Blarby:
I'm wondering, do you press so hard when seating the check that it actually swages the base of the bullet? Small imperfections, at least? I can see how you could get way more pressure on the bullet this way, perhaps enough to iron out some small wrinkles.
Other dude:
Blarby:
Which is why I asked you to do it. Even if you're not explaining it the way I can understand it, I figure I could eventually get there via point and counterpoint. But you're not really leaving me anything to dissect, here.I don't mean to be a pain, but you are mentally dismantling something you've never held or used- and that's difficult to do.
I'm wondering, do you press so hard when seating the check that it actually swages the base of the bullet? Small imperfections, at least? I can see how you could get way more pressure on the bullet this way, perhaps enough to iron out some small wrinkles.
Other dude:
Now, this idea seems to have no benefits and all downside. So, yeah, I WILL try it the next time I size some boolits just to see what happens, but I'm not coming up with any reason this should work better, and a few reasons it should work worse.Try this: run your bullets through the Lee push thru sizer BASE FIRST with the gas check first. This seats them the same way that using an "in and out" tool like the Lyman does
Blarby:
I just don't see what straightening the check is supposed to improve. For a base-first sizer, yeah; you put it in, crooked, and it'll crimp on crooked. With a nose-first sizer, the check straightens when you push it through the die. That's my experience. 1400 for 1400. Goes in crooked, comes out straight. So just as I'm starting to buy into your description of the Saeco, here you have me wondering, again. I have to wonder if it's a caliber/bullet/gas check difference. Cuz our experiences and understanding of the Lee sizers are totally different.Unless you cast flawless bullets, every single time ( I certainly as heck don't ) and seat them completely square and level on the lee sizing ram- you are going to get reject quality check application. You just can't seat a check properly that way. It may work 9 times out of ten, it may even work ten times out of ten sometimes- but its never been 100 for 100 in my experience.
Last edited: