The L.E. Wilson case trimmer or the EZ Trimit II

[Campbell]

If you are looking to produce cases capable of the cartridges maximum repeatable (agging) accuracy potential, then you better have them fully fireformed to produce a case base -to- shoulder length with-in a maximum of 0.002" tolerance as verified with a gizzy or Hornady Headspace Gauge or similar and verified by cycling the cases through the action (firing pin assembly and ejector removed) by bolt drop resistance. In doing this you have controlled the critical dimension which will ensure your trim length will vary by a maximum of 0.002". You will never achieve best accuracy with base- to -shoulder ( case headspace) variations -which you will find with the first couple of firings with new brass- the number of firings is dependent on how hard you push them.

Hi LHS

Many thanks for your post, but I don't understand what fact(s) you are trying to impart

 

[JimSC]

Hi Jim

I have taken my time to consider what you say re the, for argument's sake, the .007 trim. My thinking is that by trimming with reference to the shoulder then, everything else being equal, one will obtain a more consistent neck tension. i.e. the force required to unseat the bullet upon firing. Please feel free to critique my thinking.

Cam

I have no idea why you would think that. The case and neck will be the same length afterward using either method.

 

[Campbell]

I have no idea why you would think that. The case and neck will be the same length afterward using either method.

Hi Jim

I am having difficulty accepting that after resizing and trimming the case AND neck will be consistent!

 

[JimSC]

Hi Jim

I am having difficulty accepting that after resizing and trimming the case AND neck will be consistent!

when you measure the case length how do you measure it? From a gage using a datum on the shoulder or from the case head to the mouth? Seems to me you are having a difficult time absorbing the fact that a case trimmed from 1.260 to 1.250 is going to have .010 brass removed from the case mouth no matter what trimmer is used.

 

[ericbc7]

I don’t care for shoulder based trim length sets.

They are dependent on annealing. Just size the case, measure the distance from base and trim the excess.
Not hard, and any variation is due to different annealing or brass thickness. Or other lol

 

[Ledd Slinger]

the reason I size before annealing is because I have fell into the habit of always full length resizing since I did that runout test a month or so back. That means I have to lube the cases before sizing. From what I have read and observed I am also convinced that annealing should be done with as clean as neck as possible for consistency of the anneal, in other words straight from the case dryer. A few times I decided to try the clean, anneal, then size route but then had to do a second cleaning to remove the lube. I saw no observable difference and decided it was not worth the time.

I know some that do not like to FL resize cases before cleaning but this brass never hits anything dirtier than my mat and they get a wipe off before lubing

These are just my opinions and results of course, others may get different results. I am still not 100% convinced that annealing really helps at all but I still anneal, even if it is a rabbits foot.

Annealing most certainly does serve a purpose and work. How often it's needed depends on how hard you are working the brass when sizing. If setting the headspace to .002" and using .002" neck tension, annealing may not be extremely beneficial until the cases get a lot of firings on them. Just have to measure them before and after sizing and pay attention to bullet seating pressures to determine if it is required.

Now take a hunting rifle where cases get worked twice as hard or maybe even more, it's a good idea to anneal at least every other firing at a minimum. If you don't anneal, about 3 firings into the cases you will start to find shoulder headspace bouncing back and bullets seating harder with massively varying neck tension.

Sizing before annealing defeats the purpose of annealing. You will always get the most consistency sizing after annealing, regardless of what type of sizing method you use. I personally FL size everything as you do. I will check runout on a new barrel or new set of dies initially to make sure it's good and never do it again. I have complete confidence that runout is nothing to worry about when using the combination of annealing and FL sizing.

 

[JimSC]

Sizing before annealing defeats the purpose of annealing. You will always get the most consistency sizing after annealing, regardless of what type of sizing method you use. I personally FL size everything as you do. I will check runout on a new barrel or new set of dies initially to make sure it's good and never do it again. I have complete confidence that runout is nothing to worry about when using the combination of annealing and FL sizing.

First off let me state that I am not totally dismissing annealing. I own a Annealeeze and anneal after every firing simply because it makes annealing easy and as far as I can tell it does no harm. A thread on annealing on another forum is what got me motivated to work on my reloading techniques and I now have my SD's in the mid to low single digits on my match ammo. I also check and adjust trim length, chamfer, and debur and inspect primer pockets and primer seating depth, measure to the kernel on my powder charges, and check runout. These are things which I tested myself and found to work for me. Being retired gives me the time and I enjoy the process.

As I said I am happy with the results and I really don't plan on making any more changes to my reloading process unless I upgrade from the Annealeeze to the AMP. That will not happen until I am 110% convinced that doing so would drop my SD's and ES's even farther. I follow the rule of "if it is working as intended then don't mess with it"

I am aware of AMP's tests part I and part II but that is lab stuff, not real world shooting. While magnified views of cut apart cases are entertaining and pull tests are mildly interesting what I want to see is what happens at the shooting bench, not the lab table. Speaking of which where is part III AMP? Seeing a cut apart microscopic view of a case cut in half is fine but I want to see some velocity statistics from a name I can trust.

Litz in his Modern Advancements Vol II tested 30 .223 cases and 30 .308 cases. Divided them into 3 lots each ten of which were annealed after every firing using a AMP. Ten were annealed after the fifth firing and ten were reloaded and fired ten times with no annealing. He found no statistical differences in velocity or brass wear during his initial testing. He is planning on expanding on that test in Vol III. As far as I know that is the only documented test of annealed cases versus non annealed cases by a professional shooter. However I can reference multiple accounts of .1 groups and cases being reloaded over 20 times with no annealing 20 + years ago when annealing was still pretty much a dark science performed with a plumbers torch and a electric drill in a dark room if it was performed at all.

Why is Litz's test the only test by a reputable shooter I can find ? Accurate Shooter, Precision Rifle, 6.5 Guys or someone who has a name I can trust should do a test similar to Litz's. Real world shooters shooting real world ammo at the bench, I would love to see someone such as Laurie Holland or Erik Cortina run such a test and publish the results.

Even then I am not sure I would switch over from my Annealeeze to an AMP. While my annealing is not anywhere close to a perfect anneal, the cases and technique is giving me as close to perfect results as I can hope for. My reloads are well within my own quality control standards (single digit SD's) using the Annealeeze. No offense meant toward you or any other posters here but I come from a scientific/engineering background and I would like to see more proof than just peoples opinions that it affects velocity consistency.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

First off let me state that I am not totally dismissing annealing. I own a Annealeeze and anneal after every firing simply because it makes annealing easy and as far as I can tell it does no harm. A thread on annealing on another forum is what got me motivated to work on my reloading techniques and I now have my SD's in the mid to low single digits on my match ammo. I also check and adjust trim length, chamfer, and debur and inspect primer pockets and primer seating depth, measure to the kernel on my powder charges, and check runout. These are things which I tested myself and found to work for me. Being retired gives me the time and I enjoy the process.

As I said I am happy with the results and I really don't plan on making any more changes to my reloading process unless I upgrade from the Annealeeze to the AMP. That will not happen until I am 110% convinced that doing so would drop my SD's and ES's even farther. I follow the rule of "if it is working as intended then don't mess with it"

I am aware of AMP's tests part I and part II but that is lab stuff, not real world shooting. While magnified views of cut apart cases are entertaining and pull tests are mildly interesting what I want to see is what happens at the shooting bench, not the lab table. Speaking of which where is part III AMP? Seeing a cut apart microscopic view of a case cut in half is fine but I want to see some velocity statistics from a name I can trust.

Litz in his Modern Advancements Vol II tested 30 .223 cases and 30 .308 cases. Divided them into 3 lots each ten of which were annealed after every firing using a AMP. Ten were annealed after the fifth firing and ten were reloaded and fired ten times with no annealing. He found no statistical differences in velocity or brass wear during his initial testing. He is planning on expanding on that test in Vol III. As far as I know that is the only documented test of annealed cases versus non annealed cases by a professional shooter. However I can reference multiple accounts of .1 groups and cases being reloaded over 20 times with no annealing 20 + years ago when annealing was still pretty much a dark science performed with a plumbers torch and a electric drill in a dark room if it was performed at all.

Why is Litz's test the only test by a reputable shooter I can find ? Accurate Shooter, Precision Rifle, 6.5 Guys or someone who has a name I can trust should do a test similar to Litz's. Real world shooters shooting real world ammo at the bench, I would love to see someone such as Laurie Holland or Erik Cortina run such a test and publish the results.

Even then I am not sure I would switch over from my Annealeeze to an AMP. While my annealing is not anywhere close to a perfect anneal, the cases and technique is giving me as close to perfect results as I can hope for. My reloads are well within my own quality control standards (single digit SD's) using the Annealeeze. No offense meant toward you or any other posters here but I come from a scientific/engineering background and I would like to see more proof than just peoples opinions that it affects velocity consistency.

Agreed. I also own the Annealeze and Im not convinced the AMP is worth the money either. Besides the extra cost, the AMP is much slower than hopper style annealers.

I also believe the effects of annealing are more beneficial to larger cases with thicker neck and shoulder walls. I have fired small 20 caliber cases many times without annealing back before i got into it. Never could feel overly excessive neck tension even after 7 or 8 firings. Unfortunately after about 9 or 10 firings, i would start to get split necks here and there due to using sizing dies that worked the necks too hard. Much more than 10 firings and the necks were all junk. I try to use bushing sizer diez on everything now.

However, it wasnt the small cases that pushed me into annealing. It was the larger cases that made me want to learn the art. The varying neck tension on a 300 win mag, larger 338 cases, 35 cal magnums, and even the bigger 6.5 cases was blatantly obvious when seating bullets after 3-5 firings. Hard to size and required much more ram pressure to seat the bullets. But the cases were never consistent. Would have one that sized and seated pretty easy, one hard, one really hard, then one easy again, etc. Would start to see slight fliers on target greater velocity spreads.

I started out years ago doing one case at a time using a propane torch while wearing a leather glove. Eventually bought the Vertex and now the Annealeze. Cant even fathom going back to a torch! Lol! Now even on larger no turn magnum cases, annealing makes sizing and seating buttery smooth. Velocity spreads and SDs stay low and consistent. Life is much better.

I anneal all my small cases the same as my larger cases now. Not because they get bad varying tensions like the big cases, but because it greatly extends the life of my brass. And of course it extends the life of the big cases as well. Im no professional shooter, but I have personally witnessed the difference on the range. Thats just my take on it.

 

[JimSC]

I started out years ago doing one case at a time using a propane torch while wearing a leather glove.
.

I still have over 150 Lapua .308s that were annealed every five firings using the drill/socket and torch method. They have over 20 reloads on them and the only ones that were discarded were due to loose primer pockets. I don't have a .308 barrel on any of my actions at the moment but I necked ten down to .260 Rem. One of these days I may get around to loading them and seeing how they shoot

 

[Campbell]

when you measure the case length how do you measure it? From a gage using a datum on the shoulder or from the case head to the mouth? Seems to me you are having a difficult time absorbing the fact that a case trimmed from 1.260 to 1.250 is going to have .010 brass removed from the case mouth no matter what trimmer is used.

Hi Jim

My measurement of case length is from the head to the mouth. I do understand that a trim 1.260 to 1.250 is going to have .010 brass removed from the case mouth no matter what trimmer is used. What I am having difficulty understanding is accepting that the neck length will be consistent. Am I correct in assuming that a f/l resize will uniform the length of the case head to the shoulder? If so, I can accept that the type trimmer unimportant.

Many thanks

Cam

 

[LHSmith]

Hi Jim

My measurement of case length is from the head to the mouth. I do understand that a trim 1.260 to 1.250 is going to have .010 brass removed from the case mouth no matter what trimmer is used. What I am having difficulty understanding is accepting that the neck length will be consistent. Am I correct in assuming that a f/l resize will uniform the length of the case head to the shoulder? If so, I can accept that the type trimmer unimportant.

Many thanks

Cam

Once the case has been fully formed to your chamber, and you correctly adjust the FL die to an appropriate shoulder bump (0.001" to 0.002" for most bolt actions) the neck length has to be uniform with either trimmer.The caveat here is that all pieces of brass will not work-harden at the same rate, and some may resist the initial sizing effort and require another trip through the die with long dwell time- or adjusting the die to bump the additional 0.001" or 2. Shooting F-Class I doubt you could ever discern the difference in neck lengths that vary by 3 to 4 thousandths. IIRC, even in his youtube presentation Jack Neary-an accomplished SR BR competitor ( who does a lot of tunnel testing) does not get overly concerned until his OA lengths exceed .002" variation. I would be more concerned with controlling over-all neck tension -i.e. neck wall thickness variation, neck bushing size, neck I.D. treatment (residual carbon, graphite, etc.), mouth chamfer type and consistency, than minor length variations.

 

[Campbell]

Once the case has been fully formed to your chamber, and you correctly adjust the FL die to an appropriate shoulder bump (0.001" to 0.002" for most bolt actions) the neck length has to be uniform with either trimmer.The caveat here is that all pieces of brass will not work-harden at the same rate, and some may resist the initial sizing effort and require another trip through the die with long dwell time- or adjusting the die to bump the additional 0.001" or 2. Shooting F-Class I doubt you could ever discern the difference in neck lengths that vary by 3 to 4 thousandths. IIRC, even in his youtube presentation Jack Neary-an accomplished SR BR competitor ( who does a lot of tunnel testing) does not get overly concerned until his OA lengths exceed .002" variation. I would be more concerned with controlling over-all neck tension -i.e. neck wall thickness variation, neck bushing size, neck I.D. treatment (residual carbon, graphite, etc.), mouth chamfer type and consistency, than minor length variations.

Many sincere thanks.

I understand your caveated conclusion re the neck length, type of trimmer and work hardening.

What I now need is to understand shoulder bump when using a f/l resizing die!!! Good grief, every answer seem to pose another question!!!

I use the F/L Redding Competition S-line bushing die. I have set it up in accordance with the instructions. You allude that this can be adjusted. please will you give me some instruction on how to do so.

Sincere thanks

Cam

 

[JimSC]

everything you ever wanted to know about adjusting a bushing die

https://www.google.com/search?q=adj...86rbAhVBCTQIHf0-CXMQ_AUICygC&biw=2560&bih=987

 

[Campbell]

everything you ever wanted to know about adjusting a bushing die

https://www.google.com/search?q=adj...86rbAhVBCTQIHf0-CXMQ_AUICygC&biw=2560&bih=987

Hi Jim

Many sincere thanks for comprehensive links re the adjustment of a f/l bushing die.

Am I correct in assuming that f/l resizing results in a consistent measurement from where the head to the shoulder (at where the neck begins)

Cam

 

[JimSC]

Hi Jim

Many sincere thanks for comprehensive links re the adjustment of a f/l bushing die.

Am I correct in assuming that f/l resizing results in a consistent measurement from where the head to the shoulder (at where the neck begins)

Cam

no idea, why don't you measure a dozen or so and let me know then get back to me

 

[Campbell]

no idea, why don't you measure a dozen or so and let me know then get back to me

Hi Jim

Many thanks.

I asked: -

"Am I correct in assuming that f/l resizing results in a consistent measurement from where the head to the shoulder (at where the neck begins)"

Given that you have "no idea", then why do you assert that a shoulder indexing trimmer will give the same result as a head/base indexing trimmer?

Also, what tool do I need in to measure the distance from where the head to the shoulder (at where the neck begins)?

Cam