Lee 45 ACP mold question

[cabezaverde]

Which of the Lee 230 RN molds most closely duplicates the profile of ball?

[wallenba]

The Lee TL has a step in the top band, it would probably need to be crimped, best for a revolver I would think. The other can use a taper crimp. If you are using an autoloader that would be best, as it would headspace on the case mouth. I believe a better mold is the Lyman 225 grain RN, it has a better ogive for taper crimping than the Lee, IMHO. Visit the Lee website, click on products, scroll down and click on available molds and there are good pics of their bullets there. The Lyman's can be viewed on their site as well.

[cabezaverde]

Are either of the Lee molds bevel base?

[HeavyMetal]

None of the standard Lee RN molds match's the GI Ball profile!

That's why a group buy was run about a year ago and we got some RN GI Ball profile molds with a very slight BB on it.

Maybe someone will want to sell theirs to you? Better yet maybe it's time for a re run!

[cabezaverde]

Maybe I should rephrase.

Which is mostly like to feed well in a stock 1911?

[wallenba]

Maybe I should rephrase.

Which is mostly like to feed well in a stock 1911?

That would hinge on several factors; If your gun is a GI version of a 1911 it would probably digest most well as their specs for combat were forgiving so that function was not impaired, if it is a competition model tolerances will be tighter. The Lee having a shoulder might need a slight roll crimp to keep recoil from backing the boolit out, that might affect headspacing. Also your ramp might not like the shape of the swc style, and if tumble lubed, the lube will have to be cleaned off to prevent it building up on the ramp and imparing chambering. If you want to use a swc, experiment with crimps and inspect the rounds in the bottom of the magazine after firing the first few to see if it is holding. Otherwise if they pull out they might contact the lands before the round is properly chambered and the slide won't close. If there is too much crimp it will chamber too deep and the firing pin might not strike well. This is why I prefer the Lyman 225 RN, it has no shoulder. It has a nice curvy ogive and does not affect headspacing with a taper crimp. Sorry to be so wordy.:coffee:

[HeavyMetal]

If I was in the market for a Lee mold for my 1911 I think I'd look hard at the 230-tc boolit, then the 200-RF boolit and my last choice would be the 228-1R mold.

The TC does have a small BB the other two are flat all are available in 6 bangers if you feel the need.

Question why haven't we posted a Lee Mold "pictorial" in the stickies section?

I'd be more than happy to donate a photo copy of the current catalog and perhaps we can get a few older versions so we can see what the used to offer, with numbers, so we can keep an eye open for older molds?

[peter nap]

I have this mold
http://www.leeprecision.com/graphics/bullets/l452230t.gif

TL452-230-TC

After a little tinkering to get the seating depth right, it feeds and shoots very well with a taper crimp.

I do have a GI model 1911.

[zxcvbob]

TL452-230-TC I have that mold, and they work very well in .45LC's, roll crimped into the top little grease groove.

[mike in co]

i shoot the 228 lee in a six hole mold. i have two 45acps. one is a cz97b and the other is a para ord 1911 gi.
here is the issue, for years i used commercial 230 rn lead in my 97b, when i got the 1911, i took a bunch of ammo out to shoot . the throat on the 1911 is much shorter than the cz97b. this i do not like because i cannot really shoot one load in both.

have not made up my mind on how to handle this..i can work up a load for the 1911, and see how it works in the cz.....but i like the way the cz shoots with its current load. i may just rethroat the 1911 to shoot the cz load in it.

mike in co

[yondering]

this i do not like because i cannot really shoot one load in both.



What does the CZ do that prevents it from using the 1911 load? It's not a benchrest rifle cartridge, you don't have to seat the boolits to engage the lands. Several of my pistols have long throats, and function fine with standard length loads.

Wallenba, your statements about the tumble lube Lee boolit needing a roll crimp is incorrect. There is no reason to roll crimp that boolit, the fact that it has a shoulder means nothing in relation to crimp requirements. A taper crimp or no crimp at all will work fine, as long as the case has the right amount of neck tension.

To the original poster, cabezaverde, either of the Lee RN designs should feed in pretty much any 1911. The 230-TC should work fine too. If your gun won't feed one or all of those, it needs some work. The 200-RF may cause feed problems, it is designed for the 45 Colt, and has a large meplat which may hang up on some semi-auto feed ramps.

Both of the Lee 230gr non-tumble lube boolits have to be seated deeper than standard OAL, unless your gun has a wide throat.

[cabezaverde]

Do any of you guys using the TC tumble lube? Do you need to clean the alox on the nose off to help feeding?

[docone31]

I agree with the Lee 200gn RF.
My ACPs love it!
I use Blue Dot and pan lube.
No jams so far and we are talking pounds of casting.

[mike in co]

What does the CZ do that prevents it from using the 1911 load? It's not a benchrest rifle cartridge, you don't have to seat the boolits to engage the lands. Several of my pistols have long throats, and function fine with standard length loads.

Wallenba, your statements about the tumble lube Lee boolit needing a roll crimp is incorrect. There is no reason to roll crimp that boolit, the fact that it has a shoulder means nothing in relation to crimp requirements. A taper crimp or no crimp at all will work fine, as long as the case has the right amount of neck tension.

To the original poster, cabezaverde, either of the Lee RN designs should feed in pretty much any 1911. The 230-TC should work fine too. If your gun won't feed one or all of those, it needs some work. The 200-RF may cause feed problems, it is designed for the 45 Colt, and has a large meplat which may hang up on some semi-auto feed ramps.

Both of the Lee 230gr non-tumble lube boolits have to be seated deeper than standard OAL, unless your gun has a wide throat.

nothing...but the 1911 oal is a bunch shorter than the cz, and i have the cz load nailed...it works.
so it would be starting over....did not say it would not work. just hate going backwards.
mike in co

[Shiloh]

I have this mold
http://www.leeprecision.com/graphics/bullets/l452230t.gif

TL452-230-TC

After a little tinkering to get the seating depth right, it feeds and shoots very well with a taper crimp.

I do have a GI model 1911.

I have that mold. It drops slugs of 238 grains. It feeds and shoots well. I am going to have the bevel base machined off of it. Like all of the LEE Six-Bangers, It casts a mountain of boolits in short order.

I really like the LEE TL series of molds.

Shiloh

[wiljen]

I LLA the 230 RN TL Lee bullet and dont clean noses before shooting. Never had a problem yet but it does mean that magazines have to be cleaned more frequently.

[zxcvbob]

If you use Rooster Jacket instead of LLA, you don't have to wipe their little noses. RJ dries clear and not at all sticky.

[wallenba]

What does the CZ do that prevents it from using the 1911 load? It's not a benchrest rifle cartridge, you don't have to seat the boolits to engage the lands. Several of my pistols have long throats, and function fine with standard length loads.

Wallenba, your statements about the tumble lube Lee boolit needing a roll crimp is incorrect. There is no reason to roll crimp that boolit, the fact that it has a shoulder means nothing in relation to crimp requirements. A taper crimp or no crimp at all will work fine, as long as the case has the right amount of neck tension.

To the original poster, cabezaverde, either of the Lee RN designs should feed in pretty much any 1911. The 230-TC should work fine too. If your gun won't feed one or all of those, it needs some work. The 200-RF may cause feed problems, it is designed for the 45 Colt, and has a large meplat which may hang up on some semi-auto feed ramps.

Both of the Lee 230gr non-tumble lube boolits have to be seated deeper than standard OAL, unless your gun has a wide throat.

Just covering the bases, if his load is powerful enough to back out the boolit, I said he 'might' have to. I load some for my S&W 625 that have.

[Dale53]

The Lee 200 gr works well in most modern .45 ACP's (older ones may need throated).

The Lee Truncated Cone (conventional lube) would be MY pick for a Lee 230 gr mould. It is a pretty good copy of the great Hornady Truncated cone. That one shot REALLY well in my tuned 1911's and it really should feed well in MOST 1911's.

Of course, my pick is the new MiHec #68 200gr SWC Six Cavity mould. These bullets shoot at NRA Match levels (well under 1" at 25 yards) and casts beautiful bullets, quickly.

Dale53

[imashooter2]

If you use Rooster Jacket instead of LLA, you don't have to wipe their little noses. RJ dries clear and not at all sticky.

I use a six hole 452-228-1R and Rooster Jacket to feed both my 1911s and a 625. You can have a whole lot of boolits ready to load in short order that way. No feed issues for me in a Colt or a Kimber with the rounds loaded at 1.245 OAL.

[bohokii]

all my 45s and 9mms feed the round nose tl bullets

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e366/bohoki/DCP_6891.jpg

[35remington]

Of the two designs Lee offers, the 230-2R is closer to the proper ball profile, resulting in an overall length of 1.265" (approximately) when loaded.

The 229-1R is so designated because it has the shorter 1 radius ogive. It is a nonstandard design, resulting in around a 1.200-1.220" overall length when seated to clear the rifling and chamber properly. Attempting to load it longer will result in the bullet headspacing on the rifling, and the round will not go all the way into the chamber, as the full diameter bearing surface is too far out of the case. Blame the shorter 1 radius ogive for this.

Of the two, the 230-2R is "more likely to feed" as it's very close to the military profile.

The 45 automatic never "sees" the shoulder of the Lee 230-2R on the way into the chamber, as the bullet nose glances off the feed ramp, then rubs against the top of the chamber as it breaks over into the horizontal on its way into the chamber.

The bullet shoulder essentially "isn't there" as far as the pistol can tell, which means the presence of the shoulder is no reason to avoid the 230-2R.

[imashooter2]

The 229-1R is so designated because it has the shorter 1 radius ogive. It is a nonstandard design, resulting in around a 1.200-1.220" overall length when seated to clear the rifling and chamber properly. Attempting to load it longer will result in the bullet headspacing on the rifling, and the round will not go all the way into the chamber, as the full diameter bearing surface is too far out of the case. Blame the shorter 1 radius ogive for this.



1.245 does not touch the rifling in either my Colt (1970's vintage Colt National Match replacement barrel) or my Kimber (late 90's original factory barrel). These are loaded as cast and tumbled in Rooster Jacket, no sizing.

[35remington]

I'm quite sure you can if you say so. It's just I can't load that long with the 228-1R, and a lot of other guys can't either, from all reports. I'm going by those same reports.

You've got throating on the longer side, apparently.

On average, my pistols will tolerate 1.220", and not much longer. I suppose I can and do get away with 1.230" or a little bit more in some (Bar Sto Colt and new Series 70 Reproduction), but the ammo has to work through most of my pistols as I can't necessarily predict beforehand which gun it'll be shot in.

Some of my pistols don't like even 1.220" with the 228-1R.

My Ruger P97 will gag on 1.220" as it's a short throated chamber, as are many pistols out there according to some others I've spoken to. For that pistol it's 1.210" or a little less. Loading longer will result in the rifling origin gripping the bullet so tightly that it will actually pull the bullet from the case upon ejection.

Point being, anyway, that the 228-1R, from my experience and the reports of others, won't generally allow overall lengths to duplicate ball rounds. No chance in my Glock, as they don't have much of a leade. The 230-2R will get me there even in a short throat pistol.

I may point out that your 1.245", while longer, isn't quite ball OAL either. 1.260-1.265" is more like it.

So I think the term "nonstandard" still applies to the 228-1R. If it didn't I don't think the shape of the 230-2R would be describe as a 2 radius, which is clearly much more like ball in its profile. They are noticeably different.

Of course, as you pointed out, variance in throating will alter this "what will fit" OAL somewhat to considerably.

On average, the 230-2R will duplicate ball overall length and feed profiles more closely than the 228-1R in most guns. The adjective on the end there should make you happy. :-D

[imashooter2]

We'll agree that the 228-1R does not duplicate ball profile and as such cannot be loaded to the same OAL as ball duplicating profiles. But you're the only person I've ever seen that says the OAL maxes out that short and for the reason given. Frankly, I could load the 228-1R considerably longer without touching the rifling in both my autos. I load at 1.245 because that comfortably covers the lube groove and it is the sweet spot for feeding.

Our experiences are very different.

[35remington]

Ima, ironically enough, you're the only guy I've found who can load the 228-1R that long!

No kidding.

To reprove the point to myself, I grabbed up a 228-1R that was rejected for a rounded base but otherwise perfect on the front end, seated it to 1.242" and dropped it in my P97 barrel because it's easy to take down, and my brand new Colt Series 70 Reproduction barrel out of the 1911 I bought two months ago.

Absolutely, positively no go, even after the round has been taper crimped to spec and shoved in the chamber as hard as I can reasonably push with my thumb without telescoping the bullet into the case or biting the bearing surface into the leade by whacking it. Even so, the bullet engages the rifling sufficiently that it doesn't fall free when the barrel is inverted. The base of the case stands 0.015" above flush with the end of the hood on the Series 70 pistol, and at least that much on the P97....didn't measure that one because I put the pistol back together.

From hard practical experience, dropping the slide on a 228-1R loaded to this longer length doesn't easily live eject the round on my pistols with a yank on the slide.....the leade is then definitely biting into the bullet. I shortened the round to 1.235" and the base of the case was still somewhat proud in relation to the Colt barrel hood.

So, if you don't mind, I won't retract what I've said here. Perhaps your particular iteration of this mould has a little more taper ahead of the first lube groove.

Mine don't.

Question:

No rifling marks on the rounds that were chambered semiautomatically but not fired? No sticking with live ejecting after being fed by recoil? When hand cycled at 1.245, no rifling marks on the end of the bullet?

If the answer to this is all no, then you've got noticeably longer throats in your two 45's than I have in mine, or the design got tweaked a little.

[imashooter2]

35remington, I've never doubted your sincerity or your relating of your experiences and I wasn't expecting a retraction (or even agreement). :) I'm just putting my experiences out there as a counterpoint since the OP was trying to decide on a mold.

No rifling marks and easy extraction of loaded rounds in both my pistols. Those pistols being of different makes and vintages. One with a factory match barrel.

I bought my mold from Midway in July of 2006.

[Dale53]

This discussion brings up another point that has been discussed before. That is, various companies (maybe ALL?) do something that I REALLY find upsetting. They periodically change the bullet mould design (often in SERIOUS ways that can decidedly effect pressures) but keep the same mould number.

Shooter "B" recommends a particular bullet, being careful to even specify the mould number to shooter "A". Both people are acting in good faith. Shooter "A" follows the advice of shooter "B", buys a mould of that number and THEN has completely different results BECAUSE the manufacturer has seen fit to seriously change the design without changing the mould number.

I firmly believe that is irresponsible. Reading a recent back issue of the Handloader, one of the regular writers (well respected) ran a discussion of this in particular regarding various "issues" of the Lyman 454424. The seating depth had changed over the years until they could have easily gotten someone in trouble following published data.

A careful reloader tries Hard to stay out of trouble then something like this blindsides him/her.

Whether or not this is the fact in this particular discussion I have no way of knowing.

Years ago, I had a custom 1911 .45 ACP built up by a well respected gunsmith. It shot EXTREMELY well (under 2" at fifty yards from a Ransom Rest with hard ball equivalent loads). However, the chamber was cut entirely too deep. If I headspaced on the case mouth, the primers looked like they had been shot in a hot loaded .454 Casull. However, if I headspaced on the bullet (the PROPER way to do it when using cast bullets, in my opinion) it showed NO "high pressure" signs, chronographed where it should be, functioned perfectly, and shot as good as any match .45 ACP I have run up against. Even with the bullets seated out considerably farther than normal, there was no magazine "over length" problems. Because of it's performance, I did not send the pistol back. I was NOT about to tamper with THAT.

Many knowledgeable types state that a properly tensioned extractor can maintain headspace properly. However, I can control bullet seating depth easier than anything else and it works beautifully when I headspace on the bullet (seat the bullet until the base of the case is flush with the barrel hood). This may create problems with jacketed bullets because jacketed bullets are SO hard that they are unforgiving and you have to give them a bit more room. Cast bullets, if slightly long, will engrave without causing a "failure to close" problem. I have fired over 100,000 rounds with my two match guns and have proven this to my satisfaction.

After years of use, I replaced the slide and took care of the headspace at that time. I, of course, still headspace on the bullet in my 1911's but they all have normal headspace and I can load one length for all.

FWIW
Dale53