Photo Escape FailSafe Bracket Kit for Dillon XL650 Reloading Press Review - Page 2 - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 01-13-2020, 10:44 PM
jmorris jmorris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,752
This is an old RCBS 505 with a <$20 photo electric switch detecting beam height. Checked by an A&D FX120i.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GYWgAdKzHs&t=1s

You can find better deals on it but it is a fairly trusted instrument.

https://www.amazon.com/FX-120i-Preci...s%2C182&sr=8-5

Gravity is pretty hard to beat, if you can discern the small changes though.

Last edited by jmorris; 01-13-2020 at 10:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-01-2020, 11:50 AM
JayhawkNavy02 JayhawkNavy02 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,059
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 (.03 gr) repeatability and that seems to be the standard in the 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 about .02 gr and within reason, that appears to be the limit, unless we want to do a GoFundMe for a 5k+ scale for this and I doubt it....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.

https://us.ohaus.com/en-US/Products/...nce-PX163-E-AM

__________________
Distinguished Pistol #388

Last edited by JayhawkNavy02; 02-02-2020 at 12:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-01-2020, 11:58 AM
Tom Freeman's Avatar
Tom Freeman Tom Freeman is offline
More Cowbell...
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,438
Go with the FX and an AREA-419 upgrade kit.

Your brain and targets will thank you.
__________________
I am a rather brilliant surgeon, perhaps I can help you with that humpů
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-01-2020, 12:14 PM
JayhawkNavy02 JayhawkNavy02 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Freeman View Post
Go with the FX and an AREA-419 upgrade kit. Your brain and targets will thank you.
That is amazing. The only issue with the A&D FX-120i (and minor) is that its repeatability is higher than the Ohaus Pioneer PX163/E. Minor difference, but for testing reloading methods/components I'm trying to get the most precision possible. I didn't plan or need that level for pistol reloads, not required. This was just a way to see if the junk I buy for modifying my press actually works. I'm hoping to borrow a scale, if I'm going to buy for competition vice testing I would go with the A&D so I can use the Area 419 V2 for rifle.

https://www.area419.com/product/at-v2-compkit-fx/
__________________
Distinguished Pistol #388

Last edited by JayhawkNavy02; 02-02-2020 at 11:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:44 PM
Tom Freeman's Avatar
Tom Freeman Tom Freeman is offline
More Cowbell...
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,438
Even for shooting out past 2,000 yards 0.03 vs 0.02 isnt a factor.

V3 on the left, V2 on the right. Both are solid.

__________________
I am a rather brilliant surgeon, perhaps I can help you with that humpů
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-02-2020, 12:17 AM
jmorris jmorris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,752
They put your Prometheus out of a job?


Quote:
but you're still facing .002 g (.003 gr) repeatability
I haven’t had a math class this century but last time I did .002 grams didn’t equal .003 grains.

Last edited by jmorris; 02-02-2020 at 12:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-02-2020, 12:35 AM
JayhawkNavy02 JayhawkNavy02 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmorris View Post
They put your Prometheus out of a job? I haven’t had a math class this century but last time I did .002 grams didn’t equal .003 grains.
That should be .03 gr vice .003 gr . Corrected above.

I also read the manual for the A&D FX-120i and Ohaus vice pulling information direct from the website description. Repeatability is .001 g and linearity is +/- .002 g for both the Ohaus and A&D, but the A&D has the advantage of a faster 1 sec stabilization time, the Ohaus PX163/E is 2 sec. Please add that to my long and distinguished list of errors....
__________________
Distinguished Pistol #388

Last edited by JayhawkNavy02; 02-02-2020 at 12:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-02-2020, 04:30 AM
Rwehavinfunyet Rwehavinfunyet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,832
Question.....

One pound of gunpowder equals 7,000 grains...… In your post:

Quote:
If we look at eliminating outliers, charges at or over .06 gr. Which is my “goal”
How can you even measure a variance of 6 hundredths of a grain.... I assume "gr" is "grains" since the abbreviation for a gram is either "g" or "gm"

I have found that when making ammo for precision shooting like "slow fire" at 50 yards, there is more variance in the lot numbers of powder concerning accuracy. Using ball powders may offer better consistency of the powder charge through most powder measures. When testing loads with a chronograph, low standard deviation does not always equate to better accuracy.....

I don't use a Dillon 650, and purchased a Dillon RL-1050 about a year after they were on the market.....so my RL-1050 is about 30+ years old. It is a very good press for most all pistol cartridges, but Dillon improved the cam linkage to allow reloading longer cartridges, and changed the name to the Dillon Super 1050 which IMHO, is the "best" hand operated press, and neither the RL-1050 or the newer Super 1050 use a "bracket" to hold the powder rod activator..... I also don't think when using a D650 that a brass bushing for the power activator rod is necessary, since a steel rod through a brass bushing my gave more drag than a steel rod through the plastic white bushing supplied by Dillon.....I have no idea if the "galvanic reaction" of steel on brass makes any difference.....

I also have a Dillon 550 that has a bracket for the powder rod activator, and the powder rod passes through a white plastic bushing. The bracket is very sturdy and in the 35 years of use, it has never bent.....

If I had a D650 and if the bracket bent due to flexing, I would have welded a small piece of thicker steel to the bracket to strengthen the bracket.....or I may have called Dillon to order a new bracket.....I think the bent bracket may have been "operator error."

Tom Freeman is a Master shooter, and has three Dillon 1050's....he seems to like them also...!

Prior to the Dillon 1050, I used a Star machine progressive reloading press, which I still have and use for loading .45acp ammo. It used 00 brass powder charge bars with specific sizes to drop powders like Bullseye powder and others. I modified my Star to use the Hornady/Pacific powder bushing system, which uses circular brass bushings with various hole sizes to dispense the powder charge. It also came with chart that shows how different powders meter different powder charges using the same bushing...… I have 14 brass bushings for different increments of powder charges and the brass bushings are extremely consistent when using Bullseye powder and other pistol powders. I have not found any powder measure that give consistent powder charges when using long extruded grain powders.....which I use for large caliber rifles.....so I will trickle charge to get the exact weight of powder charge....

Last edited by Rwehavinfunyet; 02-02-2020 at 05:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-02-2020, 08:09 AM
jmorris jmorris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,752
I wouldn’t necessarily call the Supers linkage an “improvement” rather necessary for longer rounds. Someone at Dillon must feel the same, the last two machines they have introduced have the old eccentric style mechanics.

The FX 120i’s in Tom’s post above measure to the nearest .02 grain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GYWgAdKzHs

Completely unnecessary for pistol rounds and would be a waste of time. 100/200 yard benchrest shooters are competing to win with the smallest one hole group and they use volume thrown charges. The ranges you have to get out to, to see an appreciable difference on target for that is well beyond pistol ranges, even if one could ever see an improvement.

Last edited by jmorris; 02-02-2020 at 08:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-02-2020, 08:45 AM
flechero flechero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,111
With charges that tight, you would finally know how well YOU shoot. That alone would be cool to know... if I could afford to. ...lol
__________________
-flechero
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-02-2020, 09:06 AM
JayhawkNavy02 JayhawkNavy02 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmorris View Post
Completely unnecessary for pistol rounds and would be a waste of time. 100/200 yard benchrest shooters are competing to win with the smallest one hole group and they use volume thrown charges. The ranges you have to get out to, to see an appreciable difference on target for that is well beyond pistol ranges, even if one could ever see an improvement.
Absolutely and not something that's been a claim or requirement. The goal/purpose of the precision is to evaluate the bracket and other modifications. I expect once I have everything in order that the reliability of my current scale is going to be exceeded by the measurement differences, and make it unreliable to arrive at a definitive conclusion. To differentiate between the scale limitations and the performance of the press I need something better than I currently have.

Other than the e A&D FX-120i a less expensive option might be the U.S. Solid 100 x 0.001g Analytical Balance, 1 mg Digital Lab Precision Scale. I'll lose +/- .001 g over the A&D, but that should still be sufficient as mentioned above.

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

https://ussolid.com/100-x-0-001g-ana...RoCsuQQAvD_BwE



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rwehavinfunyet View Post
How can you even measure a variance of 6 hundredths of a grain.
I am not measuring variance, also called repeatability, it is inherent to the scale as a measure of performance. As I understand it, this is a measure of the scale's ability to display the same value when a weight is placed on a scale more than one time. It was brought up on another forum as an issue that needed addressed with my testing. The less variance/repeatability the more confidence in what you are measuring is actually valid within a tolerance interval over a course/series of measurements. Properly defined here...

https://scalenet.com/applications/glossary.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rwehavinfunyet View Post
... I assume "gr" is "grains" since the abbreviation for a gram is either "g" or "gm"
"gr" is the standard abbreviation for Grain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_(unit)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rwehavinfunyet View Post
I have found that when making ammo for precision shooting like "slow fire" at 50 yards, there is more variance in the lot numbers of powder concerning accuracy. Using ball powders may offer better consistency of the powder charge through most powder measures. When testing loads with a chronograph, low standard deviation does not always equate to better accuracy.....
It depends on the pistol powder. I don't lot test VVN310 because it is incredibly consistent, but other powders do have greater variance. Given equal powder, the charge itself, outside components is the single greatest factor statistically that I've found. I do not use a chronograph either, the Ransom Rest is the better path to performance. However, when all is said and done, I do want to use a Chronograph loads for accurate to +/- .1 gr and those accurate at or inside .06 gr and see what the deviation is. That will be combined with a ransom rest test. I expect them to be roughly the same.

From another Bullseye Shooter on the Bullseye Forum. What I don't have is the accuracy of the scale or the chornograph so I can't speak to the reliability of data. Much as we saw in this post. Everything matters....lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wobbley
This graph shows the affect of powder charge variance on typical bullseye charges. This was a result of chrono work done using a 10 inch Contender barrel. Note the large SD with Red Dot. These SD numbers are consistent with those in 38 Special with the same powders. The error bars graphed are SD numbers. A Linear trend line has been added for convenience.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rwehavinfunyet View Post
I also don't think when using a D650 that a brass bushing for the power activator rod is necessary, since a steel rod through a brass bushing my gave more drag than a steel rod through the plastic white bushing supplied by Dillon
Because of the design of the Photo Escape bracket the plastic bushing doesn't look like it would work. The brass bushing is a nice feature and it is easily removed with the set screw. I prefer the brass bushing having had both and it avoids the issue with the plastic bushing being improperly retained with the OEM bracket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rwehavinfunyet View Post
I have no idea if the "galvanic reaction" of steel on brass makes any difference.
There are various materials combined on the press. The tool head is aluminum and the dies are steel, the press frame is aluminum and the ram steel. If bi-metallic effect is a corrosion concern you would need to completely alter the setup and make the press completely out of steel. There are some techniques to address bi-metallic effect, but probably outside the needs/requirements.

https://galvanizeit.org/uploads/dr-g...ph-Large-3.png

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rwehavinfunyet View Post
If I had a D650 and if the bracket bent due to flexing, I would have welded a small piece of thicker steel to the bracket to strengthen the bracket.....or I may have called Dillon to order a new bracket.....I think the bent bracket may have been "operator error."
See the previous post regarding the bracket losing shape even if properly adjusted. Copied below from Photo Escapes Description as well. Faster than buying a welder, and modifying the bracket was buying the photo escape bracket for me.

"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 powder bars is a necessity. The OEM bracket easily bends when something goes wrong during bar return, i.e. worn white plastic insert (shoulder washer per Dillon manual) drops, and catches the bracket by its top, instead of sliding all the way in, or the wing nut simply being over tightened. Once the OEM bracket is bent/unbent a couple times, it starts flexing, which in turn creates inconsistencies in the powder bar return. This requires further tightening of the wing nut, and ultimately a call to Dillon requesting a replacement. I have a clear understanding of Dillon's EXCELLENT warranty on the XL650, and the need for the part proposed here for many reloaders is non-existent. I always keep kit of spare parts, and a failsafe bracket is in it. However every time I had to replace it in the middle of loading a batch of rounds (that is when it happens most of the time, because I'm going at "max" speed), I would lose time unscrewing, unbending, resetting, re-measuring, etc. But most importantly, I would have doubt in the back of my mind - "do I have undercharged cases"! That is right, a bent safety bracket means insufficient powder bar return, subsequent undercharge, and a potential squib, which is an extreme case, however accuracy may be affected. The set screw prevents washer drops, and the powder bar returns to the same spot every time. Resulting in rounds which provide more accurate imprints on targets, with standard deviation lower by 4-6 in comparison with previously loaded rounds."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rwehavinfunyet View Post
I have not found any powder measure that give consistent powder charges when using long extruded grain powders.....which I use for large caliber rifles.....so I will trickle charge to get the exact weight of powder charge....
I've seen +/- .06 gr with Varget on a Dillon 650 with the OEM powder system (mostly), but I need to replace the PTU, lock the toolhead (UniqueTek Clamp) and use something to vibrate the powder. I can't speak to other extruded powders, but that would be more than sufficient for high power practice requirements for me. Long line ammunition I'll still need to hand weigh. For 500 and less we get issued M262 Mod 1, that's pretty terrific for 5.56 up to and including 500 yds. I only need to take care of long line and an auto trickler mentioned above is the route I intend to take once I get serious on rifle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmorris View Post
I wouldn’t necessarily call the Supers linkage an “improvement” rather necessary for longer rounds. Someone at Dillon must feel the same, the last two machines they have introduced have the old eccentric style mechanics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmorris View Post
Now you just have to test the original Dillon linkage and springs to see what they do. No failsafe rod at all, see attached black oxide crank.
Interesting setup from another Engineer on TargetTalk. This seems like a hybrid approach to what you mentioned previously. The OP's idea on Target Talk is to re-introduce the Dillon return spring used on the older PM models. Full strength isn't required, just add some assistance. So a short length of wire, approx 5/8" long along with the spring is added. The powder bar has an increase in the ability to starting to move, but not so much tension that it's going to wear out components.

__________________
Distinguished Pistol #388

Last edited by JayhawkNavy02; 02-02-2020 at 01:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-02-2020, 12:19 PM
Tom Freeman's Avatar
Tom Freeman Tom Freeman is offline
More Cowbell...
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmorris View Post
They put your Prometheus out of a job?
Nope. I use it for all my 6 Comp Match ammo.

The only drawback to the Prometheus (other than the cost) was the time it took to adjust powder amounts. Not the end of the world, but kind of a pain if you wanted to tinker with loads.
__________________
I am a rather brilliant surgeon, perhaps I can help you with that humpů
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved