RCBS vs. Redding presses?

Oregonlaw76

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Oct 9, 2009
15
4
48
Portland, Oregon
Wondering if anyone has personal experience with the RCBS Rock Chucker or the Redding T-7... I need to buy a press to load for a 6.5 x 284 and I am split between these two... The RCBS is cheaper but I have Redding dies... any opinions on if the Redding is worth the extra $100?

Thanks in advance.
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

T-7 over a RC? For the versatility, the T-7 wins hands down. The T-7 will cost you the price of two RC`s. If you just want a single stage press, get a Lee Classic Cast. On sale at MidwayUSA for $77+change, $98 to your door. A well made soild press.
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

Outstanding Single Station Presses:

Forster Co-ax
Redding Big Boss II

These two handle all normal reloading chores, and their spent primer systems mean no mess.

If you are ever considering case forming for wildcats or the hard to handle ex long cases or something like the 50 BMG in the future, consider this press:

CH4D Champion - Link: CH4D Champion

From the same maker: CH4D No. 444 - 4-Station 'H' Press. Not a turret press, and not a single stage press, but a 4 station at one pull of the handle press. Not as fast as a progessive, but faster than a single stage or turret press.

As far as turret presses go the Redding T-7 is the best of the best.

Bob
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

I never understood the argument people try to make about ammo made on a Forster press being superior to ammo made on any other press. I had a Forster, it's a nice press but I like my Ultramag a lot better. Whatever you get just take the time to learn to use it properly and you will make good quality ammo.
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

Any press will use any dies. (Well, all except one odd ball Dillon and a 50 year old Lyman turret) What matters with the Coax is the rings need to be thick or the die fit in its slots will be very sloppy.

I find the ergonomics of both the Coax and Ultramag poor. I LIKE to operate my press with my right hand and feed the cases in from the 8 to 7:30 o'clock angle with my left hand. The Coax requires a near 6 feeding, ditto Redding's Ultramag. Both are good presses but so are others and the more conventional designs fit my loading style much better. Fit most other people too, that's why they're made as they are!

Price aside, the Lee Classic Cast is without question the "best" press in it's class and, overall, it may be the best period for most people. IMHO, of course.

I wonder how some can justify saying the quality of their ammo is due to the press they use. How can that be, what magic does a simple press bring to the table? Serious BR shooters don't use threaded presses or dies at all for match shooting but some do use a small alum alloy press for full length resizing. ??

Given the same dies and components, I can load equal quality ammo on any press made. But it will be harder if the press is a turret, the extra head deflection simply makes doing good work a bit more difficult.
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fuzzball</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Price aside, the Lee Classic Cast is without question the "best" press in it's class and, overall, it may be the best period for most people. IMHO, of course.

</div></div>

Care to qualify that??? What makes it the "best"?

Bob
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Texas_Archer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what dies will not work in the co-ax press?

Im also considering the T7 but will use Redding Comp dies. </div></div>

I use nothing but Redding Comp Seater dies in my Co-Ax, .308 .223 .260, and .30-06
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

"Care to qualify that??? What makes (the Lee Classic Cast) the "best"?"

Well, I hoped someone else would spell it out but...

The cast iron body is as strong as any made except the Redding Ultramag and it's massive over kill of anything we really need. The case opening is as large as any made, big and strong enough to handle the .50 BMG. The spent primer handling is down the hollow ram and into a tube. So, all that's a wash with the very best features of several others in combination.

The spent primer system keeps the ram cleaner than highly touted competitors that drop spent caps - and accompanying grit - down a slot in the ram and puts some in a small tray and some on the floor! I only know of two of it's MUCH more costly competitors that do that.

The ram is (as far as I know anyway) the largest in diameter avaliable. That means the ram contact and wear surface is larger. So, with equal care, it will take significantly longer for it to wear an equal amount to any other of it's type.

The lever is the ONLY one that is fully adjustable for left or right hand operation, length of the handle and angle of operation. That allows a user to set it any way he feels is more comfortable for his style. Lee's lever is a hollow steel tube that will bend before it breaks the press, sorta making the lever a fuse to fool proof the press for even the most determined fool. It is possible for other cast iron "O" presses to put so much pressure on the lever some guys pop the top strap on their cast iron press and destroy it. Never mind any warrantee, that's the pits and need not happen.

The machining - boring, threading, sloting - is done on CNC machinery so it's as well aligned as possible. Don't know as that's true of any of the others.

All this makes the Lee Classic Cast the best all-around single stage press going, IMHO, regardless of price. Not massively better, but better. It's competitors still work but not quite as well and they cost a LOT more.
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

I have both a RCBS single stage press and the Redding T-7. Both have been entirely satisfactory but it's real handy to have 7 stations on the T-7 so I can leave several sets of dies set up. That said, I used the RCBS press exclusively for years and was quite happy with it.
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

I have no heart burn with other presses. As I said, they all work just fine. The "quality" of other presses isn't the issue either, they are all quite well made. It's the overall design that's often lacking in some respects. I don't have a Lee CC but I recognise it is "better" over-all than my Rock Chucker and Lyman 6 hole turret.

I store my dies in boxes, not in the press. It takes about 15 seconds to install a die, then well under a minute to swap it out. Total die handling time for a two die set is well under a minute and a half, a third die may add a half minute.

I have nothing to "set up" when changing dies because the die lock rings are firmly fixed where I want them. I screw them in hand tight and that's more than tight enough. Even if I left dies in the turret it would save virtually no time in a typical loading session.

My turret provides me nothing in convienence. I ONLY use it for handgun ammo because of the deflection of the head, if it were fully tight I couldn't rotate it. While head flex may not hurt some rifle ammo it sure doesn't help it!
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

I have 3 RCBS Rock Chucker presses, and an Ammo Master II press. No issues whatsoever. I have use Redding dies with it without any problem also.
 
Re: RCBS vs. Redding presses?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grumulkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have both a RCBS single stage press and the Redding T-7. Both have been entirely satisfactory but it's real handy to have 7 stations on the T-7 so I can leave several sets of dies set up. That said, I used the RCBS press exclusively for years and was quite happy with it. </div></div>

I was going to say the same thing. I only have one caliber setup right now (5.56 full length) but you set your sizing die once. Then when your done turn the turret and your seating die is set up. If you use one bullet you don't even have to adjust your seating die, if you do more than one make a dummy for each bullet and adjust your Competition Seating die with it.