FCD Swages Bullets? These pictures say otherwise.

[SingleActionAndrew]

9mm I believe is a unique case here where it's slightly tapered and IIRC the Lee ring is too

I also suspect if you had a handful of FCDs the results would vary. I don't have the specifics at hand but folks have posted here and other forums responses from Lee on what they consider acceptable tolerance/variation in their dies

I know one gentleman who makes 32s&w long match ammo and he mentioned buying a handful of Lee sizers to find just one that wasn't undersized

 

[LiveLife]

tried CBC ... No contact with Extreme ... with Berry’s .356” definitely made contact with carbide ring with slight rubbing of sharpie ink.

As we already knew, some brass is thicker than others. I didn’t recall one way or the other about CBC.

If you know or think of one that is thicker, let me know

From the myth busting thread, CBC averaged thickest case wall .200" below case mouth where brass is thicker and would bulge the most from bullet base to rub with FCD carbide ring - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...neck-tension-and-bullet-setback.830072/page-4

NOTE: What I found from the myth busting thread is case wall thickness wasn't always consistent around the case neck and inconsistency could result in finished round with oval/oblong shaped case neck (And plated bullets with softer lead core can "flattened" if dropped hard during shipping/handling) from tolerance stacking/brass spring back from work hardening based on number of firing/resizing to rub one side of chamber/FCD carbide ring. Here's measurements made at 12/3/6/9 O'clock positions around case neck .200" below case mouth - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nd-bullet-setback.830072/page-3#post-10713822

And 9mm bullet diameter can vary from .355" to .356" depending on brand/bullet weight - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...re-sized-the-same.818806/page-2#post-10567453

Average Case Wall Thickness .200" Below Case Mouth (Around Bullet Seating Depth for 115 gr FMJ/RN loaded to 1.130" OAL):

.0144" - CBC
.0138" - PPU
.0137" - GECO
.0135" - HRTRS
.0135" - Tulammo
.0133" - S+B
.0132" - WIN
.0131" - GFL
.0130" - AGUILA
.0130" - PERFECTA
.01225" Starline
.0122" - PMC
.0121" - R-P
.0115" - .FC.
.0111" - SPEER
.0110" - BLAZER

 

[CQB45ACP]

From the myth busting thread, CBC averaged thickest case wall .200" below case mouth where brass is thicker and would bulge the most from bullet base to rub with FCD carbide ring - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...neck-tension-and-bullet-setback.830072/page-4

NOTE: What I found from the myth busting thread is case wall thickness wasn't always consistent around the case neck and inconsistency could result in finished round with oval/oblong shaped case neck (And plated bullets with softer lead core can "flattened" if dropped hard during shipping/handling) from tolerance stacking/brass spring back from work hardening based on number of firing/resizing to rub one side of chamber/FCD carbide ring. Here's measurements made at 12/3/6/9 O'clock positions around case neck .200" below case mouth - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nd-bullet-setback.830072/page-3#post-10713822

And 9mm bullet diameter can vary from .355" to .356" depending on brand/bullet weight - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...re-sized-the-same.818806/page-2#post-10567453

Average Case Wall Thickness .200" Below Case Mouth (Around Bullet Seating Depth for 115 gr FMJ/RN loaded to 1.130" OAL):

.0144" - CBC
.0138" - PPU
.0137" - GECO
.0135" - HRTRS
.0135" - Tulammo
.0133" - S+B
.0132" - WIN
.0131" - GFL
.0130" - AGUILA
.0130" - PERFECTA
.01225" Starline
.0122" - PMC
.0121" - R-P
.0115" - .FC.
.0111" - SPEER
.0110" - BLAZER

That’s quite a spread between Blazer & CBC.

 

[CQB45ACP]

9mm I believe is a unique case here where it's slightly tapered and IIRC the Lee ring is too

I also suspect if you had a handful of FCDs the results would vary. I don't have the specifics at hand but folks have posted here and other forums responses from Lee on what they consider acceptable tolerance/variation in their dies

I know one gentleman who makes 32s&w long match ammo and he mentioned buying a handful of Lee sizers to find just one that wasn't undersized

Both of my 45acp FCDs measure the same. Shame I don’t even use them anymore. Haven’t a clue about my 9mm because I only have one. Don’t know what it’s supposed to measure either.

 

[CQB45ACP]

If the ID of the die and the OD of the bullets stay the same, case wall thickness is what has to change to swage a bullet down or not.

If my 9mm FCD is any indication (meaning if it’s the correct ID) then you’d have to have a bullet waay bigger than any I’ve ever used. Over .380” maybe? Can’t recall specifically.

 

[CQB45ACP]

I've never had any contact with jacketed. My 180 rcbs seats deep in a case and rubs with federal 357. Curious if the spec for the ring is the same fo 9mm and 38/357. If that's true I don't think you will get contact????

Yeah. I just don’t know.

 

[DM~]

They can swage bullets down, but don't always. It depends on a number of things.

You "draw" bullets down and "swage" them up.

DM

 

[Soonerpesek]

You "draw" bullets down and "swage" them up.

Like a board stretcher......??....................................how you make a bullet bigger.......?

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Not 9mm but FCD: I like to load .431” cast in the RSBH. The Stateline 255gr LSWC I use have a deep groove and the Lee FCD does the best job of keeping the crimp even. It “rubbed” at first with those bullets, any case, so I used an expanding reamer to open up the carbide ring 0.002” measured with pins. It works a lot better but I ended up buying another one for .44Spl and jacketed .44Mag.

Carbide doesn’t cut worth spit but it grinds beautifully. You kinda need to use a diamond plate on the reamer but they’re not that pricey. And they are handy.

 

[buck460XVR]

They can swage bullets down, but don't always. It depends on a number of things.

Yep, always so many variables.

I don’t see any measurements taken of the pre-FCD bullet or cartridge vs. post.

Yes, one is assuming the .356 bullets are actually .356.

Since the copper jacket will spring back, the lead core could still be swaged down and not be apparent by just looking at the pulled bullet. This is the biggest problem when you swage a plated bullet. The core is swagged down while the jacket expands back when the bullet is fired causing separation of the plating from the core.

 

[Varminterror]

This bullet has been push-through sized (“drawn,” although folks commonly misidentify the process as “swaging”) with direct contact pushing through the die. No visible “scratches” without a loupe - but I’m sizing these bullets down 1.5thou.

Comparatively, how in the world would the FCD leave “scratches” on the bullets? It’s not touching the bullets, it’s squishing the brass which squishes the bullets. Think about what you’re actually saying here - “I shoved a bullet into brass that didn’t scratch it, I used a die which touches only the brass, which doesn’t scratch the brass, and I used an inertial bullet puller to force the bullet to slide out of the case again which also didn’t scratch the bullet… look, no scratches!” What are we doing here?

Get out some steel shimstock, get out the mic. Otherwise, this isn’t a test.

 

[CQB45ACP]

View attachment 1189351

This bullet has been push-through sized (“drawn,” although folks commonly misidentify the process as “swaging”) with direct contact pushing through the die. No visible “scratches” without a loupe - but I’m sizing these bullets down 1.5thou.

Comparatively, how in the world would the FCD leave “scratches” on the bullets? It’s not touching the bullets, it’s squishing the brass which squishes the bullets. Think about what you’re actually saying here - “I shoved a bullet into brass that didn’t scratch it, I used a die which touches only the brass, which doesn’t scratch the brass, and I used an inertial bullet puller to force the bullet to slide out of the case again which also didn’t scratch the bullet… look, no scratches!” What are we doing here?

Get out some steel shimstock, get out the mic. Otherwise, this isn’t a test.

Sure it’s a test. To see what you’d say

You’re inferring a lot from my comments that I didn’t say. Don’t waste your time here is what I suggest.

 

[Varminterror]

On neither is there any evidence of squeezing, scratching, and certainly not swaging.

I guess folks forget what they write as they get older.

Of note, which should be obvious - a cartridge gauge doesn't tell you if the bullet has been drawn smaller, it only suggests that a bullet and resulting cartridge is oversized for the gauge chamber.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Sure it’s a test. To see what you’d say

You’re inferring a lot from my comments that I didn’t say. Don’t waste your time here is what I suggest.

I have no idea what’s so hard to understand about, “X is not happening; as was predicted.”

I have a few calibers now with modified FCD’s customized for my guns and components. It’s just a matter of grinding the ID of a carbide ring or recutting a piece of 4000-series stainless. Not exactly rocket science. Although at one time I did make rocket parts so maybe it’s just me who doesn’t think it’s hard.

I buy tools and if I want something else I make it for myself. Pretty simple.

 

[CQB45ACP]

I guess folks forget what they write as they get older.

Of note, which should be obvious - a cartridge gauge doesn't tell you if the bullet has been drawn smaller, it only suggests that a bullet and resulting cartridge is oversized for the gauge chamber.

Guess some folks don’t understand what they read—it was a list of three separate things:

No squeezing
No scratching and
No swaging

Now if you want to spend your considerable expertise parsing my words well that’s up to you.

 

[Varminterror]

Guess some folks don’t understand what they read—it was a list of three things:

No squeezing
No scratching and
No swaging

Now if you want to spend your considerable expertise parsing my words well that’s up to you.

My point is rather - why would you expect to see scratching? The tools don't cause scratches, that shouldn't be surprising. Do you have scratches and galling down the sides of all of your brass from your sizing dies (hint, the sizing die is reducing the diameter of your brass in the same way we swage/draw bullets to smaller diameters)? And further, why would you expect the bullet, shielded from contact with the die by the brass, to exhibit any kind of witness mark? It's like you spray painted your boot, took your boot off and said - look, there's no paint on my foot!

You really don't have evidence of "no squeezing" nor any of "no swaging," as I pointed out originally.

The FCD can deform bullets, and they do for many reloaders.

Largely, this "test" looks poorly designed at best - as the criteria applied to support the implied hypothesis (that if the die WERE swaging bullets, you'd see squeezing, scratching, or swaging), because one of the 3 isn't even observed when intentionally swaging bullets, and the test itself didn't include any measurement to disprove the other two... Otherwise, I'm kinda sitting back and wondering the same thing as @Walkalong

Is there a purpose to this thread? Just curious.

 

[Varminterror]

I have no idea what’s so hard to understand about, “X is not happening; as was predicted.”

What is the actual evidence in this "test" which shows any support to that hypothesis?

It shouldn't be so hard to understand - no measurements were taken to prove the bullets weren't swaged, not hard to understand that the die squeezing the case and the case squeezing the bullet would preclude scratches by the die onto the bullet, and also not hard to understand that visible scratching doesn't happen even when we DO purposefully swage bullets... So there's no visible evidence here to support "X is not happening; as was predicted."

 

[Soonerpesek]

My point is rather - why would you expect to see scratching?

My guess would be that he is talking about the Sharpie marks he put on the cases weren’t scratched when they went thru the die…..
But my reading comprehension is obviously different than yours…..

 

[mdi]

The only bullets I have heard or experienced being swaged down by an FCD is cast bullets. Normally cast bullets are a bit larger in diameter than jacketed or plated thus diameter reduction. I have experienced cast bullet swaging by FCDs (44 cal. 357 cal. and 9mm), but no jacketed or plated. If my cast bullets were sized to the same diameter as jacketed or plated, there was no swaging....

 

[CQB45ACP]

Yep, always so many variables.

Yes, one is assuming the .356 bullets are actually .356.

Since the copper jacket will spring back, the lead core could still be swaged down and not be apparent by just looking at the pulled bullet. This is the biggest problem when you swage a plated bullet. The core is swagged down while the jacket expands back when the bullet is fired causing separation of the plating from the core.

Thanks

So take a look at these—if you can see from picture there is a crease/indentation/mark around the bullet circumference where the case mouth was.

I was expecting to see something of the kind HAD I swaged the 9mm bullets. Or something else, but I would not expect to see nothing.

Would measuring show any changes if surface plating was apparently unchanged?

 

[DM~]

Like a board stretcher......??....................................how you make a bullet bigger.......?

How? By using a "swage" die and forcing the bullet up to a larger diameter.

DM

 

[Soonerpesek]

How? By using a "swage" die and forcing the bullet up to a larger diameter.

DM

Good enough answer for me….

 

[DM~]

Good enough answer for me….

Cool, I'm here to help-ya...

DM

 

[Soonerpesek]

How? By using a "swage" die and forcing the bullet up to a larger diameter.

DM

That doesn’t alter the ogive or metplat…?

 

[styles]

Like you, just curious and thought others may be.

I remember when I used to argue with Walkalong about the FCD …