H&G 68 or Truncated Cone?

[gkitch]

Well, its time to order some bullets and load up a few ammo boxes of general purpose 45 ACP. In the past I've used the Hennsley & Gibbs #68 with good success and prefer a 200 grain bullet. Checking the websites of the bullet companies, the 225 TC is another possibility and I am wondering if anybody has made the switch to this bullet? Better? Worse? Reliability? Accuracy? Other suggestions?

THANKS!

[Grumpa72]

... In the past I've used the Hennsley & Gibbs #68 with good success and prefer a 200 grain bullet. ...

THANKS!

If it ain't broke, don't fix it? If you like the way the H&G 68 works, shoots and loads, why change? just curious.

Grumpa72

[gkitch]

Sometimes new things work better. Sometimes they work the same and sometimes worse. I plan to load up a few thousand 45ACP, lock them in ammo cans and use them for a few years to come.
What was once LE State-of-the art in holsters, guns, and ammo in 1925, for instance, would leave a modern police officer at a modern day disadvantage. His Colt 38 revolver in a snatch-inviting and slow-to-draw swivel holster, with roundnose lead bullets arranged in belt loops? There IS such a thing as progress.
The H&G 68 has been around a while and may or may not be the way to go currently. I'm interested in other perspectives.

[smkummer]

I purchased the newer Lyman 200 SWC mold (452630) thinking newer is improved but it appears its more of a combat bullet that needs more powder to get the same pressure as the H&G 68 design. The suggested starting loads are at least .5 grains more powder. So while it would be good for a lighter bullet and still making major power factor, that really isn't what I want now for range plinking out of my Gold Cup as I would prefer to load a starting load with the H&G 68 at 700 FPS.