dillon / lee / hornady progressive comparison

[beltfed]

Many buyers have pm'd me with their purchasing decisions, based on reading the article.
About 2/3 end up with Hornady, about 1/3 with Dillon, and a few with Lee. That suggests a balanced article.

Think so? I don't.
I think it is clearly biased. So much so, I would not be suprised to hear you were in the employ of Hornady...
I also think it dismisses a couple of real important presses that should not be dismissed, (like the Dillon Square Deal and 550b & RCBS Pro 2000) but since you may not have experience with either of them it can only mean one thing - clear win to Hornady

Considering this has been made a 'sticky', I'll wade in with my comments.
As a bit of background, I have and use 4 presses. (Dillon 550b, 650, LnL and a rockchucker.) I use all of them for various loading (9mm, 38 Special, 40S&W, 10mm, 45 auto, 223, 6PPC, 308 & 30-06) and punch out ammo from general plinking to competition ammo used in IPSC, IDPA, Service Rifle & Precision Rifle). I think being a late comer to the progressive market, Hornady most definately had an opportunity to get things right off the bat, yet they did some things that only leave a shooter baffled (the ejection wire in the path of the crimp die is probably my biggest beef).

Let's start at the beginning:

General Fit and Finish:I think this is one of the most important parts of a precision tool, and hense the reason you put it at the top; If a shooter is going to fork out several hundred dollars (and maybe thousands if you consider the end result of loading several calibers) they probably want the heart of the system to be rock solid.
My LnL is pretty loose - about .001" lash, and that is pretty typical of the ones I've had a look at (about a dozen total) Compare that to the Dillons (both my 550 and 650 and the ones I've looked at) which are zero lash.

You go on to down-play the 'fit and finish' attribute by saying 'they all do the job' and go into a diatribe about the akrobins - akrobins are akrobins afterall- both the Dillon and Hornady products issue akrobins with their presses...except the ones with the Dillon presses are bigger allowing more ammo and therefore less stopping during the loading process...a little thing that means nothing in the end - or maybe it does to some people?

Dies:
Since this is a review of the presses, I won't go into the attributes of the different dies - except to say I use a multitude of them and haven't had any issues using them on all of the presses I have...the only exception is the LnL. Due to the case ejector wire, most crimp dies won't work - with the exception of the Hornady zip crimp die (how convienient).
Also, Hornady dies are some of the worst on the market. The zip spindle design is a failure imho.

Primer change:
As mentioned by others, the whole point to the Dillon system is to allow for quick changes with modules of parts. It may cost more, but the systems are far faster (if one wants to compare that kind of thing).

Used primer management:
I actually like the fact I just have a cup attached to the Dillon presses. It means I don't have to have a garbage can at the base of the press or at my feet ready to be kicked over, and add to the fact you can fit a thousand spent primers in the cups, I think this is a non-issue.

Case Retention
The problem I have with this is it is different engineering to solve the problem, but all work equally well. I'm not sure how you can subjectively without bias, say the Hornady is better?
In fact, the buttons Dillon uses can be left off for a number of rounds if one is doing load development or trouble shooting an issue, and can be done on one or more of the shell holder positions - something the Hornady fails at (despite being a decent solution in its own right).

Powder Handling and Just the right amount of powder
The powder thrower that Hornady offers bone stock is the worst I've used. The micrometer adjustmant improves it, but the beauty of the Dillon powder throwers is the fact they don't need it. They can too be improved by the addition of a micrometer adjustment - but stock it is by far the better product. As an aside, the dillon powder through expanders come as part of the caliber conversions, not optional accessories like the Hornady.

Lack of Powder, squibs
I've had tens of thousands of rounds through the Dillon measures, using stick, ball and flake and they have proven very reliable. I'm likely echoing thousands of Dillon owners, so I'm not sure how you make such a sweeping statement that it is a clear win to Hornady. Same could be said regarding the double charging - the fail safe rod is there for a reason.

Speed
I can do 500 an hour on my 550 - comfortably. The 650 is higher, and the Hornady is slightly less than the 650 - only due to that damned tiny akcrobin...

Caliber change
Both the 550 and 650 are easily faster than the Hornady - even going from small to large primer or reverse. The whole point to the tool head - but that has been mentioned by more than one...

Case feeder
By far and wide the case feeder and paths of the Dillons beat the Hornady offerings. The precision of them is tuned such that miss-fed calibers are going to get caught before being fed into the path. The Hornady path can be quite a bit more finicky and is less thought out in my opinion. Cheaper yes, but a loader pays for it in the frustration of dealing with less than ideal engineering.

Ejection
I can honestly say I've never had an ejection issue with either Dillon presses.
The Hornady, even after the 'EZject' system has on occasion, hung the press up slightly. Nothing to be concerned about, but certainly not a 'tie' in my opinion.

Space
People are looking for a solution to load (potentially) thousands of rounds, and space is an issue? - why not include the square deal? This is a press that would perform brilliantly in this regard.

Die Storage
Again, I'm not sure how this is a real attribute to the press or its function, but I guess if you are looking at stacking items in favor of one product over the other you'll need something - like when Road and Track compares the trunk space of sports cars.
I've used the LnL system for a couple of years before the progressive press, and the dies don't fit with the quick coupler attached unless modified- but the only ones I've tried are Hornady, RCBS, Redding and Lee

Maintenance
Not sure why you'd feel the need to take the Dillon press apart, but adding oil is easily done through the oiler holes...
I think this whole portion is full of mis-information or mis-understanding by the author.


Longevity and Service
You fail to mention that Dillon's ironclad warranty has been in place (along with the proven engineering) for decades. Hornady's system of service and support, while good is and has been proven (in their short time of having the LnL out to the public) not so stellar (Consider the EZject system...).



In conclusion, I'm going to continue using and enjoying my loading gear, but I'm not out to sell presses, don't work for anyone and my first choice will continue to be Dillon...at least for progressive presses...
My not so un-biased view

 

[acrashb]

I'll respond to a few key things here.

I also think it dismisses a couple of real important presses that should not be dismissed, (like the Dillon Square Deal and 550b & RCBS Pro 2000)

Nothing was dismissed. At the time of writing (about 2005) there were only three auto-progressive presses, with case feeders etc. on the market. I would be pleased to now review the RCBS, because it is now auto-progressive, if someone is willing to lend one to me for a few months. The Square Deal is not in the same class as the 650 / LNL AP / Loadmaster, nor is the 550b (not auto progressive).

General Fit and Finish:[...]go into a diatribe about the akrobins - akrobins are akrobins afterall-

You've missed the difference between fit and finish. Fit is crucial. Finish is irrelevant, hence my parable of the akrobins.

Dies:[...] Due to the case ejector wire, most crimp dies won't work

This is incorrect, and has been for some years since the advent of EZJect on the LNL. Having said that, I identified this issue in the first versions of the writeup and have given it a nod in the current version on page 10, footnote 21.

Primer change:It may cost more, but the systems [Dillon] are far faster

With enough money, all issues can be overcome. Someone getting into it needs to know that additional expenditure is required on system A to match system B, hence the writeup says of the Dillon "You can get an entire replacement unit, and do it in a minute with only two bolts – but that’s more money."

Case Retention[...]I'm not sure how you can subjectively without bias, say the Hornady is better? In fact, the buttons Dillon uses can be left off for a number of rounds if one is doing load development or trouble shooting an issue,[...]

Yes the buttons can be left off, or just pulled off ad-hoc to check something on the fly, but this is an extra step vs. the wire spring just moving out of the way as you remove/reinsert a case. Not a big deal, but I still found the LNL AP system slightly superior.

Powder Handling and Just the right amount of powder
The powder thrower that Hornady offers bone stock is the worst I've used

Your experience is at odds with essentially everyone else's. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean that you need to back it up with something substantial, which you have not done.

Rotary throwers work better than slide bar throwers - this is well-understood - for consistency, leakage, and reduction in bridging at low charge weights. They are also better at cutting long-grain rifle powders.

Lack of Powder, squibsI've had tens of thousands of rounds through the Dillon measures, using stick, ball and flake and they have proven very reliable.

The issue shows up with flake powders at low charge weights (e.g., fast powders in 9mm, as noted in the writeup). I suppose environmental conditions - having the just-right level of temperature and humidity to prevent sticking through dampness or static cling - play a factor as well. If you have had no problems (assuming “very reliable” means “zero defects”), that’s great – but I did, and so do others, so it’s worth mentioning.

Caliber changeBoth the 550 and 650 are easily faster than the Hornady - even going from small to large primer or reverse.

Only with additional, costly parts, like pre-set powder throws on each toolhead etc.

Case feeder[...] a loader pays for it in the frustration of dealing with less than ideal engineering.

In relation to the LNL AP's purported "less than ideal engineering", the test of a thing is not the engineering but the outcome. I found the Dillon and LNL AP feeding system to be identical in outcomes: no material frustration with either system.

Space People are looking for a solution to load (potentially) thousands of rounds, and space is an issue?

Yes, it is for some people. My issue is a low ceiling. Others will have overall storage space concerns (and others, apparently including yourself, do not). Having said that, letting people in on the space differences - raising awareness - can't hurt.

Die StorageAgain, I'm not sure how this is a real attribute to the press or its function
[...]
the LnL […] dies don't fit with the quick coupler attached unless modified- but the only ones I've tried are Hornady, RCBS, Redding and Lee

On the first thing, space is always a factor. I found storing the Loadmaster and Dillon turrets to be a monumental pain in the ass, directly related of course to the press since the turrets come with them. If I had capacious storage cabinets to keep the dust off of them things would be different. On the second, try harder. Dies fit in my RCBS and Redding cases with the bushings installed. They bulge a bit, more so on the Redding, but close securely and fit cleanly in my toolchest regardless. They won’t fit in a Lee die case.

Maintenance
Not sure why you'd feel the need to take the Dillon press apart, but adding oil is easily done through the oiler holes...
I think this whole portion is full of mis-information or mis-understanding by the author.

Your thinking is incorrect. From the Dillon 650 manual: “It is highly recommended that the XL 650 be cleaned and lubed after every 3000 rounds of operation. Use 30-weight motor oil on shaft, and wheel bearing grease on pivot pins and all other moving parts”. You can’t get wheel bearing grease on the pins without disassembly.

Longevity and Service
You fail to mention that Dillon's ironclad warranty has been in place […] for decades

Can’t fail when a thing is irrelevant. Whether it’s been in place decades or days, the outcome for a current user is what matters. In practice, the Dillon and Hornady warranty operate the same.

There is nothing wrong with the 650… or the LNL AP. Before I added the LNL AP I was accused of a pro-Lee Loadmaster bias (amazing, considering all the niggling issues that I identified), now it’s a pro-LNL AP bias. I have no brand biases; what general biases I have are identified in the section of the writeup titled “My Biases”. I do have usage biases, based on my personal (and reproducible ) experiences and needs; these are evident from the writeup and all sides well-enough explained to provide information rather than direction.

 

[beltfed]

The Square Deal is not in the same class as the 650 / LNL AP / Loadmaster, nor is the 550b (not auto progressive).

Sure they are. The SD is auto indexing and the 550b can be retrofitted with a case feeder. They are progressives regardless whether you regard them as such. While the 550 is slower in operation than auto indexing machines, it makes up for it in being simpler with less parts. This can be a real consideration for someone who is starting out. Someone claiming to be unbiased would see it for what it is...

You've missed the difference between fit and finish. Fit is crucial. Finish is irrelevant, hence my parable of the akrobins.

I didn't miss anything. I have the Hornady and I have the Dillon. I can put the two bins side by each and see that they are in fact the same bin by the same manufacturer (Ackrobin branded), again with the exception of Dillon offering a larger sized bin. I'm simply pointing out that by writing your 'parable', you were unwittingly outlining your bias toward the Dillon brand:

"For example, the Dillon cartridge bins are really just blue, Dillonbranded
AkroBins. They are the best AkroBins I have every seen - straight sides, no flash, near-perfect surfaces. But the functional difference between a great AkroBin and a good-enough AkroBins is zero."

Like I said, I know the above is nonsense because they are the same branded bin, but others that are reading it with no knowledge of the products may find it a good reason not to invest in a Dillon purchase if they read into the inference of paying top dollar for branded items (as is your case against Dillon).

Even after admitting the Dillon presses are of closer, tuned tolerances you go to give the nod to Hornady at the end of the paragraph:

"Of the three, the Hornady requires the least force to operate – good leverage combined with low-friction
/ close tolerance fittings do the job. Interestingly, the Hornady’s tolerances are so good that I had to
use firm pressure on the grease gun to force grease into the fittings."

I'm not sure how an arguably sloppy press can somehow be the one with the best tolerances, but whatever - it's your write-up...

This is incorrect, and has been for some years since the advent of EZJect on the LNL..

Right, this is the same 'EZject' system that they had to come out as a retro-fit for their poor engineering, and still would not recognize it as a warranty item, sticking customers with a bill if they wanted the upgrade?
Oh yeah, you added it as a footnote because you don't want to tarnish the good name you've bolstered for the Hornady product. The reality is, if Dillon would have done something similar, people would be pissed and complaining about having to pay for their mistake in the first place. Also, considering Dillon's track record (upgrades of existing 450s to the current design of 550bs for ZERO customer cost) of service and support, it is nothing short of stellar...
But still you seam to consider that the same between the two companies.

Yes the buttons can be left off, or just pulled off ad-hoc to check something on the fly, but this is an extra step vs. the wire spring just moving out of the way as you remove/reinsert a case. Not a big deal, but I still found the LNL AP system slightly superior...

'ad-hoc' 'slightly superior' - Listen to the language...this is coming from someone who is supposedly unbiased....

Firstly, the buttons are simply another system to get the job done.
There are attributes to their use that give them the edge over the spring.
- they are station position specific so if a loader is pulling cases after sizing and bypassing the rest of the loading steps, it can be easily done for all cases.
- It too can be done with one hand (not sure what you were drawing at with this statement).
The spring is not case specific, so will work on all cartridges - although the tension is not uniform from one to the other, and can be difficult to remove a case with a degree of care - if the case is full of powder, this can be an issue. I don't see this as being in the least superior, nevermind 'slightly superior'.

Your experience is at odds with essentially everyone else's. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean that you need to back it up with something substantial, which you have not done

The metering unit that comes with the powder measure sucks. It is poorly engineered and makes fine adjustment of powder drop weight charge quite difficult. It is nearly manditory to update it with the micrometer one.
While the Dillon on the otherhand - and in fact any other rotary one I've used, can be used effectively without a micrometer update.

Rotary throwers work better than slide bar throwers - this is well-understood - for consistency, leakage, and reduction in bridging at low charge weights. They are also better at cutting long-grain rifle powders.
The issue shows up with flake powders at low charge weights (e.g., fast powders in 9mm, as noted in the writeup). I suppose environmental conditions - having the just-right level of temperature and humidity to prevent sticking through dampness or static cling - play a factor as well.

This is all nonsense. If the slide throwers were so poor in their performance Dillon would have changed their system years, if not decades ago.
Fact is they are the most successful manufacturer of progressive presses in the world, and the slide throwers work, are repeatable with all types of powders and are as accurate as anything in their market.

In relation to the LNL AP's purported "less than ideal engineering", the test of a thing is not the engineering but the outcome. I found the Dillon and LNL AP feeding system to be identical in outcomes: no material frustration with either system..

I was refering to both the feeding system (they had to change thier shell plates) and the 'EZject' - both engineering flaws that were corrected at the expense of customers. Not cool, and something people need to be very aware of when buying into this system. You can bury it in footnotes or under the carpet, whichever suits your sensibilities.

Yes, it is for some people. My issue is a low ceiling. Others will have overall storage space concerns (and others, apparently including yourself, do not). Having said that, letting people in on the space differences - raising awareness - can't hurt.

Right, my whole point of bringing to light the existance of the Square Deal or the 550b (if used without the case feeder, is quite compact overall).
If you don't own those or have experience with them, that is fine - but others who read this may want to know about them. You know, if it's a sticky and all.

I found storing the Loadmaster and Dillon turrets to be a monumental pain in the ass, directly related of course to the press since the turrets come with them.

Most who use these systems keep them in stands that sit behind the press on the bench, but whatever...

On the second, try harder. Dies fit in my RCBS and Redding cases with the bushings installed. They bulge a bit, more so on the Redding, but close securely and fit cleanly in my toolchest regardless. They won’t fit in a Lee die case..

They fit if you cut away plastic casting to hold the die from inside of the case, but as you say, they buldge quite a lot.
My whole point is this is a poor excuse for a reasonable attribute associated with the press. It reminds me when you first wrote the article you had a section devoted to hacking on the Dillon because you had to use so many tools to set it up - the notion was laughable that someone would have to use tools to set up another tool was such that I see you deleted it from your write up in its entirety. Fancy that, no footnotes...

Your thinking is incorrect. From the Dillon 650 manual: “It is highly recommended that the XL 650 be cleaned and lubed after every 3000 rounds of operation. Use 30-weight motor oil on shaft, and wheel bearing grease on pivot pins and all other moving parts”. You can’t get wheel bearing grease on the pins without disassembly.

There are now grease ports on the link pins and main shaft pin. Dillon will upgrade older machines with this feature if owners so choose. Will Hornady extend the same consideration to thier customer base? Based on the 'EZject' debacle, I'm guessing not - but willing to be happily suprised...

Can’t fail when a thing is irrelevant. Whether it’s been in place decades or days, the outcome for a current user is what matters. In practice, the Dillon and Hornady warranty operate the same.

Warranty and service has been proven over and over and over again with Dillon. You have no arguement against that.
Hornady has proven to produce and field sub-standard engineering and design with some of their offerings, and have proven to refuse to acknowledge it by making customers pay for thier faults. I'll refer you back to the 'EZject' system. Huge fail on their part.

There is nothing wrong with the 650… or the LNL AP. Before I added the LNL AP I was accused of a pro-Lee Loadmaster bias (amazing, considering all the niggling issues that I identified), now it’s a pro-LNL AP bias. I have no brand biases; what general biases I have are identified in the section of the writeup titled “My Biases”. I do have usage biases, based on my personal (and reproducible ) experiences and needs; these are evident from the writeup and all sides well-enough explained to provide information rather than direction.

Your biases against the Dillon products are evident in your writing, writing style and most everything you post on this board. Deny it all you like, its no skin off my ass.

 

[acrashb]

Even after admitting the Dillon presses are of closer, tuned tolerances

Never said it - said "Dillon has a clear win in general fit and finish, with Hornady a close second", then spoke a bit about both fit and finish. The "fit" is the same, maybe better on the Hornady based on the smooth, low-effort operation and the effort required on the grease fittings, and maybe not better - hard to judge. The "finish" is a clear win to Dillon, I just don't think that's important - but if it is to someone else, they'll know from the writeup that the Dillon's finish is superior. I may separate fit and finish in the next version, as I can see where the confusion might come from, and they are separate issues even though it's a cultural norm to mention them in the same breath.

Oh yeah, you added it as a footnote because you don't want to tarnish the good name you've bolstered for the Hornady product.

Argumentative bulls**t. It's in a footnote because it is a previous version of the press. I could have legitimately removed it altogether, and chose to leave it in for historical value.

The metering unit that comes with the powder measure sucks.

'Sucks', no. It is every bit as accurate (repeatable) as any other measure. Slow to adjust, yes, hence in the "Competitors" section I've listed the micrometre insert as an extra. I make a lot of adjustments and prefer dial-in convenience. Someone who makes fewer adjustments won't need the micrometre insert, and won't be bothered by the lack of same on the 650.

If the slide throwers were so poor in their performance Dillon would have changed their system years, if not decades ago.

Why? I never said they worked poorly - that's your statement in place of any of mine - in fact they work not badly, just not as well as a rotary measure for the reasons that I mentioned. Further, by leaving it as-is without a micrometre adjustment option, Dillon encourages the sale of additional throws - this is just good business, and may also reflect Dillon user's less-frequent adjusting (I don't know, but it's an interesting hypothetical). On a side note, RCBS users report satisfaction with their rotary measures as well, and for the same reasons.

They fit if you cut away plastic casting to hold the die from inside of the case, but as you say, they buldge quite a lot.

Not correct, no cutting required, at least with my die boxes, and I doubt the design has changed recently. I did not say "bulge quite a lot", but that is subjective - what is objective is that they close securely and fit in a standard tool chest, as I mentioned.

when you first wrote the article you had a section devoted to hacking on the Dillon because you had to use so many tools to set it up

"hacking on"? Hardly. Using fewer tools to adjust or work with something is always a benefit - hence we have tool-less computer casings etc. It means increased speed in calibre changes.

There are now grease ports on the link pins and main shaft pin

Good to know - and the first positive thing you've added to date. I will verify and update the writeup. Also good to know that Dillon is doing free upgrades - it's a great company. Too bad their online manuals aren't up to speed.

Warranty and service has been proven over and over and over again with Dillon. You have no arguement against that.

Here's the argument about that: it's no different from the Hornady. Great, of course, but no greater. So it isn't a differentiating feature against the Hornady, but is against the Loadmaster.

Your biases against the Dillon products are evident in your writing

My bias is against dillonophiles, not Dillon products. Hence the section with dillonophile quotes and the footnote explaining where the bias comes from. I use Dillon products and am, as you may know, very pleased with the 1200B trimmer. I was also very pleased with the 650, there's nothing wrong with it.

The writeup is widely seen as the least-biased review of the major auto-progressive presses, so I'm comfortable with it in that sense. If you have additional constructive things to add (such as the grease fittings you mentioned above), they are most welcome.

 

[beltfed]

Never said it - said "Dillon has a clear win in general fit and finish, with Hornady a close second", then spoke a bit about both fit and finish. The "fit" is the same, maybe better on the Hornady based on the smooth, low-effort operation and the effort required on the grease fittings, and maybe not better - hard to judge..

You're right - It was me who measured a few Dillons (about a dozen) that are tight from the factory, and the Hornady LnLs I've encountered (including mine) were a little sloppy.
Unless you've actually done some sort of measurement of the effort required to operate both, I'm going to have to call subjective B/S on your part.

Argumentative bulls**t. It's in a footnote because it is a previous version of the press. I could have legitimately removed it altogether, and chose to leave it in for historical value.

Please...
You're seriously not that egotistical that you don't want to mess with the 'historical value' of your original article, are you? If that is the case, why did you simply remove some of the information in the first 'edition' then, instead of correcting it in a footnote?

Slow to adjust, yes,

Not only is it slow, but it is very difficult to make minute 'tweeks' once the weight is close - Its due to the design of the rubber o-rings and the interference fit with the lock collar - In summary, it is a poor design, making the micrometer 'upgrade' virtually manditory.
The Dillon adjustment bolt on the other hand can be easily 'dialed in' in comparison.

... in fact they work not badly, just not as well as a rotary measure for the reasons that I mentioned.

Um, no. They work every bit as good. There is enough evidence from the thousands of Dillon users out there...

Further, by leaving it as-is without a micrometre adjustment option, Dillon encourages the sale of additional throws - this is just good business, and may also reflect Dillon user's less-frequent adjusting (I don't know, but it's an interesting hypothetical).

That's the whole point of the tool die and modular design - you know this.
You're making it sound like Dillon is the only company involved in the repeat sale of their products
Yes, Dillon is doing it to sell more of their stuff and Hornady does it to save their customers money....

"hacking on"? Hardly. Using fewer tools to adjust or work with something is always a benefit - hence we have tool-less computer casings etc. It means increased speed in calibre changes .

You had it as one of your 'win, loose or draw' attributes you have created for the 'review'. If I remember correctly, you claimed it was a little overwhelming having to use so many tools on the Dillon (essentially blaming the engineering of the product) - which of course Hornady 'won' due to less use of tools...

How's this: When I set up my Hornady LnL, they recommend in their instructions that the user is to dis-assemble the powder throw and clean it of the protective finish applied at the factory - but they don't include the necessary allen wrench to do it - fortunately for me, I had the Dillon wrenches (which come with the press btw) at hand to do the maintenance on the Hornady equipment before I could use it...

Good to know - and the first positive thing you've added to date. I will verify and update the writeup. Also good to know that Dillon is doing free upgrades - it's a great company.

I can't imagine anything I've said you'd find positive, but thanks for the kind words.
I'm only injecting into this thread the other side of the picture you are painting for <potential> Hornady owners. The LnL is not quite as good as you claim it to be. Not standing on its own, and certainly not when standing against Dillon's stuff.

Regarding the upgrades - Dillon has been doing that for years...

Here's the argument about that: it's no different from the Hornady. Great, of course, but no greater. So it isn't a differentiating feature against the Hornady

Again,
Hornady has proven they are incapable of making good on their design with the issues surrounding the 'EZject' - They passed these 'upgrades' onto consumers instead of admitting this was a factory flaw in the first instance.
If Dillon was faced with the same issue, they would have offered the upgrade for free to their customer base - as they have proven to do in the past, and as they do currently!

The writeup is widely seen as the least-biased review of the major auto-progressive presses, so I'm comfortable with it in that sense.

By people with no experience in either products no doubt...

You can sugar coat Hornady's stuff all you like, it is after all your opinion.
I just hope people that are reading your review, and the remainder of this thread do some searching on their own.
They need to look no further than the issues surrounding the EZject, the Powder Through Expanders (PTX) and the case feeder issues with the differing shell plate designs to see that while Hornady is making great strides to provide a decent machine, they are not yet in the same league as Dillon's stuff.

 

[leverboy]

Here's a couple lowly Lee Breech Lock single stagers just lovin' the exchange! "Get in there, acrashb, back at 'im!!" Lol

 

[acrashb]

Unless you've actually done some sort of measurement of the effort required to operate both, I'm going to have to call subjective B/S on your part.

One had a certain level of effort, the other was easier. Wasn't close enough to need a weigh scale measurement, as they were side-by-side at the time and the difference was noticeable.
I respect the measurements on ram free play you claim to have made, and am interested in the raw data to do a comparative analysis, ideally tagged to press serial numbers. Having said that, my LNL is still zero-lash, as was my 650. I'll ask a couple or LNL reloaders to have a look at their lash.

If that is the case, why did you simply remove some of the information in the first 'edition' then, instead of correcting it in a footnote?

In reference to EZJect, It's not "corrected" in the footnote, it's in the footnote for historical purposes like when someone buys a used press. There need not be paranoid issues around ego to explain this one.

Not only is it slow, but it is very difficult to make minute 'tweeks' once the weight is close - Its due to the design of the rubber o-rings and the interference fit with the lock collar - In summary, it is a poor design, making the micrometer 'upgrade' virtually manditory.

This is good information - I don’t necessarily agree with it, having had a different experience (matched to the different experience of other local LNL users), but it's objective.

Um, no. They work every bit as good. There is enough evidence from the thousands of Dillon users out there...

In reference to the rotary vs. slide-bar throw issue, no they don't "work every bit as good". I will repeat the key advantages of a rotary throw again for reference: they don't leak with fine powders, and they cut long-grain rifle powders better. Rotary throws are also more consistent with low-weight charges due to the shapes of the chambers - the adjustable sliding-bar throws end up with relatively narrow "clam-shaped" chambers (particularly narrow at the edges) at low charge weights, which are not ideal for consistent filling (an exception would be the Lee fixed-size cavities) – this shows up with flake powders, never noticed any issues with ball powders (as noted in the writeup, “Flake powders with light loads may bridge”).

The “evidence from the thousands of Dillon users” isn’t evidence of superiority or parity - it's evidence that a number of people bought a product that works well enough for them. Those thousands of users experience leakage with fine powders (W296, AA#9, etc.), and if they used long-grain rifle powders would be unsatisfied. As a result, they likely don't use long-grain rifle powders and have either avoided fine powders or just live with the leakage (as I did with the Lee Loadmaster, although the polymer wiper system helped here).

You're making it sound like Dillon is the only company involved in the repeat sale of their products

Your inference is the opposite of my intent and language: my words, which on review continue to look neutral in nature, were “Further, by leaving it as-is without a micrometre adjustment option, Dillon encourages the sale of additional throws - this is just good business[…]” Of course other companies do it, but you were discussing Dillon and claiming, IMO, that they kept the powder system because it was the best for the consumers (see the word “performance”): "If the slide throwers were so poor in their performance Dillon would have changed their system years, if not decades ago.”

Yes, Dillon is doing it to sell more of their stuff and Hornady does it to save their customers money

Never said nor implied anything like this sarcastic statement - you inferred it independently. For clarity, Hornady, Lee, Dillon, MEC, RCBS, Lyman, Redding, CH4D, IBM, all do what they do to maximize their corporate goals, which must involve both profit and revenue if they are to survive and grow.

If I remember correctly, you claimed it was a little overwhelming having to use so many tools on the Dillon

You do not remember correctly, but I stand ready to be corrected with an older screenshot (I do not retain previous versions). I can guarantee that the word "overwhelming" and its connotations were never there - it is tendentious for you to use it. Even if it was there, why on earth would we bring up something long gone / corrected? But it wasn’t, so it’s a moot question.

I can't imagine anything I've said you'd find positive

new information re: grease fittings on a 650 – first time on commenter had mentioned this.

Having said that, Dillon just quoted me a price on the upgrade, so I'm not sure your information about a free upgrade is correct.

[…] the issues surrounding the 'EZject' - They passed these 'upgrades' onto consumers instead of admitting this was a factory flaw in the first instance.

Dillon passes the upgrade costs onto consumers at the time of initial purchase - it's one of the reasons that Dillon's cost more out of the gate. It comes down to a marketing decision: ask a customer to pay up front then provide no-charge upgrades (maybe, as above I was just quoted a price and part numbers to do the grease fitting upgrade - #13700 at $17.59 each, quantity two, and #13581 at $5.00 each, quantity two), or ask them to pay later when and if upgrades are issued and desired by the customer. Both work – any given customer has a given level of comfort with one approach or the next. Just like the warrantee: with a Lee, you have paid for a only a two-year warrantee followed by self-pay for anything that wears out. But you pay less up-front.

I suppose it could hinge on the perception of "design flaw" vs "upgrade". I was, and am, fine with the wire, and partly so because I knew the limitation (short dies only in the fifth station, more or less, depending on the calibre and die construction – for example, I have extensively used a Lee Factory Crimp Die in .223 in the fifth station, with a wire ejector) going in. I think the EZJect is better - an upgrade that creates more flexibility in the system. Both bits of info are in the writeup, so people can make up their minds for themselves when buying a used press. For new presses, it’s a non-issue.

 

[acrashb]

Here's a couple lowly Lee Breech Lock single stagers just lovin' the exchange! "Get in there, acrashb, back at 'im!!" Lol

LOL indeed! I "dismissed" the Breech Lock because it isn't auto progressive , or even progressive.

 

[Skovoroda]

 

[beltfed]

it's one of the reasons that Dillon's cost more out of the gate.

Another common fallacy regarding Dillon products is the cost difference.
Against stuff like Lee? Sure.
But Hornady?
Obviously there is and always will be a differences between what we see in the States and Canada, but eventually things are a wash, almost.... In fact, I think it would be very tough to set up a LnL to a comperable level as the 650 considering the present exchange rate.

From Hornady's website (all prices are msrp):
LnL AP: $499.54 - Calgary BassPro is ~$580.00
Casefeeder: $439.53
Shell Plates: $40.72 - Calgary BassPro is ~$45.00
Powder Measure: $93.25
Case activated powder drop: $72.59
Case activated lower assembly: $30.00 *you need all three, powder measure, case activated powder drop and lower assembly to run on a LnL*

From Dillon's Web store:

650 XL: $544.95 (comes set up in one caliber)
Casefeeder Assembly: $222.95
Quick change kit (contains powder measure, tool head & stand): $99.95
Caliber conversion kits: $75.95

 

[beltfed]

In reference to the rotary vs. slide-bar throw issue, no they don't "work every bit as good". I will repeat the key advantages of a rotary throw again for reference: they don't leak with fine powders, and they cut long-grain rifle powders better. Rotary throws are also more consistent with low-weight charges due to the shapes of the chambers - the adjustable sliding-bar throws end up with relatively narrow "clam-shaped" chambers (particularly narrow at the edges) at low charge weights, which are not ideal for consistent filling (an exception would be the Lee fixed-size cavities) – this shows up with flake powders, never noticed any issues with ball powders (as noted in the writeup, “Flake powders with light loads may bridge”).

The “evidence from the thousands of Dillon users” isn’t evidence of superiority or parity - it's evidence that a number of people bought a product that works well enough for them. Those thousands of users experience leakage with fine powders (W296, AA#9, etc.), and if they used long-grain rifle powders would be unsatisfied. As a result, they likely don't use long-grain rifle powders and have either avoided fine powders or just live with the leakage (as I did with the Lee Loadmaster, although the polymer wiper system helped here).

The slide bar system works and is proven technology.
I'm not professing it is perfect, but neither is a rotary measure.
You can keep repeating things until you are blue in the face - it doesn't make it correct or you right.

Your inference is the opposite of my intent and language: my words, which on review continue to look neutral in nature, were “Further, by leaving it as-is without a micrometre adjustment option, Dillon encourages the sale of additional throws - this is just good business[…]” Of course other companies do it, but you were discussing Dillon and claiming, IMO, that they kept the powder system because it was the best for the consumers (see the word “performance”): "If the slide throwers were so poor in their performance Dillon would have changed their system years, if not decades ago.”
Never said nor implied anything like this sarcastic statement - you inferred it independently. For clarity, Hornady, Lee, Dillon, MEC, RCBS, Lyman, Redding, CH4D, IBM, all do what they do to maximize their corporate goals, which must involve both profit and revenue if they are to survive and grow.

Yes, everything you have written is innocuous in nature and you have no bias....Right, got it.

You do not remember correctly, but I stand ready to be corrected with an older screenshot (I do not retain previous versions). I can guarantee that the word "overwhelming" and its connotations were never there - it is tendentious for you to use it. Even if it was there, why on earth would we bring up something long gone / corrected? But it wasn’t, so it’s a moot question.

Kept a screen shot? No, I recall it vaguely; remembering only reading it with passing bemusement. 'Overwhelming' might be the wrong term...that you used - but the short of it was, as I recall, you attributed the use of more tools as a negative feature of the Dillon Press. All nonsense of course.

Having said that, Dillon just quoted me a price on the upgrade, so I'm not sure your information about a free upgrade is correct.

Certainly people are not going to go and send their presses off to Dillon to replace a couple of pin sleaves.
The upgrade comes at time of overhaul. You know, after you've pumped a hundred thousand rounds through the press. Regardless, the whole grease fitting thing is not necessary to ensure proper lubrication of the press, nor is the disassembly of the armature. Ever pack a wheel bearing with grease? No? Ever wonder how its done? (hint: the simplest and easiest way to do it is by hand)

 

[acrashb]

The slide bar system works and is proven technology.
I'm not professing it is perfect, but neither is a rotary measure.
You can keep repeating things until you are blue in the face - it doesn't make it correct or you right.

I have always said that they work; you have not rebutted the leakage or large-stick issues (because you can't); repeating a thing isn't intended to make it correct but it to keep correct information in front of people who don't have the patience to read multiple posts. Rotarys are superior on fine-grained leakage and large-powder cutting, as well as low-charge-weight flake powder consistency.

No, I recall it vaguely[...]you attributed the use of more tools as a negative feature of the Dillon Press. All nonsense of course.

On the first, if vague then best to remain silent on the issue rather than impute incorrectly-loaded words. On the second, as is clear, any system that uses fewer tools to adjust / maintain has an advantage over one that doesn't (how much an advantage is personal preference). Claiming this to be nonsense is baffling. Why is it nonsense? You have in effect claimed that more tools are better, or at least a non-issue, for which I can't see even a tangential justification.

If I needed more tools than a jack, correctly-sized socket, and torque wrench to rotate my car's tires, I'd be pissed. So would anyone. If a car came along that somehow did away with the jack, all else being equal that would be an advantage.

The upgrade comes at time of overhaul.

This confirms that your initial statement about a free upgrade was not correct - it's part of an overhaul (which I understand to be without charge, although the considerable shipping would be at the expense of the owner) which one sends the press away for. Good to know, and I've updated the writeup accordingly for the next release.

 

[beltfed]

I have always said that they work; you have not rebutted the leakage or large-stick issues (because you can't); repeating a thing isn't intended to make it correct but it to keep correct information in front of people who don't have the patience to read multiple posts. Rotarys are superior on fine-grained leakage and large-powder cutting, as well as low-charge-weight flake powder consistency.

I can only relay what I've heard first hand and have personal knowledge of - small amounts of flake - yep, I have used and loaded tens of thousands of rounds with titegroup and other powders which falls into this catagory.
Large stick - Like Varget and VihtaVorhi powders? Yep, load those too without issue, from small increments in the VV pistol loads all the way up to larger loads for 30-06.
Regarding the cutting - yes they cut, as do rotary powders.
Regarding the bridging - yes they can on odd occasion - as can a rotary.
Don't believe me? Ask around.

The reality is they work about the same, and you have a bias toward one against the other - or more importantly, a bias against the Dillon system.

On the first, if vague then best to remain silent on the issue rather than impute incorrectly-loaded words..

Let me re-phrase it then - Aside from knowing exactly the words you wrote, the mesage was as I indicated, and you have confirmed it.

On the second, as is clear, any system that uses fewer tools to adjust / maintain has an advantage over one that doesn't (how much an advantage is personal preference). Claiming this to be nonsense is baffling. Why is it nonsense? You have in effect claimed that more tools are better, or at least a non-issue, for which I can't see even a tangential justification...

Are you for real?
Its nonsense because they essentially operate by the same principles.
Both need to be mounted to a bench by way of bolts and wrenches, both need to have dies installed by way of wrenches, both have various accoutrements that need adjustment via allen wrenches or the like...
They are similarly equipped and in need of tuning or adjustment.
It is the reality of owning and operating a press - any press in fact.
The fact you called out Dillon for it was personal bias that you refuse to admit.

If I needed more tools than a jack, correctly-sized socket, and torque wrench to rotate my car's tires, I'd be pissed. So would anyone. If a car came along that somehow did away with the jack, all else being equal that would be an advantage.

First a computer case, now a tire. Your analogies comparing changing a tire to operating a precision machine like an ammunition press a) doesn't make much sense as they don't really parallel, and b) is kind of scary considering you are freely handing out advice to new handloaders over the 'net.

oh and btw, you'd do well to add a jack stand, wheel chaulks and a breaker bar to your list of tire changing tools for obvious reasons - If you need help spelling those out, by all means let me know.

This confirms that your initial statement about a free upgrade was not correct - it's part of an overhaul (which I understand to be without charge, although the considerable shipping would be at the expense of the owner) which one sends the press away for. Good to know, and I've updated the writeup accordingly for the next release.

If you sent in an older model today for overhaul they would install the upgraded parts with the rebuild. As in the past with Dillon, I have no doubt they would do this at no extra expense to their customers. Am I 100% certain? - Obviously not as I do not have controlling share in the company...

What you are clearly missing (or at least ignoring because you have no answer to) is that there is and was nothing wrong with the older version or parts to begin with. Unlike some of what Hornady has come to market with.

 

[acrashb]

The reality is they work about the same, and you have a bias toward one against the other - or more importantly, a bias against the Dillon system.

No, they don't. As referenced before, "Rotarys are superior on fine-grained leakage and large-powder cutting, as well as low-charge-weight flake powder consistency." I have nothing against Dillon, as evidenced in the writeup by noting that the same issues apply to the Lee slide-bar. For that matter, it applies to MEC (shotshell loader) slide-bar sytem, and any other slide-bar system.

Its nonsense because they essentially operate by the same principles.

Fewer tools = better (while "same principles" doesn't mean anything). How much better is up to any given person. Apparently you place no value on this advantage, but others do, so it's worth mentioning.

First a computer case, now a tire.

Both examples of hey, fewer tools = better. More tools = worse. All else being equal.

oh and btw, you'd do well to add a jack stand, wheel chaulks and a breaker bar to your list of tire changing tools for obvious reasons

Not at all. Find a level spot, keep your arms and head etc. out from under the wheel well, have at it. Breaker bar (or equivalent) is only required if the last guy used an impact wrench.

If you sent in an older model today for overhaul they would install the upgraded parts with the rebuild. As in the past with Dillon, I have no doubt they would do this at no extra expense to their customers.

You were claiming that the upgraded parts (grease fittings etc.) were free - we now recognize that they aren't. Now you claim that the overhaul is free, but this is also incorrect. You pay shipping one-way and send a cheque for $40. This is a good deal, but it isn't "no extra expense". We have not confirmed that the new grease-fitting parts are included in the overhaul - they may well be, but your history on this suggests that checking directly with Dillon is the way to be sure.

What you are clearly missing (or at least ignoring because you have no answer to) is that there is and was nothing wrong with the older version or parts to begin with

You are incorrect about "ignoring" - I answered / addressed this earlier with the section starting at "I suppose it could hinge on the perception of "design flaw" vs "upgrade"."

 

[CeeZer]

I personally think - YOU are the biased one.
There are so many false statements about Hornady LNL AP, I don't even know what to say.
I don't have as much time or feces to dump on another brand/make...

Think so? I don't.
I think it is clearly biased. So much so, I would not be suprised to hear you were in the employ of Hornady...
I also think it dismisses a couple of real important presses that should not be dismissed, (like the Dillon Square Deal and 550b & RCBS Pro 2000) but since you may not have experience with either of them it can only mean one thing - clear win to Hornady

Considering this has been made a 'sticky', I'll wade in with my comments.
As a bit of background, I have and use 4 presses. (Dillon 550b, 650, LnL and a rockchucker.) I use all of them for various loading (9mm, 38 Special, 40S&W, 10mm, 45 auto, 223, 6PPC, 308 & 30-06) and punch out ammo from general plinking to competition ammo used in IPSC, IDPA, Service Rifle & Precision Rifle). I think being a late comer to the progressive market, Hornady most definately had an opportunity to get things right off the bat, yet they did some things that only leave a shooter baffled (the ejection wire in the path of the crimp die is probably my biggest beef).

Let's start at the beginning:

General Fit and Finish:I think this is one of the most important parts of a precision tool, and hense the reason you put it at the top; If a shooter is going to fork out several hundred dollars (and maybe thousands if you consider the end result of loading several calibers) they probably want the heart of the system to be rock solid.
My LnL is pretty loose - about .001" lash, and that is pretty typical of the ones I've had a look at (about a dozen total) Compare that to the Dillons (both my 550 and 650 and the ones I've looked at) which are zero lash.

You go on to down-play the 'fit and finish' attribute by saying 'they all do the job' and go into a diatribe about the akrobins - akrobins are akrobins afterall- both the Dillon and Hornady products issue akrobins with their presses...except the ones with the Dillon presses are bigger allowing more ammo and therefore less stopping during the loading process...a little thing that means nothing in the end - or maybe it does to some people?

Dies:
Since this is a review of the presses, I won't go into the attributes of the different dies - except to say I use a multitude of them and haven't had any issues using them on all of the presses I have...the only exception is the LnL. Due to the case ejector wire, most crimp dies won't work - with the exception of the Hornady zip crimp die (how convienient).
Also, Hornady dies are some of the worst on the market. The zip spindle design is a failure imho.

Primer change:
As mentioned by others, the whole point to the Dillon system is to allow for quick changes with modules of parts. It may cost more, but the systems are far faster (if one wants to compare that kind of thing).

Used primer management:
I actually like the fact I just have a cup attached to the Dillon presses. It means I don't have to have a garbage can at the base of the press or at my feet ready to be kicked over, and add to the fact you can fit a thousand spent primers in the cups, I think this is a non-issue.

Case Retention
The problem I have with this is it is different engineering to solve the problem, but all work equally well. I'm not sure how you can subjectively without bias, say the Hornady is better?
In fact, the buttons Dillon uses can be left off for a number of rounds if one is doing load development or trouble shooting an issue, and can be done on one or more of the shell holder positions - something the Hornady fails at (despite being a decent solution in its own right).

Powder Handling and Just the right amount of powder
The powder thrower that Hornady offers bone stock is the worst I've used. The micrometer adjustmant improves it, but the beauty of the Dillon powder throwers is the fact they don't need it. They can too be improved by the addition of a micrometer adjustment - but stock it is by far the better product. As an aside, the dillon powder through expanders come as part of the caliber conversions, not optional accessories like the Hornady.

Lack of Powder, squibs
I've had tens of thousands of rounds through the Dillon measures, using stick, ball and flake and they have proven very reliable. I'm likely echoing thousands of Dillon owners, so I'm not sure how you make such a sweeping statement that it is a clear win to Hornady. Same could be said regarding the double charging - the fail safe rod is there for a reason.

Speed
I can do 500 an hour on my 550 - comfortably. The 650 is higher, and the Hornady is slightly less than the 650 - only due to that damned tiny akcrobin...

Caliber change
Both the 550 and 650 are easily faster than the Hornady - even going from small to large primer or reverse. The whole point to the tool head - but that has been mentioned by more than one...

Case feeder
By far and wide the case feeder and paths of the Dillons beat the Hornady offerings. The precision of them is tuned such that miss-fed calibers are going to get caught before being fed into the path. The Hornady path can be quite a bit more finicky and is less thought out in my opinion. Cheaper yes, but a loader pays for it in the frustration of dealing with less than ideal engineering.

Ejection
I can honestly say I've never had an ejection issue with either Dillon presses.
The Hornady, even after the 'EZject' system has on occasion, hung the press up slightly. Nothing to be concerned about, but certainly not a 'tie' in my opinion.

Space
People are looking for a solution to load (potentially) thousands of rounds, and space is an issue? - why not include the square deal? This is a press that would perform brilliantly in this regard.

Die Storage
Again, I'm not sure how this is a real attribute to the press or its function, but I guess if you are looking at stacking items in favor of one product over the other you'll need something - like when Road and Track compares the trunk space of sports cars.
I've used the LnL system for a couple of years before the progressive press, and the dies don't fit with the quick coupler attached unless modified- but the only ones I've tried are Hornady, RCBS, Redding and Lee

Maintenance
Not sure why you'd feel the need to take the Dillon press apart, but adding oil is easily done through the oiler holes...
I think this whole portion is full of mis-information or mis-understanding by the author.


Longevity and Service
You fail to mention that Dillon's ironclad warranty has been in place (along with the proven engineering) for decades. Hornady's system of service and support, while good is and has been proven (in their short time of having the LnL out to the public) not so stellar (Consider the EZject system...).



In conclusion, I'm going to continue using and enjoying my loading gear, but I'm not out to sell presses, don't work for anyone and my first choice will continue to be Dillon...at least for progressive presses...
My not so un-biased view

 

[CeeZer]

Apparently, you don't have LNL AP. It comes with powder measure, case activated powder drop and case activated powder assembly - with the press.
Why are you accenting it needs all three? They are not an additional cost ...
Also, Hornady's MSRP is not same as 'street price', both - press and case feeder can be had for way less than MSRP.
Shell plates are under US$30 everywhere.
All one needs to start loading is the press, shell plate and dies. And Hornady dies are some of the best I tried; I prefer them to RCBS or Lee any day.

Another common fallacy regarding Dillon products is the cost difference.
Against stuff like Lee? Sure.
But Hornady?
Obviously there is and always will be a differences between what we see in the States and Canada, but eventually things are a wash, almost.... In fact, I think it would be very tough to set up a LnL to a comperable level as the 650 considering the present exchange rate.

From Hornady's website (all prices are msrp):
LnL AP: $499.54 - Calgary BassPro is ~$580.00
Casefeeder: $439.53
Shell Plates: $40.72 - Calgary BassPro is ~$45.00
Powder Measure: $93.25
Case activated powder drop: $72.59
Case activated lower assembly: $30.00 *you need all three, powder measure, case activated powder drop and lower assembly to run on a LnL*

From Dillon's Web store:

650 XL: $544.95 (comes set up in one caliber)
Casefeeder Assembly: $222.95
Quick change kit (contains powder measure, tool head & stand): $99.95
Caliber conversion kits: $75.95

 

[acrashb]

So... this has re-ignited my interest in looking at a new press - anyone up to loaning me a newish (auto-progressive) RCBS Pro 2000?

CeeZer, thanks for addressing beltfed's mistakes on cost. I just ran out of time.

 

[Opcx6]

From the website:

Knowing you (forcing primers into military-crimped pockets....), they got you under the "abused or neglected" clause Sometimes you have to push any company, but the feedback is that they're generally good about warranty.


Thanks to all for the nice comments - good to know that people think the work is useful.

I have an older (in almost new condition) Hornady Pro-jector I acquired in a tradend it is an impressive press, until you come to the priming station, then it is a POS! I have not been able to get the primer feed working. Do you think Hornady would take it in trade on a lock and load with the improved feed??

 

[beltfed]

Apparently, you don't have LNL AP. It comes with powder measure, case activated powder drop and case activated powder assembly - with the press..

I realize both the 650 and LnL come with the powder measures in the kits. I never said they didn't.

Why are you accenting it needs all three? They are not an additional cost .

They are an additional cost if people want to run more than one measure on the LnL.

Also, Hornady's MSRP is not same as 'street price', both - press and case feeder can be had for way less than MSRP..

I mentioned that the msrp is subject to change...as it the cost from the dillon store. Both items are ball-park only. I included the costs for the shell plate and the press from the Bass Pro in Calgary. Can you get it cheaper? Sure, probably. The same or similar could be said about Dillon.

Shell plates are under US$30 everywhere.

Plus shipping, tax, exchange rate (depending on when the products are bought) and CBSA fees if they decide to open your package.

All one needs to start loading is the press, shell plate and dies. And Hornady dies are some of the best I tried; I prefer them to RCBS or Lee any day.

I think the Dillon dies are better than all of those brands, and the Redding competition dies better still - imho.

 

[beltfed]

I personally think - YOU are the biased one....

I admitted to holding bias at the end of the post you quoted!

There are so many false statements about Hornady LNL AP, I don't even know what to say....

I agree! That is why I've stepped into this thread.
As I've said previously, I own and use both a LnL and a 650 side by side on my loading bench. There is no way the Hornady machine is better than the 650 in a purely objective based comparison.

I'm not claiming the LnL is a bad machine, or necessarily worse than the 650 - but this hinges on what the owner wants out of their equipment - Their preference, inclination, liking,...bias....