It would be nice if something had the Lee design but was made very solid so that all of these functions, including being able to vary primer seating depth, are reliable and simple.
I’m not sure if I included that data in my videos but there is no velocity difference by depth. Only observed effect was a difference in precision.
Roger - haven’t seen the video. I’ll take a peek later. Interesting point that it doesn’t correlate with velocity.
What’s a target scan? The target on the seating depth and precision test is in the video. There is a follow up video to this one too with target data:
I like that idea! So far, I’ve been measuring groups, entering the data, and then analyzing the data. I then put the used targets in a bin in no particular order. I should start scanning the targets and keeping an electronic record of them.I just meant a picture of the target. Sorry, I’ve been scanning mine into my computer lately so I defaulted to that
Total expected variance in rim thickness was .0585” so the error in the Primal Rights was just about the same as the expected which explains why the correlation coefficient was almost perfect. In a nutshell, the tool could not mitigate any of the expected error from rim thickness variation.
That is awesome news! It seems to be performing great for me and I’ve primed several hundred at this point…maybe a thousand.
Target, yes. Chrono, no. My initial approach was to see if there is a sweet spot with the seating depth and I definitely found one. I then tested depth vs anvil compression and anvil compression was the factor affecting precision. I now set my primers to the sweet spot of anvil compression which in a few of my applications is within .007-.010 of anvil compression. This manifests in various depths depending on primer height and cup depth. I then took several different seated depths to the range to test if variable depths/anvil compressions shot on the same target with 5-shot groups with the same rifle, bullets, charge, etc would make any difference. It did. When the depths were variable (eg, a few in the sweet spot and a couple others out of the sweet spot), the groups grew substantially. When I shot within the sweet spot, the groups got back in tune. Based on all these tests, I can say that practically, consistent seating depths within the sweet spot is best.
He hasn't tested these specific depth variations to see if they behave any different on target but since he did test several different primer seating depths previously and got conclusive results I wouldn't think he test the same thing again just to use these depths vs the ones already tested. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking here?
Did they have more where you found yours? I haven't had any luck finding one.
I had to get it off ebay from a guy who had em in Europe and pay way too much for it. It's new but it's the only way that I've found to get one.
Yes, many were outside the sweet spot. One strategy you could take if you have a rim thickness dependent primer seater that you plan to continue to use is to measure rim thickness and shoot the ones within the sweet spot. That is what Speedy Gonzalez does. He made a nifty device that rapidly measure rim thickness and he sorts out any cases that put him out of the sweet spot. That’s basically my strategy for matches where I load that the match with my PMA or 21st Century priming tools. Or I will seat a primer and if it seats outside the sweet spot, I’ll cull out that piece and use it for a cold bore fouler.
I heard that there are plenty in circulation in Australia but I haven’t verified that. There are strategies to take to get consistent seating though even with the rim thickness dependent tools. I just posted about the possible methods on this thread.
There's a guy in Australia that has a bunch of em, I don't think it's really a matter of there being plenty as much as that one guy has a bunch and is selling them for around $180 + $50 shipping
I'm calling BS on this one. There is no mention of what the primer pocket depth was. There was also no mention of was the tool run to through/total movement or was it stopped when you felt the primer was fully seated.
About time! I was wondering when the first one was going to arrive and the quality. I honestly didn’t expect this. I was expecting the first to be one of the following:
I'm not sure why everyone gets so attached to this stuff. I expected to see something like that also but have been pleasantly surprised thus far.
I have lots of brass that are very consistent. Maybe only a few are culled out because of too much variation so I know , like all other reloading components, there are good and bad lots. I just hope manufacturing gets great enough to very consistently have good lots.
.06" variance in rim thickness? Is that a typo meant to be .006"?
During your priming process with the CPS/F-Class Plate do you end up having to measure and adjust CPS depth settings for each individual case to get the priming right? I own a CPS (due to aging hands) and it sounds like the plate is the only way to salvage this situation. Any tips and tricks would be appreciated.
Usually +\-.002” I set my tolerance to .001”. I know Speedy sets his at .0005”.
every forum-based environment has their characters. It reminds me of that video done by Colion Noir about the profiles of range goers. I would love it if he would
He talks about how he seated them with each tool. He double taps each one spinning it 180 degrees in between tap 1 and tap 2. When looking at the results he talks about the variation and how it's a result of rim thickness.
I picked one up off ebay as well. The cost was around the same as an optioned out F-Class plate for the CPS. Overall just another drop in the bucket.
Yes, you have a decent lot. I actually intentionally used a bad lot so I can have the variability to show the effect. If you have great consistency in rim thickness, then a rim thickness dependent tool is okay to use.
No. I’d say that I’m not really a big product tester. I primarily test to see if any differences in certain loading and shooting practices impact precision and, sometimes, ballistics. I do some product testing here and there but not necessarily for the sake of highlighting any particular brand. For example, I tested three tuners to see if they could perform certain functions. Just so happens that all three performed in very similar ways. I wasn’t necessarily testing the brand of the tuner but whether it does certain things. Same with priming tools…I tested a handful of them just to see if they’re rim thickness dependent, not to assess a particular brand. I tell you what though, if I could match my day and night job salaries, I’d do all of this in a heartbeat
. There is one person who is doing a lot of measurement testing in brass, primers, etc. and he goes by Bench Addict on Patreon. I’m a paid Patron on his page and have gained much knowledge on how different brands measure up so, as far as what I know now, this is the only person I know who is putting in the work to measure and put out the data.
