For those who may be interested:
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/09/reloading-seating-die-runout.html
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/09/reloading-seating-die-runout.html
- Thread starter Winchester 69
- Start date
Re: Seating Die Test
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link.
Re: Seating Die Test
You're welcome. I'm curious about the vintage of the RCBS die.
You're welcome. I'm curious about the vintage of the RCBS die.
Re: Seating Die Test
That's a good article.
That's a good article.
Re: Seating Die Test
No mention of how many cartridges were processed with each die... but interesting anyway.
No mention of how many cartridges were processed with each die... but interesting anyway.
Re: Seating Die Test
It's an interesting article but it's totally useless as information.
Statistically, rating a single example of anything means nothing, it has the same validity as "zeroing" a hunting rifle with one shot. We all know it takes at least five shots for a group to mean anything at all, a twenty shot group is MUCH a more valid indicator. Ditto a single seater doesn't tell us anything about the average quality of any die brand or type.
In over 45 years of handloading, that author is the first I've EVER heard of claiming to accurately gage bullet run out to tiny fragments of less than half a thousanth! Nor can I imagine any reloader having a sufficently accurate tool to do that level of measurements with.
But his article IS worth an amused smile!
It's an interesting article but it's totally useless as information.
Statistically, rating a single example of anything means nothing, it has the same validity as "zeroing" a hunting rifle with one shot. We all know it takes at least five shots for a group to mean anything at all, a twenty shot group is MUCH a more valid indicator. Ditto a single seater doesn't tell us anything about the average quality of any die brand or type.
In over 45 years of handloading, that author is the first I've EVER heard of claiming to accurately gage bullet run out to tiny fragments of less than half a thousanth! Nor can I imagine any reloader having a sufficently accurate tool to do that level of measurements with.
But his article IS worth an amused smile!
Re: Seating Die Test
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Winchester 69</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm curious about the vintage of the RCBS die. </div></div>
German says it's about 10 years old, but practically unused. Are the newer ones made in China?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Winchester 69</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm curious about the vintage of the RCBS die. </div></div>
German says it's about 10 years old, but practically unused. Are the newer ones made in China?
Re: Seating Die Test
Fuzzball,
The author did not claim individual measurements to less than half a thousandth; in fact, he explicitly wrote to the contrary in the article.
His averages (over several rounds) were smaller than half a thousandth, but numerical averages (involving division) will do that. The averages are figures of merit, and are not used as a predictor of specific individual measurements.
I wish he had tested a Forster seating die, and more than one copy of each seating die, but there are practical limits to such tests performed by individuals, and his effort is much appreciated, at least by me.
Andy
Fuzzball,
The author did not claim individual measurements to less than half a thousandth; in fact, he explicitly wrote to the contrary in the article.
His averages (over several rounds) were smaller than half a thousandth, but numerical averages (involving division) will do that. The averages are figures of merit, and are not used as a predictor of specific individual measurements.
I wish he had tested a Forster seating die, and more than one copy of each seating die, but there are practical limits to such tests performed by individuals, and his effort is much appreciated, at least by me.
Andy
Re: Seating Die Test
.
.
Re: Seating Die Test
i'm kinda new an the info is over my head somewhat but shouldn't the test have been done first by annealing the brass
i didn't notice whether or not he did .. maybe i mist something but after 4 firings i'd the brass has been worked a bit ?
i did ejoy the artical an came away with some new info though....
i'm kinda new an the info is over my head somewhat but shouldn't the test have been done first by annealing the brass
i didn't notice whether or not he did .. maybe i mist something but after 4 firings i'd the brass has been worked a bit ?
i did ejoy the artical an came away with some new info though....
Re: Seating Die Test
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is it just my small brain, didn't the Wilson have the smallest average of .00015? </div></div>
Cobra, the Wilson increased RO by that amount on avg, whereas the Redding seemed to reduce it.
I'd like to see him do a sizer die test as well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is it just my small brain, didn't the Wilson have the smallest average of .00015? </div></div>
Cobra, the Wilson increased RO by that amount on avg, whereas the Redding seemed to reduce it.
I'd like to see him do a sizer die test as well.
Re: Seating Die Test
tag
tag
Re: Seating Die Test
"Fuzzball,The author did not claim individual measurements to less than half a thousandth; in fact, he explicitly wrote to the contrary in the article. His averages (over several rounds) were smaller than half a thousandth, ..."
Jake, perhaps you are correct, but I don't believe he could have attained that average, not as he states it anyway. I WOULD believe ten times as much as he says, but consider his result:
1st - "The Redding, with an Average Runout Change of -0.0003"
2nd - "Wilson Average Runout Change: +0.00015"
3rd - "RCBS Average Runout Change: +0.00025"
(I want to note those are copied quotes, lifted intact from his article.)
I read the artical five times trying to make sense of it. What did I miss?
Doesn't it strike you odd that his proclaimed "winning" seater, Redding at 3 tenths, average, has twice the run-out of the second place Wilson at 1.5 tenths, average, and 50 tenths more than the third place RCBS? There's more wrong in all that that simply a slipped decimal!
Maybe I'm dense and the only one puzzled but I have no idea what the author was trying to convey or what his tests actually mean. Perhaps someone else could explain what he really meant?
"Fuzzball,The author did not claim individual measurements to less than half a thousandth; in fact, he explicitly wrote to the contrary in the article. His averages (over several rounds) were smaller than half a thousandth, ..."
Jake, perhaps you are correct, but I don't believe he could have attained that average, not as he states it anyway. I WOULD believe ten times as much as he says, but consider his result:
1st - "The Redding, with an Average Runout Change of -0.0003"
2nd - "Wilson Average Runout Change: +0.00015"
3rd - "RCBS Average Runout Change: +0.00025"
(I want to note those are copied quotes, lifted intact from his article.)
I read the artical five times trying to make sense of it. What did I miss?
Doesn't it strike you odd that his proclaimed "winning" seater, Redding at 3 tenths, average, has twice the run-out of the second place Wilson at 1.5 tenths, average, and 50 tenths more than the third place RCBS? There's more wrong in all that that simply a slipped decimal!
Maybe I'm dense and the only one puzzled but I have no idea what the author was trying to convey or what his tests actually mean. Perhaps someone else could explain what he really meant?
Re: Seating Die Test
Agreed now that I look at it again. I didn't look that close the first time, just skimmed it, checked it for adequate scientific process, found none, and looked at the numbers and decided any runnout with three zeroes in front doesn't matter to me anyway.
Kind of like developing a load by shooting 3 shot groups. Pretty much a waste of time.
Agreed now that I look at it again. I didn't look that close the first time, just skimmed it, checked it for adequate scientific process, found none, and looked at the numbers and decided any runnout with three zeroes in front doesn't matter to me anyway.
Kind of like developing a load by shooting 3 shot groups. Pretty much a waste of time.
Re: Seating Die Test
not to hi-jack but....has anyone used the rcbs black competition die set with the micrometer bullet seater? i am thinking of giving it a try and thought i would ask.
not to hi-jack but....has anyone used the rcbs black competition die set with the micrometer bullet seater? i am thinking of giving it a try and thought i would ask.
Re: Seating Die Test
The averages given are of the change in runout as measured before and after seating. So a negative average indicates the seating die actually improved the runout from the sizing die (on average, not necessarily every single one was improved), whereas a positive number indicates the seating die added to the runout from the sizing die (again, on average, individual bullets may/will be different).
I agree, he does not say how many samples he had, and that would be good info to have.
It would also be nice to see the std deviation of the set, so as to give an indication of how close to the average score any future individual bullet measurements from the same process could be expected to occur. A large standard deviation indicates a process that is not repeatable, and that it is unlikely that individual scores would be near the average score. In statistics, an average does not mean much without the accompanying SD. Think of SD as a figure of merit for "margin of error" for the average. For example if I have three scores of 9, 10 & 11, the average is 10, the same as if I had three scores of 1, 10 & 19. But the SD for the set of 9, 10 & 11 is much lower (better).
Andy
The averages given are of the change in runout as measured before and after seating. So a negative average indicates the seating die actually improved the runout from the sizing die (on average, not necessarily every single one was improved), whereas a positive number indicates the seating die added to the runout from the sizing die (again, on average, individual bullets may/will be different).
I agree, he does not say how many samples he had, and that would be good info to have.
It would also be nice to see the std deviation of the set, so as to give an indication of how close to the average score any future individual bullet measurements from the same process could be expected to occur. A large standard deviation indicates a process that is not repeatable, and that it is unlikely that individual scores would be near the average score. In statistics, an average does not mean much without the accompanying SD. Think of SD as a figure of merit for "margin of error" for the average. For example if I have three scores of 9, 10 & 11, the average is 10, the same as if I had three scores of 1, 10 & 19. But the SD for the set of 9, 10 & 11 is much lower (better).
Andy
Re: Seating Die Test
Cheapscape never gives me photo credits. I took the pic at the bottom of the article.
Fuzzball, German does a reasonable job overall about applying scientific method to his testing and articles. How about you post some links to your work and we'll all evaluate them in comparison.
I have the Precision Shooting Annual book from 1998. In there is an article on how to tweak RCBS sizers and seaters and get absolutely great results from these inexpensive dies. It does not surprise me that the stock die turned in good results.
Cheapscape never gives me photo credits. I took the pic at the bottom of the article.
Fuzzball, German does a reasonable job overall about applying scientific method to his testing and articles. How about you post some links to your work and we'll all evaluate them in comparison.
I have the Precision Shooting Annual book from 1998. In there is an article on how to tweak RCBS sizers and seaters and get absolutely great results from these inexpensive dies. It does not surprise me that the stock die turned in good results.
Re: Seating Die Test
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fx77</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dgunn I have used the RCBS set as you describe on 308 and found it excellent and my measured runout is to more than acceptable tolerances. </div></div>
thx
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fx77</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dgunn I have used the RCBS set as you describe on 308 and found it excellent and my measured runout is to more than acceptable tolerances. </div></div>
thx
Re: Seating Die Test
"Fuzzball, German does a reasonable job overall about applying scientific method to his testing and articles. How about you post some links to your work and we'll all evaluate them in comparison."
That's nice. And I have no such work, as I'm sure you suspect, but I don't present myself as an expert.
NOW, and as I suggested originally, perhaps I'm wrong. But do you see some point of error in my concerns about the "reasonable overall...scientific method...to his testing" that we could rationally discuss? Or are such questions off-base?
"Fuzzball, German does a reasonable job overall about applying scientific method to his testing and articles. How about you post some links to your work and we'll all evaluate them in comparison."
That's nice. And I have no such work, as I'm sure you suspect, but I don't present myself as an expert.
NOW, and as I suggested originally, perhaps I'm wrong. But do you see some point of error in my concerns about the "reasonable overall...scientific method...to his testing" that we could rationally discuss? Or are such questions off-base?
Similar threads
