As a part of my review of the Browning High Wall Model 1885 BPCR I asked Redding-SAECO to loan me these two moulds for use in the rifle. They agreed to do so and shipped them out to me for a 90 day test that turned out to be more like a 180 day test. I got far behind in my Product Testing due to having more projects than time. They were gracious enough to allow me to keep them long enough to cast up a good supply of bullets for testing in the rifle. I say that because I have to follow it up by saying this. I wasn't happy with the results. Yes I should have gotten back with them and if I had I'm sure they would have been willing to send me different moulds for testing. If I had purchased them that is exactly what I would have done and I have no doubt they would have made me a happy customer. BUT I didn't. I worked with them as best I could. I always hate to do a less than satisfactory review of an item but when the item fails to perform in a satisfactory manner I do so. This is gonna be one of those.
Both bullets show a common profile with the #645 being the ligher of the two at 480 grains nominal and the #745 being 525 grains nominal. The extra weight comes from a longer shank with more lube grooves. Both are designed for use in .45 caliber rifles and are primarily intended for use by the BPCR silhouette crowd. Among knowledgeable shooters the #745 is especially highly thought of so I know my experience isn't typical. As a matter of fact one of my cohorts who lives in GA and also owns a Browning BPCR shoots them almost exclusively and I know they work for him because he beat me by one target in our Buffalo Grudge Match in April 2001 in MS when the regulars of my Single Shot Rifle Forum gathered for our second annual meet.
The mould #645 I would say worked best for me in that it did cast bullets that looked good and in general were of uniform weight except that one of the cavities would just never fill out properly at the base no matter what I did. The rest of the bullet looked fine but in spite of that it proved to be a single cavity mould in effect because of this. Why? I dunno really. It looked good. I could detect no logical reason for this behavior. The vent lines looked OK, the sprue plate and hole looked OK. It just absolutely would not fill out that base and it didn't matter whether I cast it first or second. Didn't matter if I ran lead over the top of it and flowed it over to help. Nothing worked. I gave up in frustration and used it as a single cavity mould. In that capacity that one cavity made good if not spectacular bullets. My rifle didn't seem to fond of them in any load I was able to work up with the on hand supply of bullets. Why again I can't say. Just reporting the results. Perhaps if I had more of them I'd have found a load it liked.
The mould #745 was a different beast all together. Bases filled out beautifully. No problem with that. Examination of both mould showed no differences I could detect to explain the different results. One cavity in it also cast nice bullets. Beautiful bullets you might even say. Nice uniform bullets that looked good and worked good. The other just baffled me to no end. It cast a wrinkled bullet on the nose on one side with the rest of the bullet beautifully well filled. Even under magnification I could find no logical explanation for this. I cleaned the mould several times with all sorts of things I had on hand and even used a mild lapping compound and all to no avail. I continued to do this no matter what. Even running the temperature way up and frosting the bullets made no difference. Changing alloy made no difference. It was always the same on each bullet. So again this double cavity mould became a single cavity. As a result of all this I made fewer bullets of it than I othewise would. They did shoot pretty good but weren't the best in my rifle by far. In Dennis Mincey's they apparently are the best or at least good enough he beat me in the buffalo match by a single target. Perhaps more load development would have proven the same in mine. Who knows.
So what do I conclude from his test? Well first off please don't take this as a condemnation of SAECO bullet moulds. It isn't. Just of the two I had. I know several other folks who use SAECO moulds with perfect satisfaction. These two just weren't right. I feel confident from previous dealings with Redding that if I had done as I should have and called this to their attention they would have made them right. But as I said I did not. I was running way behind and had too many irons in the fire and needed to finish up the testing of this rifle and get on with other projects. Just didn't take the time to give them a chance to make them right. The wait to get them was long as they had none in stock and I had to wait until some were made and figured I'd have to do so again. The decision was mine and would have been different if I had spent my money on them and owned them. If all tests were highly glowing reports of super products and complete satisfaction it wouldn't be real world and you'd likely never believe all of it anyway.
My apologies to Redding for not giving them a chance to make these bad moulds right for me. My assurances to the readers that I do not believe what happened with these two is typical of Redding-SAECO quality from previous experience and reports from others. But facts are facts and these were as reported.
Redding Reloading Equipment
1089 Starr Road
Cortland, NY 13045
Phone (607) 753-3331
FAX (607) 756-8445