My apologies - I misunderstood what you were conveying - absolutely the bushing conversion only works with the 1 1/4-12 thread pitch. Win for Hornady and RCBS then.
fair enough, it happens, it just came across as kind of condescending, but I could just be an oversensitive ##### too
I'm not actually. Do some research. There are plenty of high profile shooters that use progressives to make winning ammo, and far greater numbers that are not-so-high-profile. David Tubb, the USAMU to name a few.
every bit of research that i've done has shown that very few competitive shooters use progressives, though there certainly are *some*. David Tubb, from my understanding, used a progressive partly as part of a marketing thing, to show that he could still win while using one. Both him and the USAMU are high power shooters, too, where absolute perfection is not nearly as important as "good quality" ammo, when compared to benchrest. I still doubt you will find ANY benchrest shooters using a progressive, though I'll certainly concede there is always the possibility of someone tuning it up and/or not fully realizing that they could get a little bit better results with a single stage. Also, with Highpower shooting, since you only need to get in the X-Ring, a shooter who is confident enough in his abilities certainly could shoot ammo that's "good enough" and be confident that he's still going to hit that x-ring 99.5% of the time. For almost every shooter, however, having that little bit of extra assurance that if you miss a wind call by 0.5 mph, then you're still going to be closer to where you wanted, rather than running the risk that your "good enough" ammo was had just enough inconsistency to cause it to go off course enough to hit the 10 ring instead of the x-ring.
It very well may be that for many shooters wouldn't notice the difference between ammo made on a progressive and a single stage, but I would honestly be willing to wager cash money that if you had a somewhat experienced guy (someone, say, like myself) set up a progressive and a single stage side by side, and made twenty rounds on each, and measured them for consistency, you would be able to see the difference with respect to cartridge base to datum point length, cartridge base to ogive length, concentricity of the neck and of the bullet, and like i said before, charge weights. Yes, you're right, you can absolutely single weigh each charge, but at that point, there is very little time savings in my opinion to a progressive. I also, personally, like to measure things like shoulder clearance (what most people call headspace of a cartridge) and neck concentricity after sizing, because if for some reason I managed to get the cartridge to go ####-eyed into the die, or the brass wasn't annealed properly, then it's something I'll be able to see and either fix by running through an expander die then the sizing die again, or I can cull that piece of brass and use it for a sighter or for a shorter range shot (if, for example, I'm loading up varmint rounds), at least for that load cycle.
Also, if you read about the Houston Warehouse and the guys that shot the smallest groups that any shooter has ever shot consistently (to my knowledge), they loaded their ammo exclusively on an arbor press (they weren't even neck sizing, for many of their guns, as the clearance was so tight it wasn't required) - they didn't use a progressive because it isn't as perfect, and they didn't even use a single stage, because an arbor is even better.
Again, if a progressive was as perfect as a single stage, then you would certainly see guys loading benchrest ammo (if they pre-load) on a progressive, or at the very least, running their brass through the sizing die(s) on a progressive that auto-feeds, as it would save a hell of a lot of time not having to handle each piece of brass 2-4 times just completing sizing!
A process that is easily removed from the progressive machine, just as you don't measure and dump your powder charge with a single stage press....
Yes, it is easily removed, but why would you use a progressive if you aren't trying to get speed out of it? Yes, you'd still save time, but weighing out individual charges take a heck of a lot more time than moving brass around, so the time savings of a progressive largely come from the complete automation of the entire process. yes, you still save some time even if you single weigh each charge, but if the cost was the same for each type of press, and they really were as precise as each other, then sure it'd be worth it, but given the cost of a good progressive system that auto feeds the brass and bullets, it's going to have to really speed things up a lot to justify that kind of cost for most people.
You made a statement that I know to be false.
You don't know me or my experience. You may want to keep an open mind and do more exploring.
If you know it to be false, that must be your experience, but I know the amount of research I have done before buying the co-ax (my options were either a plain old rockchucker, a redding ultra-mag, a progressive, or a co-ax), and I know that, given my POU and my personal loading goals, I want to make the best ammo I possibly can, and am willing to sacrifice extra time to do so. If someone is going to go to the effort to turn necks, ream flash holes, uniform primer pockets, and all that, then what is an extra bit of time on the press. The actual loading procedure of the prepped brass is only a small fraction of the time that one spends preparing and loading ammunition. Also, my philosophy has become, after much research, to do everything I possibly can that the best benchrest shooters do, so long as it doesn't conflict with the type of firearm and the actual situation/environment that the firearm will be used in (i.e. I won't go for neck clearance of only 1 or 2 thou, because I know that I'm not going to be cleaning every 10 or 20 rounds, thus I can't exactly follow benchrest procedures. But I do want to do everything that is feasible that a benchrester would do, knowing that my ammo is as absolutely perfect as I can possibly make it, and therefore, I can fully rule out the ammo from the equation if I get a flyer. I will then know it was either the rifle or me. I am in the process of ensuring that it is very unlikely to be the rifle, but I have decided that I will not allow it to be the ammo, and soon, the small chance it is the rifle will be no chance, and then I will know it was somehow me that caused it, either by missing a wind call, improper trigger control, or whatever else. But it won't be my equipment. If a benchrester does something, it's not likely because it's easy, it's because it's the best way that he can figure out to do it. If a progressive was just as precise as a single stage, why would they not use them at least to feed their brass into the brass, size the neck, push back the shoulder by a thou, and then move it over to the arbor press to seat (or, if as you claim, it's all in the dies, then use the progressive to also seat the bullets using a custom made, very high quality die). The reason is because it isn't as perfect, it's good, but not perfect.
If that is your experience with a co-ax, so be it.
And I dont' claim to know you or your experiences, but I do know my own, and I do know the immense amount of research and time I have put into this subject. I do know that I have discussed the matter with numerous experienced competition shooters in both benchrest and f-class shooting disciplines, and have been told by every one of them that a) I should not use a progressive or a turret and b) that I should get the co-ax, and if I want to go all the way, an arbor press for seating. I did not follow the advice originally, thinking that the Redding T7 would be "just as good" as any single stage, because it is overbuilt and beefy as hell, and a great brand name. I found, however, that my shoulder setback was not always perfectly consistent, and after researching more, I found that it could have been partly due to my annealing, which has now been refined to the point I think it's not an issue, it could be the brass below the shoulder which does not get annealed, which I took care of by trying it out with brass I know to be once fired out of my own gun at the same load etc, or it could be the minor play in the turret head, and the flex that comes from the design of the press. I decided to follow their advice and get a co-ax, and like I say, my shoulder setback went from a variance of 2-3 thou to a variance of less than 1 thou, generally within half a thou unless the brass somehow got mixed up in the wrong box and had more/less firings on it or was a different lot/headstamp. When I am careful, I do not see more than 1 thou variation when using my coax.
I will admit I have not personally used a progressive, so I can't speak from experience directly, but I can say that if a press like the T7 can not hold nearly perfect shoulder set back, then no progressive could, as there is going to be inherent play and flex in any progressive, as there are more linkages, more turning parts, etc. When you have a part that turns, it must have play (this I am sure we can agree on), and when you have a part that turns you are opening yourself up to some amount of flex, depending on the design that may be a small amount or a larger amount. Same thing with a linkage, and same thing when you increase the amount of work that a linkage system has to do.
It's just basic mechanics - if you have one linkage, and it has 1 thou of play, you could see that come through as variance in your process. if you have 3 linkages, then you have more chance of that coming through. if you add in a rotating turret head, or a rotating shell holder plate, then you do the same thing. Minimizing this variance can do nothing but help consistency. Same thing with the flex in the actual press metal itself. If you have a press like the ultramag, you are pulling down on the piece that the die body sits in, therefore you are lowering the chances of flexing the press. If you have a design like the co-ax, where there is very little overhang, and the amount of metal is large, then you also limit it. But having a rotating shell plate you are going to have some flex and play, and this by necessity can show up in your process. how much it shows up is not important, the fact is, it is there and can show up.
So again, if you are wanting to load the most perfect ammo you can possibly load, a single stage (and an arbor if you really want to go balls to the wall) is the best way. a progressive certainly can load good ammo, and if one invests the time and effort to tune it up and take out as much play as possible and set it up perfectly, i have no doubt it can produce really good ammo, but I can not believe that it would produce AS GOOD ammo as a high end single stage like the coax. Though, i'd love to see someone do a side-by-side on them, with the NECO and sinclair gauges, a set of calipers and a micrometer, and a good shoulder setback gauge like the ones sinclair makes (stainless steel, no chance for it to be worn down over many uses like the hornady, which while I don't see actually being an issue with careful use, I think it's probably not a bad idea to limit the chances if you can get the sinclair pieces). As I said, I'd even make a friendly wager that the ammo put out by the single stage would gauge better than the progressive - I'm not going to even venture a guess at how much better, but to me, how much does not matter for what I load for, at all matters. Now that I've got a semi-auto 30 caliber rifle, I very well may look into a progressive to make ammo to shoot out of that, but that's because I don't see myself competing or shooting gophers at 300-400 yards with it (i have access to a farm where our main shooting position is 125 yards from the closest gopher spot, and about 350 from the farthest, and if I see a gopher pop up at any of them, I like to know I've got the best chance possible of smokin' it).
