All of this advice is good, and I support it.
For later on, give some thought as to what you'd like to end up with as your final, refined setup.
Since I've been at this since the mid-1990's, I've had ample time to try things out and hone down both my gear and my overall handloading philosophy.
For me, the overall winning press is the Dillon RL550B. I use mostly RCBS F/L 2-die sets, with some exceptions. My 260 Rem dies are Hornady new Dimension F/L 2 die set, provided as a gift. I think they are especially nice with the elliptical sizer ball, particularly when I'm necking up 243 brass to 260 spec, however I'm currently necking own 7mm-08 brass to 260, and the die set works very nicely for that too.
After a decade or so with the Dillon automatic powder measures, I finally sprang for the automated digital powder measure, a Hornady Lock-n-Load unit, but the membrane switch panel finally bought the farm and I recently replaced it with the RCBS Chargemaster Lite. It's still fairly new, but I couldn't be more pleased with it.
I still use my original Lee Dial Micrometer; it's always been there, it's always worked, so why not keep it?
There are certainly nicer bits and pieces out there, but this is where the twenty-some years of philosophical refinement steps in. If my rifles were all finely tuned, extra close tolerance machines, I'd be deep into the more arcane approaches to hand loading, because such rifles can take full advantage of that stuff
But I made a core decision early on that I would be keeping all my chamber specs completely in line with SAAMI spec.
Mostly, it's because I don't generally sell my rifles, I hand them down to my younger family and they are not (so far...) hand loaders. Such rifles do not respond readily to extra fine high tolerance ammunition, but they do fire factory ammunition without any issues that border on safety when doing so. In essence, I'm not giving away any safety issues to my family along with the rifles.
And, since they don't need and probably can't take best advantage of super fine tolerance ammunition, it's easier to make the ammo they need without having to do all the extra care side-issue steps.
Of course there's a penalty, it has to do with ultimate accuracy, and it's quite real. If I was into Bench Rest ultimate accuracy shooting, or competing in the National levels of 1000yd F Open class shooting, it would cost me too many places to make that sort of competition truly satisfying. But I don't and the reason is not really about my gear or ammo, it's about my skills. I'm just not that good a shooter, and super fine rifles and ammunition are simply going to be wasted on the likes of me. I also think they might be wasted on many others, but that's not my call to make. Insisting that everyone should adhere to only the highest standards sells a lot of stuff. It remains to be seen if it makes such a huge difference in a lot of cases, especially when one is starting out. It's a choice, I made mine, others take a different tack; more power to them. I've swum in the deep water with the biggest sharks, and I know for a fact that I am not one of them.
The point here is that there are options at all levels of this activity, and often the really intense approach can be postponed for quite some time before it can be fully justified.
So, what do I give up? I think it's surprisingly little. By using the basic dies and equipment, along with a diligent approach to the basic necessary ammunition fabrication steps, in combination with thorough load development, surprisingly good ammunition can be the result. It will be good enough to find and achieve the full potential of the basic accurate rifle, and to find and achieve a dedicated shooter's marksmanship potential. What it fails to do is not as much as many might believe, and is something that would only become an imperative once a serious shooter's career is ready to step up to the highest plateaus.
Others will choose to throw money at the problem, and for them, that's a great approach. But it's not the imperative at the earlier levels.
Now my little secret is that I actually started with the Dillon RL550B, a very rarely found used one, and immediately bypassed all of the intermediate equipment and its associated steps. I've had it since 1995, God knows how much earlier it actually originates, and I've never felt the need to replace it. 'Buy once, cry once' has a personal meaning for me. Nobody needs to do that, but it has worked well for me.
I did try many, maybe most, of the more intricate approaches to ammunition making. They do work, and they work well. But I think they also require a lot of sophistication in the rifles that use such ammunition in order to get their best benefit; a sophistication that goes somewhat sideways to my primary goals of passing on utilitarian, generally safe rifles to my family. In the end, my goals do not require the sophistication, and at my age simplification is a very useful approach.
I now, therefore, find that my time allocation is more distributed toward load development than toward ammunition fabrication. For me, that's a better balance. With my simplified approach to fabrication, I can make more ammunition more quickly, and it's plenty good enough for my needs.
In general, fewer tweaks translates into fewer potential issues; and the more basic approach generally provides for a more robust performance, one which is less prone to outside influences and hidden flaws. K.I.S.S. has a real value. At age 72, life's too short to spend any of it dealing with primer crimps; brass also has value as a recycled commodity. I also don't waste my time reloading 9mm, I use Independence 115gr Aluminum case ammo for all my practice, and my carry load is Fed 147gr Hydra-Shok, four 17rd mags worth with my Ruger American Pistol 9 Pro. I love the free state of Arizona. The only thing I weigh is powder charges, the only thing I use the micrometer for is checking completed rounds; Factory QC is plenty good enough for what I'm doing, as long as I'm buying quality components. All of my loading blocks are recycled 45ACP/9MM 50rd handgun ammo trays, they work great for the 223, 260, 308, 30-06, and 7.62x39 ammo I load. I also can load 7.62x54R, but not much lately.
YMMV
I shoot a lot of the Hornady 75gr HPBT Match in five of my six 223's. The one I don't is a 16" 1:9" barrel which may be a tad too short and too slow a twist. I haven't actually tried it and I probably should. The 77's I have are loaded ammunition still waiting initial testing in my guns, IMI 77gr Razor Core; we'll see about that one soon enough. I have a particular interest in how well it might work in my new lightweight 16" 1:7" Upper.
I use Varget exclusively in the 223, for bullet weights ranging from 52gr (26.0gr), to 65gr (25gr, a published load, but I think it's hot, a hunting load), and the 75gr (24.4gr worked well at 600yd F T/R competition in two rifles, both 24", one 1:8" twist, the other 1:9" twist). Other successful 75gr loads at 300yd are 23.5gr and 23.7gr. Brass is Virgin Winchester, Virgin Starline, and a lot of Prvi-Partizan/PPU reloaded many times. PPU 55gr FMJBT is my all-purpose practice round; fired brass is recycled for load development, and becomes bulk ammunition when it starts to get past its prime. I've probably loaded and fired close to 10,000rd of 223 over twenty or so years. Primers are nearly always CCI BR-4, except for Winchester WSR in bulk ammunition. Even though I have single feed adapters for all my 223's, all of my ammo is loaded to magazine length. I haven't changed any of my seater punch settings in years. All of my 223 chambers are actually 5.56. All of these last policies reflect arbitrary decisions that I have made in the interest of the KISS principle.
Greg