IVC

One more vote for the DAA collator. I cannot overstress how important this upgrade is. Not only do you get much faster feeding and no jams at the drop chute, but it's also caliber-independent (within reason) and will feed all common pistol calibers without any changes, modifications or adjustments. It's hard to believe how many issues this collator resolves. Here's a list of benefits: Single plate for all (common) calibers. Extremely fast feeding, where it will easily outrun my commercial roll-sizer with all pins installed. Very reliable case flipping, maybe one upside down case in 10-15K if so. Doesn't get stuck, keeps spinning even with ~5 times the number of cases in the feeder that would stall a Dillon plate. No more cases pinched at the drop chute and stopping the plate. No more jams in the funnel past the chute, cases tend to fall straight (only one jam in 10-15K at full speed). No more cases getting stuck at the "clearing tab" (the plastic part inside the case that clears overflow) and blocking the plate. In short, replacing the collator with the DAA one changed the process from constantly having to keep my left hand inside the feeder and nudge the plate in different directions to a piece that works by itself and needs absolutely no monitoring or tinkering, so I can watch the important parts of the process, just past the powder drop.

Ooops, IPSC has slightly different rules, with most differences being in the gear setup, so it's best to look at the IPSC rule book and pull out the exact rules that deal with this issue. In USPSA it would be a very stretched interpretation to try to call a red dot a slide racker and get the RM onboard to support such a stretch.

The only place that addresses this issue is appendix D7.22. It states that the slide racking devices are prohibited, so under rule D7.21 it would be a move to open. The problem is that the term "slide racking" device is not defined in the glossary or elsewhere, so I call BS on any statement by the RO where he talks about some measurements and the optics extending from the slide. More importantly, it's the RM who must make the call per D7.21. Optics is not a slide racking device even if it can be used for that purpose. It is frustrating to have ROs reinterpret the rules on the spot and try to mess with the plain reading of the rules.

Videos and video-oriented social media platforms are addictive to kids, a chewing gum for the eyes and brain of sorts. But they don't provide any meaningful insight or discussion. It's like watching the scenes from an action movie and thinking it has value beyond entertainment. Watching runs of people at a match is boring, uninformative and with little to no value over any random video clip with kittens. It's not that we are old for not jumping on the video-sharing platforms, it's that most of us have much more interesting lives than sitting in a basement with no friends and stimulating brain with random audio and video inputs. The solution is simple - anyone at a major match, just start a conversation. Those who were there will join, those who weren't can participate in any discussion about rules or stage designs.

To answer your questions: Bullets: coated lead for your application (Blue Bullets, SNS, any other that are recommended). Coated bullets are the cheapest, need less powder and put the least amount of wear on your barrel. The only downside is that they are not suitable for compensated guns. Bullet weight: heavier bullets will give you much softer shooting gun. In your case, start with 147 and 124. The lightest bullets, 115, are for PCC and Open guns. They also work well for sub-minor loads, but that's not what you're looking for. Powder: Vihtavuori is a bit more expensive, but generally very clean premium powder. If in doubt, use N320 for any 9mm. All major brands work well, though, so pick one and stick to it. "Powder hopping" is a waste of time unless you're looking for something very specific. Powder types: fast powders use small amount, they build pressure quickly and produce little gas. Fast powders behind heavy bullets give you soft shooting guns. Slow powders require much more charge and produce a lot of gas. They are used to "work the compensators," where the gas minimizes barrel movement. With your ported barrel you might get some benefit from the extra gas, but I would doubt you could tell a difference. Start carefully, measure several times, figure out how it all works before you start cranking that handle.

A progressive press is all about setup and QC. Once you have it running, it will produce ammo that is consistent with how you set it up. The knowledge goes into the setup. Automation replaces pulling the handle. You still have to do the "tedious chore" of measuring everything, confirming and QC. You still have to know what you're doing and why. If you aren't too eager to learn the process in depth, reloading might not work for you.

There is data, but it's not available to the general public. If you look back in time, you couldn't even get the HHF for classifiers and had to use a third-party website "classifier calculator" (http://classifiercalc.com/) to get some information. USPSA started publishing classifier information to the extent that you can now look up the HHF for each classifier, but you still can't access the data or the method that was used to calculate the HHF.

I assume you have an aftermarket toolhead to allow you to do this (if so, which one do you have)? Or is there a modified M die that will fit into the narrower opening of the original?

The M die won't hold the brass down the way Dillon neck expander does over the swage station. Did you modify anything, or you're just letting the swager work against the shell plate? This is an age old dilemma - missing threads over priming station eliminating one position, and the swage station either needing a backer or a soft touch running the press to prevent damage from ringers.

Playing with Hornady HAP 115's and N320, I got a load that worked really well for JP PCC - touching holes at 50 yards, limitation of the dot itself. The three loads I tried were N320 at 3.6, 4.0 and 4.2 grains, 115 HAPs at 1.143 nominal OAL. Only the 4.2 made minor, barely. I'll probably up it 0.1 grains and call it good. I'm not a fan of tinkering too much with something that works. I used the Vihtavuori load data on their page, which calls for 4.0 - 4.5 N320 @1.142 for XTPs, guessing that I should stay towards the lower end, just to be safe. The question is: If I replace HAP 115 with MG JHP 115, do I need to tinker with the load, or are they close enough so I keep the charge and the OAL the same? (The OAL is almost certainly going to change because of different bullet shape, but I can adjust it easily on the micrometer if there is need.) I have many more MGs than HAPs, so just looking for some first hand experience on where to start. I'll measure it and confirm, no matter what. Today was a huge relief because when I last tinkered with this PCC, it had a nice *pattern* at 25 yards and it wasn't even a full choke. Lol. Those were fat, heavy, slow(ish) coated blue bullets. I'm guessing they were touching the comp baffles just enough to get all messed up. I was worried I might have gotten a lemon of a rifle, but now I know...

Of course it does make a difference in some aspects of reloading, but not all. For example, a powder drop will drop the same amount of powder regardless of variances in brass, right? That's because how it's designed and how it works. The question about OAL and the seating die is a valid question - does it depend on the type of brass or not? If it does, there must be an accompanying explanation how the fixed distance between the shell plate and the seating stem changes the OAL based on the case properties.

Brass can be completely different, not even the same caliber. If the press completes the cycle, the distance between the seating stem and the base of the shellplate will be the same, so we get the same OAL. Or, if I reverse the statement, if the OAL is different, there is movement of the bullet that is unrelated to the seating process, which is a bug in the setup.

That's a valid point, but I would argue that it's not a property of the brass itself, it's the incorrect neck tension if you're getting a "pushback." I could equally well say that if you over expand the neck and operate the press quickly, you can get an arbitrary seating depth up to the bullet falling all the way in. And I could observe that softer brass will yield more inconsistent results, even though it has to do with the neck tension and not the brass. What I am really contrasting here is properties of the rounds that directly vary with the brass (e.g., internal volume, size and type of the flash hole, crimp, quality of neck tension, etc.) vs. the OAL which doesn't. The effects we are discussing here, the latter, are at best "second order small" compared to the former.

Where is the extra length coming from? If both cases sit flat on the same surface and if the distance from that surface to the point of contact between seating stem and the bullet ogive is the same, where is the extra length "stored?"

Is it a turret? I'm not quite familiar with the 550... But in any case, the OAL is determined by the mechanical properties of the press and the bullet, not the brass. At least not in a direct way.

That's a lot of variation. Mixed brass is overrated for OAL variations - the seating die will push either on the bullet tip or the ogive and the OAL will be controlled by the distance between this contact point and the bottom of the shellplate. This distance doesn't depend on what brass is in, or even how long, wide or thick it is. The two primary uncontrolled variables here are the small variance in the position of the shellplate, and the variance in the bullet shape when contact is with the ogive (when contact is with the tip, it doesn't matter). This is a pistol round, there are no considerations about the location and angle of the (non-existent) shoulder. For test, I would first flip the stem to the flat side to ensure all bullets are pushed to the exactly the same position inside the die, then measure the variability. This is not because it's the correct setting of the die for the bullet you're using, but to determine if the length variation is due to the inconsistent ogive. You don't even have to readjust the die, even though your OAL will be completely wrong - all you want to do is determine *consistency*. Measure ten rounds and look at STD and ES of the length. If you get a good spread, the problem is the bullets. If you don't, and you still get a lot of variability, it must be something with the shellplate. As the last test, I would try seating on another press. There is a slight possibility that other dies are too low and interfering with the movement of the toolhead (or shellplate in your case). The 0.015" is on the high side and I would only accept it if it's from the inconsistent bullets, but not if it's related to the press or the dies.

Another question about the trimmer, assuming you're running the RT1500 - can it run *without* the Dillon sizing die underneath? Dillon sells the die for $200+ and it's backordered. If I size using any other die of choice, can I use the trimmer as-is, i.e., just make it trim to length without sizing and without any extra parts?

Just a quick question about the powder, since I don't have any rifle powders at this time and would like to get one and stick to it. How's H335 vs. CFE223? It's the same manufacturer and CFE223 is a bit slower and a bit cleaner. A grain extra per load, from what I've seen. Any other considerations between the two? I can get either at this time.

This will actually be easy in my case because I have a roll sizer. Just need to get the conversion disk and I'm good to go. I'm also (frustratingly) familiar with the higher-than-expected rejection rate of brass that fails the gauge around the case rim, which is why I bought the roll sizer years ago (directly from Australia, at the time).

And just a FYI, I've had different gauges be ever so slightly different, so I had limited magazines that would gauge tightly in one, and fail in another. Any time you use any type of gauge that can determine outcome of your match, it's best to try it out and proceed with a tight fit only if you're sure both that your gauge is exactly correct AND that the gauge at the match will be either exactly correct or on the oversized side.

Awesome! This is exactly what I was looking for - thank you. Both the confirmation that I don't have to fiddle with it "precision style" (sorting headstamps, messing with the chamber-specific loads, counting firings, etc.), and how the press is set up in practice for efficient, high volume plinking ammo output.

Don't do this, it's not just a decapping die, it's a sizing die. While 1/8 turn is normally acceptable, you should set the sizing die correctly for sizing or you're looking at other potential problems down the road. With Lyman spring loaded die, what can happen (and happened to me) is that the threads where the decapping pin is screwed into the head were damaged and the pin couldn't screw all the way in. I actually recently ordered a bunch of spare pins and caps for their universal decapping die (same principle, but doesn't do sizing) because I couldn't thread it correctly all the way in. So, check that the pin is screwed in tightly and check the amount of thread that is exposed. It might be the problem.

Practiscore will sort it out any way it likes, it doesn't really have to be "by the book." What you're seeing is just random ordering that is either based on which sorting algorithm they use (stable vs. unstable sort in computer science lingo), or how the data is entered into the system. Even the stable sort will create seemingly random result because the initial order of shooters is not based on anything predictable. USPSA rule book specified handling of ties in section 9.3, but it's not quite consistent and it's only about *match* results, not individual stages. And tie breakers don't change any score, they only determine ranking of tied shooters.

Rebuilding the press might solve the problem, but it's not a good way to do it. What good is it if the press starts working but you have no idea what caused the problem, so you don't know the next time where to look or what to adjust?

Let's be analytical about this - it's a mechanical system with several moving parts and we need to eliminate potential problems, one at a time. Here's the link to the 1100 manual, page 67 shows primer feeding system less the push rod which is installed in the toolhead. So, starting from the push rod side, here are the steps: - Is the push rod secure and undamaged? - Is push rod contacting the rocker? - Is rocker free but snug? - Is primer punch damaged? - Is primer punch free to move? - Is primer bushing tight, allowing punch to protrude the amount it's adjusted to? This can be checked by simply observing the assembly as the arm is lowered. It's a mechanical set of "pulleys" so it either works or doesn't. The primer punch must be going up and down and must be able to change depth as the push rod is adjusted. It's easy to see and play with it with the toolhead lowered. Once you confirm that the punch is doing its job, that part of the debugging is done - the primer is being pushed up and it's being pushed up the correct amount. Next is to confirm the primer station itself. The brass must be centered, but if it's not the symptom is NOT that brass sits high, the symptom is that the primer is partially damaged. Looks like the brass is centered, but it doesn't hurt to confirm (I believe this is where 1100 is different from my 1050, there is no plastic tab on 1100). If there are no problems with damaged primers, use a clean and inspected brass to test seating. If it works on this brass, but not on all brass, the problem is in primer pocket preparation, a.k.a., swaging station. There is nothing in the OP to suggest problems with feeding primers, but there is one aspect that should be checked - that the area is clean and that there is no debris caught in the primer slide. Any foreign material can make the primer sit slightly higher, although it would cause it to be pushed deeper, not shallower.