dillon / lee / hornady progressive comparison
- Thread starter acrashb
- Start date
i bought my bullet feeder from Frank Koch and i am very happy with it. i set it up late one evening and came back to it the next evening to do the final adjustment and i haven't touched it since. i am approaching 10,000 rounds loaded with it on a 650. if i could get the brass feeder to work as well as the bullet feeder i could automate the whole damn thing. for large volumes i would suggest the 650 with a case and bullet feeder. if money is no object then i would go with the 1050.
Who's Frank Koch? EDIT: Found the info: http://forum.ipscalberta.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1203
I wonder if it would be possible to rig up something to operate the lever, then you could automate the entire process.
I wonder if it would be possible to rig up something to operate the lever, then you could automate the entire process.
Last edited:
Who's Frank Koch?
I wonder if it would be possible to rig up something to operate the lever, then you could automate the entire process.
KIDS!
Thanks for the kind comments.
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.
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.
I have to disagree with some of what you said about the XL650. You have to compare apples to apples.
While it costs more money the 650 is set up with the quick change tool heads for a reason. It takes me maybe 5 minutes to convert from one calibre to another on my 650 and I've only done it twice (granted that was without going from small to large primers). My dies are preset and so is my powder measure. It's fast and reliable.
Also your speed on the Dillon seems very slow at 500 rounds an hour. After loading 100 223 rounds for the first time I decided to time my second 100 rounds. It took 7 minutes 50 seconds for 100 rounds of 223 (750 an hour) and I'm slow with those because of the small bullet. I'm loading 900 an hour in 9mm.
Just my observations, YMMV.
While it costs more money the 650 is set up with the quick change tool heads for a reason. It takes me maybe 5 minutes to convert from one calibre to another on my 650 and I've only done it twice (granted that was without going from small to large primers). My dies are preset and so is my powder measure. It's fast and reliable.
Also your speed on the Dillon seems very slow at 500 rounds an hour. After loading 100 223 rounds for the first time I decided to time my second 100 rounds. It took 7 minutes 50 seconds for 100 rounds of 223 (750 an hour) and I'm slow with those because of the small bullet. I'm loading 900 an hour in 9mm.
Just my observations, YMMV.
That would be the cyclic, not sustained, rate - difference mentioned in the writeup on page 7. You have to fill everything up eventually and that counts too. Occasional stoppages, fatigue, etc. factor in. Some presses result in relatively more fatigue (through being finicky or requiring relatively large amounts of force and so on), some less. Pushing things gets a higher cyclic and sustained rate, and results in higher error rates - the loading rates I mentioned were a relaxed pace with supplies "laid out near the machinery", but not with pre-loaded primers and so on.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_fire
Understood on the cyclic vs sustained. I agree my 100 rounds in 8 minutes wasn't done over time. However with three loaded primer tubes (then having to reload the tubes three times), clear jams, refill the case feeder, refill the tray I put my bullets in, etc I can load 900 9mm rounds in an hour sustained.
Not counting having loaded tubes, multiple tool heads, etc really doesn't serve as a fair test because these aren't single stage presses. Dillon designed this press to use these great features.
I'm not knocking your review, I just think you're handicapping the Dillon by not using all it's features.
Not counting having loaded tubes, multiple tool heads, etc really doesn't serve as a fair test because these aren't single stage presses. Dillon designed this press to use these great features.
I'm not knocking your review, I just think you're handicapping the Dillon by not using all it's features.
It has alot of plastic parts...and it more prone to failure than a 550 (with less moving parts because it's manual index) and a 1050 (which is built like a tank)
I had a 550 Dillon and a RCBS 2000 at the same time and used them both considerably. I still have the RCBS 2000, and sold the Dillon. The RCBS is cast iron and steel construction where the Dillon is aluminum. The depriming and priming is much superior on the RCBS, as is the powder measure.
The Dillon is 4 stations, the RCBS is 5. You can get an optional case feeder for the Dillon, the RCBS can be optioned with auto-index and the RCBS bullet feeder. I am not sure if the bullet feeder will work with the 550, it does with the 650.
The Dillon is 4 stations, the RCBS is 5. You can get an optional case feeder for the Dillon, the RCBS can be optioned with auto-index and the RCBS bullet feeder. I am not sure if the bullet feeder will work with the 550, it does with the 650.
I don't know about "blowing up", but the primer system is relatively more susceptible, by design, to gang-firing if one touches off during seating - as compared to the 550, 1050 or LNL AP. There are primers in the rotary primer disk close to the seated primer.
Having said that, gang-firing has to be quite rare (or Dillon would be out of business), and worst case the primer tube ejects its contents into the ceiling.
I wouldn't worry about it.
