I can't believe that RCBS can be so stupid. I know that manufacturers don't like to change tooling because it's expensive but they CAN'T have been making Remington 17 Fireball dies for long because it's a new cartridge.

Why the blankety blank would they make a seating die for a 17 Remington Fireball cartridge with a danged crimp in it? <confused look>

Now you can't butt the die against the shell holder for precise bullet length seating without crimping and I REALLY feel sorry for all the people using the old style presses that cam over at the top.

Anybody have any idea what they're thinking other than "we've always done it that way"???

Yet another reason I use Lee dies almost exclusively... Richard Lee wised up YEARS AGO!

$bob$

Here's what they say about it...
-------------------------------------------
RCBS 2-Die Set 17 Remington Fireball

The Full Length Sizer Die has an expander-decapping unit to remove the spent primer while expanding the case mouth. Vent holes prevent case damage caused by trapped air or excessive lubricant. The Seater Die includes a bullet seater plug and built-in roll or taper crimp as appropriate for the particular cartridge. All RCBS dies come with a lifetime warranty.
-------------------------------------------

... and I found it here...
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=130581&t=11082005

$bob$

.

Why not back the seating die out enough to prevent the crimp? That's the way I use my dies and it works great.

.

Because it's harder to maintain constant seating depth that way.

$bob$

LDHunter, I have never had a problem with maintaining seating depth with those dies. The seating stem controls the depth not the distance the die is seated in the press. You will get no more change than would normally be found with differences in the bullets themselves or the manner in which the press is operated. I use a bullet comparator to measure seating depth of loaded rounds and can say without reservation other factore will have more effect than how far the die is screwed into the press to prevent crimping.Rick.

Rick,

Answer me this... How do you control how far the ram pushes the cartridge into the die?

$bob$

They just want to make sure those 25-grain bullets don't shift during recoil.

$bob$

Raise a sized case to the top of the ram, screw the die down until it touches the case mouth, back up about 1/8 turn and lock the die in place. But you already knew that. The case is supported as well as it can be with that type of die. Screwing it down any farther will bring the crimp into play, which we don't want, and it does not add to supporting the case. The neck is already far enough into that area for support. The room necessary for the neck to expand while the bullet is being seated is not going to be made up for by being able to move the case a few thousants deeper in the die.Rick.

Rick,

In that scenario you're relying on the ram to top out at exactly the same place every stroke that you seat a bullet.

All your fancy seating dies are doing nothing but having a high price tag and fancy name at that point.

To precisely seat a bullet to the same place every time you need to have the ram use a POSITIVE stop such as the shell plate contacting the bottom of the die each time you seat a bullet. Then the precision micrometer seaters actually have some use other than status symbols.

Lee Dies made in the last few years almost all have the crimping stuff removed so you can top out against the bottom of the die.

What brand and model of press do you use?

If it's an RCBS and it cams over at the top you're relying on an archaic system that has no definite top of stroke with a lot of variability and most presses use that system.

Most people never thought of that but Richard Lee did.

$bob$

What is the variation in seating depth in using the backed off die vs. a die that butts up against the shellholder? I've never measured it, to compare the two methods. More importantly, I wonder what the difference in group size between the two would be? May be a solution without a problem...or not. Wouldn't want to say without testing it.

Jeff

If you think that variations in seating depth aren't important then I'm wasting my breath.

$bob$

Jeff,

I don't mean to be rude but why do you think that die makers make a fortune on micrometer adjustable dies?

Go back to your loading manuals and read some on bullet seating depth and then do some experimenting on your own.

Most experienced reloaders covered this stuff in reloading 101 years and years ago.

$bob$

LD,

I don't mean to be rude either...I'm simply asking what the actual measured difference is between the two methods of using a seating die. Not interested in theories; just hard factual data.

Jeff

I guess I dont understand your thinkin. I'm relativally new to reloading only eight years now, but I use RCBS dies and presses I do what ricksmith said and measure the loaded round FROM the ogive and the variance is nill. My friends think I'm anal for all the measuring and trying for the one hole groups. But they dont get the one holers and I can. Now I have not checked for runout cuz I dont have that equip. yet. So how would the ram touching the seating die aid in consistant seating depths? The ram only goes so far and its a consistant is it not? PLEASE if I'm off base enlighten me so my buddies will think I'm really anal!

When I dumped my RCBS "cam over" Rockchucker and got a Lee Classic Cast press and started using the top of the shell holder butting against the bottom of the seating die as a precise method of stopping the ram at the same place every time and started useing dies that DIDN'T have crimping in them my seating depth consistency improved greatly.

That was years and years ago fellows.

Do your own research. Consider that benchrest shooters have been doing this for years and years.

It's not my job to convince you of the obvious.

Get your own "hard facts" or get a clue from all the money people spend on specialized equipment to assure seating depth repeatability.

Maybe the gun writers here will step in and point you to some of the excellent articles that have been written on this subject over the years.

$bob$

I use a Forster Co-Ax for most of my loading, when I did use a RCBS Rockchucker, I didn't have the problem you describe. What are you using to measure your seating depth? Do you check for run-out? Stopping the ram with the bottom of the die should have worked on your Rockchucker. It can't cam over that way unless you put more pressure than necessary on the handle.
I agree that consistant seating depth is important and measure all my seated bullets with a comparator but just haven't had the problem you are describing.Rick.

Me thinks you have been shorting to much of the red kool-aid.

The reason that you have to smack the LEE die into the ram is so you can reset that crappy "lock" O-ring to where it was the last time. With a real lock ring this isn't a problem.
Now, if you want precision why arn't you using a Wilson straight line seater and a Harrell arber type press?

Tailgunner,

You're absolutely right but since I'm a varminter and casual target shooter I've found that the extra accuracy that type of equipment provided doesn't warrant the extra expense for me.

Yes... I went that route at one time but it was all to anal for me... <grin>

$bob$

ricksmith,

Read everything you've said again. You're playing the argue game and can't make up your mind.

I'm sorry but my time is too valuable for this mess.

Good luck.

$bob$

Not trying to argue with you about anything, just don't think your problem is caused by the die in question. If you don't want to answer my questions or discuss the problem, I will bow out of this post.Thank you.Rick.

Maybe I'm just simple, but it seems that the top of the ram and shellholder would stop at the same place each time at the top of the stroke, resulting in consistant seating depth.

I'm asking because I really would like to know, and not to agree or disagree with anyone.

I can't see how the heigth of the ram can change between strokes.
If one or all of the pins of the linkage were badly wore, perhaps, but those pins would have to shift or rotate. Sorry, I just can't buy into that theroy.

1234567, You are correct, they have a certain spot where they can't go any higher but all presses have tolerances and if you put some pressure on the top of the ram it may not raise to the exact heigth. But that can be taken into account when you set the dies and correct for any play in the system. How you activate the press can have an effect on seating depth, if you use a constant stroke or slam bam you can get different seating depths. Usually measured in 0.001-0.002". Where the seating stem contacts the bullet can have the same type of effect since all the bullets are not perfectly the same. If you take a box of bullets and measure to the ogive of each bullet in the box with a comparator you will see what I am saying. There are a variety of things that effect seating depth and they msut be compensated for to get uniform results.Rick.

LDHunter, just went back and read the entire posting, I have not changed my mind in any of the posts. I think the problem here is you want to rant on the dies but offered no realistic reason. You ignored several questions and haven't explained how none of the other posters have your same problem. If you want to throw rocks are all the other dies because you feel they are too expensive, then stick with Lee and don't bother to learn anything else. Did you call RCBS and talk to them person to person? Or did you just quote from a piece of paper? If you knew the die would crimp or had called to find out, you didn't have to buy it and you would not have had your problem.Rick.

This is one of the reasons I always have the ram and shell holder faces trued and have a mark on both to keep them indexed.

I've never noted a problem with the standard setup.

It's unclear to me how much it matters, ldhunter. You say your accuracy "improved greatly" when you went to the Lee Classic Cast and Lee dies. But what does "improved greatly" mean? Did your groups shrink from 6" to 3" or did they shrink from 0.3568" all the way down to 0.3563"? (Yeah, that's smartazz, but the question is real: how much?)

I suppose if it really, truly bothered me, and I really, truly felt I had to have the shellholder touch the die without the case hitting the crimp shoulder - I'd just trim a bit more off the case neck.

Methinks LDHunter doth protest too much!

I will wager my money that there is not five thousandths difference in seating depth between topping out with the ram or bottoming out on the die body..... and not necessarily in favor of the latter, either.

I will also bet that he cannot consistently demonstrate the difference in group size with .005" variability in seating depth in a hunting rifle.

Just back the die out ten thou and go!

Ted

I purposely don't allow the shellholder to contact the base of the die on any of my threaded seating dies. Seating depth consistency has never been a problem. -Al

I don't recall that I ever had a standard seating die that I could run the case in all the way to the holder without crimping.

If it is that much of a big deal, Redding does make the Comp shellholder that would likely allow enough room to jam the shellholder as hard as you wish into the die.

If the bullet does not have a crimping cannalure, the die must be backed out enough, about 1/2 turn or more, so that the crimping shoulder does not touch the mouth of the case neck.

If the die is tightened against the shell holder, and the bullet does not have a crimping cannalure, the case can buckle or expand at the shoulder.

I have known reloaders who were unaware of the crimping shoulder and found that their full length sized (or partially sized) ammunition would not go in the chamber, even though when trying to determine the problem, the fired and resized case would chamber with no problem.

The crimping shoulder would cause the case to swell at the shoulder, preventing the loaded round from chambering.

Back out the die 1/2 to 1 turn and tighten the lock ring, and there shoulden't be any problem with varying seating depth.

If having a space between the bottom of the die and the top of the shell holder bothers you, purchase some steel washers and drop one over the case before seating the bullet. Use a washer that is only slightly larger than the body of the case where it
fits into the shell holder.

First, place the washer over the shell holder, raise the ram, and tighten the die down on the washer, then tighten the lock ring. This will get the crimping shoulder away from the case mouth, and still allow the ram to bottom (or top) out against the die.

Adjust the seating depth with the stem made for the purpose.

Do not, and I have known of this happening, too, try to adjust the die with a charged case that you plan to reload. You can inadvertially put a crimp into the empty case mouth, and when you try to seat the bullet into the crimped case, you might experience extreme difficulty.

I back the die off one or more turns, raise the ram with a case in place, then screw the die down until resistance is felt. This resistance indicates that the case mouth is against the crimping shoulder.

Back the die out 1/4 to half a turn, tighten the lock ring and you have sufficient clearance away from the crimp shoulder. Then, back out the seating stem, seat a bullet, and adjust to the correct depth with the stem.

I realize I said the same thing more than once and in different ways, but I have never been able to explain something in a simple manner.

Rocky,

You misquoted me... What I said was "my seating depth consistency improved greatly."

$bob$

I'm out of town on a borrowed dinosaur of a computer but I'd like to point out that I learned most of this by talking to Sierra tech guys.

Seating depth is critical and if you are wanting to achieve better than hunting accuracy, seating depth can be critical. If you are close to or touching the lands with your bullet, then a few thousands can make a world of difference in pressure as well as accuracy which is greatly affected by vagarities in pressure.

Rams on ANY loading press, especially on a cam over press, aren't designed to provide precise seating depths and none of them that I've ever used or checked out, have reliable "stops" to ensure that they stop precisely in the same places at the top of the stroke.

Years ago on the urging of a Sierra tech I did some measurments of seating depths as controlled by the ram and found that I was going to have to remove the ram as a seating depth controlling agent if I wanted consistent seating depths.

About 10 years or so ago and I got Fred Huntington on the line and he confirmed that seating depths could be very critical. We had a lengthy conversation about it and as a result of that conversation I started my quest for better control of seating depths.

The guys at Sinclair gave me some great input too and one of them suggested "bench rest dies" which I found to be quite expensive and time consuming to use.

I found that my "pursuit of accuracy" could be a very time consuming venture, and that "benchrest accuracy" sounded great and I was sure that achieving it would make me a better varmint hunter but most of the stuff that benchrest shooters went through to achieve the accuracy I wanted was beyond my financial and time constraints.

As I tried to simplify and isolate that things that I could learn from benchrest shooters that applied to my goals of becoming a better handloader I finally isolated seating depth as something I could control cheaply and quickly.

That is probably more information than most people wanted but I seemed to be called upon to explain myself here and wanted to give it a try.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me and it appears that I've stepped on some toes by insulting RCBS and possibly other equipment, while promoting Lee equipment, but seating depth simply can't be controlled very well with a die that forces you to back off the shell holder from the die to avoid crimping unless you go through a lot of gyrations.

I think RCBS really missed the boat when they put any sort of crimping capabilities in their 17 Remington dies and for that matter ANY rifle dies that aren't going to be loading ammo that isn't likely to have bullets move due to excessive recoil or from severe stress from military type semi or full auto actions.

If you need crimp on rifle ammo the Lee Factory Crimp die provides a much better crimp than any built in crimp from a "standard" die anyway and it's not so dependent on trim length.

$bob$

By golly, I did. Still, by how much did your seating depth variation improve - and how do you measure it?

Rocky, LDHunter is practicing to become a political speech writer. Doesn't answer anyone's questions, says a lot without anything being meaningful and acts like all is lovely. Still think he is just on a rant toward RCBS. Why else would one buy a die knowing the crimp is built in and then complain about it being there.Rick.

+1

I'll go further to say that it never even ocurred to me as I can get all the accuracy I've even needed; more even than I need if all I do is pursue accuracy in my hunting rifles. I've never had any trouble making my old 17 Rem with Hornady Durachromes do the sub MOA deal. Of course I was never looking for precision in the one, twos, or threes with it. If great precision was what I wanted, I surely wouldn't be using a 17 anything with Sierra bullets, and standard dies from RCBS or anyone else, and especially not Lee.



BTW, unless you work for Lee and/or have been using one of their Classic Cast presses since before they were placed on the market, you are overstating things here. That press has barely been available for a plural number of years - not much over two years I don't believe.

So, give it a rest. RCBS knows their stuff. Furthermore, they will correct anything that goes wrong with their stuff, in many cases even when it wasn't any fault of their's. I do think the logic behind the crimp shoulder, if indeed it even is one, was well explained by one of the posters. And it makes sense to me.

The thing I would like to know, is if the top of the ram is so inconsistent, how can you set the die so that the ram touches the bottom of the die consistently? This is just so much nonsense!

Ted

Wow! A Flame Match!
I must say a CRIMP on a 17 is coconuts. Like that factory crimp on .204 Ruger ammo? Nuts! I agree with LDH.
If you don't like that, go buy a Hornady sleeve seater. Those have a crimp setting, but if you set them just short of "crimp," they support the case very well and seat very concentrically.
As for bottoming out the die being the only way to be consistent, I don't know. I'm running a Dillon 650 and I have had no problems with consistency of seat depth during production runs, despite the fact that the Dillon toolhead floats a few thousandths in the upper cut. I suppose if I wanted to get really nitpicky about things, I could take a deprimer body die and swager head and put them in the unused slots to smack the shell plate, but I honestly don't see the need.

ricksmith,

Instead of hopping up and down and loosing your temper, trying to insult me by comparing me to a political speech writer, try lowering that blood pressure a bit and go get some execize.

If you feel that I'm not paying enough attention to you and it has you upset try re-asking the questions you think I've ignored and I'll be happy to answer them as best I can. I haven't meant to ignore you or your questions you seem to feel are so important.

If you want me to justify the importance of seating depth when loading manuals and ballisticians support it then you might want to look at your motives. You seem to have a problem with self worth and feeling important.

$bob$

Rocky,

I'm 56 and my memory isn't as good as it used to be so I don't even know where my comparative notes would be so I'll be speaking strictly from memory.

In regards to your question for actual measurements I'll venture that I was achieving .003-.006 differences in seating depths as measured two ways. At that time I used a bullet comparator and a set of calipers to measure OAL.

I had read that the bullet comparator was a much more accurate and valid way of measuring bullet seating depths and therefore bullet to land "jump" distances. I found that although that was probably true that only a thousandth or two would show up there so to simplify things I went back to the method of using actual OAL as measured by calipers from base of cartridge to tip of bullet.

This may not have been "pure science" but I was determined to NOT get lost in the funk that many benchrest shooter seem to get in and to still have fun loading and shooting my own ammo. Not meaning to say that benchrest shooters can't have fun but it's not for me as I consider it too anal retentive for my purposes. I imagine that I just pi$$ed off a bunch of people with that statement too but then I've never been too politically correct.

At one time I wanted to start jamming my bullets into the lands like benchrest shooters do, but found that this opened several other cans of worms that slowed down my loading and shooting so I backed off .010" and tried it from there. That's when I found the vagarities in seating depths and was getting vertical stringing. So I bought a Redding Micrometer Competition Seating die and got really serious about seating bullets.

It took more time than I wanted but I wanted to isolate seating depth as an accuracy issue. The vertical stringing stopped and groups shrank by possibly 10%.

All this was done in a rifle that I thought I knew VERY well and with the same lot of bullets, primers, powder, cases and (hopefully) my technique in assembly of rounds was consistent.

I don't claim to be a ballistics expert but I was trying to isolate one of the many, many things that seem to be very hard to measure when one departs from thinking that 3/4" groups are "good enough" and goes in pursuit of better accuracy.

It was one factor that, in the end, I found was easily controlled and required very little time to achieve pretty good consistency with and implemented it into my loading regimen.

I hope that answers why "I" do what I do and say what I say.

$bob$

Ted,

The ram doesn't just lightly touch the die at the top of it's stroke. It is jammed up against the bottom of the die which is, presumably, held firmly in place in the top of the very rigid press. That is well below the top of the stroke and therefore you will achieve much better consistency in seating depth than counting on the top of the stroke of the ram to be consistent in height.

It's a method of eliminating the ram as a controlling agent in seating depth. Rams on loading presses are designed for strengh and rigidity and proper leverage. They aren't designed to produce constant seating depths and are a poor tool for that.

$bob$

LDHunter, good try at insulting me but it was wasted words. It was not just my questions it was all that were asked by other posters. Your last post to Rocky was your second attempt and you still haven't completely answered his question. If you will go back and read all the posts, I realize it may be too much for your busy schedule, you should be able to get a grip on what has been asked. I really don't care if you answer my former questions or not. You have provided enough of an answer to your technique for me to know your complaint about the lack of consistency of the seating die is not based on a good measuring system. Guess you never mastered the comparator and rely on one of the least accurate methods to base your knowledge.
You live in a dream world if you expect folks to accept that kind of theory.Rick.

No flaming here, LD. I'm honestly interested in your claims.

It seems to me that measuring to the bullet tip is flawed, because the tip dimensions (from bore-diameter on the ogive to the physical tip) varies much more than the distance from the cartridge base to the ogive diameter ring on the bullet (which is what a comparator is supposed to measure).

So, if the base to ogive ring distance didn't vary much (I think that's what you were saying) then the true seating depth -and thus bullet to lands distance- wasn't varying much, either.

All this interest on my part because I've written about what I think is the best way to set proper seating depth. If the press does in fact have a degree of control on that beyond the die setting, then I'm curious. From what you've written so far, I can see where there MIGHT be a valid concern related to ram stroke travel. I'll think further on it, but I'm beginning to comprehend what you're saying - and it just might be at least partly correct.

I'm thinking that the resistance of the bullet being pushed into the cartridge itself is in effect a "stop", taking out any play in the machanism, unless the press has consisderable wear to it.

As far as ogive to base measurements even the veneraable Siearra Match King has been proven to have varience from lot ot lot.

Custom bullets, as they generally are held to closer standard and it certain cases made from the same die, from one of the makers of BR bullets may prove my theory wrong but I don't think so.

If there can be any useful purpose to any of the internet squabble, perhaps getting off one's theorizing behind and seeing might be it.

Anyway, in the interest of seeing for myself whether one can measure or not, I went and open my last batch of ammo, some 218 stuff to measure OAL and see if my usual technique - which works well enough for me (not a paper puncher) has holes in it. Now I know I did fiddle with the die just a bit during the processing of that small batch (to make sure I got those little 40 grain boattails inside the case far enough so I won't find powder in my pockets.) Anyway, using the ram-all-the-way-up technique, I had three distinct, but spot on OAL measurements (to the single one thousandth) using a dial caliper (from MidwayCHINA).

Not knowing for sure why they varied and by three distinct amounts, I made up a few more rounds using the same Lee die that was in the RCBS Partner press. Half (5/10) came out within one /one-thousandth of each other. The others were off by a few thousandths more one way or the other.

Well, what about those bullets? I measured a small sample: ten. They were all within one/one-thousandth in OAL (40 V-Max.

Okay, let's give the suggested shellholder to die method a try. I screwed the die down with a loaded case in the press. (Typically I set the seating die less than a tenth of and inch from the shellholder so I didn't have far to go.) I barely started before hitting the case shoulder with the die - and the die was still a considerable distance from the shellholder.

I'm with you Rocky.
I just measure a few Berger 6mm 68gr hp- PN#24011,lot # 0006670.

base to tip 1. .842.....base to ogive .377
2. .847.....base to ogive .377
3. .846.....base t0 ogive .378
4. .850.....base to ogive .377
5. ..849...................378

The old beater Rockchucker doesn't know it won't work with the Redding seater.

Over all length don't tell a man much but I'll agree it is easy.

Mike

If you set it below the top of the stroke, then it doesn't matter if the press can cam over at the top of it's stroke. So much BS.Rick.

Rocky,

That wasn't me that mentioned flaming... Somebody else.

I have the ultimate respect for you and your opinions and experience. I've been a fan of yours for YEARS and have read a BUNCH of your articles.

You might notice that I didn't defend my selection of the bullet tip rather than the ogive. I preferred expediency to ogive measurments since they seemed to be so close anyway.

Remember that I didn't invent all this stuff myself. Call some of the people I've called. Spend a few years on the benchrest lists and forums. That's where I got most of the ideas and most of what I actually experienced was what I'd already read about.

Redding, Forester, Wilson, etal. make a small fortune selling micrometer controlled seating dies. There must be a reason for that other than crazy $bob$ and his wacky ideas... <silly grin>

I finally settled on seating my bullets back about .010 from the lands on my long range varmint rifles and those that I like to fiddle with at the range and that have a chance of actually appreciating my extra efforts to uniform my seating depths on.

Some rifles like the bullets closer to the lands some further but being .010" from the lands can pretty much compensate for poorly aligned chambers, run out and other maladies and vagarities of pressure resulting from being too close to the lands but not uniformly so seem to be minimzed.

Hunting bullets often are seated either .030" from the lands or to slightly less than magazine length whichever is shorter. Then small variations in seating depths are largely insignificant.

It's certainly not a do all end all but it's worked for me.

I sure hope that Smith fella is happy now... <snicker>

$bob$

(For all the rest of you, LD and I spoke at length on the phone today. Here's yet another wrinkle in the flags we're all waving...)

How often have you seated bullets and noted a bright ring -or even a small sharp groove!- left in the bullet by the lip of the bullet seater stem? That's prima facie evidence that the seater stem is gripping the bullet to some degree. So what's happening when the press ram reaches top center, goes past it a fraction and then come back across top center as you lower the loaded round out of the die? Is it possible that the bullet (gripped by that pesky stem) is getting the double shuffle - getting ever so slightly pulled back OUT of its seating depth not once but TWICE? Could that explain inconsistent seating depth happening on SOME press/die combos. I think just maybe it might.

Stopping the ram at a point shy of TDC by virtue of hitting the shellholder against the die just MIGHT eliminate exactly half of that double shuffle. Yes, a single shuffle isn't good, but surely the double shuffle is twice as bad. So maybe, just maybe, ldhunter has a valid point.

Pushing the bullet INTO the case a precisely measured amount is good. But if there's any tendency for the stem to pull the bullet back OUT again -with little or no pattern or consistency- then the most precise seating die/press/shellholder system is compromised a bit. No?

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: What an embezzle

FWIW - Redding competition seaters state that you must not bump the ram against the die, as to do so could damage the die. <sarcasm> And we all know that Redding makes crap </sarcasm>

Regards,
Scott

The Remington Fireball ammo I have seen is crimped; the pictures of it in the magazines clearly show what appears to be a 4 point crimp. I am sure Remington did not add any operations that increased cost with out providing some value. My guess is consistent bullet pull to optimize the new powder they are using. The results speak for themselves - they shoot great. I also doubt that RCBS put any extra cost (controlling that characteristic would be a timely machine set-up and sensitive to tool wear) so they are providing what is best for the round as intended by the 'new' caliber's manufacturer which is intended for the masses and not a bunch of anal gun nuts like us. And I say that with pride :-)

I have checked hundreds of bullets (mostly 17 cal, some .223, and some .8mm) and depending on their manufacturer (Barnes TSX, Hornady, Berger, Woodchuck Den, Combined Tech �Nosler- and Sierra) and style (HPFB, VMax, HPBT, and SP) the base to tip ALWAYS varies at least .003 - .015, avg .005 which is significantly more than the ogive to base (.000 - .003 avg .002) as measured with a Stoney Point (or now Hornady) comparator. Sinclair�s is best - it is stainless steel instead of aluminum.

I have also measured hundreds of assembled 17 MachIV�s using both Redding and RCBS dies. They do not crimp, but they were intended for wildcatters. The variation between seated bullets (.002 - .006 avg .003), using the Stoney Point, is slightly more than the variation between the base and ogive, but never near the variation from base to tip. Measuring to the tip just does not work.

On every set of seating dies used and tried (which included a LEE) on any cartridge I have loaded (17, .223, 8mm) I found the seater does not hit the ogive but finds another diameter much further toward the tip. The geometry variation is what causes the additional seating variation. I have not yet tried meplat uniforming which should reduce the variation from ogive to tip depending on how accurately the tool locates on the bullet.

Our favorite load for this is a 20gr Hornady VMax over 16.6gr of H4198 that is giving 4100+fps with no perceivable recoil at all. Terminal ballistics seems better than the 25gr. No exit wounds and anchors them (skunks, feral felines, raccoons, opossums and crows) every time so far. I haven�t tried it on coyotes yet, I think it is too small for anything except a perfect boiler room or head shot on game that large. RCBS.Load says the round has a point blank range on a 1 inch target of 200yds with minimal wind influence up to that range. I love it, hold on and squeeze.

But as was wisely said numerous times in this post and others, God bless those who are good enough to see the difference. I do it just to remind myself that is the shooter, and not the equipment, making those targets look like they were hit with a shotgun.

.

Ricksmith's system has worked for me for fifty years. The cam over type RCBS press stays with in .002 or .003 in seating depth. You cannot see any noteable improvement in accuracy with more accurate seating depth in anything less than unlimited class benchrest. I shoot heavy varmint class benchrest, a few thousandths makes no difference in those rifles, so why does it make such a big thing in the average rifle?

It sounds like LDHunter is on Lee's payrole.

.

Rocky, if the bottom of the die is below the top of the ram's stroke as indicated by LDHunter then there is no cam over. Therefore, not going pass that position twice. I have seen the bright ring you speak of and have polished the inside of the seating stem to eliminate the ring. There are often several ways to eliminate possible problems and often easy to find if a little common sense is applied. Several posters indicated that they were not having the seating problem. If measurements are not taken in as precise a manner as possible then we are debating a moot point. Interesting speculation about the camover and seating stem but not really a problem.Rick.

If a seating stem is doing it one time per cycle, I would say that is 100% too much if one is seeking the finest precision and accuracy. That problem alone is far worse than the errors one will find in a "cam over" type press set-up. Besides, with a floating seating stem like Lee (or Hornady) it will only happen when the ram is significantly withdrawn, not on cam-over. I have felt a bullet stick in the seating stem from time to time and it seems to be related to bullets which fit the seating stem a certain "wrong" way; that and too much seating pressure is involved for some reason. Any of those conditions will be more deleterious to consistent and precise loading than using a method in which the ram simply stops at (or over) the naturally occurring top of the stroke.

In looking at various loading tool manufacturer's recommemdations on the use of the dies and presses (including Lee), I see nothing suggesting the use of the die base as the seating length guide. One set of Lee instructions says to screw the die into the press with an empty case extended fully into the press. When the die contacts the mouth of the case, then back the die off one-half turn, assuming no crimp is desired. Hornady says as little as three die threads are adequate for crimping. Sierra does suggest that a person might "square" any die in the press for greater precision by using a machined washer as opposed to a common stamped mild steel washer. This is accomplished by installing the die, then lowering the ran slightly and placing the washer between the shellholder and the die so that the ram will place pressure against the die to, presumably, hold it square with the ram while the locking nut is secured against the press. I would assume it might help to ditch the neoprene ring that comes on a Lee die when using this method. Hornady and RCBS both sell die locking rings which can replace it.

Oh man... After forty years of fat and happy handloading I find out that: 1. The ram on my old Pacific press doesn't hit TDC with enough consistency to load accurate ammunition 2. Backing off my RCBS dies so they don't crimp gives me too much variation in seating depth for accuracy and may even be causing dangerous pressure fluxuations on the calibers I seat close to the lands. Has anybody considered how inconsistencies in base-to-ogive (or base-to-tip, depending on where your seating depth is controlled from) dimensions affect actual, working case capacity? This may be another factor giving us inconsistent results.

LOL... You guys are too much... LOL...

http://www.redding-reloading.com/techlinepages/seatingdepth.htm

$bob$

Vince,

Almost all factory ammo is crimped, even for rifles. This is to prevent bullets being pushed deeper into cases by rough handling or pulled out by recoil. Factory ammo must be made for "the masses".

Another reason is that factory ammo is cranked out in volume that would stagger our imaginations and they simply can't afford the manpower to provide the kind of quality control the handloader can muster. With a "factory crimp" they can easily control this.

Despite some people's opinions I don't have any affiliation with Lee and own Redding dies as well for most of my rifles I expect serious accuracy out of.

It appears that some people here have their pride hooked and are yelling so loud to defend what they're "always known" that they can't hear what others are saying because they're afraid they'll learn something new. <grin>

There have been some great ideas and observations born in this thread but there has also been a bunch of "denial" going on.

I could post a bunch of technical info to support my "theories" but then I might destroy the fun I've been having on the sidelines watching some people defend the way they've always done things.

$bob$

LDHunter, Good info from Redding. You really need to read it. You might notice in the first paragraph that it suggest measuring with a comparator and not OAL. Also it says you may adjust the ram to "lightly" touch the bottom of the seating die not be jammed tight against the bottom.
You think some of the posters fail to grab your "idea" and run with it as the save all of seating depth consistancy. We are not open to new thoughts. Has it occured to you that road runs both ways? Just maybe we have found inconsistancies and developed a better way to solve the problem. You should contact all the die manufacturers and share your knowledge with them. They may come out with a whole new set of dies and name them after you. Strange that no one else here seems to have the problem you do.Rick.

You stated in an earlier post that you are 56, that is when my memory started to fade also.

rick,

Post for me where I said that using tip measurements was the best way. How about a quote? If you bother to go find that quote you'll find that I said I selected measuring from the tip for the sake of expediency and acknowledged that using a comparator <sp?> was the better technique.

Also... Did I say jam it hard? Jam is an expression that handloaders use to indicate making something touch something else. Like "jamming a bullet into the lands". That doesn't mean to get out the hammer or lean into the press handle hard. If you'd been in this game very long you'd already know that.

You seem intent on discrediting what people say but you can't get your facts straight.

As far as nobody else having "the problem I do" try going to benchrest central where the accuracy guys hang out. You might find out that some of these ideas that I've brought here came from guys that have won some pretty impressive matches. Try calling around and actually taling to ballisticians that develop loads for a living. I've done this many times and am on a first name basis with many of them.

I'm sure that I could post links to what ballisticians and benchrest champions have been saying for years and there will be a certain number of people that will be quick to dismiss what they say. That's the nature of the internet and the "high blood pressure types" that argue incessantly to support their beliefs, and I'm used to it so I now find it amusing and rarely argue with them anymore.

Have a nice day....

$bob$

Hubert,



$bob$

Guys, I am usually just a reader, and far from knowledgeable enough for input into these disscussions, but I would have a question. Doesn't bullet seating depth primarily control the timing of the bullet's exit from the end of the barrel, which has an impact on accuracy because of barrel vibrations (or whip) that occur during the shot? As such couldn't bullet seating depth possibly be more important in a lightweight hunting rifle than in a heavy barreled benchrest rifle built to resist barrel whip to begin with?

M7

Modelseven,

You have a very valid point there and what you've said is very accurate.

There are many considerations related to seating depth and it only becomes critical as when the ogive gets within .010" of the lands (or less).

Pressure, hence velocity, can be effected quite a bit there and a couple thousandths can make a difference.

I also am a big fan of lightweight rifles and barrels and as I try to tweak all the accuracy out of them I can I find seating depth to be critical sometimes.

Another consideration is that the effects of variations in runout can be lessened as the bullet's seating length approaches the lands.

It used to be that benchrest shooters constantly tinkered with powder charges but now it seems that they're using seating depths as a method of tweaking loads more so than powder weights so even with their fat and fairly stiff barrels seating depth seems to have a fair amount of effect.

$bob$

Lee makes two types of seating dies. One type comes with their regular die sets, the other with their collet die sets. They can be purchased separately.

The seating die from the collet die set does not have a crimping shoulder inside the die. Lee calls this their "Dead Length Seating Die." The instructions say to "screw the die in until it touches the shell holder - then turn it in 1/4 turn more. This removes all play from the press and insures each bullet will be seated to a uniform depth."

The seating die from regular die sets does have a crimping shoulder in the die. The instructions say to "Screw the bullet seating die in until you feel it touch the case mouth. If no crimp is desired, back the die out 1/2 turn. If a crimp is desired, turn the die in 1/4 turn."

Implicit in both of these instruction sets is that the ram is in its topmost position when the dies are being set.

Lee makes both types of seating die for the .17 Remington. What are they thinking?

--Bob

LOL... Good point!!! Touche'.... <grin>

$bob$

On another, equally funny, note... I have a set of Redding competition dies for the 6mmBR.

When setting them up for the first time I read the instructions the first time I read that I needed to back them off a turn (or so) in case I didn't want to crimp the round.

I got hopping mad and called Redding and asked them "what they were thinking". The technician was speechless when I read this to him right off the die instructions.

When I finally insisted on an answer he said it didn't make any sense and they'd "fix the die" if I was willing to send it in. I didn't send it in because I ended up NOT using the dies to load that day after all and sold my rifle chambered in 6mmBR shortly afterwards.

I still don't know if that die really will crimp or if those directions were "generic" as the technician eventually hypothesized. He agreed that there weren't likely many people that crimped 6mmBR cartridges. <grin>

Before we hung up we had an interesting discussion of seating depth and he said many of their calls were related to that very subject.

$bob$

oopsRick

Rick,

I can see from my text you quoted that you would be confused if you didn't understand the meaning of the word jammed as used in the handloading world.

Did I say to push hard against it? Did I say to make sure you leaned into the handle of the press or that harder is better.

I suggest that if you called Redding today and pressed them for the precise way to adjust this die they'd tell you to make sure the die touched and then turn it in a bit further but to just be careful to not damage the die with too much pressure at the top of the stroke which is merely common sense.

I DO hope you feel better though because you have finally found an inconsistency in what I said and I'm sure it's made your day.

$bob$

For those of you with open minds that want to learn something about the importance of seating depth, I'm including a link to what the "real experts" say about seating depth.

You'll note that they don't always agree on how significant it is or whether to jam (sorry Rick) into the lands or not.

Some of the people in this conversation have very impressive credentials and many Benchrest competition wins behind and ahead of them.

Those of you that get upset if anyone or anything doesn't agree with your "certain knowledge" of the way things "should be" would probably be better off if you don't click on this link.

http://www.benchrest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46998&highlight=bullet+seating

$bob$

LDH, I don't think the "problem" some of us have with your suggestions or new ideas is that we aren't open to new ways of doing things. I don't know about the rest, but starting a thread by taking a swing at one of the very reputable manufacturers about a product they make as if you know better than they do about making and using said item, that sticks sideways from the get-go. Then, you argue benchrest accuracy details (after you have started with a non-benchrest cartridge die), and you aren't even using benchrest rifles.




Obviously we are talking hunting rifles and hunting loads here. For what? Shrews? I simply don't see where trying to shave thousandths or even hundredths off from a group used for hunting even rat-sized critters is going to matter - especially when there are so many other variables which can readily get you.



Whether or not that's true, I don't know and don't care. It doesn't really matter when you consider that a cartridge fed from a magazine is going to affect runout more if the bullet is seated out farther. If it's not for hunting, then why not just use a proper rifle?




True perhaps. For ammo used in any serious hunting pursuit, loading so that bullets are kissing the lands or so close as to be tempted is asking for trouble though. Anyone who has had such unfired "ultimate precision" ammo leave a bullet in the chamber when retrieving a round that hasn't been sent understands this. (And if you either leave it there or fire it out everytime one gets chambered, then there are probably other issues of concern.)


For hunting rifles, hunting cartridges, and hunting ammo, you simply don't need more accuracy than what can readily be achieved using a "cam-over" press, and dies from any of the majors. To suggest that you do suggests that some folks here who have considerable successful experience don't know much. It also suggests that you might be trying to make sweet applesauce from crabapples when there's obviously a better place to start.

I don't think RCBS "goofed" when making the dies for that cartridge. I'm sure if they did build it wrong, or if the engineer who drew up the plans for it was drunk or senile, that they would be most receptive to your ideas however.

Going back to that first post, LD had a point. Putting a crimp shoulder in dies for the 17 Fireball is like including a hand crank with a Corvette - senseless. Done out of unthinking habit, perhaps, but senseless despite that.

Where the thread went after that is just proof that some people can take a corner of a perfectly good blanket in their teeth and worry it until the whole thing is ruined. If you actually THINK about what LD says, it does in fact contain more than kernels of truth. And a lot less untruth than some here would admit if they hadn't already backed themselves into an argumentative corner.

Klikitarik,

"I don't think RCBS "goofed" when making the dies for that cartridge. I'm sure if they did build it wrong, or if the engineer who drew up the plans for it was drunk or senile, that they would be most receptive to your ideas however."

Just so that I truly understand what you're saying... Do you think that a seating die for 17 Remington Fireball die should be a crimping die?

$bob$

Rocky,

You certainly put it in a nutshell.

I am no less guilty of being too argumentative than several others here. <wink>

My whole intention was to provoke intelligent discussion and it seems that some people took offense and it went downhill from there.

The only person I would have expected to actually be offended here would have been someone that was actually working at RCBS at the time this die was designed and that actually had a hand in deciding whether or not it should be a crimping die.

$bob$

Klikitarik,

"... starting a thread by taking a swing at one of the very reputable manufacturers about a product they make as if you know better than they do about making and using said item, that sticks sideways from the get-go."

If ANYONE screws up, then guys like me take a "swing at them". You must be a government or big corporation employee that has learned to "keep your mouth shut" when you don't like things? Don't expect me to act like you.

Allowing a company to do something this stupid without criticizm is going to just foster more stupidity.

Yes.... You're right I DO "argue benchrest accuracy details (after you have started with a non-benchrest cartridge die)" but if you'll carefully read what I said I acknowledge that I'm not a benchrest competitor but AM a long range varmint hunter and if you've ever tried to hit a prairie dog at 300 plus yards you'll find out quickly that you need all the accuracy you can get/afford.

"you aren't even using benchrest rifles."
Not in this case but I'm using varmint rifles for long shots that are capable of sub 5/8 inch repeatable accuracy and in the real world that's not that easy to do.
Also... I have owned several benchest rifles but found that the didn't suit my style of shooting.

$bob$

Benchrest shooting and other extreme accuracy games are where we learn and prove those factors that contribute to accuracy. Certainly for the varmint/hunting rifle crowd (most of us) there are lessons to be gleaned from these games. While we may find much of the arcane minutia interesting, we need to learn to separate what is useful to us from what is simply interesting to read about. We also need to be able to figure out to what degree of resolution of such factors as seating depth are really useful to us in our own individual practice of handloading/shooting. It's like any other technical sport. The weekend recreational dirtbike rider who changes carburator jets with the ups and downs of the thermometer might better spend his time riding. The weekend skier who rewaxes his skis and changes his edge angles by one degree with a ten degree change in snow temperature might better spend his time skiing. I doubt than any rifle of mine would benefit from trying different seating depths in .010 inchrements or from trying to maintain a +/- .005 tolerance in same. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd rather spend the time and components on something else.

cra1948,

You're 100% right and I hope I didn't come off as insisting that benchrest accuracy is necessary or achievable with sporting rifles or that I actually expect it myself.

You put it better than I could and I hope that everyone understands that the minutia I introduced in this thread is just that and that it only mildly applies to a varmint hunter or someone that is a hunter of almost anything but paper.

There are many many things that effect accuracy and this is just one small and somewhat insignificant aspect of those many things.

$bob$

Never said that,you really need to read a little closer to what is written and what you have said. This whole post has taken a radical turn and guided by yourself. I agreed early on that seating depth was important. Also said that I measure my rounds with a comparator. Definately more accurate than OAL.
I have been loading since the early 60s and have a good handle on the process. I have probably talked with some of the same people as yourself but did not take the holier than thou attitude. Jamming is a term like crimping, only the one doing it has a idea of the amount. I am not trying to discredit anyone, it is you that is back pedaling. My facts are straight. No high blood pressure here. You can read all the posts from benchrest and talk to all the big names but that doesn't mean you have a good grip on what they have said.
I mistakenly thought you wanted ideas on getting a better seating depth but soon found that was not the case. You started this fray mostly with your attitude toward the other posters. Do you really feel that you know more than any of us that have posted here? You read things into what has been posted and your answers indicate same.
As Rocky mentioned there may have been something to some of your ranting but your attitude prevented that from coming to the front of the conversation. I offered a couple of suggestions as did others but you refused to address any of them. All you have done is to tell the posters how they were wrong. I have gone through the posts several times to try and make sense of what got you in such an uproar, guess that is just you. Too bad because this thread could have gone quite differently and we all could have learned something.Rick.

Bob, I think you are really missing everyone's point here........or perhaps you're not.

I have been loading ammunition since 1962. That certainly does not mean I have learned everything, however based on my experience, I posted a while back that I would bet you cannot consistently demonstrate your point, that five thou difference in seating depth in ammo makes any significant difference in a hunting rifle.

You keep referring to BR shooters, and loading techniques they use. Again, I would like to hear how you have demonstrated, to anyone, that this makes any difference at all in a hunting rifle.

In other words, in the field, will it mean you hit three more gophers out of a hundred at 300 yards? No more? Twenty more?

Ted

Well... It appears that some of us here know a hell of a lot more about reloading than Sierra Techs, Redding, and the benchrest guys.

If you guys would quit hopping up and down and calling yourselves experts you might learn something. Or not... <grin>

Actually TRY it out. Don't take my word for it and actually try loading some loads starting from .010" from the lands and ending at .005" from the lands and then make your own conclusions after shooting them. It's your right you know. You can even post your results if that makes you feel better.

I didn't know I was in such estemed company that refused to even acknowledge true experts opinions... I hope none of you pops a blood vessel with your high blood pressure arguments.

Maybe you can get someone else to listen to your ranting. I'm getting bored.

I've made my point over and over in several different ways, provided links and SEVERAL explanations, and all I get is denial and argument. I wish you all well and hope you get over yourselves.

$bob$

I don't really think it matters what I think about a crimping provision in a 17 caliber die - if indeed there is one. Perhaps if I was the owner of a 17 caliber AR type rifle I would. Since I'm not, I simply don't use that feature, just like I normaly don't use that feature on the 375 H&H dies or 45-70 dies either; I use the Lee FC die. I do not use the crimping feature on either of the Hornady dies I have for 17 or 20 calibers though. I've never seen a need. Quite frankly, I don't even know if those little ridges are a crimp provision or if they are simply a shoulder that was left when a section was reamed to allow the case neck and bullet to align properly during seating. (I don't think lining things up is such a bad deal in the interest of precision.)

Have you actually discussed your concern with RCBS? That would seem like a logical place to start before you come on here and bad-mouth them and put forward Lee products.

I have no issue or problem with accuracy enhancements possible by seating further out. While teasing the lands may be okay for smaller varmints, I certainly don't use if (because of reliability concerns) on bigger stuff. Even then, I think there are plenty of other things one can do or not do and not worry about the specific design of the RCBS die - and whether or not one can reach the die with the shellholder. I think there is plenty of evidence that "cam-over" presses and non-shellholder/die contacting methods can produce ammunition which exceeds the expectations you seek. Your way is not the "right" or only way to do what you seek. I cannot say that it does not have merit, however.

I've followed this thread and I still don't know what the point of this is. Apparently only Lee knows how to make seating dies but you buy RCBS anyways, you study benchrest techniques but you ignore most of them because its too much money or bother, you're splitting hairs looking for accuracy but you're "just a varminter and casual target shooter", you spend all your time on the phone with the experts but don't take their advice because its too "anal", you're deeply concerned with variations in seating depth but you use a more inaccurate method to measure it.
None of it makes any sense, and when someone replies to try to figure out what you're getting at you tell them they're clueless.

I think the worst part is that this all about a POSSIBLE 10% increase in accuracy, and you think that isn't anal?

Tim

No, Bob, my question was simple:



Ted

Ted,

I already answered that question when Rocky asked me essentially the same question. Here's my answer...
-----------------------------------
"At one time I wanted to start jamming my bullets into the lands like benchrest shooters do, but found that this opened several other cans of worms that slowed down my loading and shooting so I backed off .010" and tried it from there. That's when I found the vagarities in seating depths and was getting vertical stringing. So I bought a Redding Micrometer Competition Seating die and got really serious about seating bullets.

It took more time than I wanted but I wanted to isolate seating depth as an accuracy issue. The vertical stringing stopped and groups shrank by possibly 10%.

All this was done in a rifle that I thought I knew VERY well and with the same lot of bullets, primers, powder, cases and (hopefully) my technique in assembly of rounds was consistent.

I don't claim to be a ballistics expert but I was trying to isolate one of the many, many things that seem to be very hard to measure when one departs from thinking that 3/4" groups are "good enough" and goes in pursuit of better accuracy.

It was one factor that, in the end, I found was easily controlled and required very little time to achieve pretty good consistency with and implemented it into my loading regimen.

I hope that answers why "I" do what I do and say what I say."
------------------------------------------------
I hope that helps.
$bob$

Confused,

This one doesn't even deserve an answer but I'll give you this one. Go back and read the whole thread. You're making a lot of incorrect statements and you might notice that I use a lot of different brands of dies.

What makes you think I don't take the expert's advice? Re-read the whole thread.

If a 10% increase in accuracy isn't important to you then that's OK. If you want to call me anal for thinking it's important then that's OK too.

I bought the RCBS dies for this cartridge because it's new and Lee didn't make them and other dies were either not available or more expensive than I wanted to deal with.

$bob$

Ricksmith,

If you think I have a "holier than thou attitude" then I suggest you have a low self esteem instead.

I've been accused of many things in my life but holier than thou was not one of them.

You've been the main detractor in this thread for some reason only known to yourself and after re-reading the whole thread I can only agree with Rocky that you've backed yourself into an argumentative corner and are now fighting to preserve your self esteem.

$bob$

This is the worst load of imaginary, double-talking, trumped-up BS I've ever read on this forum. The only conclusion that I can come to is that LDH is trying to pull some kind of psychology test on the members of this forum. But I will have to praise everyone here who responded and tried to make sense of this lunacy and tried to help anyway, in spite of the fact that they were flamed for their efforts.

Skeezix,

How about you go back and collect the flames and quote them here along with who said them.

You might be surprized.

I doubt you would find that I ever cast the first stone.

There are some people here that seem to have been offended by my "attack" on RCBS. Honestly I consider that their problem and not mine. I've also attacked Redding and laughed at Lee and can't imagine why anyone cares.

The emotions that this thread evoked leave me perplexed and I have come to the conclusion that I've encountered a bunch of juveniles that are loyal to RCBS. (NOTE: Now THAT was a flame!!! <grin> )

Go back and see if YOU can figure out why people got so upset. I'm used to intelligent discussion with adults but this childish knee jerk reaction that this thread evoked is foreign to me. Use direct quotes.

I've read it and re-read it and can't, for the life of me, figure out why I've seen so much angst over a simple criticizm of RCBS.

By the way... If there WAS a "psychology test", as you put it, you probably flunked it... <snicker>

$bob$

Skeezix,

I'd like to point out one more thing. You've charged into this conversation flaming at full tilt and all the while complaining of flaming.

Where's the sense in that? <LOL>

$bob$

Low self esteem, not even close, you don't know me or what I have accomplished in my life. Another shot in the dark by yourself that missed the mark. Didn't know I was the main detractor but I will accept that. Must have missed Rocky's statement because it is not in the postings. What you seem to have missed is that I have agreed with the importance of seating depth but not the problem with the die.
You are the one who attacked every poster who didn't agree with your ranting, you are the one who has continued to attack. No one here has claimed to know more than benchrest etc. You want all this accuracy yet don't follow their advice, too anal for you. You flame the companies who make expensive seating dies yet you owned them and choose to use a less reliable method of measuring your results.
Your meager attempts to insult the other posters and myself are falling on deaf ears since we consider the source. You started this thread with a chip on your shoulder that has grown as the postings have increased. Grow up and be an adult.Rick.

Well Rick... I don't know you but you don't know me either and you were the one that started hurling insults and personal attacks.

Perhaps my "shot in the dark" was right on the mark though. It seems that you've been struggling for recognition all along in this thread.

I sure hope you find it. It seems that your gyrations are wearing you down. I sure know that I'm getting tired of them.

I think you'll find that I HAVE done the adult thing and posted SEVERAL sources for my information and you're the one that just sits there taking pot shots and seems to have his panties in a wad.

$bob$

Minutia?



I see toes!



Again:



We must be square dancing, pardner. First you go this way, then you go that way.

I think I see feet!



???? Hello???? LD????



And then this! ???



Hello! You just ignored him - with this?



Obviously you did or you would have gone back and read them.

Both feet are showing.

BAM!

EWWW!




???????? Well?





I think I'm seeing a pattern here. There's a lot of double talk for someone who's got one foot planted firmly in his esophagas.

You could be munching on both if you hadn't already shot the other off.

Stop worrying about dies. Stop worrying about presses. Stop worry about accuracy if you can't afford to pay for it. Just go out and buy yourself the proper equipment and stop pretending.

And just be thankful people rarely come out and say what they really think.

What a bunch of teenage chicks.........

There are a bunch of "guys" on this thread who need to grow a pair and quit looking for reasons to be offended.

CAS,

Thank you... It seems that there are so many panties in a wad here that all I can do is LOL.

I sure hope they get over it soon...

$bob$

Don't be so quick to exclude yourself from my comments.....

Klikitarik,

I don't mind people saying what they think. I welcome it. I don't get upset.

You and I and everyone else is entitled to their opinions. It's when people loose their tempers over little things that aren't even aimed at them then intelligent discourse ends.

$bob$

Do you think I'm upset? I've never laughed so hard in all my life at all the girie men that get bent out of shape in this thread.

$bob$

Just to make myself perfectly clear. I never did get offended even once in this thread.

I was merely amused at those that seemed to.

Instead of taking pot shots and making a bunch of personal comments I've posted a bunch of INFORMATION and I am the ONLY one that's done that.

$bob$

How about a little perspective? Everyones stupid for not seeing things your way. I have a sporter weight 6mm that is my one "long distance" rifle. If I buy new equipment and take your advice, I might POSSIBLY shave four hundredths of an inch off my groups at 100 yards. You couldn't reliably measure that difference. Good luck with your quest.

Tim

OK.... I just got off the phone with RCBS and was informed that ALL their rifle dies have a roll crimp and the only way to control seating depth is with the extension of the ram. I talked to Jeannie <sp?>

There is more information that I've gone out and brought to this thread.

I imagine that a bunch of people will somehow take offense at this too and I imagine that I'll be even more confused/amused at why they did again.... <sigh>

Anyway there you have it folks.

If you want me to call or check with some other source I'd be happy to.

$bob$

If you're groups are .4" then you would shave .04" off your groups if I'm right. Yes... That's what I'm saying. (10%)

That's correct.

If that's not important to you then that OK too. Nobody said you have to do it but to me if I can shave 10% off a group size without spending more money or using up an inordinate amount of time then I'm always interested.

It appears that I'm more interested in accuracy than you and that's OK with me if it's OK with you.

$bob$

Ricksmith once again missed the facts. Rick you said that Rocky's statement I referred to wasn't here but guess what? I did the research and here it is.

$bob$

Bob,

Why is it so hard to answer this question? Just real numbers from your experience in the field, on game.



I shoot several thousand rounds a year, and agree that seating depth can make a significant difference in group size. However my experience has been that shaving a tenth of an inch off a group really does not make any significant difference in the field because of all the other variables that become part of the equation there.

I am genuinely interested in whether or not you have been able to see any real difference, and if so how much?

Ted

I thought I'd check out the Forster Reloading website and see how they addressed the issue of crimping with a seating die.

Heres a quote from their website...
Two "non-crimping" styles for accuracy, consistency, and perfect alignment.

Here's the page I found it on....
http://www.forsterproducts.com/Pages/dies.htm

Note: I'm not suggesting using Forster benchrest dies for loading for varmint or hunting rifles but since Lee ALSO has removed the crimp capabilities from some/most of their dies you don't have to spend an arm and a leg to get dies that you can jam (sorry Rick) up against the bottom of the die for ram stop consistency.

$bob$

Bob,

Why is it so hard to answer this question?



Ted

[/quote]

Ted,

It's not so hard at all... I already answered it twice... I get 10% (approximately) better accuracy with my bullet seating system.

That is my answer.

If you actually expect me to go out and load ammo both ways and shoot gophers and report the results back to you then methinks you've been sniffing the Hoppe's a bit too much.

Stop and think a minute. If you don't see your question as silly and childish then perhaps you and I live in very different worlds.

$bob$

Bob, again you miss the point.

What I am suggesting is that while it can be demonstrated at the bench, that neither of us are good enough shots in the field to take advantage of that in the field.

That's why I asked the question.

Let me put it a different way. My 223 Ackley consistently shoots half-inch groups at 100 yd. I know it will make no difference on coyotes or wolves, however if I can get it to shoot 10% better, do you think I, or yourself, will be able to take advantage of that improved accuracy while I am out hunting gophers?

Ted

Ted,

My answer is a resounding yes. I think a 10% accuracy increase for hunting ANYTHING is an advantage for the hunter. Especially if it's gophers.

If that 10% is essentially free I'll grab it EVERY time.

$bob$

Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both end up covered in muck, and only the pig really enjoys it.
Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both end up covered in muck, and only the pig really enjoys it.
Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both end up covered in muck, and only the pig really enjoys it.
Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both end up covered in muck, and only the pig really enjoys it.
Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both end up covered in muck, and only the pig really enjoys it.
Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both end up covered in muck, and only the pig really enjoys it.
Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both end up covered in muck, and only the pig really enjoys it.
Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both end up covered in muck, and only the pig really enjoys it.
Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both end up covered in muck, and only the pig really enjoys it.
.
.
.
.

Once again you didn't read what I said, I don't see my name in Rocky's post. You seem to like to say we have all lost our temper, wrong again. What I have seen from you is a lot of double talk and feeble attempts at insults. As I said in another post, I mistakenly thought you were looking for ideas on how to improve seating depth consistancy, that was my mistake. My second mistake was trying to go any farther to figure out what the problem was, dies, press,etc. All along it was operator error. I haven't backed myself into any corner. I agreed from the start that seating depth was important and that I was able to obtain it with standard dies on a Rockchucker but that I now Use Forster Co-Ax press. So once again you are firing blanks. I am tired of dealing with such a childish adult as yourself and will not post on this thread again so go ahead with your ranting and insults. Maybe the other posters can stand you a little longer.Rick.

Rick,

I hope you find peace. It seems that you thought that some things that were said in this thread were aimed at you when they weren't.

Have a nice day....

$bob$

1 stainless 3/8" washer - 25 cents
A dollop of 5 minute epoxy - 50 cents
1 extra RCBS #10 shellholder - 6$

Having the basic hand tools and skills to turn your washer into a "C" then epoxying it to the top of the shellholder, thus giving you a positive stop yet no crimp when seating, so you don't get all bent out of shape over practically nothing on an internet forum in front of thousands of other individuals - priceless

Now that there is FUNNY!!! I don't care WHO you are... <grin>

$bob$

Against my better judgment, I am going to chime in on this thread with my opinion(s), and just remember, these are just my opinions.

First, loading for bench rest is not all about seating depth. There are many other factors involved when you are trying to wring out that last .0001 inch of accuracy. The benchrest dies are designed for both straight line seating, and to adjust seating depth, by trial and error, and most important, by test firing, to determine the optimum seating depth for the best accuracy.

In my opinion, seating depth and straight line seating compliments each other, and both are important.

Another opinion I have is that unless you are going the whole bench rest route, the dies supplied by RCBS, Redding, or anyone else are plenty satisfactory for both varmit and target. If you want the bullet crimped, and it has a crimping groove, use the crimping shoulder.

If you don't want to crimp the bullet, back the die out part of a turn, and adjust the seating depth with the seating stem that comes with the die. That is what it is for, and this is the best you are going to get without going to a bench rest seating die.

I don't believe manufacturing a seating die with provision for a crimp will make a bit of difference, if you use the die as it is designed--screwed in to crimp, backed out to not crimp, but that is not to say that I don't realize seating depth can affect accuracy, because I know that it can.

For an example of how seating depth can affect accuracy, let me give an example. I have a 7 m/m Weatherby Magnum, and with the bullets seated to a certain depth, using an RCBS die with a crimping shoulder, but with the die backed out so that it does not crimp, the groups will average about one inch or a little smaller. The only problem is that when the bullets are seated to this depth, the cartridges will not work through the magazine. They are too long.

When I seat the bullets a little deeper, still using my RCBS die, backed out about a half turn so that it will not crimp, and adjusting seating depth with the stem, the cartridges will work through the magazine, but the groups open up to 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 inches.

What to do, what to do? For hunting, where I might need a quick follow up shot, I load so the cartriges will work through the magazine.

If I were planning to use this rifle in a long range target match, which I am not planning on doing, I would seat the bullets to the depth which gives the best accuracy, and load them one at a time, and not put them in the magazine. I also believe that I would be wringing almost the last bit of accuracy out this rifle by doing it this way. It is not a bench rest rifle, and it was never intended to be one, nor was it ever intended to be a long range varmit rifle.

I think there would be very little improvment over the group sizes if I went the full bench rest loading route.

It a barrel is beginning to wear in it's throat, seating the bullets out a little further will sometimes extend the accuracy of the barrel. This is another instance where seating depth is important.

In summary, I don't think a die either with or without a crimping shoulder is going to make very much difference unless you take all of the other necessary steps to get the best accuracy, and that includes using a straight line seating die.

The average, over the counter two die sets of loading dies are not intended to be the last word if your objective is one hole groups. They work, and if you have an accurate rifle, they work very well. I imigine tens of thousands of rounds loaded in convential dies are fired each year at Camp Perry and on other target ranges across the country. The 1000 yard shooters might use convential methods, and I am sure that some of them employ loading methods utilized by bench resters. I would, if I were going to get back into it.

I have never seen the need for a micrometer seating die. As far as I know, straight line seating is not a factor built into micrometer seating dies. Using a die such as this is only one operation among many other operations necessary for the utmost accuracy. Anyway, if the bullet is not seated where I want it to be, it is not much of a chore to either screw in the stem a little bit or screw it out a little bit. It has a lock ring, so I can leave it on it's last setting. I can load up a few cartridges, shoot them, and if I am not satisfied with the groups, then I can adjust the seating depth and try again. Or leave the seating depth alone and try something else.

These are my views and no one elses, and they are not intended to tell someone the best procedures for loading. I have been loading for competition shooting and hunting for about 45 years, and over the years I have discovered things that work for me, and I have also discovered a bunch of stuff that doesn't work.

One of the things I have learned is that some rifles will give satisfactory accuracy with about anything you want to feed through them, and then there are others that you cannot get to shoot accuratly using the best components money can buy, and using the latest in bench rest loading techniques.

1234567,

EXCELLENT POST!!!

Well thought and and you've obviously been there.

The straight line seating dies are kind of new to me but I've been reading more about them when I did the research to answer some of the questions that came up here.

What brand(s) do you use and which do you like best?

$bob$

I can only speak for the Redding competition seating dies, but they certainly employ straight line seating. The fits between the seater stem, bullet, and the sliding case/bullet guide are every bit as snug as the Wilson seaters.

Regards,
Scott

LD:

Back when I did precision shooting, I usually made my own. The best ones are the ones made with the original reamer used to chamber the rifle, and if you have a piece of left over barrel about two or three inches long, to use for the die body, that is even better to make it from.

I only used them for benchrest rifles, for, you know, that last .0001 inch of accuracy. I believe Sinclair sells them, and also Wilson. I don't think they are necessary for normal hunting rifles, or even most target rifles, other than benchrest. A person shooting 300 meter free rifle might make use of ammunition loaded this way.

I haven't shot bench rest in several years, and I am unfamiliar with the latest technology, but when I was doing it, the best stuff was precision hand made. Not necessarily by me, but I made my seating dies and also my neck sizing dies. The sizing dies were of the type that utilized a hardened steel bushing to size the outside of the neck. We didn't pull a neck expander back through the neck. I think Redding makes something similiar, but designed to be used in a regular press. The ones we used were used with an arbor press.

If you are thinking about going this route, it is a very slow and time consuming way to reload, but if you want all the accuracy your rifle has available, it is the only way to go.

But, there is a difference in the amount of accuracy you need for 400 yard ground hogs or 1000 yard target shooting, as opposed to white tailed deer 40 at yards in thick thick woods.

Personally, even for white tail in thick woods, I would prefer a .25 MOA rifle over a 1 MOA rifle, be we do have to be realistic.

Well, it was also supposed to be constructive. I'm certainly not the originator of the idea of shimming the top of the shellholder, though I usually see it used in conjunction with sizing. But it may very well get you exactly what you want - a positive stop and no crimp. Who knows when you'll have another die choice for the .17 Fireball.

Regards,
Scott

Scott,

I know but it was so funny too.... I like to split a gut... I always like the "priceless jokes"...

I imagine it would work but Lee will probably end up with a die set for it soon or I'll end up getting Redding dies.

I'll use the RCBS for a backup.

$bob$

1234567,

Yeah benchrest is a little too anal for me but that was interesting stuff.

$bob$

Back in the day when I shot quite a bit of competitive BR, I was one of the few who loaded ammunition with a press/die setup. I used unaltered Bonanza BR dies in a RCBS Jr press (C. 1971); hardly state of the art. I didn't worry about running the ram up against anything and let the press cam over center. This was because I didn't know any better, I guess.
In spite of what was, in retrospect and given the information in this thread, sheer stupidity, I won trophies, cash and prizes pretty consistently until I grew restless and moved on to other things. I shot aggregates well under .250 (not that great by today's standards but not bad back in the '70's). I shot groups under .1moa. I shot a three gun aggregate that was almost down to .260 (Iused three different rifles too!).In other words, I did OK. Yet, all this time, I was flapping that old RCBS Jr handle up and down and letting it cam right over.
Nowdays, it's plain I would be lucky to stay on the paper given this cavalier attitude toward precision.
In recent years I took up "F" class shooting and once again, I screwed dies down into that same old press and loaded ammunition for my long range rifles. Again, I obviously knew no better. Luck is apparently on my side though and I've again found myself winning a reasonable share of the tinware.
I recently made up a rifle in 308 specifically for a 300 meter match. I worked up loads in this rifle which would shoot groups right around 1/4 inch at 100 yds and could put ten shots into an inch at 300 meters. These were loaded with Wilson dies (Wilson dies are not what they used to be, by the way). I was a bit short on brass but I had some which I had fired in a rifle chambered with another reamer so I had to full length resize it. To do this I used a set of RCBS dies. Since I was all set up at the press (the same old RCBS Jr.)I just used the RCBS seater to seat some 168 Sierras. In my ignorance, I set the die up as I always had and just let the ram cam over at the top. I went out to fire the twenty rounds. At 100 yds. five shots went into .237. At 300 meters I wasted a couple to confirm my scope setting then put ten into 1 3/8 inches (I was having a bit of trouble with the wind).
My conclusion? If somebody has absolutely nothing else to obsess about, the question as to whether or not his press ram is hitting against the die is probably as good as anything. Once he has this settled to his satisfaction, he can worry about whether or not the forks are lined up neatly in the silverware tray. Or if the handle on the toilet flusher is dead level. These things will likely have just as severe effect in the field as the action of his loading press ram. GD

I'm amazed that we've got this many pages of rancor without ever mentioning Leupold scopes, Barnes X bullets or unions.

greydog

You just spoiled this entire thread by showing what common sense can accomplish.

It's also amazing what really can be accomplished sometimes when a person doesn't realize that what he is doing is all wrong.

Indeed!

Holy smoke, is this thread still going? What the heck, it's pretty funny to see blowtorching over something besides Ron Paul.