The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 27, 2011, 02:39 PM   #1
jhansman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2007
Posts: 680
Your experience with competition seating dies?

In reading up on these, I am learning a little about bullet runout. How many of you use special seating dies for your target rifles, and would you say the investment has been worth it? I'm willing to give them a try, but would like to hear from those of you who can say with some degree of certainty that this kind of die has improved your grouping. Many thanks.
__________________
Blessed is the man who has nothing to say, and cannot be compelled to say it.
jhansman is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 02:44 PM   #2
zfk55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2009
Location: Lost Prairie Montana
Posts: 391
Redding Comp dies, bushing type for us. The Comp seater is well worth the money for us. We've moved a lot of our calibers to that sort of a setup.
Seat depth adjustment is no longer a continual back and forth till we're happy.

Latigo
zfk55 is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 03:43 PM   #3
IllinoisCoyoteHunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2008
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 1,527
I have heard that the Redding is top quality.

I use an RCBS Comp seater dies for .243 Win. Seating is a dream, BUT supposedly it does not do as well at lowering or eliminating bullet runout like the Redding does. This is what I have heard and unfortunately I have not bucked up the money for a runout gauge.
__________________
~~IllinoisCoyoteHunter~~

~NRA LIFE MEMBER~
~NRA CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR~
IllinoisCoyoteHunter is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 04:04 PM   #4
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,210
Quote:
I have heard that the Redding is top quality.
And it is (I run them for 4 different cartridges).

I also discovered last month that Forster's Comp Dies are no less quality, and have a larger seating depth adjustment knob which assists in dialing in specific numbers.
mehavey is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 04:13 PM   #5
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,171
Im a Redding match die man

WildobabyimamatchdiemanAlaska ™©2002-2011
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 04:34 PM   #6
jhansman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2007
Posts: 680
Sounds like Redding is the clear choice, but I am intrigued by the bullet insertion method the RCBS Gold Match die uses. Any comments on this?
__________________
Blessed is the man who has nothing to say, and cannot be compelled to say it.
jhansman is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 07:44 PM   #7
TheNatureBoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2007
Posts: 1,204
I have a RCBS Comp. bullet seating die but haven't used it. I use a standard/basic set of lee dies and press and run out has been minimal.
TheNatureBoy is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 07:46 PM   #8
603Country
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2011
Location: Thornton, Texas
Posts: 4,039
I have a Redding comp seating die for my 220 Swift and an RCBS Comp seating die for my 223. The 220 shoots rings around anything else I have. I have spent more money on the 220 to make it shoot good, so maybe the die has nothing much to do with it. But...I am very tempted to get the Redding seating die for my 223, and if that tightens up groups, then get the Redding for the rest of the rifles. I'll probably do that, just because I need to know if the die makes that much difference. Otherwise I'll always wonder...
603Country is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 07:47 PM   #9
Ozzieman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 6,117
Im a Redding match die man
+1
I purchased my first one from Redding about 7 years ago and have replaced each and every rifle seating die with Redding Comp dies.
What I like the most about them is the dial caliper accuracy of setting bullet depth.
Ozzieman is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 07:55 PM   #10
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
Seaters come in two places: First place is a tie between the Forster BR an Redding Comp. All the rest are tied for second place.

The calibrated heads are user conviences, they add nothing to the finished reload's accuracy. That said, the average difference between seaters is pretty small.

Actually, most conventional seaters are pretty good and if the tolerances stack correctly any one of them can do just as well as the more costly types bu that is uncommon.

Without a concentricity gage no one can tell if any individiual seater is better or worse than another. Target test groups add the effects of the shooter, rifle, wind, etc, so finding the terminal effect of any specific degree of runout can get lost in the total noise. But, if we can't see any difference on target there is no meaningful difference at all is there?

I think the RCBS side loading seaters with a window are cute. The idea was invented in the 60s, Vickerman and Herter's had the same design and they were not very successful in the market. RCBS copied them, put them in a pretty wood box and charge a young fortune for them but I've NEVER heard anyone claiming any improved accuracy with them.

Last edited by wncchester; June 27, 2011 at 08:04 PM.
wncchester is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 08:09 PM   #11
amamnn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2006
Location: WA, the left armpit of the USA
Posts: 1,323
I use the Redding dies as a lot of match shooters do to reduce the very slight "runout" that can be introduced by low tolerance seating dies. I also use Forster dies for the same purpose. It must also be said that seating dies cannot be used to correct problems created in earlier processes--such as sizing--or in later processes--such as chambering.


If you use a press that works correctly and axially to produce a round that chambers in a rifle that has been built to chamber that round axially correct, then you will have the best mechanical result possible. What you do with it is the real question. More fliers go astray every year due to pilot error or loose rifle tolerances than all the seating dies ever built since the dawn of time ever caused.
amamnn is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 08:26 PM   #12
jhansman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2007
Posts: 680
Quote:
I think the RCBS side loading seaters with a window are cute. The idea was invented in the 60s, Vickerman and Herter's had the same design and they were not very successful in the market. RCBS copied them, put them in a pretty wood box and charge a young fortune for them but I've NEVER heard anyone claiming any improved accuracy with them.
Yeah, it seems a trifle gimmicky to me, but never having used a comp. die before, so what do I know? Think I'll save up for either the Redding or Forster. Many thanks.
__________________
Blessed is the man who has nothing to say, and cannot be compelled to say it.
jhansman is offline  
Old June 27, 2011, 10:52 PM   #13
snuffy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2001
Location: Oshkosh wi.
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
I think the RCBS side loading seaters with a window are cute. The idea was invented in the 60s, Vickerman and Herter's had the same design and they were not very successful in the market. RCBS copied them, put them in a pretty wood box and charge a young fortune for them but I've NEVER heard anyone claiming any improved accuracy with them.
The RCBS window seater is junk! The separate shell holder won't work in some presses,(like the forster co-ax). I bought one to minimize runout I was experiencing with my .223 loading. It was NOT the brass/case, so it was the seater causing the trouble. I was using both the lee and Hornady seaters. The RCBS actually made worse runnout than the other two!

I then researched on several forums, AR,(accurate reloading), being the deciding factor. They said the forster was the same basic design as redding for much less money. So I bought the forster. It seats bullets with less than .001 runnout consistently with an occasional .002!
snuffy is offline  
Old June 28, 2011, 04:13 AM   #14
old roper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Posts: 2,164
Years ago Ponsness/Warren made a side load seating die they sell you the die body and you could buy the inserts/stems for different calibers. If you let the shell holder float you have very little run out haven't used them in years.

When I started shooting BR we only had custom/Wilson/Jones arbor seater/bushing dies this was back late 70's early 80's.

I use a Wilson/Jones arbor seater for all my calibers haven't used a standard type seater in about 25yrs. I get very little run out so it's not a big concern to me for accuracy most time I find neck tension/seating depth effects the accuracy in my rifle.

My set up allows me to load at the range and what I load at home for my deer/elk rifles plus varmit rifles I still use the arbor seaters.

A set of Wilson dies runs alittle over $100 plus bushing and Jones over $200 plus extra bushing they come with one for the sizer and seater. I can buy blank Wilson dies and have gunsmith use the chamber reamers so that run good $200.

Hard for me to say how I be reloading or what I'd be using had I not got into Br. I'm gald to see Redding and others with better dies it's give everyone a chance to learn and make better ammo for their rifles
old roper is offline  
Old June 28, 2011, 10:39 AM   #15
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
Once we get into "BR" type seaters the cases themselves become very important. NO seater can make straight ammo if the case & neck is not near perfect and few are.
wncchester is offline  
Old June 28, 2011, 11:27 AM   #16
Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 4,678
If you measure where run out gets introduced in your reloading process, it will be almost all the expander ball being used in the sizing step. Expect 0.0040" of run out at the bullet ogive while turning on the case shoulder and case base.

After that, the error introduced by the worst seater is ~ 8X less important.
Expect a bad seater to introduce 0.0005' run out.

Clarence E Purdie in 1967 patented the sliding sleeve seater die.
Gopher Shooters supply had the patent, then Bonanza, and finally Forster.
It finally came off patent, and now Redding, RCBS, and Hornady are making them too, besides Forster.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3440923.pdf

By taking the expander ball out of the cheapest set of RCBS dies, I have shot a 1" 5 shot group at 100 yards with a $50 surplus Mauser.

A better seater die is not going to change that rifle's group size, but it is important for bench rest competitors.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Patent seater die.jpg (171.1 KB, 21 views)
Clark is offline  
Old June 28, 2011, 11:28 AM   #17
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,743
The Redding is the top choice, IMHO, with the Forster micrometer version a close second. When the patent expired in the late 80's, Redding got a patent that combined the sliding sleeve with a self-centering floating seating stem, which addresses one potential misalignment mode that can still occur in the original Forster design. One advantage Forster has is they make a less expensive, non-micrometer version of their design is available for those on a budget.

I got the Redding for .30-06 some time around 1990, IIRC. I'd been using a standard Redding seater until then and seen up to 0.008" TIR (total indicated runout; this number is what you see on a dial indicator, but because the indicator sees it added to the centerline on one side and subtracted from it on the other, it is twice the actual bullet tilt off axis). The first ones through the new competition seater were almost all under 0.001" TIR, and the few that were .002" I was able to verify had necks that were .002" thicker on one side that the other. It wasn't too long after that I had a .308, .223, and .222 version. More recently I indulged in a .45-70, which is one of the newer design for straight-wall cases. With no shoulder to push it forward, the straight was version does not use a sliding sleeve, but instead has a spring-loaded seating stem that straightens the bullet as the case comes up, then compresses until it stops on the micrometer and begins the actual seating. Very clever.

Note that sliding sleeve seater instructions say these seaters are not intended for compressed loads. A compressed load can swell the case as the bullet pushes in and stick it in the sleeve. The precision tool also may not like the extra force on it.

The big question is how much difference does all this make on target? Surprisingly, the answer seems to be that the looser your chamber and cartridge case fit, the more you benefit. Harold Vaughn showed 0.004" of tilt (0.008" TIR) in a very tight 6mm-BR benchrest gun with tight chamber neck for cases neck-turned to fit, would open the groups up less than 0.2 moa. A. A. Abbattiello, in the out of print NRA book, Handloading, fired 829 round of gauged and sorted National Match ammunition (new LC or FA ammo fired in a match rifle; most likely a match accurized Springfield '03). He found that same 0.004" of tilt would open groups up a full moa. Beyond 0.004" of tilt, the error ceased to increase much, as apparently the bullets would self-align enough in the bore to correct any larger tilt errors.

So, bottom line, if your gun's chamber doesn't have a custom size reduced diameter neck that you turn your case necks to fit within half to one thousandth loaded clearance, and particularly if the cases are full length resized for feed, then, ensuring the bullets are seated straight in can make a significant improvement at the target. But, as with all things ballistic, YMMV. Your bullet choice may self-align better (moly bullets do, for example, according to Walt Berger); your throat shape may self-align your bullet better than average. So there's no guarantee it'll make a big difference. But it sure won't hurt anything to have them straighter, so there's no downside that I'm aware of.

I did not, back when I started using these things, have good awareness of the neck issues mentioned by Wncchester and Clark. They make an important point about the neck limiting seater potential. I know John Feamster found, in his setup, a standard RCBS seater did better for him than either the RCBS competition seater or the Wilson straight line arbor press seater (see: Precision Shooting Reloading Guide). So it seems nothing is sacred. You pays your nickel and takes your chances. On the other hand, Forster says their die handles about 90% of bullets, but the other 10% need a custom seating stem profile. Redding's new universal micrometer adapters for their standard seating dies comes with either a standard or a VLD shape seating stem recess, so apparently nothing is truly universal here. I don't know if Redding makes a separate VLD stem for the Competition seaters.


Snuffy,

For about $15, Forster makes an adapter to let you use standard shell holders on the Co-ax press. Midway has them. Others probably do as well.

Nick
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

Last edited by Unclenick; June 28, 2011 at 11:40 AM.
Unclenick is offline  
Old June 28, 2011, 01:01 PM   #18
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,171
Nick you are a reloading god

WildbowsinhumbleappreciationAlaska ™©2002-2011
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 28, 2011, 02:29 PM   #19
jhansman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2007
Posts: 680
Wow. My head is spinning. These loads (60gr Sierra Varminter, 22.7 gr. H322) are in Lapua brass that is fire formed and only gets neck sized until it gets too long. Thus far, out of my Howa 1500, accuracy has been good to excellent at 100 yds., and I guess the only way I can know if my stock seating die is causing run out is to either gauge it or use a comp. die and see if my groups improve, or both. I'm trying not to be too anal about all this, as I do not shoot competitively. Seems easy to get caught up in trying to eliminate any variable we can.
__________________
Blessed is the man who has nothing to say, and cannot be compelled to say it.
jhansman is offline  
Old June 28, 2011, 02:31 PM   #20
old roper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Posts: 2,164
wncchester, I'm not sure you have ever use a Wilson seater otherwise you know that the seater is SAAMI spec in their standard calibers. I will agree they are favorite by the Br shooters and regular non match shooters otherwise why would the make for the 17rem,17 Ackley Hornet,22 Hornet,22-250,22-250AI 223AI,25-06 30-30,270win 280,280AI,7x57,7STW,264mag,7mag 325WSM,338mag,300SA mag, 30-06,243,243AI,6Rem,6RemAI,250 Savage.300 Savage,300 Ultra mag, 25WSSM,6.5x55 ,30-40 Krag,8mm Mag,35Whelen etc.
old roper is offline  
Old June 28, 2011, 08:13 PM   #21
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
Nick: "Beyond 0.004" of tilt, the error ceased to increase much, as apparently the bullets would self-align enough in the bore to correct any larger tilt errors."

I suspect the correction after 4 thou of runout was due to the tight chamber, it would force/bend any greater tilt straighter as the cartridge entered the chamber.


Roper: "I'm not sure you have ever use a Wilson seater otherwise you know that the seater is SAAMI spec in their standard calibers."

I have not, therefore I don't address Wilson seaters other than occasionally and very casually as an option for those who may be interested in them. (I'm not.) So far as I KNOW, all commercially marketed seaters are made to accomidate SAAMI spec cartridges if such specs exist (meaning non-wildcat). While it's certain that Wilson, et al, hand seaters are 'competition' dies, few of the people who ask about comp dies on these forums are thinking of them, the experienced guys KNOW about hand seaters so those who ask here are thinking of threaded dies for use in a conventional press.

Some people will buy anything at almost any cost if they think it may help their accuracy, valid hope or not. Wilson and others will understandably make and sell what people will buy so the long seater availablity list you cite indicates nothing, of itself, very significant to me.

Last edited by wncchester; June 28, 2011 at 08:29 PM.
wncchester is offline  
Old June 28, 2011, 10:54 PM   #22
old roper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Posts: 2,164
Wncchester, my first post was in reply to the OP question case you forgot here it is " How many of you use special seating dies for your target rifles, and would you say the investment has been worth it? I'm willing to give them a try, but would like to hear from those of you who can say with some degree of certainty that this kind of die has improved your grouping. Many thanks. "


I think I did answer that since I use special seating dies and I gave a cost break-down. I understand your not interested but my first post wasn't to you.

Last time I checked a Redding comp seater was $95 depending on calibers up to $145. Sinclair has the Wilson standard seat which I use @ $50. same their bushing die plus bushing.

As you said "Some people will buy anything at almost any cost if they think it may help their accuracy, valid hope or not." I haven't used a Redding Comp seater pretty expensive seater if you ask me. My Jones seater for the 30-378Wby ran $110. less than the Redding comp @ 145. and the 300Wby Redding comp seater @ $95 would be alittle cheaper than the Jones at $110.
old roper is offline  
Old June 28, 2011, 11:23 PM   #23
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
"the Redding comp @ 145."

You're looking at the wrong sources.
wncchester is offline  
Old June 29, 2011, 03:40 PM   #24
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,743
jhansman,

Let me spin your head just slightly more. If you’ll bear with me, I promise a little insight into how shooters fool themselves about the significance of different loading variables. That may give you a sense of why an absolute answer to your question is hard to come by.

Contrary to first impression, the variables that introduce group error don’t add unilaterally. For that to happen, the two shots furthest apart would have, by coincidence, to be the same shots for all the contributing sources of error and to be so in the same order and direction. It’s a low probability event. Instead, combined errors add up as the square root of the sum of the squares of the contributing error source group sizes, on average.

The problem this causes is small improvements can easily look like no improvement at all to the casual observer. From the formula, if you have a one inch source of error and add in a source that would, in isolation, open a one-holer up to ¼”, the new group is only:

√(1² + 0.25²) = 1.0307” average group diameter

Conversely, if the combined group is 1”, then fixing a contributing error source that would cause ¼” group diameter in isolation only results in:

√(1² - 0.25²) = 0.9682” average group diameter

The combined group size changes so little, it is easy to figure it is just random error because your groups likely change more than that from one to the next, anyway. It can require the application of some statistical tools to tell to a certainty that a real improvement has been achieved at all. That is, until you get the other sources of error down, then the improvement will be bigger and more obvious.

So, here’s the vicious cycle a reloader can get into: You eliminate a variable, but don’t see an obvious difference, so you stop bothering to eliminate it. Now you eliminate another variable and the same thing happens, so you don’t bother eliminating that one anymore, either. If your group error comes from the combination of a lot of little variables, you may then erroneously conclude nothing you do to eliminate variables matters, and you’ve reached the limit of what the gun will do, whereas accumulating those improvements would have lead to something consistently better. Or, maybe in your testing you would finally come across a dominant error contributor and get your groups down to half an inch, but still think those other small corrections did nothing. In reality, once the dominant problem was fixed, if the previously useless corrections were revisited, they’d now show a measureable improvement.

Every year, thousands of handloaders fool themselves into thinking things don’t matter that do, or that this, that, or the other reloading improvement isn’t helpful, when, in reality, they are letting the improvement be covered up.

So, what will happen in your gun when you eliminate bullet runout isn’t something anyone can tell you up front without knowing the other sources of error. Like I said earlier, you pays your nickel and you takes your chances. But if you get enough other error sources eliminated from your gun and ammunition, the improvement will then tell, for sure.


Wncchester,

I think the maximum tilt significance has to do with its contribution to how much bullet tilt is maintained as the bullet goes down the tube. That results in wobble in flight since the bullet mass is made asymmetrical about the spin axis as a result. Indeed, Abbatiello’s article makes a calculation of expected dispersion on target from that in-bore tilt angle and gets good agreement with his real results.

If you recover them from a backstop, you can see on some bullets the land engravings mark a little farther forward on one side than the other. That indicates in-bore tilt. The bigger you try to make that angle, the more engraving or swaging force is required to force the bullet’s elliptical angled profile into the throat. As you increase that force, the bullet tends to follow the path of least resistance by self-aligning its round cross-section with the bore. To a small percentage, it never gets there quite 100%, and what remains is in-bore tilt.

Obviously, this limit on on-bore tilt would depend on the hardness of the bullet and the length of its bearing surface going in. I expect it is a major reason cast bullets are more susceptible to initial alignment issues than jacketed bullets are, being softer. It also suggests short bearing surface bullets should be more susceptible than long bearing surface bullets, having less total metal to distort for a given angle.

Abbatiello’s bullets were the 173 grain match FMJ’s the military used to make. It would be interesting to rerun the experiment with short bearing surface, short ogive bullets to see if the 0.004” maximum number increased.

Nick
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

Last edited by Unclenick; June 29, 2011 at 05:25 PM. Reason: typo fix
Unclenick is offline  
Old June 29, 2011, 04:54 PM   #25
603Country
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2011
Location: Thornton, Texas
Posts: 4,039
This particular post brings home to me the thought that the more I learn about the handloading/accuracy process and the smarter I get, the more I realize how little I really know. I'll have to be content with being the best reloader/shooter for a half mile in any direction (I live in the country).
603Country is offline  
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2025 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08312 seconds with 8 queries