Saeco 290451?

[imashooter2]

Anyone ever heard of this mold? Supposed to be a 200 grain bullet for a .45. The number doesn't look like anything in the current Saeco catalog.

[Buckshot]

......................I believe Saeco just uses 3 digits so the mould # should be a 451, right? At least all the Saeco's I've seen have just been 3 numbers, ie: 356, 441. Just thinking I have a Saeco #69. Maybe it's O69 8). I think it's a rip off of the H&G #68. Oops! Just checked at: http://www.midwayusa.com/midwayusa/staticpages/pdf/Chart_PDFs/SAECO_Bullet_Molds.pdf

And Saeco DOES have a #068 and the 069. Appear to be a copy of the H&G #68. 068 is a BB and 069 isn't, but otherwise the same. Didn't find a 451 but did find a 452. The 452 is for a .455". 255gr SWC slug.

..............Buckshot

[imashooter2]

It came today. 3 hole with handles, marked


SAECO
CUSTOM PRECISION
NO 290451

on the sprue plate as above with the center line of text smaller font. No other designations on the mold anywhere. The bullet doesn't match anything in their current catalog. Closest match is the 185 grain SWC #131. Same longish body and short, straight taper nose, but this bullet has 2 smaller round bottom lube grooves. I'll have to cast a few and see what it weighs.

[fatnhappy]

Mine is a 4 cavity. It's a carbon copy of the lyman 452460.

[imashooter2]

Mine is a 4 cavity. It's a carbon copy of the lyman 452460.

Damned if it isn't! This could be good thing...

http://www.lymanproducts.com/lymanproducts/images/452460.gif

ETA, Upon further review, my mold appears to not have the nose radius the Lyman does. It is more of a truncated cone. This could still be a good thing...

[fatnhappy]

Sorry, I didn't get to finish my earlier post. My 4 year old son decided he wanted to bang away at the keyboard while I was typing. ;-)

Anyways, my saeco 451 has an almost identical nose profile to the 452460 but it's shorter. My mould casts WW at .455" with less than .001" out of round. It measures .565" long where as my 452460 measures .595" The entire difference seems to be in the nose since both designs appear to have full diameter bodies of .33" as near as I can measure.
The biggest difference though is the lube grooves. The saeco has much deeper grooves and the bottom one is slightly wider. If you need a design with more lube capacity than a 460 the 451 might be just the ticket.
If I had a .45 colt and wanted a light recoil plinking load, I would try it.

More importantly than any minor difference is they both feed well and shoot well from my commander.

[imashooter2]

-snip-

More importantly than any minor difference is they both feed well and shoot well from my commander.

Well, that is the bottom line. I have an old H&G 130 that won't feed worth a damn in my Colt, never tried it in my Kimber. I'm a little concerned that the short nose (like the 130) won't feed for me. Time will tell. Worst case, I'll turn it around. With the price I paid for it I can't get hurt. :smile:

[imashooter2]

Cast a few last night... Weight 185 grains, cast .454 - .455 diameter, OAL .571, body .340, nose .231 tapering steeply from .370 to .250 (thereabouts). Will have to try it, but now that I have boolits to look at, the nose looks even more similar to the old H&G 130 that wouldn't feed for me. :-(

[fatnhappy]

The guy I bought my mould from was using it in a Kimber. Have you tried the 452460 yet?


BTW, you can get the 2006 redding catalogs now, I finished printing the last form 2 weeks ago. My company shipped them to Cortland last friday.

[imashooter2]

I don't have a 452460, just a 452630. Both my Kimber and Colt feed H&G 68 clones very well.