Progressive vs. Match Grade Pistol Ammo
- Thread starter ncav8tor
- Start date
- Replies 16
- Views 396
Good video...
I have loaded some really good rifle ammo on my 550B, they key for me is to resize on a single stage and do brass prep ahead of time. The powder measure will drop ball powder very accurately.
I load all my pistol ammo on the 550B, only load work ups are done a single stage, once I pick a load, it's all on the 550B.
I have loaded some really good rifle ammo on my 550B, they key for me is to resize on a single stage and do brass prep ahead of time. The powder measure will drop ball powder very accurately.
I load all my pistol ammo on the 550B, only load work ups are done a single stage, once I pick a load, it's all on the 550B.
Last edited:
His down fall is not using the SAME dies for both tests. I have said time and time again that Lee dies are crap and in my mind this proves it.
In my world, the difference between Progressive (Go Bang) ammo and Precision ammo is only when the load has been matched to a particular gun and reloaded in a precision manner.
He also purposely omitted his priming method and that will also make a world of difference. So does using crap primers like Wolf...
Wasted time on his part, go back and make ALL things equal and even and re-do it.....
In my world, the difference between Progressive (Go Bang) ammo and Precision ammo is only when the load has been matched to a particular gun and reloaded in a precision manner.
He also purposely omitted his priming method and that will also make a world of difference. So does using crap primers like Wolf...
Wasted time on his part, go back and make ALL things equal and even and re-do it.....
My first thought was that if he was really interested in accuracy I think he’d have used a properly sized bullet for each gun (assuming that the chambers are uniform) and not used a FCD. I won’t go so far as the say that Lee dies are crap, but the FCD trades off reliable functioning in a pistol for accuracy, it has no place in loading for a revolver.
On a related note, getting a consistent throw from my Hornady was easy, getting it from my new Dillon is driving me nuts.
Install a baffle... If you need templates to make one holler back...
One other flaw in his methodology is failure to eliminate variables arising from differences in the revolver chamber. If he was really serious about getting good data, he'd only use one chamber in the cylinder for every shot instead of using all of them. Never assume the chambers of a production revolver are completely correct. That's part of match tuning. He'd also use only a single stage or coax press to load match grade ammo to eliminate machining variables in the turret press. Usually match grade ammo reloading and speed of reloading are pretty much mutually exclusive.
For my purposes, I use a Dillon to make mass amounts of good ammo, not precise, but good. I've found that CFE223 works well in my AR with most bullet weights. I used the Dillon to make the same load as I made through my RCBS single stage. Die sets were RCBS, everything else was the same. Results yielded- ammo from the Dillon shot about .75moa. Not too shabby. Ammo from the RCBS (and it took far longer to load it) shot .5moa. Both are pretty darn good, but for that last bit of accuracy, the RCBS is my go to press. For good ammo, for say a 3G match, the Dillon is more than sufficient.
Different powders meter differently too. Ball and flake powders usually meter very well. Stick powder like 6064 not so much. It's not enough to be unsafe in normal usage but it can affect accuracy.
For my purposes, I use a Dillon to make mass amounts of good ammo, not precise, but good. I've found that CFE223 works well in my AR with most bullet weights. I used the Dillon to make the same load as I made through my RCBS single stage. Die sets were RCBS, everything else was the same. Results yielded- ammo from the Dillon shot about .75moa. Not too shabby. Ammo from the RCBS (and it took far longer to load it) shot .5moa. Both are pretty darn good, but for that last bit of accuracy, the RCBS is my go to press. For good ammo, for say a 3G match, the Dillon is more than sufficient.
Different powders meter differently too. Ball and flake powders usually meter very well. Stick powder like 6064 not so much. It's not enough to be unsafe in normal usage but it can affect accuracy.
I’m confused - did he prove something or did he not?
If his goal is to compare method A to method B I think he did a decent job of showing that using the turret press doesn’t grant him any benefits at the range.
Last edited:
In my mind, no he didn't. A true test would be using the exact same components, same equipment and same technique with the exception of measuring powder. This is an area that I cover carefully in my classes and explain the methodology as well as the madness.....
Have one installed already. I think it’s an issue with backlash in the adjusting screw, going to play with it some more today, it gotta kill some kudzu first.
It proved that there was no significant difference in handgun accuracy at 25 yards between using the powder measure or weighing each charge. I thought it was a good experiment. Most powder measures tend to throw very consistent charges with ball powder.
Some thing for you guys to think about, David Tubb loaded all his high power rifle ammo on a 550B.
OP
I would too!
Did he use the powder measure with stick powder? I know I have seen a funnel where the powder measure normally goes...… I would be skeptical of using the powder measure with stick powder, not that it's unsafe but it may not be quite as consistent as one might want for long range rifle. I've tested my powder measures and with stick powder I get 3 tenths variance...…which is still good IMO.
OP
I've read that and have seen other HPR shooters do the same. Interesting info!