Hornady Concentricity Guage

[Bart B.]

If that Hornady tool actually bends bullets in case necks with the round held only by its body and bullet tip, I think that would change the case neck's grip on them I've done that a time or two straightening bullets like the Hornady tool does if my observations of its pictures clued me in correctly. Such ammo doesn't hold elevation at longer ranges very well. No wonder; case neck tension spread's all over the chart.

With 30 caliber cartridges, using a 33 caliber bullet pulling collet at .338" diameter easily holds a case neck solidly so the head of the case can be pushed such that bullet (and neck) runout is eliminated. And the case neck still grips the bullet uniformly from round to round.

I've done the above with 7.62 NATO match ammo with excellent results. Some of that M118 and M852 ammo had bullet runout up to 7 or 8 thousandths, but determining the high point then holding their necks in that 33 caliber bullet puller collet held them good and let the case body be straightened on the case neck. The ammo shot much more accurate.

 

[hooligan1]

Bart the only cartridge that I've had any trouble with so far is the .243win.
The 7mm rem mag is next on that list because the neck isnt very long, and so great caution is used. The .270 win, has a nice long neck that is really kind of tough to straighten, and a rangetrip is coming forthright to get some real dope on this tool.. I too think goofing with a bullet by putting tension on it side could loosen neck tension to a fault.
In real time, and for hunting ammo, it seems to be really unecessary, however I like to tinker and "better my position" and any tool that helps me accomplish this goal I like to try. So far I have found my choice of dies somewhat handicap my accuracy.

 

[Dave P]

Measurement Clarification

Gentlemen - when I claim my cartridge has a runout of 3 thou (3 mils), that means that the total swing of the indicator gauge is 3 thou. (maximum peak to minimum peak reading).

One could mis-interpret that to mean a swing of + 3 mils, and a swing of -3 mils, about the true center of the case or bullet.

 

[Bart B.]

Dave, I think machinists typicaly use "total indicated runout (TIR) to mean the extreme swing of a dial indicator's needle. If it goes between -3 and +3 about zero, that's a TIR of 6. If the indicator wasn't zeroed and indicated between -4 and +2, that would still be a TIR of 6.

Runout, or RO, in many disciplines, means half the TIR. That would be an RO of 3 in the above example.

But all us humans don't always use the same frame of reference for such things.

 

[Unclenick]

And in my formulas, above, the reason "2" appears in the divisors is to halve the result of using the TIR. Any TIR reading is added to the average by an offset when it is toward the measuring point and subtracted from it when it is rotated 180° away from the measuring point. So if you want to know what the offset from center is, you have to halve it.


Bart,

I have no plans to patent something I'm not set up to manufacture. I don't assume anybody is likely to want to license patent rights from me, either, until they've first let me go to the trouble of proving there actually is a market by taking the risk of starting the business myself.

Also, FYI, be aware that establishing you were the original inventor of something no longer protects your patent rights the way it used to. As of March 16th of 2013, the U.S. switched from its First-to-Invent patent system to a nearly European style First-To-File patent system called First-Inventor-To-File. The difference is small. The separate terminology was mainly focus group driven Orwellian double-speak created to help the patent law changes pass. For practical purposes the FITF is the same as FTF in that it abolishes the old Interference dispute process between two filers based on their prior art. What is different is it continues the old practice of letting you publish or sell for up to a year before you give up the right to apply for a patent and when the idea becomes public domain. But that's hollow consolation if someone else files first during that year, because they get the patent and you are left holding the prior art.

Bottom line, under the new system you are best advised to keep the details of anything you think you might want IP rights to tucked well up under your hat.

 

[Bart B.]

Unclenick, nor do I have plans to patent someting I'm not gonna make myself.

I'm aware of the legal difference between having the original idea versus the original patent. That was explained to me by the USN Electronics Lab in 1971 when assigned there as a tech advisor on shipboard weapon systems; I designed a way to make something cheaper, better and faster that the Lab patented but in my name, so I got a monetary reward. But the USN owned the patent as I was their employee; I reaped no further benefit. Their patent attorney advised me of all that stuff according to the laws back then and was told that depending on the whim of the US government, things will change.

There was and still is differences between an idea/thought for something and the actual documented patent legal mumbo-jumbo. I don't remember all of it now. A relative who made the first modern garbage compactor (I saw it in 1965) lost his suit against Whirlpool in the early '70's over it, thanks to clever lawyers for the company.

 

[Unclenick]

Bart,

My point was just to address how the patent law change related to your statement: "This post is legal proof it's my original idea." Proving the idea was originally yours was only valuable before March 16, 2013, when it gave your application priority over any competing application to patent the same thing. But now whoever files the patent first gets priority. They no longer care what the history of the idea or even its reduction to practice was. All you have to do is win the race to file. It makes stealing ideas a lot easier to do, which is probably why big companies, with teams of patent attorneys writing patents on anything they can identify, lobbied so hard to get the change made. They call it FITF (First Inventor To File). I call it LGLA (Little Guy Loses Again).

 

[Bart B.]

I thought that change happened earlier by a few years. Thanks for a dose of reality. My statement was factual based, not specifically for any legal basis. I should have worded it different.

 

[Unclenick]

Bart,

Gotcha.

The bill for making the changes was introduced in 2007, IIRC, but was not passed and signed into law until 2011, which is what you are probably remembering, but they built in an 18 month delay in full implementation so that anyone who preferred to file under the old system had, IIRC, 6 months to file a provisional patent, and then the additional 12 months already allowed under the law to complete the full non-provisional version of the filing, as, I think, is still the case. A new, but completely fleshed out non-provisional patent could have been filed at any time during the 18 months and still fall under the old rules. March 16, 2013 is when the entire 18 month period ran out.

 

[Bart B.]

Gotcha, Unclenick.

I titled my project "Rainbow" because it involved colors and how humans react to different ones. As well as thinking there might be a big pot of gold for me at the end of it. The pot was small. But the benefits for problem free shipboard weapon systems' command and controls were huge. That's what my group wanted.

 

[hooligan1]

I found me a set of Forster Competion dies for my 7mm rem mag, and I hope this will help with runout for those dudes...
I found a range where I can shoot up to 1000 yds, and picked up some Sierra GMK160 grain pills..My hopes are to shoot decently at 500 yds with this parti ular rifle..


I appreciate Unclenick and Bart B.'s opinions and advice on this thread .

Thank you fellas,
hooligan1

 

[hooligan1]

The bullet seating die helped quite a bit, loaded cartridges had very little runout easily fix what minute runout there waz with Hornady Guage...

 

[GWS]

Using an RCBS .308 small base sizer on some once shot LC brass, I came across an interesting behavior. Sizing the properly lubed brass once gave me anywhere from .001" to .007" runout as measured by the RCBS Casemaster 1/8" from the mouth of each case. (measurement is post sized brass only no bullets involved)

Then I rotated the brass a third and sized again. Measured Runout was reduced in every case, excepting those that measured .001 the first time, stayed there. I rotated the brass again another third and resized a third time. Runout on most cases now wavered between .001 and .002?????????

You'd think that if a sizer was going to create runout it would continue to create runout no matter how many times through the sizer. Then I realized that the run-out may have been caused by uneven spring-back of the brass and perhaps multiple sizing reduce the spring-back. (if that's the case rotating the brass was needless.) BTW, yes the LC brass had somerunout before sizing but it ran .001 to .004.

Am I nuts, or is this something you pros have run in to as well?

It seems to me the RCBS type tool is more versatile, in that one can measure brass without the bullets. Makes more sense to me to make concentric brass first.....then seat bullets concentrically with a good seater? Think Uncle Nick's suggesting that. Plus that tool does other things the Hornady can't, like measuring wall thickness around a case mouth. But of course it doesn't provide for a case pushing operation.

 

[Bart B.]

Yes, make straight cases, then seat bullets.

If your sizing die's a bit on the bit size in neck diameter, your sized case necks may not bend much as the expander ball comes up through them after they're sized down. That happens.

If you get .002" runout on necks, bullet runout may be .004" to .005", so lets see what bullet runout is on loaded rounds.

 

[Unclenick]

GWS,

The case pressed into the die should be as straight as the die. We've already noted that reducing drag of the expander reduces it's tendency to pull the neck off axis, so I'm wondering if the repeated sizing isn't mainly burnishing inside the neck and reducing expander friction that way. That would suggest getting the case necks really clean and well-lubed inside might have the same result. Multiple sizing has the problem that it adds work hardening and increases the frequency with which you'll need to anneal to avoid splits, so it would be worth establishing what's going on. Let us know how not-rotating does for you?

 

[GWS]

Thanks for the replies.....I will indeed let you know.

This whole project with my LC brass has been an experiment. Two actually. First I polished this brass with a Thumlers and S.S. pins, so I was expecting more friction than usual after hearing others' lamentations on sizing blinged brass.

Second, I am directly comparing sizing operations between a new RCBS Summit Press and my old friend the RockChucker II. I figured the tuff LC stuff would be a more than ample test for the new press. The whole project has been an eye opener!

I'm moving this discussion to a new thread so as not to highjack this one.

 

[hooligan1]

GWS, be my quest. The information that Im getting has been super helpfull in what Im doing with my guage..... Both Bart and Unclenick have giving me direction toward where I want to take my handloading, and your reply has offered me even more......so no problem buddy keep it going...

 

[rox]

UncleNick - very interested in your thoughts on this, as your process sounds very similar to my own.

When using the LCD (Lee Collet Die) do you know whether you can ignore the rule about not reducing the neck by more than 0.005" in a single step, or is it best to add an extra step in this case (e.g. a Redding comp neck bushing die)? I understand that the mandrel will prevent excessive reduction while the case is in the die, but I wonder what may happen when the neck is released from the grip of the die's fingers.

Use a Lyman M die to put a step in the case mouth to help start bullets in straight when using a standard seater, or get the Redding Competition Seater or the Forster Bench Rest or Ultra Micrometer Seaters.

I also use M dies to give the bullet a square start into the seater, but why did you say M die *OR* Redding Comp Seater? Surely the Redding/Forster seaters will benefit from a square start just the same as standard seating dies? I don't see why the sliding sleeve would change this - is there something else involved?

Thanks!

..

 

[GWS]

hooligan1, I already started the thread "Sizing LC 67.62......" So if you are interested, you're invited to participate. Here's hoping you will get more input on the Hornady in this thread with my distraction moved. Also hoping the pros will see my new thread when they get through here!

 

[Unclenick]

Rox,

With the Lee Collet Die, unless you have an extraordinarily wide neck in your chamber or have turned the neck wall down extraordinarily thin, I think you will find everything falls into the required range limitation. I would not choose the collet die for reducing a neck from one caliber to another except withing that 0.005" range, though.

Spring-back of the neck always occurs to some degree, or the case would not withdraw easily from the mandrel. That has been allowed for in the design. If necessary you can reduce the mandrel a couple of thousandths further before the collet fingers run out of room to do the sizing. However, it is usually inadequate sizing pressure that's the culprit. If increasing sizing pressure doesn't work, it's best to try annealing the brass first, as work hardening is the most likely culprit.

As to the seating dies, the sleeve not only centers the case, it steps down to include a portion that aligns the bullet before presenting it to the ram. Imagine someone cut the inside of the sleeve using a chamber reamer that had a really long freebore, and that the sleeve ran out of metal before the end of the freebore was reached. The bullet enters that "freebore" in the sleeve as the ram comes up to meet the sleeve. There isn't a lot of clearance in the freebore, so the bullet can tip very little in there. In the Redding version, the ram then floats inside the freebore near the top, and pressing the sleeve in with the shell holder pushes the freebore-aligned bullet up against the ram, lifting the ram until it stops against the bottom of the micrometer head, at which point pushing further seats the bullet. So everything is lined up in the sleeve as well as an M-die step can do it by the time the bullet meets the ram.

See if you can zoom in on the photo here to see it better.