reloading presses

[mmmooretx]

Just as a comment I currently have the RCBS Ammomaster single stage that I use for my 300WM hand loads. However I also have used the Dillon 650, a friends, for my 9mm. I bought a full set up so I put my setup on his press and after an hour and a half both of us had enough ammo for a month. I never had any issues with the system and will buy one for my 40 S&W HK and yes I think it is worth the money. Also in all fairness almost any press will work but good dies are very important. I do shoot a lot more ammo in my pistol and am not as worried over precise loads as my long distance loads for my rifle. For me the bottom line is work your wallet so you don't hurt yourself and enjoy the hobby. Ford or Chevy will get you to work.....

 

[ranger335v]

A few guys answer the question from the OP's point of view. Others answer from their own point of view, and while true for them they are often off the mark for what was asked. Come on guys, think from the first man's perspective and what HE needs! NO one should have to start learning to reload from scratch with a progressive, of any brand.

A good single stage will be best to learn on and best for later too IF the user is dedicated to accuracy. Or, IF he's dedicated to "spray and pray" shooting, a progressive really may be the better solution in spite of it's difficulties to use and for learning load development. But, no matter what tools he might add in the future, and IF he gets bit like the rest of us, he will still have plenty of uses for a single stage. For the volume he mentions, a Lee Classic Cast with it's option of being used as a single stage OR as an auto-index turret would be ideal for him, as others have suggested.

Redding's Ultramag, Forster's Co-Ax and even RCB' Rock Chuckers are over vast overkill for strength with no advantage to the user for loading pistol and .223, or even .30-06 and other cartridges in that range. Getting any of those presses offers the man nothing except bragging rights about how much he spent!

I have a 20 year old RC II. It is okay, if users don't mind spent primers all over the floor. But the RC is no better press than the others in it's class; Hornady LnL, Lyman Crusher, Redding Big Boss, Lee's Classic Cast. In fact, if I had to replace my RC tomorrow I'd get the Classic Cast; it's bigger, stronger, more user options, cast steel instead of iron, made in the USA and still costs MUCH less than a new RC. What's not to like?

Conventional turrets - Lyman, Redding, etc - vs. either a single stage or progressive press, generally offer the worst of both worlds with few, if any, of the advantages of either. And "quick change" die inserts of any kind are slick but pointless gimmicks too. The few seconds of time involved in swapping dies normally is miniscule so cutting it 90% really means nothing in a typical reloading session.

I believer the OP would do himself a favor by getting a Lee Auto Prime tool and the complete set of shell holders for it. Priming will be easier, quite a bit faster and, I believe, safer.

 

[BigJakeJ1s]

Ranger,

You might think a co-ax or utlramag is not worth the extra cost, but to make a blanket statement that no machine more expensive than a Lee Classic Cast (a very good press itself) offers any advantage other than bragging rights over money spent, is simply not true. Just because there are some more expensive presses that are not even as good as the LCC (like the RC, IMHO), does not mean that better presses cannot be had for more $$.

For example, no other reloading press besides the Forster co-ax offers a floating die retention system that is also so quick and easy to snap dies in and out (the Hornady LNL bushing system comes close). No other press offers a spent primer/debris handling system that keeps the debris far away from the press bearings. No other press offers a ram/linkage system that ensures a straight, vertical path into and out of the die, taking lateral play out of the system to the same side for the entire length of the stroke. No other press offers automatic, floating shell holder jaws compatible with a wide variety of cartridges without swapping them out. Other features of the co-ax (like the over the top, down the middle handle motion) are favored by some users, but not others. The long, tubular gripped handle may get in the way of some users, but it also provides a multitude of hand positions to suit the leverage needs of the task at hand, even allowing changes mid-stroke.

And, since my co-ax does not need cartridge specific shell holders, I use an RCBS Universal hand primer that does not need them either. But it also has a larger, easier to load, square tray that feeds more reliably from the corner than my Lee autoprime does from the side of its smaller, circular tray. But just like the co-ax, some folks prefer the ergonomics of the RCBS hand primer, while others prefer the Lee.

Andy

 

[TX Hog Hunter]

I've been using a RCBS Rock Chucker since 1972 and I don't think I will live long enough to wear it out...............

Ck out the kits, they may have a lot of stuff your don't really need.

I have RCBS, Redding, Hornady and Lee dies. RCBS are definately the best.

If you plan to load any volume a Dillon 550B is the way to go and Dillon dies are great.

 

[David Wile]

Hey Ranger,

While I may not prefer the Lee line of presses as you have recommended, I look at everything else you have suggested to the OP, and I have to agree wholeheartedly with you. I think folks should start with a single stage press and will always have a use for one even if they go to a progressive; I also know about RCBS primer catcher problems, but I have a Rock Chucker and two Juniors and am not likely to get rid of any; I don't like turrets at all; while I have a Hornady L&L AP, I also agree the whole quick die change features are really a solution looking for a problem - I don't mind changing metallic dies; and I also like and have been using a Lee Auto Prime tool for about 25 years. I also have an RCBS hand prime tool that is much sturdier than the Lee, but I just do not like to use it. The Lee prime tool works better for my tastes - but I still do not like most of their other stuff. And I also agree that the Lee Auto Prime tool (with shell holder set) is easier, faster, and safer.

After saying all that, I guess I would have to say I would think you are obviously a very smart fella who gives good information to new folks.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

 

[liljohn]

Back to Redding T-7

Someone stated the T-7 "is in a no man's land between single stage and progressive, with all the disadvantages of both".

That's not a fair statement. What is the advantage of any single stage over the T-7? It does anything that any single-stage O-press will do, is competitively priced, and every bit a strong. On top of that, the ram is more accessible, the spent primer collection is flawless, and it offers six more die stations.

Turret presses are not meant to be progressive, they are meant to be convenient. If you have a couple calibers that you load all the time, you can leave the dies set up and still have a couple die stations available for less-frequently loaded calibers.

 

[BigJakeJ1s]

Turret presses with central pivots, like the T-7, necessarily have play in the pivot that allows the turret to be rotated. That play turns into a tilt of the die as pressure is applied by the cartridge advancing and withdrawing in the die. Tilt means crooked cartridges. Conventional presses do not have such tilt at the die.

Single stage presses like the co-ax allow lateral float (without imparting any tilt) to allow the the die and cartridge to self align. The snap-in/out feature is a convenience at no extra charge. Unlike conventional single stage and turret presses, the linkage of the co-ax is attached to the ram between upper and lower bearings, rather than cantilevered on the opposite end of a single bearing from the cartridge. The co-ax linkage also applies lateral force on the ram uniformly in the same direction, taking out any play in the same direction, throughout the length of the stroke, reversing only as the stroke is reversed, when there is no pressure on the cartridge/die, thus allowing the die to realign with the cartridge. A conventional single stage or turret press linkage reverses the lateral force, and therefore the direction of play, on the ram in mid-stroke on both the up and down strokes, while the cartridge/die is under considerable force, restricting the ability of the cartridge to realign with the die.

Andy

 

[David Wile]

Hey Andy,

I know I said I do not like turret presses and most of the Lee products. Just because I do not like them, however, does not mean they do not produce good ammunition. There are a lot of folks who use Lee presses and other named turret presses who successfully shoot deer and other animals year after year. I know a few folks who have used their old Lyman turret presses for over 50 years now.

I never liked the idea of turret presses for the reason you mentioned as well as the idea that changing dies was never a bother to me. Turret presses just seemed like a lazy way to store your dies to me. But, to each his own. I have lots of other lazy things I do - just ask my wife.

I always preferred the idea of an "O" frame press, and chose to buy RCBS Juniors and Rock Chuckers. There are other "O" frame presses just as good as RCBS, and any you buy today will probably have a better spent primer catcher than the RCBS design.

What you suggest about the Co-Ax having less play than other "O" frame presses is a bit misleading, however. While there may be some means of measuring the difference between the run out on a Co-Ax as compared to an old RCBS Rock Chucker or even a Junior, the fact is these "O" frame presses have such a long bearing surface for the ram to pass through, any difference in play would be meaningless.

I would suggest that if you were to load a batch of 30-06 loads on an old Lyman turret press, a batch on an RCBS Junior or Rock Chucker, and a batch on the Co-Ax - all using the same components and care while loading - you would not be able to find any difference in grouping if you gave a sample of each batch to a random selection of hunters to test at 100 yards. Now if you were to give them to top competition shooters to test, I would not be surprised to find they might have better results with the loads made on an "O" frame press.

When I worked for the Marine Corps at Quantico, Virginia, their competition shooters all used ammunition made for them by other Marines in a small building adjacent to the shooting range. What presses were they using to load the competition ammo? They were using RCBS RockChuckers. They made some very good ammo there, but I would bet that 95% of the folks on this forum (including myself) could not get any better consistent groups with the special Marine ammo than we could get with the ammo we make with our own presses whether they are Co-Ax, Lee, or turret presses.

The fact is that I and most other shooters can make ammo that is better than our individual abilities are to shoot the ammo. Accordingly, I would submit that most of us can choose Lee, RCBS, Hornady, the Co-Ax, or whatever press they want and make very good ammo with any of them.

I think the biggest factor in loading quality ammo is the loader's ability to weigh each charge with a scale. I think when you go to a progressive press and dump a charge by volume, you give up the quality factor that weighed charges can give you. Is this always important? No. Again, I don't think most 25 yard pistol shooters could tell the difference between rounds loaded on a single stage press or on a progressive press as long as the dispenser is a good one and the powder flows through it well. And, no, I am not bashing on progressive presses. I like my Hornady progressive quite a lot, thank you, but I will still keep my single stage presses also.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

 

[RustyFN]

I never liked the idea of turret presses for the reason you mentioned as well as the idea that changing dies was never a bother to me. Turret presses just seemed like a lazy way to store your dies to me.

I can't speak for other brand presses because I have never used them but I hear they don't load much faster than a single stage. The Lee is different where it it supported around the outside and has no tilt. For me the Lee classic turret will load around 200 rounds per hour and meet my needs without having to spend the big money to go progressive. A single stage wouldn't meet my needs.
Rusty

 

[liljohn]

A T-7 will not cause "crooked cartridges"

Andy,

I understand what you are saying, but it's not true. There is a stop on the opposite side of the turret that prevents the turret from moving.

But let's assume the turret does move and causes some mis-alignment--any inconsistency imposed on the loaded round is not measurable. I know, I've tried it.

Variables exist with any machine, even a single stage O press. There is play between the ram and press housing so the ram will never be completely straight. Machining variations in shell holders, dies, and threads may result in similar variations.

 

[Maj Dad]

Start Single

Agree with Walkalong - my first press was a Herter's U3 (still load 45-70 on it) and I learned to walk with it. Next was an RCBS Rockchucker and learned to hike, so to speak. I went from single priming to autoprime with both, first with the Lee Auto-Prime (aggravating at times) then the RCBS (better). Then came the 550B and freedom from the surly bonds of single stage, but also with more caveats about pre-flight and in-flight check lists. You cannot fly until you can walk, run and launch, and starting with progressive is begging for hassles and aggravations. The Lee turret would be a good way to get wet and work into whichever progressive/higher volume press you choose. Do your homework, do your pre-flights, then launch. Just my 2 cents...
Regards,
Maj Dad
USAF (ret)

 

[Redneck with a 40]

I have the lee 4-hole turret, the standard model, not the classic. I've probably got 12,000 pistol rounds loaded on this thing by now, and I've recently begun loading .308, several hundred of those by now. This thing is still solid, no signs of any possible failures. For the $65 I paid for it, back in 2005, I'm very pleased.

 

[jfh]

FWIW--my 3-hole standard turret purchased ca. 1989 for, IIRC, $38.00--probably has about 30,000 rounds loaded on it now. I updated it with the 4-die conversion two years ago, and added the safety prime.

It's still going strong--but I do have some wear on the base casting at the ram machining now.

Jim H.

 

[BigJakeJ1s]

While I agree that not every shooter nor every rifle can realize the difference between ammunition loaded on any reasonable quality press, there are some that can. But the discussion is not about what system of equipment, shooter and rifle is more accurate, it is about which press is more accurate.

As for the stop at the rear of the turret, it is not in firm contact with the turret so that you can rotate the turret. When you advance a cartridge into a sizing die, it does make firm contact, because the cartridge pushed the front of the turret up, forcing the back of the turret down into firm contact with the stop. That sounds like tilt to me.

The LCT is held around its perimeter, and is not subject to tilting on its pivot point. However, the accuracy of the three posts that hold the turret ring in place seems highly suspect to me, and it has the same conventional ram-linkage setup as a conventional turret or single stage press.

With regard to the length of the ram bearing surface on a conventional press, the upper and lower bearing on the co-ax press span 7.75" vertical outside dimension. This is the effective length of the ram bearing on the co-ax. Comparatively, a conventional press might have as much as half that bearing length. So for the same machining precision (play in the bearing), one could expect the co-ax to have less than half the angular play in the ram. But because the direction of lateral force on the co-ax ram is uniform, and applied between the upper and lower bearings, there is ZERO angular or lateral movement over the length of the stroke.

Now consider that at the the midway point of the stroke on a conventional ram, about where the lateral force on the bottom of the ram reverses, there is about 2" of ram sticking out the top of the bearing. That cantilever translates the angular play in the ram into a lateral shift at the cartridge end of the ram that is about double the amount of play in the ram bearing itself. As the tilted ram extends through the rest of the stroke, the lateral offset increases even more.

This brings up an interesting point. There is an old adage about seating bullets half way, then rotating the cartridge, and continuing to seat the rest of the way, to reduce runout in the seated round. Some reloaders take more than two steps. If you think about it, stopping the upward travel of the ram relieves the pressure of the cartridge on the shell holder, allowing it to float in the shell holder to self align with the die. Without that pause, there is no relief in pressure, and friction will keep the cartridge from completely self aligning with the die. Maybe that old trick has more to do with pausing than with rotating the cartridge? Perhaps it would also be best if the reloader paused midway in the stroke (or more often) while resizing brass too?

Andy

 

[liljohn]

I understand where you are coming from...

The coax is a more accurate press. I like many of the conveniences of the T-7 and I've never noticed a difference in ammo quality. When I first got the press (as a Christmas present from my wife) I had the same concern as you have, but I've never been able to measure any runout introduced by the press. So theoretically, "crooked cartridges" may be a possibility, but my empirical data does not back it up.

Of course, if I loaded ammo for one of my super-accurate rifles, I might notice a difference. I've never performed this experiment with a large enough sample size to prove anything.

 

[RustyFN]

and it has the same conventional ram-linkage setup as a conventional turret or single stage press.

Actually the classic has steel linkage instead of cast like the other turret. Also the ram on the classic is a larger diameter.

The LCT is held around its perimeter, and is not subject to tilting on its pivot point. However, the accuracy of the three posts that hold the turret ring in place seems highly suspect to me,

I don't have experience with many other presses and can only speak of my experience with the classic turret. The turret does seem to have very little play as it should because it has to spin. It's just habbit but I still check OAL a lot every time I reload. I load 9mm, 38 spcl , 45 auto and 223 and have never had the OAL off more than .003. That is also rare as most of the time I check the OAL measures within .001 of where I have it set to.

Rusty