a big difference in diameter, at least not the .003 to .004 this mold would need to be up to speed.

I beg to differ. The alloy casting technique, alloy temp and mould temp all can easily influence as much as .003 (would take that bullet to nominal mould diameter) with cast bullets of .35 cal or larger.

I have proved it numerous times with my standing offer to purchase any Lyman mould for what was paid for it + shipping to me if the Lyman mould does not cast to nominal diameter with a correct alloy and casting technique. I use COWWs + 2% tin or #2 alloy and the casting technique (bottom pour and dipper) as shown in Lyman's #3 CBHB. To date I have not bought a Lyman mould under that offer that would not cast to nominal diameter. I'm not saying there isn't a Lyman mould out there that comes defective from Lyman but I've yet to se one that really casts "undersize". I have found other makes that do cast undersize even with linotype.

Larry Gibson

[Guesser]

My 358477 drops 15BHN boolits at .359 and 148 grains. Softer is a little smaller and a couple grains heavier but still totally serviceable.

[beagle]

From what I've seen of Lymans lately, I wonder if they do in fact "proof" their moulds. I think they just visually check them and let 'em fly out the door./beagle


I believe Lyman proofs their molds with lino nowdays. What alloy did you use?

[waco]

This is why I bought an NOE 360477 4 cavity brass mold. It drops boolits right at .360 with several different alloys, give or take a half a thou. 87319

[garymcgehee52]

My Lyman 358477 drops ww alloy bullets at .359, but it is about 30 years old.

[Low Budget Shooter]

My NOE four-cavity 358242 drops at .360 with range scrap, and the bullets are shooting very accurately for me. I'm considering buying an NOE 360477 as mentioned above. LBS

[ubetcha]

I just ordered my second NOE mold today. In fact Al called me today because I was having trouble getting onto my NOE account ( I forgot my password :oops:). I truly didn't expect that, but because of his excellent service, he will be my next choice when I what another mold again. If this new mold is anything like the last, it will be spot on with ww alloy. Excellent molds and service.

[TheCelt]

I understand your disappointment Groundsclown. The last three NEW Lyman molds I've purchased cast undersize USING HIGH ANTIMONY ALLOY. Even using a soft alloy they should have cast nominal diameter and have been CONCENTRIC. The last Lyman cost three times its purchase price to get repaired (by Eric) but it's a sweet mold now. I won't buy any more new Lyman molds. Like Ben said they used to be the big dog on the block and I have many older Ideal / Lyman molds that cast sweet Boolits but there are better manufacturers out there these days.

[Old Caster]

Unless the picture is somehow distorted, that bullet isn't a .358477. It isn't supposed to have rounded edges at the top like that and is a sharp front edged SWC.

[MtGun44]

Doesn't look anything like my 4 different older 358477 molds!

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=52350&d=1304396899

Bill

[Old Caster]

I wonder why they didn't call it by a different number. That is strange.

[Larry Gibson]

Nose is a little rounder is all....not all that much different than my own 358477.

"USING HIGH ANTIMONY ALLOY" is not the way to get good fill out and concentricity. The antimony needs to be balanced with tin as in COWWs +2% tin or Lyman's #2 alloy. I am not at all surprised the bullets cast undersized and non-concentric with a "HIGH ANTIMONY ALLOY"........

Groundsclown.....my offer concerning "undersized" Lyman moulds still stands if you haven't sent that 4 cavity 358477 back yet?

Larry Gibson

[Old Caster]

Are we absolutely sure that mold is not mislabeled. It looks more like a 358271. That has nothing to do with it casting a too small bullet but I can't imagine them changing the shape and not changing the number.

[TheCelt]

"USING HIGH ANTIMONY ALLOY" is not the way to get good fill out and concentricity. The antimony needs to be balanced with tin as in COWWs +2% tin or Lyman's #2 alloy. I am not at all surprised the bullets cast undersized and non-concentric with a "HIGH ANTIMONY ALLOY"........

Groundsclown.....my offer concerning "undersized" Lyman moulds still stands if you haven't sent that 4 cavity 358477 back yet?

Larry Gibson

My experience has been that an alloy high in Antimony (linotype being an example) will cast larger than COWW+tin. This has proven to be the case for me anyway. Your results may vary and you may be able to make an undersized mold cast to published dimensions, good for you. The fact is even COWW alloy vary greatly in tin/arsenic/antimony content. Maybe you can share your methods for determining proper "balance" and enlighten us all.

BTW, the LAST Lyman mold I bought new was a 225415DC that cast 0.2225" using my alloy (mostly Linotype, high in Antimony). After having it bored to 0.226" by Eric it mikes at 0.2265" using the exact same alloy.

[Nrut]

Lead alloy doesn't really make a big difference in diameter, at least not the .003 to .004 this mold would need to be up to speed.

I beg to differ. The alloy casting technique, alloy temp and mould temp all can easily influence as much as .003 (would take that bullet to nominal mould diameter) with cast bullets of .35 cal or larger.

I have proved it numerous times with my standing offer to purchase any Lyman mould for what was paid for it + shipping to me if the Lyman mould does not cast to nominal diameter with a correct alloy and casting technique. I use COWWs + 2% tin or #2 alloy and the casting technique (bottom pour and dipper) as shown in Lyman's #3 CBHB. To date I have not bought a Lyman mould under that offer that would not cast to nominal diameter. I'm not saying there isn't a Lyman mould out there that comes defective from Lyman but I've yet to se one that really casts "undersize". I have found other makes that do cast undersize even with linotype.

Larry Gibson
Hi Larry,
I have seen you post the above many times here at this site..
I have a lyman 358156 mold that casts .359" bullets using straight ww NO tin..
A very good mold I bought back in the eighties when I lived in Yuma..
I have used 30 year old ww from Arizona and newer ww from up here in Canada..
Why are the bullets so fat when I am not using lyman #2 or tin?
So what's with that??
I don't doubt that what you say is the truth as far as your experiences go using lymans molds and lyman#2 or tin.
My point is this..
Why does lyman say that you need to use their #2 alloy to drop spec bullets from thier molds and other mold companies don't..
I believe that they are only hurting themselves "or" they are just using the "you need to use #2 alloy" line for our mold when someone calls them on an undersized mold..
While I don't have a "bunch" of molds I do have somewhere between 75 and 80..
None of them require special alloy or tin to bring them up to spec..
I do have a 7mm RCBS (140SP) mold that is so undersized the it might work in a .270 so I am pretty sure lyman #2 or tin isn't going to help that..
My main problem with molds is out of round (LEE) or undersized / oversized bore rider noses for some of my rifles..

As a side I see you live in Lake Havasu these days..
We have seen a couple of nights -4*F so far this last week...
I was wondering if I could come live at your place this winter..
Huh???
LOL!
Hey I bet you fish and I know where there are some 20" plus FAT trout on the Colorado River not far from Lake Havasu believe it or not..
I floated my canoe down the Colorado from Bullhead City to Yuma one March back in 84 IIRC the year after they had that big flood ..
18 days of Huck Finn fun I tell you!
If my back ever gets well enough to travel and campout again I will make that run again and spend at least a month or more on the Colorado..
I'll stop at the bridge and and give you a call and might even trade fishing stories with you..
Lying at it's finest!
LOL

[Larry Gibson]

Nrut

Lyman specifies #2 alloy Because of the dimensional differences alloys can and do make with cast bullets. Note in the older Lyman Cast Bullet Handbooks they listed the tested difference in diameters with different alloys. Also be aware that Lyman took over the Ideal company and used a lot of their specifications for moulds. I'm sure with that many moulds you probably have or have had a few Ideal moulds that with Lyman #2 alloy or linotype cast several thousandths over nominal diameter. The reason for that was back at the turn of the century and for some years Lyman #1 alloy was the recommended alloy and was what most GC'd Ideal bullets were cut for. Lyman #1 alloy was 80% lead, 10% tin, 7 % antimony and 3% copper. It does not fill out near as well as Lyman #2 alloy. My Ideal 311455 drops a .313 diameter bullet of 80/20 lino/lead and right at .311 with the last alloy I used with copper in it.

So at sometime Lyman #1 kind of fell out of use and straight ternary alloys of Lead/antimony/tin took over in common use. The old cherries wore out and new ones made to “tighter” specifications for the newer #2 alloy. Lyman settled on the #2 alloy as "best" ternary alloy and thus they designed most of their newer bullets around that. However, Lyman still had a lot of the Ideal cherries and continued to use those for years. As the years past and new cherries were made the spec for the mould tightened up for the change in alloy to #2 alloy. That's why Lyman has said to use #2 alloy because that’s what most all of their cast bullets were designed for. It’s the reason they put the formula’s for making #2 alloy in the Cast Bullet Handbooks and reloading manuals. The change over took many years as information did not move as fast as it does today on the internet.

But times change and the majority of cast bullet users do not cast their own bullets, they buy commercial cast bullets……hard cast commercial bullets. The majority of cast bullet users are led down the path that hard cast bullets are needed. Even some of our old experts here in the past recommended harder cast bullets for many applications. Then along come Lyman’s #4 Cast bullet Handbook on the heels of the #3 Cast bullet handbook. Now Lyman’s #3 CBH was considered the “bible” of cast bullet knowledge by most including yours truly. When we read Lyman’s #4 CBH we find the majority of the introduction and how to articles are written by Mike Venturino. Now I like mike and I understand his likeness for linotype but that is not the most common alloy used. However Lyman seems headed in that direction as they are also using linotype alloy for most of their testing of handgun cartridge cast bullets.

None the less most all Lyman cast bullets are still designed for optimal nominal diameter with #2 alloy. But another problem has arisen from various factors. The use of COWWs has become a widely popular and oft recommended alloy. More than 20 years ago COWWs had a very good proportion of lead to antimony to tin mix and they cast very good bullets, especially handgun bullets. However the composition of COWWs has changed considerably the last 20 years or so. The % of tin has been drastically reduced for some reason. Serious bullet casters have used and recommended the use of COWWs as the “alloy of choice” for many years, especially on internet forums as this one. That has led to the problem we have today. The COWW alloy of today many times does not fill out the mould because of the lack of tin. In the older Ideal/Lyman moulds the use of COWWs often results in very serviceable bullets because they would cast oversize anyway with Lyman #2 alloy or similar tin balanced alloy. We still hear lots of complaints of “out of round” bullets with straight COWW alloy used. The bullet is simply not filling out in the mould because of the lack of tin.

RCBS designed their moulds around linotype as they state in one of their earlier manuals. They also used linotype to cast all their bullets for testing in that manual. I am now the proud owner of an RCBS 270 mould that does cast "undersized in one cavity. I acquiesced and made my offer for it. No more, my offer stands for Lyman moulds only.

A couple major mould makers on this forum designs their moulds specifically for use with COWWs. I imagine as the supply of COWWs dwindles and other more balanced ternary alloys are used we will get complaints of “my **** mould is casting too large!” A good example of that is the 3 GB mould I purchased designed for COWWs and perhaps with 50% lead added. The 429421 cast bullets that dropped at .436+ with COWWs +2% tin. Quite overlarge for any .44 revolver I have. I also have the 311291 and the 311041 that were “designed to cast a little large for .31 cal rifles”……..I’ll say….with straight COWWs they both drop bullets at .313 with noses at .303 - .304. With Lyman # 2 alloy and COWWs +2% tin the both drop bullets at .316+ with noses of .304 - .305+….Not having a 2 groove SMLE but several genuine .31s needing bullets at .312 - .314 they obviously cast oversize with the alloy I want to use. BTW. The straight COWW bullets drop “out of round”. Those with the 2 other alloys are round……..

My own older 358156 also drops COWW bullets at .359 and with Lyman #2 or COWWs + 2% tin they drop .360 - .361. It is a mould I’ve had for 40+ years. A couple newer 358156 moulds drop the bullets at .359 with COWWs + 2% tin which is still .001 over nominal diameter.

The composition of COWWs varies with the local across the country. Some cast pretty darn good bullets….most don’t…..those COWWs usually cast undersize bullets of which most will also be “out of round”. I have found over the last 10+ years the addition of 2% tin will cure most of the undersize and out of round problems with such batches of COWWs. WE must also accept that everyone on this forum is not an accomplished caster. Many do not know how to cast correctly with a proven technique to produce quality cast bullets. A poor casting technique also is a large part of the problem. I’ve tested several Lyman moulds that the owners said cast undersize. When used with COWWs + 2% tin and a proper casting technique (straight out of Lyman’s CBH’s all of those moulds cast to nominal diameter or larger. I have not bought a single Lyman mould under my offer. I have bought 1 RCBS mould though.

Additionally many experienced caster who have used the older Ideal/Lyman moulds and got bullets of .001 - .003 over the nominal diameter now think because a new Lyman mould casts at nominal diameter that it is “undersize” or “defective”. They also think that if the newer Lyman mould casts under nominal diameter with straight COWWs that the mould is defective. Not saying these experienced casters don't know how to cast.....they do with COWW alloy. The technique is a bit different with a correct alloy for the newer Lyman moulds. The newer Lyman moulds are not defective, the wrong alloy was used is all and perhaps not a correct casting technique. I stand by my offer for Lyman moulds.

I also have 80+ moulds of which 41 are Lyman moulds. I’ve also had I don’t know how many other Ideal/Lyman moulds I’ve sold or traded off over the years. I have never had one cast to less than nominal diameter with the right alloy (what the mould was designed for) and a proper casting technique.

Be glad to sit down and trade stories with you…..I can tell the same war stories a lot of different ways……..coffee or beer……maybe even get some shooting in….cast bullets of course……..

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

My experience has been that an alloy high in Antimony (linotype being an example) will cast larger than COWW+tin. This has proven to be the case for me anyway. Your results may vary and you may be able to make an undersized mold cast to published dimensions, good for you. The fact is even COWW alloy vary greatly in tin/arsenic/antimony content. Maybe you can share your methods for determining proper "balance" and enlighten us all.

BTW, the LAST Lyman mold I bought new was a 225415DC that cast 0.2225" using my alloy (mostly Linotype, high in Antimony). After having it bored to 0.226" by Eric it mikes at 0.2265" using the exact same alloy.

Well you certainly have the bad luck with Lyman moulds.....too bad you didn't send the mould to me....might have saved you some money and proved your point. Linotype also has a high % of tin BTW which is why it most often casts very well. That it failed for you is perhaps indicative of a different problem.

To enlighten you; add 2% tin to your COWW alloy, cast at 725 degrees and use a proper casting technique. As I've stated; I've yet to buy a Lyman mould under my offer. Not wanting to get into a pi**ing contest here. I make an offer putting my money where my mouth is based on considerable experience with Lyman moulds, old and new. If you can prove me wrong with a Lyman mould casting "undersize" please do so by sending it to me for testing. It is a "win/win" for you as you will get all your money back you paid for the mould if it indeed does not cast to nominal diameter. And I will have learned I was wrong......here's your chance........

Larry Gibson

[TheCelt]

Well you certainly have the bad luck with Lyman moulds.....too bad you didn't send the mould to me....might have saved you some money and proved your point. Linotype also has a high % of tin BTW which is why it most often casts very well. That it failed for you is perhaps indicative of a different problem.

To enlighten you; add 2% tin to your COWW alloy, cast at 725 degrees and use a proper casting technique. As I've stated; I've yet to buy a Lyman mould under my offer. Not wanting to get into a pi**ing contest here. I make an offer putting my money where my mouth is based on considerable experience with Lyman moulds, old and new. If you can prove me wrong with a Lyman mould casting "undersize" please do so by sending it to me for testing. It is a "win/win" for you as you will get all your money back you paid for the mould if it indeed does not cast to nominal diameter. And I will have learned I was wrong......here's your chance........

Larry Gibson

No pi**ing contest here!!! Like you, I have about 36 Ideal/Lyman Molds, some that go back a lot of years. One (a 32 cal 165gr) was delivered with an 1894 made in 1907. I usually cast a COWW/range lead mix as that usually provides a nominal diameter and good performance (with handgun Boolits). For rifles it's usually COWW plus Plumbers solder (50/50 lead tin). With the latest Lyman Molds (rifle molds) The Boolits cast UNDER the specified diameter. I preheat the mold on a hotplate and run the pot (PID controlled) at 740 deg F. In an attempt to get the Boolits to cast to the nominal diameter I changed the alloy to one consisting of 50/50 Linotype/COWW+Solder. For the .458" and .311" molds this produced a harder than desired Boolit but one of consistent weight and nominal diameter. For the 225415DC even the high antimony alloy wouldn't get it there, hence the trip to Eric. Like I said earlier, if you want to share your magic with everyone have at it. I believe your blanket statement "send it to me and I'll make it work" is somewhat condescending though and as much as I figure your offer was made with the best intent the mold in question is now producing the Boolits I wanted it to with ANY alloy (although the 225415 is easier to work with cast of a harder alloy).

[Larry Gibson]

TheCelt

I believe your blanket statement "send it to me and I'll make it work" is somewhat condescending though and as much as I figure your offer was made with the best intent the mold in question is now producing the Boolits I wanted it to with ANY alloy (although the 225415 is easier to work with cast of a harder alloy).

That is not the offer and it is not a "blanket statement". I have no intention of "making it work". My intention is to see IF it will work. There is a lot of difference there. A suggestion; your alloy of 50/50 Linotype/COWW+Solder is really high in antimony, too high actually. It is not the antimony that makes the alloy fill out the mould. Too much antimony cast at too high a temp will cause excessive shrinking of the bullet in the mould. You might look in Lyman's CBHs for a correct formula for #2 alloy using either linotype or COWWs as the base alloy. There are 2 formula's. Or simply adding 50% lead (not COWWs) to the linotype and adding 2 % tin makes a very good general purpose alloy. Also I suggest dropping the alloy temp down to 725 for casting.

Obviously you have some experience as you say you get good bullets at nominal diameter but they "produced a harder than desired Boolit ". Perhaps the fact that you seem to have the same problem with multiple moulds is telling you something? Maybe, just maybe it is not the mould that is the problem? BTW; are you smoking the cavities or putting any "release" in them?

Here is the offer I make;

The owner sends me the mould. I do nothing except clean it and do normal precast prep to the mould. If the Lyman mould (not modified by anyone) does cast bullets to nominal diameter at least, with the correct alloy and casting technique it gets returned to the sender with a full explanation of what was done and sample cast bullets at no cost to the owner. If the Lyman mould does not cast to at least nominal diameter with the correct alloy and casting technique I offer to return the mould at no cost to the owner OR to buy the mould from the owner for what he paid for it plus the shipping to me. Either way is fine with me.

That is my offer. There is absolutely nothing condescending about it. If the mould does cast to nominal diameter the owner has learned that and can adjust his alloy and/or casting technique to get the same. If the mould does not cast to nominal diameter the owner can return the mould to Lyman for adjustment or sell it to me and recover all his money and order a custom mould if he wants. It is a win - win for the mould owner. I am the one taking the risk. My reason for doing so is simply to learn. I have not noticed any decrease in Lyman mould quality nor their customer service on the products they currently make. I simply want to find out if they are really putting out any moulds that do cast undersize with the proper alloy and/or casting technique. My offer does not include "making them work" which is why I am the new owner of an RCBS mould that does indeed cast undersize. I tested it, it casts undersize, I bought it as per my offer to the owner. I have not yet bought a Lyman mould that casts undersize. Perhaps if you have another Lyman mould you think does you would send it to me for testing under the conditions of my offer? If sp please PM for my address.

Larry Gibson

[groundsclown]

Sorry I haven't been watching this thread lately...

Unless the picture is somehow distorted, that bullet isn't a .358477. It isn't supposed to have rounded edges at the top like that and is a sharp front edged SWC.
As GLL pointed out, this is the new and improved version I guess. Needless to say I was a bit disappointed in the design but was willing to give it a chance anyways.



Groundsclown.....my offer concerning "undersized" Lyman moulds still stands if you haven't sent that 4 cavity 358477 back yet?
Larry Gibson

Thanks Larry but it went back to Midway the day after I started this thread...Full refund plus shipping.
I wont say that I'll never buy another new Lyman but I think after this I'll spend my $$ a little more carefully.

Rob

[Larry Gibson]

groundsclown

That's ok, just would have been interesting to test it. If you run into that problem again give me a shout.

Larry Gibson