Photo Escape FailSafe Bracket
Quote from Reloader on January 11, 2020, 5:29 pmI 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.
http://www.photoescapeinc.com/products/failsafe-bracket.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 (which I can't show) 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.
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 that you have to remove first. No big deal, I'll take the small delay over the performance.
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.
http://www.photoescapeinc.com/products/failsafe-bracket.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 (which I can't show) 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.
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 that you have to remove first. No big deal, I'll take the small delay over the performance.
Quote from Reloader on January 11, 2020, 7:58 pmI 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%.
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%.
Quote from Reloader on January 13, 2020, 9:27 pmFinal update. The failsafe bracket is set up 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.
Final update. The failsafe bracket is set up 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.