Linotype v. Lyman #2?

[MIEagle]

I bought a mold from NOE for my '03 and '03-A3 rifles. If I have a choice, should I buy Linotype or Lyman #2. The price difference doesn't seem that far apart. I'd like to be able to shoot silhouettes at 500 M eventually. Thanks.

[Lloyd Smale]

if the price is similar id buy the linotype and mix it with some free ww and end up with cheaper #2

[Ballistics in Scotland]

If you were simply to cast bullets in either, the linotype ones would be at least as precisely formed, and get to the target about as well. At extreme ranges the trajectory might be a little more curved, since it is a little lighter. End of story as far as targets and small game are concerned.

On large game linotype bullets are a bit too liable to break up, or to fail to expand. Adding a small quantity of linotype to a lot of wheel weights is likely to be fine. That will be much cheaper than buying Lyman No2, especially if you pay postage on it. But the linotype-wheelweight alloy will still have a lot of antimony and very little tin. So it will be slightly brittle, and perhaps still capable of leading the bore, since antimony tends to form a crystal lattice with lead in between. This can be added by adding tin, possibly in the form of 60-40 bar solder.

I'd probably just buy the Lyman alloy unless I would be shooting so much that any saving was worthwhile. In that event I would melt the largest possible amount at once, and save it as ingots or bullets, to avoid fluctuations in composition.

[John Boy]

I'd like to be able to shoot silhouettes at 500 M eventually.
This being your objective, buy the Lyman #2. Then mix 3 parts Lyman #2 with 7 parts pure Pb. Why? This 1:16 alloy is one the better alloys to provide a better slump of the bullet in the grooves - improves accuracy

[Lloyd Smale]

ill argue that one till the sun comes up. Why would a deformed (slumped bullet) fly better through the air at long range then a precisely shaped bullet. Bullets that (slump) bump up were an old fix for guns back in the day that had tolerances all over the place. In a good gun a hard bullet will outshoot a soft one 95 percent of the time. I probably own 50 handguns and have probably owned 50 more through the years that have come and gone. I have had exactly one gun that shot better with soft bullets. An old 25 smith and Wesson and by better I mean it would shoot 3-4 inch 25 yard groups vs all over the place with hard. Bottom line is it was a dud anyway. You might find a gun or two that shoots well with soft bullets but it will be a rare thing to find one that shoots better with soft.
This being your objective, buy the Lyman #2. Then mix 3 parts Lyman #2 with 7 parts pure Pb. Why? This 1:16 alloy is one the better alloys to provide a better slump of the bullet in the grooves - improves accuracy

[Ballistics in Scotland]

A bullet expanding its bearing surface to seal the bore is fine, but it is true that slumping of the unsupported nose can easily be asymmetrical, and harmful to accuracy.

So what can do one but not the other? An alloy which is still pretty hard. That is what was used with the heavy-bullet long-range muzzle-loaders, and the very heavy bullets made land-diameter bullets work. It would be less reliable with light bullets, and their faster acceleration would surely increase the tendency for the nose to deform. I can't think of any reason to do it with breech-loaders of modern (or modernish) design. It is better to just get the diameter right.