David Wile
Member
Hey Kevin,
If you are suggesting that progressive reloading becomes more complex with each new generation of machine, I certainly am in full agreement with you. I would submit that "correcting mistakes" becomes more difficult with each step we take along the ever increasingly complex path of progressive reloading.
Different folks will draw their own personal lines of what they will accept in complexity at different places along the path progressive complexity. In the 1950s, I was very comfortable using a MEC Jr to reload shotshells. Then I bought a Pacific DL-300 or DL-350 that was a manual indexing progressive. It had been allowed to rust in place, so I had to completely disassemble it and replace some bearings, but when I was finished fixing it, I had a pretty good idea of how it worked. In spite of that fact, when I first started to try loading with it, it was very complex for me compared to my experience with the MEC Jr. Shot and powder both dropped when they were not supposed to drop, and it took a while to learn how to use the machine properly.
A few years later when I got a Pacific 366 with auto-indexing, it was another step along the evolutionary path of progressives, and it certainly was more complex. To this day, I cannot operate my 366 presses if there are any distractions. It takes my total concentration.
Comparing Dillon's 550 and 650 in complexity is somewhat similar to my Pacific DL-300 something and its successor 366. No doubt about it, they do more things, become more complex, and demand more attention by the operator.
On the metallic progressive press side of the house, I draw my line to include the Dillon 650 and Hornady L&L progressives. I like the auto indexing of both. I cannot, however, go for the auto case feeders and auto bullet feeders. I do not like the noise, and I find they are more distraction than I am willing to accept.
Other folks take the auto feeders in stride. They draw their lines further along the complexity path than I am either willing or able to do. So I know what you mean about the 550 being less complex than the 650, and I would not suggest you are in any way wrong in your assessment of different press complexity.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
If you are suggesting that progressive reloading becomes more complex with each new generation of machine, I certainly am in full agreement with you. I would submit that "correcting mistakes" becomes more difficult with each step we take along the ever increasingly complex path of progressive reloading.
Different folks will draw their own personal lines of what they will accept in complexity at different places along the path progressive complexity. In the 1950s, I was very comfortable using a MEC Jr to reload shotshells. Then I bought a Pacific DL-300 or DL-350 that was a manual indexing progressive. It had been allowed to rust in place, so I had to completely disassemble it and replace some bearings, but when I was finished fixing it, I had a pretty good idea of how it worked. In spite of that fact, when I first started to try loading with it, it was very complex for me compared to my experience with the MEC Jr. Shot and powder both dropped when they were not supposed to drop, and it took a while to learn how to use the machine properly.
A few years later when I got a Pacific 366 with auto-indexing, it was another step along the evolutionary path of progressives, and it certainly was more complex. To this day, I cannot operate my 366 presses if there are any distractions. It takes my total concentration.
Comparing Dillon's 550 and 650 in complexity is somewhat similar to my Pacific DL-300 something and its successor 366. No doubt about it, they do more things, become more complex, and demand more attention by the operator.
On the metallic progressive press side of the house, I draw my line to include the Dillon 650 and Hornady L&L progressives. I like the auto indexing of both. I cannot, however, go for the auto case feeders and auto bullet feeders. I do not like the noise, and I find they are more distraction than I am willing to accept.
Other folks take the auto feeders in stride. They draw their lines further along the complexity path than I am either willing or able to do. So I know what you mean about the 550 being less complex than the 650, and I would not suggest you are in any way wrong in your assessment of different press complexity.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
