H L Culver Lyman 55 ?????

[abunaitoo]

Never noticed before, but what i thought was a Lyman 55, is different.
On all the Lyman 55 I have seen, the meter is a three piece slide.
On this one it is a click adjusting knob.
There are graduations on it.
Is this something that was added to a Lyman 55, or a whole new company????
263811263812263813

[Shawlerbrook]

Homer Culver customized Lyman 55’s primarily for the benchrest crowd.They are very sought after and command a premium price. You have a very special 55. The going price is $200-300+.

[1hole]

The Lyman 55 is a much overlooked device, it's very flexible and quite consistent compared to other measures.

Culver was an excellent machinist and a serious B.R. competitor. He devised an after-market drum variation for the #55 that met the needs of the B.R. crowd of his time, i.e., a smallish maximum capacity cavity with a micro changeable adjustment. It's good but not magic, it's still only a volume measure. It's maximum volume is too small for sporting charges much larger than .222 but it should do very well with most powders for most pistol charges.

What you have is rare. Rarity and novelty often sees the asking prices of anything go up beyond any rational reason but that doesn't mean it's real world utility value is worth more. I'm just another common reloader and tool user, not a collector, so I don't pay extra for rarity. Volumetric measures are not (nor can they ever be) totally accurate in the weight of dropped charges so when we want absolutely accurate charges we must weigh them.

Thus, (IMHO) anyone willing to pay more than maybe $175 for a perfect condition #55/Culver is either a cross-threaded nut with too much money or a very serious collector of old display tools. The apparent excellent condition of your's should bring top dollar from collectors.

[Green Frog]

The predecessor to the Lyman #55, the all cast iron #5 was offered from the factory with a micrometer rotor. Culver's version of the upgrade to the #55 was a little larger and had click stops added for quick repeatability. Volumetric it may have been, but an awful lot of Bench Rest shooters were able to use them quite effectively to win matches. He had many "sincere flatterers," I've collected a list of about four or five that reached the level of being available in sufficient numbers to be fairly well known.

This all came to an end when Linwood Harrell developed his purpose built (from scratch) series of measures in various capacities and with various other features, but all based on the Culver-designed rotor. With the price of these units, the price of the Culver conversions and their copies become more reasonable.

If you want a very accurate adjustable volumetric powder measure, the Culver and its clones are definitely worth a look. What you pay for it will depend on the market.

Froggie

[abunaitoo]

Homer Culver customized Lyman 55’s primarily for the benchrest crowd.They are very sought after and command a premium price. You have a very special 55. The going price is $200-300+.

Ouch!!!!!
Some reloading stuff it really expensive.
Thank you

[abunaitoo]

I find that with any type of measure, it all depends on the type of powder.
Some meter very close to what you want, others not so much.
I just dump short, and trickle.
Slower, but more accurate.
BUT.......................
I have been using the old AMT Auto Scale.
Dead on almost everytime.

[Outpost75]

Most Culvers are serial numbered. My rifle measure is No. 7 (1972) which I got as a member of the Virginia Civilian Team. If yours is not numbered it is either very early (pre-1970s) or very late (mid-1990s). Either way an un-Bubba'ed Culver easily goes for $250+ at one of the national NBRSA or IBS shoots.

Homer also made a VERY few (less than 20) pistol measures which were graduated to meter from 1.0 to 10.0 grains of W231 and the clicks and graduations corresponded directly to grains, 100 clicks being ten grains of 231, 50 clicks being 5 grains, 30 clicks 3 grains, etc., which will accurately measure +/- 0.1 grain down to one grain of 231.

I have one of those too which Homer made a limited batch of for the Virginia State Pistol Team in the 1980s. I have turned down several offers of $500+ for mine.

"In your dreams" I tell them all.

[Green Frog]

Outpost75, did you ever see one of the few that Homer built on #5s rather than #55s? I’ve talked to a couple of shooters who did. I got a nondescript MCRW clone and had a random #5 body laying around... the rest, as they say, is history. :mrgreen:

Attached find pix of my “pseudo-classic.” You guys know how I just love to be a step or two off from the crowd. BTW, this rotor was advertised as accurate from 10-125 grains of H322, a powder I am not familiar with.

Froggie

[Green Frog]

Just for the sake of completeness, here’s a picture showing one of the factory micrometer #5s that may have inspired Homer Culver.

[Bazoo]

Pretty interesting stuff. Thanks all for sharing your knowledge.

[Pressman]

Just for the sake of completeness, here’s a picture showing one of the factory micrometer #5s that may have inspired Homer Culver.

This contraption has a reputation of an accident waiting to happen. The marking on the slide do not correspond to anything, and while it is well made the odd marking confused people and wrong settings were common enough that it acquired a bad reputation. Unless one has the actual directions for using it, relying on the micrometer to set repeat charges should be avoided, especially for pistol charges of Bullseye. It was made between 1935 and 1941. Unlike the 55, it has a single chamber and can work well for rifle charges.

A tool with a closer comparison to the Culver would be the CV Schmitt micrometer conversion for the 55, if you can find one..

[jem102]

The Lyman 55 is a much overlooked device, it's very flexible and quite consistent compared to other measures.

Culver was an excellent machinist and a serious B.R. competitor. He devised an after-market drum variation for the #55 that met the needs of the B.R. crowd of his time, i.e., a smallish maximum capacity cavity with a micro changeable adjustment. It's good but not magic, it's still only a volume measure. It's maximum volume is too small for sporting charges much larger than .222 but it should do very well with most powders for most pistol charges.

What you have is rare. Rarity and novelty often sees the asking prices of anything go up beyond any rational reason but that doesn't mean it's real world utility value is worth more. I'm just another common reloader and tool user, not a collector, so I don't pay extra for rarity. Volumetric measures are not (nor can they ever be) totally accurate in the weight of dropped charges so when we want absolutely accurate charges we must weigh them.

Thus, (IMHO) anyone willing to pay more than maybe $175 for a perfect condition #55/Culver is either a cross-threaded nut with too much money or a very serious collector of old display tools. The apparent excellent condition of your's should bring top dollar from collectors.

A curiosity question; same can of powder, same individual case, same die setting (in as much as the die was never removed from the press). Would a weighed charge from January occupy the same case volume as a weighed charged form august?
Thanks

[Green Frog]

This contraption has a reputation of an accident waiting to happen. The marking on the slide do not correspond to anything, and while it is well made the odd marking confused people and wrong settings were common enough that it acquired a bad reputation. Unless one has the actual directions for using it, relying on the micrometer to set repeat charges should be avoided, especially for pistol charges of Bullseye. It was made between 1935 and 1941. Unlike the 55, it has a single chamber and can work well for rifle charges.
:bigsmyl2:
A tool with a closer comparison to the Culver would be the CV Schmitt micrometer conversion for the 55, if you can find one..

Gee Ken, why don’t you say how you really feel? :kidding::kidding::bigsmyl2:

I went along dumb but happy from about 1995 to 2010 depending on my #5 M to measure 4759 for Schuetzen. That was the best measure (of many tried) for that application, on the bench, with my 32-40 high wall. I agree that it might not do well with very small charges, and it runs out of volume when you want to load for the big guns, but the charges I needed were right in its sweet spot. I found my first one at a gun show near Culpepper, VA all by itself without box or instructions... and nobody there knew what it was. It had a small circular sticker on it with just the number 23, which I assumed was a stock number. I held it up to the table owner and cocked an eyebrow at him, and he said, “I’ll let it go for $20 since somebody put that homemade rotor in it.“ Closest I ever came to ripping my britches pulling out my wallet!

I never have had a Factory load chart for them but have used several over the last couple of decades with nary a bobble. Now that the subject has come up, I think I’ll check one of mine against scales for some small volumes of 231 or Bullseye. Now I’m curious! :coffee:

Best regards,
Froggie

PS Those odd markings were micrometer measurement of the increasing width of the charge chamber while depth and breadth were unchanged. A lot of serious shooters “back in the day” were machinists, so that would have made perfect sense. :D

[Green Frog]

A curiosity question; same can of powder, same individual case, same die setting (in as much as the die was never removed from the press). Would a weighed charge from January occupy the same case volume as a weighed charged form august?
Thanks

Depending on the relative humidity and how much the can is open to soak it up, yes. That’s why I like volume measure, so I get the same amount of powder.

Froggie

[Pressman]

Remember the time frame of the 5M, late 1930's and pistol shooting was a major sport. With the available powders mostly limited to Bullseye problems were easily possible.

With today's wide range of powder choices there is less of a chance for things to go bang in a big way, if someone wants to use it for pistol. Stick to rifle charges and it's ok

[Green Frog]

As the emoji said, I was just pulling your chain. But I do have to reiterate that for the one duty I assigned to it, it really shined... so much so in fact that I bought a couple more as “backups.” :mrgreen:

Froggie

[jem102]

Quote Originally Posted by 1hole View Post
The Lyman 55 is a much overlooked device, it's very flexible and quite consistent compared to other measures.

Culver was an excellent machinist and a serious B.R. competitor. He devised an after-market drum variation for the #55 that met the needs of the B.R. crowd of his time, i.e., a smallish maximum capacity cavity with a micro changeable adjustment. It's good but not magic, it's still only a volume measure. It's maximum volume is too small for sporting charges much larger than .222 but it should do very well with most powders for most pistol charges.

What you have is rare. Rarity and novelty often sees the asking prices of anything go up beyond any rational reason but that doesn't mean it's real world utility value is worth more. I'm just another common reloader and tool user, not a collector, so I don't pay extra for rarity. Volumetric measures are not (nor can they ever be) totally accurate in the weight of dropped charges so when we want absolutely accurate charges we must weigh them.

Thus, (IMHO) anyone willing to pay more than maybe $175 for a perfect condition #55/Culver is either a cross-threaded nut with too much money or a very serious collector of old display tools. The apparent excellent condition


Depending on the relative humidity and how much the can is open to soak it up, yes. That’s why I like volume measure, so I get the same amount of powder.

Froggie

That's what I have always thought as well and also volume measure.

[Green Frog]

Not to be a smart ***, but does the weight of the water added or lost matter, or is the absolute amount of powder what we're interested in? Volume doesn't change. I am not a participant in modern Bench Rest, but don't those guys measure by volume? If they are trying to shoot "bug hole" groups, wouldn't they use the most accurate technique available? Just sayin'.

Froggie

[Pressman]

Mr. Frog Person, Sir I owe you a thank you for bringing up the Ideal 5M. I thought there was an article about it in some past issue of the Journal, turns out there is not.
That means I need to get busy and start writing. Thank you sir.

[Green Frog]

Ken,
Do you want to give me credit or blame on that, my friend? Whichever, I’ll be looking forward to seeing what you have (and have to say) on the #5M. As you may have gathered it has long been my favorite adjustable measure. That was why your comment about “an accident waiting to happen” kinda took me by surprise... I had literally never heard a negative word about them... perhaps because so few people actually use them these days.

Best regards,
Froggie

[1hole]

Not to be a smart ***, but does the weight of the water added or lost matter, or is the absolute amount of powder what we're interested in? Volume doesn't change.

Volume (the measure's cavity) doesn't change but the powder charge weight that a cavity can hold will change by the powders mass.

BR loaders don't just "set and forget" their powder measures. They use smallish cartridges and prefer to use modest weight charges of fine grain (easily measured) powders and don't normally weigh those charges but on the line they sure add/subtract cavity click adjustments to keep their groups small.


I am not a participant in modern Bench Rest, but don't those guys measure by volume? If they are trying to shoot "bug hole" groups, wouldn't they use the most accurate technique available?

Yes, they do, but it's not as simplistic as it may sound. And few of us are as focused on a single rig and load as they are so their charging methods hardly help us.

Those of us who use any mechanical powder measure are in fact doing exactly what the BR guys do but few - if any - of us would swap our measure and scales for one of their measures that work just by clicks. (It would be hard for us to translate load book data into clicks even if we wanted too! :))