10 years ago, even 5 years ago, I would not even offer an opinion on someone's choice of press. One of the problems that has existed, beginning in 2008, is that there have been a record number of first-time gun owners and lots of discount ammo has come to the market in addition to those we already had like White-Box, S&B and Fiocchi. I'm sure that our range is not the only one that has been effected, and it is against our club rules to leave your cases behind you for others to pick up. I don't know many handloaders who don't reload range brass. At our range, setting out to pick up only the brass that you fired personally would be near impossible.
First I started seeing .45 ACP cases with thin case necks. That got to the point that we saw the introduction of U-dies, and they work fine. But do you want to use a U-die for all of your cases? I don't and sort accordingly by brands that are thick, thin or in the normal range I've become accustomed to over the years.
I know a lot of handloaders don't want to hear or read the S-Word: Sorting. But since precision is important to me, I do look at all of the brands of cases I end up with. To me, Winchester 9mm and older Rem 9mm cases were the standard bearers. Now you will run across 3 different types of Remington 9mm cases. Winchester still seems pretty consistent at around .011" thickness measured within 1mm of the case-mouth as far as my own measurement method. What I see with my cases that are all measured exactly the same way, the different brands are running from .009" - .014". That's a spread of .005" that get's doubled in the diameter measurement. So yeah, I sort cases by brand/headstamp where I've loaded so many that I have a list ingrained in my head concerning thickness by brand.
Now if I were going to commercially manufacture, it would be with Starline cases or Winchester if they could be bought in great enough quantity, but more likely Starline because with enough qty purchased they will custom headstamp your cases.
Then there's the issue of OACL variations. You simply can not expect a press operating at several hundred rounds per hour to hold tolerances as tight. I once asked a Dillon CS rep about that and the reply was rather disappointing. I've also seen a good many "experienced" handloaders dishing out advice that OACL variations have very little effect on things, and mention a medium burn-rate powder like Unique. So if the need is to make lots of ammo for competition or whatever, Qty vs Quality may be the over-riding consideration. And there are folks that don't see an advantage to loading large volumes of 9 x 19mm vs buying the discount stuff.
Not what I got into handloading to do. While acutely aware of the savings 34 years ago, I decided that I could make better ammo than I could buy. That includes Match Pistol or Match rifle.
As far as the notion that some things are just too trivial to be concerned with, unless you're making light 9mm plinking loads at minor Power Factor, depending on the powder used, you might get away with less stringent tolerances. I have done fairly extensive testing at near the Max Average Pressure, MAP, of 35,000 PSI for standard pressure 9mm, as well as +P where variations in OACL will certainly be a factor. To the point that I know that I can adjust my loads for velocity with a couple of adjustments whether it be +/- 1/10th grain of powder, or adjusting OACL by .010"/.25mm and can typically predict the average velocity difference I chrono within 10 FPS, and sometimes as low as 5.
You must understand that if the OACL of your handloads are shorter than those given in the data, you MUST decrease the powder charge to prevent pressure rising, and possibly to a dangerous level. Also bear in mind the very serious potential effects of bullet set-back during the feed cycle. Yes, case-neck tension is the biggest part of that, but when someone tells you that you shouldn't taper crimp autoloading cartridges, I tend to believe that they've never found a way to successfully taper crimp. It's just not that difficult and most definitely remember that all taper crimp dies are not created equal. And I have an unequivocal preference for Redding's auto-cartridge taper crimp dies.
So it really will come down to Qty vs Quality and now we see widespread variations in all case types. Revolver brass is certainly not immune, and really there have been differences in case-length among brands for many years. You've no doubt found, if you've checked, that new cases can often be even shorter than the Trim-To-Length for that cartridge. I don't make any Magnum Handgun loads for Hunting or personal defense without trimming cases to one uniform length The more time that you're willing to spend in Quality Control will have a definite effect on the quality of your handloads and that leaves crimping for last, and I do except in the case of using some over-sized hard-cast or poly-coated bullets for pistol. Most of those intended for revolvers, excepting Wadcutter bullets are going to have a crimp groove, and it will be smaller in area than that of a jacketed or plated bullet's crimp ring. Obviously, case length will matter.
The point of all of this is about your ammo expectations. Hey, I'd like to have a machine that makes perfect handloads in vast qty in the shortest possible time. Unfortunately, no such press exists. Take a box of commercial Premium Handgun Defense loads, even in 20 round containers and compare their OACLs and you'll certainly find they are not used by the ammo companies either.
Maybe I'm something of an extreme case vs cranking out bulk plinking ammo. And, likely, I have more time to devote to handloading than others might. Because of manufacturing variations, particularly brass cases, that has definitely extended my handloading time. And as far as 9mm, which most of us handload. OACL variations that are to be expected with faster production, powder drop variations combined with range brass case-wall thickness variation, it all adds up to too much variation. Now if I wanted to mass produce loads equivalent to the $10 per 50 round box stuff or less, I can't argue against that, nor with the guy whose time might be more limited where there's no advantage in handloading.
I can certainly say this in the smallest of minorities, I wish more press makers would get interested in making more efficient turret presses with 4 or 5 holes in the turret. Many turret presses today do not offer a lot of advantage over single-stage other than being able to leave your dies, even 2 sets, in the turret. I've looked at the Dillon model, but it's really intended for upgrading where I'd prefer not to have a shellplate. It seems that LEE is the only company interested in making the type of press I want with the Classic Turret. But as I've worn out the inferior parts I've chosen not to replace them since they are tied into automation. I can manually index mine now, faster than theirs with Auto-Index and all of the bells and whistles.
Maybe an odd choice, but for anyone considering it, I will only recommend the press itself along with the Safety Prime system. Nothing else as far as LEE products for this press. If you need faster production, then some type of progressive may be in your future. Just don't think that higher production comes without a cost.
