Bend in bellcrank piece?

[G19]

I was installing the powder bar and noticed for the first time that the smaller of the 2 brass pieces of the bellcrank has a bend in it. I don't recall using the kind of force that would bend it. Is the bend normal? I noticed that it contributes to a jerky return motion of the powder bar (as it returns to neutral position underneath the hopper).

Also the wire hook at the upper portion of the bellcrank isn't fully seated on the rod by the small white plastic cube. Normal?

Edited May 14, 2015 by G19

[Youngeyes]

Normal. That's the part that requires you to push the handle forward to release it.. This pulls the failsafe rod down and resets the measure. This is why I straightened it out and put return springs on, in the old style way. Much smoother.

[G19]

Normal. That's the part that requires you to push the handle forward to release it.. This pulls the failsafe rod down and resets the measure. This is why I straightened it out and put return springs on, in the old style way. Much smoother.

Yeah, even though it's the first time I noticed it visually, the sound of that bellcrank arm snapping off the side of the powder measure does seem very familiar.

[Sarge]

Perfectly normal. I tried the old style spring thing and found I actually preferred the newer failsafe rod system

[ronn]

Do you have a picture of your spring set up after unbending the bar

[RDA]

Perfectly normal. I tried the old style spring thing and found I actually preferred the newer failsafe rod system

Agreed, the failsafe system works great when adjusted properly and is inherently safer than the springs.

I have modified mine by using a 1050 rod with the clip at the top which makes it significantly more convenient IMO.

[jmorris]

The parts are not brass but yours look correct. I use the failsafe parts on mine, a few still also have springs on them too.

[Youngeyes]

Do you have a picture of your spring set up after unbending the bar

I'll get a picture up tonight.

Perfectly normal. I tried the old style spring thing and found I actually preferred the newer failsafe rod system

Agreed, the failsafe system works great when adjusted properly and is inherently safer than the springs.

I have modified mine by using a 1050 rod with the clip at the top which makes it significantly more convenient IMO.

I can see no evidence that the system is safer. I have to push my handle forward all the time which pulls down on the fail safe rod anyway. The springs are more than strong enough to return the powder bar even without the rod. Can you please show me the studies that back up your statement?

[bowenbuilt]

Here is mine with the bent finger trimmed so it does not touch the body of the measure, the finger/bellcrank spring removed, a return spring added and the failsafe return rod intact. It works perfectly every time, is smooth as a baby's bottom and does not make a sound.

Edited May 16, 2015 by bowenbuilt

[RDA]

Perfectly normal. I tried the old style spring thing and found I actually preferred the newer failsafe rod system

Agreed, the failsafe system works great when adjusted properly and is inherently safer than the springs.

I can see no evidence that the system is safer. I have to push my handle forward all the time which pulls down on the fail safe rod anyway. The springs are more than strong enough to return the powder bar even without the rod. Can you please show me the studies that back up your statement?

The failsafe rod provides a direct linkage to the powder bar whereas the springs require their tension to retract the bar. Springs can lose tension or a kernel of powder can get caught in the powder bar providing a restriction in the travel.

I personally don't need a study to ascertain that I believe the failsafe rod is inherently safer. That doesn't mean the springs can't get the job done as well.

[Steve RA]

Use two springs !!!

[Youngeyes]

Perfectly normal. I tried the old style spring thing and found I actually preferred the newer failsafe rod system

Agreed, the failsafe system works great when adjusted properly and is inherently safer than the springs.

I can see no evidence that the system is safer. I have to push my handle forward all the time which pulls down on the fail safe rod anyway. The springs are more than strong enough to return the powder bar even without the rod. Can you please show me the studies that back up your statement?

The failsafe rod provides a direct linkage to the powder bar whereas the springs require their tension to retract the bar. Springs can lose tension or a kernel of powder can get caught in the powder bar providing a restriction in the travel.

I personally don't need a study to ascertain that I believe the failsafe rod is inherently safer. That doesn't mean the springs can't get the job done as well.

I agree RDA. I didn't realize that you were comparing a failsafe rod system to the old spring only system.

[bowenbuilt]

I totally agree using the springs only. I have modified several measures for guys in my club to use the Dillon measure on their Lee presses which does not have the failsafe return rod. Using only springs those measures will hang up occasionally so they have to keep a sharp eye on the powder bar to make sure it fully returns. Doing this mod on a Dillon is not a problem because it retains the failsafe rod. I found the constant "clack" very irritating and even my Wife complained about that noise who has never said a word about the case feeder as much noise as they make at times.

Edited May 16, 2015 by bowenbuilt

[barrysuperhawk]

Personally I just stuck a ziptie through the 2 pieces, and attached my old spring around the top. My old school press didn't have any of that stuff on it, and it was easier to disable it than try to retrofit the new stuff. You should be paying very careful attention to your reloading process anyway...