Mec 9000g vrs Hornady 366 12g reloading press

Can't comment on the Hornady, never used one but I do have a 9000 hyd. that has, with good components ( I had trouble with shot bridging while using homemade uncoated shot, my own fault) been excellent. makes absolutely perfect formed ammo every stroke. It was a used machine when I bought it so had been set up and used quite a bit so don't know if there were any "start-up bugs" that needed to be ironed out in the beginning. The guy that I bought it from said he could load 800 an hr and drink coffee at the same time, I have never reached that rate but don't need that much speed, two or three afternoons loading a year keeps the wife shooting all summer.

One suggestion I would make to anyone starting to use a progressive shotshell loader for the first time....set it up in an old bath tub with a pail under the drain end...there is a learning curve...and there will be shot spills, guaranteed.
 
I also use a mec 9000, mainly for slugs. I agree with fingers that it takes some getting used to, I spilt lots of shot and powder when i started out.

It produces nice shells with nice crimp.
 
You are into the old ford vs chevy here.
Some will take one side and some the other
Me I own five MEC 9000g and would not have a 366 on my bench but that is me
Anyhow here is probally one of the better comparisons I have read from another site

The 366 suffers somewhat from a design inherited from Pacific. 1) The primer tube is a long solid brass tube that sits at the left front of the machine, but it is not long enough to hold a full box of primers. It is filled with a wheel rotated primer filler that is subject to breaking its index spring and to jamming primers between its drop spout and the primer tube. This primer handling mechanism leaves much to be desired. 2) The full length resizing die is a squeeze-fit ring type that sits off to the left of the turntable. If you need to FL resize your hulls, this is both a distraction from the normal flow and a slow down of the process. 3) If you're working in auto index mode, the case eject is not positive because the hole cut in the frame is too small. 4) It is somewhat of a hassle to remove the hulls for powder and/or shot weighing once they are past the deprime station.

The 9000G is overall a somewhat more advanced press. 1) The primer handling mechanism is more posititve than the 366's and is certainly more visible. 2) The FL resizing mechanism is a part of the reloading process and MEC uses a finger-type collet to squeeze the brass back down to unfired dimensions. This design precludes catching the upper lip of the brass on the edge of the resizer and peeling a strip of brass down to the rim. The downside of the collet resizing mechanism is that it can collect a shot pellet and mess up the works requiring an aggravating take down. On the other, hand I've only had to do this twice in the several years I've used the Sizemaster, Grabber, and 9000G. 3) The hull can be easily removed from the powder drop, wad seat, and shot drop stations. 4) When using auto indexing, the finished hull ejection is positive with the hull sliding down a wide chute into a catch box.

It is very possible, even though the suggested retail prices are about the same you are more likely to find a new 9000G for significantly less than the suggested retail price. On balance, I would choose a 9000G over the current Hornady DL-366, and I have these two presses sitting beside each other on my shotshell loading bench (20 gauge 9000G and 28 gauge 366).
 
I have both. I started with the 366 and recently purchased a used 9000.

My pro and con list: I like the size of the 366. I find it easier to get in and around the machine when making adjustments or clearing mishaps. As mentioned above, there will be mishaps and you will need to clean up the machine. The bigger foot print of the 366 also means more bench space if that is a concern. The 366 is definitely more robust, mostly cast parts and the 9000 is more formed and tin parts, making the 366 heaver to move about but very solid.

The priming systems I would call a draw. The 9000 mounts to the side of the machine, on mine anyways, and is actuated by a pull chain. The primer system on the 366 is a tube feed system that is drop fed. I think both could have been designed better than they are. I don't like the pull chain set up on the 9000 and really, how hard would it have been to put a shut off on the 366?

The 9000 deprimes and sizes all in one step, the 366 uses two separate stations to accomplish this, win 9000.

I like the powder / shot delivery systems of both loaders. You can tip the bottles back on the 9000 for removal and emptying, the 366 requires you to remove the top assembly the houses the powder and shot bushing to achieve the same, one thumbscrew, not a huge deal. The 9000 has a system in place for interrupting the component delivery if no hull is present, on the 366 it is two separate manual functions, one for shot and one for powder. I would say the 9000 wins on this one but the system does not always engage resulting in occasional spills, on mine anyhow. The 366 also uses shot and powder bushings that are compatible with other manufactures, the bushing for the 9000 are proprietary although you can buy an adaptor to run MEC bushings in the Hornady machine.

With the 9000 you can easily remove a shell from rotation for inspection at any point. This, in my opinion is the largest draw back on the 366. You must cycle the shells through the entire process to get them out. I have seen DYI fixes for this that involve cutting the retaining ring at each station. I have not done this on mine.

I prefer the wad guide set up on the 366. It swings out for easy placement of the wad. On the 9000 it is stationary and you must slip the wad up and onto the the shot tube to get it into place.

The 9000 sits higher off the bench with a plastic tray that sits under it to catch the spent primers. The 366 has a catch bin that slides in and out formed into the base of the machine. I find the 366 handier in this department.

The shell plate advance for the 366 is a pawl system that is mechanically actuated. The system on the 9000 is driven by a gas filled ram. Both work well with my preference being the 366's system strictly based on simplicity of design and fewer moving parts.

As far as operating the machines, I like the 366 better. The handle is mounted off to the side where as the 9000 is mounted directly in the middle. Once I get set up with all my components on the bench, wad on the right side and hulls on the left, I feel I am constantly moving out of the way of and working around the handle on the 9000.

So, if I had to pick only one it would be the 366. I find it easier to operate with a more robust design. It does, however, have a few things that bug me, no primer shut off and inability to pull a shell from the line at any point.

Just my 2 cents but I hope you find some useful information in the above.
 
I bought a 366 about a year ago and am reasonably happy with it. I used a Load-all and a MEC 600 Jr. prior to that, and I still have and use the other machines occasionally. The biggest drawback to the 366 is not being able to pull a partially loaded hull from the sequence. After that comes the dreaded shower-of-shot and powder when you forget to shut them off. 7-1/2 just loves to jam itself between the rim and the shell-plate long after you thought it was cleaned out! However......once it is running, it runs steadily and well. I did buy the hydraulic assist and I must say that it is well worth the cost. I'm curious to see how it compares with the Ponsness-Warren 800B I recently acquired! It is a winter re-furb job! And my shop floor has more than its share of shot and powder on it!

The 366 is a rugged, well built machine and once you learn to use it, it works well. However, the design appears to be quite old. Good luck with your selection. Hope my 2 cents worth helped.
 
Just a question for the 366 owners. Who in canada do you buy parts from and do they keep a good stock. I have never looked in to that
With Mec there has never been anything I needed Hummason didnot have in stock when I phoned regardless of model and was shipped to me the same day
Cheers
 
I am a MEC guy, have been since the 60's!:dancingbanana:

i have 8 MEC's from 600's to 9000, one an H model.
parts are easy to get, the universal charge bars are great, and they work!:cool:
Cat
 
izthebye said:
I bought a 366 about a year ago and am reasonably happy with it. I used a Load-all and a MEC 600 Jr. prior to that, and I still have and use the other machines occasionally. The biggest drawback to the 366 is not being able to pull a partially loaded hull from the sequence. After that comes the dreaded shower-of-shot and powder when you forget to shut them off. 7-1/2 just loves to jam itself between the rim and the shell-plate long after you thought it was cleaned out! However......once it is running, it runs steadily and well. I did buy the hydraulic assist and I must say that it is well worth the cost. I'm curious to see how it compares with the Ponsness-Warren 800B I recently acquired! It is a winter re-furb job! And my shop floor has more than its share of shot and powder on it!

The 366 is a rugged, well built machine and once you learn to use it, it works well. However, the design appears to be quite old. Good luck with your selection. Hope my 2 cents worth helped.
Click to expand...

That would be the deal breaker for me, with a progressive press of any kind, rifle, pistol or shotgun, I want to be able to inspect a possible screw-up immediately not later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom