Failed 30-06 cases - Page 2 - The Firearms Forum

LDBennett · 10-06-2011, 06:30 AM

The Duke:

On some cases the Dillon tool works but according to their instructions and my experience you can have problems. It seems the thickness of the head (inside to outside) varies between manufacturing lots of the cases. Since the Dillon tool uses this head thickness to reference the swaging operation, the tool can over and under swage. I experienced this on some 308 Lake City brass and could not use the Dillon tool on the mixed lots. Even the same date head stamped brass had this problem.

I resorted to using a countersink and my lathe to remove the crimp but had to use a correctly sized plug gage to make sure all the crimp was removed. The resultant counter shrunk part of the pocket was pretty deep looking to the eye but work fine. There are other hand tool out there but just the thought of doing 1000 cases by hand made my arthritis hurt.

LDBennett

The Duke · 10-06-2011, 08:18 AM

Thanks for the info, LD...I have swaged a number of .308 Mil brass and havent noticed a problem,...yet......But then again, I never took time to measure the primer pockets either..

If the primers went in easily enough and stayed there it OK that was good enough...

...Most of the mil stuff I load for bangers (grandson loves to pull the trigger with M4 or DPMS AR.)..The 'good stuff' I ususally will load in commercial cases, pref. Winchester.

I got several hundred Mil cases that I will need to swage soon, both .308 and 5.56 ....Although I seperate by manuf. , I dont go as far to seperate by year..I try to keep all LC , WCC and FC headstamp... anything else goes in a bucket by itself.

Im nearly through sorting an almost full 5gal bucket of assorted 9mm that a friend gave me...Id say about 30% of this is mil...Being a cheep SOB, I will prob use the RCBS tool to remove the crimp on these rounds...I have used a hand held champher tool before I became 'mechanized".

10-06-2011, 06:30 AM	#26
LDBennett Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hesperia, CA Posts: 5,753	Re: Failed 30-06 cases The Duke: On some cases the Dillon tool works but according to their instructions and my experience you can have problems. It seems the thickness of the head (inside to outside) varies between manufacturing lots of the cases. Since the Dillon tool uses this head thickness to reference the swaging operation, the tool can over and under swage. I experienced this on some 308 Lake City brass and could not use the Dillon tool on the mixed lots. Even the same date head stamped brass had this problem. I resorted to using a countersink and my lathe to remove the crimp but had to use a correctly sized plug gage to make sure all the crimp was removed. The resultant counter shrunk part of the pocket was pretty deep looking to the eye but work fine. There are other hand tool out there but just the thought of doing 1000 cases by hand made my arthritis hurt. LDBennett

10-06-2011, 08:18 AM	#27
The Duke Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: NW Louisiana Posts: 813	Re: Failed 30-06 cases Thanks for the info, LD...I have swaged a number of .308 Mil brass and havent noticed a problem,...yet......But then again, I never took time to measure the primer pockets either.. If the primers went in easily enough and stayed there it OK that was good enough......Most of the mil stuff I load for bangers (grandson loves to pull the trigger with M4 or DPMS AR.)..The 'good stuff' I ususally will load in commercial cases, pref. Winchester. I got several hundred Mil cases that I will need to swage soon, both .308 and 5.56 ....Although I seperate by manuf. , I dont go as far to seperate by year..I try to keep all LC , WCC and FC headstamp... anything else goes in a bucket by itself. Im nearly through sorting an almost full 5gal bucket of assorted 9mm that a friend gave me...Id say about 30% of this is mil...Being a cheep SOB, I will prob use the RCBS tool to remove the crimp on these rounds...I have used a hand held champher tool before I became 'mechanized". __________________ Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.