Got to love those old IDEALs ! !

[Ben]

My friend Bryan really wanted my old IDEAL 356402 for his new Ruger 9 mm pistol, so I let him have it.

I've been looking for another IDEAL 356402. I found one. I was hoping for .359 or so. BINGO ! The bullets mike .360" with ACWW's and they are all near perfectly round.

Got to love those old IDEALs .

Will be a good general utility bullet. The bullet can be sized to .358" for use in the 38 Spec., & 357 Mag. or Sized .357" for use in the 9 mm.

The bullet even works well in my Rossi, Mod. 92, 38/357. The flat on the end of the nose gives me a better feeling when these rounds are loaded one behind the other in the tubular magazine of the Model 92.

http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p545/Ben35049/003_zpsffdcb79b.jpg (http://s1155.photobucket.com/user/Ben35049/media/003_zpsffdcb79b.jpg.html)

http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p545/Ben35049/002_zpsb4f6fe00.jpg (http://s1155.photobucket.com/user/Ben35049/media/002_zpsb4f6fe00.jpg.html)

http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p545/Ben35049/001_zps5eb7a19b.jpg (http://s1155.photobucket.com/user/Ben35049/media/001_zps5eb7a19b.jpg.html)

http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p545/Ben35049/006_zps6ec6815c.jpg (http://s1155.photobucket.com/user/Ben35049/media/006_zps6ec6815c.jpg.html)

[texassako]

Nice one. I like those old single cavities. I had one about that old but it had to go since it dropped at .356" with #2. It came with a bag full already lubed and sized that were .359", but I don't know what alloy drops that much bigger than #2.

[462]

I have two Ideal moulds, a single cavity 308291 and a two cavity 266469. The 308291 is the best casting mould that I have -- open it and a plump boolit literally jumps out of the cavity.

[Ben]

Those old fellows that made these old IDEALs were probably making .60 per hr. back in the late 40's.

They took pride in their work....WOW how things have changed.

Ben

[Larry Gibson]

Pride in their work has nothing to do with why old Ideal and Lyman moulds cast to larger diameter with the common ternary alloys we use these days, especially the tin poor ones like COWWs

Ever wonder why new Lyman moulds don't cast as large these days? Well how about something simple like Lyman mould cherries are designed to produce nominal diameter cast bullets when cast of #2 alloy.

Back in the "good old days" the cherries were designed around #1 alloy. Makes a certain amount of sense if there is a #2 alloy there was a #1 alloy. Back at the beginning of the 19th century before the Lyman family bought out the Ideal company the popular alloys for casting were the softer lead/tin used for PB'd cast bullets and the harder #1 alloy of lead, antimony, tin and copper. Both alloys had a lot of shrinkage. The #1 alloy was a more difficult alloy to cast with though and over a few years it was supplanted by the ternary allot #2. The #2 alloy was much easier to cast with and was far more popular to use back then and #1 alloy gradually fell by the wayside so most bullet casters don't these days never heard of #1 alloy let alone know what the make is.

However, all those moulds were already made for the #1 alloy and Lyman had a lot of cherries already made for a lot of bullet designs. For many years Lyman offered undersized moulds with a "U" stamped at the end of the mould number. This was for those casters that did not want the larger diameter bullets that #2 alloy and especially linotype would produce in moulds with the older cherries designed for the #1 alloy. As time passed many of the older cherries wore out and Lyman had the new ones made up for the specified #2 alloy which produced bullets at or slightly larger than nominal diameter so excessive sizing is not needed.

As an example other than Ben's shown here in this thread is an old Lyman 2 cavity 311466. Cast bullet nominal diameter is supposed to be a bit over .311, right? Yet when cast of COWWs it is around .312. Cast of COWWs and #2 alloy gets .313 - .315. Cast of linotype the bullets fall out just over .314! Which means to size to .311 and then shot in a .308 barrel those bullets get sized down .006"! That is a bit for best accuracy BTW. My 4 cavity 311466U mould drops the #2 alloyed bullets right at .311". Same with an older Ideal 311359 mould I had. It dropped linotype bullets at .314 also. My Lyman 311359U drops them right at .311 with #2 alloy.

As more time went by almost everyone quit using #1 alloy to the point no one for many years knew what it was or had even heard of it. Lyman found it non economical to produce the older size moulds and the undersized ones and standardized mould sizes around the popular #2 alloy. That gives bullet of nominal or slightly larger and gives larger bullets if linotype alloy is used. Then along comes the use of straight COWWs popularized when bullet casting craze took off and with the advent of forums like this one on the internet. Now we get complaints of the "poor quality" of Lyman and other moulds because they don't cast large enough with a poor alloy such as straight COWWs. Easy to blame the mould rather than one's self......if you buy a high performance motor and use regular gas is it the motors fault it doesn't run right? Some seem to think so........

Point is newer Lyman moulds have been made to drop cast bullets at or slightly above the nominal mould diameter with #2 alloy for some years now. If you put a poor alloy in it like straight COWWs or COWWs/lead at 50/50 and it doesn't cast to nominal diameter it is not the moulds fault. For those who want/expect a newer Lyman or other makes of moulds to drop bullets .002 - .003+ over the nominal mould diameter and get mad at the mould you be better served with a custom mould. Expecting a newer Lyman, RCBS, Lee, SAECO, NOE or other mass produced mould to drop cast bullets at a size other than they were designed for with the alloy they were designed for is self defeating let alone an unrealistic expectation.

Probably going to get a lot of complaints of "oversized" moulds when the COWWs run out (gonna happen and is happening) and all the owners of these GB and custom moulds made for that alloy end up being used with better ternary alloys..........

Larry Gibson

[rintinglen]

I agree completely with what Larry wrote, but there was an additional factor in the "Incredible shrinking Lyman" story. Back in the late 70's, it was an article of faith that for each .001 you sized a boolit, your groups would open up another inch. Sizing a .312 boolit down to .308 was certain to blow up groups to minute-of-paper plate size. Those "over size" Lymans were unjustly condemned, because "everybody knew" that you wanted your bullets to be groove diameter, or at most a thousandth over for best accuracy. Buyers demanded molds that cast smaller. Darned few knew the importance of fitting the cast boolit to the throat. Once again, be careful what you ask for--you just might get it.

The clamor for smaller molds coincided with advances in jacketed bullet technology and cast boolits became "plinkers" that weren't expected to do much. But the fellows over at the CBA persevered, and despite the lack of media coverage in those pre-internet days, their experiments bore fruit and the older Ideal molds began to treasured. Since 2006 I have bought 10, IIRC, Lyman molds. All of them, save one, casts at least nominally what they say they will, from 92-6-2 Lead, Antimony, tin alloy.
The lone exception is a 429-667. It is hard pressed to make .428, much less .429 and has been relegated for use in my S&W 544, 44-40, which has a .4275 groove diameter. The second 429-667 I bought casts .430 with the same alloy.

[steamerjames]

I love those old IDEALS, i.m still looking for a 41 Colt mold.

[williamwaco]

Larry + 1.

And.

Every custom mold I have ordered, the second question I was asked was "What alloy are you going to use".

It does make a difference.

[Ben]

Pride in their work has nothing to do with why old Ideal and Lyman moulds cast to larger diameter with the common ternary alloys we use these days, especially the tin poor ones like COWWs


Ever wonder why new Lyman moulds don't cast as large these days? Well how about something simple like Lyman mould cherries are designed to produce nominal diameter cast bullets when cast of #2 alloy.

Back in the "good old days" the cherries were designed around #1 alloy. Makes a certain amount of sense if there is a #2 alloy there was a #1 alloy. Back at the beginning of the 19th century before the Lyman family bought out the Ideal company the popular alloys for casting were the softer lead/tin used for PB'd cast bullets and the harder #1 alloy of lead, antimony, tin and copper. Both alloys had a lot of shrinkage. The #1 alloy was a more difficult alloy to cast with though and over a few years it was supplanted by the ternary allot #2. The #2 alloy was much easier to cast with and was far more popular to use back then and #1 alloy gradually fell by the wayside so most bullet casters don't these days never heard of #1 alloy let alone know what the make is.

However, all those moulds were already made for the #1 alloy and Lyman had a lot of cherries already made for a lot of bullet designs. For many years Lyman offered undersized moulds with a "U" stamped at the end of the mould number. This was for those casters that did not want the larger diameter bullets that #2 alloy and especially linotype would produce in moulds with the older cherries designed for the #1 alloy. As time passed many of the older cherries wore out and Lyman had the new ones made up for the specified #2 alloy which produced bullets at or slightly larger than nominal diameter so excessive sizing is not needed.

As an example other than Ben's shown here in this thread is an old Lyman 2 cavity 311466. Cast bullet nominal diameter is supposed to be a bit over .311, right? Yet when cast of COWWs it is around .312. Cast of COWWs and #2 alloy gets .313 - .315. Cast of linotype the bullets fall out just over .314! Which means to size to .311 and then shot in a .308 barrel those bullets get sized down .006"! That is a bit for best accuracy BTW. My 4 cavity 311466U mould drops the #2 alloyed bullets right at .311". Same with an older Ideal 311359 mould I had. It dropped linotype bullets at .314 also. My Lyman 311359U drops them right at .311 with #2 alloy.

As more time went by almost everyone quit using #1 alloy to the point no one for many years knew what it was or had even heard of it. Lyman found it non economical to produce the older size moulds and the undersized ones and standardized mould sizes around the popular #2 alloy. That gives bullet of nominal or slightly larger and gives larger bullets if linotype alloy is used. Then along comes the use of straight COWWs popularized when bullet casting craze took off and with the advent of forums like this one on the internet. Now we get complaints of the "poor quality" of Lyman and other moulds because they don't cast large enough with a poor alloy such as straight COWWs. Easy to blame the mould rather than one's self......if you buy a high performance motor and use regular gas is it the motors fault it doesn't run right? Some seem to think so........

Point is newer Lyman moulds have been made to drop cast bullets at or slightly above the nominal mould diameter with #2 alloy for some years now. If you put a poor alloy in it like straight COWWs or COWWs/lead at 50/50 and it doesn't cast to nominal diameter it is not the moulds fault. For those who want/expect a newer Lyman or other makes of moulds to drop bullets .002 - .003+ over the nominal mould diameter and get mad at the mould you be better served with a custom mould. Expecting a newer Lyman, RCBS, Lee, SAECO, NOE or other mass produced mould to drop cast bullets at a size other than they were designed for with the alloy they were designed for is self defeating let alone an unrealistic expectation.

Probably going to get a lot of complaints of "oversized" moulds when the COWWs run out (gonna happen and is happening) and all the owners of these GB and custom moulds made for that alloy end up being used with better ternary alloys..........

Larry Gibson


Gee Larry,

Thanks for correcting me.

However, I'll still say that the old IDEAL guys back during that time period took pride in their work !

Ben

[Piedmont]

So why is there so much variation in cavity sizes of Lyman made molds over the years if they spec'd them for #2 alloy? Wouldn't they all measure the same? They don't. And why do the cherries vary so much in design from one to the next when they use the same cherry number? If they hold the diameters so tightly for #2 as suggested, why can't they hold the design the same?

Bullet casters are natural cheapskates. Wheel weights have been the easiest and cheapest to procure alloy since what, the 1960s? (The popularization of them was NOT due to internet forums!) Why then would Lyman expect us to use an expensive alloy? Who in their right mind would use an expensive alloy when they could use a cheaper alloy?

Make all the excuses for Lyman you want to. They dropped the ball long ago and I for one am happy to support the likes of NOE and Accurate Molds, who give me what I want, not what they feel like giving me because they are nearly the only game in town. Save all that tin and linotype money and spend a little more for the mold to begin with.

[smokeywolf]

At least 80% of my moulds are the old IDEALs.

smokeywolf

[Ben]

At least 80% of my moulds are the old IDEALs.

smokeywolf

And I bet they are all fine molds.

Ben

[MT Gianni]

I have some 4 cavity ideal molds. I have often joked my retirement plan is to scribe E. Keith on the bottom.

[.22-10-45]

I think the wide variation in Lyman moulds comes from an economy move by the company. They probably started out with a maximum dia. cherry and over the years the dia. was reduced as tool was re-ground.

[Hooker53]

Boolit moulds for me lately have became a strong advocate to fall into the category of you get what you pay for. All will cast and if broke in properly will cast well. That being said, after you ever do hold in your hands an Ideal or an old Lyman or any of that level you will never look back.

The first Boolit mould I ever bought was a used Ideal 148 grain WC 4 cavity. That was the best thing a new caster could come by. Now understand I'v flirted with casting a long time but never got real serious about it till I found this site. I still don't have many moulds but I keep asking myself, which Ideal/Lyman mould do I buy next to upgrade an intry level mould I have.

Roy

[TCFAN]

I too like the old Ideal molds. I have a U225415 single cavity that i bought used in 1964 or so that is one of my favorites. It drops boolit at .226 using a mix of 9 parts WW to 1 part Lino.Also have among others a double cavity 225438 smooth face with out vent lines that drop boolits out at .226 using the same WW lino mix.When ever I see a Ideal marked mold I try not to pass it up if it is for sale.........Terry

[SciFiJim]

So what was the composition of #1 alloy?

[longbow]

I have to say that as much as I like my Mihec and NOE moulds, I have a soft spot for the Lyman and RCBS mehanite iron moulds. If I had to choose one material for moulds iron would be it. Plus I just like the look, feel and casting ability of Lyman and RCBS iron moulds (I do not have any SAECO moulds but they have to be similar).

Unfortunately as noted, many Lyman moulds (and I suspect others) cast undersize using typical wheelweight or range scrap "alloys". While I understand what Larry is saying, I have to ask why it would be a problem to have a mould cast a couple thou... even just one thou oversize with plain old wheelweights which may be three thou over with Lyman #2 alloy then size down to suit?It is easy to size down but does not work at all the other way. My last Lyman mould 314299 cast 0.312" to 0.313" with wheelweights. My NOE 316299 casts at 0.315" + using wheelweights About 0.0005" under size rather than 0.001" to 0.002" under size I see with Lyman moulds... newer Lyman moulds that is. My old 31141 casts at guess what... 0.310"/0.311" with wheelweights. Go figure!

Regardless, I am with you Ben!

Longbow

[Char-Gar]

Absent data from Lyman indicating the smaller dimensions are due to the desire to do away with regular and undersized molds, I consider that to be an assumption, which may or may not be correct.

Somewhere buried in my files, I have a letter dating back to the early 60's from Lyman stating the "U" molds resulted from the cherries being sharpened for the last time and a final run being made. When the cherries were sharpened so many times they were no longer "in spec", then they were used for the undersized molds.

I have lived in 16 different houses, in 8 cities, three states and two foreign countries since I stuck that letter away and it will most likely be found when my survivors clean out my boxes and boxes of junk. But I do recall the content very well.

I do think it is correct that Lyman changed alloys, but I am not as certain they changed specs as a result. That to I think is an assumption. For as long as I have been alive No. 2 was the alloy used by lyman for their rifle molds. I am not certain about their handgun molds.

I feel (assume) that the smaller molds were produced about the time folks started screaming for them as they felt sizing was the great killer of cast bullets. This is about the time, Lyman changed the leade of their sizing dies to a cone from a sharp two step design.

We have learned that sizing does not kill bullets as such. Shoving them base first into a die with a low leverage machine will kill them. Pushing them nose first through a press mounted die will not kill them.

I have never understood how Lyman does not understand it's roll in the history of bullet casting and reloading in general. They seem oblivious of their history and seem to have no corporate memory of how thing were done day before yesterday. Much of this has been lost and all we have left is fragments from secondary sources augmented by assumptions.

But with the spec discussion aside, the older Lyman/Ideal bullet molds do seem to be of overall better general quality than current production.

[DeanWinchester]

I have a single cavity Ideal 356402 also! It is priceless to me. Casts better than 99% of the molds I've ever used. I love the boolit and the mold.
Mine casts a little smaller at .3595 though. I run them in 9mm at .358
It also made some VERY accurate plinker loads in .35 Remington w/ Trail Boss.

[Char-Gar]

So what was the composition of #1 alloy?

Ideal Bullet Metal No. 1 - 80 parts lead, 7 parts antimony and 3 parts copper

Ideal Bullet Metal No. 2 - 90 parts lead, 5 parts antimony and 5 parts tin

This per THE AMERICAN RIFLE by Townsend Whelen (1918)

[Larry Gibson]

Piedmont

So why is there so much variation in cavity sizes of Lyman made molds over the years if they spec'd them for #2 alloy? Wouldn't they all measure the same? They don't. And why do the cherries vary so much in design from one to the next when they use the same cherry number? If they hold the diameters so tightly for #2 as suggested, why can't they hold the design the same?

Lyman didn't make the change to #2 all spec'd moulds all at once. It occured over quite a period of time. As the cherries wore out the were replaced with new ones cut to #2 alloy spec. The cherris were hand made and probably just had to be close to the same design. Its not easy to make a reamer or cherrie by hand so there was some leeway. Also they were made to + spec tolerences so they could be sharpened and used numerous times before hitting minimum spec. I imagine the newer cherries are made on CNC machines and now can be made to much tighter and more consistent spec's.

Bullet casters are natural cheapskates. Wheel weights have been the easiest and cheapest to procure alloy since what, the 1960s? (The popularization of them was NOT due to internet forums!) Why then would Lyman expect us to use an expensive alloy? Who in their right mind would use an expensive alloy when they could use a cheaper alloy?


Back "in the day" Alloys were not very expensive and there was no hasmat BS to put up with. Lyman manuals gave a lot of instruction on making alloy from batteries, linotype and WWs, sheet lead and many other sources. WWs back in the '60s also had a higher antimony and tin contect than the ones we've had for some years now. The popularization was also helped along by Lyman. Also back then we understood that we had to ask questions and learn to make our alloy work with the mould. We understood what the moulds were made for and learned how to make them work if we used omething ifferent. Today we just go on the internet and complain about the product. I've tested several 14 Lyman moulds that were thought to be "undersize" from my standing offer. All of them cast to nominal diameter + when COWWs (todays) + 2 % tin was used. I have not bought a single Lyman mould under my offer as all the owners wanted them back when they saw how easy it is to get properly sized bullets from them. A pound of tin does seem somewhat expensive if you are "cheap". But that 1 lb will do at 2% 50 lbs of COWW alloy. The much better quality of bullets, much less rejection and easier casting amazes everyone who trys it. If one wants to use "cheap" bullets from a poor alloy that's fine. But when you think you'll get better accuracy with the cheaper and poorer alloy if the bullet was only a couple thou larger then you've another thnk coming. If you want quality accuracy you need tostart with a quality alloy. COWWs can be a quality alloy if you add the 2 % tin. Sometimes "cheap" can be good but most often it is just "cheap". If you want to dance you have to pay the band.

Make all the excuses for Lyman you want to. They dropped the ball long ago and I for one am happy to support the likes of NOE and Accurate Molds, who give me what I want, not what they feel like giving me because they are nearly the only game in town. Save all that tin and linotype money and spend a little more for the mold to begin with.

I make no excuses at all for Lyman, if they make a bad mould i call it. Same with RCBS, Saeco, Mihec, NOE, Lee, Accurate or any other, they make a bad mould I call it. However, I do not condem the product when the problem is obviusly one of "operator error". You put garbage in you get garbage out. All those moulds cut for COWW or COWW + lead at 50/50 will cast much larger bullets when the COWWs run out and you have to use another alloy. The COWWs will run out as they already are/have in many parts of the country. You then will have excessively large bullets with other proper ternary alloys or you will have to start making your own poor quality COWW alloy. That will prove just as "expensive" as you think making a good proper ternary alloy is today.

Many like just okay cast bullts cast from whatever alloy is available on the "cheap". Trust me, I shoot a lot of those also. But I know what to expect from them. If I want a qualiy cast bullet for quality accuracy from any firearm I understand the 1st thing to start with is a quality alloy.

Larry Gibson

[Nrut]

Ideal Bullet Metal No. 1 - 80 parts lead, 7 parts antimony and 3 parts copper

Ideal Bullet Metal No. 2 - 90 parts lead, 5 parts antimony and 5 parts tin

This per THE AMERICAN RIFLE by Townsend Whelen (1918)
Thanks for posting the contents and ratios for the Ideal #1 alloy..
Seen it referred to a few of times but no formula..
Wonder how they blended the copper in without tin..

[williamwaco]

So what was the composition of #1 alloy?

3%Cu, 7%Sb, 90%Pb

[Char-Gar]

Piedmont,

I attribute the wide swing is mold sizes over the production life by Lyman as the consequences of poor quality control.

It is my understanding that Lyman didn't make or sharpen their cherries, but outsourced this critical machining. Over the course of decades, Lyman used a number of different machine shops to do this work.

I suspect, but can't prove, that Lyman didn't have master drawings but sent molds or cast bullets to the machine shop. Smith and Wesson didn't have master drawings until 1957. Before that, measurements were taken from master parts in the vault and machines were set from those measurements. Small differences were resolved by hand fitting. Lyman of course can't hand fit the mold cavities, but take what the cherry gives.

Over the production life of Lyman molds, you will find not only differences in body and nose diameters, but in the total design itself. Many of these differences are quite visible. I have six different 311291 molds made over a 50 year period and they are different in many regards.

Bullet casting did not pick up in popularity until after WWII when many of the returning vets took up shooting and reloading. Lots of advances in reloading knowledge and equipment were made during that period of time.

In the early 60's the American Rifleman published a large number of bullet casting articles, many of them by Col. Harrison which were very authoritative. He called attention to the large size of Lyman molds and the damage done by sizing. The result was a call for molds that cast small bullets and dies that didn't shave bullets when sized. Lyman accommodate this demand.

Lyman was the 500 pound gorilla for several generations and they became somewhat arrogant, figuring folks would buy what they made and be grateful for it. They paid the price for their arrogance and are now a much smaller player in the field. They are now trying to play catch up ball and have not got their game together yet. They took their customers for granted for far to long.

[Char-Gar]

Thanks for posting the contents and ratios for the Ideal #1 alloy..
Seen it referred to a few of times but no formula..
Wonder how they blended the copper in without tin..

I have no idea how the blending was done. I am not a science guy, but I have always thought that No. 1 cast larger than No. 2 due to the extra 2% antimony. Antimony contracts when hot and expands when cool, quite the opposite from most other metals. That is why it was used in various type metals. It helps fill out the molds. Tin will also help in this regard, but not like antimony.

[Larry Gibson]

#1 alloy (called "Ideal Bullet Metal" at the time) is 80% lead, 10% Tin, 7% Antimony and 3% copper by weight. Per Ideal Manufacturing Company, Lt. Townsend Whelen (1909) and Phil Sharpe.

Larry Gibson

[Green Frog]

Many of my favorite moulds have been by Ideal. When I was first shooting in the Schuetzen game I bought just about every Ideal mould I could find for the 32-40 in hopes of finding the one that made me a great shooter (yeah, I know it would have been better to practice, but "hope springs eternal...") I still have about 6 or 7 of those moulds, all single cavity and several with the handle and block made together. I also had to have a couple of good moulds each for 45, 44, and 38/357 and at the time preferred the single cavity versions for "greater precision" though my pistol shooting was nothing to write home about. By the time I got on my 32 S&W/327 Fed Mag kick I was looking for double cavity moulds to increase production, and although I have a great mould from NOE and a beautiful work of art from Mihec, I still love my old Ideal moulds for that bullet family as well. Altogether I have about 18-20 Ideal moulds and would be hard pressed to let any of them go, even though the 4 custom moulds I have for Schuetzen and the 32 revolver get a lot of use as well. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Froggie

[williamwaco]

I have no idea how the blending was done. I am not a science guy, but I have always thought that No. 1 cast larger than No. 2 due to the extra 2% antimony. Antimony contracts when hot and expands when cool, quite the opposite from most other metals. That is why it was used in various type metals. It helps fill out the molds. Tin will also help in this regard, but not like antimony.

Not a metallurgist, and not disagreeing, but the old printers in the 1950's told me the antimony was to make it hard because without it, the presses would "smash" and distort the type letters in the type blocks.

[Char-Gar]

Not a metallurgist, and not disagreeing, but the old printers in the 1950's told me the antimony was to make it hard because without it, the presses would "smash" and distort the type letters in the type blocks.

Back in the early 60's I bought linotype metal from a foundry in Houston (Sterling Type Metal and Rule) and they told me the high antimony content helped with the fill out of the small type letters. That is where I get that from.

With a printing press you certainly would not want an alloy that was highly malleable for sure. But antimony remains in crystals in the alloy which makes the alloy hard but brittle. Shoot a deer with a lintotype bullet at rifle speed and most likely the nose will shatter on impact. I suspect that linotype used the antimony to help with the fill out and help to keep the letters crisp and sharp during the printing process.

[williamwaco]

Back in the early 60's I bought linotype metal from a foundry in Houston (Sterling Type Metal and Rule) and they told me the high antimony content helped with the fill out of the small type letters. That is where I get that from.

With a printing press you certainly would not want an alloy that was highly malleable for sure. But antimony remains in crystals in the alloy which makes the alloy hard but brittle. Shoot a deer with a lintotype bullet at rifle speed and most likely the nose will shatter on impact. I suspect that linotype used the antimony to help with the fill out and help to keep the letters crisp and sharp during the printing process.

I expect both are correct.

Back in the 50's and 60's wheel weights were much harder than now. I have no idea what the bnh was but after we got enough smelted to make a pot, we would cast half dozen bullets and let them cool.

They we perforned the "smash test". Place a bullet on the concrete floor or on a brick and smash it with a hammer.
If it crumbled, we diluted that pot 50/50 with plumbers lead or telephone cable. If it flattened, we made bullets with it.

[ohland]

#1 alloy (called "Ideal Bullet Metal" at the time) is 80% lead, 10% Tin, 7% Antimony and 3% copper by weight. Larry Gibson

Huh, I thought copper was bad ju-ju in lead. Suppose not.

[ohland]

#1 alloy (called "Ideal Bullet Metal" at the time) is 80% lead, 10% Tin, 7% Antimony and 3% copper by weight. Per Ideal Manufacturing Company, Lt. Townsend Whelen (1909) and Phil Sharpe. Larry Gibson

OK, so what are Lyman #3 and #5? Lyman #2, #4, and #6 are in the '58 LHCB, IIRC.

[SniderBoomer]

Fantastic thread, deserves to stay around... Wondering how a home-caster can make up some #1 Alloy.

[MtGun44]

Love old Ideal molds, and I would really like to thank Larry for that education. I was
entirely unaware of that information, and appreciate learning more about this hobby.

I often say "You can learn something new every day, if you will pay attention." Thanks
for today's learning, Larry.

As to overall quality - Miha's molds are spectacular, and the quality is just amazing, but
I do have to say that of the production molds, RCBS's mehanite is just a wonderful material.
Seems to be a lot harder and wears better than the Ideal and Lyman iron, which seems very
soft and I do worry about damage, as I see damage around the corners on old molds I
buy.

There are lots of different styles and materials out there, and I have managed to make good
boolits with just about all of them, aluminum, brass, iron, mehanite, Lyman, NOE, NIE,
MP, Saeco, RCBS, Ideal, Lee and more. We are indeed fortunate in our hobby to have so
may choices of good tools.

Bill

[Larry Gibson]

Lyman #3 alloy is 1-10

Lyman #5 should be 1-30.

Larry Gibson