Major Factor in Primer Seating Depth Variability

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

The only setting tool I've ever seen that uses the bottom of the case as a datum is the M2 Precision fore 50 cases.

There aren't many tools out there that do.

Which is why I'm slightly confused why it's not pretty common knowledge that if you seat a primer using a shell holder, and then take a measurement using the bottom of the case as a datum, that you will always have at a minimum, the difference in rim thickness from case to case as an "error" in the measurement.

People have argued before (typically when talking the PR CPS) that it's a user error thing.....when it's literally just a function of the system design.

 

[memilanuk]

It’s physically impossible for a system using a shell holder to have consistent results unless the rims are consistent.

Anyone who’s showing consistent results with the primal rights (or others using a shell holder), is because the rims are consistent. Be it because they sorted, or their brass is just consistent even though they didn’t sort.

So... kicking the can down the road for the sake of argument... lets say that some systems that reference off the face of the case head, like the (no longer available) Lee ACP or the one mentioned by @Alan Warner and that pretty much everything else references off the case rim. And given the way we measure primer seating depth, that method of seating is going to give more consistent results.

I agree it's not been widely acknowledged as being a big deal by the shooting community at large because hell, exact primer seating depth hasn't been the limiting factor for most people for a very long time - and still isn't, outside of BR and maybe top-tier F-class. Keith Glasscock (aka 'Winning in the Wind' on YT) has grumbled about the way primer seaters referenced off the rim for a couple years now, and has been kicking around an idea for a different design. That said, I know I lose way more points to wind and gun handling than I probably ever have anything I could attribute to the primer. But, like the late Glenn Zediker said way back when, 'making the target bigger' by way of making the group smaller is never a bad thing.

So, all that aside, even just comparing the two devices in Bryan's test that *both* referenced off the case rim - the PMA hand priming tool, and the CPS - why do we think there was such a marked difference between those two?

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

So... kicking the can down the road for the sake of argument... lets say that some systems that reference off the face of the case head, like the (no longer available) Lee ACP or the one mentioned by @Alan Warner and that pretty much everything else references off the case rim. And given the way we measure primer seating depth, that method of seating is going to give more consistent results.

I agree it's not been widely acknowledged as being a big deal by the shooting community at large because hell, exact primer seating depth hasn't been the limiting factor for most people for a very long time - and still isn't, outside of BR and maybe top-tier F-class. Keith Glasscock (aka 'Winning in the Wind' on YT) has grumbled about the way primer seaters referenced off the rim for a couple years now, and has been kicking around an idea for a different design. That said, I know I lose way more points to wind and gun handling than I probably ever have anything I could attribute to the primer. But, like the late Glenn Zediker said way back when, 'making the target bigger' by way of making the group smaller is never a bad thing.

So, all that aside, even just comparing the two devices in Bryan's test that *both* referenced off the case rim - the PMA hand priming tool, and the CPS - why do we think there was such a marked difference between those two?

Yeah that's another good question. I'm familiar with that hand primer and I have 3 FA ones that I use the same way but I was shocked to see it have less deviation than the cps.

 

[Sniper King 2020]

So... kicking the can down the road for the sake of argument... lets say that some systems that reference off the face of the case head, like the (no longer available) Lee ACP or the one mentioned by @Alan Warner and that pretty much everything else references off the case rim. And given the way we measure primer seating depth, that method of seating is going to give more consistent results.

I agree it's not been widely acknowledged as being a big deal by the shooting community at large because hell, exact primer seating depth hasn't been the limiting factor for most people for a very long time - and still isn't, outside of BR and maybe top-tier F-class. Keith Glasscock (aka 'Winning in the Wind' on YT) has grumbled about the way primer seaters referenced off the rim for a couple years now, and has been kicking around an idea for a different design. That said, I know I lose way more points to wind and gun handling than I probably ever have anything I could attribute to the primer. But, like the late Glenn Zediker said way back when, 'making the target bigger' by way of making the group smaller is never a bad thing.

So, all that aside, even just comparing the two devices in Bryan's test that *both* referenced off the case rim - the PMA hand priming tool, and the CPS - why do we think there was such a marked difference between those two?

I have no idea. The PR seemed like a robust system but showed a systemically shallower seating depth. It seated perfectly to .008” the primers that the PMA and Lee seated to .008” so for whatever reason, it was shallower with most others which is why it produced the higher error. Please note too that I did a “double” and pulled the handle to where it stopped twice for all primed brass so the full force was applied twice. I’m miffed.

 

[Bigfatcock]

It all adds up which is why people have been measuring rimfire rims since forever.

To get consistent results, things have to be consistent. There’s really no other way to explain it.

 

[Alan Warner]

So... kicking the can down the road for the sake of argument... lets say that some systems that reference off the face of the case head, like the (no longer available) Lee ACP or the one mentioned by @Alan Warner and that pretty much everything else references off the case rim. And given the way we measure primer seating depth, that method of seating is going to give more consistent results.

I agree it's not been widely acknowledged as being a big deal by the shooting community at large because hell, exact primer seating depth hasn't been the limiting factor for most people for a very long time - and still isn't, outside of BR and maybe top-tier F-class. Keith Glasscock (aka 'Winning in the Wind' on YT) has grumbled about the way primer seaters referenced off the rim for a couple years now, and has been kicking around an idea for a different design. That said, I know I lose way more points to wind and gun handling than I probably ever have anything I could attribute to the primer. But, like the late Glenn Zediker said way back when, 'making the target bigger' by way of making the group smaller is never a bad thing.

So, all that aside, even just comparing the two devices in Bryan's test that *both* referenced off the case rim - the PMA hand priming tool, and the CPS - why do we think there was such a marked difference between those two?

It matters in elr

 

[Alan Warner]

There aren't many tools out there that do.

Which is why I'm slightly confused why it's not pretty common knowledge that if you seat a primer using a shell holder, and then take a measurement using the bottom of the case as a datum, that you will always have at a minimum, the difference in rim thickness from case to case as an "error" in the measurement.

People have argued before (typically when talking the PR CPS) that it's a user error thing.....when it's literally just a function of the system design.

You are correct.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

So... kicking the can down the road for the sake of argument... lets say that some systems that reference off the face of the case head, like the (no longer available) Lee ACP or the one mentioned by @Alan Warner and that pretty much everything else references off the case rim. And given the way we measure primer seating depth, that method of seating is going to give more consistent results.

I agree it's not been widely acknowledged as being a big deal by the shooting community at large because hell, exact primer seating depth hasn't been the limiting factor for most people for a very long time - and still isn't, outside of BR and maybe top-tier F-class. Keith Glasscock (aka 'Winning in the Wind' on YT) has grumbled about the way primer seaters referenced off the rim for a couple years now, and has been kicking around an idea for a different design. That said, I know I lose way more points to wind and gun handling than I probably ever have anything I could attribute to the primer. But, like the late Glenn Zediker said way back when, 'making the target bigger' by way of making the group smaller is never a bad thing.

So, all that aside, even just comparing the two devices in Bryan's test that *both* referenced off the case rim - the PMA hand priming tool, and the CPS - why do we think there was such a marked difference between those two?

That is a very good question. I'd have to get a PMA tool in hand and run them both and take a look to form an opinion worth having.

However, just based on what I've seen, Bryan mention that he would seat in the PMA then give it it a turn and hit it again with another squeeze.....was he doing that with the CPS as well? If not, it possible he gets a more consistent seat with a tool he's more familiar with and has "his way" of using it.

Beyond that, I'd just be guessing. Might see about getting a PMA and see if my results mirror his.

 

[Sniper King 2020]

That is a very good question. I'd have to get a PMA tool in hand and run them both and take a look to form an opinion worth having.

However, just based on what I've seen, Bryan mention that he would seat in the PMA then give it it a turn and hit it again with another squeeze.....was he doing that with the CPS as well? If not, it possible he gets a more consistent seat with a tool he's more familiar with and has "his way" of using it.

Beyond that, I'd just be guessing. Might see about getting a PMA and see if my results mirror his.

I did the same thing with the PR tool with the “double” seat.

 

[memilanuk]

Do the PMA and the CPS use the same style of shell holder? If so, were the same ones used in both tools? I ask because the CPS was someone else's, already set up. Not sure if that would cause that big of a variation, though.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Do the PMA and the CPS use the same style of shell holder? If so, were the same ones used in both tools? I ask because the CPS was someone else's, already set up. Not sure if that would cause that big of a variation, though.

Yeah probably has something to do with the amount of movement the shelholder used will allow ect

 

[Sniper King 2020]

Do the PMA and the CPS use the same style of shell holder? If so, were the same ones used in both tools? I ask because the CPS was someone else's, already set up. Not sure if that would cause that big of a variation, though.

I used the shell holder my friend already had on it and adjusted the seating on the PR with the brass pieces that yielded .008 on the PMA and Lee. They yielded .008 on the PR too.

 

[memilanuk]

I used the shell holder my friend already had on it and adjusted the seating on the PR with the brass pieces that yielded .008 on the PMA and Lee. They yielded .008 on the PR too.

Just with more variation, and a tendency to seat shallow, correct?

 

[Sniper King 2020]

Just with more variation, and a tendency to seat shallow, correct?

Yes. I attached the data. The PR tended to seat shallower than the PMA. Also, the PMA seating depths were accounted for by 92% of the variance in rim thickness whereas the PR depths were accounted for by 66.5% of the variance in rim thickness so there is another 33.5% of the variance explained by something else. In the video I suspected that the PR has some kind of weaker seating mechanism relative to the PMA which is why the PR was overall more shallow in seating. Just a speculation.

 

[RegionRat]

I like to call it “anvil compression” but I hear and read the term “crush” a lot. Are we saying the same thing?

Bryan,
As far as I know, "crush", "anvil compression" , "reconsolidation" and "sensitizing" in this specific context, all mean the same thing, i.e., pushing the anvil down into the primer cup and "crushing", "sensitizing", or "compressing the anvil" on the pellet of priming compound.

In the old DoD primer design specs, the term was called "sensitizing" and "primer reconsolidation"...

The typical OEM recommendations ranged roughly 0.002" to 0.006". Our typical nominal goal was 0.004" to give us the middle of their recommended range.

 

[RegionRat]

So, all that aside, even just comparing the two devices in Bryan's test that *both* referenced off the case rim - the PMA hand priming tool, and the CPS - why do we think there was such a marked difference between those two?

I think you see the issue clearly.
There isn't a difference when the focus is the philosophy of the datum set used to position the primer in the case... but for those of us old enough to need to take better care of our fingers, the CPS is a lot more comfortable to run for batches.

So, the difference for some of us will boil down to the loading of a primer magazine tube plus having a larger lever, versus single loading the primers and using finger forces on a shorter lever.

Granted that these tools don't cost the same, but for those of us who realize we are past our warranty period and thinking of repetitive task injury, the CPS is just way easier on the operator.

Before the CPS, we used the Holland's modification on the RCBS Auto Prime and that worked pretty well too.

BTW, the Sinclair tool is a single feed hand tool, but it does address this rim thickness tolerance issue by using the case head as the datum. It requires one more twist to lock the case head down, but for the trouble the rim thickness no longer matters. If your pocket depths are uniform, and you seat them all to the average of the primer dimensions, you won't do any better. YMMV

 

[918v]

I took a micrometer readings on three random FGMM 6.5CM small pp cases and the pp depth was .117”

After uniforming it was .122”

I seated a BR-4 primer to where I just felt the anvil bottom out and then took a seating depth reading which was .003”

So increasing the seating depth to .008” would result in a .005” crush

.008” felt real deep to my finger tip, too deep for my liking.

So I’ll just stick to seating the primers to lust below flush and not have to touch the pp. This will result in the same amount of crush as the magic .008” in a .122” pp.

 

[memilanuk]

@RegionRat I don't generally have any issues with hand priming as of yet. While there are some brass prep operations that are starting to make my hands sore as I get a little older, priming isn't one of them. Yet.

I'd gotten the CPS back when, because of a) the convenience of using primer tubes and b) the occasional batch of virgin small primer brass (various calibers) that were super tight for the first few firings - to where it was miserable to get the primer seated at all. Figured a bench-mounted tool would make that easier. Now... not entirely sure.

I'll have to dig out the Sinclair and re-acquaint myself with it. TBH, I never used it very much - I had a K&M that I was perfectly happy with (as long as the primer pockets weren't too tight) - and the Sinclair was a gift from someone back in 2017 following the FCWC. I kind of skipped right over it to the CPS, just raiding the shell holders along the way

 

[Marine52]

Bryan’s research is very good and makes logical sense explaining seating depth variance. I guess the logical follow-on question to Bryan’s research is which brass manufacturer has the lowest variance in rim thickness.

I did a quick comparison of ten pieces of new Lapua 308 Palma brass and ten pieces of once-fired Lapua 308 Palma brass looking at rim thickness.

RIM thickness - inch
New. Once fired
1. .052 .052
2. .052 .052
3. .051 .052
4. .052 .052
5. .052 .050
6. .054 .052
7. .052 .052
8. .052 .051
9. .053 .052
10. .052 .052

Mean .0522 .0517
SD. .0008 .0007

This is just a small sample but this Lapua palma brass seemed to have a much lower SD in rim thickness than the brass Bryan used.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Does anyone know if the new Lee APP press has the same priming function as the discontinued primer? I haven't been able to find this out nor how it would feed primers. It looks like this new APP (processing press) has that same priming set up but also does the other case prep operations. If so, for the price it would be well worth it to add it to my reloading room but I've not been able to find out much about its priming abilities or primer feeding, which would be my main purpose for it vs a CPS or a RCBS primer ect. I'd like to add a bench primer to my room but I'd much prefer one that did it with a case feeder set up if I could. This is it.

Lee Precision, Inc.. Automatic Processing Press

The Automatic Processing Press is your first choice for primer pocket swaging, bullet sizing, bulge busting and single stage reloading.

leeprecision.com

 

[Sniper King 2020]

Bryan’s research is very good and makes logical sense explaining seating depth variance. I guess the logical follow-on question to Bryan’s research is which brass manufacture has the lowest variance in rim thickness.

I did a quick comparison of ten pieces of new Lapua 308 Palma brass and ten pieces of once-fired Lapua 308 Palma brass looking at rim thickness.

RIM thickness - inch
New. Once fired
1. .052 .052
2. .052 .052
3. .051 .052
4. .052 .052
5. .052 .050
6. .054 .052
7. .052 .052
8. .052 .051
9. .053 .052
10. .052 .052

Mean .0522 .0517
SD. .0008 .0007

This is just a small sample but this Lapua palma brass seemed to have a much lower SD in rim thickness than the brass Bryan used.

My observations, based on seating depth as the proxy measure (the almost perfect correlation between rim thickness and depth makes depth a suitable proxy measure of rim thickness) is that a couple brands seem to have great consistency lot to lot but a couple others tend to vary quite a bit by lot. The test lot I used was one that I knew had a lot of variance and I chose it specifically to see if the variance affected depth. I have a different lot of the same brass that I’ve used and the variance is minimal. I would say that it’s best to check. I know somebody who made rim thickness gauges (not for production and sale) who measures them before seating and culls out anything off by more than .0005” in both directions. I also know people who use priming tools that are not rim thickness dependent. Seems like there are multiple strategies to gain consistency.

 

[John Glidewell]

uses a proprietary shell holder

The APP gets its speedy operation in part by the use of the X-press shell holder. The shell holder allows the case to pass through the shell holder after the operations are performed.

 

[AllenOne1]

There are a couple of things about using the CPS that I never hear about and they make a big difference in it's performance.

1st - Make sure the top cap retaining the shell holder is tight. If the shell holder can spin you're not tight. They tell you to hand tighten the screws but that doesn't work, you can do hand tight with the short leg of an Allen wrench and be tight.

2nd - Sit down. You need to be low enough that you are pulling down on the handle, not pushing it down like you would when you are standing up.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

uses a proprietary shell holder

The APP gets its speedy operation in part by the use of the X-press shell holder. The shell holder allows the case to pass through the shell holder after the operations are performed.

Yeah I saw that. I was asking if anyone knew if it had the rod inside that holds down the case against the machines base plate so the priming is indexed off of the case head and not the shell holder. Does the other one that is discontinued not use a shell holder at all? If this one uses that shell holder, it wouldn't seem like it operates the same as the other one did with the rod but I can't seem to find any info. Guess I need to call LEE

 

[John Glidewell]

The discontinued version does not use a shell holder at all. Too bad they discontinued it. demo starts around the 10:30 mark but this video covers everything on it.

 

[StaveyIL]

As stated above the app press uses the Xpress shellholders. The acp press uses no shell holder. This is how it eliminates the rim thickness variable present in the cps and others. I grabbed one from Grafs the day Bryan’s video dropped. Needless to say Grafs and others sold out quickly.

 

[memilanuk]

As far as I can tell, the APP does priming on top of the press, using Lee's ram prime system, with a conventional shell holder.

The more I look at the setup that the ACP uses, it makes me wonder if it'd be possible to make something like that to fit a conventional press. A relatively simple decapping die body, but swap out the decapping pin for a backer rod. Some fingers or a sleeve to aid in aligning the case on the rod. And a base that sits on top of the ram, but with a recess for the primer to sit in. Put an adjustment screw under the recess for fine-tuning. Seems like it'd work? Just need someone else to sink the $$$ into prototyping it and marketing it

 

[AllenOne1]

As far as I can tell, the APP does priming on top of the press, using Lee's ram prime system, with a conventional shell holder.

The more I look at the setup that the ACP uses, it makes me wonder if it'd be possible to make something like that to fit a conventional press. A relatively simple decapping die body, but swap out the decapping pin for a backer rod. Some fingers or a sleeve to aid in aligning the case on the rod. And a base that sits on top of the ram, but with a recess for the primer to sit in. Put an adjustment screw under the recess for fine-tuning. Seems like it'd work? Just need someone else to sink the $$$ into prototyping it and marketing it

Hornady Primer Pocket Swage Tool would be a good starting point, if you have a LnL AP press. Machine a micro adjust primer seater to fit the swage die. How do you place the primers on the case though?

 

[Cynical]

If rim thickness is an issue, wouldn’t a hold down die (think like the FW Arms’ new hold down die) that basically pushes the case down while a primer punch seats the primer resolve that issue? In a progressive press at least. But there’s more tolerances in play also, like the thickness of the brass between bottom of primer pocket and bottom of inside of case.

I didn’t read the links, in case you can’t tell.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

The discontinued version does not use a shell holder at all. Too bad they discontinued it. demo starts around the 10:30 mark but this video covers everything on it.

Ah ha. Thank you. I just missed that video. I can see why it was problematic for Lee and would be a warranty issue. Sure would be nice if someone took that general design and idea and encorperated it with a solid bench primer set up and spent a little more money to make it work with a primer tube and function better. Seems like it wouldn't take that much to pull that off and then we'd have a cps like device that datumed off the case head and also worked with a real case feeder. What a nice machine that would be!

Thank you for the info

 

[Alan Warner]

Yes, all of the info I put out there should be evaluated for relevance to you. If you’re shooting glass bottles from 25 yards with a AR-15 with factory ammo, then I advise you completely ignore me. If you’re serious about precision and want to do all you can to get the most precision possible, then I might have some data that you would be interested in.

FYI, I know I shoot a lot more short range nowadays but I do have a history of shooting PRS and NRL matches and I do regularly shoot long range bench and prone. I’ll be shooting a couple long range bench matches in Nov and Dec this year. I’ll be shooting against the likes of hall of fame shooters like Jeff Locke and Bruce Teel so it’ll be difficult to win because they put Varget in their coffee and I put N133 in mine

You should be using 3031 and a dash of maple syrup

 

[Sniper King 2020]

You should be using 3031 and a dash of maple syrup

I do! You must’ve stole my secret recipe. A tablespoon of Varget in the coffee tastes great too

 

[Clearlight]

Many of you may not like the following. Years ago I purchased a 21st Century hand priming tool, but only with the large primer seating mandrel. Used it to seat small primers in Lapua 6.5 x47 cases, and of course found the primers ended up flush with the base of the case.

With no time to acquire the correct small primer mandrel before a match the next day, I had no option but to load tha ammo and hope for the best. No idea how far the primers were from the bottom of the pocket. Won the match the next day, a 500 meter fly shoot, primarily for light and heavy bench rest rifles. I was using a restocked and re barrelled Tikka, shooting off an Atlas bipod and TAB bag, with a 5 40 FFP March scope.

What I saw on target was very little vertical dispersion. I’ve never uniformed primer pockets, just clean them occasionally with a flat bladed watchmakers screwdriver, which happened to be almost exactly the right size for Lapua small primer cases. My ES for 5 shots was already very good in the past using a Forster press to prime, but with the odd one high or low over a 10 or 20 shot string. Maybe that rim thickness thing.

Cases were annealed with an AMP unit, sized with a Forster bushing bump die with an insert for 2 thou neck tension, (another thing to piss people off). Bump was set so I could just barely feel the shoulder on closing the bolt, with the firing pin removed from the bolt on an empty case. Primer was CCI BR4.

I can only assume the great result in this not particularly useful sample of one rifle, was a freak of the combination of that particular combination of bolt, firing pin, lock time, chamber, brass and primer. End result is it shot best, with the primer flush with the base of the case, with a ten thou or 3 of interference fit base to shoulder on a closed bolt.

The primer ends up flush with the base of the case after firing anyhow, maybe worth testing in some rifles for the hell of it if anyone has the inclination. Flame suit on……

 

[CK1.0]

I’m utterly unsurprised that the $600 priming tool didn’t/doesn’t deliver.

What’s next, some grifter trying to sell us $600 dies? doh!

 

[Tokay444]

He said the sweet spot is .008” below flush. That requires pp uniforming otherwise you’ll crush the primer.

False.

 

[918v]

False.

You are incorrect.

 

[Tokay444]

You are incorrect.

No.
OP, did you uniform your primer pockets before seating to .008" crush?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I’m utterly unsurprised that the $600 priming tool didn’t/doesn’t deliver.

What’s next, some grifter trying to sell us $600 dies? doh!

I delivers exactly what the design allows it to.

Anything else expected is an error in personal expectations.

 

[CK1.0]

I delivers exactly what the design allows it to.

Anything else expected is an error in personal expectations.

Please don't misunderstand, my comment wasn't directed at anyone who bought one, at least it's easier on one's hands and it's their money, they can strive for excellence, and they can light it on fire if they want to (wait, I do that too lol).

But ummm, anyone who's been on the forum for a few years who doesn't have amnesia remembers that douchebag snake oil salesman telling dudes that we didn't know what we were missing if we didn't pony up for one... I mean the great Erik Cortina uses one (that I'd bet $1 he didn't pay for lol).

There's lots of that in this sport, Area 419 is coming out with a $900 chamber-flag just in time for Black Friday.

 

[Haney]

Please don't misunderstand, my comment wasn't directed at anyone who bought one, at least it's easier on one's hands and it's their money, they can strive for excellence, and they can light it on fire if they want to (wait, I do that too lol).

But ummm, anyone who's been on the forum for a few years who doesn't have amnesia remembers that douchebag snake oil salesman telling dudes that we didn't know what we were missing if we didn't pony up for one... I mean the great Erik Cortina uses one (that I'd bet $1 he didn't pay for lol).

There's lots of that in this sport, Area 419 is coming out with a $900 chamber-flag just in time for Black Friday.

Be careful, those that spent their money on it are thin-skinned about it .

 

[Schütze]

I can't seem to find just the seater for sale anywhere. This is the only thing I can find that you can actually buy. Are they just out right now or did that model get discontinued in favor of this?

Yes, the older version was upgraded to the one you show. The primer feed seems to be working better but it’s all plastic, I just modified the lower steel bushing to fit in the new “deluxe“ app. As consistent as the older version but I have not used it enough to suggest to others getting one.

Deluxe APP (Automatic Processing Press) Reloading Press

Deluxe APP (Automatic Processing Press) Reloading Press by LEE PRECISION Product Overview: Lee started with the basic APP, added the Roller Handle, Universal Case Feed Magazine, and the APP Deprime kit. Then, they fitted the tool with the ability to prime using their patented...

www.midsouthshooterssupply.com

 

[Sniper King 2020]

Many of you may not like the following. Years ago I purchased a 21st Century hand priming tool, but only with the large primer seating mandrel. Used it to seat small primers in Lapua 6.5 x47 cases, and of course found the primers ended up flush with the base of the case.

With no time to acquire the correct small primer mandrel before a match the next day, I had no option but to load tha ammo and hope for the best. No idea how far the primers were from the bottom of the pocket. Won the match the next day, a 500 meter fly shoot, primarily for light and heavy bench rest rifles. I was using a restocked and re barrelled Tikka, shooting off an Atlas bipod and TAB bag, with a 5 40 FFP March scope.

What I saw on target was very little vertical dispersion. I’ve never uniformed primer pockets, just clean them occasionally with a flat bladed watchmakers screwdriver, which happened to be almost exactly the right size for Lapua small primer cases. My ES for 5 shots was already very good in the past using a Forster press to prime, but with the odd one high or low over a 10 or 20 shot string. Maybe that rim thickness thing.

Cases were annealed with an AMP unit, sized with a Forster bushing bump die with an insert for 2 thou neck tension, (another thing to piss people off). Bump was set so I could just barely feel the shoulder on closing the bolt, with the firing pin removed from the bolt on an empty case. Primer was CCI BR4.

I can only assume the great result in this not particularly useful sample of one rifle, was a freak of the combination of that particular combination of bolt, firing pin, lock time, chamber, brass and primer. End result is it shot best, with the primer flush with the base of the case, with a ten thou or 3 of interference fit base to shoulder on a closed bolt.

The primer ends up flush with the base of the case after firing anyhow, maybe worth testing in some rifles for the hell of it if anyone has the inclination. Flame suit on……

“End result is it shot best” it and you shot best against the competition that day. Doesn’t mean the rig with the way the components were set up shot the best relative to other ways you could’ve set up the components. This is the grand flaw in the “whatever the winner did is best” approach.

 

[Sniper King 2020]

No.
OP, did you uniform your primer pockets before seating to .008" crush?

Not in the test brass for this test but I did for the test where I tested seating depths and anvil compression for precision. That is how I made sure the anvil was compressing to the level it should according to seating depth.

 

[Sniper King 2020]

Please don't misunderstand, my comment wasn't directed at anyone who bought one, at least it's easier on one's hands and it's their money, they can strive for excellence, and they can light it on fire if they want to (wait, I do that too lol).

But ummm, anyone who's been on the forum for a few years who doesn't have amnesia remembers that douchebag snake oil salesman telling dudes that we didn't know what we were missing if we didn't pony up for one... I mean the great Erik Cortina uses one (that I'd bet $1 he didn't pay for lol).

There's lots of that in this sport, Area 419 is coming out with a $900 chamber-flag just in time for Black Friday.

Yes, gotta be careful of the snake oil salesman. Tons of zombies following them and lining the pockets of the salesman while gaining no benefit but becoming a stout brand loyalist who will attack you if you say anything that can be perceived as negative to their master. Attached is what that PR person wrote back to me when I asked for data in the PR while I was deciding on what bench primer I wanted to go with. No data for you! I’m just the best! Hahaha! Sure, sure. Unfortunately, he’s probably already made a ton of $ off the zombies and uses them as a force against anybody trying to find the ideal primer seater.

 

[Sniper King 2020]

Be careful, those that spent their money on it are thin-skinned about it .

Well, they have to defend the reason they spent $600-1000.

 

[Clearlight]

“End result is it shot best” it and you shot best against the competition that day. Doesn’t mean the rig with the way the components were set up shot the best relative to other ways you could’ve set up the components. This is the grand flaw in the “whatever the winner did is best” approach.

Subsequent testing with the correct small rifle primer seating mandrel, and seating primer to bottom of pocket, and various depths in between, produced inferior results. With that particular combination of rifle and components, best results were consistently achieved with the primer seated flush with the base of the case.

It worked so well, I bought another Tikka action and set it up exactly the same way, same results. Half a dozen barrels in two rifles later, still used the same primer seating method for both. But wait there’s more! I’ve never used a tumbler, or ultrasonic cleaner either.…

 

[Clearlight]

Please don't misunderstand, my comment wasn't directed at anyone who bought one, at least it's easier on one's hands and it's their money, they can strive for excellence, and they can light it on fire if they want to (wait, I do that too lol).

But ummm, anyone who's been on the forum for a few years who doesn't have amnesia remembers that douchebag snake oil salesman telling dudes that we didn't know what we were missing if we didn't pony up for one... I mean the great Erik Cortina uses one (that I'd bet $1 he didn't pay for lol).

There's lots of that in this sport, Area 419 is coming out with a $900 chamber-flag just in time for Black Friday.

There are many, many tools and obsessive techniques in loading ammunition, that fail to deliver real world results on target. Ive largely given up having discussions at ranges with people about this; just let the target do the talking.

 

[Sniper King 2020]

Subsequent testing with the correct small rifle primer seating mandrel, and seating primer to bottom of pocket, and various depths in between, produced inferior results. With that particular combination of rifle and components, best results were consistently achieved with the primer seated flush with the base of the case.

It worked so well, I bought another Tikka action and set it up exactly the same way, same results. Half a dozen barrels in two rifles later, still used the same primer seating method for both. But wait there’s more! I’ve never used a tumbler, or ultrasonic cleaner either.…

“But wait there’s more” um, why are you presenting this as if this is some tv shopping commercial for some cheap gimmick? Is this some kind of page outta the Primal Rights advertising scheme or something?

 

[CK1.0]

Well, they have to defend the reason they spent $600-1000.

I'm not trying to throw stones... my house is glass too. I can't talk too much shit about throwing money at this hobby when there's a fancy ~$1000 powder dropper setup on my bench... and I too have no problem spending way too much money on stuff that makes no sense sometimes.

But caveat emptor, because some shit out there is just a grift to try and separate guys who're already balls-deep into an expansive sport/hobby from more of their cash with little to no benefit besides maybe some temporary "look what I got" exclusivity.

Like with outlandishly expensive reloading dies:

I'm no expert, but as far as I can tell a die is a machined hunk of steel (more or less, I might be oversimplifying things, but you get the idea lol), that more than likely came off some CNC machine that cost more than my truck and then some. So someone might be able to show me evidence of more time spent machining one, or more evidence of craftmanship or something like that, but as far as evidence that going more fancy matters on target..? Nope.

In my expert analysis of shooting 1200+ yard targets with both ~$20 Lee dies and more nicely finished ones by Wilson/Forster/Redding that cost maybe 5-6 times more (say ~$120)... I've conclusively discerned that they all pretty much do the same things, except the nicer ones are a little nicer (in some ways or in certain aspects depending on what one likes or is looking for), and it really comes down to personal preference.

(Boom, you all are welcome, I hope I saved someone enough on fancy dies to buy a new barrel and a big box of bullets to go with it or something lol.)

 

[Haney]

I'm not trying to throw stones... my house is glass too. I can't talk too much shit about throwing money at this hobby when there's a fancy ~$1000 powder dropper setup on my bench... and I too have no problem spending way too much money on stuff that makes no sense sometimes.

But caveat emptor, because some shit out there is just a grift to try and separate guys who're already balls-deep into an expansive sport/hobby from more of their cash with little to no benefit besides maybe some temporary "look what I got" exclusivity.

Like with outlandishly expensive reloading dies:

I'm no expert, but as far as I can tell a die is a machined hunk of steel (more or less, I might be oversimplifying things, but you get the idea lol), that more than likely came off some CNC machine that cost more than my truck and then some. So someone might be able to show me evidence of more time spent machining one, or more evidence of craftmanship or something like that, but as far as evidence that going more fancy matters on target..? Nope.

In my expert analysis of shooting 1200+ yard targets with both ~$20 Lee dies and more nicely finished ones by Wilson/Forster/Redding that cost maybe 5-6 times more (say ~$120)... I've conclusively discerned that they all pretty much do the same things, except the nicer ones are a little nicer (in some ways or in certain aspects depending on what one likes or is looking for), and it really comes down to personal preference.

(Boom, you all are welcome, I hope I saved someone enough on fancy dies to buy a new barrel and a big box of bullets to go with it or something lol.)

Just don't mention the Lee neck sizing die , people argue for days on end over that one .