Automate Dillon RL1050

[cbrussell]

I thought i remember reading somewhere somone had automated the Dillon RL1050, either through the use of pneumatics or perhaps gear drive.

Anyone have any information or thoughts on the matter? Not that there is anything wrong with the Dillon RL 1050, but I was just pondering how to do such a thing.

Thanks,

Craig

[Jaxshooter]

I think it would be much smoother to use hydraulics. Pneumatics tend to be all or none where hydraulics are eaiser to regulate. I have several MEC and PW Shotshell loaders that are hydrauliclly operated.

[L9X25]

I saw one that was relatively simple and would seem inexpensive to duplicate. It had an electric motor with a chain drive that spun a large sprocket (think front sprocket on a bicycle) that was on a shaft. There was a shaft attached to the sprocket that provided the appropriate throw to operate the press.

From what I can see, the difficult part is getting the shaft to operate the 1050 through the entire cycle, which requires about 160 degrees on the driven side. I would also guess that you could adjust the dies and powder measure so that the press did not have to go all the way down through the cycle and reduce the travel of the tool head somewhat. Wish I had paid more attention to the details.

[wide45]

Plan on a bullet feeder if you want to stay attached to your fingers.

Going to smash things up good when it jams.

I know it can be done, but I tend to think it shouldn't.

[CSEMARTIN]

I know it can be done, but I tend to think it shouldn't.

That's kind of what I was thinking. I saw a video clip a few years ago showing an automated 1050. It was pretty slick, but I'm doubtful there was a happy ending.

[shred]

If you talk to Dillon, they'll tell you a number of people have maimed themselves right in Mike Dillon's office while demoing their automation kits. Safety interlocks are key here.

Anyway, the sprocket/chain version was posted here long long ago. Might still be discoverable in a search.

[Overkill]

I think the only type of automation I'd consider would be the semi-auto variety rather than fully auto. Some sort of deal where, when you've determined everythiing is kosher, you press and hold a button in a location clear of moving parts on the left side of the press with your left finger and a button clear of moving parts on the right side of he press with your right thumb. Then the machine fires one stroke and stops. Take both fingers off, and when ready put both fingers on.

[cbrussell]

I think the only type of automation I'd consider would be the semi-auto variety rather than fully auto. Some sort of deal where, when you've determined everythiing is kosher, you press and hold a button in a location clear of moving parts on the left side of the press with your left finger and a button clear of moving parts on the right side of he press with your right thumb. Then the machine fires one stroke and stops. Take both fingers off, and when ready put both fingers on.

That is more along the lines I was contemplating. Perhaps a foot switch where once all was well, a single stroke of the 1050 would be activated. I know I aw something similar but my old foggy memeory is failing me. Anyone have any links to such a thing?

Thanks

[WillM]

No links but you can easily find links to Ponsness Warren shotshell reloaders and to Spolar Gold reloaders which both have proven to work very well with hydraulics. I have personally used both types which were owned by friends, but I personally own PW, Dillon 900 and MEC shotshell loaders, none of which have the added hydraulics. The automation systems work very well on both of them BUT do not necessarily increase production rate. What they do is make the process easier on the operator so you're not stroking the handle every time - the hydraulics do the work but don't move any faster than if you crank it by hand. MEC apparently now has a base you can add to the 9000 loader to automate it but I've never seen or used one.

I know Dillon is adamantly opposed to mechanizing their machines but don't know why. I do know from personal experience that it's more of an effort to stroke a shotshell reloader than any of the Dillon machines so maybe they don't think any additional liability is worth minor gains in machines which are already pretty darn fast. I haven't run one of my shotshell loaders for many years now because factory loads have been so cheap and now that I've been bitten by the USPSA bug I'll be soon purchasing another Dillon [and probably selling the PW, MEC and SL900].

[valkabit]

Wow, I never thought that pulling the handle on a press was that bad of a thing.

[38superman]

I design machinery that's used for building cars, so I do this sort of thing for a living.

I thought seriously about how to automate a 1050 but have never taken it beyond contemplation.

The safety aspect is no small matter.

You could easily rig up a motor or hydraulic / pneumatic cylinder to drive the handle through it's range of motion.

I tend to think that air would be more practical than hydraulic.

True, hydraulic is easier to control in that you can stop and start it at mid-stroke.

Air is "spongy" and tends to be all or nothing on the stroke.

However, hydraulics work at high pressure and sooner or later seals begin to leak and it ends up being very messy.

Another problem (in this application) with hydraulics is that it is extremely powerful.

If something jams don't expect the hydraulic cylinder to stop, it will simply travel to the end of its stroke and destroy anything that tries to prevent it.

Sooner or later there will be a malfunction and the drive device needs to know that its time to disengage.

This could be done by adding a programmable logic controller and some limit switches.

Furthermore, there needs to be some feedback to let the device know when components are empty.

You would absolutely have to have a bullet feeder.

Under no circumstances can anyone have their hands in the working envelope of this machine while it's operating!

By time you design, build and pay for such a rig, you will have a serious investment.

It definately could be done, but you have to ask yourself is it worth the effort or should I just pull the handle?

If you are the mad scientist type with plenty of time and money on your hands, go for it.

Just keep your fingers out of it, okay?

Tony

Edited July 8, 2007 by 38superman

[EricW]

If you use a two-hand control to make it safe, you just made it slower than pulling the lever. I, too, used to build automation for a living. Power is not always faster. The 1050 is *definitely* one of those cases.

[WillM]

Wow, I never thought that pulling the handle on a press was that bad of a thing.

Just read some of the trap/skeet/sporting clays boards to see how many shoulder problems people have developed, especially I believe from MEC. Doesn't mean they're bad machines, just that to load a shotshell requires quite a bit more effort than metallic/pistol.

As I said above, hydraulics are tried and true for the shotshell loading application and it does require that the wad be placed by hand. Not saying no one has been slow to get their hand out of the way but if it were a real problem there would probably have been some changes. You place the wad on station and step on the actuating lever - if there is a problem you let up on the foot pedal and the stroke stops. This is not new technology or a new idea as far as shotshells but as I said before there must be some reason it hasn't been applied to pistol loading. My opinion is as I said before and Eric says above that you don't really gain an appreciable amount of speed and that the reduction in physical effort is not enough to offset the disadvantages of adding power.

[cbrussell]

Wow, I never thought that pulling the handle on a press was that bad of a thing.

Just read some of the trap/skeet/sporting clays boards to see how many shoulder problems people have developed, especially I believe from MEC. Doesn't mean they're bad machines, just that to load a shotshell requires quite a bit more effort than metallic/pistol.

As I said above, hydraulics are tried and true for the shotshell loading application and it does require that the wad be placed by hand. Not saying no one has been slow to get their hand out of the way but if it were a real problem there would probably have been some changes. You place the wad on station and step on the actuating lever - if there is a problem you let up on the foot pedal and the stroke stops. This is not new technology or a new idea as far as shotshells but as I said before there must be some reason it hasn't been applied to pistol loading. My opinion is as I said before and Eric says above that you don't really gain an appreciable amount of speed and that the reduction in physical effort is not enough to offset the disadvantages of adding power.

I checked both the PW and Spolar sites out. It looks as though both systems would work. Does anyone have the set up directions for either system?

Thanks

[38superman]

I would like to clarify that my previous post was based on the premise of full automation.

In order to fully automate, the system becomes much more complex.

If you just want to power the stroke as the hydraulic shotshell loader does, thats a semi-automated process.

It is simpler but where is the advantage?

You can't run it hands free and there is no speed advantage.

The only justification I can see is if you have a medical condition (like a separated shoulder or something) that causes difficulty in pulling the handle.

Tony

Edited July 8, 2007 by 38superman

[cbrussell]

I do not have a physical problem which percludes pulling the handle, I just thought it would be cool to have it hydraulically operated. I checked the RCBS site; they too have a hydraulic sytem for their shot shell press. It would seem to me that these systems could be adapted to the RL 1050 but I need to see their respective installation manuals. Anyone know of someone who has one of these setups?

Thanks

[Overkill]

I imagine that Dillon's objection to automation has far more to do with the cost of their liability insurance rather than any lack of technical ideas or inventiveness.

Probably the best and most effective solution to problems with elbow and shoulder problems, and repetitive stress issues in general would be to redesign the machines so you could pull with the left hand periodically or exclusively depending on your condition.

[L9X25]

You would absolutely have to have a bullet feeder.

Under no circumstances can anyone have their hands in the working envelope of this machine while it's operating!

I think that it takes a special kind of stupid to automate a press while manually placing the projectiles. I can see where even the best idea results in a ventilated or crushed finger.

All of the automated presses that I have seen had bullet feeders and high capacity primer systems so that you could simply fill them with supplies and let them go with no himan interaction. They keep running until you run out of a component. They have sensors on the powder and primers that will stop the machine if they run out.

[EricW]

I just thought it would be cool to have it hydraulically operated.

Yeah, but having all your digits attached is cooler.

I've seen those units. I'm still incredulous that they're even legal for sale. As an automation designer, if I put that type of a device in a factory, regardless of what my employer said was OK, OSHA would haul my ass to court when someone amputated their finger. Actually, they would charge me with gross negligence upon discovery of the device.

Notice I said "when" and not "if". An amputation (or close enough) is inevitable.

How the shotshell guys aren't held to the same safety standards the rest of us are is a mystery that will ponder the ages.

[38superman]

You would absolutely have to have a bullet feeder.

Under no circumstances can anyone have their hands in the working envelope of this machine while it's operating!

I think that it takes a special kind of stupid to automate a press while manually placing the projectiles. I can see where even the best idea results in a ventilated or crushed finger.

I agree, and you would be amazed at the level of stupidity I have seen from some people working around automated machinery.

Allow me to give you an example:

I once worked in a factory that makes rubber gaskets for pipe.

The rubber came out of an extrusion process as a continuous strip.

It was cut to a specific length by running on a conveyor belt where it passed under a air powered blade that fired every few seconds.

The leading edge of the rubber had a tendency to stick to the blade when it retracted and would bunch up on the belt rather that feed through.

The shift foremans solution to this?

He would reach his arm under the blade all the way up to his elbow, grab the rubber and pull it through.

I would hope that no one on this forum would be that monumentally stupid.

If so, stop playing with guns.

However, the point is that you never know what some daredevil will do around automation.

That's why in factories, machinery with moving parts has to be fully guarded with safety lockouts.

Tls

Edited July 9, 2007 by 38superman

[hitman]

I met a guy who started comercial custom reloading using 1050s.

He had a hydrolic set up that incorporated 2 buttons, press both and it started cycling, let up on one or both buttons and it stopped.

This allowed for the operator to set the bullet and or fill the case feeder.

Worked very well but I think it was far from cheap.

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: The 2 button switches comes from the punch press world. I have seen this bypassed as well. I was working at a customers factory when I witnessed a press operator using his left hand and right knee to operate the punch press. He could then use his right hand to move parts inside the die. That is why you see alot of punch press operators with missing fingers. I think you could easily automate the 1050 press but unless you are loading 10's of thousands of rounds per day why would you want to? Thanks, Eric

[hitman]

Yea I knew where he got the idea for 2 buttons but I think the reason he went auto was less effort on himself and his employee.

Any system can be defeated.

[slavex]

God I've pinched my fingers enough times with manual indexing presses, let alone auto indexing. I can only imagine how many people would lose fingers with a totally automated 1050 without a bullet feeder. as mentioned above you'd need all sorts of safeties in place for when bullets don't fall in the case right, primer punches break, etc etc. one would likely have to have a pressure switch so if the press encountered too much resistance the guage would spike and shut down the hydraulics. But why go to all that work when one could just buy a fully automatic press already?