The "poorly controlled test" that you refer to presented data that showed that between the three presses that there was no significant difference in run out. The run out came from other factors of the reloading process and the data simply quantified how much run out came from these different factors. The results were generally well know from data published by others and what I did was quantify what was generally already known by most folks. My point in my reply to this thread was simply that the CO-AX is a different design from most other presses and has advantages and disadvantages but improved run out is not one of the advantages. You have two PHDs and I stayed at a Holiday Inn once.jvw2008 said:How many drugs have you seen passed by the FDA after millions of dollars have been spent testing them for safety - only to have them be pulled from the market after they were found to be unsafe when used by thousands of patients in real life instead of the 100 test subjects employed by the FDA research? It happens all the time. I am a scientist with two doctorates and am totally ingrained with the advantages of controlled research. That said - there is NO substitute for real life experience. Dump as much technology as you can into a rifle and it's load development - it's only as good as what it does on the range. IMO no one has done valid comparative testing on the presses we use and citing data from a poorly controlled test is worse then no test at all - it's misleading. I have five presses that I've operated over the last fifteen years. The CO-AX is my go to press and that seems to be the opinion of most of the folks who have experience with it.
Jerry