Redding Comp Shellholders Inaccurate

1

16denarius

Private
Minuteman
May 29, 2019
32
10
Southern California
#1
Hi folks,

I've sent a question in to Redding, but just curious if anyone else has run into what seems to be some pretty inaccurate machining/stamping by Redding?. My set of shellholders don't seem to bump by the amounts they're stamped for. I'm pretty sure I have the die set up right (Redding FL Type-S Bushing); Full contact with the .002, and starting with the .010. My Lee Turret press does not hit the stops, no chatter or sticking.

So starting with 1x fired brass, all measuring 1.622 with a Hornady comp set, here's what I get for each:
.010 = 1.624
.008 = 1.623
.006 = 1.622
.004 = 1.622
.002 = 1.618
 
#5
16denarius said:
It's a bit awkward using the back end of my calipers, but they seem to line up with my resizing results.
Click to expand...

Yeah that wont work. The results are erratic. They were for me anyway. I tried using the back of the calipers, then set everything down and walked away. 5 minutes later I started over and got different results. The issue is that you may not be holding the calipers perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the shell holder.

Use an actual depth gauge.
 
#6
16denarius said:
Hi folks,

I've sent a question in to Redding, but just curious if anyone else has run into what seems to be some pretty inaccurate machining/stamping by Redding?. My set of shellholders don't seem to bump by the amounts they're stamped for. I'm pretty sure I have the die set up right (Redding FL Type-S Bushing); Full contact with the .002, and starting with the .010. My Lee Turret press does not hit the stops, no chatter or sticking.

So starting with 1x fired brass, all measuring 1.622 with a Hornady comp set, here's what I get for each:
.010 = 1.624
.008 = 1.623
.006 = 1.622
.004 = 1.622
.002 = 1.618
Click to expand...

I haven't used these before, but it sounds like you would need to set the die up to make full contact with the +0.010" shell holder first. Since that one is the lowest, or furthest from the die, it would set the starting point more accurately. The reason your first attempt lead to an increase in headspace was likely due to the +0.010" shell holder not even contacting the die. This would allow there to be too much play and give you inconsistent results. It's also probably why the rest of your readings were off after that, since only the +.002" made contact.

So, I would do the following:
1) Back out your sizing die
2) Put the +.010" shell holder in the press
3) Raise the ram
4) Lower the sizing die until it makes contact with the shell holder
5) Lower the ram and turn the sizing die 1/8 or so more to create cam over and eliminate play between the die and ram
6) Start your tests again, locking the die down when the case is inside the die the first time

You also need to note that these shell holders are different in size in relation to each other, so you can't simply calculate which one to use based on your starting headspace. You would need to measure your starting point, 1.622 in this case, then use the +.010" shell holder and see what that yields after sizing. Based on that first resized measurement, use the shell holder that makes up the difference to your goal headspace.

Consider the following scenario. Let's say your goal is .002" of shoulder bump and your initial case headspace measures 1.622" before sizing. Then, you size with the +.010" shell holder, and the first sized measurement is 1.624". You should then use the +.006" shell holder (.004" higher inside the die), which should theoretically measure at 1.620" and give you .002" of bump.

EDIT: Marked out first paragraph since the shell holders themselves should have the same external dimensions.
 
Last edited:
#7
Rathmatik said:
I haven't used these before, but it sounds like you would need to set the die up to make full contact with the +0.010" shell holder first. Since that one is the lowest, or furthest from the die, it would set the starting point more accurately. The reason your first attempt lead to an increase in headspace was likely due to the +0.010" shell holder not even contacting the die. This would allow there to be too much play and give you inconsistent results. It's also probably why the rest of your readings were off after that, since only the +.002" made contact.

So, I would do the following:
1) Back out your sizing die
2) Put the +.010" shell holder in the press
3) Raise the ram
4) Lower the sizing die until it makes contact with the shell holder
5) Lower the ram and turn the sizing die 1/8 or so more to create cam over and eliminate play between the die and ram
6) Start your tests again, locking the die down when the case is inside the die the first time

You also need to note that these shell holders are different in size in relation to each other, so you can't simply calculate which one to use based on your starting headspace. You would need to measure your starting point, 1.622 in this case, then use the +.010" shell holder and see what that yields after sizing. Based on that first resized measurement, use the shell holder that makes up the difference to your goal headspace.

Consider the following scenario. Let's say your goal is .002" of shoulder bump and your initial case headspace measures 1.622" before sizing. Then, you size with the +.010" shell holder, and the first sized measurement is 1.624". You should then use the +.006" shell holder (.004" higher inside the die), which should theoretically measure at 1.620" and give you .002" of bump.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
#11
Well I will let these others reply, if they choose, but I see what I said at the top was incorrect now. I believe the external dimensions are the same, while each one has a different depth.

Everything except the first paragraph is still applicable to setting up your die correctly to make sure there's no play, and also how to determine which shell holder to use based on your initial unsized/resized measurements. And please, if anything else is wrong with what I said, explain the reason.

If you did follow these steps and you have no play in your ram while it's up all the way, then I'd agree with kingaling about using a depth gauge. It will also be helpful to see what Redding comes back with.

Good luck, and sorry if my first post mislead you in any way.
 
Last edited:
#14
Rathmatik said:
Ah okay, thank you for clarifying. I had watched a video that seemed to indicate it was the opposite.
Click to expand...

Actually, it seems I was right in saying the .010" would yield the lowest setback, but wrong in saying it would be further from the die. It is the depth that changes. So @918v, it isn't the tallest, as they all are the same height externally. It is actually the lowest in terms of depth. It would give the highest length in terms of case base to shoulder, but lowest set back.

Below is a picture straight from Redding's 2020 catalog that I have. They suggest using the +.010" shell holder to set up your die. They also suggest the method of checking set back using your rifle to see how easy it is to chamber, but I think measuring for .002" set back would work well.

1605652869709.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassinDmax, 16denarius and Mike_in_FL
#15
918v said:
The +.010” is the tallest shell holder. If you set up the die on that one, all other shell holders will be further back from the die.
Click to expand...
The .010" has the longest "x" dimension from the pic (leaving the longest shoulder). All the holders' height from ram to die are the same. (Basically what @Rathmatik said just above)

My OP complaint is that from holder to holder, it doesn't seem to be a precise .002 between each. And of course, the middle of the huge jump between my ".002" and ".004" holders is right where my setback should be. I close just a little snug on the .004".
 
Last edited:
#16
16denarius said:
The .010" has the longest "x" dimension from the pic (leaving the longest shoulder). All the holders' height from ram to die are the same. (Basically what @Rathmatik said just above)

My OP complaint is that from holder to holder, it's nowhere near a precise .002 between each. And of course, the middle of the huge jump between my ".002" and ".004" holders is right where my setback should be. I close just a little snug on the .004".
Click to expand...

Can I ask what does it matter? Do you just like measuring stuff?

You resize on .010, does it chamber easily? No? Try .008. Chambers easily now? No?, go to .006. Yes? Resize all your other cases using .006. This is how they work.

This is almost as bad as people going on about "runout" who don't want to discuss how the ammo ACTUALLY shoots.
 
#17
Mike_in_FL said:
Can I ask what does it matter? Do you just like measuring stuff?
Click to expand...
Does it really matter? No. probably not. I'm definitely too new at this to know how many (if any) extra loads out of a piece of brass I'd get by bumping by .002 vs .004 every time. But then, that level of approximate precision is kinda why I blew $70 on a set of shellholders, and it's too late to return em :p
 
#18
16denarius said:
Does it really matter? No. probably not. I'm definitely too new at this to know how many (if any) extra loads out of a piece of brass I'd get by bumping by .002 vs .004 every time. But then, that level of approximate precision is kinda why I blew $70 on a set of shellholders, and it's too late to return em :p
Click to expand...


You guys... They provide you a means to simply bump your shoulders while FL sizing your cases. I use them all the time with my Redding S dies because I have 4 different .308s. And if you're pulling a ball back up through the case neck they may not work anyhow based on your original set of "measurements".

If it bothers you that much, call Redding and ask them. I feel like I just moderated a Billy Madison debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C.R. Adams
#19
I measured my 300WM set with a depth gauge:

Stamp:Should measure:Actual measurement:Off:
+.010.135.1354+.0004
+.008.133.1334+.0004
+.006.131.1304-.0006
+.004.129.1293+.0003
+.002.127.1265-.0005

Disclaimer: In the actual measurements I eyeballed the 4th digit.
I actually wound up not caring because I can't use them anyway. My 300 WM RCBS non-bushing dies AND my brand new Redding Type S dies can't bump the shoulder using any of these shell holders or any off the shelf holder for that matter. I need shell holders that are lower than .125" which nobody fucking makes so I have to file a standard one down.

16denarius said:
Does it really matter? No. probably not. I'm definitely too new at this to know how many (if any) extra loads out of a piece of brass I'd get by bumping by .002 vs .004 every time. But then, that level of approximate precision is kinda why I blew $70 on a set of shellholders, and it's too late to return em :p
Click to expand...
^ This. Being new, I wanted that precision. In the end, it was a waste of money. Even if it had worked, the same thing could be accomplished by unscrewing the die a little bit to get a longer headspace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 16denarius
#20
I've had a frustrating experience with these shellholders, and feel I need to chime in.

I read the directions, read a zillion posts about how to use them, and watched a bunch of YouTube videos before using them.

After sizing several .308 cases (twice fired, annealed Federal brass), using my Redding body die on my RCBS single stage press, measuring with my Mitutoyo calipers and Hornady comparator, following Redding's directions, I got NO DIFFERENCE in case length between ANY of the Competition Shellholders.

The thickness differences between shellholders is supposed to be .002", but varies between roughly .001" to .003". Some have a taper of about .001" from left to right, too.

Measured with my Mitutoyo micrometers, from the top of the shellholder (where it contacts the bottom of the sizing die) to the "deck" (where the case head sits - this is the "X" dimension in Redding's drawing in the post above), I got the following measurements:

.010 shellholder: .1362"
.008 shellholder: .1330"
.006 shellholder: .1317"
.004 shellholder: .1298"
.002 shellholder: .1276"

Some quick math will tell you the difference in thickness ranges between .001" and .003". Between the "10" and the "8", the difference is .003". Between the "8" and the "6", the difference is .001". The "6", "4", and "2" are closer to .002", and between the "10" and "2", the overall difference is about .009", which is close to what it should be (.008").

In use, maybe after the first sizing (following Redding's directions, starting with the "+.010" shellholder), the case work hardens a bit, so going to progressively thinner shellholders and trying to get exactly .002" increments is just never going to happen. The haphazard quality of the shellholders doesn't help, either.

In the end, I get repeatable results (give or take about .001") using a regular shellholder and screwing my Redding sizing die in and out "a bit at a time", using a few "throwaway" cases to set it up. Once set up, I can then size a batch of cases, and they all come out +/- about .001" or .0015". Close enough, and I could've saved $80.

YMMV, and maybe with "quality" brass you'll have better results. Just keep in mind that Redding's quality control is haphazard, and these shellholders aren't the size indicated.
 
#22
kingaling said:
I measured my 300WM set with a depth gauge:

Stamp:Should measure:Actual measurement:Off:
+.010.135.1354+.0004
+.008.133.1334+.0004
+.006.131.1304-.0006
+.004.129.1293+.0003
+.002.127.1265-.0005
Click to expand...

Awesome info, thanks. If those are their tolerances, my set almost makes sense.

The way I was taught to build stuff, the tighter tolerance you aim for, the better your end result will be. Every measurement of anything has a tolerance. If you're ok with 1" at the bottom of a 5 story building, you can be off almost a foot by the time you reach the top. Experience will teach where you can cut corners. Some of you old salty dogs, be a little nicer to the newbs, will ya?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rathmatik and kingaling
#23
You can also get shim packs that sit on top of the standard shell holder and can adjust headspace that way.

I prefer shimming better than adjusting the die out to not contact the shell holder as it’s much quicker to set up when switching between dies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingaling
#24
I suppose you could use feeler gauges (like the kind sold at auto parts stores for setting valve clearances) to precisely screw the die in or out in relation to the top of the shell holder. Cheap and readily available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingaling
#25
Comman-D'oh said:
I suppose you could use feeler gauges (like the kind sold at auto parts stores for setting valve clearances) to precisely screw the die in or out in relation to the top of the shell holder. Cheap and readily available.
Click to expand...


The problem with “floating?” the die and not coming to a hard stop against the shell holder is flex within the press. It might not be an issue for a heavy duty press or easily sized cases, but a lot of the cheaper presses will flex under the force of full length sizing and give inconsistent shoulder measurements.

You can also use feeler gauges underneath the case head in the shell holder if your die doesn’t push the shoulder back far enough, but going the other way needs a bit more forethought to get consistency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 16denarius
#26
I realized I could use my Sinclair concentricity gauge to measure more accurate depth (duh). Here's what I came up with.
Stamp:Should measure:Actual measurement:Off:
+.010.136.136.000
+.008.134.134.000
+.006.132.1325+.0005
+.004.130.132+.002
+.002.128.127-.001

Redding's been awesome at responding. I asked if they'd just send me a new .004, but guessing they'll have me send the set in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rathmatik and kingaling
#28
mcfred said:
Yes, to a degree this discussion might all be academic, but nice tools are nice, and holding ±.0003" tolerance on mass-produced parts is actually quite difficult to do affordably.
Click to expand...

Not one other person here complained about a .0003" tolerance level. Read the thread. Your dismission of everyone else's experience is of no value to anyone.

With a good rigid press, a $70 set of shell holders to avoid just adjusting your die is a waste of money, IMO. Worse so when they are way out of spec, as several members here have explained.
 
#29
mcfred said:
Hmm, I sense hostility. I thought the thread title was "Redding Comp Shellholders Inaccurate." Is that not an indictment of sloppy tolerance level? I also contribiuted my own measurements of the same shell holders and some are not in rigid .0020" increments from a nominal dimension. Whose experience did I dismiss? My intpretation of your above statememt appears to dismiss the contribution of my experience, is that your intent? I didn't call anyone out.

I worked in an aerospace prototype machine shop for 7 years. You will pay heavily for tight tolerance parts. I am unaware of a guarantee of spec from Redding on their shell holders, though I suspect if you call Redding they will be willing to stand behind their product. If not, some sandpaper and a surface plate can shave a few ten thousandths off a shell holder's thickness if .0020" steps are an absolute requirement.
Click to expand...

Seriously though, read the thread again. Nobody is complaining of tolerances that small. They're complaining of .004"-.006" off from the stated spec, about 20x the tolerance level you are saying we should accept.
I'm a machinist too, and am well aware of what it takes to hold tight tolerances. .004" doesn't really qualify in this application, IMO.
 
#30
mcfred said:
Ok, we'll read the thread again, like you've recommended me to do twice now... for the record, I'm not telling anyone to do anything except contact the manufacturer for tools that are grossly out of tolerance. I want to reiterate we're talking about shell holders here.

So far as my reading comprehension goes, the thread's OP, 16denarius, posted two sets of numbers on his shell holders, and has apparently called the manufacturer for a resolution, which I applaud. The fact he got two, different sets of numbers using two different measurment systems causes me some concern, but I didnt mention it, until now:
+.010 = .134" and .136"
+.008 = .132" and .134"
+.006 = .131" and .1325"
+.004 = .131" and .132"
+.002 = .127" and .127"

Comman-D'oh found his set as follows and expressed concerns about the parallelism of the "deck" relative to the top of the shell holder:
+.010 = .1362"
+.008 = .1330"
+.006 = .1317"
+.004 = .1298"
+.002 = .1276"

Kingaling measured his set at:
+.010 = .1354"
+.008 = .1334"
+.006 = .1304"
+.004 = .1293"
+.002 = .1265"

I posted my findings which were out a max of approx .0006" from nominal.

I see five data points above and I don't see anywhere shell holders are .004"- .006" off, so please help me out and quote me where you're getting those numbers.
Click to expand...

OK you're partly right - I was wrong about the .004-.006" dimension so I apologize for that. Looks like the actual deviations others measured above were .002"-.003" out (per the OP and Comman-D'oh). But that's still a long way from .0003", by a factor of 10x on the high end. Your comments about the discussion being academic, "nice tools are nice", and acting like your measurements are the only ones that matter are dismissive of the valid complaints here.

My objection is that you're acting like a know-it-all instead of considering what other people have said here.

You're also incorrect about your assertion of the Redding shell holders being more repeatable than backing off the die due to differences in brass. That's simply not true at all; the differences in brass affect shoulder bump regardless which method is used. They can help account for flex in the press, but only if adjusted to account for that; different amounts of cam-over do affect how much the brass is sized so just setting the die to contact the shell holder doesn't eliminate variation from press flex. Overall, it sounds like you're just fishing for ways to justify a set of overpriced shell holders.
 
#31
Geez, man. Objection noted. I hope that'll make you happier.

I apologise for attempting to help, volunteer data, or share my experiences. I try harder in the future to just not type anything in the first place.

Lesson learned.
 
#33
Just an update: Mike at Redding sent me out a new .004 holder. It's measuring .1285 on my gauge, close enough to .129 for me. I may or may not do some light wet block-sanding on a few of the others someday just to satisfy my OCD, but happy with the purchase (as I am with my other Redding stuff).

Never meant to start a debate on the validity of the shellholder kit overall. I do kinda wish that a $70 set didn't have as much variance from spec as seems to be, but if Redding is happy to make it right, then I'm happy as a customer.

Edit: Cool vid @Mike_in_FL . Always fun seeing dudes who know their stuff just shooting the shit. Is "Speedy" where the "S" die came from, or did you just mean the other "$"?
 
Last edited:
#34
This thread got me thinking about my less-than-impressive results with the Competition Shell Holder set I use for my .308. As a result, I decided to measure mine.

I went about it in a slightly different way, using the Redding Instant Indicator/Case Comparator set. First, I zeroed the Indicator using a Redding #1 shell holder. Instead of a fired case, I used the brass Setup Gauge that comes with the Indicator set. This should equate to SAAMI minimums. With the Indicator thus "zeroed," I measured the same Setup Gauge after exchanging each of the Competition Shellholders.

IMG_7053.JPG


Here were my results:

SHELL PLATE-------ACTUAL
#1--------------------0.00
+.010----------------+.0095
+.008---------------+.007
+.006---------------+.005
+.004---------------+.0035
+.002---------------+.001

Not horrible, but not very consistent. Following the product instructions would give set back varying from 1.5 thousands to 2.5 thousands. Not exactly precise. For $70, should I expect better?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassinDmax
#35
16denarius said:
Never meant to start a debate on the validity of the shellholder kit overall. I do kinda wish that a $70 set didn't have as much variance from spec as seems to be, but if Redding is happy to make it right, then I'm happy as a customer.

Edit: Cool vid @Mike_in_FL . Always fun seeing dudes who know their stuff just shooting the shit. Is "Speedy" where the "S" die came from, or did you just mean the other "$"?
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that Redding took care of you and yes, I understand where you're coming from and I hope you understand where I'm coming from. They may not be exact per their markings, but they will do the job without resetting your die. Consider that people swear by the Autotrickler, 1,200* dollar scale/dispenser and it still needs a 70 dollar "cup" from Area 419. Now, I'm not a machinist but I would think little ass shellholders would be harder to make than an aluminum cup for the same price.

If you watch the whole video, yes, the S is for Speedy. Who modified his dies and didn't tell anybody for a year and a half while winning all the matches until another shooter let the cat out of the bag.

If you want to give your dial caliper a workout, check out how EC sets his die:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Once fired brass to measure or not, headspace questions
Replies
4
Views
901
Doom
Doom
Dildobaggins
Shoulder bump questions
Replies
32
Views
1K
Smokin7s
Smokin7s
C
338 Lapua Redding Body Die Issues
Replies
2
Views
312
Chargerguy
C
Baron23
New Reloader with a Question
Replies
29
Views
978
Steel head
Steel head
AnimalMother224
Redding Comp Shell Holders
Replies
19
Views
960
AnimalMother224
AnimalMother224
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts