I just received the Hornady Cam-Lock collet bullet puller from Graf & Sons and I also bought the Lee Reloader press for it. I read some other posts here about the collet pullers, so I decided to up grade. I use jacketed bullets and the collet left no marks. Far better than whacking a plastic hammer on an anvil.
New bullet puller
- Thread starter kalevatom
- Start date
I'm waiting on the new Lee bullet puller to hit the market before buying one. Shown in this short video.
Rifleman1776
New member
Lee is certainly one of the most innovative producers of reloading equipment out there. The new press is impressive, not so sure about the quick change system. The press was wiggling pretty much as he was using it. I do wish they would build more quality into their products. That bullet puller is the answer to a reloaders prayer. I wonder if a separate one is needed for every caliber.
FrankenMauser
New member
I doubt it. I think the tool is using short, inverted collets similar to Hornady's. So long as the knurled nut on top of the puller die body allows for tension adjustment, it should be a good tool.
However, if that nut doesn't allow tension adjustment, I wouldn't buy one. One of the nice things about the Hornady collet puller, is the ability to vary the pressure on the bullet. In situations where the bullets feel like they're welded into the case, you can put a little more pressure on the handle, and pop it right out. With the Lee design (assuming there is no adjustment), you're stuck with whatever spring pressure is pre-set in the die. That means stubborn bullets will require the reloader to go play whack-a-mole (and stubborn bullets in an inertia bullet puller are so much fun
).I like the tool, and like that some one took the 30 seconds to realize a modified, inverted collet would work well as an "automatic bullet puller". But... I need the ability to adjust tension, or I won't buy it.
**The more I think about that tool, the more I think it will not be adjustable. For reliable self-seating of the collets, a coil spring would be needed, between the collet and the knurled nut on top.
...and that's where the Hornady puller puts the RCBS tool to shame, as well. If you set it up correctly, the Hornady tool gives you a "feel" for how much tension (handle pressure) is required to pull any given bullet. The RCBS tool's screw-type handle provides zero feedback.
It is my understanding from a statement by John Lee that the design is patented and the product is in the pipeline. Whether or not there is anything earth shattering about the patent(s) could be determined by reading the issued patent.
FrankenMauser
New member
Yep, according to that patent drawing, you'll need an entire die/puller assembly for each caliber.
I was incorrect, in the assumption of collets being used. But, my assumption about the lack of adjustment was correct. If it doesn't work the first time, you're playing whack-a-mole. And... this won't work at all, for bullets seated to the ogive; or close enough to the ogive, that the annulus can't get a perch on the bullet (where the RCBS and Hornady collet pullers can still be made to work).
I was incorrect, in the assumption of collets being used. But, my assumption about the lack of adjustment was correct. If it doesn't work the first time, you're playing whack-a-mole. And... this won't work at all, for bullets seated to the ogive; or close enough to the ogive, that the annulus can't get a perch on the bullet (where the RCBS and Hornady collet pullers can still be made to work).
Every time we have a conversation about a press mounted bullet puller... folks always compare how much better/easier it is than using the kinetic hammer-type puller.
Yeah... that's all well and good. But there are advantages both ways, and that seems to get lost in these threads.
If you have 15 or 400 rounds of rifle ammo in the same caliber and all of it needs pulled then you either bought a lot of surplus stuff you need to pull down or you SUCK at a reloading bench and you actually made 400 pieces of something you need to pull apart. For disassembling something like that, I doubt you can beat the Hornady system, it's very cool.
If I bought old ammo that I needed to tear down in lot sizes, I wouldn't be without one. And if I made 400 pieces of bad ammo that needed to be torn down, I would hope someone would steal all my gear so I never went near a load bench again.
Now the kinetic puller that you like to compare the press mounted puller to, and put down every time as if it's a crap tool?
That tool costs very little... takes no screwing in or out of your press... requires no extra collets (at extra cost) to operate... works every time with every bullet... and only comes out when it's needed.
Absolutely, the press mounted tool for pulling down rifle rounds is a sweet little rig. But best of luck with it when you want to pull down cast lead bullet ammo or wadcutters.
And it works with anything you can shove in to it with no purchasing of specific collets in each size to make it work.
I can show up with a $17 kinetic puller and handle all my needs for bullet pulling... and it's kept me covered for 20+ years.
The Hornady cam-lock is a cool tool and I'd like to have one... but at $25 for the tool and what, $7 or $10 each for the collets... lord knows how many collets I'd need (a quick count suggests I'd need at least 7 of them...) that's a pile of money.
If someone dropped a big load of crap rifle ammo in my lap and I wanted to pull the slugs and re-use them, I'd punch up an order for the Hornady right now.
But the Hornady isn't such a great tool because the kinetic puller stinks -- not even close. There's plenty of room at any bench for both tools and you don't need to slag the good old hammer puller just to justify the expense of the sleek press-mounted tool.
Yeah... that's all well and good. But there are advantages both ways, and that seems to get lost in these threads.
If you have 15 or 400 rounds of rifle ammo in the same caliber and all of it needs pulled then you either bought a lot of surplus stuff you need to pull down or you SUCK at a reloading bench and you actually made 400 pieces of something you need to pull apart. For disassembling something like that, I doubt you can beat the Hornady system, it's very cool.
If I bought old ammo that I needed to tear down in lot sizes, I wouldn't be without one. And if I made 400 pieces of bad ammo that needed to be torn down, I would hope someone would steal all my gear so I never went near a load bench again.
Now the kinetic puller that you like to compare the press mounted puller to, and put down every time as if it's a crap tool?
That tool costs very little... takes no screwing in or out of your press... requires no extra collets (at extra cost) to operate... works every time with every bullet... and only comes out when it's needed.
Absolutely, the press mounted tool for pulling down rifle rounds is a sweet little rig. But best of luck with it when you want to pull down cast lead bullet ammo or wadcutters.
And it works with anything you can shove in to it with no purchasing of specific collets in each size to make it work.
I can show up with a $17 kinetic puller and handle all my needs for bullet pulling... and it's kept me covered for 20+ years.
The Hornady cam-lock is a cool tool and I'd like to have one... but at $25 for the tool and what, $7 or $10 each for the collets... lord knows how many collets I'd need (a quick count suggests I'd need at least 7 of them...) that's a pile of money.
If someone dropped a big load of crap rifle ammo in my lap and I wanted to pull the slugs and re-use them, I'd punch up an order for the Hornady right now.
But the Hornady isn't such a great tool because the kinetic puller stinks -- not even close. There's plenty of room at any bench for both tools and you don't need to slag the good old hammer puller just to justify the expense of the sleek press-mounted tool.
Marco Califo
New member
RCBS Collet puller
I recently ordered and began using RCBS's collet bullet puller from Midway. It does require a separate collet for each caliber. The tension is adjustable by how far and hard you turn the 4" handle. It grips the projectiles well, with only moderate pressure. Then I have to smack the lever of the press with the heel of my hand to pull the bullet out. I am satisfied with the product.
I have been using it to pull UK NATO 223 SS109 out and replacing them with 55 FMJ. It leaves no marks and I am throwing the SS109 into my tumbler. I have several hundred and would be willing to trade for anything 30 or 224 caliber that does not include any steel.
I recently ordered and began using RCBS's collet bullet puller from Midway. It does require a separate collet for each caliber. The tension is adjustable by how far and hard you turn the 4" handle. It grips the projectiles well, with only moderate pressure. Then I have to smack the lever of the press with the heel of my hand to pull the bullet out. I am satisfied with the product.
I have been using it to pull UK NATO 223 SS109 out and replacing them with 55 FMJ. It leaves no marks and I am throwing the SS109 into my tumbler. I have several hundred and would be willing to trade for anything 30 or 224 caliber that does not include any steel.
FrankenMauser
New member
I have to disagree here. But, first - I agree that a kinetic puller is a very useful tool. It does take longer to set up for a single hand loading mistake. And you still need one for lead bullets, even if you have a collet puller.
Second...
Half the reason I own a collet puller, is because a kinetic puller was incapable of working for certain cartridges I had to pull down.
Exhibit A: .220 Swift loaded with 40 gr HPs. The bullet was too light, with too much neck tension. No matter how hard I tried, the kinetic puller(s) could not dislodge those bullets.
Exhibit B: Commercially reloaded .30-06, with a sealant applied to the bullet/neck, and a heavy factory-style crimp.
In neither case, could I even get the "seat it deeper, then pull it" method to work. Whack-a-mole failed completely. (I've had a few other encounters will exceptionally stubborn bullets, but those two were memorable.)
Between the collet puller and 6-7 collets, I'm into the tool about $45, now (collets were on sale). But I saved more than $50 worth of brass, by not having to throw the loaded ammo away (especially the .220 Swift, in Norma brass).
Some people can't justify the cost, and I understand perfectly. For me, it was well worth it. (And paid for itself, again, with the M77 Hawkeye incident Cornbush experienced. We had a lot of .223 loaded with H335 to pull down.)
Well, I suppose my point was that collet/press mounted pullers are the bees knees and I think we can all appreciate them...
But posting about one needn't bring unnecessary slagging of the kinetic puller.
Along with a chamfer tool, a simple single stage press and a powder funnel, the kinetic bullet puller is a tool that no bench should ever be without, given what it does, how well it works and the price point it hits.
Any bench would be well served with both, but no bench should be missing a kinetic puller.
My opinion.
But posting about one needn't bring unnecessary slagging of the kinetic puller.
Along with a chamfer tool, a simple single stage press and a powder funnel, the kinetic bullet puller is a tool that no bench should ever be without, given what it does, how well it works and the price point it hits.
Any bench would be well served with both, but no bench should be missing a kinetic puller.
My opinion.
FrankenMauser said:
No disrespect but you seem to have drawn conclusions based on your understanding of previous bullet puller solutions. You decided how the Lee bullet system works from a short YouTube video that shows nothing about the specific mechanics used to remove the bullet. I did a quick post to include a link to what I believe is the patent for the bullet puller shown in the video. That alone was enough to have you do an about face on your collet assumption. We really don't know if an adjustment screw is needed or not with the Lee system. None of us have access to one since they are not on the market yet. I took the liberty of posting some text and drawing from that patent disclosure.
According to what is claimed no more force is required to pull the bullet than what is necessary. It is implied that more force is applied when it is necessary.
From my quick glance through the patent it would appear that there are three major components to this bullet puller. Referring to the drawing: #12 Body Member, #14 "C" Ring, and #16 Cap Member. There is also a rubber "O" ring typical of what Lee uses in many of their designs. From my understanding the "C" Ring is contained between the Cap Member and the Body Member. The Cap Member screws on top of the Body Member (with the "C" Ring inside the cavity) and there is the rubber "O" ring between them. It would appear that for the various calibers that one would need a different "C" Ring. The "C" Ring appears to be nothing more than a split metal ring with spring tension capability. I doubt this "C" Ring would cost very much. It certainly doesn't look very expensive to own a number of "C" Rings. They wouldn't take much space to store. Additionally, they look just as easy if not easier to install in the Lee Bullet Puller device as compared to a kinetic bullet puller.
The 'big advancement' in the patent is using a split ring to grab the bullet instead of an actual collet.
It appears that it is only going to work on RN or spitzer shaped rifle bullets, since it critically depends on bullet diameter.
A SWC is not going to work worth a darn unless the profile happens to match the split ring size correctly.
It appears that it is only going to work on RN or spitzer shaped rifle bullets, since it critically depends on bullet diameter.
A SWC is not going to work worth a darn unless the profile happens to match the split ring size correctly.
Looks to me like the body matches the cartridge case to keep its shoulder angle correct. Imagine you used a puller body with a steeper shoulder than the cartridge you were pulling the bullet from. Pulling the bullet could drag the shoulder forward, particularly if a sealant was used, then necessitating re-resizing. I'm guessing you'll need to buy the whole tool for whatever chambering you want to pull. Still, if it works consistently, it should be fast and if you have a ton of 7.62 or 5.56 NATO to pull, might well be worth it. So, we'll just have to wait and see how well it works.
I have pulled a lot of bullets for a lot of reasons over the years and when adjusting dies, etc., an inertia puller is a very handy tool. When it comes to pulling down hundreds of old surplus rounds with dead primers and sealed in bullets a collet puller is a far better tool for the job. If the Lee puller works as slick as the video suggests, then my RCBS collet puller may get a lot less use. I'd only need three to cover my needs and I've certainly spent a lot more money for less useful devices.
FrankenMauser
New member
ClemBert said:
First-
The problem is not the "C" rings ("incomplete annulus" in the patent filing), it's the taper required at the top of the body cavity ("conical chamber"). Without the taper, the annulus will slip off the bullet, as the cartridge is retracted from the die (and contacts the lip at the bottom of the taper). With the taper, you have the "variable" grip force required to pull the bullets.
In a "universal" die, the diameter at the bottom of the "conical chamber" would have to be large enough to handle the largest bullet diameter it is designed for, say .358" bullets. That means anything smaller than that will require substantially thicker "C" rings, to make up for the difference in bullet diameter. In order to pull .308" bullets, the thickness of the ring would have to be increased 0.025"* over the nominal thickness (say 0.025" for .358" bullets), for a total thickness of 0.050"*. For .277" bullets, you're looking at 0.062"* thickness. And for .224" bullets... you would need a ring 0.092"* thick. (* speaking of the diameter of the spring stock, not the final formed shape of the ring.)
Although that sounds workable, it is very unlikely to be implemented in a reliable manner. For the smaller bullets, the springs would be too stiff to grip many bullets, and the extra thickness of the "C" rings would cause the bullet to be gripped farther up (often into the ogive for .224" and some .243" bullets).
Secondly-
If this was meant to be a "quick change" system, it would state such in the patent filing, and would explain the method for changing the annulus. As much as Richard Lee likes covering his back side (I don't blame him), I highly doubt he and his legal team would "forget" to include provisions for the quick change system.
I'll state my prediction again:
This won't be a "Universal" or "quick change" system. The best you can hope for, is for several calibers of similar diameter working in the same die. For example: .270/.284, .308-.313, .358/.366, .257/.264.
It will not be universal.
Remember this post, when those pullers hit the market. If I am wrong, I'll eat my words. I will print this thread, and eat it.
FrankenMauser said:
LOL! I don't think that would be necessary. Although if you did do that I'd like to see the video just for entertainment purposes only.
My primary point was to say "let's take a wait and see" approach. Although it is fun to speculate. I'm not one to break out my "FAIL" stamp just yet having seen the video or skimmed through the patent.
I would have to say it is rather interesting that that the system basically has three main components with the appearance of providing the user the ability to take the pieces apart. It seems like those rubber "O" rings are commonly used in Lee products where the intent is to give the user the ability to change components. You could be very well right that there might be three, four, five or so versions. Each version covering a range of cartridges. That seems like a very reasonable assumption based on basic differences we all recognize in the various cartridges.
It might turn out that we aren't actually looking at the correct patent. There might be a patent pending on something similar but different.
I hope the Lee solution is awesome and not a let down. We'll have to wait to see.