Mine doesn't need shims either, and shims won't stop press flex on the outer edge of the shell plate when sizing. It is simple physics. Taking operations off the press is a personal preference that has nothing to do with the press.
New Auto Breech Lock Pro
- Thread starter Rule3
- Start date
- Status
That's OK with me, and you're not alone.
GW Staar
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,736
Meh, you were riding shotgun.
Only here can you enjoy such without the mod getting his drawers in a tizzy.........that's a compliment.
RealGun
Member
What part or area is it that you think is moving during sizing, I don't see the thick castings as flexing. You can dismiss me if you must, but I remain skeptical of this flexing thing..
LiveLife
Member
Make sure your shellplate is mounted tight and seat some 9mm rounds while resizing brass. Note the OAL variance and repeat with pre-resized brass.
If the OAL variance decreases, you got your answer.
Toprudder
Member
When I first started loading 45acp and was trying different powders/bullets, I kept a large container full of sized/primed/flared cases ready to go. It allowed me to drop powder in them straight from my Chargemaster and go straight to seating/crimping on my Dillon. Made working up new loads a lot quicker.
I am not the only one who has measured the differences with and without and come up with the same conclusion. Leaving sizing out of the equation on my progressive reduces OAL spread.
Plus the fact that since the hardest resistance of the loading is not going on the other things like expanding, seating, and crimping when applicable, makes it easier to feel something "different" that may need attention. That alone is worth it, and I also like to prime off the press, so now I have sized/primed brass that is ready to load.
That means for rifle loading, unless I crimp, which is seldom, all I feel is the bullet being seated, which makes it very easy to feel when one isn't quite right.
I have absolutely no issue with anyone loading any way they wish. Some will make a 500 round run on their single stage and love every minute of it. I moved to a progressive because I wasn't one of those. I backed off on how I use it to please me, and me only.
Follow bds's advise and do some measuring.
RealGun
Member
RealGun
Member
Wondered if there was another cartridge setup I could use for a valid test, understanding that 9mm cases are tapered and maybe tough little buggers. The question is still open though about what it is that is "flexing", i.e. a possible fix or reduction of the phenomenon, allowing less concern about sizing on the press and taking full advantage of the progressive capabilities..
Dunno, but no way you will completely stop a shell plate that is bolted on from flexing a hair. .005 isn't much. I can flex my RCBS trimmer more than that if I am careless. The Forster is stiffer, and the Wilson is the best. I have to be careful about putting sideways force on the RCBS trimmer handle, but not with the Forster or Wilson.
LiveLife
Member
+1
As Walkalong posted, no. The OAL variance comes from different amount of force required to fully resize the brass. Let's say if average 9mm brass requires about 40 ft. lb. of force to resize but average 45ACP brass requires 30 ft. lb of force to resize, then as long as the average force applied on the shell plate is more consistent, you will have less OAL variance.
On a recent myth busting thread, we determined different headstamp brass not only has different case wall thickness but varying quality of brass as some thinner brass like Starline/WIN did not experience bullet setback when other thicker brass did - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nd-bullet-setback.830072/page-3#post-10715550
These factors along with how overly expanded the case is (have you tried resizing 9mm Major brass?) add to different amount of force applied to the shell plate.
So it's the TOTAL range of force variance that determines amount of shellplate tilt/deflection which adds to the normal OAL variance from bullet nose profile difference, bullet nose deformation (for lead/coated lead/plated bullets), etc.
And adding to all of these is the bullet tilt factor during seating.
If OAL variance decreases when you use pre-resized brass in progressive press, then you have to agree regarding shellplate tilt/deflection factor.
Last edited:
GW Staar
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,736
At the risk of being annoying, by going back to the new Lee Press......since the shell holder for the .45ACP is identical to 08 and 06 based rifle cartridges, and the bushings on top of the press don't care whether they have rifle or pistol dies threaded in......it will be interesting to see whether Lee give its blessing to load some of those bigger rifle cartridges in it. IOWs is the press strong enough? Hope so.
RealGun
Member
+1
As Walkalong posted, no. The OAL variance comes from different amount of force required to fully resize the brass. Let's say if average 9mm brass requires about 40 ft. lb. of force to resize but average 45ACP brass requires 30 ft. lb of force to resize, then as long as the average force applied on the shell plate is more consistent, you will have less OAL variance.
On a recent myth busting thread, we determined different headstamp brass not only has different case wall thickness but varying quality of brass as some thinner brass like Starline/WIN did not experience bullet setback when other thicker brass did - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nd-bullet-setback.830072/page-3#post-10715550
These factors along with how overly expanded the case is (have you tried resizing 9mm Major brass?) add to different amount of force applied to the shell plate.
So it's the TOTAL range of force variance that determines amount of shellplate tilt/deflection which adds to the normal OAL variance from bullet nose profile difference, bullet nose deformation (for lead/coated lead/plated bullets), etc.
And adding to all of these is the bullet tilt factor during seating.
If OAL variance decreases when you use pre-resized brass in progressive press, then you have to agree regarding shellplate tilt/deflection factor.
Okay, but you just enumerated other factors that could cause the variance.
I notice that the two bearings underneath the Hornady shell plate are asymmetrical in placement., which I would think to cause sizing to have varying support as the plate indexes, putting all the stress directly on leveraging the arbor. I would still like to understand what it is that is flexing, doubting that it is the shell plate itself.
RealGun
Member
Like yours, I think all the discussion is about legitimate concerns re a new design.
LiveLife
Member
It's a simple test.
Load some rounds while resizing and measure OAL variance.
Load some rounds with pre-resized brass and measure OAL variance.
If your OAL variance is less with pre-resized brass, then there's your answer.
That's it.
Try it.
RealGun
Member
Sorry to argue, but you explained reasons other than "flexing" per se for the variances. I can do the test without proving anything regarding why there were variances. I can only create a testimony for presizing. Little in there suggests how one press (or this new one)is better than another about COL variances when progressively resizing
LiveLife
Member
But over time, over multiple headstamp cases, factoring other reloading variables, IF the AVERAGE OAL variance decreases when pre-resized brass is used, you would need to consider shellplate tilt/deflection as the contributing factor.
Only one way to find out.
Try it and load several hundred rounds with and without pre-resized brass.
Then come back and tell us what you found.
Did I also mention equipment wear?
Only one way to find out.
Try it and load several hundred rounds with and without pre-resized brass.
Then come back and tell us what you found.
Did I also mention equipment wear?
GW Staar
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,736
There is some flexing in all the progressive designs I've seen, including my RCBS Pro 2000. Some flex occurs in presses with die plates (the new RCBS line fixes that with hold down screws). Yet most flex occurs in the shellplate (mine included) I remember my press had a way to stop the flex (undocumented feature) and I wrote and told an RCBS engineer I've been email-aquainted with......his reaction was "what a great idea" and then I never saw or heard anything about it since. They probably told him, we don't care...that design is going out the window anyway....
I don't know whether the new brow-beaten Pro Chucker line is any better....it has its own (other) problems they are working on. I do know the shell plate alignment can be made perfect.
I know nothing about Dillon's 1050 line, or any flex in it.
The Hornady with its LnL in the head is pretty sturdy, but then horizontal alignment flex (a plus IMO) is non-existent too.....and their shellplate flex is vertical....no help there. The bottom line IMO is that we need some new ideas....and with each introduction of a new progressive......we can hope for one or two...and Richard Lee is a pretty smart guy.
Where most companies have over designed presses, Lee has traditionally (for the most part) designed on the edge of good enough, to keep the price in reach of the masses. That probably means he puts up with a little more flex than other designs, and yet....he has to design smarter to make lite good enough....again we will see.
I don't know whether the new brow-beaten Pro Chucker line is any better....it has its own (other) problems they are working on. I do know the shell plate alignment can be made perfect.
I know nothing about Dillon's 1050 line, or any flex in it.
The Hornady with its LnL in the head is pretty sturdy, but then horizontal alignment flex (a plus IMO) is non-existent too.....and their shellplate flex is vertical....no help there. The bottom line IMO is that we need some new ideas....and with each introduction of a new progressive......we can hope for one or two...and Richard Lee is a pretty smart guy.
Where most companies have over designed presses, Lee has traditionally (for the most part) designed on the edge of good enough, to keep the price in reach of the masses. That probably means he puts up with a little more flex than other designs, and yet....he has to design smarter to make lite good enough....again we will see.
Last edited:
RealGun
Member
I will favor a solid press with high hopes for this new one, possibly finding a role between my Turret and my LnL AP, but wonder how much COL variance should even be a concern and on what type of ammo. I am not at all inclined to take operations off my press and the full progression of operations. I understand the differences in my 223, but none of my handgun cartridges are all that demanding.
Call it whatever you wish. Loading without sizing tightens up the OAL spread. What would you like to call it besides "flex" in the system?
RealGun
Member
It could be galling to some extent, suggesting cases would be better off if lubed, carbide die or not. Flexing is pretty specific as to cause, when the real reasons have not really been determined or are too varied in possibility. I hadn't intended to get into semantics but did doubt that something was actually bending (flexing). I can visualize how enough force could squeeze out a variable amount of tolerance stack, even if we make sure every fitting is snugged down.
LiveLife
Member
So what would cause decrease in OAL variance when using pre-resized brass?
santacruzdave
Member
I'm trying to follow this discussion in regard to the varying COL created by progressive presses, so please forgive my lack of experience; I'm relatively new to reloading and have no experience with a progressive press.
Here's my understanding: There is speculation that the placement of the ram on the new Lee "progressive" press will reduce the variance in the over all length of a loaded round. By placing the ram directly (or very close to it) under the sizing die the tendency for the shell plate to flex under load is reduced or possibly eliminated. The flexing (tilt) of the shell plate affects the relative length of a cartridge going into the bullet seating die, thereby creating a variance in the depth to which the bullet is seated. So for a low load (on the resizing die) case the shell plate would not tilt much and for a high load case the plate would tilt more thereby creating different seating depths. Is that right? I currently load rifle on a Co-Ax and pistol on a Lee Classic Turret Press. Corrections in my thinking are solicited. Thanks!
Here's my understanding: There is speculation that the placement of the ram on the new Lee "progressive" press will reduce the variance in the over all length of a loaded round. By placing the ram directly (or very close to it) under the sizing die the tendency for the shell plate to flex under load is reduced or possibly eliminated. The flexing (tilt) of the shell plate affects the relative length of a cartridge going into the bullet seating die, thereby creating a variance in the depth to which the bullet is seated. So for a low load (on the resizing die) case the shell plate would not tilt much and for a high load case the plate would tilt more thereby creating different seating depths. Is that right? I currently load rifle on a Co-Ax and pistol on a Lee Classic Turret Press. Corrections in my thinking are solicited. Thanks!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
