Is something wrong at Lyman Products Co.?

[Onty]

Just checked Lyman’s website and here is their 429421; http://www.lymanproducts.com/lyman/bullet-casting/mould-details.php?entryID=22 . But hold on, something isn’t right! First, they claim that 429421 is “The famous Elmer Keith 44 bullet design”. We all know very well that 429421 is not Keith’s design. I am not saying that this boolit is bad, heck, I had good experience with old square groove one, but why Lyman kept changing design constantly is beyond me. Any time I see picture of this boolit or it’s HP version something is different. We all see how popular and good is H&G #503, real Keith’s design, and I cannot understand what’s a big deal to make 429421 the way it should be? Cost of cherry is the same, cost of mould blocks is the same, manufacturing cost is the same! They list 4 cavity for $104 and if they have it done correctly, this mould should go on the market as a hot cake.

But what really offends me is illustration, it’s a joke, see for yourself:

http://img2.pict.com/e1/af/c1/1710197/0/lyman429421.jpg

Person(s) who created it, approved and ordered it to be uploaded has no idea how does 429421 look like. Why is it so difficult to get real drawing or make photo? Or, we have another case where MBA graduate flashing his/her diploma, without any clue how to place loaded round into cylinder.

If I am on their board of directors, I will put in charge of mould manufacturing and marketing somebody who is mechanical engineer and ACTIVE shooter, and knows something about shooting history.

[randyrat]

Yeh, that is different. Take look at the 358429 for the 357,38
http://www.lymanproducts.com/lyman/bullet-casting/mould-details.php?entryID=13

[Bret4207]

There's been something wrong at Lyman from the casters point of view for a very long time. No hope in sight for fixing it either.

[Onty]

There's been something wrong at Lyman from the casters point of view for a very long time. No hope in sight for fixing it either.

When I see my old No. 48 manual and Cast Bullet Handbook, and compare illustrations there with new ones, I clearly see care and skill that went into those early drawings, presenting us very well real shape of those bullets.

But today, with all those powerful computers and software, to make something crappy like this (other drawings are not much better, I doubt that they are scaled properly), sorry I am too stubborn to accept as a valid information what's presented, in order to convince me to by their products.

Do they realize that every reloader must have some technical knowledge and those drawings present very little or nothing? I know that in many cases management doesn't know and doesn't care, but how about shareholders, do they have a clue what's going on?

I just hate to see another reputable and well established company going down to the tube because of negligence and incompetence.

[Dale53]

Back in the late forties and early fifties, Lyman OWNED the reloading and casting business. Lack of attention to detail, failure to improve tools and just "keep up" relegated them to "also rans". Later, another generation of management and they "stepped up to the plate" and things improved, a bit. However, new companies came along (Dillon and Hornady) and again they were relegated to "also rans". They're doing it again. This time they may not be able to hang on. You cannot continue to make buggy whips when autos come into general use. Lack of innovation and even failure to keep up what they are already set up to do (no longer continuing to offer Keith bullet #452424 in a four cavity, for goodness sakes). The present day business model of most American businesses (if you can't sell a million items then drop it from the catalog) and the worst of all "Bottom line today" with NO long term plan and they'll end up in the toilet. We'll ALL be the poorer for it, also.

In the meantime, I will be using MiHec and NOE for my new moulds, when possible. That's not all bad, either:mrgreen:.

Dale53

[Ben]

Dale 53:

I'm in full agreement with everything you've said.

I just received an NOE mold on Friday. A blind man can easily see the difference in the quality control and pride of of workmanship in the mold that I'm holding from NOE vs. today's Lymans.

It is sad that Lyman has allowed things to get to this point...........................The old timers that worked making quality IDEAL molds 50 yrs. ago would " turn over in their graves" if they could see what is going on today.

Ben

[243winxb]

Different? How? My 1970's Lyman 45th Edition has the same bullet as you posted. Would like to see a photo of what you feel is the correct Lyman Keith design? How has it changed in the last 35 years? http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n420/joe1944usa/44mag.jpg

[StarMetal]

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon, but my big gripe with Lyman is making moulds too undersized to be of use. Quite a few of us are having to send our moulds back or get a refund. My recent send back was a 266469 and the second one I got from them wasn't dropping bullets much larger.

Joe

[243winxb]

StarMetal, Alloy is what gives you the correct diameter. Lymans diameter is based on the use of Lyman #2 alloy. So WW will give an undersize bullet. Add more antimony or linotype. Lee moulds are based on 10-1 lead tin and should drop + .003 larger than the diameter marked. See Lee link below.

[243winxb]

Yeh, that is different. Take look at the 358429 for the 357,38
http://www.lymanproducts.com/lyman/b...php?entryID=13 Look at the new style crimp groove on this bullet, its a good thing. You no longer have to have brass trimmed to the exact same length for a workable crimp.

[StarMetal]

StarMetal, Alloy is what gives you the correct diameter. Lymans diameter is based on the use of Lyman #2 alloy. So WW will give an undersize bullet. Add more antimony or linotype. Lee moulds are based on 10-1 lead tin and should drop + .003 larger than the diameter marked. See Lee link below.

Gosh 243winxb, I've been at this for a very long time and not only just shoving bullets into brass cases, but the technical why's and how's of it. I know that. Let me put what I said about Lyman into more perspective okay? I cast a few of those 266469's in pure linotype....still drastically undersized. That tell you anything.

Thanks for you help.

Joe

[carpetman]

Lyman's quality control dropped, is a recent thing. I only had my LYMAZ(Backwards N) ingot mold since 1967 and I got it used.

[GLL]

243winxb:

Do you consider the 429421 bullet in your photo to be the original" Keith design ?

I do not remember seeing a diagram in any of my old catalogs that match the one in Onty's post #1 ! I would be interested in seeing one if you can post it

Here are a couple photos to consider. The bullet in the "group" shot that is third from the your right is an early LYMAN 429421 mould. The second photo with the RCBS next to it is from a VERY early IDEAL unvented 429421.

Jerry

http://www.fototime.com/5D2B912208F49F5/orig.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/0063A6EFA35740F/standard.jpg

[sheepdog]

If you want a real 44 Keith I have one by RCBS 82041 I'll sell you for $55.

[243winxb]

Do you consider the 429421 bullet in your photo to be the original" Keith design ? No, i wanted to see an original Lyman/Keith design in 429421
I do not remember seeing a diagram in any of my old catalogs that match the one in Onty's post #1 ! I would be interested in seeing one if you can post it
Its a photo in my Lyman 45th edition, not a computer made photo. I guess my question is, Has Lyman changed the design of there 429421 bullet mould over the years?:confused: Thank you for the great photos.

[243winxb]

the "group" shot- bullet # 4 from the right would seem to be closer to my photo. The distance from the base up to the start of the first lube groove looks about the same. The Ideal looks like my photo. But i guess one would have to take measurement. If the hit what you aim at, all is well.

[StarMetal]

To me, the lube groove looks way too deep. Also I don't like the bullet with a very thin base band either. The picture shows that. I think the front band has to be substantial to take the initial shock of the bullet hitting the forcing cone and entering the bore.

Joe

[GLL]

The ongoing problem of determining what is a Keith 429421 is that there are so MANY opinions and interpretations.

Which of the following is a LYMAN 429421? ANSWER: ALL of them !

If you do not like the LYMAN 429421 this week just wait another week ! They will have a new design ! :) :)

Jerry

http://www.fototime.com/9CA0F95577C1733/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/672AC772D273279/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/98111A583CB6C02/standard.jpg

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
The 45 2.1design for the Catshooter Group Buy is a good synthesis as is the H&G #503 (Ballisti-Cast #1103) !
http://www.fototime.com/2C506C0BC7CB604/standard.jpg

[GLL]

Here is the 429421 drawing in the IDEAL/LYMAN catalogs from the late 30's till 1950's (#33-#41)

Pretty close to the actual bullet ! :)

Jerry

From the #33 Catalog (1939)
http://www.fototime.com/86FB6FAA09EDD51/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/2A0E557AD2962DD/standard.jpg

[rob45]

StarMetal, Alloy is what gives you the correct diameter. Lymans diameter is based on the use of Lyman #2 alloy. So WW will give an undersize bullet. Add more antimony or linotype. Lee moulds are based on 10-1 lead tin and should drop + .003 larger than the diameter marked. See Lee link below.

I agree with that statement, but I believe therein lies the problem.

Many people, including myself, have sent molds back to Lyman due to being slightly undersize. But, in my opinion, it's still a quality control issue because I used to use a LOT of the No. 2 alloy and STILL had problems with undersize bullets. And this is with the original 5-5-90 formula, not their "mix-your-own with WW and solder" formula (which, in my experience, casts smaller than the genuine article).

While I understand that, as a manufacturer, they need to have an alloy standard for purposes of dimension, I do not think that standard should be the Lyman No.2 alloy. I understand that the older molds were manufactured at a time when No.2 was not considered to be prohibitively expensive, but times have definitely changed and Lyman has not done very well keeping up with the times if No.2 is still their standard for dimensions.

Please do not misunderstand me; it's a great alloy, and in the past it was the only thing I used (except for BP). But with the enormous changes in the printing industry, the availability of high antimony and tin alloys to use as a base has decreased considerably, therefore raising the price. Tin is expensive, and alloying with raw antimony presents its own obstacles. As casters, we are always budget-conscious and try to make do with the most economical option as far as lead goes. Taracorp and Magma partially alleviated this problem with development of the hardball alloy, which is 50/50 linotype and pure lead. This gave the same characteristics (both in size and hardness) as No.2 without having as much expensive tin. But add to that the fact that we have found that we don't necessarily always need large amounts of tin for good fillout, and we have also discovered that the resulting hardness from high antimonial content can sometimes even (appear to) be detrimental for some loads.

With today's access to information, the knowledge of the individual caster has increased greatly. We know more about heat treating the lower-content antimonial alloys. We have ideas about pressure and "obturation" concerning reduced loads, causing us to utilize the "softer" alloys. And as stated above, we have the issue of economical access. Today's caster simply will not spend money on an expensive alloy IF a more economical alloy can be made to work just as well or sometimes even better. If Lyman wants to sell molds, they need to be using the standard that the majority of their customers use.

Several years ago I made up a 1500 pound lot of Lyman No.2 alloy. At the time it was the ONLY thing I used, unless casting for ML. Today I still have over 1200 pounds of it left. A lot of it will still be there long after my body gives up the ghost- I can't shoot that much! The only thing I use it for is high pressure rifle loads. I no longer use it for any pistol loads, which most definitely represent the largest consumption of my lead. I know I'm not the only one who thinks like this- whether the reason is economics or (due to reasons stated above) purposes of utility, most of us are just as easily served with a different alloy. I do have to say this; the No.2 alloy casts a BEAUTIFUL bullet and is very easy to work with. Maybe Lyman just wants to make their molds "look" that much better??[smilie=l:

For any manufacturer to survive, they must cater to the general needs of their market. If most of us are using the lower content alloys, Lyman needs to address that. Even for those who feel they need to use No.2, it is easier for them to size down than for others to deal with an undersize bullet resulting from a different alloy. So even if Lyman is currently producing based upon specs of No.2 (which, as stated above, they're not), they're still not looking out for our needs.

BTW, this is only one of the gripes I have with Lyman. Their customer service needs to be more attentive to us, and KNOWLEDGEABLE of the products they are selling. Lyman's QC has been horrible lately; we at least need to have a service department that actually helps to rectify that issue.

[Bret4207]

Different? How? My 1970's Lyman 45th Edition has the same bullet as you posted. Would like to see a photo of what you feel is the correct Lyman Keith design? How has it changed in the last 35 years?

I realize this thread has gotten beyond this post, but please, are you trying to say the pic in the first post and your mould look anything alike? LOOK at them. 2 completely different moulds.

Also, many years back Lyman started to cut their moulds tight. You can use all the #2 you want but the mould will still throw a skinny boolit if it's not cut generously enough. My own theory on this comes from my reading of Rifleman mags of the 20's 30's and 40's. The big complaint back them was oversized boolits necessitating that people purchase a sizer of some sort. It is my belief that Lyman began cutting their moulds a bit tighter in an effort to relieve some of the complaints, and there were LOTS of them in The Rifleman and other books and mags of the era. Buying a sizer went against the economy of casting and that's about the only reason people were casting back then.

Now it's true that a boolit with more Sn/Sb will cast "fatter" to an extent, but given that casters have been using WW far more than any type metal for decades, maybe it's time Lyman got up to speed and started responding to the public. Same for Lee if the use 10-1. Who else use's 10-1 in this day? No one. I personally believe that using #2 or 10-1 is a convenient out for Lyman and Lee. And those Lee moulds won't always drop +.003 with WW alloy. That's a pipe dream. Lee's moulds vary, just like Lymans, RCBS, SAECO and all the rest.


BTW- your tagline gives the impression you work for Lee. Is that correct?

[35remington]

The Keith bullet has had some variation over the years, some of it not to Elmer's liking.

The driving bands should be of equal width in the Keith design, and the lube groove should not be round bottomed.

[243winxb]

are you trying to say the pic in the first post and your mould look anything alike? Looks like the crimp groove is, but the base on mine is shorter. CLL has posted photos that i wanted to see. StarMetal said
I don't like the bullet with a very thin base band I agree, this is why i use the Saeco.
many years back Lyman started to cut their moulds tight. Lyman feels that the less the bullet is sized, the more accurate it will be. I do not know if this is true or not.
BTW- your tagline gives the impression you work for Lee. Is that correct? No i don't. The link is for new casters that need help.

[azrednek]

When I visited the Lyman booth a the recent NRA convention I took a peek at Lyman's latest loading manual. Can't remember the cartridge for certain but I believe I looked up 45 Colt. When I saw Alcan powder numbers 7 and 8 listed I closed the book and told the rep they need to get into the 21st Century. I'm afraid Lyman is going down the same path as Lachmiller, Herters and others that at one time made fine reloading tools but is now killing the Golden Goose. Lyman better get on the ball and quit relying on their brand name before another Richard Lee comes along.

[NVcurmudgeon]

The complaints about Lyman on this thread seem to be mostly about moulds that deliver smaller than specified diameter castings in recent years. I have cast for fifty years; seriously for forty. Back when Ike was in the White House the conventional wisdom was that Lyman moulds cast grossly oversize. At that time Lyman offered moulds such as 311291U, with the suffix indicating "undersize." The undersize moulds seem to have disappeared along with many of Loverin's designs and favorites such as the 358006. I don't know what posters mean by references to "recent years," but here are results from new Lyman molds made in the last nine years. All measurements are to the closest .001" (don't want to put too fine a point on it) and taken from boolits cast from newer WW +2% tin.

266469 Loverin type 140 gr. casts .266" made 11-06
266673 bore rider 150 gr. casts .266" made 06-07
314299 bore rider 205 gr. casts .314" made 04-00 this is my favorite boolit of all time. I size it .314" for the .303 British that it was bought for, .312" for a 7.65 1891 Argentine, and .310" for my NRA Sporter Springfield and tight barrel .30/40 Krag. All of these moulds cast happily fat for me. I don't mean to doubt the word of any other posters. I'm sure there are some skinny ones out there.

Again, the conventional wisdom is that RCBS moulds cast notoriously small, and two of the four RCBS moulds I have drop scrawny .44s. Yet my 38-150KT casts .358, and a recently purchased used 35-200 FP casts .359" and leaning slightly on the handle of my Lyman 450 lubrisizer makes .360" boolits which delight my .359" groove Lilja .35 Whelen and me. Just lucky, I guess.

Things we need to remember include the fact that some of Lyman's moulds have been in continuous production for over 100 years, plenty of opportunity for deviations and variations to creep in. A few years ago there was a discussion about 311291 and its many cousins. Between three of us there were five moulds of three different different looking 311291 designs. Cherries have tolerance like any other manufactured piece of equipment. They wear out and I'm sure aren't always replaced soon enough. I'll still buy Lyman moulds and send them back if they cast too small, and thank Lyman for their good service. But then I'm a free 450 lubrisizer ahead of them so maybe I've been bought off!

[runfiverun]

it somewhat is about undersized molds.
it's also about changing designs,my 429 mold is like gerrys re-print and is not a good feeder in the lever action, the nose and body has been changed i don't know how many times.
they done it to the 454424 at least 3 times i have to crimp over the shoulder on my older one.
the question is why they couldn't leave the design alone and if they wanted a design for the lever-guns,smiths whatever,why they couldn't have just designed a proper boolit for them.??
and left a properly designed boolit alone.

[StarMetal]

The complaints about Lyman on this thread seem to be mostly about moulds that deliver smaller than specified diameter castings in recent years. I have cast for fifty years; seriously for forty. Back when Ike was in the White House the conventional wisdom was that Lyman moulds cast grossly oversize. At that time Lyman offered moulds such as 311291U, with the suffix indicating "undersize." The undersize moulds seem to have disappeared along with many of Loverin's designs and favorites such as the 358006. I don't know what posters mean by references to "recent years," but here are results from new Lyman molds made in the last nine years. All measurements are to the closest .001" (don't want to put too fine a point on it) and taken from boolits cast from newer WW +2% tin.

266469 Loverin type 140 gr. casts .266" made 11-06
266673 bore rider 150 gr. casts .266" made 06-07
314299 bore rider 205 gr. casts .314" made 04-00 this is my favorite boolit of all time. I size it .314" for the .303 British that it was bought for, .312" for a 7.65 1891 Argentine, and .310" for my NRA Sporter Springfield and tight barrel .30/40 Krag. All of these moulds cast happily fat for me. I don't mean to doubt the word of any other posters. I'm sure there are some skinny ones out there.

Again, the conventional wisdom is that RCBS moulds cast notoriously small, and two of the four RCBS moulds I have drop scrawny .44s. Yet my 38-150KT casts .358, and a recently purchased used 35-200 FP casts .359" and leaning slightly on the handle of my Lyman 450 lubrisizer makes .360" boolits which delight my .359" groove Lilja .35 Whelen and me. Just lucky, I guess.

Things we need to remember include the fact that some of Lyman's moulds have been in continuous production for over 100 years, plenty of opportunity for deviations and variations to creep in. A few years ago there was a discussion about 311291 and its many cousins. Between three of us there were five moulds of three different different looking 311291 designs. Cherries have tolerance like any other manufactured piece of equipment. They wear out and I'm sure aren't always replaced soon enough. I'll still buy Lyman moulds and send them back if they cast too small, and thank Lyman for their good service. But then I'm a free 450 lubrisizer ahead of them so maybe I've been bought off!

I have some good lyman moulds too. I also have the 314299 that casts .314 or more. My RCBS moulds have all be fine. Like I said the 266469 I recently got barely made .264. Sent it back and the replacement barely makes .266. I have to laugh at the one poster that suggests I change my alloy. He didn't know I've been at this a long time. No harm done.

Bottom line is Lyman has gotten bad, real bad...to the notorious under size regime. Another poster, I won't mentions, just sent back a 22 caliber mould for a refund.

It's time that Lyman realizes is fat is the way to go and the old myth about sizing a bullet ruins is just that a myth. Probably with the non tapered sizing dies they had no wonder sizing ruined a bullet.

Joe

[geargnasher]

Just checked Lyman’s website and here is their 429421; http://www.lymanproducts.com/lyman/bullet-casting/mould-details.php?entryID=22 . But hold on, something isn’t right! First, they claim that 429421 is “The famous Elmer Keith 44 bullet design”. We all know very well that 429421 is not Keith’s design. I am not saying that this boolit is bad, heck, I had good experience with old square groove one, but why Lyman kept changing design constantly is beyond me. Any time I see picture of this boolit or it’s HP version something is different. We all see how popular and good is H&G #503, real Keith’s design, and I cannot understand what’s a big deal to make 429421 the way it should be? Cost of cherry is the same, cost of mould blocks is the same, manufacturing cost is the same! They list 4 cavity for $104 and if they have it done correctly, this mould should go on the market as a hot cake.

But what really offends me is illustration, it’s a joke, see for yourself:

http://img2.pict.com/e1/af/c1/1710197/0/lyman429421.jpg

Person(s) who created it, approved and ordered it to be uploaded has no idea how does 429421 look like. Why is it so difficult to get real drawing or make photo? Or, we have another case where MBA graduate flashing his/her diploma, without any clue how to place loaded round into cylinder.

If I am on their board of directors, I will put in charge of mould manufacturing and marketing somebody who is mechanical engineer and ACTIVE shooter, and knows something about shooting history.


Yep. I ordered a 452664 a few months ago and got a mould that cast the middle driving band at .448, the base at .451, and the nose at .450. And those are the larger diameters, the boolit was .0018 out of round (wide at the parting line,narrow across the blocks)!!!! Shoulda sent the worthless *** back but ended up ruining it trying to lap it out to size. Oh, yeah, that was with WW alloy. I'm sure "Lyman #2" would have fixed 'er right up. The other problem, same as with the .358 Lyman Cowboy mould, is that they are BB boolits and the illustrations EVERYWHERE that Lyman has and in all the catalogues show plain based drawings. Imagine my surprise and chagrin when I first opened the orange box to the BB on the blocks. I should have sued for false advertising and misrepresentation of a product.

I ended up buying a circa 2000 mould of the same number from a good member here and it casts round, smooth, .4545 boolits all day long, plus doesn't have the heat distribution issues that the new mould had (I posted a thread about this a few months back) so I'm beginning to think Lyman has mould metal issues as well.

Joe and Curmudgeon, I have an older 266673 and it drops .2655 with WW +2% tin, I know you know this but bears mentioning that Lyman thinks being within .001" of advertised size is ok. That's why the custom mould makers are becoming the next go-to companies, they understand and meet the needs of their customers. I agree that it sucks that Lyman can no longer satisfy our needs, but that's the beauty of a free economy, we can let Lyman rot and go spend our money with guys like Veral, Mihec and NOE.

Gear

[Catshooter]

For any manufacturer to survive, they must cater to the general needs of their market. .

And that is a big piece of the problem.

I realize that this crap idea is taught in all the MBA course in the country, but it's horse puckey. It's the easy way out.

By catering to the general needs they leave alot of potential customers to their competitors. When you add that to the "Not Invented Here" syndrome and the lack of flexability that corporations have then someone like Lyman fails to keep up with the times. Esp these days. With the internet, lall areas of information are undergoing a revolution.

It's really too bad to. I really like Lyman for it's products of yesteryear. I have a bunch of their moulds and most are wonderful.

Them and Colt. What a shame.


Cat

[StarMetal]

Yep. I ordered a 452664 a few months ago and got a mould that cast the middle driving band at .448, the base at .451, and the nose at .450. And those are the larger diameters, the boolit was .0018 out of round (wide at the parting line,narrow across the blocks)!!!! Shoulda sent the worthless *** back but ended up ruining it trying to lap it out to size. Oh, yeah, that was with WW alloy. I'm sure "Lyman #2" would have fixed 'er right up. The other problem, same as with the .358 Lyman Cowboy mould, is that they are BB boolits and the illustrations EVERYWHERE that Lyman has and in all the catalogues show plain based drawings. Imagine my surprise and chagrin when I first opened the orange box to the BB on the blocks. I should have sued for false advertising and misrepresentation of a product.

I ended up buying a circa 2000 mould of the same number from a good member here and it casts round, smooth, .4545 boolits all day long, plus doesn't have the heat distribution issues that the new mould had (I posted a thread about this a few months back) so I'm beginning to think Lyman has mould metal issues as well.

Joe and Curmudgeon, I have an older 266673 and it drops .2655 with WW +2% tin, I know you know this but bears mentioning that Lyman thinks being within .001" of advertised size is ok. That's why the custom mould makers are becoming the next go-to companies, they understand and meet the needs of their customers. I agree that it sucks that Lyman can no longer satisfy our needs, but that's the beauty of a free economy, we can let Lyman rot and go spend our money with guys like Veral, Mihec and NOE.

Gear

Gear,

You hit the nail on the head by saying this is where the custom mould makers make out. I was going to mention that, but didn't.
Another thing too, just how may various 6.5 caliber rifles did Lyman examine before designing what bullet size should drop from the mould? They must have slugged some pristine examples with very tight grooves. The 6.5 moulds they are making today are only good for new modern 6.5 rifles with .264 grooves.

Joe

[sundog]

I was 'gifted' a few items from a recently departed friends estate with an understanding that anything I did not care to keep I would sell and give the money to Tom's widow. (She's prolly gonna paid fer all of it anyway...) This I will gladly do. He was a fine man, and his bride deserves to be treated with the utmost respect. This brings me to two items in particular, an Ideal 37583 and a much later (perhaps late 90s early 2000s) 314299. I cast with the later yesterday, and while I am sure the boolit will shoot, it holds not a candle to my older mould of the same ilk or a 311299 that I also have. In fact, one cavity may be slightly wasp waisted. I did not have time to measure, and they are still in a pile on my casting table. I'll put a caliper on them as soon as I can. They cast well, released well, but, Oh, the machine marks! Perhaps a going over with valve grinding compound.... On the other hand, even though I did not cast with it, the former appears to be everything anyone would expect from an older Ideal.

I have an older 257420 that you just about cannot see the part lines, it's that good. Now, I'm not going to bash them, because, it's their business to run into the ground if they want to. I have some good products from them. BUT, we all know that if they had reintroduced the 3589, they would have made a small fortune. Makes a feller wonder what thier business model looks like, eh?

[Buckshot]

.............Lyman's mould issues stem from being cherry cut. RCBS and Saeco to name the other 2/3rds of the Big 3 mould makers are also cherry cut. Their higher prices probably reflect the larger blocks and other associated expenses like cherry costs, ie: replacement. I believe Lyman may run their cherrys too long, with the attendant re-stoning and cavity OD reduction. But this is nothing of recent history, unless the problem has become even worse?

I have an article written by Henry Beverage about using a 30-'06 in cast bullet competition, or simply to just try to extract the best accuracy from it. IIRC the article was of early 70's vintage. Regardless, the important part was that he'd chosen the Lyman 311284 as the boolit to use, and to get the best possible fit with his alloy he bought 5, two cavity moulds. He writes in the article that he ordered them from places as geographically seperated from each other as possible, trying to get moulds from different runs and cherrys. He figured with 2 cavities he'd get 10 different boolits to choose from.

He was looking for as close to a perfect fit as possible in HIS rifle and using HIS alloy. It does point up the differences from mould to mould.

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

[mrbill2]

Lymans 20 year quality control eye exam.

[9.3X62AL]

Too funny, Mr. Bill!

Dittoes to Catshooter's observations about Lyman and Colt.

[qajaq59]

Lymans 20 year quality control eye exam. Ooooooh, you guys are bad!!!!!

[Plain Base]

The ongoing problem of determining what is a Keith 429421 is that there are so MANY opinions and interpretations.

Which of the following is a LYMAN 429421? ANSWER: ALL of them !

If you do not like the LYMAN 429421 this week just wait another week ! They will have a new design ! :) :)

Jerry

http://www.fototime.com/9CA0F95577C1733/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/672AC772D273279/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/98111A583CB6C02/standard.jpg

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
The 45 2.1design for the Catshooter Group Buy is a good synthesis as is the H&G #503 (Ballisti-Cast #1103) !
http://www.fototime.com/2C506C0BC7CB604/standard.jpg

Jerry, for the folks playing at home, could you please label those boolits. I think they are as follows, but I'm guessing.
L to R, Lyman 429421 square lube groove, same with round lube groove, RCBS 44-250 K, and 45 2.1 designed Group buy.

The boolit on the left in photo #1, and the boolit in the very last photo look "correct" to me, while the one with the round lube groove and the one with the heavier base don't. If the very first boolit IS in fact a 429421, then it seems Lyman must have don't things correctly at some point. Is that an antique mould, or a recent production?

I ordered 4 banger 429421 and 358429 moulds yesterday and am crossing my fingers they are the good ones.

[Bass Ackward]

Part of the problem in all of this is that we "think" that bullet design really makes a difference. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't.

Is it important that a bullet design have square grooves? The answer is yes. But only if you shoot too soft of an alloy at too high of a pressure that you have to worry about uniform compression. If you mold hard, then it can be what ever shape you want. Had Elmer used a gun with a faster twist rate or wanted a higher velocity than 1200 fps, then his design possibly would never have come to fruition or look totally different than we think it does. That's how critical it was. The 44 Mag came about because he wanted a launching platform that could launch his bullet design at 1200 fps. If he had had W296 or H110 for his 44 Special, the 44 Mag may have never been developed.

My point, and probably the conclusion that Lyman and most other mold makers came to, is that there are two factors to accuracy. The first is how well you can launch something and the second is how well it flies after launch. The vast factor to most cast shooters is how well they can launch something cause we focus on shorter ranges. Does size matter to launching well? Absolutely and not at all. If you can seat out and touch your lands, then you can shoot bore diameter (or below) and do well. If you have to jump, then you need to maintain alignment and must choke. Unless you shoot way hard for the velocity. Then you can sometimes get by as 44 Man does with accuracy in his revolvers.

My most accurate factory mold for rifle is an undersized 311284 with a .302 nose. It is outta round from .3075 to .309 but will shoot 3, 5, 10, 100, 1000 shot groups of 1/2" with 20.5 grains of 4759. Used to be 20 grains when the 06 was new and rough. When the throat was short and the seating was deep. Now the load has changed. So has the hardness required. But you have to be flexible enough to adapt or accept mediocrity. I think that 21 grains is in my future.

Fitting a bullet changes as the gun changes. Can the owner understand what is or has happened to his gun and adjust his approach so that he can launch it well? Or is it simpler to choke, mold rock hard and forget about it? :grin:

How a bullet flies is a factor more of range. Several loads with a bullet that shoots equally well at 25 yards in several guns of the same manufacture, will shoot that load differently at longer ranges. So the language we speak for design depends on how far we want to fly it. Does lube groove shape or band width have a thing to do with flight? How about diameter of the front band? Just as soon as you think the front band needs to be full diameter, along comes a guy shooting better than you with the same EXACT design that you hate, that is using a reduced diameter design that has done what the design requires in his gun to launch well.

Lyman is still in business and will remain in business because their molds work for somebody. If they don't work for you know, ask yourself why? Then adapt to the new reality. Or don't and complain here. :grin:

[runfiverun]

john thats the issue, they keep on changing .you order the 429 and they send you a 429 sorta.
you just went through all the trouble to measure your cylinder lengths and throats then they send you a longer nose or a shorter driving band.
you need a 431 sized for your ruger and with lino you can't get over 4295.
consistency is what makes the gun world go round.

[Dale53]

>>>you order the 429 and they send you a 429 SORTA<<<

BINGO!!!

THAT's the problem. They keep "changing the rules" in midstream. You never know WHAT you are going to get. These days it is often way undersize.

Dale53

[Char-Gar]

Lyman Products seem to live in a bubble and are oblivious to the needs and wants of their customers. I have no idea who is running that lash up, but the whole outfit is detached from today's world of casting and shooting. What a pity!

[tackstrp]

I have a lyman 429421 and i cast pure wheel weight with a weight of 253 with lube. It was purchased about 1973. It casts perfect looking bullets

I am looking forward to buying some Lee 2 Cavity molds in the 429 and 214 grain. I had one and returned it to buy a lee six cavity. For me was a mistake. the 2 cavity was just easy to handle, and I was not constantly fiddling with keeping the sprue plate tigth . Wthi the six cavity i broke several cam operated sprue cutters. My fault I know. but I get tired and lose focus.. Six cavitys work I have a 357 tumble lube that just works great. No idea why . Could be the marginal difference of weight.

[243winxb]

In 5 years, no more lead in bullets. Problem solved. :-(

[TAWILDCATT]

lyman is owned by the leasure group.an other thing is there never was this demand for molds.and I would bet their wearing out the cherries faster than ever.
lee lathe bores so theres no cherry but they too are working as fast as they can.
all my molds have been first class.I have Lee ,lyman,Modern bond,win,colt,rem,
and sharps.all original.all bought many yrs ago $2 to $5.except lee of course.
you really should be happy you have all these companies.and lachmyler? sold to RCBS,the 1968 law killed Herters.and most of the others the owners died,and no one to take over like Saeco.and there was a period in 60/70 when most went under for lack of sales.

[mrbill2]

Lyman 311644 The bullet on the left is what I started with. When it cast TO SMALL I sent it back. They CHANGED the design of the bullet and returned it to me. It then cast the bullet in the middle, SMALLER than the on I sent back. I returned it again and when they returned it, it now cast the bullet on the right. Still CAST SMALL FROM LYMAN#2. Who know what you will get if you order a 311644 now. You can't go by the picture in the catalog.
O, if you want to know the name of the lady in the picture, look in the box your mold came in "inspected by".
Mr Bill2

[John Boy]

http://www.three-peaks.net/images/429421_245g.gif ... original 429421
http://www.fototime.com/9CA0F95577C1733/standard.jpg

[Plain Base]

FedEx brought my 429421 and 358429 moulds today, BUT I was in the back yard smelting wheel weights, so they just left a note on my door!! Now I have to wait until Monday! [smilie=b:

[Freischütz]

I became sick and tired of Lyman's undersized cavities in the 1970s. I haven't bought one of their moulds since then.