Question on Dillon 550

BigJimP,
I never said anything about the quality of ammo. I said that I need to be sure that each operation is done right. There is too much hope and faith put into a progressive press for me. I've had primers seated upside down and cases with split necks get through on the 550 and shaking powder out of cases when they were indexed and I just didn't trust it.
Like I said, I just feel better double checking each step. All machines fail at some point but if you physically check each operation you are more likely to spot it early. As long as you have confidence in doing it your way then that is what you should do.
 
Yes, I have 100% confidence in my Dillon 650...and I reload and shoot about 25,000 rds of handgun ammo a year...but yes, you need to verify periodically what the powder check is telling you on it - or on any press.

I did not mean to misrepresent your point...more, in general...in my view.
 
The Dillon would shake the brass when I advanced it so much that powder would com out of the cases and spill on the deck.

In 20 years I've never had this happen. Unless you've got the cases filled to the top and making compressed loads, I can't see how this occurs.

Progressive presses serve the purpose of loading multiple rounds with a fair amount of precision, producing goodly amounts of ammo. If you're "exacting" you should stick with a single stage press.
 
The Dillon would shake the brass when I advanced it so much that powder would com out of the cases and spill on the deck.

In 20 years I've never had this happen. Unless you've got the cases filled to the top and making compressed loads, I can't see how this occurs.
Click to expand...

He never said how he advanced it. I guess if you flicked the shell plate on a 550 fast enough, it could happen. The operator has 100% control over speed of index.

Ad far as powder check goes, you can't have one on a 550 unless you put it in #3 and seat and crimp in #4 but with the powders I use the measures always throw the same charge to the first decimal and the powder checks are sensitive to catch an exact (again to the tenth gn) charge except in a case with a slightly different internal volume.

Like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EU9deSKm48
 
For me the Dillon 550 was a waste of time.... I was loading over 10000 357 rounds a year for my 357 loading and firing around 200 rounds a week. That only takes two to three hours a week..... It is easy with a single stage press and a good plan.
Click to expand...

A good plan and and extra 100-150 hours a year.
 
Yep! and shooting AAA in Hunter's Pistol Silhouette as well as being the record holder for the club shoots. At 3 hours a week I was only spending 156 hours a year reloading. Who can complain about that?
 
I keep reading that the powder measure is accurate to 1/10th gr. That has to be with ball or flake powder's. I can't see how every load would be the same with stick powder. The stuff just doesn't settle that well from the measure. That's why I got into the habit of throwing light and trickle up years ago. I did have a Sq Deal B but sold it. Just couldn't get along with it. The primer feed was a night mare! Adjusting the dies just didn't work all that well either.
 
Hounddawg:
Yes that would work on a Dillon and I think that is primarily what the OP wants to do. Most everyone else is saying that the Dillon powder system will suffice within one tenth of a grain. I've never tried measuring my Dillon powder drops so will not enter that discussion.
 
never operated a Dillon either but I assume it is a drum style like every other powder measure I am aware of just with blue paint. If it is a drum style as long as the OP is not loading stick it probably will be accurate. It has been over a year since I did any TAC or loaded pistol but the throw with the Hornady did most of the time. With pistol and spray and pray AR fodder who cares about 1/10th one way or the other unless you are doing max loads
 
No it is not a rotating drum but rather a sliding bar mechanism. The only fault with it is with finely granulated powders like H110, powder residue can become lodged between the sliding surface and the stationary surface that can then cause a hang up and require some dismantling to correct. Otherwise it is great, just stay away from H110 in favor of 4227 (when loading .30 carbines).
 
thanks Condor, I can see where that would be a issue, do all the Dillons use that method ? Most of the stuff I do on my Hornady progressive uses ball or flake and the AP can be finicky as heck if any powder gets spilled on it. I keep some canned air next to it in the event powder gets on the plate

I have not touched that AP in 2 1/2 years but I might dust it off and do a few hundred rounds of .223. I still have a ton of pistol though. When my wife was shooting in club matches I went on a loading binge and loaded up gallon bags of 9 mm one winter. That was just before the wife threw her back out and pretty much stopped shooting and I only take the pistols up out once a quarter maybe
 
Yes the RL550 and XL650 use the same sliding bar system (the OP is inclined towards the Basic 550 that does not have a powder system and requires a funnel or attaching a powder measure to one of the four stations). The powder hang up problem described hardly occurs with stick or other ball powders ( H110 I guess is a ball, but is extremely fine).

As far as the Dillon powder hang up system, the RL550 has a safety rod that mechanically pulls the powder bar back (if it does not return under spring tension) to ensure picking up a new charge of powder). If the powder bar were to hang up and the safety rod not in use, you could load several rounds without powder before noticing what was happening. But as long as you notice that, the powder bar can be pushed back manually for a new powder charge (if the safety rod not in use). Then when finished with the session clean up the sliding bar and stationary bar as needed. That problem does not happen often, just with certain powders like H110.
 
Last edited:
The Dillon powder measures...and most any powder measure is more accurate with ball or the smaller flake powders ..vs any of the stick powders.

All of the "stick" powders tend to "bridge" or get tangled up vs flow uniformly.

So picking your powder ...and relying more on ball and the smaller flake powders in general is a better plan / but stick powders are difficult to measure using any system for progressives or single stage loaders.

My Dillon 650 will drop consistently with Ball powders and a relatively large flake powder like Hodgdon Clays --- and its consistently at plus or minus 0.1 gr...which is the accuracy of most powder scales anyway. ( I test it periodically by dropping charges in 10 cases...and weighing them ).

I know there are some reasons - in some calibers - where traditionally guys have relied on stick powders.../ but these days you have a lot more options and you might find something you like better now. I have reloaded off and on for over 50 years...and over time .. all of my primary powder selections have changed in handgun, rifle and shotshell powders..especially as powder companies have been bought out or another company is now formulating the old powder ( like Hodgdon - who acquired IMR in 2003 / and since 2006 Hodgdon is now formulating all Winchester powders ). So once in a while, its good to take a look at new options out there ...for what you need / might be something you like better....that meters better in your press of choice.

The powder measure on the Dillon SDB, 550, 650 ...all operate with a sliding bar ( and you have different sizes, for different drop ranges )..../ I have buddies with Hornaday loaders ( LNL mostly ) and they have issues on their powder measures as well with stick powders...and a few buddies that are still using single stage loaders like Rockchuckers on odd ball rifle calibers..and still holding out using some stick powders ( 30-40 Krag, etc..)..and stick powders are just a hassle for them as well in terms of getting them consistent.
 
Last edited:
The issue with spilling powder when advancing the shell plate is likely due to mis-adjustment of the main screw leaving too much of a gap between the shell plate and the deck.

There is more of a learning curve with a progressive machine as it's much more complicated. No way around that, but it's worth the trouble IMO.
 
A lot of debate going on here.

But I guess I will ask the obvious question: Have you simply considered a Turret type press, in the op's case a ponsess Warren semi metallic 2?

The reason I ask is because the op wants single stage control with a little better efficiency in production. I can relate in some respects, my F-CLASS and serious hunting loads will always be done on one if my several single stage presses. But I recently got a Turret press and a Dillon xl 650. The 650 is for .223, and pistol ammo...and plinking 7.62x51. the Turret press is used for lower volume stuff that requires a bit more precision and control like .44 mag, .357 mag, or brass prep before heading to the 650.
The single stage will always be used for high capacity cases like my .338 lm, hunting, or LR competition loads.

In your case, I think a Turret press is the ticket. The best I know of is the Redding and the ponsness Warren. I got the PW rather than Redding because the shell holder moves rather than the Turret head so that there is no flex in the Turret head. You still pour powder, but without throwing powder, most of the speed of a progressive press is lost.

Just my 2 cents to consider.
 
Turret press is used for lower volume stuff that requires a bit more precision and control like .44 mag, .357 mag...
Click to expand...

What is more precise on your turret and what are the differences in measurement?

You still pour powder, but without throwing powder, most of the speed of a progressive press is lost.
Click to expand...

Most of the speed of a progressive comes from doing more than one operation at the same time. So instead of say pulling a handle once to size and deprime, again to flair a case, a 3rd time to seat a bullet and a 4th time to crimp, on a progressive, when full you pull the handle once to do all of the above. Regardless of how you charge the case 4 strokes vs 1, is the major speed difference.
 
Last edited:
What is more precise on your turret and what are the differences in measurement?
Click to expand...

On my Ponsness Warren, the main reason I consider it a bit more precise than a progressive is 1: charges are weighed, and 2:, there is very very minimal deflection of either the shell holder or tool head (Which is fixed and doesn't move).
But probably most important: I am moving more slowly making small mistakes or variation less likely.

I suppose I spoke a bit premature in the xl 650, I don't have enough experience with mine to speak to it's absolute accuracy of run out, powder charge, seating depth, and case shoulder adjustment. I have only done a single run of .223 so far. But I know my RCBS pro7 had seating depth variation of around .002-.003" on pistol ammo.

And you are obviously correct, that the bulk of the speed comes from 4 operations at once. But weighing charges if you are trickling take a long time too.

I suppose what I am saying is, even if my xl 650 could, I wouldn't try to make .300 wm ammo on it, but I have on my Turret press and didn't notice much difference
 
the main reason I consider it a bit more precise than a progressive is 1: charges are weighed, and 2:, there is very very minimal deflection of either the shell holder or tool head (Which is fixed and doesn't move)....

I suppose I spoke a bit premature in the xl 650, I don't have enough experience with mine to speak to it's absolute accuracy of run out, powder charge, seating depth, and case shoulder adjustment.
Click to expand...

That is why I was wondering if you had any quantitative data. Lots of folks "feel" or think things should be better if done slowly and the inverse, if things are done quicker that automatically makes them inferior, neither are correct.

I have found over the years, the dies I use and the components are more important than what machine they are in as to how well the end result turns out.

People see that a tool head has some amount of "float" to it and discount it as junk, then turn around and load on something like the Forster Co-ax that has in essence the same thing.
 
That is why I was wondering if you had any quantitative data. Lots of folks "feel" or think things should be better if done slowly and the inverse, if things are done quicker that automatically makes them inferior, neither are correct.

I have found over the years, the dies I use and the components are more important than what machine they are in as to how well the end result turns out
Click to expand...

All good points, kind of like my experiments with powders, weight vs thrown. Preconceived notions are dangerous. But even a seasoned researcher who does research for a living is susceptible and needs a "check" now and then.
working more, doesn't mean you are working better.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top