• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Armanov Zero Play Toolhead For Dillon RL550 - Review

Gustav7

Son of a Gun...
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Jul 18, 2019
    1,990
    1,364
    Ohio (OH)
    Searched on Google and here to find more info on the Armanov Zero Play but couldn't find any so I'll give my version of a review. I'll continue to update with more use, and hopefully get some info out there for anyone who wants to use these.

    I needed more toolheads for my 550, and I felt like the small bump in price for these zero play toolheads over the regular toolheads wasn't much, and since they're cheaper than the Uniquetek clamped Whidden floating toolheads, I figured I'd give them a chance.

    Do I think they'll help? I don't think thats a simple or straightforward question that can be answered. After all, we're talking about machines here. I'm sure some 550's produce great ammo, and I'm sure sometimes floating toolheads help some 550's more than others. Its all part of that game we play with 1000's of variables, in a never ending game for perfection. Anywho, I've heard enough good things about floating/clamped toolheads, from real competitors to give them a try...after all, I doubt they'll hurt my reloading.

    Enough with the novel....

    I bought 2 Armanov Zero Play toolheads, and 3 lock rings. I actually purchased these toolheads from the european site, as the prices were better and the shipping was actually cheaper haha (DHL rocks). Total for 2 toolheads and 3 lock rings (lock rings are sold separately) was around $105 shipped.

    TO BE CLEAR...these are the zero play toolheads, so they not only clamp the toolhead in the upper position, but also float all 4 die spots.

    IMG_4130.jpg
    Who Doesn't love free stickers

    IMG_4137.jpg
    IMG_4138.jpg



    The come very well packaged with all things needed to set them up. The toolheads are around $35 or so, and the lock rings are about $12. The lock rings use a threaded bolt, not a roll pin like the whidden toolheads, which I liked. I felt like the bolts were not any easier to get in considering you have to fit them in the hole of the lock ring and get it started. On the first die its not bad, but I would imagine the 4th die would be a little trickier. That being said, I don't need to float 4 dies on mine.

    The tool head is well made in my opinion. Edges are clean, threads are sharp, both looked great to me.




    The toolheads slide in like normal, then you use the provided M13 bolts and washer to lock the toolhead in the upper position. Like the Uniquetek clamped toolheads, they recommend putting all your dies in, loading in 4 cases and taking the shellplate up to imitate what the exact positions will be while reloading with the shellplate full.
    With the ram all the way up, you should the lock the toolhead into place. It locks into place well and you can tighten the bolts easily. Its a solid setup and obviously doesn't move AT ALL. I can definitely see how this could help the process of consistency, once paired with the floating dies.
    IMG_4139.jpg



    Lock rings fit great on dies, and use an imbedded allen bolt to tighten around the die, NOT screwing an allen bolt into the threads. This is the preferred lock rings that I like. The lock rings are timed so they are exactly one turn back from flush when the bolt fits into the hole on the lock ring. What I did was just screw the die in until it was close to the final position I liked, then screwed the lock ring down all the way until it hits flush, back it out one turn until the holes line up and screw the M13 bolt in the hole. It will tighten with about 2mm to go as you can see in the right photo. Then I set my FINAL position of the die and tighten the lock ring to the die.
    IMG_4140.jpg
    IMG_4141.jpg




    If you notice on the first photo, using a different lock ring with allen heads that extend out will not really work. ON the photo on the right you can see the Armanov rings are imbedded into the ring. The allen heads are also time so they will be on the outer edge of the lock ring so that can aid in tightening the lock ring down, so its not stuck in the middle or something. Really like these lock rings, albeit sort of expensive, but worth it....especiaily for these toolheads.
    IMG_4142.jpg
    IMG_4143.jpg




    The only other problem I had was with my Forster Micrometer seater for .223. The damn die has to be screwed so far down into the lock ring to follow forsters die set up procedure, that the housing contacted the M13 bolt in the lock ring that free floats it. I had to take a little skin off the bottom on the edge to make it work. I have to screw the die down this far to depress the spring mechanism in the seating die, as Forster recommends. Has anyone not done this and still get good seating?
    IMG_4144.jpg





    Anyways, for now I'm very happy with these, especially for the money. I'm a big believer in how they work, although I will admit that I doubt they are necessary to make good ammunition, but they MAY be necessary depending on your machine, techniques, etc. Not all 550's are exactly the same and all sorts of variables could attribute to why these toolheads may give someone more success than others.

    Heres my theory as to why it works:
    1.) the clamped toolhead puts the whole machine into alignment with the shellplate. Every time the ram goes up WITH cases in it, it moves and rest into a specific position, and you lock the toolhead at that top position. This takes away any movement that the shellplate w/ 4 cases enacts on the toolhead.
    2.) Once you have the shellplate with 4 cases and the toolhead aligned and in sync, the floating dies allow ALL 4 DIES to slightly move INDEPENDANTLY to self align/rotate/jiggle to perfectly fit the specific case being brought into the die. Each case, each stroke, each time may do this slightly differently, and its this floating motion paired with the perfectly aligned and clamped toolhead that CAN bring more consistency and less runout, etc.

    Just my theory and my experience so far. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

    .....To Be Continued with more results and my thoughts after some more use. Begin discussion lol
     

    Attachments

    • IMG_4131.jpg
      IMG_4131.jpg
      390.6 KB · Views: 92
    Good start I will be watching for updates

    I've been thinking about how to effectively test this set up verses a standard toolhead, and I feel "accuracy" is a little biased and may not be the best option.

    I thought about doing 25rds on the Armanov setup and 25rds on the standard tool heads, and try to keep all the factors consistent. Then measure all 50 rounds for concentricity, and fire 5x5 shot groups for each, over a chrono. The priority of what is valued would be:
    1.) Concentricity
    2.) ES and SD
    3.) Groups ( if they both group the same, but one has better concentricity and ES, then its a clear winner)

    For testing I would basically use 1x fired LC '18 cases, prepped identically. Then do the same two toolhead process i use now. First toolhead is deprime, resize, and expander mandrel. Then tumbled. The second toolhead is deprime(cleans out flash hole), manually throw powder from Chargemaster, seat bullet.

    Everything else would be consistent. Known accurate charge of XBR8208, either 77gr TMK's or Hornady 75gr. HPBT's. Consistent loading technique, all precision oriented, etc.

    If anyone has input on how to test something like this in a better way, please let me know. Just trying to legitimize an anecdotal "study" to see what difference these could make.

    And again, I don't feel I have to do this to tell myself its ok to use the Armanov toolheads, I just enjoy doing this type of "research" so to speak.
     
    I would be curious more in the physical measurements of the cases it produces, rather than ES/SD or downrange measurements. The question of whether better cases produced better downrange results is harder to test properly and is really a separate question. The key things I'd be curious about would be:

    Headspace consistency, any change in shoulder bump variability
    Concentricity of sized brass
    Bullet seating depth consistency
    Concentricity of seated bullet measured on the ogive.
     
    ...I'd be curious about would be:

    Headspace consistency, any change in shoulder bump variability
    Concentricity of sized brass
    Bullet seating depth consistency
    Concentricity of seated bullet measured on the ogive.

    I see what you're saying, thanks for the input. That makes a little more sense. I didn't figure down range would show a ton of variation and maybe wasn't the best test.

    Now that you said that, it seems a lot more fitting to test all the stages along the reloading process.
     
    Will the lock rings fit under the tool head? The Forster seating die does don't have to be timed with the lock ring, you can use the stem itself instead.
     
    No offense but I believe you just spent money to remove the play Dillon engineered into the press . This is what Dillon told me years back when I was playing with a Uniquetek kit and RT-1200. The Uniquetek toolhead I still have but never use . The RT-1200 I couldn’t sell fast enough .
     
    Will the lock rings fit under the tool head? The Forster seating die does don't have to be timed with the lock ring, you can use the stem itself instead.

    There is enough room to, but the hole for the free play bolt isn't on the bottom, only the top. I think its up to par now, I need to try it a little more and just make sure.

    What do you mean by using the stem itself?
     
    No offense but I believe you just spent money to remove the play Dillon engineered into the press . This is what Dillon told me years back when I was playing with a Uniquetek kit and RT-1200. The Uniquetek toolhead I still have but never use . The RT-1200 I couldn’t sell fast enough .

    Yes, I've heard this like 20 times and while I don't think you're wrong about Dillon manufacturing play in the tool head, I HIGHLY doubt that the RL550 was designed specifically to make precision ammo like some of us make on it. There fore, I find it pretty reasonable to think that there are plenty of modifications to be made to it that make it more consistent and precise. I.E. - flattening shellplate to get rid of wobble, primer cup adjustment, primer bearing track, turbo bearing, etc.

    If Dillon made the toolhead to have a little play in it, i'm assuming they designed it the way an AK-47 is... to work all the time without a hitch. Considering a 550 will load anything from a 32acp up to a .338 Lapua magnum....you sort of need that play in the system.

    Now that being said, that play doesn't necessarily lend itself to precise accuracy the way we would like it to. I'm not saying it CAN'T...I'm just saying that in my opinion, it probably does not.

    So heres my theory again...summed up for you.

    Dillon Factory Tool head:
    -The toolhead has play to it, moving around slightly as the ram comes up with casings in it. The ram will always have a final resting place at the top, differently with each caliber/set of dies/etc.
    -The Dies are locked into place, allowing basically zero movement.

    IMHO, to favor precision, it should be like the armanov/whidden tool heads:
    -The tool head is LOCKED into place where the ram comes up to its final resting spot. This is locked into a specific place determined by the 4 cases pushed into the specific dies you have set up.
    -The 4 dies are then floated, allowing ALL 4 to move independently, finding their own true center and their specific final stopping place independent of the other dies. THIS, in my opinion is what lends to concentricity.

    Again, I'm not stating this as fact. This is my opinion of what I think goes on, and why I think the Armanov heads could work. BUT, thats what this whole test is for, is to try it out.

    Thanks for you concern of where my money goes but honestly, these toolheads are only $8 more per toolhead than the cheap toolheads on dillon's site......so not that big of a deal really.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: TommyD11730
    There is enough room to, but the hole for the free play bolt isn't on the bottom, only the top. I think its up to par now, I need to try it a little more and just make sure.

    What do you mean by using the stem itself?

    Decide where you want the die body graduations and tighten the die body lock ring. Loosen the seating stem jam nut and then back out the stem from the top. Set the micrometer to zero and then screw in the stem until it is the depth you want (or matches an existing loaded cartridge). Tighten the seating stem jam nut.
     
    Decide where you want the die body graduations. Loosen the seating stem jam nut and then back out the stem from the top. Set the micrometer to zero and then screw in the stem until it is the depth you want (or matches an existing loaded cartridge). Tighten the seating stem jam nut.

    Oh, yes I know that. Thats how I adjust mine for seating depth.

    But for setting up the die initially, Forster recommends that you screw the die in until the Sliding Die Chamber is almost fully compressed.. This is how they word it....

    "C. Continue screwing the die clockwise until you have fully compressed the sliding Die Chamber. Next, back it off at least one full turn because the Die Chamber should never be fully compressed when seating bullets."
     
    @Gustav7 I know it’s been a while since this thread tapered off, but I’m interested in the results. Anything else to report? I need another tool head & I’ve been eyeballing these.
     
    I'll ping in with some experience - I had some 550 toolheads and lock rings.

    The big downsize I found was they are taller, from the slot to the top of the toolhead, than standard dillon or whidden toolheads. If you're loading short cases like 223 or 6BR, this becomes a problem. The dies (sizing dies in particular) were too short to use with the floating lock ring and still get the appropriate amount of shoulder bump. And don't plan on running any critical dimension die without the floating lock ring, because the toolhead is locked in place. I ended up crushing necks because of the forced misalignment.

    If you're doing longer cases, like creedmoor, it's not an issue, and they work to float each position fairly well - but I did an A/B test with a standard dillon toolhead and the armanov heads. I couldn't see any difference downrange or on the labradar. You may be able to see some improvement on a runout gauge but I didn't test that.
     
    I'll ping in with some experience - I had some 550 toolheads and lock rings.

    The big downsize I found was they are taller, from the slot to the top of the toolhead, than standard dillon or whidden toolheads. If you're loading short cases like 223 or 6BR, this becomes a problem. The dies (sizing dies in particular) were too short to use with the floating lock ring and still get the appropriate amount of shoulder bump. And don't plan on running any critical dimension die without the floating lock ring, because the toolhead is locked in place. I ended up crushing necks because of the forced misalignment.

    If you're doing longer cases, like creedmoor, it's not an issue, and they work to float each position fairly well - but I did an A/B test with a standard dillon toolhead and the armanov heads. I couldn't see any difference downrange or on the labradar. You may be able to see some improvement on a runout gauge but I didn't test that.
    That’s good info. Thank you.
     
    @Gustav7 I know it’s been a while since this thread tapered off, but I’m interested in the results. Anything else to report? I need another tool head & I’ve been eyeballing these.

    Sorry about that, with COVID and a new baby, I just haven't had time to do a side by side test thats more controlled than my anecdotal experience.

    I have not had the same experience as @TheOfficeT-Rex with not being able to use 223. I definitely agree with him that its close, and wish you could get a few more threads in, but it does work for me for 223, 223AI, and 6.5cm.

    As far as making more accurate rounds, it's probably a toss up for non BR/F-Class shooters. I would be confident in saying it does make more consistent rounds, but I don't think it does to the level where I can tell the difference.
    The best measurement for consistency I have was with seating depth. Same cases, virgin and 1x fired, same bullets, same process etc... the Armanov toolheads gave me better consistency in seating depth. I can't remember exactly what the numbers were but I measured 50 rounds on a regular toolhead and 50 rounds on the Armanov and it was measurably better on the Armanov.

    Recently I just did 200 rounds on the Armanov doing start to finish on one toolhead.
    Station 1: Decap/Resize/Prime
    Station 2: Mandrel to set neck tension
    Station 3: Manually dump powder
    Station 4: Seat Bullet

    While the operation on one toolhead is technically faster, I'm not sure if it really saves me any time overall lol. The lube is annoying on loaded rounds and makes the whole process a little messier. The bullet seating consistency did seem to be hurt by doing one toolhead, so that reinforces my old way of doing two toolheads. Downrange hasn't seemed to be effected, but the jury is still out on that, as I haven't gotten back out past 300yds as freezing rain and a few woodworking projects have kept me indoors.

    In the end, I didn't pay that much more for the Armanov setup, and I love the lock rings even If you used it in a non locking/floating format. So I'll probably continue to buy the toolheads for all of my precision based calibers for uniformity sake.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Herb Stoner
    @Gustav7 Which 223 sizing dies are you using?

    I was unable to get a MA 223 die far enough down with the floating lock ring, and a whidden 6BRA die had only one thread engaged (lockring above die threads). I think it would be an easy fix if I had machined the top of the toolheads down 50k or so, and it wouldn't matter since the whole die/lockring assembly floats, but by the time I got help figuring it out with Wayne from MA, I realized I was happier with the regular whidden toolheads. I load in two toolheads, and having to screw each toolhead in was irritating; even with a ratchet.

    Interesting that you find better seating depth repeatability with the floating head. Using my SAC die, I found it exactly the same regardless of what toolhead I was using. I don't remember if I measured it both ways with the forster die.
     
    @Gustav7 Which 223 sizing dies are you using?

    I was unable to get a MA 223 die far enough down with the floating lock ring, and a whidden 6BRA die had only one thread engaged (lockring above die threads). I think it would be an easy fix if I had machined the top of the toolheads down 50k or so, and it wouldn't matter since the whole die/lockring assembly floats, but by the time I got help figuring it out with Wayne from MA, I realized I was happier with the regular whidden toolheads. I load in two toolheads, and having to screw each toolhead in was irritating; even with a ratchet.

    Interesting that you find better seating depth repeatability with the floating head. Using my SAC die, I found it exactly the same regardless of what toolhead I was using. I don't remember if I measured it both ways with the forster die.

    I've used RCBS X-die and Forster FL die for 223, Redding Match FL for 223AI, and Forster for 6.5cm ...

    By no means am I making any sort of definite statement other than what my caliper told me across 50/50 rounds of measuring. Its possible my factory dillon toolhead isn't the best and theres the difference. Its also possible that the floating dies allow a little better physical consistency when running the ram, not that I noticed that or anything, and I feel I'm pretty consistent when working the press, but just spit balling possible reasons.

    Seating dies are both Forster Benchrest dies, one is the micrometer and one is the standard. Both are great dies.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: TheOfficeT-Rex
    By no means am I making any sort of definite statement other than what my caliper told me across 50/50 rounds of measuring. Its possible my factory dillon toolhead isn't the best and theres the difference. Its also possible that the floating dies allow a little better physical consistency when running the ram, not that I noticed that or anything, and I feel I'm pretty consistent when working the press, but just spit balling possible reasons.

    Not doubting your results at all. I think there is benefit to some amount of wiggle in the dies, and I think how you run the press dictates which method will get you the best results.

    I wish I would have thought to measure the difference with the forster die - I have the micrometer seater for 223 and I'm not a big fan. I don't find it very consistent in the standard Dillon toolhead.
     
    I'm planning on grabbing a 550 tomorrow, I really liked TheGermans approach to asigning a % of accuracy incrrase to every modification done to accurize his AR builds. I'm going to take the same standards an apply them to the 550.

    From all that I've been seeing the factory tool head without modification seems to be the weak link. The die station with the most force inevitably will effect all other stations. Ill likely make a video series and post it here.
     
    Very old post, but I'll give it a try... I am having the same problem with the Forster seating die not being able to go down far enough. Any one know if there is a noticeble difference if it is not turned in all the way? Would buying the Whidden toolhead help at all?
     
    Very old post, but I'll give it a try... I am having the same problem with the Forster seating die not being able to go down far enough. Any one know if there is a noticeble difference if it is not turned in all the way? Would buying the Whidden toolhead help at all?
    On my redding dies I'm cutting it close. I've got about 1/2 the threads in the lock ring in use. I'm pretty happy with it though. The lock ring in this case is keeping the die from not turning vs actually mating up to the tool head and affecting consentricity. So yeah. Enough threads to lock the die is good enough in my case.

    I haven't tried locking them from the bottom but might be worth cautiously trying...
     
    On my redding dies I'm cutting it close. I've got about 1/2 the threads in the lock ring in use. I'm pretty happy with it though. The lock ring in this case is keeping the die from not turning vs actually mating up to the tool head and affecting consentricity. So yeah. Enough threads to lock the die is good enough in my case.

    I haven't tried locking them from the bottom but might be worth cautiously trying...
    Thank you for the response.
    Locking from the bottom negates the floating function as the hole for the screw is only on the top. With my Forster seating die, instead of the One turn back from touching shell plate as instructed, I have to go about 5 to get clearance to float. I read online the Whidden might have a lower toolhead and may look into that. Or I may have to mill the die down a bit like your picture.
    I'm going to call Forster tomorrow and see how having the die sitting higher than suggected affects concentrically with 5-6 turns up.
     
    Would buying the Whidden toolhead help at all?

    The whidden has a lower ‘stack’ so you could screw the die down further.

    As long as you get some sleeve movement as the rounds enter the die you should be good to go. I don’t notice a difference when they’re not all the way down, but you may lose some of the self centering.
     
    Typically, I want to see the sleeve start to move before the seater contacts the bullet. This means the case is constrained/aligned as the bullet starts to seat. Example: For the 260 Rem/Berger 140 Hyb Tgt, Forester dies are too short to do this. Whidden dies are marginal and Redding are just long enough. I couldn't get the Forester to work correctly at all, but with the Whidden, if I barely start the bullet and then back off, rotate 180 degrees and then finish the seating it works well (concentric). The Redding works as long as I set it up as described in the 1st sentence. I think this varies with each cartridge and bullet combo, so you have to check for yourself. Of course, you absolutely must have bullet seater that fits your specific bullet, concentric cases and a good VLD chamfer as well.

    As much as I like my Dillon presses, this kind of thing comes up often and it is a pain to get it right. Most dies makers don't seem to contemplate the thickness of Dillon/Whidden/Armanov toolheads. My preference is the Armanov for a variety of reasons. Tried them all.
     
    The whidden has a lower ‘stack’ so you could screw the die down further.

    As long as you get some sleeve movement as the rounds enter the die you should be good to go. I don’t notice a difference when they’re not all the way down, but you may lose some of the self centering.
    T-Rex, Any idea how much lower the Whidden "stack" is lower in comprison to the Armonov? I am having the same problem with the MA .223 sizer. I am considering: A) try the Whidden tool head or B) finding thinner locking ring and drilling a hole in the appropriate place in the new ring.
     
    T-Rex, Any idea how much lower the Whidden "stack" is lower in comprison to the Armonov? I am having the same problem with the MA .223 sizer. I am considering: A) try the Whidden tool head or B) finding thinner locking ring and drilling a hole in the appropriate place in the new ring.

    Negative. I sold the Armanov toolheads a while ago. I will say that the Whidden stack (+-.400" from rail top mating surface to toolhead top where the lock ring would sit) is still higher than a standard Dillon - either the plain standard ones or the anodized aluminum ones (both +-.350"). The stack from toolhead top to top of lock ring on my floating whiddens are +-.342".

    With how my die is set up, you could use the MA flag star 223 sizer on a floating whidden, with very minimal thread space for extra bump. You could ballpark the measurements with your current setting, but it's going to be tight. The way the MA dies are cut at the top of the threads means there's not a lot of extra space for floating rings in this application. I have it on a standard model - no float other than the pins/whole toolhead.

    Hopefully this is helpful. I can ballpark some other measurements if desired.
     
    Does anyone here know what the threads are for bolt with the Armanov floated rings that pins them to the head? I want to try to tap the bottom side for a BR die.