You may have seen this, but I'll copy and paste it just in case. This is from Tom Dugas' H&G mould sheet that he did in Word:
"#115 – 9mm, 125 grain, Round Grease Groove, no crimp groove. Bevel base or plain base available. Info from mold owned and sold on eBay – summer 2004. Not on List from Wayne Gibbs. . Entry by T.D. Update Feb 2009: Wayne Gibbs finally solved mystery. Design #115 was dropped from ledger in late 1980’s and evolved into design #331. Wayne told me that he never like the original thin driving band at the base of the ogive on #115. He finally adjusted the cherry design to a fatter driving band, and gave the modified design its own number and retired #115 from the ledger. If someone wanted a #115, he gave them #331 which performed better. Entry by TD Feb 2009. There exist two designs of #115, the original “thin” front driving band style, and the later “fatter” driving band style which became Mould #331."
I have owned and cast with both. The 4 cavity #115 was my original 9mm for submachine guns and 9mm compact carry pistols, so accuracy was really not much of an issue.
I stumbled across an 8 cavity #331 and bought it.....the only reason was production - period. With as much 9mm casting and reloading I was doing, the extra cavities made a difference. In discussions with Tom, I learned about the #115 and the skinny driving band and the change to the #331.
I don't see a problem with the #115 as long as you don't short stroke your press. I load on a Dillon 550 and found that unless I go solidly right to the bottom of the down stoke, precise seating and crimping became an issue....but then again, that is true with ANY caliber you are loading.
Consistency of movement is paramount to good reloads.
As for the bevel base I'd leave it alone. Accuracy won't suffer or improve with plain base or bevel base.....as far as my own personal experience goes.....and you won't have to bell the mouth of your 9mm quite so much with a bevel base bullet.