Been eyeballing the Wilson arbor press seating die (with the micrometer)

Wondering if it’s worth the $250 ish dollars to completely change my seating process.

Yay? Nay?

It's one way to solve the OAL inconsistencies of some dies. Redding or Whidden micro is another...surprisingly so the Hornady micro top runs right close to those two.

Wilson chamber dies are the answer though...if ultimate consistency and reloading is the answer. Plus, you can take a cheap arbor press to the range to do seating depth tests. I'm a big fan but I'm not using it 100% of the time any longer.

I'll bet a buck that Judd would also agree that it also depends on what rifle it is you're loading for. That die may be way overkill for your application. But, if you want the highest level of seating precision just for its own sake, then why the heck not?

Don't take that bet

RR is spot on.

So one thing that annoys me the MOST during reloading is truly not getting super consistent seating depths across a whole 50-200 round session. I just got me a forster press and a fancy Redding die. It did better but for sure i can't simply seat and assume they are all within +/-0.001, or really i woul dlike 0.0005. For the F-class match i recently shot, i was SUPER meticulous about seating. about 70% was within the 0.0005", about 25% was between +/-0.001 to 0.003" (with most seated too long) and finally about 5% that was really off. Do these arbor presses do better, especially the basic press without the pressure guage? Btw, i do not pack my cases, usually below published maxes.

I'd really love to seat 100+ rounds and feel confident that they are +/-0.001" (or really 0.0005"). My current set up does not.

It will do what you are asking in my experience...I have over a dzn different seaters I've used.

One thing worth mentioning...your caliper isn't accurate to .000X, they should really just remove that number completely...but I get your point and you aren't as much looking for a specific number as you are consistency to that number. The next level of analness (not sure that's a word) is a 21st Century hydraulic or K&M with a force pack arbor press (AMP also has a computerized version now that I have no experience with but know that some of the top Fclass open guys are using)...then you will see how consistent your necks are. Careful KR...you are dipping your toes into a very deep pool

When I was shooting benchrest I did a bunch of testing around this and let's just say I would "sort" my loaded rounds by what the seater told me seating force was...in truth, what it measures is neck tension.

I like mine but agree its over thinking for many of us. A Redding Competition seater with the correct seater plug is just fine for 99% of us.

HOLY CHIT, Judd! You're the first person here that ever posted a comment about what neck tension actually IS (at least that I have seen).

My brutha!

I do something similar but not near as sophisticated when seating. I shorten the handle on my press as far as it will go giving me less leverage. I had a What was that moment just this week. That one got moved to the fouling pile.

In my case this speaks more to my need for better brass prep than my need for better equipment.

It's been touched on before. I remember because one person said there wasn't a way to measure it...don't know who it was and it doesn't matter, I just remember the conversation.

That's about where I'm at, myself.

I just go by feel while seating, and since I don't shoot anything fancy at all I don't think there's anything to be gained by getting any fancier. Keeping case necks annealed does seem to help keep a pretty consistent feel when seating, and I do not buy cheap brass anymore. I do use quite a bit of Starline brass and it is less expensive, but I do not consider it to be cheap. It may not be as good as Lapua or Norma, but I think it is probably on par with Nosler---at least for MY uses.

I may have been that person. And it's TRUE, generally speaking. For certain, saying "I'm using 0.003" neck tension" is just poor use of language that any engineer should regard as incorrect. Tension is a very specific thing that cannot be expressed as a linear measurement. The best measurement WE can make is just what you've stated---force required to seat the bullet. Even that is not a measurement of tension, but it's a pretty fair approximation and will work for our purposes.

This is the answer. How deep do you want to dig?

Judd,
For the record, I believe analness is a word. This stupid spell checker don't know nothing.
I am trying to dip and then slowly enter the pool over the next several decades. It is a fascinating process with endless different avenues to apply my analness. I want to try a variety of other different kinds of rifle shooting eventually. But I'm sure that a part of me will always come back to f-class just for testing pure accuracy.

I see no term for tension (it ain't in there).

BHN or ductility of the case neck does have a place in determining the net amount of tension, though.

If you're trying to say that tension can be expressed as a linear dimension or measurement you're missing the point.

Now that's funny...see I told you I didn't know who it was and it didn't matter.

The .003 example is somewhat the "reloaders" glossary of terms and I get what they are saying but also see your point. .001 will definitely have less neck tension than a .003 on a resized neck...but that's not a unit of measurement for "tension". However, it's about the closest we have besides seating force.

KRedneck...I suspected you would understand that term . I never got into the short range br and I never got into fclass...I never liked shooting paper in competitions is the only reason why. If I was going to do a paper game it would've very likely been a varmint for score (VFS)...not sure why that game appealed to me but it has, just never thrown my rifle in that ring. The benchrest games that included clays, poker chips, steel just tickled my itch more so than the paper stuff and I really liked the 400-600y area the most.

I've read this many times across many sites. I see the .000x and battle ignoring it entirely or using it to round up or down to .00x. What should I do? Or maybe it doesn't matter either way. I suppose you'll say entirely ignore it. No joke, I've thought about covering it with tape.



You know my extreme nerdism and obsession with collecting data is battling with not buying the Amp setup that I 100% do not need.

I believe you're precisely correct. If there was some kind of measurement (other than seating force) that took 'before' and 'after' diameters AND case neck condition into account we'd have something, but seating force is probably the best measurement we'll ever have available. Before & after diameters are perfect IF you know the case neck ductility and I'm not sure there's a practical way to measure that.

Maybe the only practical way to quantify ductility would be to use seating force measurements and before-n-after diameters to derive it.

I might be too much of a stickler about things like this, but in my field precision in language was essential. I don't always get it right myself, but I do try.

I don't even see it until someone here posts something about a measurement they took that way. It takes a micrometer to get to that level of precision.

I have both the 21st and the K&M...we're so close you are more than welcome to test drive those before going the AMP route. I would venture to say if I was still playing the game, I'd have the amp. As River mentioned...on my hunting guns (which I what I'm loading for now) I don't believe I could shoot the difference in neck tension like I could out of a br rig.

100% correct RR.

I’m saying that if you can’t control this then you can’t control any of it. This is the first step.

Aahhh...gotcha. Probably the most effective step you can take, too.