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]
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]
Last edited: