Update..Ive bought a mandrel kit for 243/6mm...6.5mm& 30/308 cal..Now I need one for my 7mm SAUM & 7mm Rem Mag. I've learned a great deal from you & your videos.I recently bought a Forster Co Ax Press. I had previously bought a Frankford Arsenal M Co Ax press thinking I was buying a Forster.. LOL So I had both for a while.I got rid of the Frankford Arsenal..Its just not as good as the Forster Co Ax.I still use my nK&M Precision Press too. Many Thanks for Sharing Your Knowledge.
I bought a Sinclair-Wilson Micro-Adjust Bullet Seater in 2019?I was checking to see which is the best Arbor Press to buy to use it.So after watching your videos I bought the K&M with force pack and dial indicator.I also bought a Kit of 21st Century mandrels in half thou. increments. I also bought a Co-Ax Press for other things.I already have a Dillon 550C for my pistol and AR15 rounds.You have a GREAT Channel..Thanks for sharing your knowledge
I am starting to upgrade my tools and kit for precision reloading, and getting it right during the seating has always been a hassle with 223/5.56. Getting the seat and crimp done correctly, and consistently has been my goal while loading small caliber rifle cartridge's. One of my last batch's I made must have had the shoulder bumped down a fraction of a thousandth even though my OAL was correct. The firing pin in my AR15 didn't make proper contact with the primer and I had a mis-fire... No Joy there. Now, watching and learning about my mistake has made me determined to rework those loads and get them right. So next time... BANG!
I’m using the same setup for my bullet seating. The only difference is that I apply NeoLube 2 to the inside of the case necks and to the base of the bullets prior to seating. So far I have noticed more consistent pressure readings.
I use a modified T7 and I do not use a resizing die I use depriving die, neck bushing die, expander mandrel then I use my K&M and I get amazing runout results. I found when I stated when using a resizing die I got more runout believe using the mandrel is the key.
Like many other friction topics, seating force has a natural dispersion. There are many factors that contribute to the readings, so it takes statistical sampling to get a clear picture of the results even when manipulating a single variable. Mother nature is cruel like that. Things that help are to be meticulous about the processes for sizing and chamfering and keeping the condition of that brass as identical as possible. Then I would also recommend trying to use a nylon brush with graphite to lubricate and condition the neck in order to reduce the average and SD of the friction coefficient. An oversimplification of the seating force is to say it is the product of the hoop stress times the friction coefficient, so the smaller the average coefficient and the smaller the dispersion in that coefficient, the smaller the overall dispersion. It would still take statistical sampling to get a clear picture, but you will likely see a more proportional plot with using the average of five samples of each step size change.
The real real issue why your SD and ES becomes unstable and jets is a few factors. 1) non repeatable scale, 2) non repeatable annealing or not annealing 3) improper sizing or not consistent 4) temperature - after just a couple shots temp stability will start drastically changing your velocities. So if you have a very good temp stable powder like rl23 old batch varget or say vhitavouri n150 or n565. If all of these are met you can safely measure and correlate. I've seen repeatable results of less than 5es up as far as 5 reloads with rl23 5 shots each batch. So correlate it slightly further with test will totally peak my interest
I tried graphite & it has terrible effects. Before trying it, I thought for sure it would act as a great lube but, it's just the opposite. Seating force increases from 30% to 50% &, it causes stop/start or halting movement during seating. I can only guess that it must tend to build up in front of the bullet base then roll in between the bullet & neck.
@@rotasaustralis That sounds like bad luck. Graphite can become an abrasive, but only under extremely dry conditions. This is why we don't use it in vacuum or high altitude applications where there is RH below 1%. Under typical breathing air conditions, it is a fair dry lubricant and should act to prevent typical clean metal contacts from galling and go as far as improving the friction coefficient. It is worth giving it another try in my opinion, but lots of times you can get very good neck to bullet friction without it, so you can find you can live without the extra steps.
@@dinoc.5537 I've given it 2 seperate goes with the same distinct manifestations. I tested it again because I was so sure it should work & doubted my initial findings. There may be the possibility that lock tumbler graphite is not suitable for some reason as this is what I used. I simply dipped a Q tip into the little squeeze bottle after removing the tube lid &, wiped generously inside the necks. Provided that lock tumbler graphite is the same as graphite marketed for bullet lube then, I definitely won't be going back for a 3rd try. During bullet seating, I can tell instantly if there's graphite or I've missed brushing the neck, it's that apparent. I'm definitely done with graphite. I've given it 2 cracks with identical unsatisfactory results. I will however test Moly because Lou murdica uses it in his testing & such. Lou doesn't say anything bad about graphite but, he doesn't use it either........Hmmmmmmmmm.
@@dinoc.5537 Dino, just to clarify my last explanation a little. The 1st time I applied the graphite to the necks was a full loading tray (50) pieces of which I seated a bullet in all of them. Up until that point, I had only started annealing & done some preliminary test seating of bullets. After reading about others dipping the case necks in graphite, I automatically assumed it would be a positive step &, prepped all 50 308 win necks as a matter course. Suffice to say, things did not go smoothly during seating but, at that time, I had not seated many after annealing so didn't have the benefit of experience. It wasn't until I decided to pull the bullets & start again that I fully realized that graphite was a problem somehow. Every bullet pull with my hornady collet puller was much harder than all my test seating rounds as well as the seating issues. From there I dumped all the powder in order to brush the graphite from the necks & started over. From there, everything returned to smooth trouble free seating. The next time I tried graphite was weeks later with my 243 cases of which I seated 8. After pulling those, I decided to abandon graphite completely. No scientific analysis by any stretch but, good enough for me. Maybe I applied too much, I don't know but, the difference was pronounced & the issues were such that graphite appeared to defeat the purpose. I do want to try Moly as I stated but, not for tension reduction or to smooth out seating as, brushing necks has been very effective & gives excellent results so far however, Lou Murdica uses Moly in part to stop or reduce neck/bullet bonding over time which, I have measured as a definite phenomenon whereby, the bullets seem to bond or stick somehow after just a few days with, a noticeable increase in bullet pull effort. I must say that I understand your consternation as, by all accounts graphite should work well but, not in my case at least. Kind Regards.................Rotas.
I did a preliminary test using the 21st Century mandrels. I tested .001, .0015 and .002 neck tension. I loaded 10 rounds each, but had trouble with my labradar. I recorded 5 rounds each. I seated with a Wilson seating die and K&M arbor press with gauge. All brass was processed at the same time, full length, sized and champhered, powder weighed on scientific scale within one kernal of Varget. Although not a comprehensive test, the results were interesting. At .002 neck tension the ES was 6 and SD was 3, at .0015 tension, the ES was 3 and SD 1.4, at .001 the ES was 12 and the SD 4.8. This was on my competition barrel, so didn't want to waste too much barrel life, will do more testing with this barrel after my new one arrives. I am going with .0015 tension and will chart the results over 100 rounds at the next meet. This is on a 6 dasher F-class open rifle, unsorted lapua brass, no neck turning. For what it is worth.
@@vladmirputin7139 Given my basic test, I have to agree. I am sure the SD will rise with a larger sampling, but I believe it will still be in an acceptable range. I will start sorting brass with the first 100 rounds. I sort brass by velocity not by weight. One cannot tell if the weight difference is in the walls (volume) or base. If I get a velocity out of my acceptable range, and no appreciable difference in vertical, that brass goes into the sighter box, if there is a difference in vertical, it goes into the trash can. A 1.00 piece of brass is not worth a 9 to me in competition. I use old barrels for testing brass. Just how I do it.
I wonder how much concentricity is negatively affected by seating a bullet in a smaller neck. Bullets were never intended to be used to expand necks. I would also expect the seating stem to do more damage to the bullet as neck tension is increased.
@@njgrplr2007 Concentricity would only be affected IF the bullet seating device or die was not aligned. Otherwise pushing a concentric bullet into a concentric case, although a couple thousands smaller, straight in could not be concentric. As to damage to the bullet, yes, extreme neck tension would require more force to seat which may damage the bullet from the seating stem. This also takes into consideration how well the stem is made to match the surface of the bullet. The larger the surface contact the less damage. Typical bullet damage is a ring on the bullet, which means the stem only contacted the bullet on a very narrow band or edge. If the stem matches the surface the force is diffused over a much larger area. I have modified all my stems to resolve this issue. I have seated bullets up to .006 neck tension without any visible damage to the bullet. I have had stems that damaged a bullet with as little as .001 thou neck tension. I throw it away or fix it, but do not use it as is. .002 thou neck tension has been pretty much a standard for decades, I am quite sure the manufacturers consider this in bullet construction, tension is required to hold the bullet in place. While it may be true to say a bullet was not made for expansion purposes, that does not mean it was not considered in the design, as it is also a requirement that must be met.
Great Vid! Like the "extra level of precision" I see a tub of what looks like graphite powder (dry lube). I think an additional nice test would be to dip bullets in it (tail end) or apply to inside of necks with a q-tip or fluffy brush(bore mop). This is going to a crazy level of curiosity but it would be interesting to see if has any effect on constant seating pressure if mandrel size is kept the same ie .263 This might also give us a more accurate indication of how many pounds of seating pressure for example 1 thou of "neck tension" translates to. I belive it is referred to as "break free" point(initial seating pressure).
Those LE Wilson dies and the use of Arbor Presses is actually part of the reason why, when I bought an additional press, I bought the RBCS Summit Press - there is a little add-on you can attach so that it can be converted to work like an arbor press. I'm still tinkering with it, trying to see if there there is any measurable difference between that and my old, aging RCBS JS2 press.
@@x-calibearusallc This is true, but I think I'm okay with that. I haven't taken the plunge for the dies or the attachment, and, so far, I enjoy the press as it is.
@@calculatroncalculatron1556 I imagine that the Summit is a good press. I have a Rock Chucker IV and it is solid. It serves mostly as a deprimer and pistol case resizer nowadays because I also have a CoAx.
Just got the hydroseater. I'll be doing the exact same test. It'll be interesting to be able to correlate seated force to velocity. Everything in reloading can be measured somehow so neck tension by force is measurable. Interested to see your findings moparmadman.
@@BoltActionReloading for sure, I'll be testing 338 lapua virgin brass as well as freshly annealed 6.5cm SRP brass. I'll release to you the info when I am complete. I'll be doing it in 2" neck tension
Isn’t it so that a major factor is the roughness of the neck inside that plays a big part in seating force needed, of course along with the neck tension itself? It’s difficult to control that factor though. It will play a much bigger role when seat tension is on the low side . I see a lot of different opinions how to treat neck inside, from not cleaning it at all, to lubing it with graphite or just using a brushing regimen to squeaky clean inside. I’ve never tested different cleaning or lubing procedure’s effect on velocity but I’m sure many have some input on that
I'd be curious to see how consistent seating tension is with fully prepped case necks. I'm wondering if the variations you see are due in part to inconsistent neck wall thickness and if case neck donuts affect the sizing of the neck using the mandrels.
In my experience, the mandrel takes care of the donut issue, as long as you go deep enough with the mandrel, full size mandrel past the shoulder/neck junction. You can actually feel the donut being moved through the pressure on the press handle. It is sort of like this, higher pressure to start, medium pressure when expanding neck, higher pressure when you hit the donut. Be careful not to let the case hit the die body though. I set up the mandrel die without the mandrel in the die, I raise a case all the way up, adjust the die to touch the case then back off about 10 or 15 thou. The mandrel goes past the shoulder/neck junction but the case does not hit the die body. Just the way I do it.
@@6handicap604 So the way I understand it the donut is basically a thickening of the case neck/shoulder area which occurs during shooting/resizing. If the mandrel uniforms the ID wouldn't it then just displace that material to the OD potentially causing that material to impact the fit of the cartridge to chamber? Especially for those of us who run a minimal shoulder set back. For my set up I prefer to keep the bump at .001
@@utdesertghost199 You are correct sir. The metal will be moved, not removed by a mandrel. The only way to remove the donut would entail reaming the neck. constant reaming, or removing metal also weakens the neck and case. As with most things, there is no perfect solution, only trade-offs. We must decide which trade-off benefits us the most. One must decide how important or critical the donut issue is first, THEN one must decide how to address the issue. Bushing size and push the donut against the bullet, or mandrel and push the donut against the chamber, or ream to remove the donut, then decide how often to ream. All viable choices. Even then, reaming seems to be the only viable solution. Unless you have a custom full length sizing die, you are not sizing the donut anyway. A bushing does not size to the neck shoulder junction, is stops a measurable distance from the junction. This is required by design, the bushing must rest on a shelf, the thickness of that shelf determines the distance from the neck/shoulder junction to where the bushing sizes the neck. So bushing sizing will not affect the donut to chamber relationship anyway. To me, reaming would require a custom die to ensure pushing the donut to the inside of the case then to be reamed. This thinking is what lead me to mandrels. I decided I would rather have the inside of the neck perfectly round and concentric rather than the outside(turning) then sizing with a bushing. With about .005 clearance from neck to chamber, I do not think .001 difference in neck thickness can effect the bullet much after expansion, especially under over 50,000 lbs of pressure. just my thoughts. As an amatuer machinist, I would rather seat a perfectly round bullet into a perfectly round inside neck, but that is just me. We must all make our own choices. I have found that I have lowered my ES and SD's using the mandrel. But that is only my experience with my load and my rifle. I have put much more faith in my own testing than on youtube videos and claims. As Reagan said, "trust, but verify". The hardest choices are deciding if the process truly makes a discernable measurable difference. I have been deep into the rabbit hole, but through my own testing have found some popular processes to be of no measurable benefit. I bought a 6.5 Creedmoor just to use for testing. It is a 1/2 MOA Savage LRP. I have put over 2,000 rounds through the rifle just testing reloading processes at up to 1,000 yards. Suffice it to say, I no longer weight sort my primers, amongst other things LOL! How many people do you know who tested 100 rounds of out of the box primers against 100 rounds of weight sorted primers and charted the results? The difference was so small as to be statistically irrelavent. I grew tired of 8 hours at the bench for 1 hour of shooting and practice. But to each their own and God bless them all.
@@6handicap604 I think we share many of the same beliefs and theory's. I have been a machinist/ mold maker for 30 years and although I've not been involved much with metal forming I have worked a fair amount with press fits and seen first hand how the cold flow of metals under pressure can create problems. I this case it's almost impossible to solve one issue without creating another. Work the metal too much and it fatigues or work hardens and you have to anneal more often. You ream and your removing metal and eventually thin the case neck. I personally have chosen to ream for now, knowing my case life will most likely be shortened. I have a couple ideas I may need to put to action and see how they work.
@@utdesertghost199 That would seem to be the best solution to me also. I say that with a caveat though. As a solution, it is the best. IF one believes the donut issue itself is important enough to warrant the time and effort of the solution. That also is a choice we all make. I guess the best way I can put it is, as of late, through my own testing, I have found that many things I was doing for consistency sake, really didn't matter on paper, at least to any measurable degree. Consistency in and of itself does not improve performance in every case. No matter how carefully and consistently one wets and seals and envelop, it really does not improve mail delivery. Kind of like weighing primers. it is consistent, but.... Reloading cannot cure OCD, but it can cause it!!! LOL Best to you sir.
I'm sure you'll find this was money well spent as you'll now be able to really see some results..........great stuff. As I've mentioned previously, be sure to brush the necks. Any carbon in the necks after annealing will cause raised seating force as well as stop start or halting bullet travel down the neck. As you test more cases, you'll start to notice some reasonably large difference within the same bushing settings. This is where you'll see the case hardness difference manifest. You can reduce the finishing force by opening up or, forcing out the neck/shoulder junction with either a bullet or in your case, a mandrel. Because of the thicker brass in the neck/shoulder junction area, the neck ID is basically a funnel shape after sizing & why there is the considerable seating force difference between start & finish force &, why the finish force doesn't seem to improve much with ID changes. By pushing that junction out after FLS then sizing with a LEE neck mandrel sizer or, a neck only bushing sizer, the start & finish readings will come a lot closer together. To give you an idea, my start & finish force readings with FLS & no mandrel step are 8-12ish & 22- 26Lbs respectively with full annealing. Anyhow, have at it, there's much to be learned as I'm finding out. Kind regards................Rotas
I totally agree with you and I read the parts of the Illinois Engineering papers that you referenced earlier and I will say that I need to read that paper a couple of two or three times to digest it. Metallurgy is a scope I have never become too involved in, so grain creation, crystallization, re-crystallization, etc. was a bit daunting to me... As I have time, I am going to work on adapting some equipment to perform a "Bullet Pull Force" test..... as I feel that seating the bullet is one thing, pulling the bullet is another. I have my Arbor and Wilson die.... now I need time...
@@additudeobx Yes, they do take some digesting &, that paper is the simplest of the bunch. As far as a pulling method, I tried to come up with some way I could use the same gear as the seater force gear but, it would have to be some kind of reverse push mechanism when pulling. ?? I think much better success will be had with a load cell with appropriate software to chart & graph the results. I contacted this mob in California because of the software. Div Harish Loadstar Sensors 48521 Warm Springs Blvd., #308 Fremont, CA 94539 Tel: 510-274-1872 Fax: 510-952-3700 Maybe give them a call. Initially I was thinking of a push/pull style puck design load cell that I could attach a case holder onto & use the press normally with the hornady collet bullet puller. Hope this helps. Kind regards...........Rotas
@@additudeobx Before you spend more expense & effort, I would like to take this time to advise that you give yourself at least a couple weeks of solid testing with your seater force gauge, neck sizing, annealing & so forth. Now ofcourse, I don't wish to interfere with your decision however, I think it quite likely that, you may well change your mind on thinking that you need to put an absolute figure on the pulling force. If you still wish to continue after a couple weeks of solid testing, have at it. I'm at the stage with my cartridge prep now that, I can tell there is very little difference in pull force between cases, even though I can't put a figure on it, I realize there's so little difference between any of the annealed cases that it really is only academic &, it is what it is. I couldn't change it much if I wanted to. All I can tell you is that, it feels about 3 or 4 times less pull force than a normally loaded cartridge which is a ridiculously heavy pull. When I made the comment about the rabbit hole, I wasn't joking. Kind regards...........Rotas.
@@rotasaustralis - Well the don't spend more money on it part is out the window. Honestly, I'm not spending money on it, I'm just adding to my collection of reloading tools and gadgets that I have already spent a lot of money on.... ;) Here is an interesting Paper that I found that would be of interest to you, if you haven't already read it. www.zeszyty.waw.pl/artykuly/zn4(118)2018/033_044.pdf
According to studies by Annealing Made Perfect, the carbon residue in the necks act as a lubricant, but a variable that leads to less consistent neck tension, so it is a good practice to brush out the necks to remove that carbon. " as carbon built up inside the necks, the average tensile force progressively DECREASED from 103 lbf for once shot cases (Pack 3) down to 74 lbf for three times shot (Pack 4), and just 43.5 lbf for ten times shot cases (Pack 5). Once the carbon was removed, batch to batch consistency was much more reliable" souce:www.ampannealing.com/articles/42/annealing-under-the-microscope/
You've certainly gone thru quite the equipt procession as time goes by here. Did you visualize yourself getting into these disciplines when you started off?
Not really but when I started I didn't know if anyone really wanted this type of content. Turns out I guess they do. I really just want to try different things out so others don't have to. If I can give people a head start on learning what works and what doesn't I consider the channel a success.
The data is only as good as the brass prep. Any deviation in prep, or residue, burs, etc. Throw everything off. I use 000 steel wool over a bore brush after chamfer to ensure they are all consistent. You will be able to use the feel more than the number once prep is on point. Also, thicker necks (lapua) will show higher force. I turn my necks but that will always be a source of inconsistencies, and it is immediately apparent with this method.
I’ve been running this same set up for about 3 mos now in 308 223 and 6.5 creedmoor. I have been getting excellent results in sd and concentricity.
I just received the Sinclair arbor press, looking forward to using it🤙
Update..Ive bought a mandrel kit for 243/6mm...6.5mm& 30/308 cal..Now I need one for my 7mm SAUM & 7mm Rem Mag. I've learned a great deal from you & your videos.I recently bought a Forster Co Ax Press. I had previously bought a Frankford Arsenal M Co Ax press thinking I was buying a Forster.. LOL So I had both for a while.I got rid of the Frankford Arsenal..Its just not as good as the Forster Co Ax.I still use my nK&M Precision Press too. Many Thanks for Sharing Your Knowledge.
I bought a Sinclair-Wilson Micro-Adjust Bullet Seater in 2019?I was checking to see which is the best Arbor Press to buy to use it.So after watching your videos I bought the K&M with force pack and dial indicator.I also bought a Kit of 21st Century mandrels in half thou. increments. I also bought a Co-Ax Press for other things.I already have a Dillon 550C for my pistol and AR15 rounds.You have a GREAT Channel..Thanks for sharing your knowledge
Is this Johnny's Reloading Bench with a different voice?? LOL
Gotta love these talking hand videos, they are hilarious 😂😂😂
Wish I found your channel years ago! Cheers!
I am starting to upgrade my tools and kit for precision reloading, and getting it right during the seating has always been a hassle with 223/5.56. Getting the seat and crimp done correctly, and consistently has been my goal while loading small caliber rifle cartridge's. One of my last batch's I made must have had the shoulder bumped down a fraction of a thousandth even though my OAL was correct. The firing pin in my AR15 didn't make proper contact with the primer and I had a mis-fire... No Joy there.
Now, watching and learning about my mistake has made me determined to rework those loads and get them right. So next time... BANG!
I’m using the same setup for my bullet seating. The only difference is that I apply NeoLube 2 to the inside of the case necks and to the base of the bullets prior to seating. So far I have noticed more consistent pressure readings.
I use a modified T7 and I do not use a resizing die I use depriving die, neck bushing die, expander mandrel then I use my K&M and I get amazing runout results. I found when I stated when using a resizing die I got more runout believe using the mandrel is the key.
When I have a sore neck I typically sit heavily down. Great videos Sir!
Like many other friction topics, seating force has a natural dispersion. There are many factors that contribute to the readings, so it takes statistical sampling to get a clear picture of the results even when manipulating a single variable. Mother nature is cruel like that. Things that help are to be meticulous about the processes for sizing and chamfering and keeping the condition of that brass as identical as possible. Then I would also recommend trying to use a nylon brush with graphite to lubricate and condition the neck in order to reduce the average and SD of the friction coefficient.
An oversimplification of the seating force is to say it is the product of the hoop stress times the friction coefficient, so the smaller the average coefficient and the smaller the dispersion in that coefficient, the smaller the overall dispersion. It would still take statistical sampling to get a clear picture, but you will likely see a more proportional plot with using the average of five samples of each step size change.
The real real issue why your SD and ES becomes unstable and jets is a few factors. 1) non repeatable scale, 2) non repeatable annealing or not annealing 3) improper sizing or not consistent 4) temperature - after just a couple shots temp stability will start drastically changing your velocities. So if you have a very good temp stable powder like rl23 old batch varget or say vhitavouri n150 or n565. If all of these are met you can safely measure and correlate. I've seen repeatable results of less than 5es up as far as 5 reloads with rl23 5 shots each batch. So correlate it slightly further with test will totally peak my interest
I tried graphite & it has terrible effects. Before trying it, I thought for sure it would act as a great lube but, it's just the opposite. Seating force increases from 30% to 50% &, it causes stop/start or halting movement during seating. I can only guess that it must tend to build up in front of the bullet base then roll in between the bullet & neck.
@@rotasaustralis That sounds like bad luck. Graphite can become an abrasive, but only under extremely dry conditions. This is why we don't use it in vacuum or high altitude applications where there is RH below 1%. Under typical breathing air conditions, it is a fair dry lubricant and should act to prevent typical clean metal contacts from galling and go as far as improving the friction coefficient. It is worth giving it another try in my opinion, but lots of times you can get very good neck to bullet friction without it, so you can find you can live without the extra steps.
@@dinoc.5537 I've given it 2 seperate goes with the same distinct manifestations. I tested it again because I was so sure it should work & doubted my initial findings. There may be the possibility that lock tumbler graphite is not suitable for some reason as this is what I used. I simply dipped a Q tip into the little squeeze bottle after removing the tube lid &, wiped generously inside the necks. Provided that lock tumbler graphite is the same as graphite marketed for bullet lube then, I definitely won't be going back for a 3rd try. During bullet seating, I can tell instantly if there's graphite or I've missed brushing the neck, it's that apparent.
I'm definitely done with graphite. I've given it 2 cracks with identical unsatisfactory results. I will however test Moly because Lou murdica uses it in his testing & such. Lou doesn't say anything bad about graphite but, he doesn't use it either........Hmmmmmmmmm.
@@dinoc.5537 Dino, just to clarify my last explanation a little. The 1st time I applied the graphite to the necks was a full loading tray (50) pieces of which I seated a bullet in all of them. Up until that point, I had only started annealing & done some preliminary test seating of bullets. After reading about others dipping the case necks in graphite, I automatically assumed it would be a positive step &, prepped all 50 308 win necks as a matter course. Suffice to say, things did not go smoothly during seating but, at that time, I had not seated many after annealing so didn't have the benefit of experience. It wasn't until I decided to pull the bullets & start again that I fully realized that graphite was a problem somehow. Every bullet pull with my hornady collet puller was much harder than all my test seating rounds as well as the seating issues. From there I dumped all the powder in order to brush the graphite from the necks & started over. From there, everything returned to smooth trouble free seating.
The next time I tried graphite was weeks later with my 243 cases of which I seated 8. After pulling those, I decided to abandon graphite completely. No scientific analysis by any stretch but, good enough for me. Maybe I applied too much, I don't know but, the difference was pronounced & the issues were such that graphite appeared to defeat the purpose.
I do want to try Moly as I stated but, not for tension reduction or to smooth out seating as, brushing necks has been very effective & gives excellent results so far however, Lou Murdica uses Moly in part to stop or reduce neck/bullet bonding over time which, I have measured as a definite phenomenon whereby, the bullets seem to bond or stick somehow after just a few days with, a noticeable increase in bullet pull effort.
I must say that I understand your consternation as, by all accounts graphite should work well but, not in my case at least.
Kind Regards.................Rotas.
Really interesting info - I will be looking forward to your future tests/results with this setup.
You and me both!
I did a preliminary test using the 21st Century mandrels. I tested .001, .0015 and .002 neck tension. I loaded 10 rounds each, but had trouble with my labradar. I recorded 5 rounds each. I seated with a Wilson seating die and K&M arbor press with gauge. All brass was processed at the same time, full length, sized and champhered, powder weighed on scientific scale within one kernal of Varget. Although not a comprehensive test, the results were interesting. At .002 neck tension the ES was 6 and SD was 3, at .0015 tension, the ES was 3 and SD 1.4, at .001 the ES was 12 and the SD 4.8. This was on my competition barrel, so didn't want to waste too much barrel life, will do more testing with this barrel after my new one arrives. I am going with .0015 tension and will chart the results over 100 rounds at the next meet. This is on a 6 dasher F-class open rifle, unsorted lapua brass, no neck turning. For what it is worth.
I've always said 1.5 thou of neck tension is the best.
@@vladmirputin7139 Given my basic test, I have to agree. I am sure the SD will rise with a larger sampling, but I believe it will still be in an acceptable range. I will start sorting brass with the first 100 rounds. I sort brass by velocity not by weight. One cannot tell if the weight difference is in the walls (volume) or base. If I get a velocity out of my acceptable range, and no appreciable difference in vertical, that brass goes into the sighter box, if there is a difference in vertical, it goes into the trash can. A 1.00 piece of brass is not worth a 9 to me in competition. I use old barrels for testing brass. Just how I do it.
Thank you for you information, let us know how you go with the testing please!
I wonder how much concentricity is negatively affected by seating a bullet in a smaller neck. Bullets were never intended to be used to expand necks. I would also expect the seating stem to do more damage to the bullet as neck tension is increased.
@@njgrplr2007 Concentricity would only be affected IF the bullet seating device or die was not aligned. Otherwise pushing a concentric bullet into a concentric case, although a couple thousands smaller, straight in could not be concentric. As to damage to the bullet, yes, extreme neck tension would require more force to seat which may damage the bullet from the seating stem. This also takes into consideration how well the stem is made to match the surface of the bullet. The larger the surface contact the less damage. Typical bullet damage is a ring on the bullet, which means the stem only contacted the bullet on a very narrow band or edge. If the stem matches the surface the force is diffused over a much larger area. I have modified all my stems to resolve this issue. I have seated bullets up to .006 neck tension without any visible damage to the bullet. I have had stems that damaged a bullet with as little as .001 thou neck tension. I throw it away or fix it, but do not use it as is. .002 thou neck tension has been pretty much a standard for decades, I am quite sure the manufacturers consider this in bullet construction, tension is required to hold the bullet in place. While it may be true to say a bullet was not made for expansion purposes, that does not mean it was not considered in the design, as it is also a requirement that must be met.
The talking arm is back.
Hahahaha....it's amazing, don't know an arm could talk....😆😅🤣😄
🤣🤣🤣
🤣
Great Vid! Like the "extra level of precision" I see a tub of what looks like graphite powder (dry lube). I think an additional nice test would be to dip bullets in it (tail end) or apply to inside of necks with a q-tip or fluffy brush(bore mop). This is going to a crazy level of curiosity but it would be interesting to see if has any effect on constant seating pressure if mandrel size is kept the same ie .263
This might also give us a more accurate indication of how many pounds of seating pressure for example 1 thou of "neck tension" translates to. I belive it is referred to as "break free" point(initial seating pressure).
Absolutely!
Those LE Wilson dies and the use of Arbor Presses is actually part of the reason why, when I bought an additional press, I bought the RBCS Summit Press - there is a little add-on you can attach so that it can be converted to work like an arbor press.
I'm still tinkering with it, trying to see if there there is any measurable difference between that and my old, aging RCBS JS2 press.
But you have no feedback on seating force.
I thought about going that way before I got my K&M
@@x-calibearusallc This is true, but I think I'm okay with that. I haven't taken the plunge for the dies or the attachment, and, so far, I enjoy the press as it is.
@@calculatroncalculatron1556 I imagine that the Summit is a good press. I have a Rock Chucker IV and it is solid. It serves mostly as a deprimer and pistol case resizer nowadays because I also have a CoAx.
I also have a 1972 RCBS JR2 press....looking at purchasing the arbor press with LE Wilson dies for seating bullets.
I have the lo-force pack. Starting force 18-20 lbs.
Just got the hydroseater. I'll be doing the exact same test. It'll be interesting to be able to correlate seated force to velocity. Everything in reloading can be measured somehow so neck tension by force is measurable. Interested to see your findings moparmadman.
I think that it will be interesting information. I haven't seen it available anywhere else. Feel free to let me know what you find.
@@BoltActionReloading for sure, I'll be testing 338 lapua virgin brass as well as freshly annealed 6.5cm SRP brass. I'll release to you the info when I am complete. I'll be doing it in 2" neck tension
This guy don't mis a dam thing! Now
Iv been subbed now for a while. And I encourage you to 🍡 around for that" !!!
Dam hillbilly
Talking to myself
Don't we all do that?
Have you ever used their professional carbide flash hole tool? Best design of all the ones out there, I even had one shipped to Canada.
Isn’t it so that a major factor is the roughness of the neck inside that plays a big part in seating force needed, of course along with the neck tension itself? It’s difficult to control that factor though. It will play a much bigger role when seat tension is on the low side . I see a lot of different opinions how to treat neck inside, from not cleaning it at all, to lubing it with graphite or just using a brushing regimen to squeaky clean inside. I’ve never tested different cleaning or lubing procedure’s effect on velocity but I’m sure many have some input on that
I'd be curious to see how consistent seating tension is with fully prepped case necks. I'm wondering if the variations you see are due in part to inconsistent neck wall thickness and if case neck donuts affect the sizing of the neck using the mandrels.
In my experience, the mandrel takes care of the donut issue, as long as you go deep enough with the mandrel, full size mandrel past the shoulder/neck junction. You can actually feel the donut being moved through the pressure on the press handle. It is sort of like this, higher pressure to start, medium pressure when expanding neck, higher pressure when you hit the donut. Be careful not to let the case hit the die body though. I set up the mandrel die without the mandrel in the die, I raise a case all the way up, adjust the die to touch the case then back off about 10 or 15 thou. The mandrel goes past the shoulder/neck junction but the case does not hit the die body. Just the way I do it.
@@6handicap604
So the way I understand it the donut is basically a thickening of the case neck/shoulder area which occurs during shooting/resizing. If the mandrel uniforms the ID wouldn't it then just displace that material to the OD potentially causing that material to impact the fit of the cartridge to chamber? Especially for those of us who run a minimal shoulder set back. For my set up I prefer to keep the bump at .001
@@utdesertghost199 You are correct sir. The metal will be moved, not removed by a mandrel. The only way to remove the donut would entail reaming the neck. constant reaming, or removing metal also weakens the neck and case. As with most things, there is no perfect solution, only trade-offs. We must decide which trade-off benefits us the most. One must decide how important or critical the donut issue is first, THEN one must decide how to address the issue. Bushing size and push the donut against the bullet, or mandrel and push the donut against the chamber, or ream to remove the donut, then decide how often to ream. All viable choices. Even then, reaming seems to be the only viable solution. Unless you have a custom full length sizing die, you are not sizing the donut anyway. A bushing does not size to the neck shoulder junction, is stops a measurable distance from the junction. This is required by design, the bushing must rest on a shelf, the thickness of that shelf determines the distance from the neck/shoulder junction to where the bushing sizes the neck. So bushing sizing will not affect the donut to chamber relationship anyway. To me, reaming would require a custom die to ensure pushing the donut to the inside of the case then to be reamed. This thinking is what lead me to mandrels. I decided I would rather have the inside of the neck perfectly round and concentric rather than the outside(turning) then sizing with a bushing. With about .005 clearance from neck to chamber, I do not think .001 difference in neck thickness can effect the bullet much after expansion, especially under over 50,000 lbs of pressure. just my thoughts. As an amatuer machinist, I would rather seat a perfectly round bullet into a perfectly round inside neck, but that is just me. We must all make our own choices. I have found that I have lowered my ES and SD's using the mandrel. But that is only my experience with my load and my rifle. I have put much more faith in my own testing than on youtube videos and claims. As Reagan said, "trust, but verify". The hardest choices are deciding if the process truly makes a discernable measurable difference. I have been deep into the rabbit hole, but through my own testing have found some popular processes to be of no measurable benefit. I bought a 6.5 Creedmoor just to use for testing. It is a 1/2 MOA Savage LRP. I have put over 2,000 rounds through the rifle just testing reloading processes at up to 1,000 yards. Suffice it to say, I no longer weight sort my primers, amongst other things LOL! How many people do you know who tested 100 rounds of out of the box primers against 100 rounds of weight sorted primers and charted the results? The difference was so small as to be statistically irrelavent. I grew tired of 8 hours at the bench for 1 hour of shooting and practice. But to each their own and God bless them all.
@@6handicap604
I think we share many of the same beliefs and theory's. I have been a machinist/ mold maker for 30 years and although I've not been involved much with metal forming I have worked a fair amount with press fits and seen first hand how the cold flow of metals under pressure can create problems. I this case it's almost impossible to solve one issue without creating another. Work the metal too much and it fatigues or work hardens and you have to anneal more often. You ream and your removing metal and eventually thin the case neck. I personally have chosen to ream for now, knowing my case life will most likely be shortened. I have a couple ideas I may need to put to action and see how they work.
@@utdesertghost199 That would seem to be the best solution to me also. I say that with a caveat though. As a solution, it is the best. IF one believes the donut issue itself is important enough to warrant the time and effort of the solution. That also is a choice we all make. I guess the best way I can put it is, as of late, through my own testing, I have found that many things I was doing for consistency sake, really didn't matter on paper, at least to any measurable degree. Consistency in and of itself does not improve performance in every case. No matter how carefully and consistently one wets and seals and envelop, it really does not improve mail delivery. Kind of like weighing primers. it is consistent, but.... Reloading cannot cure OCD, but it can cause it!!! LOL Best to you sir.
I'm sure you'll find this was money well spent as you'll now be able to really see some results..........great stuff.
As I've mentioned previously, be sure to brush the necks. Any carbon in the necks after annealing will cause raised seating force as well as stop start or halting bullet travel down the neck.
As you test more cases, you'll start to notice some reasonably large difference within the same bushing settings. This is where you'll see the case hardness difference manifest.
You can reduce the finishing force by opening up or, forcing out the neck/shoulder junction with either a bullet or in your case, a mandrel. Because of the thicker brass in the neck/shoulder junction area, the neck ID is basically a funnel shape after sizing & why there is the considerable seating force difference between start & finish force &, why the finish force doesn't seem to improve much with ID changes. By pushing that junction out after FLS then sizing with a LEE neck mandrel sizer or, a neck only bushing sizer, the start & finish readings will come a lot closer together.
To give you an idea, my start & finish force readings with FLS & no mandrel step are 8-12ish & 22- 26Lbs respectively with full annealing.
Anyhow, have at it, there's much to be learned as I'm finding out.
Kind regards................Rotas
I totally agree with you and I read the parts of the Illinois Engineering papers that you referenced earlier and I will say that I need to read that paper a couple of two or three times to digest it. Metallurgy is a scope I have never become too involved in, so grain creation, crystallization, re-crystallization, etc. was a bit daunting to me...
As I have time, I am going to work on adapting some equipment to perform a "Bullet Pull Force" test..... as I feel that seating the bullet is one thing, pulling the bullet is another. I have my Arbor and Wilson die.... now I need time...
@@additudeobx Yes, they do take some digesting &, that paper is the simplest of the bunch.
As far as a pulling method, I tried to come up with some way I could use the same gear as the seater force gear but, it would have to be some kind of reverse push mechanism when pulling. ??
I think much better success will be had with a load cell with appropriate software to chart & graph the results.
I contacted this mob in California because of the software. Div Harish
Loadstar Sensors
48521 Warm Springs Blvd., #308
Fremont, CA 94539
Tel: 510-274-1872
Fax: 510-952-3700
Maybe give them a call. Initially I was thinking of a push/pull style puck design load cell that I could attach a case holder onto & use the press normally with the hornady collet bullet puller.
Hope this helps.
Kind regards...........Rotas
@@additudeobx Before you spend more expense & effort, I would like to take this time to advise that you give yourself at least a couple weeks of solid testing with your seater force gauge, neck sizing, annealing & so forth. Now ofcourse, I don't wish to interfere with your decision however, I think it quite likely that, you may well change your mind on thinking that you need to put an absolute figure on the pulling force.
If you still wish to continue after a couple weeks of solid testing, have at it.
I'm at the stage with my cartridge prep now that, I can tell there is very little difference in pull force between cases, even though I can't put a figure on it, I realize there's so little difference between any of the annealed cases that it really is only academic &, it is what it is. I couldn't change it much if I wanted to. All I can tell you is that, it feels about 3 or 4 times less pull force than a normally loaded cartridge which is a ridiculously heavy pull.
When I made the comment about the rabbit hole, I wasn't joking.
Kind regards...........Rotas.
@@rotasaustralis - Well the don't spend more money on it part is out the window. Honestly, I'm not spending money on it, I'm just adding to my collection of reloading tools and gadgets that I have already spent a lot of money on.... ;) Here is an interesting Paper that I found that would be of interest to you, if you haven't already read it. www.zeszyty.waw.pl/artykuly/zn4(118)2018/033_044.pdf
According to studies by Annealing Made Perfect, the carbon residue in the necks act as a lubricant, but a variable that leads to less consistent neck tension, so it is a good practice to brush out the necks to remove that carbon. " as carbon built up inside the necks, the average tensile force progressively DECREASED from 103 lbf for once shot cases (Pack 3) down to 74 lbf for three times shot (Pack 4), and just 43.5 lbf for ten times shot cases (Pack 5). Once the carbon was removed, batch to batch consistency was much more reliable" souce:www.ampannealing.com/articles/42/annealing-under-the-microscope/
Will these expander mandrels work with my le wilson seating die? If so, how do they get put in? By removing the seating stem?
Is their a manual full @izing die and deprimer and primer similar to this seating die/press i can use instead of having 2 presses?
Do you full length or neck size resize on another press?
I am curious as to why you full length sized without an expanding device? Why wouldn't you leave it in and run an expanding mandrel?
The expander mandrel typically produces higher concentricity compared to the typical expander ball in a conventional sizing die.
In my finest William Shatner voice..."Must...have...more...data!" :-) I'm getting pretty fat with all this food for thought, excellent!
Glad you are enjoying the content.
Did you use any lube on the inside of the neck before expanding?
You've certainly gone thru quite the equipt procession as time goes by here. Did you visualize yourself getting into these disciplines when you started off?
Not really but when I started I didn't know if anyone really wanted this type of content. Turns out I guess they do. I really just want to try different things out so others don't have to. If I can give people a head start on learning what works and what doesn't I consider the channel a success.
How about compressed loads?
Excellent
The data is only as good as the brass prep. Any deviation in prep, or residue, burs, etc. Throw everything off. I use 000 steel wool over a bore brush after chamfer to ensure they are all consistent. You will be able to use the feel more than the number once prep is on point. Also, thicker necks (lapua) will show higher force. I turn my necks but that will always be a source of inconsistencies, and it is immediately apparent with this method.
When my neck is sore I typically sit heavily down
great info, but you need to slow down and breathe between sentences.
Wait,..... Who is using a hammer on this 🤣🤣
PS. You've entered the rabbit hole.................you poor bastard.
So it's a expensive lee loader 😬
No, it’s not.