- May 21, 2016 at 3:38 pm #27959Butch WaxParticipant
- Posts: 22
- Comments: 158
- Overall: 180
A question to those that love to measure and ponder things.
I don’t use a progressive press. A Dillon will never grace my small humble bench. I use old Lyman tools for the most part. My favorite is an early Spar-T turret press for pistol rounds. For rifles I tend to use, and don’t laugh, Lyman 310 tong tools. Wonderful neck sizing and quite fast for me too. Full length stuff gets handled with a Spartan press or a very old RCBS Jr press. Ok, now back to the carbide dies…..
For many years I’ve used my Lyman All American dies or a set of RCBS dies for my loading. I bought a Lyman AA carbide sizing die ages ago, and later acquired a RCBS carbide and a set from Lee. And have been loading for decades with them all. And recently had a nostalgic moment and loaded 50 with the old all steel Lyman AA dies. Aside from “returning to those thrilling days of yesteryear ” using the old dies showed me something I suppose I have forgotten. A smooth and slight taper to the case. I thought to myself “how nice ” and moved on. Then a couple days ago I was back using the Lyman carbide sizer and noticed the absence of the taper and how the case was sized straight down to the base. But with one exception. An ever so slight, but still noticeable ring where the die stops at the base. This, of course, never caused an issue with chambering or shooting but it does pose a question or two perhaps.
Precision distance shooting requirements demand close fit in the throats and chambers of a revolver. Combat shooting requirements demand loose fitting for reliable function. Two very different worlds in a sense but serviced by similar calibers and loading dies.
Now the design of the old Lyman AA tungsten carbide sizer is very straight and narrow so to speak. Just a small ring of this material inserted into the die at the base. No tapering. No gradual angles. Just a short straight insert. The RCBS (c. 1977) leaves no telltale ring as with the Lee die as well. And yet neither are tapered as the old all steel die from long ago. When belling the case mouths with all the carbide tools it is quite pronounced where with the older steel die its not. It’s gradual and actually harder to see than with the carbide sizers.
Now I’m a combat shooter. Now retired, my enemies are hogs, coyote, snakes, and armadillos. I don’t shoot bullseye targets as I shoot for center mass as always. But the fact that three different carbide dies, with one in particular, taking the cases down so much, wouldn’t this create an accuracy issue at a great distance as opposed to closer fitting cases? Or am I over thinking this?
And is the amount of sizing with the carbide sizers causing greater stress upon the brass compared to the old standard steel die?
I’ll let you folks ponder this a while. Be interesting to see what ya’ll think. Me? Well, like I said, I’m a combat shooter. I demand fully functional ammo always. So when my rounds drop from a speedloader they’d all better be fully into the chamber and seated. So if they “rattle around ” a little in the chamber and don’t fit tight into the throats, well frankly I’m good with that. (Big goofy grin)
- May 21, 2016 at 7:31 pm #27971GoodsteelKeymaster
- Posts: 208
- Comments: 2452
- Overall: 2660
Yes it does.
No it doesn’t.
Some guns say one, some say the other. Its my opinion that if everthing is lined up right, it’s better to be tight. I like the cartridges to dunk in easy, be supported in the front by the bullet and in the rear by the fact that I didn’t size all the way down.
I do the same thing with every straight walled case. I set the die to only size the neck of the brass, and try it in the chamber. At a certain point, the brass slips easily into the chamber, but it doesn’t hold the bullet securely enough yet (this is very dependent on the gun and bullet used).
You can see where the die stopped sizing on the brass. The way I see it, somewhere between there, and fully sized is the sweet spot. I usually drop it in the middle and let the rough edge drag.
Now if you’re asking if properly fitting ammo equals better groups? Of course it does. But “fit” can be one of two things:
1. absolutely, perfect, uber schweeght, no compromise, excellence which you pay for through the nose with time money and headache.
2. You find out where it’s got to fit, make it so, let the rough edge drag, and then go to spankin ass at the range.
- May 21, 2016 at 10:00 pm #27975HarterParticipant
- Posts: 76
- Comments: 807
- Overall: 883
I neck my Colts because because all but 1 sizer I have make Coke Bottle cases out of them and it is even more exaggerated in a Rossi 92′ that pushes .495 instead of .484 . This only makes a case for not over working brass and wearing it out.
Fitted dies vs carbide ? I sure wish we could have it both ways but alas speed and ease trumps brass working . I think the cartridge fitted dies work the brass less but you have to lube if not eventually you’ll stick a case . Because with carbide dies there’s no lubing required you get to skip putting it on and taking it off .
If I were loading strictly for little groups carbide wouldn’t be a consideration, but i load for 250 rounds of shooting on a weekend in 3 pistols the box of 50 for deer camp may last 5 yr .
“It only matters when it does” ……
- May 21, 2016 at 10:33 pm #27977Butch WaxParticipant
- Posts: 22
- Comments: 158
- Overall: 180
My oh my, as Monte Walsh would say.
Tim, that round looks like my .45-70’s do when loaded with the 310. I size em just to where the base of the round stops in the case. Do just fine in every. 45-70 I’ve had since 1961. Guess I’m doing something right huh?ðŸ˜‰
Yeah, it’s just that I never really got excited over a minute ridge/ring at the base before. Just really saw it and did the double take look after using the old steel standard Lyman All American dies that are so smooth and precise. All plated and pretty from a time when things were just… well, you know. …
But I’ve been using 310’s for 56 years and got kinda attached to em. The old Spartan rigs too. Oh geeeez, there I go again. Rambling again. â˜º
Ok. Well thanks for letting me know I’m not totally nuts!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.