redding dies
- Thread starter WILLLY
- Start date
Re: redding dies
Bolt gun or autoloader?
Read the description of what the die does and it will tell you what you need to know. I think the S dies only size the neck. Comp dies size the body.
The bushings allow you to control neck tension. Normal neck tension on an autoloader is .003 to .002. For a bolt gun it can be much less. Measure inside neck with caliper, subtract from bullet caliber.
Bolt gun or autoloader?
Read the description of what the die does and it will tell you what you need to know. I think the S dies only size the neck. Comp dies size the body.
The bushings allow you to control neck tension. Normal neck tension on an autoloader is .003 to .002. For a bolt gun it can be much less. Measure inside neck with caliper, subtract from bullet caliber.
Re: redding dies
Type S are the bushing dies. There are teh Type S full lenght die sets and the Type S three die set with a neck only die and a body die along with a bullet seater die. In both cases the seater die is conventional.
The competition die sets have micrometer heads and sliding sleaves to hold the case concentric as the die operation is performed. This set comes with a body die for sizing the body to fit the chamber and a micrometer headed die for sizing the neck.
There is a new die set in the Redding arsenal where you get the bushing die of the Type-S with the micrometer head seating die from the competition set. In my opinion, this is the most cost efficient die set. The micrometer head is great for running bullet seating experiments to allow one to finish dialing in a load. But the micrometer head on the neck sizing die is "not that valuable" {although some people may find it more useful than I}
The purpose of the neck sizing bushing is to make the neck properly round and have the correct diameter to hold the bullet securely but not too tight. Different kinds of brass have different neck wallthicknesses--and add in that some people cut their nec walls to uniform thicknesses. So, one selects a bushing for the kind of neck tension the application desires.
Type S are the bushing dies. There are teh Type S full lenght die sets and the Type S three die set with a neck only die and a body die along with a bullet seater die. In both cases the seater die is conventional.
The competition die sets have micrometer heads and sliding sleaves to hold the case concentric as the die operation is performed. This set comes with a body die for sizing the body to fit the chamber and a micrometer headed die for sizing the neck.
There is a new die set in the Redding arsenal where you get the bushing die of the Type-S with the micrometer head seating die from the competition set. In my opinion, this is the most cost efficient die set. The micrometer head is great for running bullet seating experiments to allow one to finish dialing in a load. But the micrometer head on the neck sizing die is "not that valuable" {although some people may find it more useful than I}
The purpose of the neck sizing bushing is to make the neck properly round and have the correct diameter to hold the bullet securely but not too tight. Different kinds of brass have different neck wallthicknesses--and add in that some people cut their nec walls to uniform thicknesses. So, one selects a bushing for the kind of neck tension the application desires.
Re: redding dies
I agree with everything Mitch said above.
I recommend the die set where you get a Type S FL die and a Competition seating die.
You will need to find out the thickness of your brass at the neck area and then select the appropriate size bushing. I would go with a .002 tension for a bolt gun and .003 for a gas gun.
For .308win brass, Federal brass I use .336 (.030 for wall thickness)and Win brass I use .331 (.025 for 2 wall thickess)
I agree with everything Mitch said above.
I recommend the die set where you get a Type S FL die and a Competition seating die.
You will need to find out the thickness of your brass at the neck area and then select the appropriate size bushing. I would go with a .002 tension for a bolt gun and .003 for a gas gun.
For .308win brass, Federal brass I use .336 (.030 for wall thickness)and Win brass I use .331 (.025 for 2 wall thickess)
Re: redding dies
Redding dies are good. Forster is the same and cost's 1/2 the price. Just not the same caliber selection as redding. For .308 go with the Forster die set w/ ultra micrometer for around $80. .338LM you'll have to go redding.
If Forster stocks the caliber, thats what I choose. That being said I have a 3 die redding s-type competition set for .308... but that was before I knew. My 7Mag and 6.5x47 are the forster ultra micrometer sets.
you can get bushing dies from forster also.
Redding dies are good. Forster is the same and cost's 1/2 the price. Just not the same caliber selection as redding. For .308 go with the Forster die set w/ ultra micrometer for around $80. .338LM you'll have to go redding.
If Forster stocks the caliber, thats what I choose. That being said I have a 3 die redding s-type competition set for .308... but that was before I knew. My 7Mag and 6.5x47 are the forster ultra micrometer sets.
you can get bushing dies from forster also.
Re: redding dies
If you go with Redding bushing dies you may want to buy several bushings. One of my Redding instructions says .003 less another set of Redding instructions says .002 I just see what works best for me and go with it. Easy way to check size is to load one and measure neck diameter with a caliber and subtract .002 or whatever you want to try. You cant go wrong with the Redding dies, I have switched from using RCBS competition dies, Lee, Hornady I tried about all of them before bucking up and spending the money and havent looked back. What a difference, well worth the extra
If you go with Redding bushing dies you may want to buy several bushings. One of my Redding instructions says .003 less another set of Redding instructions says .002 I just see what works best for me and go with it. Easy way to check size is to load one and measure neck diameter with a caliber and subtract .002 or whatever you want to try. You cant go wrong with the Redding dies, I have switched from using RCBS competition dies, Lee, Hornady I tried about all of them before bucking up and spending the money and havent looked back. What a difference, well worth the extra
Re: redding dies
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RTO</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you go with Redding bushing dies you may want to buy several bushings. One of my Redding instructions says .003 less another set of Redding instructions says .002 I just see what works best for me and go with it.</div></div>
Changed again, my friend! Check this video.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RTO</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you go with Redding bushing dies you may want to buy several bushings. One of my Redding instructions says .003 less another set of Redding instructions says .002 I just see what works best for me and go with it.</div></div>
Changed again, my friend! Check this video.
Re: redding dies
Just to clarify, Redding makes a Type S full length sizer die. It uses the bushings. I recently started using this die along with a RCBS Competition seater with micrometer head. After the first firing, I remove the sizer button from the sizer. Most accurate ammo I ever loaded.
Just to clarify, Redding makes a Type S full length sizer die. It uses the bushings. I recently started using this die along with a RCBS Competition seater with micrometer head. After the first firing, I remove the sizer button from the sizer. Most accurate ammo I ever loaded.
Re: redding dies
For the .338LM get Redding Type S full length and a Forster Ultra Micro seater best bang for your buck.
For the .338LM get Redding Type S full length and a Forster Ultra Micro seater best bang for your buck.
Re: redding dies
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: himaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bolt gun or autoloader?
Read the description of what the die does and it will tell you what you need to know. I think the S dies only size the neck. Comp dies size the body.
The bushings allow you to control neck tension. Normal neck tension on an autoloader is .003 to .002. For a bolt gun it can be much less. Measure inside neck with caliper, subtract from bullet caliber. </div></div>
If you don't know please don't post. The only thing you got right was the part about neck tension being 0.003" for an autoloader and possibly less for a bolt gun.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: himaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bolt gun or autoloader?
Read the description of what the die does and it will tell you what you need to know. I think the S dies only size the neck. Comp dies size the body.
The bushings allow you to control neck tension. Normal neck tension on an autoloader is .003 to .002. For a bolt gun it can be much less. Measure inside neck with caliper, subtract from bullet caliber. </div></div>
If you don't know please don't post. The only thing you got right was the part about neck tension being 0.003" for an autoloader and possibly less for a bolt gun.
Re: redding dies
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the .338LM get Redding Type S full length and a Forster Ultra Micro seater best bang for your buck. </div></div>
Bang for the buck yes, but the Redding Competition seater is a much better seater if concentricity matters to you. I know for a fact that concentricty matters to the bullet.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the .338LM get Redding Type S full length and a Forster Ultra Micro seater best bang for your buck. </div></div>
Bang for the buck yes, but the Redding Competition seater is a much better seater if concentricity matters to you. I know for a fact that concentricty matters to the bullet.
Re: redding dies
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MitchAlsup</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Type S are the bushing dies. There are teh Type S full lenght die sets and the Type S three die set with a neck only die and a body die along with a bullet seater die. In both cases the seater die is conventional.
The competition die sets have micrometer heads and sliding sleaves to hold the case concentric as the die operation is performed. This set comes with a body die for sizing the body to fit the chamber and a micrometer headed die for sizing the neck.
There is a new die set in the Redding arsenal where you get the bushing die of the Type-S with the micrometer head seating die from the competition set. In my opinion, this is the most cost efficient die set. The micrometer head is great for running bullet seating experiments to allow one to finish dialing in a load. But the micrometer head on the neck sizing die is "not that valuable" {although some people may find it more useful than I}
The purpose of the neck sizing bushing is to make the neck properly round and have the correct diameter to hold the bullet securely but not too tight. Different kinds of brass have different neck wallthicknesses--and add in that some people cut their nec walls to uniform thicknesses. So, one selects a bushing for the kind of neck tension the application desires. </div></div>
OP, This post is 100% correct.
HTH!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MitchAlsup</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Type S are the bushing dies. There are teh Type S full lenght die sets and the Type S three die set with a neck only die and a body die along with a bullet seater die. In both cases the seater die is conventional.
The competition die sets have micrometer heads and sliding sleaves to hold the case concentric as the die operation is performed. This set comes with a body die for sizing the body to fit the chamber and a micrometer headed die for sizing the neck.
There is a new die set in the Redding arsenal where you get the bushing die of the Type-S with the micrometer head seating die from the competition set. In my opinion, this is the most cost efficient die set. The micrometer head is great for running bullet seating experiments to allow one to finish dialing in a load. But the micrometer head on the neck sizing die is "not that valuable" {although some people may find it more useful than I}
The purpose of the neck sizing bushing is to make the neck properly round and have the correct diameter to hold the bullet securely but not too tight. Different kinds of brass have different neck wallthicknesses--and add in that some people cut their nec walls to uniform thicknesses. So, one selects a bushing for the kind of neck tension the application desires. </div></div>
OP, This post is 100% correct.
HTH!
Re: redding dies
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: YAOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the .338LM get Redding Type S full length and a Forster Ultra Micro seater best bang for your buck. </div></div>
Bang for the buck yes, but the Redding Competition seater is a much better seater if concentricity matters to you. I know for a fact that concentricty matters to the bullet.
</div></div>
Actually the Redding Competition Seater is a copy of the Forster seater. They perform equally, and I'd much rather support the company that came up with the idea (Forster) rather than the one's who just copied it (Redding).
"If you don't know please don't post."
Forster seating dies are the best available IMO.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: YAOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the .338LM get Redding Type S full length and a Forster Ultra Micro seater best bang for your buck. </div></div>
Bang for the buck yes, but the Redding Competition seater is a much better seater if concentricity matters to you. I know for a fact that concentricty matters to the bullet.
</div></div>
Actually the Redding Competition Seater is a copy of the Forster seater. They perform equally, and I'd much rather support the company that came up with the idea (Forster) rather than the one's who just copied it (Redding).
"If you don't know please don't post."
Forster seating dies are the best available IMO.
Re: redding dies
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 71firebird400</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: YAOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the .338LM get Redding Type S full length and a Forster Ultra Micro seater best bang for your buck. </div></div>
Bang for the buck yes, but the Redding Competition seater is a much better seater if concentricity matters to you. I know for a fact that concentricty matters to the bullet.
</div></div>
Actually the Redding Competition Seater is a copy of the Forster seater. They perform equally, and I'd much rather support the company that came up with the idea (Forster) rather than the one's who just copied it (Redding).
"If you don't know please don't post."
Forster seating dies are the best available IMO. </div></div>
And you know Redding copied Forster because you work for Redding and did the copying right?
If the Redding Comp seaters are just a copy of the Forsters then why do the Redding Comp seaters work differently and actually improve assembled rounds by reducing concentricity error where the Forster seaters simply don't add as much concentricy error as the other seaters tested? Have you seen these seaters taken apart and carefully compared them? I have and while of similar design in detail they differ and those details are what make the difference in concentricity error reduction vs just not adding as much error when bullet seating.
The Redding Comp seaters have been carefully tested by more than one source and found to seat bullets with less concentricity error actually reducing concentricity error than the next best seaters which were found to be the Forster mic. seaters. The best most comprehensive testing I know of on the web was done by German Salazr, look here: Seating Die Runout Article
Why do you think increased concentricity error is better? I know the bullets and targets prefer less concentricty error, what is your thinking as to why more error is better?
I prefer to use the best tools for the job and what is good enough for me is a constantly moving target. If by best you mean cheaper O.K. I'll give you that one. But if you mean the best at performing the job of seating bullets as accurately as possible maybe you should try a Redding Comp seater and see for yourself and then roll a few assembled rounds through a concentricy indicator before posting an opinion as to what is the best at performing the job of seating bullets.
If you are local to me here in the L.A. area I invite you to come and see for yourself on my bench. But come prepared to eat some crow. I'll provide the beer so it doesn't taste so bad on the way down.
HTH!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 71firebird400</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: YAOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the .338LM get Redding Type S full length and a Forster Ultra Micro seater best bang for your buck. </div></div>
Bang for the buck yes, but the Redding Competition seater is a much better seater if concentricity matters to you. I know for a fact that concentricty matters to the bullet.
</div></div>
Actually the Redding Competition Seater is a copy of the Forster seater. They perform equally, and I'd much rather support the company that came up with the idea (Forster) rather than the one's who just copied it (Redding).
"If you don't know please don't post."
Forster seating dies are the best available IMO. </div></div>
And you know Redding copied Forster because you work for Redding and did the copying right?
If the Redding Comp seaters are just a copy of the Forsters then why do the Redding Comp seaters work differently and actually improve assembled rounds by reducing concentricity error where the Forster seaters simply don't add as much concentricy error as the other seaters tested? Have you seen these seaters taken apart and carefully compared them? I have and while of similar design in detail they differ and those details are what make the difference in concentricity error reduction vs just not adding as much error when bullet seating.
The Redding Comp seaters have been carefully tested by more than one source and found to seat bullets with less concentricity error actually reducing concentricity error than the next best seaters which were found to be the Forster mic. seaters. The best most comprehensive testing I know of on the web was done by German Salazr, look here: Seating Die Runout Article
Why do you think increased concentricity error is better? I know the bullets and targets prefer less concentricty error, what is your thinking as to why more error is better?
I prefer to use the best tools for the job and what is good enough for me is a constantly moving target. If by best you mean cheaper O.K. I'll give you that one. But if you mean the best at performing the job of seating bullets as accurately as possible maybe you should try a Redding Comp seater and see for yourself and then roll a few assembled rounds through a concentricy indicator before posting an opinion as to what is the best at performing the job of seating bullets.
If you are local to me here in the L.A. area I invite you to come and see for yourself on my bench. But come prepared to eat some crow. I'll provide the beer so it doesn't taste so bad on the way down.
HTH!
Re: redding dies
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: YAOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 71firebird400</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: YAOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the .338LM get Redding Type S full length and a Forster Ultra Micro seater best bang for your buck. </div></div>
Bang for the buck yes, but the Redding Competition seater is a much better seater if concentricity matters to you. I know for a fact that concentricty matters to the bullet.
</div></div>
Actually the Redding Competition Seater is a copy of the Forster seater. They perform equally, and I'd much rather support the company that came up with the idea (Forster) rather than the one's who just copied it (Redding).
"If you don't know please don't post."
Forster seating dies are the best available IMO. </div></div>
And you know Redding copied Forster because you work for Redding and did the copying right?
If the Redding Comp seaters are just a copy of the Forsters then why do the Redding Comp seaters work differently and actually improve assembled rounds by reducing concentricity error where the Forster seaters simply don't add as much concentricy error as the other seaters tested? Have you seen these seaters taken apart and carefully compared them? I have and while of similar design in detail they differ and those details are what make the difference in concentricity error reduction vs just not adding as much error when bullet seating.
The Redding Comp seaters have been carefully tested by more than one source and found to seat bullets with less concentricity error actually reducing concentricity error than the next best seaters which were found to be the Forster mic. seaters. The best most comprehensive testing I know of on the web was done by German Salazr, look here: Seating Die Runout Article
Why do you think increased concentricity error is better? I know the bullets and targets prefer less concentricty error, what is your thinking as to why more error is better?
I prefer to use the best tools for the job and what is good enough for me is a constantly moving target. If by best you mean cheaper O.K. I'll give you that one. But if you mean the best at performing the job of seating bullets as accurately as possible maybe you should try a Redding Comp seater and see for yourself and then roll a few assembled rounds through a concentricy indicator before posting an opinion as to what is the best at performing the job of seating bullets.
If you are local to me here in the L.A. area I invite you to come and see for yourself on my bench. But come prepared to eat some crow. I'll provide the beer so it doesn't taste so bad on the way down.
HTH!
</div></div>
I have a great deal of respect for German Salazar, but that comparison you linked to has no mention of a Forster die. Did I miss something, or did you just cite an article that is entirely irrelevant to Forster vs Redding dies?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I have both dies and can't see a difference in runout when measuring a lot of 50 cartridges and averaging the numbers. The fact remains that Forster had this type of seating die before Redding; Redding merely imitated it later on.
To the OP, I'd recommend the Forster.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: YAOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 71firebird400</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: YAOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the .338LM get Redding Type S full length and a Forster Ultra Micro seater best bang for your buck. </div></div>
Bang for the buck yes, but the Redding Competition seater is a much better seater if concentricity matters to you. I know for a fact that concentricty matters to the bullet.
</div></div>
Actually the Redding Competition Seater is a copy of the Forster seater. They perform equally, and I'd much rather support the company that came up with the idea (Forster) rather than the one's who just copied it (Redding).
"If you don't know please don't post."
Forster seating dies are the best available IMO. </div></div>
And you know Redding copied Forster because you work for Redding and did the copying right?
If the Redding Comp seaters are just a copy of the Forsters then why do the Redding Comp seaters work differently and actually improve assembled rounds by reducing concentricity error where the Forster seaters simply don't add as much concentricy error as the other seaters tested? Have you seen these seaters taken apart and carefully compared them? I have and while of similar design in detail they differ and those details are what make the difference in concentricity error reduction vs just not adding as much error when bullet seating.
The Redding Comp seaters have been carefully tested by more than one source and found to seat bullets with less concentricity error actually reducing concentricity error than the next best seaters which were found to be the Forster mic. seaters. The best most comprehensive testing I know of on the web was done by German Salazr, look here: Seating Die Runout Article
Why do you think increased concentricity error is better? I know the bullets and targets prefer less concentricty error, what is your thinking as to why more error is better?
I prefer to use the best tools for the job and what is good enough for me is a constantly moving target. If by best you mean cheaper O.K. I'll give you that one. But if you mean the best at performing the job of seating bullets as accurately as possible maybe you should try a Redding Comp seater and see for yourself and then roll a few assembled rounds through a concentricy indicator before posting an opinion as to what is the best at performing the job of seating bullets.
If you are local to me here in the L.A. area I invite you to come and see for yourself on my bench. But come prepared to eat some crow. I'll provide the beer so it doesn't taste so bad on the way down.
HTH!
</div></div>
I have a great deal of respect for German Salazar, but that comparison you linked to has no mention of a Forster die. Did I miss something, or did you just cite an article that is entirely irrelevant to Forster vs Redding dies?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I have both dies and can't see a difference in runout when measuring a lot of 50 cartridges and averaging the numbers. The fact remains that Forster had this type of seating die before Redding; Redding merely imitated it later on.
To the OP, I'd recommend the Forster.
Re: redding dies
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 71firebird400</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have a great deal of respect for German Salazar, but that comparison you linked to has no mention of a Forster die. Did I miss something, or did you just cite an article that is entirely irrelevant to Forster vs Redding dies?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I have both dies and can't see a difference in runout when measuring a lot of 50 cartridges and averaging the numbers. The fact remains that Forster had this type of seating die before Redding; Redding merely imitated it later on.
To the OP, I'd recommend the Forster. </div></div>
71firebird400,
My appolgies I am incorrect on the seaters in the linked article. I was reading Forster and thinking Wilson. I know they are not the same and the article compared among others the Wilson arbor seater which is widely held in high regard.
I have taken an older original Forster seater apart and while they share some similar basic design ideas with the Redding Comp. seaters as I mentioned they do differ in execution and a few important details which I think make a difference. Maybe not as much as the differences between the Redding Comp and simpler Wilson seater though.
Please let me refresh my memory here. As I recall the old non Ultra mic. Forster seater had a threaded stem which had a cavity for the bullet to enter and the surface for bullet seating was precision ground or reamed inside the threaded stem. The threaded seater stem was locked into position buy a knurled jam nut on top of the upper die body which also retained the spring for the precision reamed sliding sleeve which slides within the lower seater which is threaded into the press. Is this about right?
I Have not seen one of the Ultra mic Foster seaters yet bu would think the micrometer version uses the same stem system with a fixed seater stem but in place of the fixed upper die body a micrometer adjustable body was added to allow the seater height to be varied. The micrometer body would still be used to capture the spring for the sliding sleeve and operationally the micrometer version is functionally the same as the original style Foster seater.
So here are the similarities between the original Foster and Redding Comp seaters. First both bullet seaters are press mounted and use a sliding sleeve to support the case body and neck as much as possilbe during seating. How much support contact the case body and neck have with the sliding sleeve is determied by how closely the body die used to size the case matches up with the sliding seater sleeve. I would think that both companies use similarly dimensioned reamers for both their sizing dies and their respective seater's sliding sleeve. So if you are using Foster full length sizing dies the sliding sleeve should allow for good case and neck support as would be the case with Redding dies and seater support sleeves. I'm using a Redding Type S Match F/L sizing die for the final body and neck size. Are you using Foster sizing dies?
Second they both use a micrometer to adjust seating depth of the bullet at or near the bullet ogive. As far as I can tell these are the only similarities between these two bullet seaters.
Where these seaters differ is in the details and execution. The Foster seating stem is fixed and cannot float to self center itself and the bullet like the Redding Comp seater does. The Redding Comp's free floaing seater stongly aligns and centers the bullet using the trapped air pressure within the floating seater before the seater ever comes into contact with the micrometer contact point which results in the bullets being very well centered once seated.
The Redding micrometer head is not directly attached or fixed to the seating stem. The Redding Comp seating stem is isolated using a ball bearing for a single point of contact with a precision ground contact point on the top of the seater which makes the system very tollerant of any misalignment between the micrometer head, die body, sliding/floating seater and sliding body sleeve. This is to say that if there is any error in the micrometer head's vertical travel path the seater remains isolated form it and cannot be affected by this misalignment.
Don't average the runout look for the width of the deviation. This is where you will see the difference in group spreads.
As you know details can and usually do make the difference between good and the best. I own and use a few Forster reloading tools but for a seating die IMO the Redding Comp design will work as well or better more of the time for longer.
HTH!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 71firebird400</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have a great deal of respect for German Salazar, but that comparison you linked to has no mention of a Forster die. Did I miss something, or did you just cite an article that is entirely irrelevant to Forster vs Redding dies?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I have both dies and can't see a difference in runout when measuring a lot of 50 cartridges and averaging the numbers. The fact remains that Forster had this type of seating die before Redding; Redding merely imitated it later on.
To the OP, I'd recommend the Forster. </div></div>
71firebird400,
My appolgies I am incorrect on the seaters in the linked article. I was reading Forster and thinking Wilson. I know they are not the same and the article compared among others the Wilson arbor seater which is widely held in high regard.
I have taken an older original Forster seater apart and while they share some similar basic design ideas with the Redding Comp. seaters as I mentioned they do differ in execution and a few important details which I think make a difference. Maybe not as much as the differences between the Redding Comp and simpler Wilson seater though.
Please let me refresh my memory here. As I recall the old non Ultra mic. Forster seater had a threaded stem which had a cavity for the bullet to enter and the surface for bullet seating was precision ground or reamed inside the threaded stem. The threaded seater stem was locked into position buy a knurled jam nut on top of the upper die body which also retained the spring for the precision reamed sliding sleeve which slides within the lower seater which is threaded into the press. Is this about right?
I Have not seen one of the Ultra mic Foster seaters yet bu would think the micrometer version uses the same stem system with a fixed seater stem but in place of the fixed upper die body a micrometer adjustable body was added to allow the seater height to be varied. The micrometer body would still be used to capture the spring for the sliding sleeve and operationally the micrometer version is functionally the same as the original style Foster seater.
So here are the similarities between the original Foster and Redding Comp seaters. First both bullet seaters are press mounted and use a sliding sleeve to support the case body and neck as much as possilbe during seating. How much support contact the case body and neck have with the sliding sleeve is determied by how closely the body die used to size the case matches up with the sliding seater sleeve. I would think that both companies use similarly dimensioned reamers for both their sizing dies and their respective seater's sliding sleeve. So if you are using Foster full length sizing dies the sliding sleeve should allow for good case and neck support as would be the case with Redding dies and seater support sleeves. I'm using a Redding Type S Match F/L sizing die for the final body and neck size. Are you using Foster sizing dies?
Second they both use a micrometer to adjust seating depth of the bullet at or near the bullet ogive. As far as I can tell these are the only similarities between these two bullet seaters.
Where these seaters differ is in the details and execution. The Foster seating stem is fixed and cannot float to self center itself and the bullet like the Redding Comp seater does. The Redding Comp's free floaing seater stongly aligns and centers the bullet using the trapped air pressure within the floating seater before the seater ever comes into contact with the micrometer contact point which results in the bullets being very well centered once seated.
The Redding micrometer head is not directly attached or fixed to the seating stem. The Redding Comp seating stem is isolated using a ball bearing for a single point of contact with a precision ground contact point on the top of the seater which makes the system very tollerant of any misalignment between the micrometer head, die body, sliding/floating seater and sliding body sleeve. This is to say that if there is any error in the micrometer head's vertical travel path the seater remains isolated form it and cannot be affected by this misalignment.
Don't average the runout look for the width of the deviation. This is where you will see the difference in group spreads.
As you know details can and usually do make the difference between good and the best. I own and use a few Forster reloading tools but for a seating die IMO the Redding Comp design will work as well or better more of the time for longer.
HTH!
