Thanks for an interesting read.
- Thread starter orkan
- Start date
I really hate to point this out, but there is another issue here. The tolerances for both primer height and primer pocket depth are 0.010". Yes, you can uniform the pockets, but you can’t do anything about the primers (OK, you can sort them by height—have fun with that—but there will also be tolerances in the heights of anvils). There may also be variation in flash hole length. It is not plausible that the process can be controlled at the thousandth of an inch level simply via depth of insertion (which is indexed off the top of the case rim via the shell holder, providing another source of variation).
Excellent point. I'm sure there's guys that will claim how important this tool is, while saying cleaning pockets, uniforming pockets, deburring flash hole, turning nks, etc. is pointless. Adamantly claiming one minutia is critical, but overlooking other equally critical points is funny. Im not saying the author of the test did, his testing looked pretty solid other than low statistical number. Ive read plenty of posts on here of guys looking for peak accuracy but dont want to do any of that "pointless reloading prep" like cleaning/uniforming/deburring primer pockets. I always chuckle at thise guys, just wanting a easy ride.
I think it’s more the anvil crush than the actual depth.
I can’t seem to get any chrono numbers to reflect uniforming or cleaning pockets makes any difference. But so far I can see changes when I vary the depth/crush on the CPS.
I don’t mind doing work if it will make a difference. Thus far the differences I have noticed:
Mandrel for neck tension
Turning necks
Primer depth/anvil crush
Possibly h2o capacity sorting
Sorting bullets by OAL
Tipping/pointing
Things I have seen no difference:
Sorting brass by weight
Sorting bullets by weight
Anything to do with primer pocket (uniform/flash hole/cleaning etc etc.
That being said, almost none of the above (with the exception of mandrel) make a huge difference on prs size targets.
I appreciate the time and effort put into the research. I'm not taking sides one way or the other regarding the validity of the data or the tool but it does seem like if someone is going to the lengthy process to test a hypothesis then that person should power the study appropriately. I don't agree with folks jumping all over Blake but also understand statistics and the validity of the comments regarding sample size.
I'll agree with the premise. Ive saw, from various brass manufacturers(even lapua) issues with primer pocket depth. Meaning flush or high primers, those things bug me. A Sinclair primer pocket carbide on a cordless drill is simple and 1 time deal. Primers seat more consistently and it only takes 10minutes or so to do 50 cases while watching the news. Ill admit that I dont deburr flash holes as much as I used to. Generally, hornady and win brass I deburr. I dont mess with lapua or adg, I have saw rolled burr on lapua cases from them drilling, but not like some of the big hunks of brass like win and horn occasionally have. I dont see any advantage in turning nks, and most point blank br guys have gone away from it. The exception is brass that has inconsistent nk wall thickness and im using a bushing die without expander( doesn't happen any more), or necking down cases to make wildcats. I dont reload more than 50-75rds at a time, so cleaning primer pockets that were uniformed aren't a tedious chore and add a few minutes to the task.
Also, reading, interpreting, and applying what the wind is doing makes more difference than all this minutia we're discussing.
Well glad we got the bitching fest out of the way lol...
So what I've come to learn:
1. Blake at reloading all day does very tedious work and I enjoy his articles. This article DOES open the door for more research and COULD show that primer seating depth can effect SD/ES for SOME people's loads/rifles. (IF you're hating on Blake, I think you're entitled to your opinion, but wrong).
2. Primal Rights CPS is a bad mamba jamba piece of equipment. Its not NECESSARY, but CAN improve SD/ES numbers and DOES improve the ergonomics and efficiency of manually priming cases.
3. Some people on here DO NOT like some other people on here LOL. I'll play middle man and say I agreed and disagreed with both angry parties 50/50.
4. I seat primers on my Dillon 550 and can consistently get primer seating to +/- 0.001"....so while that works for me and I think its consistent enough for my purposes, I'm no expert.
5. Making SOME words capitalized in my sentences DOES change the tone of voice I use in MY head, and I hope it does for YOU too. Thanks and have a great day.
So what I've come to learn:
1. Blake at reloading all day does very tedious work and I enjoy his articles. This article DOES open the door for more research and COULD show that primer seating depth can effect SD/ES for SOME people's loads/rifles. (IF you're hating on Blake, I think you're entitled to your opinion, but wrong).
2. Primal Rights CPS is a bad mamba jamba piece of equipment. Its not NECESSARY, but CAN improve SD/ES numbers and DOES improve the ergonomics and efficiency of manually priming cases.
3. Some people on here DO NOT like some other people on here LOL. I'll play middle man and say I agreed and disagreed with both angry parties 50/50.
4. I seat primers on my Dillon 550 and can consistently get primer seating to +/- 0.001"....so while that works for me and I think its consistent enough for my purposes, I'm no expert.
5. Making SOME words capitalized in my sentences DOES change the tone of voice I use in MY head, and I hope it does for YOU too. Thanks and have a great day.
Okay, back to the point I tried to make that got glossed over by the shenanigans. Here’s the last thing that I posted, which is really the answer to the question that many are asking broken into two parts for clarity:
I’ve already said that I think the CPS is a good product to do this.
Here, the intent was to point out that after doing the three shots test to determine where you want that primer depth to be, you DO need to verify that your chosen depth is giving you the predicted results. This is on the loader (You) to do. It was not my intent to say that Blake should have done this. Any time you make a change to your process, it is a change to the product. You should verify that any change has the desired results. Without verification, it’s just guessing and supposition.
What I’m saying here, supported by best practice manufacturing standards, is that the Study that Blake did is valid to show the possibility that tight control of primer depth makes a difference and that when wanting to wring out that last bit of consistency, one should do a primer seating depth study.
I’ve already said that I think the CPS is a good product to do this.
Here, the intent was to point out that after doing the three shots test to determine where you want that primer depth to be, you DO need to verify that your chosen depth is giving you the predicted results. This is on the loader (You) to do. It was not my intent to say that Blake should have done this. Any time you make a change to your process, it is a change to the product. You should verify that any change has the desired results. Without verification, it’s just guessing and supposition.
Hey, at least you're thinking about it. Not sure why you'd hate to point it out. Clearly, others aren't thinking about it at all. However, it's an academic discussion only. The other side of the equal sign has been filled in by others a long time ago. The CPS has been out for 5 years+. The FBI ballistic research labs eval'd every tool on the market, to my knowledge, and then ordered a dozen CPS's for their labs. It delivers, where other tools can not. That's simple fact at this point.
Brass uniformity and primer uniformity is both easily solved. Rim thickness variation is easily handled on a lathe and can be brought down to +/- .0002 without any issue. Pocket depth can be done in the same setup to an equal tolerance. Primers can be height, protrusion, and weight sorted. The customers I've talked to that do this has seen a competitive advantage. World class competitors. The specifics on how they set their depth, I'm sworn to not reveal... but if primer seating depth testing is done, it's likely others will discover it on their own eventually. Other ballistic labs have taken it even further and run an aerospace level uniforming op on the brass itself, using a machine valued in the millions of dollars, to bring the tolerances down even further. +/- 50 millionths if memory serves. After that, machining custom shell holders and precision torquing the shell holder retainer screws is no big deal. I even did a few custom parts for them because they were concerned of the deflection in aluminum. Turned out to be a false premise, but they checked anyway. At the end of the day, there's a big world outside these forums... and most of the really advanced people don't have time for this kind of shit. After this post, I know I don't. The assumption that the work hasn't been done, is just an assumption.
It's a very personal and individual thing to decide whether you're going to do that stuff yourself. However, its all been done, and the answers are known to others. So discussions like this are purely academic. In the real world, it's already been tested and figured out. For me, it's simple. The CPS lets you achieve whatever it is you want to achieve regarding primer seating better than any other tool out there. If it's speed, it's there. If it's precision, you got it. If it's both, yep you can do that too. Those looking for speed, still see a precision advantage, even though they are not uniforming anything. The real world feedback from hundreds of customers has been unilaterally positive.
Some of you spend all your time finding reasons why you can't, and why this thing or that other thing won't work. Some of us spend our time finding ways to solve problems so there is nothing that can't be done. We work tirelessly and most often thanklessly so that you get to read about it on a forum for free. I live on my range. I can slide a window open or walk outside and shoot to 3 miles, any time I want... and I use it nearly every single day. I have more round count in one month than most of you will get in a year. Hell, some of you... I'll shoot more purposeful rifle rounds in a week than you will in a year. This is literally all I do. It's clear that some of you make the mistake of thinking I'm just another suburb-dwelling "expert" working full time as an accountant that heads to a square range once a month and then hops on the internet 85 times a day to tell people about what I know. I don't go boating, I don't go fishing, I don't go riding harleys, I don't really do anything else aside from shoot, talk about shooting, produce content about shooting, and study about cameras, software, mics, and other things so that I can produce better content about shooting. I built my house so that I can have the best target presentations on my property from my office window, based on how the land lays. I take it more seriously, with more steadfast unyielding focus, than anyone I've ever met. Despite this, people here would have me believe it's not good enough for them. Yet after this, I'm resolute in my unwillingness to participate in high level discussions on forums in the future. It is literally pointless. Frank is literally the only one here that can engage in high level discussion without getting overrun with dipshits. He can just ban them if they don't shut up. I don't have that luxury. For over 6 years time I have spent more effort, money, and resources regarding primer seating depth than I care to remember. I am as much an expert on this topic as you can hope to find, and yet I'm expected to entertain the ridiculous tone and baseless opinions of people that hadn't given it a single thought until they read something I posted. Then their FIRST thought, is to throw rocks and claim fake news? That ends now. I'm freeing myself from the obligation of trying to help people here, just as many other experts that are much smarter than I, figured out much sooner than I. If I don't spoon-feed the truth in small portions, in JUST exactly the way people expect, that shelters their little fragile ego's, people feel justified in attacking. The stronger the truth, the more resistance to it. It's pathetic. If I see the culture on forums turn toward a search for truth instead of a persecution of it, maybe I'll reconsider. I'm not holding my breath. Instead, if I have expertise or experience with the topic at hand, I'll simply post "hey, I have some I can share with you on this... give me a call if you'd like to hear it." I spend every day on the phone at least a few hours helping people that call anyway, so this will let me keep my focus on individual parties that actually care enough about the outcome to devote some of their time. Individually, I NEVER have the kind of bullshit that transpired in this thread pollute my interactions. In the real world, people value my time and my insight... but this isn't the real world. It's high school at its very best... and I never was popular in high school. Taking my ball, and going home. I'm completely and totally finished with taking anything people say here seriously. Should make several of you very happy!
Those of you that actually want to learn something about primer seating depth, or anything else you think I might be able to help you with... feel free to give me a call anytime. 605-554-1911
dang, another "im so great i quit the hide" autobiography post lol
yall done gone and done it now fellas
yall done gone and done it now fellas
No no... not quit there morgan. ... just stopped taking seriously.
Just read... it's right there in front of you.
Posting a study, where the best SD is achieved by incorrectly seating primers short of the bottom of the primer pocket, in order to promote a $600 priming tool and then writing essays rationalizing it is not smart.
No comment on the essays part ... but weren't there processes done in the 80's, 90's, 2000's, etc that someone somewhere said, "thats being done incorrectly", only to have that thing be done regularly 5, 10, 15 years later?
The sport always evolves, and as we get further into the rabbit hole of precision, research on what CAN (emphasis on can) make a difference is going to get better. Some of that research is going to fly directly in the face of what we've come to know as "correct". But the nuance is where the difference is made. We always seat primers to the bottom of the primer pocket, because not doing so has always yielded either a.) inconsistent ignition, or b.) inconsistent seating depth...or maybe a mix of the two.
So maybe it takes a product like the CPS, and research like what Blake has started (key word started), to show us the nuance in the difference. Using a tool like the CPS COULD change what we used to know about primer seating... This would of course change for every rifle and every load...but the foundational research and the ability to control primer seating by 0.0005" one way or another is what allows us to find those differences.
Just a thought...
Seating primers where they do not touch the bottom of the primer pocket is mechanically incorrect. This is not up for debate. A primer must be seated such that the anvil legs rest against the bottom of the primer pocket. That’s the foundation for reliable ignition.
The BS you write.
I mean...everything is up for debate, but sounds good. Not gonna start a yelling match, was just giving my thought on how new equipment and new research could possibly yield new and different results than we are historically accustom to.
Not when it comes to seating primers away from the bottom of the primer pocket.
I could load 100,000 rounds with the anvil 1 thousandth off the bottom of the pocket, hell even .004 off if there was room, and not one of them would malfunction. Despite that, whenever I've been asked... I instruct people to go from full contact, deeper, not shallower, in their testing. I even told the author of the article the same thing.
... yet who claimed otherwise other than you? Oh, that's right... no one.
@Gustav7 , you keep that attitude my friend. Some people are always looking for advancement, and are happy to do their own work before forming opinions. Others are happy to sit there like chumps screaming about what they think they know.
Yeah, I've just been sucked into arguments here before and wasn't really up for it again. I don't think my views are as extreme as some others here.
I can understand the frustration of feeling like you are arguing with idiots on the internet. I've seen your videos on the RimX and it's clear that you take precision shooting very seriously. Is it the best thing to tell potential customers to fuck off? Maybe not, but getting to a place in life where you can do that—that is real freedom in a way few will ever know.
Hopefully in a few years I'll be a good enough shooter that the question of milling primers to absolute uniformity becomes relevant to me. Until then, I'll still enjoy priming with the CPS, even if it can't reduce my wobble zone or manage magnum recoil for me.
Nah man, you just need to shoot more in week than most shoot in a yr
I too have access to 1k, 1320 when my crops are out, and I can shoot almost whenever I feel like it. I dont profess to have all knowing knowledge, just humility and modesty.
There's a pile of guys on here that could own my ass on range any day of the week.
Blake - if you’re on here great article and thank you for your hard work. Part of the reason I started reloading was because I enjoyed the science of it all...and I like shooting tiny groups!
The best part of the hide is there are many people out there who share (freely) their experiences (which I believe we all benefit from) and then we get to modify and/or reproduce our own results. I don’t post a lot but I read a ton...I know I should be better about this but honestly some of the back and forth in this string is why I pause to share my results...they were based on my process, equipment, and guns (I’m also still new to the art but thanks to COVID have had more time to test with no business travel).
Nonetheless based on his article he earned another subscriber as it gave me another test I would like to personally run after I complete the list I’ve already got sitting on my bench. Narrowing down variables can be exhausting!
The best part of the hide is there are many people out there who share (freely) their experiences (which I believe we all benefit from) and then we get to modify and/or reproduce our own results. I don’t post a lot but I read a ton...I know I should be better about this but honestly some of the back and forth in this string is why I pause to share my results...they were based on my process, equipment, and guns (I’m also still new to the art but thanks to COVID have had more time to test with no business travel).
Nonetheless based on his article he earned another subscriber as it gave me another test I would like to personally run after I complete the list I’ve already got sitting on my bench. Narrowing down variables can be exhausting!
You’re not alone. The reason many with a lot of experience and/or that compete at the highest level don’t post on forums (not just the hide, all over) is because of the push back they receive.
Most of the stuff being talked about on here like it’s revolutionary was being done quite a while ago by many. But people don’t take well to change and flame people for it.
Some of the things I’ve learned from more experienced in reloading I wouldn’t even consider posting as you’ll get the canned responses like we saw earlier in the thread. Responses they heard along the way and keep repeating.
I read the young mans article and I give him credit for it. His methodology is sound, you may want more data but I do predictive analysis everyday. I say good job Blake keep chasing after it! You know more today then you did yesterday, keep questioning the "what if's"
That is a simplistic synapsis of part of it. Before you arrived here, saying things like "you can't shoot the difference" were prevalent. I have said this here more than once, for the most of us, we are not shooting paper for score, so there is no standard for accuracy that needs to be achieved. So we all have different goals.
This forum goes full circle on accuracy every 2 yrs it seems, no need to look farther than Ledzep's "groups don't really matter" thread. So our measurement tools have changed for gauging accuracy, from a caliper to a chrono.
Then let's enter guys who want a slice of the pie, either notoriety, or coin, and come up with new methods to do business. For a lot of people, where does it end?
I see there is some complaining about bashing here in this thread, I said my piece, but i never once bashed the CPS, or it's capabilities, and find tests on primer seat depth interesting. Now whether I am up for experimenting with it, another chapter. My beef was the delivery, every post ends the same, "you don't like my ideas, you are stupid and I can do this", well, BFD. If SH is such a drain on the guy, and he is getting calls 24-7 for his expertise, he should re-evaluate why he feels the need to be here. If the info is that great, word will surface, sometimes it never works to throw info out to the masses anyway, for it will get twisted, taken out of context, you name it, and I basically said this in my post #33 in this thread. Nothing worse than listening to someone talking about something they have read, been told, or overheard, there is always one tidbit missing.
Agree with everything. Hence why I didn’t step in for vendor bashing as I didn’t see anyone directly bashing anything and anything else was brought on by the individuals going back and forth.
Also agreed most of use can’t shoot the difference or at least aren’t in a discipline where we need to. At times I go off in the weeds with my loading practices, but mostly as a second hobby. Anything past using a mandrel doesn’t really matter for the size targets I shoot. Not to mention, most of this stuff won’t show up on paper often with just a bipod and squeeze bag. Front rests and rear bags designed to keep the rifle setup and tracking perfectly are required.
The only thing I’d like to see change is an open mindness here that there is a larger world than just banging steel and that’s where these into the weeds loading discussions concern.
As @morganlamprecht has pointed out and I agree with, most guys would be better off just picking a random load that’s consistent and shooting more. The things like primer seating and bullet tipping are for the likes of Team Lapua F class guys and guys like Lou Murdica. They ain’t for most of us banging away at 2moa steel.
Hey, I agree too, all points. I have to say this, this sites priorities change, say from pin point precision and sustained accuracy, to the WEZ theory of the probability of a fucking hit. When I think of the probability of a hit, my head spins.
Now, I would set mouse traps for the probability of catching one, not much else in my life can i live on probabilities.
People will always argue the results no matter how controlled the tests are and how accurate the data is. There was a void in the market for a good priming system and someone created a perfect solution. I have tried several hand primers and most are fucking junk. I don't care if it makes a difference or not, I want one because my hands bother me if I sit down and prime 4-500 rounds.
Obviously people like quality products or there wouldn't be a market. Look at all the stuff area 419 makes and sells, there is a demand for this type of equipment.
Obviously people like quality products or there wouldn't be a market. Look at all the stuff area 419 makes and sells, there is a demand for this type of equipment.
Pictures sometimes help, somewhat. Yesterday, I uniformed the flash hole of 400 cases, mixed headstamps of 223 brass. I had already uniformed the primer pockets.
This product can do this
@orkan what’s you opinion this product? Besides it being slow
K&M PRECISION PRIMER SEAT TOOL WITH GAUGE - Graf & Sons
Includes both large and small anvil assemblies. Requires Lee Auto-Prime series shell holders. If you want the ultimate in hand pocket priming tools – the K&M Primer/Gauge will fit the bill. Benchrest shooters seat the primer until they feel it touch the bottom of the primer pocket. Consistency...
www.grafs.com Your own testing in your own environment is the answer to all reloading g questions, this guy shared his results and I am grateful
Hey, at least you're thinking about it. Not sure why you'd hate to point it out. Clearly, others aren't thinking about it at all. However, it's an academic discussion only. The other side of the equal sign has been filled in by others a long time ago. The CPS has been out for 5 years+. The FBI ballistic research labs eval'd every tool on the market, to my knowledge, and then ordered a dozen CPS's for their labs. It delivers, where other tools can not. That's simple fact at this point.
Brass uniformity and primer uniformity is both easily solved. Rim thickness variation is easily handled on a lathe and can be brought down to +/- .0002 without any issue. Pocket depth can be done in the same setup to an equal tolerance. Primers can be height, protrusion, and weight sorted. The customers I've talked to that do this has seen a competitive advantage. World class competitors. The specifics on how they set their depth, I'm sworn to not reveal... but if primer seating depth testing is done, it's likely others will discover it on their own eventually. Other ballistic labs have taken it even further and run an aerospace level uniforming op on the brass itself, using a machine valued in the millions of dollars, to bring the tolerances down even further. +/- 50 millionths if memory serves. After that, machining custom shell holders and precision torquing the shell holder retainer screws is no big deal. I even did a few custom parts for them because they were concerned of the deflection in aluminum. Turned out to be a false premise, but they checked anyway. At the end of the day, there's a big world outside these forums... and most of the really advanced people don't have time for this kind of shit. After this post, I know I don't. The assumption that the work hasn't been done, is just an assumption.
It's a very personal and individual thing to decide whether you're going to do that stuff yourself. However, its all been done, and the answers are known to others. So discussions like this are purely academic. In the real world, it's already been tested and figured out. For me, it's simple. The CPS lets you achieve whatever it is you want to achieve regarding primer seating better than any other tool out there. If it's speed, it's there. If it's precision, you got it. If it's both, yep you can do that too. Those looking for speed, still see a precision advantage, even though they are not uniforming anything. The real world feedback from hundreds of customers has been unilaterally positive.
Some of you spend all your time finding reasons why you can't, and why this thing or that other thing won't work. Some of us spend our time finding ways to solve problems so there is nothing that can't be done. We work tirelessly and most often thanklessly so that you get to read about it on a forum for free. I live on my range. I can slide a window open or walk outside and shoot to 3 miles, any time I want... and I use it nearly every single day. I have more round count in one month than most of you will get in a year. Hell, some of you... I'll shoot more purposeful rifle rounds in a week than you will in a year. This is literally all I do. It's clear that some of you make the mistake of thinking I'm just another suburb-dwelling "expert" working full time as an accountant that heads to a square range once a month and then hops on the internet 85 times a day to tell people about what I know. I don't go boating, I don't go fishing, I don't go riding harleys, I don't really do anything else aside from shoot, talk about shooting, produce content about shooting, and study about cameras, software, mics, and other things so that I can produce better content about shooting. I built my house so that I can have the best target presentations on my property from my office window, based on how the land lays. I take it more seriously, with more steadfast unyielding focus, than anyone I've ever met. Despite this, people here would have me believe it's not good enough for them. Yet after this, I'm resolute in my unwillingness to participate in high level discussions on forums in the future. It is literally pointless. Frank is literally the only one here that can engage in high level discussion without getting overrun with dipshits. He can just ban them if they don't shut up. I don't have that luxury. For over 6 years time I have spent more effort, money, and resources regarding primer seating depth than I care to remember. I am as much an expert on this topic as you can hope to find, and yet I'm expected to entertain the ridiculous tone and baseless opinions of people that hadn't given it a single thought until they read something I posted. Then their FIRST thought, is to throw rocks and claim fake news? That ends now. I'm freeing myself from the obligation of trying to help people here, just as many other experts that are much smarter than I, figured out much sooner than I. If I don't spoon-feed the truth in small portions, in JUST exactly the way people expect, that shelters their little fragile ego's, people feel justified in attacking. The stronger the truth, the more resistance to it. It's pathetic. If I see the culture on forums turn toward a search for truth instead of a persecution of it, maybe I'll reconsider. I'm not holding my breath. Instead, if I have expertise or experience with the topic at hand, I'll simply post "hey, I have some I can share with you on this... give me a call if you'd like to hear it." I spend every day on the phone at least a few hours helping people that call anyway, so this will let me keep my focus on individual parties that actually care enough about the outcome to devote some of their time. Individually, I NEVER have the kind of bullshit that transpired in this thread pollute my interactions. In the real world, people value my time and my insight... but this isn't the real world. It's high school at its very best... and I never was popular in high school. Taking my ball, and going home. I'm completely and totally finished with taking anything people say here seriously. Should make several of you very happy!
Those of you that actually want to learn something about primer seating depth, or anything else you think I might be able to help you with... feel free to give me a call anytime. 605-554-1911
Some people aren't cut out to deal with the general public and you're probably one of them. There is no shame in that and it takes a lot to admit it. This post lacks maturity and wisdom. Your posts give the impression the wheels are always almost about to come off and I find you so abrasive I can't give you my money. I do business with people I like, or at least people I don't dislike; unfortunately you've made me dislike you. Your posts make me think if I did business with you and something went wrong you'd dox me or tell me to fuck off instead of doing the right thing. Time and again you give the same impression.
As my daughter told me once when I was over doing, Dad on the soap box routine, I really think some people should take some Midol and relax.
I totally agree with your comment that you can pretty much forget about seating primers accurately by feel. I started looking at this a couple of months ago. I had been using an RCBS hand primer for 20+ years and always thought I could feel the primer touch the bottom of the pocket. Clearly I was fooling myself - once I started measuring things, it turns out I was crushing the shit out of the large rifle primers in my .308 and .284 These were being seated around 0.012 - 0.014 when 0.004 would be enough to make contact with the bottom of the pocket. Not only were they seated too deep the actual depth could vary by 0.004 in the same batch. Small rifle primers were not so bad, but still deeper and more variable than I would want.
My CPS got delivered today..
