Great vid, really great info ... I kinda instinctively guessed that I needed the bushing to be doing a bit of work for the mandrill to be effective, so nice to have this confirmed. But I'll be getting the callipers out and double checking my bushing and dies for my .222 and 260 Rem reloading since I changed brass recently.
As I understand it, the SAC die has the bushing and mandrel in one unit? Is there any appreciable difference in constructing the neck in one operation and then opening the neck with a mandrel in a separate operation? I have a Redding S f/l bushing die, for which I use a bushing, but I use a 21st Cent. mandrel to set the ID. I don’t have a SAC die, or I would test myself - maybe for my next rifle.
Again, outstanding! I know you have mentioned preparing new brass somewhere. Pls give me a hint, or can you please address this topic in a video? Thx in adv.
Excellent Video Greg! Breaking it down, with calculations, makes it very clear. Thank you for sharing this. Keep honoring God and witnessing. I appreciate your stand!
Great video! Thank you for taking the time to answer pertinent questions. I always read questions asked and read your answers. Many times reinforcing (or clarifying) what you spoke about in the video.
Thank you. I think this explains the issues I've been having. Been trying to work brass as little as possible. Annealing every firing and turning necks just enough for consistency. I will try a smaller bushing and mandrel. Thanks again.
Very informative and helpful. Thank you! A question I have is I am using a Porter Precision mandrel expander and they have expander pins listed as follows for example. 30 cal could have a .305+ or .305- their website states PLUS tolerance pins have a manufacturing tolerance of +.0002/-.0000 and MINUS tolerance pins have a manufacturing tolerance of +.0000/-.0002. Would you choose the + or the -?
Thank you for the thorough explainatiin and showing the math steps. With wanting to move the brass "a lot" during sizing, at this point, is there even a benefit to the more expensive FL Bushing sizing dies as opposed to standard Full Length sizing and selecting your own Expanding Mandrel for finished Inner Diameter?
What is your recommendation on neck thickness? I try to remove as little as possible material, but I want the bullet to fall in to a fired case. Am I removing too much material and creating excessive clearance that could hurt accuracy?
Consistent neck tension is more important than size. Need a better way to measure the dimension between the ojive and shoulder. Everything else is just here say.
Greg, first I would like to thank you for giving this information to us for free. God bless you for that. I have a question: How do processes like those employed with the Lee collet neck sizer play into this concept? Is it not better to perform the external inward pressure onto the final dimensioned collet instead of splitting the two operations and going beyond the intended points to deal with springback? I don't know if there are other dies that use a similar method of neck sizing to compare, but it seems like it would work the brass less in theory. I don't have the resources to properly test it like you have. I would very much love your input on this. Thank you.
I appreciate this video, but am trying to understand the math here. 223 average case neck thickness is .0115. I just measured several pieces of brass with different headstamps and am not too far off that cited average. If I follow your instructions and am using a .221 mandrel, I would have to use a .238 bushing to achieve the .005 interference you suggested (factoring .001 spring back). I can’t find anywhere that recommends using a bushing that small. Outside diameter of the fired brass I have is around .248, which means I would be sizing the neck down .01, which seems like a lot. I do anneal my brass, which will help, but have I misunderstood your instructions and does that seem like too small of a bushing for 223 Remington?
No, your numbers check out... a .238 bushing is right on. Why do you think it seems like a lot? Is it because you've tried it, and more, and found that it didn't deliver results? Or is it instead because all you've ever read/heard is way less than that? Is it really such a shock that you've been lied to your whole life? Is this really the only thing that you've experienced that with? Open up your caliper to .010" and look at that space. Does it seem like a lot? Now grab a piece of your .223rem brass, take .24cal expander, lube it up, and ram it in the .223 mouth. After that, take a .26cal expander and do the same thing. Then a .28cal and a .30cal. Then repeat that test with annealing between each step. You don't need me to convince you. You need to learn what these materials are actually capable of when properly cared for and stop thinking inside the boundaries other people create for you.
@@primalrights all fair comments. Just haven’t seen and certainly haven’t tested, so your response is fair. I have reviewed a lot of data that don’t follow your prescribed formula with great sub 1/2 MOA results, which is the goal for me, but I am always opened to new enlightenment and will put your formula to the test. Someone else in the comments asked this question and I didn’t see a response. Does this formula change at all if I FLS with a bushing die and mandrel expand in two separate steps?
Greg, Fantastic info like usual. I like many others need MORE neck interference. Can you please share what expander brand you are using? I am assuming that it is an internal in your sizing die? I switched to K+M expanders a few years ago and would like more info on what you use? Maybe you can can do a video on it? Thank you sir.
