• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Force guage for bullet seating

Youre right about the hydraulics, but with this press youll just have to see it in action. It matters how big your pressure ring is, case mouth chamfer, friction, seating depth etc. you cant use a max hold/recall just because of the way it works all together. And if you dont have the right stroke and know what to look for youll never catch the seating force we’re looking for. Once you get it youll see. None of the electronic projects youre thinking about will help with this. I like the hydraulic arbor presses over the k&m belleville washer setup

I am sure that with practice you could spot anomalies in the pressure with the hydro unit with practice. I would imagine the gage would be fairly snsitive. Without a gage I can sense a difference between a case neck lubed with Imperial dry and one that is not using a Rockchucker. I expect the arbor will give me even better tactile feedback. At least that is what I am telling myself as a incentive to buy one. Common sense tells me my ammo is more already more accurate than I am capable of shooting it so I should catch up to it before making changes.

edit - darn you guys - now I am second guessing myself and seriously considering a hydro unit. I think I will sleep on this another day or two. Question - can you seat a .264 VLD style bullet with a single ram stroke if the ram is pre positioned on the die.

and apologies to the OP for derailing this thread. I should have started a separate one
 
Last edited:
Even without a gauge, when using the inline dies on an arbor press I can feel anomalous 'seaters' that are seating way soft or way hard and can cull them for use as foulers or first sighters. With a gauge I can sort them in perhaps two different groups for separating them into different strings of fire. However, with very stringent and consistent case prep I find less segregation needed.
 
Even without a gauge, when using the inline dies on an arbor press I can feel anomalous 'seaters' that are seating way soft or way hard and can cull them for use as foulers or first sighters. With a gauge I can sort them in perhaps two different groups for separating them into different strings of fire. However, with very stringent and consistent case prep I find less segregation needed.

You can feel someb of these differences with s Coax too. Just not as sensitive as the arbor press. I am more interested in trying to figure out the cause. I am pretty sure it’s poor case prep on my part.

Still, the differences in seating pressure do not consistently show on the target.
 
There is no direct correlation between seating force and neck tension(what actually matters) until FRICTION is normalized.

This is absolutely the case. Friction is not easily controlled or measured. This is why I do not put faith in gadgets like hydro presses, which are two steps removed from a factor that *might* matter.

Take it a step further, and it’s not even neck tension that matters, but the friction of bullet release. It is a huge leap of faith to say that the peak force of bullet seating (dictated by brass size and static friction) has much to do at all with bullet release friction (which happens over time, and is determined by neck tension, as well as both static and dynamic friction. They’re just not the same, and I’m not convinced it matters.
 
I disagree.
1. Neck tension matters, and it's easy to prove this.
2. Neck friction does not matter, and again, it's easy to prove.

For tension, size a neck half your normal seated bearing length, and size a neck the full length of seated bearing. Fire the two across a chronograph, notice different MVs.

For friction, clean a neck inside and a bullet to squeaky clean metal. When you seat the bullet into this neck the friction (seating force) is higher than normal.
Fire it along with normal rounds, across a chrono, and you will not see a different MV.
 
I disagree.
1. Neck tension matters, and it's easy to prove this.
2. Neck friction does not matter, and again, it's easy to prove.

For tension, size a neck half your normal seated bearing length, and size a neck the full length of seated bearing. Fire the two across a chronograph, notice different MVs.

For friction, clean a neck inside and a bullet to squeaky clean metal. When you seat the bullet into this neck the friction (seating force) is higher than normal.
Fire it along with normal rounds, across a chrono, and you will not see a different MV.
For friction, your statememt may be true about chrono speeds, but a target at longrange tells a different story. This is one of the reasons you can tune with different tensions. Matt
 
Tension and friction may correlate or they may not, depends on controls in-place.
It's important to understand that they are different separate things.

Neck tension is the neck spring back force squeezing against an area of seated bullet bearing.
Where you increase the area gripped, or the force gripping, you increase tension (T=FA).
We currently have no tool/method for measuring the actual neck/hoop tension gripping our bullets.

For tension correlation with friction, that friction must be taken to a consistent standard(removed from variance). It's easy enough to do this; clean bullets, leave the carbon layer inside necks, provide the same interference fit for each seating. Here, variances in seating force are caused by neck resistance to expansion, forced by a seating bullet. While the measure here includes sizing (upsizing with bullets), this is still not isolating tension alone. But it's useful.
If the interference provided is within normal neck spring back, say 1thou max, then you can correlate seating force(friction) with neck tension. This would not be linear though. Attempted conversion & graphing would get squirrely as bearing nears donut area or neck-shoulder junctions. It would get really ugly where neck sizing length goes beyond seated bearing(causing base binding). We're only led to do these things, and to use bullets for neck upsizing, out of bad planning.

It makes no sense to size necks down so much as to leave seating interference of more than 1thou.
The excess is only re-expanded by bullets, which are not designed for this.
You can measure a seated neck, pull the bullet, and see that it springs back 1thou at most from cal. That is what was holding the bullet,, not an excess interference,, regardless of the amount of excess interference.
It makes no sense to seat bullets into donuts or neck-shoulder junction, or beyond seated bullet bearing.
Any of these conditions will reduce control and increase tension variance.

To control neck tension and see it vary from round to round, downsize to provide no more than 1thou interference for seating (after outward spring back). Adjust the length of this downsizing, not to exceed seated bullet bearing. Leave the carbon layer in necks, use clean/consistent friction bullets. Carefully measure the seating forces.
With this, you'll see all matters of spring back variance, including softening/hardening and thickness variances. Set it, load develop with it, tweak it, manage it, and most important: understand it.
 
Please pardon my ignorance. Why do people want a force gauge on an arbor press. I understand that it is measuring the amount of force it takes to seat a bullet. Why doesn't anyone just check the inner diameter of the case mouth? I would think this would essentially give a shooter the same required data. Am I missing something??????
 
What we have here is yet another disconnect from real world actual experience and engineering calculations. You can see the difference on target from a .001 and .003 interference fit and also from 20psi and 70psi seating tension no matter what that interference fit is. You can size necks .003 under bullet dia and find one that seats at 20psi and one that seats at 50psi and actually see the difference. Here is where actual real world testers excel over the reloading room engineers
 
What we have here is yet another disconnect from real world actual experience and engineering calculations. You can see the difference on target from a .001 and .003 interference fit and also from 20psi and 70psi seating tension no matter what that interference fit is. You can size necks .003 under bullet dia and find one that seats at 20psi and one that seats at 50psi and actually see the difference. Here is where actual real world testers excel over the reloading room engineers

Why do they seat at different pressures?

What I am trying to ask is, if the interference is .003 on all casings why does one seat at 20 psi and seat at 50 psi?
 
"It makes no sense to size necks down so much as to leave seating interference of more than 1thou.
The excess is only re-expanded by bullets, which are not designed for this."

You are using the wrong tools. The proper one is a target. I have seen clear indications that some powders give better accuracy with a lot more than .001 neck tension. So have others...others that have won championships. The problem is that the problem may be a lot more complicated than you are imagining it to be. Test everything, and if your targets are in disagreement with your theory, believe the targets.
 
"It makes no sense to size necks down so much as to leave seating interference of more than 1thou.
The excess is only re-expanded by bullets, which are not designed for this."

You are using the wrong tools. The proper one is a target. I have seen clear indications that some powders give better accuracy with a lot more than .001 neck tension. So have others...others that have won championships. The problem is that the problem may be a lot more complicated than you are imagining it to be. Test everything, and if your targets are in disagreement with your theory, believe the targets.


I get it, its the KISS theory. So the answer is........Do 65 steps in the reloading process, but if it takes 3 to get the desired result then just do those 3............
 
So...exactly WHY do you want a seating force gauge Jennifer?:D
Looking to do some experimenting! I already have all the good stuff like arbor press with indicator and inline seaters. I get better runout with my rockchucker and competition seater.
 
Looking to do some experimenting! I already have all the good stuff like arbor press with indicator and inline seaters. I get better runout with my rockchucker and competition seater.
Then something isnt right. Not that you can't get straight ammo with good dies and a Rockchucker but that the inline dies and arbor press should give everybit as good or better. Matt
 
snip..... I get better runout with my rockchucker and competition seater.

Heresy I say!!!! You KNOW that you must have a Forster Co-Axial press to make competition worthy ammunition. LOL

I still love my RC II that I bought in the 90's.
 
German Salazar performed a test of seating Dies with results suggesting Redding produced the least runout
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,242
Messages
2,191,982
Members
78,771
Latest member
AndrewL
Back
Top