Shell Holder QC

I had two issues with my T7 Turret: 1) Loading .45 ACP result in lead shavings inside the seater die and the crimper die. Looking closer, the lead shavings we’re all on one half of the inside diameter of the die. 2) Loading .40 S&W resulted in a small, but unacceptable, occurrence rate where the bullet seated at a large angle to the case. The case was bulged on one side, looking pregnant.
*
I had RCBS & Hornady shell holders for both calibers, and all four combinations had issues with the case being eccentric to the die. Looking closely, I could even see the case tilt as it collided with one side of the die. So I sent the Turret into Redding. They told me the Turret Press was aligned properly, so it must be my shell holders (all 4 of them). They sent me one shell holder (and a Redding baseball cap) in .45 ACP and it does perform better.
*
So I decided I needed a way to determine which of my shell holders were bad/good. What I came up with is shown in the image below - if the appropriate calculation holds true, then the shell holder is good. The reason why I added 0.01” is to provide extra clearance, so there’s fore-aft wiggle room, and because all dimensions needed to truly confirm case-to-die alignment cannot be measured with calipers.
*
Collecting these measurements on my RCBS & Hornady shell holders confirms that I cannot possibly push a case deep enough into a shell holder in order to get the case concentric with a die (for all 4 of them). Now I need to go buy a Redding .40 S&W shell holder.
*
Note: if the press ram has deep fore-aft clearance, then the 0.01” buffer I’m using is not appropriate.
*
Attachment 326045

That's interesting. I wonder if the T-7, and subsequently Redding shell holders, are machined to tighter tolerances than RCBS or Hornady.

Have you been able to see if the shell holders and dies work correctly in another brand of press?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justindad

I had two issues with my T7 Turret: 1) Loading .45 ACP result in lead shavings inside the seater die and the crimper die. Looking closer, the lead shavings we’re all on one half of the inside diameter of the die. 2) Loading .40 S&W resulted in a small, but unacceptable, occurrence rate where the bullet seated at a large angle to the case. The case was bulged on one side, looking pregnant.
*
I had RCBS & Hornady shell holders for both calibers, and all four combinations had issues with the case being eccentric to the die. Looking closely, I could even see the case tilt as it collided with one side of the die. So I sent the Turret into Redding. They told me the Turret Press was aligned properly, so it must be my shell holders (all 4 of them). They sent me one shell holder (and a Redding baseball cap) in .45 ACP and it does perform better.
*
So I decided I needed a way to determine which of my shell holders were bad/good. What I came up with is shown in the image below - if the appropriate calculation holds true, then the shell holder is good. The reason why I added 0.01” is to provide extra clearance, so there’s fore-aft wiggle room, and because all dimensions needed to truly confirm case-to-die alignment cannot be measured with calipers.
*
Collecting these measurements on my RCBS & Hornady shell holders confirms that I cannot possibly push a case deep enough into a shell holder in order to get the case concentric with a die (for all 4 of them). Now I need to go buy a Redding .40 S&W shell holder.
*
Note: if the press ram has deep fore-aft clearance, then the 0.01” buffer I’m using is not appropriate.
*
Attachment 326045

---

I come nowheres close enough to have the smarts to advise a remedy vis your dilemma. However, I feel compelled to share this: I bought a Remington XP100 in .221 Fireball with hopes of getting many bullets through the same hole at 75 yards. With my Redding Boss press, I could get three inch groups at 25 yards as best! I gave new meaning ;) to "OCD" and my best guess was "run-out" as the culprit. I have a half-dozen other presses, and none were better -- so I was compelled to buy a Forster Co-Ax. These were, at the time, on back-order "forever", so I listened to salesman and bought a MEC Marksman. Using same (Lapua) brass and factory bullets from same box -- run-out just about disappeared!!! (And.. at the range, my groups are still in the three-inch range -- but this is AT 75 yards :)).
I did not take any measurements of my Redding or other presses. I do have a couple or three run-out gauges, and "the proof of the pudding" is that the cartridges I produced had waaaay too much run-out. As a btw, Hornady factory ammo has pretty-much negligible run-out; with the MEC Marksman I generally beat it!
Again -- my apologies in not suggesting an actual solution -- but, I do believe this may be germane.
BEST!
geo

In pistol ammo I’ve found the simplest solution for seating bullets straight is to use a Lyman M type die for flaring. In my case I’ve switched all of my powder drop dies to the new NOE powder through dies using Lee Powder expanding dies and the Lee Pro disc with customized cavities for pet loads. No more lopsided bulges.

Bazoo - I have an old Herter’s single stage that does not produce these issues, although I haven’t used that for the .40 S&W. My Coax does not produce these issues either, but that goes without saying.
*
If the slot for the shell holder in the Herter’s ram is 0.015” deeper, then it would work with all of my shell holders. Truly, this means that the T7 ram is not designed to accommodate the full range of manufacturing variance in other manufacturer’s shell holders. The port-starboard slop available to a case sitting in a Redding shell holder is significantly larger than the fore-aft clearance I’m talking about. I can’t think of a reason why port-starboard slop in a shell holder should be any larger than fore-aft slop.
*
My RCBS & Hornady shell holders in .45 Colt & .357 Mag work properly with this T7. It’s a tolerance stack-up thing, so only a portion of the population will see this. Perhaps, Redding shell holders give more precise ammo than other shell holders with the T7. I’m just sharing something odd that I found.

Justindad: Just a little background on how this stull is made. First; pretty much all Shell holders are turned on a CNC Lathe. Hence all the Circular features are all concentric. Next the opening is cut on a CNC Mill, however the rear radiused portion of the slot was already established on the Lathe. Also there is some clearance between the shell Holder and the cartridge case so it can float and make alignment when being introduced into the die.

The likelihood of more than just one shell holder in your collection being wonky is not going to happen, in fact the odd one that you thought you found is probably good as well. I have about 60+ Shell Holders, I have 4 sets of Lee Shell holders because I have several presses that use the same holders for various loads., IE; I need duplicates and the Lee Sets are the least expensive. Side note: Anyone who thinks Lee Machining is substandard is mistaken. I also have numerous holders from all the big name makers, and all of them work perfectly as well.

The fact that the cartridge doesn't line up with the Die is probably in the top plate of your T7. This is not a new problem and Redding will deny it until they die.

You have holes for dies in the top plate, and you also have Detent holes that index the plate, hopefully in line with the Ram. Except they have had runs of parts where they weren't timed right.

IE: The Detent Holes are out of time so the dies don't line up with the Ram!.

This problem came up a few years ago and several Customers sent their top plates back to Redding,,, who told them to Pound Sand! They actually said "they were incapable of making that error."

I became a machinist in 1975-6. I have some Idea of where I speak. I am here to tell you that anyone who tells you that they are incapable of Error is a fool and should not be allowed to use machine tools where mistakes happen as a matter of course..

I bought a Redding .40 cal. Bulge Buster Die from Midway that cost me $65. When I opened the plastic bag it came in (no Box?) I found the Knurling on the outside of the die was double struck. This is caused by the Knurling tool not being adjusted deep enough to complete the Diamonds in the knurl. I could go on about this but I won't. This was done on a CNC Machine so there is probably a lot of others just like it. But the fact that it got out of the factory either means that nobody was paying attention, or that they thought it was OK to sell substandard parts! And neither one is acceptable from a Company that claims to make the "Best Reloading Tools on the Market," and are priced accordingly?????

I was going to send it back to Redding along with a snotty note, but having heard about the T7 problems and their stance on that, I just sent it back to Midway who happily refunded my money. I then ordered a Lee Factory Crimp Die from Midway for $12 that has worked perfectly for the last 15 years. Made by the Company that makes the Least Expensive Tools on the Market,! that always seem to work perfectly?

Needless to say, I don't buy much of anything from Redding, but am happy to comment on your problem.

My .02 Randy

Thanks Randy, and I don’t doubt anything you’ve written. That being said, I can see a .45 case hit the front side of the sizing die, but if I spin the shell holder 180 degrees in the ram I will see the case hit the back side of the sizing die. That would be an issue where the CNC cut slot is not deep enough, resulting in eccentricity. On the other hand, Redding could do a better job accounting for this range in variation - I personally look for this when I engineer new tools & products.
*
Also, I will not be surprised if the Redding .40 S&W shell holder comes in and does not bring the case concentric to the die. That’ll make for an interesting note to the factory.
*
As a side note - I read somewhere that some folks put an o-ring around the threaded portion of their dies & under the locking nut, so the die can tilt to accommodate some amount of case-to-die misalignment. I’ll be trying that too.