Ha! Maybe...
What do you think is going to change between them? I use all kinds of priming tools, and even invented one that will set an exact position within .0005" reference to the case head (rather than rim).
Given the ability to set a primer depth to an exact number, repeatedly, primer crush doesn't work the way I expected, so I'm still experimenting (and making videos). There is definitely something in there, I have suspicions, but no proof yet.
The question is: What mechanism would cause one to be more accurate than another? If I can figure it out, to the point of statistical significance, I'll let people know...
I would like to see the data that others use in their testing and assertions about the value of a particular method or priming tool. Small samples can result in unbelievable outcomes, mostly because of random dispersion.
As
@INTJ asserted above, there is a massive amount of variation in primer cup heights, which makes seating by feel the only viable method, without measuring and sorting, if one is convinced that a particular crush value is appropriate.
I will throw one more thing out there for your consideration: When we talk about crushing primers, there are two ways to measure that crush:
1) Under load while seating
2) Final primer position
As you can imagine, primer cups have some springback in them. As a result, .002 under load can be just touching or .001 in final position, depending on how tight the pockets are.