TargetTalk

I enjoy working on my Dillon 650 and in search of the ever elusive and impossible powder throw. After borrowing Greg's Ransom Rest for a prolific period of time, powder amount is the greatest single contributor to the group size I see. Crimp and OAL get adjusted after. That drove me to try and get as consistent of throws as possible. This is a mental game, and I appreciate knowing that the ammunition is good. I think shooters using very light loads, 32 especially, would benefit. Apologies in advance for the photo heavy post.

http://www.photoescapeinc.com/products/ ... acket.html

http://uniquetek.com/product/T1677



So, what's the setup?

Dillon 650 secured to a grounded massive bench that is horribly heavy and bolted to the frame of my home. The press itself is grounded, and has been modified with a Dillon roller handle to smooth things out, modified powder through expander as the stock Dillon tends to "stick" on new starline brass and causes "issues" with precise powder dispensing, Hit Factor shellplate bearing kit, Entirely Crimson Index Bearing Cam Block, Entirely Crimson Roller Cam Follower/Camming Pin, and prairie dog powder baffle. This powder dispenser and expander (internally) I used were not polished, unlike my normal funnel. I will pick up some Flitz and get things in order and post an update as I think there will be some gains, but that should apply to both equally regardless. All powder was filled to the same level to start after verifying charges. I used new starline brass at the beginning of each to ensure no grains stuck to the side. The scale is a lab grade, accurate to .02 grains and was left on for 30 minutes to minimize drift and I used batteries to isolate from the home's relatively noisy power.

I selected 3 common powders and threw 20 each. WST, Bullseye and Titegroup. VVN310 to follow once I polish the funnel and get ready to load for some matches and Varget as I want to see how it handles extruded powders for those of us who shoot rifle. Apologies in advance for the incomplete data. So the question I was trying to answer, was, with only modifying one component of my press, the bracket, could I improve my consistency across various powders. The answer is, yes. The data in the table below highlights any charge over .06 gr from the base 4.6 gr charge in yellow and the charges above .08 from the base in red. I then did some basic looks at the information and as you can see the Photo Escape outperformed the Dillon OEM in 13 of 18, tied in 4 and lost in only 1 by a very small margin. Pretty good. I did notice more variation than normal, which may be due to the weather. One surprise was the 4.82 gr throw of WST using the Dillon FailSafe bracket. I've never seen that before, but I measured twice, on two separate scales, so the data stays.



All of this is a little difficult to see, so some graphs to help. Charge amount in the vertical (Y-Axis) and the charge number in the horizontal (X-Axis). Ideally you'll want this perfectly level. So flatter is better. Dillon is in blue and Photo Escape in Orange. These graphs are specific to each powder test.



Not sure if this helps, but I wanted a consolidated view. Again, flatter is better. Same X/Y axis used. When you lay all 60 charges down and compare between the Dillon OEM and the Photo Escape in my view it stands alone. An already very good press is significantly better. No charge was over +/- .06 after installing the Photo Escape FailSafe Bracket Kit across 3 powders.




The Photo Escape FailSafe Bracket Kit for the Dillon 650 is significantly stronger and more well made. It uses forgoes the plastic shoulder washer and has an adjustable machine screw vice the stamped projection in the OEM. The only down side is that I can remove the powder funnel very quickly to dump and with the Photo Escape there are two set screws, one of which you need to loosen to allow the bushing to move up and remove the rod.

I didn’t do a terrific job summarizing the results. I did this on the phone so the arithmetic is in question Wink

If we look at eliminating outliers, charges at or over .06 gr. Which is my “goal” again I need to polish this funnel and I think I’ll be there, then we go from 11 to 5 or roughly a 45.45 % improvement in consistency. If we look at throws greater than .06 grains, we go from OEM Dillon at 3 to 0.

Now if we look at averages, the Median across all 3 powders with the OEM is 4.61 and PhotoEscape is 4.59. That results in a 5% improvement in the median charge. Regarding the less important Mean, the OEM is 4.61 and Photo Escape 4.60, again about a 5% benefit. Very close and I attribute that to a press already modified and a large number of throws.

Average Standard Deviation with the OEM Dillon is .005 compared to Photo Escape at .003. You reduce standard deviation by roughly 60%.

Would be perfect if they come up with a way to make the rod quick release

The failsafe bracket is setup so that the back screw barely holds shoulder washer. Front screw is the one that locks it in place. So if you release front screw and slightly upstroke platform, the washer will fall down and rod can be removed. No need to unscrew wing nut. Mine was over tightened in the rear and adjusted properly now. Just as easy, if not more so than the OEM now.

This subject is VERY interesting to me. I've been chasing accuracy with the Dillon powder measure since about 2001. In that time I've come up with my own fixes, which include modifications and processes, which we can discuss later.

However, right now a couple of questions and concerns about your very fine report...
• You called the new release arm "stronger", but since both arms seem to have the same Moment of Inertia, I don't see it. Maybe some Compliance measurements are called for to prove that statement.

• The release arm simply closes the Powder Measure (PM) AFTER the powder has been dumped. You've not offered a hypothesis as to how an event occurring AFTER the powder drop, ends up effecting the drop weight of powder, which you then take great pains to measure.

• Even IF the after-the-fact release does have an effect on the quality of the 'powder drop', the Dillon release arm you show is clearly bent. Which tells me the release was (at least at some point during its life) incorrectly adjusted.

• Further you've not shown that this release adjustment was the exact same for both arms. If RELEASE does affect the outcome of the 'powder drop' then there is clearly a second variable... which could just as easily be the Root Cause. But you have assigned all positive results to the Release Arm.

• So you've done a good job of documenting all the shellplate parts that have no effect on the PM and the final outcome. But I'm not seeing any documentation about the SCALE used to measure the weights that are the basis for the whole report. Maybe I missed it.

• I love the Excel graphs, but may I suggest you document and plot all the powders.

• On the subject of powders, TiteGroup and Bullseye are IMHO extremely poor powders to be using in a metering test. May I suggest a ball powder like AA No.2, or Alliant Sport Pistol ? I'll simply point out that Bullseye is celebrating its (what ?) 115th birthday. It was never formulated to flow well in mechanical powder measures. Yes, these 2 are shooter favorites, but neither is known for excellent metering.

• Clearly this test needs to be re-run with the inclusion of the Ultra Small Powder Bar Dillon developed for the 25ACP. There is the possibility of the powder cavity size having an affect on results, and that needs to be researched.

• Since consistent powder density has more to do with consistent powder weights coming from a volumetric dispenser, I was looking for documentation about how this density state was achieved.


I can go on, but you get my drift. Please take no offence to these comments, brother. We are both on the same road with different ideas about how to achieve a common goal. Your ideas may well turn out to be better than mine. But I say these things to get you dig a little deeper. If you can get the kinks worked out, and show a closer linkage between accessories and results I'll be glad to permanently host your report to the stickies on a more shooting prominent forum.

Highest Regards

Thank you. Most comments were spot on and well received. Clarification/answer on those that required it. Appreciate the close look and review.

rfwhatley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:15 pm
• You called the new release arm "stronger", but since both arms seem to have the same Moment of Inertia, I don't see it. Maybe some Compliance measurements are called for to prove that statement.

The OEM is stamped vice the machined stainless. I have a new OEM bracket and you can bend it with little effort. IMO not something that requires significant research to determine. Is that quantitative, of course not. Removing the risk of the failsafe bracket to maintain proper shape is the real benefit. I doubt I’ll see the level of flex/warping there was previously.

rfwhatley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:15 pm• Even IF the after-the-fact release does have an effect on the quality of the 'powder drop', the Dillon release arm you show is clearly bent. Which tells me the release was (at least at some point during its life) incorrectly adjusted

Not necessarily. Repeat use can cause the bracket to fail. With the OEM Dillon, reloaders may be required to add a turn or two every so often and the bracket can/may slowly bend, not necessarily due to a singular over tightening, but that can be the case as well of course. There is no need to do so with the photo escape. With proper adjustment it should maintain the correct tension.

I have a new bracket and will run the test again.

rfwhatley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:15 pm• Further you've not shown that this release adjustment was the exact same for both arms. If RELEASE does affect the outcome of the 'powder drop' then there is clearly a second variable... which could just as easily be the Root Cause. But you have assigned all positive results to the Release Arm.

Each spring was adjusted the same per the Dillon directions, but as mentioned needs to be repeated with a a new bracket. I expect the deviation on the OEM to drop significantly, however the lack of fragility with the photo escape is the purpose. Removing another variable in the process (bent bracket) is a win to me.

rfwhatley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:15 pm• So you've done a good job of documenting all the shellplate parts that have no effect on the PM and the final outcome.

I'm actually not sure that I did a great job on isolating the shell plate after speaking with the owner of Photo Escape. What I found after speaking with the on the phone is that a shellplate position on the 650 can affect the powder throw. If you look i.e. at Dillon’s shell plate for 45 ACP you’ll see a 1 with a circle around it. This was used as a reference location and it was observed that certain positions on the shell plate would give base charge +, while another would give base charge -. Platforms on the presses were verified with the Dillon alignment tool, and the shell plate bolt checked for concentricity, etc. It is suspected that Dillon shell plates may have excessive variation in dimensions in each cell or the center isn’t straight. I did a quick test using the photo escape fail safe brake (OEM wasn’t in yet) and found that this is worth investigating. In the re-test I’ll use the same position (most consistent) for each throw to minimize variation. My worry now is that each position is introducing error.

rfwhatley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:15 pmBut I'm not seeing any documentation about the SCALE used to measure the weights that are the basis for the whole report. Maybe I missed it.

AmericanWeigh Gemini Pro

rfwhatley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:15 pm• I love the Excel graphs, but may I suggest you document and plot all the powders.

I appreciate the request, but this was about as much time as I could spare. I'm not sure anyone has every powder or the time to do so.

rfwhatley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:15 pm• On the subject of powders, TiteGroup and Bullseye are IMHO extremely poor powders to be using in a metering test. May I suggest a ball powder like AA No.2, or Alliant Sport Pistol ? I'll simply point out that Bullseye is celebrating its (what ?) 115th birthday. It was never formulated to flow well in mechanical powder measures. Yes, these 2 are shooter favorites, but neither is known for excellent metering.

I don’t use either, poor performers for 38 special, 9mm and 45 ACP which I compete with and therefore not interested. While Bullseye may not be a new powder is it a superb performer. Out of a Ransom Rest I find it the top average performer in 38 special and 45 ACP. There are some new powders that edge it out with VVN310 for 45, but not by much and added temperature sensitivity. I will be adding VVN310 which meters very well when I can run the test again which meters well.

rfwhatley wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:15 pm• Clearly this test needs to be re-run with the inclusion of the Ultra Small Powder Bar Dillon developed for the 25ACP. There is the possibility of the powder cavity size having an affect on results, and that needs to be researched.

Are you referring to the X-Small Dillon Powder Bar? The small powder bar I used is the correct size for this test based on the manual. Going below 3 absolutely and I would like to do that in the future. That’s typically where some drops often appear outside desired tolerance from speaking to the 32 crowd shooting European pistols.

https://www.dillonprecision.com/x-smal ... 23601.html

1. Extra Small – use for dropping less than 3 grains of powder
2. Small – use for dropping 3 to 20 grains of powder

Thank you for service.

jayhawknavy02 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:53 pm The scale is a lab grade, accurate to .02 grains and was left on for 30 minutes to minimize drift and I used batteries to isolate from the home's relatively noisy power.

The AmericanWeigh Gemini Pro scale has, according to their web site, has a tolerance of +/-.06 grains.

https://americanweigh.com/product_info. ... nmo54dat67

Looking at your data, it looks like the performance differences you've documented vary by .06 grains. I don't think you have a case at all because the variations are within the tolerance limits of the scale.

Still very interesting. Thank you.

All the best.

rfwhatley wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:10 pm Thank you for service.

The AmericanWeigh Gemini Pro scale has, according to their web site, has a tolerance of +/-.06 grains.

https://americanweigh.com/product_info. ... nmo54dat67

Looking at your data, it looks like the performance differences you've documented vary by .06 grains. I don't think you have a case at all because the variations are within the tolerance limits of the scale.

Not sure I would make that statement, but its apparent you have a motivation besides curiosity. There are some errors that need addressed, acknowledged just as there are with your post above. That doesn't completely invalidate either. Regarding a scale, I'm on the hunt. The A&D FX-120i and Intell-Lab PM-100 look like great scales, but you're still facing .002 g (.003 gr) repeatability and that seems to be the standard in upper end non-strain type precision scales. Getting inside that is interesting. The only scale I've found so far, and still searching is the Ohaus Pioneer PX163/E Precision Balance 160 g x .001 g. The Ohaus gets down to .001 g repeatability or just slightly under .002 gr. That appears to be the limit, within reason, unless we want to do a GoFundMe for a 5k+ scale for this and I doubt that....lol. I'm sure there are others, but still hunting for something less expensive and ideally, one I can simply borrow as this is outside my normal need/use case. The other option is to have Scott Parker tune my Lyman-Ohaus M5, but that wouldn't give a specific measurement although it would be more accurate. IMO, better suited to trickling than comparison.

From the Photo Escape Website. I believe that once everything is controlled I'll see equal performance, the main difference will be that the Photo Escape will retain the proper shape, unlike the OEM and prevent the variance that can result from being bent.

"As a continuation of my pursuit of more accurate charge drops, I felt, that having FailSafe Brackets that fits two of my Dillon XL650 presses, and provides for consistent return of the powder bars, is a necessity. OEM bracket easily bent when something goes wrong during bar return, i.e. worn white plastic insert (shoulder washer, per Dillon's manual) drops down, and then catches bracket by its top, instead of sliding all way in, or simply wing nut being over tightened. Once OEM bracket bent / unbent couple times, it starts flexing, which in turn creates inconsistencies on powder bar return. This in turn necessitates further tightening of wing nut, and ultimately call to Dillon, requesting replacement. I have clear understanding, that with Dillon's EXCELLENT warranty on XL650, the need for part proposed here for many of reloaders would be non-existent. I, by myself, always keep kit of spare parts, and failsafe bracket is in it. However every time I had to replace it in the middle of loading of the batch of few hundred rounds (that is when it happens most of the time, because I'm going at the "max" speed), I would lose quite a bit of time on unscrewing, unbending, resetting, re-measuring, etc. But most importantly, I would have a doubt in the back of my mind - "do I have undercharged cases"! That is right, - bent safety bracket means insufficient powder bar return, subsequent undercharge, and subsequent potential squib. Obviously squib is an extreme case, however accuracy would be definitely affected. So I decided and manufactured a batch of about dozen brackets made of stainless steel, complemented it with shoulder washer made out of brass, installed and tested on both of my presses. I'm much happier now, - I can go full speed without worrying that bracket would bend, flex, or else. Set screw prevents from washer drops, and powder bar returns to the same spot every time. Resulting rounds produce more accurate imprints on targets, standard deviation is lower by 4-6 in comparison with previously loaded same charge rounds."

jayhawknavy02 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:58 pm Not sure I would make that statement, but its apparent you have a motivation besides curiosity.

I'm very sorry if my critique left that impression. I'm a retired test engineer, and this is the way I look at all reports of this nature. A casualty of the profession I guess. But as was said, I think the Dillon is a VERY good measure, but that doesn't stop me from trying to wring more out of it.

Since you've shared, I will return the favor. I believe there is more to gain from reaching a consistent density inside the hopper. This one, single area is the most important and the single most over-looked area. Without consistent density there is ZERO hope of a volumetric powder measure dropping consistent weights. A simple units analysis will prove this.

So how does one reach consistent density ? With consistent vibration.

The most outstanding feature of the Dillon PM is the fail safe release cam. No mater how fast or slow you operate the machine, the cam makes sure the PM gets exactly the same jolt every time. No other PM can say that. It's absolutely brilliant and worth a patent by itself. So how can we "assist" the return cam to insure a more consistent "jolt" ??

• Lube with powered graphite. Directly into the hopper while the PM is new, and anytime you're not using graphite-covered powder.
• Re-introduce the Dillon return spring used on the older PM models. But we don't need the full strength, we just need some assistance. So we add a short length of wire, approx 5/8" long. The powder bar has assistance starting to move, but not so much tension that it's going to wear anything out.




By the way, the release of the cam shouldn't happen until the ram nears the bottom of the stroke. In that way the tension on the release rod becomes very small, and there is no need for a stronger arm. If your release arm is bent, then you've way over tightened the wing nut.

All the best my friend.

rfwhatley wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:35 pm So how does one reach consistent density ? With consistent vibration.

The most outstanding feature of the Dillon PM is the fail safe release cam. No mater how fast or slow you operate the machine, the cam makes sure the PM gets exactly the same jolt every time. No other PM can say that. It's absolutely brilliant and worth a patent by itself. So how can we "assist" the return cam to insure a more consistent "jolt" ??

• Lube with powered graphite. Directly into the hopper while the PM is new, and anytime you're not using graphite-covered powder.
• Re-introduce the Dillon return spring used on the older PM models. But we don't need the full strength, we just need some assistance. So we add a short length of wire, approx 5/8" long. The powder bar has assistance starting to move, but not so much tension that it's going to wear anything out.

Brilliant. Have you taken any measurements to determine the improvement?

I’ll give this a try as well if it’s a material improvement. Is this the correct spring?

https://www.extremereloadingnv.com/pro ... rn-spring/

I think this scale will suffice for what I'm attempting. Thoughts?

https://ussolid.com/100-x-0-001g-analyt ... scale.html

U.S. Solid 100 x 0.001g Analytical Balance, 1 mg Digital Lab Precision Scale
Accuracy: 0.001 g
Repeatability Error:±0.002 g
Non-linear Error: ±0.002 g

Yes & Excellent !

I'm just putting in my 2 cents worth here but I have found the best way to have uniform powder drop is to attach a battery powered vibrator to the powder hopper that presses against the charge bar on the return.

I'm lucky to use vihtavuori n310 that is a very fine powder and it settles very well too.

weighed 42 loads as i loaded for training or match ammo without paying too much attention (unlike match ammo for big events.).
Pretty happy with the results of, 1.311gn average and SD of 0.023.
I'm using a 4DP analytical balance.
cheers.