Cramer .30 cal. Mold

[Ben]

I purchased a .30 cal, 3 cav. , 191 gr. , Cramer mold from Lumpie a few days ago.

It arrived today and I couldn't stand the temptation....I had to get out and cast a few with it. Bullets are very round with mimimum weight deviation from cav. to cav. Bullet diameter " as cast " is .312 ".

Bullets drop easily from the mold. A .30 cal. Hornady g/c's is a good tight snap on fit.

I'm sizing to .310 " and will shoot these in my favorite .30 cal. rifles ( .308 Win. and 06's ) .

Do any of you have this mold ? Any experiences with the bullet that you'd like to share ? I know that Cramer molds was sold to SAECO around 1950 or so ?

I wonder how old this one is ?

Ben

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/haysb/Cramer%20%20640/IMG_1070Small.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/haysb/Cramer%20%20640/IMG_1067Small.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/haysb/Cramer%20%20640/IMG_1057Small.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/haysb/Cramer%20%20640/IMG_1062Small.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/haysb/Cramer%20%20640/IMG_1071Small.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/haysb/Cramer%20%20640/IMG_1072Small.jpg

[onceabull]

Ben;Nice find !! I don't have one for that boolit,but there are a couple differences there from any other Cramer I own or have seen. First are the handles,which
are so different that I would wonder about orig. The sprue cutter on other Cramers I've examined has always been marked with a "code" (maybe catalog) #, as can be seen on Castpics,where yours is a #43..Perhaps yours is either a very early or very late example. Bet it will shoot OK when the nose is big enough to ride the lands..enjoy...Onceabull

[Ben]

Thanks onceabull :

Nose on this one mikes .3015 "

[Urny]

That's a good looking mould, Ben. Mine is a two cavity and came with what look like standard SAECO handles, and casts to about the same dimensions and weight as yours. The sprue plate is marked No. 43. All my Cramers are marked in code like that; I think yours is the first I've seen without the code. Cramer made nice moulds. That bullet does well in my Springfields, haven't tried it in the 1912/61 two groove yet, nor in LINDA's Savage .308 heavy barrel.

I think you will like it.

[mold maker]

That old thing?????
You ought to unload it like, Lumpy did.
Tee Hee, I'll help you dispose of it, to avoid embarrassment.
Seriously those look very promising.
Ya done good!

[Ben]

Urny :

Out of curiosity, I'd really like to know the approx. age of this mold. It is in very nice shape.

I'm 58 and I know it is as old as I am.

Ben

[Bret4207]

Ben, my 25 cal Cramer is my 2nd favorite mould to use. It's a VERY nice mould, far nicer than the later SAECOs and RCBS moulds and grades above my Ideals and Lymans. I may just be lucky, but I have several Cramers and all are joys to use.

[Ben]

I made around 125 or so with this Cramer yesterday. Once the mold got hot ( about 15 - 18 bullets ), it was turning out a 99.99 % acceptance rate. I paid a lot for this mold, but I think I got a lot !

It is a real shame with all this computerized technology that we have in the market place now, that a company can't ( or won't ) make a mold like this again ? ?

Ben

[Urny]

My limited experience with Mountain Moulds and NEI suggests that moulds that good are available, just not on a regular basis from the big four makers. Quality control from all four of them could use a little work. The Cramer moulds are really easy to use, except the five cavity 38 wadcutter mould cut in the eight cavity blocks. It weighs over four pounds, and heats up a bit slowly.

I'm a little older than you, and would like to know more about the history of Cramer moulds. I wonder when they sold out to SAECO, if that is what happened.

[Ben]

I read that it occurred at or around 1950 ? ?

Ben

[madcaster]

Oh NO BEN!You need to send it up here to me for indepth testin!!![smilie=1:

[Ben]

Jeff,

You wouldn't want to fool around with an old junker mold like this one.......

Ben

[madcaster]

Yes,I would too!

[Pavogrande]

Not gospel, but -- In a forum thread about star reloaders, the retired owner of Star san diego (Paul "fitz" Jones) mentions saeco bought cramer in 1947 --

[Urny]

If the 1947 date is correct, I don't have to worry about many of them being younger than I am. They made remarkably useful, long lasting tools in those days.

[Pavogrande]

Had to get out my #5c Cramer to compare -- My handles do appear different, the wood is larger diameter, cylindrical with 3 groves for gripping and perhaps slightly shorter The handle metal is made from cold rolled stock, bent, as yours, but without any grinding marks -- Bolt is same
Your sprue plate appears to be thicker, mine is 3/16" , which may account for the different marking. Mine is marked Cramer NO - 5C in two lines as yours. The pour holes look similar, that is, a slightly tapered hole to a flat rather than just a countersunk hole ..... Had mine since 1958 ----- All academic and speculative -- but great moulds -- happy casting

[Ben]

I believe I remember Lumpie telling me ( when I agreed to buy the mold ) that the wood and ferrules on my handles had been replaced, but everything else is orig.

It seems odd to me that the only ID markings on my particular mold are on the sprue plate, all other mold manufacturers that I know of put their ID info on the mold blocks ? ?



Ben

[floodgate]

Ben:

The old Ideal Mfg. Co. marked their earliest moulds (ca. 1884 - 1896) on the sprue plates. I'll look for and post a photo of one of these a fellow collector took for me; Idon't think I have any in my coll....uh, "accumulation".

floodgate

[floodgate]

Ben:

Here's an example; after the "modern" diameter + cherry number designators were assigned (ca. 1897; see Ideal Handbook No. 9), they started stamping them on the RH block instead of the sprue plate.

This one is for a 255-grain .38 caliber bullet; but I don't know whether the "P" is for "pointed" or "paper(-patched)" - it's not my mould and I didn't get a photo of the cavity

floodgate

EDIT: PS: looking again at the Cramer mould cavity and bullet photos above, they look VERY close to the classic 169-gr. "Squibb" bullet (Lymans #311413, H&G's #20, B & M's #311169, etc.); but at 191 grs., they may be slightly longer (they look like it, too), which would give better bearing length and ballistic coefficient, at the cost of slightly less stability for a given twist. How do they shoot?. - Fg

[Ben]

FG :

Thanks for the photo, very interesting!

As to .... How do they shoot ? I don't know yet, I will head to the range in a few days and I'll find out. Hopefully I can post the results here.

Thanks,

Ben

[Texasflyboy]

EDIT: PS: looking again at the Cramer mould cavity and bullet photos above, they look VERY close to the classic 169-gr. "Squibb" bullet (Lymans #311413, H&G's #20, B & M's #311169, etc.); but at 191 grs., they may be slightly longer (snip)

No, not the H&G #20, but almost a dead ringer for the H&G #99 at ~185~190 grains.

Photo:

http://hgmould.gunloads.com/molds/cramer.jpg


Seems to be just a bit more of the elongated nose on the cramer than the H&G #20, and not as much as the H&G #99. Sorta inbetween the two.

Nice bullet...

[Ben]

Texasflyboy :

You're good with photo editing software ! !

Best,

Ben