This is now a tooner thread, and the fudds are out in full force it seems.
The guy denying the scientific method says I ride the short bus. Rich.
The guy denying the scientific method says I ride the short bus. Rich.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Just one of the reasons I love my AMP Press
- Thread starter rustyinbend
- Start date
If he wants to play with something at least play with something that’s debated about helping or not instead of things proven to not matter. I didn’t go into an elaborate post about the potential benefits And you’re the one who said “benefits of a tuner” - so appreciate the support.
That's one of the options I tried ... bushing with no ball or mandrel ... and it worked "OK", but not as good as a slight size-down with a bushing, and then sizing up with a mandrel to the end-state that gives me a good seating force curve (always annealing first). If that works for you just sizing with a bushing and being done with it, then as they say down-under ... "Good On Ya, Mate".
I'm sure I've posted this before, but anyone not familiar (or anyone possibly using the AMP press incorrectly), needs to realize the press is literally just another comparator tool.
There is no specific plot line that is going to perform optimally that you want to be trying to achieve. There is also no specific differences in plot lines that means a round is going to perform less optimally from the rest. All it does is let you see plot lines and then you have to decided what is acceptable or not through testing.
The way you do this is you figure out what process/steps give you the best performing ammo and then you see what kind of plot line it produces.
Then when you have something that is different, you have to test that and find out two things:
- Does it matter
- If it does matter, at what deviation level does it matter
Meaning that for example, you find that max seating force matters, but only if it's more than 20lbs higher than your average. So, even when you see a deviation in that part of the plot line, if it's not over 20lbs, then it doesn't matter and you can use that round like normal.
You may also find something that is occasionally significantly different, but doesn't matter in the real world. So you might see some crazy spike somewhere in the plot line, but that doesn't matter because you've tested and known this.
But, many people (and I'm not saying the OP does or doesn't do this) think you just see a plot line that looks different and that's automatically a bad round.
Which is why when I see anyone saying "here are the ones I use for foulers" I always ask for their resting and rationale behind it. And I almost never get any response. If you just want to be cautious and not use them because they appear differently, that's perfectly fine. But it is far different than saying you know which to not use based on the graph data if you haven't tested it.
There is no specific plot line that is going to perform optimally that you want to be trying to achieve. There is also no specific differences in plot lines that means a round is going to perform less optimally from the rest. All it does is let you see plot lines and then you have to decided what is acceptable or not through testing.
The way you do this is you figure out what process/steps give you the best performing ammo and then you see what kind of plot line it produces.
Then when you have something that is different, you have to test that and find out two things:
- Does it matter
- If it does matter, at what deviation level does it matter
Meaning that for example, you find that max seating force matters, but only if it's more than 20lbs higher than your average. So, even when you see a deviation in that part of the plot line, if it's not over 20lbs, then it doesn't matter and you can use that round like normal.
You may also find something that is occasionally significantly different, but doesn't matter in the real world. So you might see some crazy spike somewhere in the plot line, but that doesn't matter because you've tested and known this.
But, many people (and I'm not saying the OP does or doesn't do this) think you just see a plot line that looks different and that's automatically a bad round.
Which is why when I see anyone saying "here are the ones I use for foulers" I always ask for their resting and rationale behind it. And I almost never get any response. If you just want to be cautious and not use them because they appear differently, that's perfectly fine. But it is far different than saying you know which to not use based on the graph data if you haven't tested it.
For example, here is the graph from the OP. I've highlighted several areas where there is noticeable deviation.
If the OP isn't able to explain why each area does or doesn't matter, and if it does matter.....exactly how and how much deviation is needed.....
Then they aren't using the AMP Press to its fullest potential.
If the OP isn't able to explain why each area does or doesn't matter, and if it does matter.....exactly how and how much deviation is needed.....
Then they aren't using the AMP Press to its fullest potential.
I use them for cold-bore and fouler shots. So far, the only time I've gotten on WAY off the curve was explained above, where I had forgotten the mandrel step in my process ... the AMP Press exposed that on the first round and I went back and was happily able to fix it without taking anything apart.
I do ... let me try to attach it in pdf format ... when I use it in Excel, it fits my ACRO Bins perfectly.
