Trust me he was not joking had you gave up your argument and sent him your address a CPS would be on your porch next week. I do respect your position in that every tool doesn't work for each person, every one works differently and is comfortable with how things operate. SE
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
High End Reloading Equipment
- Thread starter TSparger
- Start date
You really don’t know Greg. That CPS was given away the instant he made the post. The only variable was whether it went to you or the OP.
Hope the OP scored the CPS, sounds like he’s wanting to go first class and this would get him going in the right direction. Good luck!
As a few of the old school Hiders know I had my disagreements with @orkan in the past.
BUT the value of the CPS on my bench is undeniable. Rock solid/ ultra precise seating/ zero effort….it’s a great tool.
If rebuilding my loading kit again I’d definitely buy another CPS.
BUT the value of the CPS on my bench is undeniable. Rock solid/ ultra precise seating/ zero effort….it’s a great tool.
If rebuilding my loading kit again I’d definitely buy another CPS.
We just all need to accept that some people are stupid and say a lot of stupid things.
@TSparger Please PM me your Name, shipping address, phone number, and email address.
Regarding your original post: I can tell you without any equivocation that the high end reloading items produce better ammo, and provide a significantly better experience during use. No one ever regrets buying nice things. Though people often regret not getting what they wanted in the first place.
You'll understand when you receive your CPS. There is nothing else like it, and the United States Patent Office agrees with that statement. If you think I might be misleading you... I have a lee hand primer, rcbs hand primer, 21st century hand primer, and an RCBS bench primer here that I will happily send you for free instead. The choice is yours.
Regarding your original post: I can tell you without any equivocation that the high end reloading items produce better ammo, and provide a significantly better experience during use. No one ever regrets buying nice things. Though people often regret not getting what they wanted in the first place.
You'll understand when you receive your CPS. There is nothing else like it, and the United States Patent Office agrees with that statement. If you think I might be misleading you... I have a lee hand primer, rcbs hand primer, 21st century hand primer, and an RCBS bench primer here that I will happily send you for free instead. The choice is yours.
Last edited:
I have the RCBS Automatic Priming Tool and it works great for what it is. It’s hard to beat in that price range, and especially preferable over hand priming for large batches in my opinion (no matter how Herculean some people think they are). With that said, I have noticed that the seating depth can vary depending on how much pressure is applied. So, it requires consistent pressure (which isn’t a bad practice, though) to get consistent results. Even then, there’s no guarantee on how precise/deep it seats each time. If you want to have every part of your reloading process to be consistent and remove any factors outside of yourself in bad results, then why not want this under control too?
Now, looking at the CPS, you have actual control over that and it appears to have much better leverage. It also has the appearance of a well thought out product, rather than something that just works. It’s definitely on my upgrade list down the road. Your generosity in this thread (and the Christmas one) will also be a major factor in my being a future customer. Not something we see near enough of these days.
@Cascade Hemi
Can you tell us more about your experience with the presses. I’m not defending any of them but can you describe which press did what to cause this observation.
I ask because most here say the press has little to do with producing quality ammunition, and your experience was different.
Can you tell us more about your experience with the presses. I’m not defending any of them but can you describe which press did what to cause this observation.
I ask because most here say the press has little to do with producing quality ammunition, and your experience was different.
Greg is taking good care of me. Will report back once I’ve put the CPS through its paces.
That CPS primer seater looks very well built. Maybe one day I’ll take the plunge. Compare it to my Holland’s perfect primer seater. Though it may seem like the cps is easier to work with. And have better consistency in seating.
@Cascade Hemi
It appears that you said you replaced a CoAx with a Zero and the CoAx didn’t make good ammo. But your RBCS was on par with the Zero.
Is this correct, and if so can you give detail?
It appears that you said you replaced a CoAx with a Zero and the CoAx didn’t make good ammo. But your RBCS was on par with the Zero.
Is this correct, and if so can you give detail?
Been using a CoAx press for years and never had an issue. If you really want high end reloading the Sartorius magnetic balances are much better than the FX-120. I use the 64-s but those have been replaced with an new model.
The CoAx relies on $.50 parts for concentricity and the auto jaws only work in a very specific range. I ran into enough PITA idiosyncrasies that I gave up on it. My old RCBS press never had those issues because it is simple and doesn't rely on so many different cheap components being machined perfectly. My only reason to replace the RCBS was I didn't want to reset the dies every use.
I still have the RCBS plus the Zero. The CoAx is long gone and I don't miss it at all.
I'm sure I'll get a bunch of people responding because they think I called their child ugly. Well...I don't know what your child looks like but the CoAx isn't high end regardless how Forster positions it in the market.
So, does anybody have an objective data on the effect of primer seating precision on....well, ammo precision?
I ask because....well, are you guys doing something to ensure that the primer pockets are all the exact same depth?
Because, the primer does need to be seated firmly against the brass, correct?
Just curious if anybody has data to support the need for high precision primer seating.
Cheers
I ask because....well, are you guys doing something to ensure that the primer pockets are all the exact same depth?
Because, the primer does need to be seated firmly against the brass, correct?
Just curious if anybody has data to support the need for high precision primer seating.
Cheers
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I have to start from scratch again with my reloading equipment.
One piece that I had before and will be replaced with the same is the CPS.
One piece that I had before and will be replaced with the same is the CPS.
F Class Products should build a mini CNC lathe that turns primer pockets. They could give it away to two or three members here that will swear it has revolutionized reloading and everyone has to have one to ever load ammo again. It's gotta be worth three or four grand. I can here the shills salivating through my computer monitor already.
You bring another point. Knowing what we know now, what would a total replacement plan look like?
My un-scientific wild ass guess, in hardware alone (meaning press/weigh station/primer tool) $3-4k less consumables.
Can a hardware set be available for less, sure.
Can and will it work, yup. And has and will continue for years to come.
Question, will an off the shelf mass production rifle do 80% of what is it possible, sure.
There in-lies the fine line where 80% will work perfectly fine for 80% of shooters as a whole; the remaining 19% is where the other 20% shooters want to be.
I, for one, am in pursuit of the 19%.
YMMV.
I’ve got an article brewing on it.
Bottom line - primer seating depth is the last discussion in ignition timing. I recently tapped out a whole post about it if anyone wants to go dig it up. It matters… and not just the linear measurement either.
If you’re happy with half MOA or bigger, then you don’t need to worry about testing. Just setup for 2 thousandths of anvil crush and be happy.
I use an adjustable primer seater and set the it .005 below and check with a depth gauge. When i load my power lets say H4350 my loads are +- .0010 on every load. That ends up being 1 kernel of powder.
High end in terms or performance, or price, or ???
My Lee universal depriming die is high end performance. It works precisely as needed 100% of the time. It's not high end price though, so maybe it's not what you're looking for.
My Lee universal depriming die is high end performance. It works precisely as needed 100% of the time. It's not high end price though, so maybe it's not what you're looking for.
I was asking about specific pieces of equipment as indicated in my post. Those pieces are obviously expensive and I was asking if their quality was worth that expense
Definitely some ignorance in this thread, and people with more money than sense. Watching two assholes argue is always entertaining.
The zero is a really nice turret press, but there is zero Inovative or special about it. I would hope you can make concentric ammo with it at that price.
The Forster has several features not found on other presses (including perfect priming) and you can change dies 1/2 second slower than a turret. That floating dies aren’t an additional $400 of percision machining is retarded. Far from being a problem the jaws work perfectly and eliminate shell holders, which suck and are another way to introduce variation in your ammo. I will never go back to any fixed die press, period.
I have a Sinclair arbor press (what the BR guys use) and hand dies that I used to use before the Forster, and the same principals apply.
There are plenty of top shooters who float the dies on their dillon, and make percision ammo with them. Some of them will probably be by to rip your head off.
Yes, if you buy all the most expensive shit you can probably make match grade ammo (clearly for some of you that’s not going to be enough), but you don’t have to, and a lot of the stuff doesn’t really save that much time for the cost.
For me the one thing that actually saves time, beyond thousands of dollars for a Prometheus, is the Giraud trimmer. Brass prep used to take way more time than reloading. Zip, zip, zip; nothing is even close and it actually saves a ton of time. I sit down and do 1000 5.56s in less than an hour.
The zero is a really nice turret press, but there is zero Inovative or special about it. I would hope you can make concentric ammo with it at that price.
The Forster has several features not found on other presses (including perfect priming) and you can change dies 1/2 second slower than a turret. That floating dies aren’t an additional $400 of percision machining is retarded. Far from being a problem the jaws work perfectly and eliminate shell holders, which suck and are another way to introduce variation in your ammo. I will never go back to any fixed die press, period.
I have a Sinclair arbor press (what the BR guys use) and hand dies that I used to use before the Forster, and the same principals apply.
There are plenty of top shooters who float the dies on their dillon, and make percision ammo with them. Some of them will probably be by to rip your head off.
Yes, if you buy all the most expensive shit you can probably make match grade ammo (clearly for some of you that’s not going to be enough), but you don’t have to, and a lot of the stuff doesn’t really save that much time for the cost.
For me the one thing that actually saves time, beyond thousands of dollars for a Prometheus, is the Giraud trimmer. Brass prep used to take way more time than reloading. Zip, zip, zip; nothing is even close and it actually saves a ton of time. I sit down and do 1000 5.56s in less than an hour.
I’ve owned probably 30 reloading machines counting the Hollywoods, Stars, Herters, MEC’s, as well as just about everyone you’ve heard of. I’ve got Dillon moded Stars from before there was a Dillon.
I just like them, and my Dad and Grandfather did too. I grew up with kegs of powder.
Not every opinion here is from a 20somethinng fanboy.
I just like them, and my Dad and Grandfather did too. I grew up with kegs of powder.
Not every opinion here is from a 20somethinng fanboy.
I know you understand more about primer seating than me. There is no discussion there.
I'm going to question the validity of the statement anyway (I'm playing devil's advocate).
If your primer pockets are untouched, say factory depth and not cleaned out (with a cutter or whatever) are you suggesting that th ES/SD is improved by seating the primer more consistently compared to a hand primer ?
Are you suggesting that having a "calibrated" primer pocket, with a cutter tool, and flash hole uniformed, and chamfered properly, that seating a primer with seating-tool-A vs seating-tool-B yields better velo ES/SD ?
I want to see the data and read your post.
I'm not saying you are wrong, or have mystical Ju-Ju, I want to learn what benefits there are, and what I need to improve or monitor, to better my setup. And potentially buy more cool toys.
I don't buy into the Area 419 Zero. Sure, it's nice, but I think diminishing returns comes in to play here. It's not worth the money to me. Just because it's expensive does not mean it's worth the price. Think in terms of the, relatively speaking, cheap Forster Coax. It must be junk comparatively based on the price. I bet, all other things being equal, you couldn't tell the difference on target between ammo loaded on one versus the other.
AMP annealer I could get on board with. The only alternative to me is a home built induction annealer. I'd probably buy the AMP though and be done with it.
I like the Autotrickler and FX-120i scale and wouldn't look for an alternative. Having said that, I have a Chargemaster 1500 which I like. I can't justify replacing it yet. Yet.
Yes, its been standard benchrest procedure for decades.
The more uniform the case and components, the more uniform the result. It applies to all things reloading, not just ignition. But consistent ignition is the first step to pushing that bullet down a barrel.
Yes. It all matters. However, if the rest of your ecosystem is not just as finely tuned... you won't see any improvement. Your statements are a bit of an over-simplification, in the sense that the accuracy/precision improvement might not be seen on the velocity uniformity at all. It's not uncommon for the best shooting loads to not have the best ES/SD. (within reason) I'm not advocating a 50fps SD... I'm simply saying that a load with a SD of 10 can shoot better than a load with an SD of 3.
I have no intention of engaging in a devils advocate scenario. The bulk of the academic discussions about high level topics on forums are just that, and only that; discussions. It's not even attempted or tested by most that talk about it. A huge portion of those that do attempt and test, aren't testing in a way that can reveal results, positive or negative.
It's just like people running charge weights that are in the 60-75% case fill range... and thinking its totally fine. For them... it probably is totally fine. If you aren't asking much, you don't need to do much. I'm trying to shoot prairie dogs in the face at 500yds+ with every round fired. I'm asking a TON... so what I need to do is much greater than what most need to do. I have no intentions of telling someone else the level of precision and accuracy they should be looking for. However, when someone comes to me and asks how to get the "best" accuracy and precision, you better believe that the CPS and how to use it, gets talked about at length.
So don't look to me to prove it for you. I can't. I can only provide information. I already know what I'm saying is true. You don't... and that's OK. If you don't want to do it, you don't need to trust me. If you do want to do it, you still don't need to trust me. You'll either try it, or you won't. If you try it and it helps, you're welcome. If you try it and it doesn't work out, you can either say I'm wrong, or you can consider you might be doing it wrong. If you want to call me to find out what you're doing wrong... you can, whenever you want. I will never turn someone searching for knowledge away.
I plan to do an article on it... but time has been short.
Here's the post I made recently about the actual testing procedure. You may find that interesting. 
Help with determining OCW results
Hello, I’m new to the reloading side of things, I went with the OCW test.I’m using 140gr Barnes Match with Superformance. I full length sized the cases prior to using and used the OAL recommended by Barnes. My charges were as follows: 43 43.4 43.8 44.3 44.7 45.2 I choose 45 as my max powder...
www.snipershide.com
Fully understand what you are saying @orkan .
We all know how one primer brand will effect accuracy over another brand, regardless of ES/SD.
As for playing devil's advocate. I understand because of my previous statement about primer brand, one could theorise that seating force and consistency would play an equal factor.
I've been eagerly awaiting for someone with a new digital force press thing to do that. Turn a case upside down and measure primer seating force.
If anyone knows how to contact f-class John or bolt action reloading (from youtube) get them to try it. I'd be curious.
My theory is "tighter consistent seating yeilds better ES/SD". The more force, the better the seal, which in turn reduces the primers ability to "back out" under initial pressure spike. This in turn allows more spark to go through the flash hole into the powder.
Does that make sense, and worth investigating or am I completely wrong and over complicating the original issue which is consistent primer seating ?
We all know how one primer brand will effect accuracy over another brand, regardless of ES/SD.
As for playing devil's advocate. I understand because of my previous statement about primer brand, one could theorise that seating force and consistency would play an equal factor.
I've been eagerly awaiting for someone with a new digital force press thing to do that. Turn a case upside down and measure primer seating force.
If anyone knows how to contact f-class John or bolt action reloading (from youtube) get them to try it. I'd be curious.
My theory is "tighter consistent seating yeilds better ES/SD". The more force, the better the seal, which in turn reduces the primers ability to "back out" under initial pressure spike. This in turn allows more spark to go through the flash hole into the powder.
Does that make sense, and worth investigating or am I completely wrong and over complicating the original issue which is consistent primer seating ?
The "distance" seems to be the most critical factor that I've discovered. As for force applied, you can feel things pretty well with the CPS and I haven't noticed cases shooting differently from one to the next when the pockets are loose or tight. (as long as the pocket can still hold the primer properly) ... but if the distance is off, that can make a significant difference on target. It's not "only" the distance either, but a function of just how uniformly the entire operation is done to ensure the uniform treatment of the cup from one to the next. More to it than just linear measurement.
This is one of the reasons the CPS was invented in the first place. I was looking for more overall operation uniformity. No other tool could give it... because of the cam-driven nature of other products. Which is one of the many reasons I patented it.
...but I digress. Suffice it to say I've put a ton of effort into the ignition side of things, and we have a new product launching within days that will help considerably to that end. I appreciate your questions.
I can't wait to see your new product!The "distance" seems to be the most critical factor that I've discovered. As for force applied, you can feel things pretty well with the CPS and I haven't noticed cases shooting differently from one to the next when the pockets are loose or tight. (as long as the pocket can still hold the primer properly) ... but if the distance is off, that can make a significant difference on target. It's not "only" the distance either, but a function of just how uniformly the entire operation is done to ensure the uniform treatment of the cup from one to the next. More to it than just linear measurement.
This is one of the reasons the CPS was invented in the first place. I was looking for more overall operation uniformity. No other tool could give it... because of the cam-driven nature of other products. Which is one of the many reasons I patented it.
DW
Best thing about the CPS is my son can produce perfectly seated primers and spend time with me during the reloading process and that is priceless
I only trust my son to clean brass and deprime.
Maybe some AMP Mate action too!
You got a winner there!
Maybe some AMP Mate action too!
You got a winner there!
Well thanks to you I got some more jobs for himI only trust my son to clean brass and deprime.
Maybe some AMP Mate action too!
You got a winner there!
I have the AutoDOD.
While I load on a 40 year old RCBS jr and a Chargemaster Lite and am well within the accuracy needs for how I shoot,I’ve had some of the good stuff.
Some things to consider, which drives what I keep and what I get rid of, regardless of its quality is this... While it may IMPROVE my groups, is the effort
expended worth how much it improves consistency in whatever metric? Example: My old V3 cost me close to $1K, it was a better, faster scale than my CM Lite, but it hardly reduced my ES/SD. For the money, I can get better bang for my buck in other areas (range fees/match fees, components, etc). That’s a personal evaluation based on finances and where your priorities lay.
But, in my opinion, most importantly, the high end shit that most of us can’t afford... like the AMP stuff, CPS, Area419, they drive innovation, and 10 years from now the consumer grade equipment you have on your bench will be a direct reflection of that.
If you can afford it, get it. If it doesn’t show results, be honest with yourself regarding it. Does it meet your needs and expectations? There’s a spectrum of shooters within the site that range from 100% benchrest shooters with tactical rifles, to guys who just want ammo as accurate as they are, in order to go practice more. Where you fall in that spectrum is probably the biggest driver in this.
Some things to consider, which drives what I keep and what I get rid of, regardless of its quality is this... While it may IMPROVE my groups, is the effort
expended worth how much it improves consistency in whatever metric? Example: My old V3 cost me close to $1K, it was a better, faster scale than my CM Lite, but it hardly reduced my ES/SD. For the money, I can get better bang for my buck in other areas (range fees/match fees, components, etc). That’s a personal evaluation based on finances and where your priorities lay.
But, in my opinion, most importantly, the high end shit that most of us can’t afford... like the AMP stuff, CPS, Area419, they drive innovation, and 10 years from now the consumer grade equipment you have on your bench will be a direct reflection of that.
If you can afford it, get it. If it doesn’t show results, be honest with yourself regarding it. Does it meet your needs and expectations? There’s a spectrum of shooters within the site that range from 100% benchrest shooters with tactical rifles, to guys who just want ammo as accurate as they are, in order to go practice more. Where you fall in that spectrum is probably the biggest driver in this.
If you think you will process brass better with a Zero press as opposed to a T-7 or similar, then go for it. I would not bother with the AMP or any annealer, it's pretty much a waste of time and money and you can really screw up your brass. Annealing will not extend the life of your brass. What you can do to extend its useful life is to use a bushing die with the proper size bushing to minimize working the brass. Don't use an expander ball.
The Autotrickler V3 (and upcoming V4) is the bee's knees for powder measuring. Only get the A&D scale, nothing else will work with the V4 and there is no need for any more precision anyway. I like to tumble my brass and keep it clean. I get about 8 loads and by then the primer pocket is fairly loose. I use a small base die in an effort to retard the primer pocket expansion. No amount of annealing will save the primer pockets, save your cash instead.
The RCBS CM1500 is a good device, but it's slow as sh*t and unreliable in its load. It's the issue with its load cell technology compared to the MFR magnetic force restoration tech in the A&D.
Annealing will extend the life of the necks of your brass until it’s limiting factor is the primer pockets.
For those of us who shoot loads mild enough to not loosen primer pockets, annealing will 100% extend the life of our brass, and keep it more consistent along it’s now nearly indefinite lifespan.
I would not say "indefinite", but if I only got 8X out of my 6x47L using Lapua brass I would be PISSED AS HELL!
Similar threads
