#68 h&g

Question for the 1911 gurus. I have always been a revolver guy, but finally broke the mold. Settled on and bought a Ruger sr1911 target in 45acp. After shooting a couple of different boolit styles, I've settled on the H&G 68. So, my question is, is a 68 a 68 is a 68 or is there a particular mould or maker that is normally more accurate than the others. While every gun is individual, there must be one or another that is usually better overall. For instance, Just today, I shot some accurate molds clones of the 68. While very accurate, they do not cut the clean hole that the #68 is known for. I can live with that, but if I can get both in the same mould, that would be even better.

Thanks in advance for your knowledge and advice.
Kirk

What's your load? At one time, I shot the #68 for NRA Bullseye and recall getting sort of raggedy holes with really soft loads...like down in the low 700 fps range. Could be you need to boost your velocity a bit.

Bill

Bill, that's possible but with a load of 5gr. of w231 I should be getting 800+. The front band on the Accurate mould has a shoulder that slopes upward more than the other copies that I've seen and that I believe is what causes the "raggedy" holes. Your suggestion though is a good one and I will give it a try.
Thank you
Kirk

I don't have a real H&G #68, but I have the Lyman, RCBS, and Lee models. They have all worked very well in all my 45's.

Clean hole cutting is also a factor of the type of paper the target is made from.
Proper NRA Bullseye Match targets are made of a soft paper that cuts easily and cleanly.
I would run copies on our office xerox machine....the copy paper was stronger and didn't cut clean holes. I discovered that cheap grade school type construction paper was much softer and I could copy targets on that paper and the holes would cut cleanly.
Sometimes the target backing will make a different .

I use a NOE copy myself. I agree target paper plays a part.Attachment 223691

I've used both the RCBS, the original H&G 68 and the H&G 68BB and the holes vary depending on the paper type.

It sounds like I'm doing it all wrong. What I do is buy a 300'? roll of butcher paper every ten years or so and use the orange paste on dots from birch wood casey for targets. Maybe I need a softer paper?
Waco, what kind of grouping do you get with your NOE mould? Al's shop is just across town from me, and I have been able to visit with and buy his molds face to face. Great guy,
Kirk

I've only worked with the Lee clone of the H&G 68. Never the original. Target paper and the backing matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waco

I use a NOE copy myself. I agree target paper plays a part.Attachment 223691

---

Wow, that's pretty. Staring at proper cast boolits never gets old. Nice work, waco!

I have 3 different molds of the 68 . One is a true h&g 68, one is a mi-hec and the other is a Saeco. There is difference in nose profile but I can not find a difference in accuracy. All will shoot less than 3" from a Ranson rested 45 wad gun. Proper loading and crimp need to be applied.

wv109323-Your experience and advice on mould choices is exactly what I was looking for. Along with the advice about paper and backing choice, all of my concerns have been addressed.
Everybody, thanks so much for your time and help.
Kirk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taterhead

Wow, that's pretty. Staring at proper cast boolits never gets old. Nice work, waco!

---

Your words are kind. Thank you.

I have several #68 molds. Two H&G #68, H&G #68BB, two NOE #68BB, one old Saeco #68. The basic design is the same, but the profile on the NOE & Saeco are slightly different from the H&G. The powder coated H&G will Ransom Rest group under 1-1/2". I assume the NOE & Saeco would do the same, but never actually did a comparison. I personally prefer using the H&G molds and out of those I prefer the BB. For a 1911 I don't think you will find a better cast bullet for accuracy & flawless feeding.

The Saeco #68 in the current catalog is a bevel base. The #69 is plain base.

I think the paper that leaves clean holes has more lignin than copy paper.

I have won a few matches with the Saeco 69. I read a study one time where the H and G 69 outshot the 130. My last serious test session before life got in the way showed the little 160 grain variant was more than just a little accurate at 15 yards and iron sights with an 11 lb recoil spring.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e608cbfd39.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...92383443d1.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...4ae51b1fac.jpg

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I am a little confused with your post, the H&G 69 is not a 45 caliber bullet and the H&G #130 is a 185 grain bullet. I own a couple of the H&G 130's also. However, I have no doubts as to the accuracy, I have just never put the 130 in the ransom rest.

The Saeco 69 is the same bullet as the H and G 68. Both are very accurate. It looks like I clicked on a wrong picture when posting from my phone.

Those targets in post 16 would be hard to score with those raged holes. Good shooting though! I don't think its the bullets fault. It looks more like the target needs a fresh backer. My 68's and 130's cut much neater holes. So do the SWC's that I load in 38, 357, 44 and 45 Colt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beau Cassidy

The Saeco 69 is the same bullet as the H and G 68. Both are very accurate. It looks like I clicked on a wrong picture when posting from my phone.

---

I would agree the Saeco is similar to the H&G 68, but splitting hairs, not exactly the same, that also goes for the NOE and other clones I have seen. But I agree the Saeco 68 & 69, NOE and other clones appear to be close enough to give the same kind of accuracy as far as I can tell. One day I will Ransom Rest the #130 and see how it compares. But it would appear you already have loads that shoot better than most shooters.