Dwell Time When Sizing -- Any Actual Basis in Fact??

[chop house]

Us handloaders are an interesting lot.....for some reason snake oil seems to be an integral part of our repertoire.

and.... it makes a great case lube.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Id love to see folks just try it for themselves instead of relying on some scientific study which doesnt take into effect all the variables actually involved. This is a test that folks can do when they load next time and it doesnt cost a dime nor any big amount of time. Boggles my mind all the speculation. Is the sun shining? Well my watch says it is according to the calendar so im not even gonna raise my head to look.

 

[ClassCat]

and.... it makes a great case lube.

They're just lookin for the MAGIC BULLET

 

[chkunz]

I always found that as my brass aged I would need to re-adjust my sizing die to achieve my .002-.003 shoulder bump.Then I read that pausing at the top of the sizing stroke would help this. I took 5 of my 25/06 cases that were fired 6 times and were having this shoulder bump problem .Sizing them with no pause gave me a reading on my Hornady comprator of 2.031. Taking the same cases and pausing appx 3 seconds at the top of each stroke with a 180 degree rotation gave me a reading of 2.029. Works for me.

Was it the pause or the rotation that gave the extra 0.002 bump? Also the sample size is small, what would the data look like with a larger sample and only one variable changed at a time? What would the variability in the data look like as compared to the 0.002 bump?

 

[Murray Brook]

It was the pause that gave the .002 bump. The rotation was for better neck concericty. I know this is only a small sample, but i've seen this happen in all my calibers when the brass gets 5 or 6 firings on them. As one other poster stated I don't know all the science behind this , I only know what happens and works for me.

 

[dmoran]

... I'd like to see quantifiable evidence derived from a test using the scientific method to prove that gains made in the concentricity of reloaded ammunition by dwelling in the die have any real effect when the bullet hits the target. I don't see any information out there that actually proves that dwell time works by overcoming some margin of error however large or small.

When ever this "quantifiable evidence derived from a test using the scientific method" takes place, come back and let us know the results. In the mean time, I will continue to utilize dwell time in my sizing and seating press operations, since it has proven creditable to my own scenario's. And regardless of what the outcome of such scientific quantifiable evidence, I will continue to utilize dwell time, since it's a proven gain to my own scenario's.
Look forward to it, regardless !.!.!
Donovan

 

[Bobthenailer]

Gave the dwell time sizing a try tonight while loading some 300 Blackout 180 grain Rainier Wedge subsonics, coated with Hbn.

 

[ShootDots]

The BOTTOM LINE is, is that we ALL do what works for us, irrespective of what other people think or say.. If a "dwell time" prep theory works well for loaders, then does it matter whether it is scientific or not? We all have idiosyncrasies that we interject into "our loading process" to satisfy our own perceptions of what is good and what is not necessary..

 

[Bc'z]

The BOTTOM LINE is, is that we ALL do what works for us, irrespective of what other people think or say.. If a "dwell time" prep theory works well for loaders then does it matter whether it is scientific or not? We all have idiosyncrasies that we interject into "our loading process" to satisfy out own perceptions of what is good and what is not necessary..

CHURCH! Amen !!!!!

 

[Ledd Slinger]

This is a subject I've seen mentioned a few times here, and I'd like to know if anyone with metallurgical knowledge could verify or refute the process.

The "process", basically being the pause of a few seconds or more, leaving the case inside the sizer die to achieve a more thorough shrink of the case. I guess the theory in question would be that the dimensional change of the brass isn't instantaneous, but might happen to a higher degree with the passing of time.

I don't want to offend anyone by bringing the process into question, but would like to find out if it's a bunch of hooey.-- or not. jd

No offense, but I don't understand why people ask questions like this before trying it for themselves....There is no added expenses for tooling or equipment involved whatsoever unless you do not already own handloading equipment. Would only take a very small amount of time to find the answer while sizing cases. Could have completed tests on brass in less time than it took to write and create this thread.

Then add in the fact that you've asked this question "a few times" on here in the past and it really boggles the mind why you still haven't tested it for yourself...

 

[Bart B.]

No offense, but I don't understand why people ask questions like this before trying it for themselves....

Maybe they want to learn about the 3 P's (process, perks and pitfalls) others experienced before establishing their own objectives, conditions and standards. They'll end up with better test methods producing reliable data.

 

[jds holler]

No offense, but I don't understand why people ask questions like this before trying it for themselves....There is no added expenses for tooling or equipment involved whatsoever unless you do not already own handloading equipment. Would only take a very small amount of time to find the answer while sizing cases. Could have completed tests on brass in less time than it took to write and create this thread.

Then add in the fact that you've asked this question "a few times" on here in the past and it really boggles the mind why you still haven't tested it for yourself...

Well, I guess I'm probably even lazier and dumber than you think I am. Forgetful too I guess, since I don't even remember asking about this topic before. Hope I haven't bothered ya too much. jd

 

[ireload2]

No one calls using a rifle bolt to check the fit of brass measuring.
When you use a rifle bolt there is no quantitative evaluation eg no number for size.
It is only pass or fail.
Pass or fail is not measuring.

QUOTE="alinwa, post: 37191086, member: 1287859"]L-O-freaky-NELL!!!


Sentence by Sentence ya's just can't make this hole any deeper if ya's tried!

OK, OK, I'll just refrain...... measure away my man, measure away [/QUOTE]

L-O-freaky-NELL!!!


Sentence by Sentence ya's just can't make this hole any deeper if ya's tried!

OK, OK, I'll just refrain...... measure away my man, measure away

 

[ireload2]

If you want something don't expect anyone to do it for you.
Statistically speaking you are talking theory without practical knowledge.
BTW the original poster did not mention concentricity.
And you did not define lower.

Statistically speaking if the results are lower than the margin of error (of which there is no mention) the outcome is meaningless. Perceived or not. I'd like to see quantifiable evidence derived from a test using the scientific method to prove that gains made in the concentricity of reloaded ammunition by dwelling in the die have any real effect when the bullet hits the target. I don't see any information out there that actually proves that dwell time works by overcoming some margin of error however large or small.

The more free time that people have it seems the more tedious they are willing to make their reloading process.

 

[Damon555]

Nobody has mentioned anything about actual improvements in accuracy.....which is what the goal is here. Just because a case measured .002" differently from one resizing process to the next doesn't mean a thing......

And why would I even bother trying this? I already know that the outcome on paper will be imperceptible, statistically speaking, because I'd never even surpass the margin of error.

 

[BoydAllen]

The reason for the posts on this thread is that the OP asked a question. It has been answered. Mission accomplished.

 

[ireload2]

And you are wrong.
You are making statements based on assumptions without any data. In God we trust. All others bring data.

Nobody has mentioned anything about actual improvements in accuracy.....which is what the goal is here. Just because a case measured .002" differently from one resizing process to the next doesn't mean a thing......

And why would I even bother trying this? I already know that the outcome on paper will be imperceptible, statistically speaking, because I'd never even surpass the margin of error.

 

[jimmymac]

They're just lookin for the MAGIC BULLET

I think I just bought 2000 of those.

 

[CharlieNC]

Nobody has mentioned anything about actual improvements in accuracy.....which is what the goal is here. Just because a case measured .002" differently from one resizing process to the next doesn't mean a thing......

And why would I even bother trying this? I already know that the outcome on paper will be imperceptible, statistically speaking, because I'd never even surpass the margin of error.

If a .002" deviation in HS doesn't bother you when it comes to factors such as extraction after firing, it probably will when n=1.

 

[Bart B.]

Nobody has mentioned anything about actual improvements in accuracy.....which is what the goal is here.

I wouldn't assume what the OP's goal was. It may well be something related to velocity. Or pressure.

It was probably related to sized case dimensions to start with. Which is the most common thing in responses. It may take several dozen 5- or 10-shot groups' average for some to see a difference in accuracy between zero and some dwell times. Others could see no difference across several hundred such groups. And a few may see a difference across 2 or 3 such groups.