Redding Competition Shellholder sets - you may be in for a shock!! (No you won't!!)

[MCMXI]

DISREGARD 99.9% of this post. I've left it here (rather than delete it) in the spirit of full disclosure. All erroneous data in table form has been deleted so as not to stain Redding's excellent reputation.

First off, I'm a big fan of Redding and their products. I have numerous Redding reloading "stuff" and they're always my first choice. However, last year I bought three Redding Competition Shellholder sets ... #1, #6 and #10 to better control shoulder set back when using Redding body dies. I was a little confused by some .308 shoulder set back measurements using the #1 set so I grabbed my caliper and measured all five shellholders. [strike]The measurements were all over the place.[/strike] At this years SHOT show I spoke to one of the Redding reps and told him that [strike]the #1 shellholders were way off i.e. not even close to 0.002" increments as advertised.[/strike] He suggested using an Instant Indicator Case Comparator to measure each set. I did this last night (many times to be sure) for all three sets using IICCs for .223 Rem, .308 Win and .300 Win Mag. [strike]Here are the shockingly bad results:[/strike]

In case you're wondering why the #10 set has two 0.006 shellholders it's because the set came with two!! It was missing the 0.004 shellholder so Redding sent me the 0.004 to complete the set and they didn't want one of the 0.006 shellholders back. Anyway, the idea with the competition shellholder sets is that you "zero" the press with the 0.010 shellholder and resize the case using a FL die or body die. You then check the headspacing and compare it to your rifle's chamber. If the case just chambers i.e. very little headspace, you can stop there if you so desire. If it doesn't chamber, you then use the 0.008 shellholder to bump the shoulder back 0.002" compared to the 0.010 shellholder. In theory, you can bump the shoulder back as much as 0.008" from "zero" using the 0.008, 0.006, 0.004 and 0.002 shellholders.

I sent an email to Redding this morning along with the measurements [strike]asking them how they managed to achieve such horrendous tolerances. I guess they're a victim of their own success and the economy i.e. do more with less!![/strike]

 

[Fatelvis]

Did you actually measure the shellholders, to see if they are cut in .002" graduations? If they are correct, that is all Redding can be expected to provide. I just measured my #1 set, and they're right on the money. Your brass measurements may be altered by brass springback after sizing, or something other than the shellholder dimensions.

 

[MCMXI]

Did you actually measure the shellholders, to see if they are cut in .002" graduations? If they are correct, that is all Redding can be expected to provide. I just measured my #1 set, and they're right on the money. Your brass measurements may be altered by brass springback after sizing, or something other than the shellholder dimentions.

As stated in my post, I used Redding Instant Indicator Case Comparators to measure the thickness of each shellholder from each set.

How did you measure your shellholders? If your #1 set is "right on the money" then at least that gives me hope that Redding can actually produce sets as advertised.

 

[rcmodel]

I think the point Fatelvis was trying to make was, did you measure the shell holders with a mic or dial caliper?
Or measure the brass produced by the shell holders with the case comparator?

The brass is a variable, and one work hardened more then another will spring back more and produce a different reading then a soft annealed case.

If you only measured the cases themselves with the comparator, it has no bearing on how accurately the shell holders were machined.

rc

 

[MCMXI]

did you measure the shell holders with a mic or dial caliper?
Or measure the brass produced by the shell holders with the case comparator?

Neither actually. I used the brass SAAMI standard that comes with every Instant Indicator Case Comparator. I installed the 0.010 shellholder on the ram, inserted the SAAMI standard and zeroed the dial indicator. I then removed the SAAMI standard 0.010 shellholder and installed the 0.008 shellholder, reinserted the SAAMI standard and read the difference on the dial. I did this numerous times. According to the Redding rep, the IICC is the most accurate method to use and I agree.

If you only measured the cases themselves with the comparator, it has no bearing on how accurately the shell holders were machined.

I didn't measure any sized brass since as you mention, it wouldn't be an accurate method of determining shellholder thickness. I'm going to measure all the shellholders again with my caliper as a comparison.

 

[MCMXI]

Erroneous data removed so as not to stain Redding's excellent reputation.

Here are the shellholder thickness measurements taken with a caliper. The .223 shellholders are more difficult to measure accurately due to the lack of clearance around the hole in the center. [strike]The results still show an horrendous QC process both in terms of manufacturing and inspection.[/strike] I still like Redding products though [strike]and I'm sure that Redding will fix this problem for me.[/strike]

 

[243winxb]

I installed the 0.010 shellholder on the ram,

Measure this way, see what you get. Or a depth micrometer as said below.

 

[ants]

I'm in for a shock?

No, I'm simply unconvinced by your post.
Your methodology doesn't convince me that Redding needs to take a beating yet.
And maybe they do need to take a beating, but your evidence just doesn't convince me yet.

I'm completely open to more exact and methodical measurement, but not using an Instant Indicator Case Comparator (which wasn't made for the purpose, despite what the guy at the booth said). I also don't use calipers for anything that needs to be as exact as this job requires.

 

[Runningman]

Redding reps are not machinists. Forget what that guy told you. The better way is to measure the step in the shell holder. Is with a "good" depth micrometer.

 

[MCMXI]

243winxb, thanks for setting me straight. I did as you suggested and measured the #1 set as shown in your photo.

0.010 > 0.136"
0.008 > 0.134"
0.006 > 0.132"
0.004 > 0.130"
0.002 > 0.128"
RCBS #3 > 0.125"

I then put the #10 shellholder back on the ram and ran the ram up to the top. I then threaded the IICC down to make "firm" contact with the shellholder and zeroed the dial indicator. I then measured the 0.008, 0.006, 0.004, 0.002 and RCBS #3 shellholders.

0.010 > 0.000"
0.008 > 0.0025"
0.006 > 0.0045"
0.004 > 0.006"
0.002 > 0.008"
RCBS #3 > 0.011"

So to anyone that bothered to read this thread ... I can only offer my sincere apologies for the erroneous information. I completely failed to understand that the top surface of the shellholder is the reference surface and it shouldn't change for each shellholder.

No, I'm simply unconvinced by your post.
Your methodology doesn't convince me that Redding needs to take a beating yet.
And maybe they do need to take a beating, but your evidence just doesn't convince me yet.

The methodology is sound but the operator needs to take a beating. Using an IICC is a good method (I still believe that) but I didn't have the 0.010 shellholder making firm contact with the body of the IICC die.

Again, my sincere apologies to anyone mislead by this thread. I will contact Redding and offer to pay full MSRP on all of their products for the next year!!

 

[Hondo 60]

1858

That was very big of you to admit your mistake.
Thank you very much for not allowing erroneous data to confuse us.

 

[MCMXI]

Yurko, we all screw up from time to time ... the important thing is owning up to it and learning from it. I certainly learned from this fiasco. Thanks very much for your post though ... I appreciate the effort.

 

[ants]

It's excellent that you set the record straight, 1858. Good job.

Well, full MSRP is kinda going too far, don't ya think? You set it straight. That's good enough.

 

[kelbro]

Doggone it. 15 minutes of my life gone! I read this post earlier today, came home and measured my two sets. They were all in spec. Wish I would have read this first...

 

[MCMXI]

ants, thanks for being so understanding ... I feel bad enough about my screw up that hate mail would be like kicking a man when he's down.

kelbro, my apologies ... but if there's a silver lining to be found, now you KNOW that they're in spec rather than believing them to be. It's not much of a consolation but it's the best I can do at present. I'll try to redeem myself with some helpful and accurate data in the future.

On second thoughts, I do have four new, unused Redding Competition Shellholder boxes that I bought last year by mistake. If anyone here would like one in which to store their Redding or other shellholders, PM me with your address and I'll send one out to you at no charge. Seems like the least I can do.