45ACP Accuracy with SWC moulds

  • 11K Views
  • Last Post 13 August 2016
rmrix posted this 01 November 2010

I am sure this 1911 stuff has been worked out long ago but I know nothing of the accuracy potential of 45 ACP SWC bullets when compared to other designs.

From those of you who have done some comparison shooting I would be interested in hearing what you have learned.

Are SWC 45 ACP target bullets like the H&G 68.452 SWC and H&G 130.452 better/more accurate than Lyman 225gr. RN style? (It is hard to beat the RN for feeding and reliability)

I shoot Black Powder Cartridge Silhouette matches each month with Bernie Rowles of Old West Bullet Moulds, he made available the use (loan) of the two H&G moulds and I have the option to buy one of them. I have other 45 moulds so I really do not need additional moulds but would consider it if there was some great improvement in accuracy to be had.

Is the long nosed H&G 68.452 SWC a more accurate design than others? This is the mould that is in the best shape and cast bullets closest to fitting right out of the mould. I have been putting all my 45 ACP cast bullets through a Lee .452 push-through die after pan lubing them. Pan lube makes for less mess in ALL ways; dies, magazine, storage trays and handgun. And, it is fast!

Without knowing much at this point, it would seem to me that the design of the short sided SWC would cut clean holes in target paper, but at the expense of good support and alignment in the chamber and bore. The longer supporting sides of the RN looks to be better at this job. Is this true or what is the real story? I am sure the bulls-eye match shooters reading this know what really works.

I am only starting to put these type of loads on paper and have no opinion about them yet.

Thanks in advance for weighing in on the merits of these different bullets!

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
fc60 posted this 01 November 2010

Greetings,

You will find that the H&G #68 will shoot better than the H&G #130 in general.

Loads that have done well at 50 yards, groups under two inches for ten shots, will be loaded with 4.3 grains of Bullseye or 4.3 grains of Winchester WST.

You will need to tweak your powder charge for best accuracy. The above will get you into the ballpark.

Cheers,

Dave

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 01 November 2010

Back in the '70's when I was shooting NRA Bullseye competition, I had a Lyman 452374 that cast bullets of 0.452” that would group very well. But others have told me that their moulds made bullets oversize and had problems with resizing.

The problem with it was that it did not cut clean holes in the paper, so if there was a close shot, you very seldom got full count, even plugging. If you are shooting paper, stay with the semi-wadcutter. If shooting steel targets the RN is just fine.

HTH, Ric

Attached Files

LWesthoff posted this 01 November 2010

At the National Championships at Camp Perry in 1982, the H&G 68 flat base out of a 4 cavity mold, over 4.2 Bullseye, shot well enough to get me 1st Civilian Expert in the .45 Aggregate. (Sure wish I could still do that sort of shooting, but when you get up in your 80's some things just get a little out of reach.)

The H&G 68 was pretty much THE bullet when I was shooting bullseye. I don't think you can go very far wrong with it.

Wes

P.S.  That bullet shot, with zero feeding problems, out of my Series 70 Gold Cup, my Clark Heavy slide, and my Curtis hardball gun.  I'd be surprised if it gave you any feeding problems.

Attached Files

Dale53 posted this 16 November 2010

I have about 80 moulds. I have, close to hand, a MiHec six cavity mould for the H&G #68, an original H&G #130 four cavity mould, and the Lee 230 TC (standard lube groove) six cavity mould.

Any of those will shoot good enough to win an NRA Bullseye match.

However the #130 and #68 both will shoot well under an 1” at 25 yards from both of my full size 1911 custom autos and my two S&W 625's. The difference is the #68 cuts a much cleaner hole in the target and the #68 will feed in nearly every .45 Auto “out of the box” (not all but NEARLY all) while the #130 may not.

My copy of the #68 is a flat base.

Dale53

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • acneill
Ed Harris posted this 16 November 2010

H&G 130 preferred by many for use at 25 yards, accurate with lighter loads. so less recoil. Shape similar to factory wadcutter. Use 3.8-4.2 of Bullseye or 4.5-5 grs., of W231.

Longer nosed H&G 68 not necessarily more accurate than #130, but feeds better in most guns set up for hardball without requiring feed ramp or magazine modification. Preferred by most at 50 yards due to better wind bucking.  Will feed full auto in M1A1 and M3 submachineguns whereas #130 does not. Requires slightly heavier powder charge than #130 for best grouping at 50 yards. Use 4.2-4.5 grs. of Bullseye for NRA Bullseye matches, OK to increase up to 5.0 grs of Bullseye for ISPC and SMG use.

Properly loaded, good quality bullets of either type should be able to produce ten-shot groups of 2 inches or less from a scoped heavy barrel single-shot such as a T/C Contender pistol or an accurized target pistol.

When fired at 100 yards and beyond the 230 LRN, flattened ogival nosed cowboy bullets and Keith types continue to group in proportion to the range (3-4 moa) whereas wadcutter dispersion becomes nonlinear beyond about 50 meters or so, depending upon velocity.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • acneill
oscarflytyer posted this 06 January 2012

All I have, and have loaded/shot is the MiHec clone H&G #68.  My gun loves it in front of 5 grns Bullseye @ 1.250 OAL.  One big ragged hole with a mag full from 10-15 yds.

I started, and stopped with this mold/design/bullet/load after the above results.   

Attached Files

Iowa Fox posted this 06 January 2012

I have an old 4 cav Lyman 452460 that casts very nicely. Using 4.5 grains of 700x gives me all I can ask for.

Attached Files

GBertolet posted this 06 January 2012

I have both the 130 and Lyman 452460, both in 4 cavity. They both shoot very well. The 452460 seems to shoot better at 50 yards than the 130. At 25 yards I can't tell the difference out of my Clark Longslide. I use 4.8gr 231 with the 452460, and 4.2gr of Bullseye with the 130. The 452460 cuts a clean hole in paper. I recall lots of heated arguments on scoring, during the indoor 50 ft bullseye league matches, when shooters used RN or truncated bullets.

Attached Files

Uncle Russ posted this 07 January 2012

The #68H&G is the cast bullet for me. Tried a bunch of others and always go back. Pushed along by 231, Bull or even Red Dot it just performs far better then I. Feeds well in my TGO2 Springfield, Colt GC and even some clunkers I tried to put together. The S&W 625 5” eats 'em like popcorn! The S&W 1955 Target is back in its nostalgic days. My S&W 4513 carry gun swallows them up. Need I say more? :fire:

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 08 January 2012

Recently I've been fooling with the Saeco #954 230-gr. Cowboy bullet vs. the similar #955 which has the same profile, but heavier base band to increase weight to 255 grains. Firing in a rifle I've gotten better accuracy at 100 yards with the lighter bullet, rounder groups 3-4 inches, with less vertical dispersion.

Did try some heavier loads with the 255-grain up to 1200 f.p.s. in the converted Marlin with 12 grs. of #2400 lightly compressed, but it did not shoot better than my normal .45 revolver load with 4.2 grains of Bullseye, which gives about 950 f.p.s. in the rifle and 770 f.p.s. in my 4-inch S&W Model 625.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

DonH posted this 09 January 2012

Iowa Fox wrote: I have an old 4 cav Lyman 452460 that casts very nicely. Using 4.5 grains of 700x gives me all I can ask for.

32 years ago when I started out in NRA bullseye pistol, many oldtimers still used the 452460 at 50 yds because they felt wind affected it less and thus better grouping. It is heavier though which can be a factor in one hand shooting. Also it may have some of the feeding problems of the 130s.

I tried different bullets until I came to a 4 cavity H&G mold for the BB #68. I looked no farther for a bullet. Over the years I learned to shoot and acquired an accurized Series 70 GM which was built for hardball competition. By then my eyes were giving me fits so I gave in to an Ultradot electronic sight. That combo - the hardball gun, Ultradot sight and H&G 68 over 4.2gr Bullseye took me to 290-292 on the National course.

That was before I lost my good right eye. Since then, shooting right-handed with my legally-blind left eye I have shot as high as 270 with the setup and load described above. No tears in my beer tho!

The H&G 68 in a GOOD 1911 in the hands of a VERY SHOOTER will make ten holes in the 1.75” X ring at 50 yds. Good 'nuff, I say. 

Attached Files

beerd posted this 03 February 2012

How about the H&G 68 look-alike made by Lee? Any good? ..

Attached Files

Dale53 posted this 04 February 2012

The Lee bullet is NOT an H&G #68. It works well for some and not so well for others.

Feeding is where the #68 shines. It was designed with the same “strike” in the barrel as the 230 gr Hard Ball bullet.

If I had to pick one bullet design for a 1911, it would be the #68 (I actually prefer the #69 which is the same bullet with a flat base).

FWIW Dale53

Attached Files

oscarflytyer posted this 04 February 2012

I have the #68 clone Mihec mold.  It is flat base.  It is fantastic.  Never had a mis-feed with this bullet.  All I shoot in my 1911.

I think Dale has the same mold?!?

Attached Files

rmrix posted this 05 February 2012

Dale53 wrote: The Lee bullet is NOT an H&G #68. It works well for some and not so well for others.

Feeding is where the #68 shines. It was designed with the same “strike” in the barrel as the 230 gr Hard Ball bullet.

If I had to pick one bullet design for a 1911, it would be the #68 (I actually prefer the #69 which is the same bullet with a flat base).

FWIW Dale53Dale, Is yours (#68) a BB? Mine is a flat base, I think? My bullet is for sure flat base and my mould is were I got the mould # to start this thread.  Now I am going to have to go look just to be sure.

I have the Lee BB copy and hate it.  mostly do to being so hard to lube and not getting reliable feeding or not as good as the H&G #68. Maybe the Lee load just needs more work. I use the same powder charge for them.

Attached Files

45ACPete posted this 05 February 2012

The last time the top shooter won at Camp Perry with cast bullets was Darius Young back in the 70's--and he used an H&G 165 g bullet. I used to have that mold, and considered it to be strictly a 25 yd load, but he made it work at 50 yds. Young won again at Perry ten years later, but as a member of the Army Reserve team he used the factory 185g jacketed WC ammo he was issued, as have all the winners in the last 35 years or so--notably Steve Reiter (6 times) and Brian Zins (10 straight wins). Of course, the service team shooters are rarely reloaders--Uncle Sam provides the factory fodder, but I think that if I were ever to shoot at Camp Perry again I would use 185g jacketed WC's, at least at 50 yds.

Attached Files

Dale53 posted this 27 February 2012

Oscar; I have a Mihec six cavity aluminum mould and a four cavity brass mould for the flat based clone of the H&G #68. It just doesn't get any better than that.

When I received my aluminum mould, after it was up and running well, I set aside a bullet from each cavity. After they cooled, I miked and weighed them. They were within .0002” (two ten thousandths) of an inch in diameter and weighed within .2 (two tenths) of a grain. That was ALL six bullets each from a different cavity.

That is the magic of a combination of CNC machinery and a master machinist (and programmer).

Truthfully, the “good old days” are today!

Dale53

Attached Files

Dale53 posted this 27 February 2012

45ACPete; I suspect that jacketed bullets are not any better than GOOD cast bullets. However, I have seen this phenomenon with competition all of my life. Someone wins with a particular set up, and next year everyone shows up with the same set up.

There is no doubting the quality of some of the better jacketed bullet loads and they certainly are consistent. Cast bullets vary depending on the ability of the caster.

Until the recent recession hit, a lot of people had a lot of disposable income that wasn't true in the past (WWII through the eighties or so, at least) so it became easier to “buy a win” and human nature being what it is, store bought bullets became the norm.

My local gun club has 800 members. Most don't really shoot much and are happy if they can just stay on the paper. We have a solid cadre of VERY talented pistol shooters, however, but the numbers are small.

Probably no more than 25-35 of our members reload and no more than half of those cast their own bullets. There's just not much interest. Frankly, it worries me as I think about the future...

They all stand around and rant about the high cost of factory ammo but most do not want to put forth the effort to solve that problem by casting bullets and reloading.

Just a thought or two...

Dale53

Attached Files

oscarflytyer posted this 28 February 2012

Dale53 wrote: Oscar; I have a Mihec six cavity aluminum mould and a four cavity brass mould for the flat based clone of the H&G #68. It just doesn't get any better than that.

When I received my aluminum mould, after it was up and running well, I set aside a bullet from each cavity. After they cooled, I miked and weighed them. They were within .0002” (two ten thousandths) of an inch in diameter and weighed within .2 (two tenths) of a grain. That was ALL six bullets each from a different cavity.

That is the magic of a combination of CNC machinery and a master machinist (and programmer).

Truthfully, the “good old days” are today!

Dale53

Dale - mine is the 6 cav alum.  VERY consistent.  weighed a few of the first ones and figured I was wasting my time after that!

FWIW, I have a MiHec 4 cav brass for the 44 250 Keith clone.  I sure wish it was alum.  That brass is HEAVY!  'Course, I have a bad shoulder that I am getting surgery on, so maybe that is why it seems so heavy...

Attached Files

oscarflytyer posted this 28 February 2012

Dale53 wrote: 45ACPete; I suspect that jacketed bullets are not any better than GOOD cast bullets. However, I have seen this phenomenon with competition all of my life. Someone wins with a particular set up, and next year everyone shows up with the same set up.

My local gun club has 800 members. Most don't really shoot much and are happy if they can just stay on the paper. We have a solid cadre of VERY talented pistol shooters, however, but the numbers are small.

Probably no more than 25-35 of our members reload and no more than half of those cast their own bullets. There's just not much interest. Frankly, it worries me as I think about the future...

Just a thought or two...

Dale53

Dale

I honestly believe that a good cast bullet fit to the gun will out-shoot or at least match any good jacketed bullet.  I am shooting exclusively cast in my Ruger Flattop BHs in 44 SPC and 45 Colt.  Right now, with my groups/loads, I can't imagine a jacketed bullet shooting as well, certainly not better.   44 is a MiHec Keith clone, and Colt is a factory Lee mold...

In the 45 ACP, with the MiHec H&G #68 clone and the Bullseye load, it will out-shoot factory jacketed 230s.

I do agree that there aren't that many that cast their own and work through all the hoops of casting and loading.  Mostly old timers (I am 50, and just started casting cpl yrs ago), but I take my boys and all their buddies out to shoot that want to go.  If each one of us find one kid to mentor and get excited about casting/loading and the resulting shooting, there will be plenty of us in the fraternity.  AND guys like MiHec are also helping us tremendously!!!

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close