How do the Armanov Free Float Lock Rings for Dillon Toolheads work?

I am intrigued by the Armanov Free Float Lock Rings for Dillon Toolheads, but I cannot figure out how they work from the online descriptions.

I THINK I understand the basic concept, but not the actual execution and installation.

I THINK Dillon builds their presses with a bit of play in the toolhead to frame interface, so that the toolhead can actually move a little, both horizontally and vertically, to help "align" cases or bullets that vary a bit. For example, I've measured on my own XL750 and have detemined that I can get a .0015" feel gage between the toolhead and the frame. The dies in the Dillon toolhead are each tightly fixed to the toolhead. This means that if one case pulls the toolhead slightly in one direction, or tilts the toolhead slightly, ALL the dies are pulled or tilted the same amount. I THINK.

It SOUNDS like the Armanov concept is to do 2 different things:

1. Make toolhead to frame interface much tighter, and pull the toolhead up against the top of the frame to eliminate ALL clearance by using bolts versus pins and threading the Armanov toolhead to accept those bolts

AND

2. Mount each die, or at least the sizing die and the bullet seating die, firmly to special lockrings that get pinned to the toolhead to prohibit each die from threading itself upward, but allow each die to move to the extent that the clearances in the standard die thread allow. This supposedly enables EACH die to handle small variations in case and bullet location INDEPENDENTLY of the other dies. Armanov apparently considers that only the sizing die and bullet seating die really need this "limited independence", but the powder & belling die and the crimping die do not.

IF I have these concepts right, and I'm not sure I do, then how do you actually install these Free Float Lock Rings, and how do you know when they are set up "correctly"??

And, Armanov claims that this approach can reduce COAL variation and axial misalignment enough to make a notable difference. Have any of you tested / used these Free Float Lock Rings, and do you agree that they are beneficial?

I'm asking because the threaded toolheads with their small diameter bolts. and the Free Float Lock Rings, are not very costly, so if they do improve consistency, I am interested.

Jim G

I sent an email to Armanov, and got this reply:

"
Hello James,

with Armanov toolhead it's inverse logic, having the toolhead fixed and individual dies slightly loose. In any case you want to have some room for movement to make up for small alignment inaccuracies. So you can use it without floating lock-rings, but it doesn't make much sense. You need floating rings on all dies which resize/shape the case.

Floating rings allow for small amount of movement in all directions however they can (and should) be locked in place with integrated clamping screw. That allows for slight space in "horizontal" movement, but virtually zero in vertical when dies are properly set. It may sound complicated, but it works perfectly.

If you have any additional question, please let me know.

Best regards,
Tomaž"


I emailed back asking:

"Thank-you for the explanation, Tomaz! After die height is set, and the Dillon press platform is raised to ensure proper case alignment, how TIGHT to the toolhead should the floating lock ring be turned? Should it just touch the toolhead and be secured, or leave a slight gap or ?"

Jim G

jmorris said:

Pull the two pins out of the ready to go tool head and set that on a scale. That will be the total force to push the tool head to the top of the casting.

. . .

I would be skeptical of claims like that. Rifle bullet seaters don’t contact the tip of the bullet, any improvement would be base to ogive variation.

Edit: I looked them up, looks like they are using the same idea. Except for whatever reason decided to fix the tool head and float the dies..?

. . .

.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean by "Pull the two pins out of the ready to go tool head and set that on a scale. That will be the total force to push the tool head to the top of the casting."

As I see it, the force pushing the Armanov toolhead upward against the Dillon frame is the torque you apply to the 2 BOLTS that Armanov provides to "suck" the toolhead upward firmly against the frame, to fix the toolhead against any movement by the toolhead,

You are right that I did not use the right expression when I said COAL is more consistent. That is still technically true, as the COAL variation will now be based mostly on the variation in bullet TIP length rather than tip variation pLUS Bullet-to-ogive variation. But the variation in BTO will apparently be significantly reduced as will axial misalignment. The improvement in BTO consistency is the big story of course, if it actually materializes, as it is the BTO that sets the "jump", since the bullet contacts the rifling when the ogive ends and the shank begins.

BOTH the Aranov and Whidden solutions appear to be based on the notion that it is better to FIX the toolhead and FLOAT the dies, rather than float the toolhead, I think I would agree with them that this is superior, since it allows EACH die to INDIVIDUALLY move a bit to align with the case or case+bullet, rather than forcing ALL the dies to move to wherever the strongest misalignment force is pushing the entire toolhead.

Th ebiggest difference I see between the Armanov and Whiiden solutions is that Whidden depends solely upon closer machining of clearances to secure the toolhead, but the effectiveness of that is limited by the fact that tolerances must still exist in order to get the toolhead in and out of the toolhead when changing calibers. The Armanov solution instead makes the toolhead clearances tight also BUT takes out ALL the potential toolhead play by BOLTING the toolhead to the frame, by simply threading the toolhead mounting holes and substituting BOLTS for pins.

Also, both solutions prevent each floating die from "unscrewing" because of the upward force applied to it when the shellplate is up. But the Whidden solution apparently uses roll pins to secure the floating lock rings against rotation, while the Armanov solution is a little more elegant by using bolts to secure the lock rings against rotation.

Jim G

jmorris said:

The only thing keeping the tool head at the bottom of the slot is it’s own weight. If the entire thing weighs 18 oz, 18.1 oz of force pushing up on it from the bottom will have it flat against the top of the frame.

Click to expand...

IF none of the cases in any of the stations cause it to tilt first. Or iF none of the statons are empty enabling tilt.

Jim G

jmorris said:

I think your assumption is that application of force upward, on only one die, won’t push the entire tool head to the top of the casting. I suppose if you had less neck tension than what the tool head weighs and are not sizing a case in another station or using the powder die, that would be the case.

Take an indicator and fasten the base to the press frame itself and touch the indicator off on the tool head. Kind of like this one, in place to measure frame stretch but on the tool head itself.

View attachment 981920

You will be able to see how much it moves at various points and see if it’s repeatable.

While you have that out, you can rig up a jig that will let you measure runout every step of the way from fired brass, sized brass to loaded round.

View attachment 981924

That will enable you to know a lot more about cause/effect relationship between the changes you make.

Click to expand...

This is good content, jmorris! I don't currently own a dial indicator, but will look around for a decent one. I had not thought of that nice easy way you showed in your posting to measure the movement of the toolplate, and also that "jig" setup for measuring runout. You've given me some good homework!

Jim G

jmorris: Digital indicator and magnetic base ordered. I am really glad you suggested this. I can see multiple uses.

Jim G

jmorris said:

Go off something like the case feed post, or other frame mounted accessory if you go off the bench, you’ll just be measuring how much it flexes.

You can measure to the casting beside the tool head to check before you move it over to the tool head.

Click to expand...

Got it. Will do.

Jim G

I asked for and received more detailed instructions from Armanov:

"
first unscrew ring to set the die height. Then hand tighten the ring just enough it touches the toolhead. Then slightly unscrew the ring until the vertical bolt aligns with the hole in the toolhead and tighten it. This vertical bolt is there to ensure ring moves slightly, but not unscrew.
"

Jim G

GW Staar said:

. . .

I'm wondering if it makes a difference whether the plates are held again the top of the frame or the bottom? What say you? Obviously RCBS did not address the other issue of floating the dies.....but at least it appears to have cured the problem of tilt a caused by empty stations, that many older presses had. Thoughts? Is holding them topside superior to holding them to the bottom? Or is it just whichever "floats your boat".

View attachment 982074

Click to expand...

On the Dillon press, it is far easier to force the toolhead to snug against the TOP of its perimeter slot in the Dillon frame. You can do this by NOT altering the press itself in any way, just by placing helicoil inserts into the TOOLHEAD, replacing the Dillon pins with tiny Grade 8 bolts, and bolting the toolhead in that way. Easy access to the bolts from the top of the frame, making changing the toolhead to slide in a different caliber an easy operation. The Aramov toolheads, pre-threaded, are cheap, as are the floating lock rings, and Amarov provides the bolts for mounti ng the toolhead and the BOLTS (not roll pins) to secure the lock rings against rotating.

Jim G