Author Topic: Question  (Read 26389 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

roc1

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Question
« on: September 04, 2004, 11:39:34 am »
I know all of you are Starr people but I have a question to ask I have a Starr in 45acp I think it is the best press overall I also own a Hornady AP press it is a good machine also I have owned the Dillon 550 it is also a good machine.
To the point which is probaly overall the better of machines and why not just by who sells most because of good advertisement
Thanks roc1

bummer7

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Question
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2004, 12:38:08 am »
I think Starrel recently answered this question.  Best equipment to reload with is you.  Wide awake, alert, and careful.  As Starrel pointed out - it doesn't matter about the equipment.  The person operating the equipment is what counts most.  

-Steve

roc1

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Question
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2004, 08:22:11 pm »
Good point well taken.
I was just wondering if a poll was taken which machine really would rate #1 I know Dillon sells the most but in overall quality how do the other satck up?
Thanks
roc1

bummer7

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Question
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2004, 06:16:42 pm »
I think every group has their supporters and detractors.  I don't think there is one single feature in any of the groups that would make one machine better than another.  Seems every machine has some odd feature or benefit that makes it unique.  Not neccessarily a better product.  

Judging by the number of Dillon sales, I would venture a guess they are the majority in terms of being the largest group of progressive reloader owner/operator(s).  

There is nothing wrong with most of the progressive loaders out there.  I tend to favor the Star only because I brought it new.  At the time, Dillon was still an idea and not real.  My other choice was a CH AutoChamp.  Given the choices, the Star was the better choice in my opinion.  If I was buying today, I would seriously consider a Dillon.  Why?  Because they have great support and some people need phone support and a reliable supplier of spare parts.  I suspect there is a comfort level in knowing the factory is still in business and improving the product.  

-Steve

Lifetyme

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Question
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2004, 08:22:54 pm »
Hi.  Let me start out by stating that I don't have an axe to grind, I own, have used, and like progressive machines by Star and Dillon.  I owned a C&H Autochamp and really didn't care for it, owned a RCBS Green Machine and pretty much hated it.  I have been using Star equipment since 1978, I am very fond of them they were/are great machines.  I own four of them and about ten or twelve toolheads.  I do remember a comment I made around 1980 after I saw my first Dillon 450.  I told my friends at a match that if I owned stock in Star, I would be dumping it because there was no way people would keep paying $750 for a used Star Universal when you could buy this new Dillon for a third of the price.  Craftsmanship?  In my opinion Star has Dillon beat by quite a few lengths in that race.  However, ask yourself who is still in business?

My buddies that own both and I often joke, "Dillon has a lifetime guarantee, with a Star you don't need one".  That said, I was recently given two fifteen year old Dillon 1050's and shipped them back to Dillon for rebuilds.  I got them back with virtually every part replaced including dies.  Total bill for both presses was zero....this on the machine they don't guarantee after one year.

I have a few friends that argue that the Star will load better ammo than the Dillon.  I can't prove that with my Ransom Rest.  I think quality of ammunition produced depends on the operator more than the equipment.  I like the Star machines and they are certainly a sentimental favorite.  That said, with the San Diego shop gone, lifetyme gone, Hulme gone, I like the feeling of knowing a can have Dillon parts arriving from Dillon with just a phone call.  If I am loading for a caliber with an undersize or oversize chamber (European .32 S&W target pistols are my experience with this problem), I like knowing that I can send fired cases to RCBS or Redding and have a suitable sizing die cut...usually for free if you send them the die that's not working out for you.

The best loader is the one you like.  My Dillons are getting more use and the Stars less as time goes by.  The Stars are great old machines but I load good ammo faster on a 1050 and don't have to bid for spare parts on Ebay.

Btw, I am not or have never been a commercial reloader.  I am a competition shooter packrat that thinks progressive reloaders are really cool and they just seem to grow around here.

Try somebody else's machine if you can.  Buy what feels best for you.

Good Shooting

Marvin
Best Regards.

Bob

Ray Brandes

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
    • Ray-Vin.Com
Question
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2004, 06:51:24 am »
Marvin,
  Since you have experience with both the Dillon and Star, What Dillon features would you like to see on the Star? I have just bought a Star, but haven't used it or any other progressive yet. I have a full machine shop and my hobby is making neat gadgets.  
  My Star is set up for .45ACP and I am getting into bullseye with my eye towards distinguished. However, rifle is my first love and I will be considering re-tooling my Star for .223 Rem. at some future time. If the project doesn't hold promise I may just go with a 1050.
Regards, Ray
Regards, Ray

Lifetyme

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Question
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2004, 01:38:09 pm »
Hi Ray.

Probably the Dillon feature that I like best is that powder is not dumped at the powder charging station if there is not a case present.  My Stars run well, but it seems that once you get rolling, every once in a while the Hulme feeder will mis-feed a case and you'll end up with a powder charge dumped onto the shellplate.  

The bullet seating station on the Dillon machines is located on the front of the machine where on the Star it is located on the back.  A solution to this was to mount the Star to a plank made of two thicknesses of 3/4" plywood.  The Star is elevated on the plank by two circular pieces of plywood cut to fit under the base of the machine.  The plank is mounted to the bench with the machine extending out into the air past the edge of the bench with the machine turned 90 degrees.  You can lean your hip against the bench while loading and crank the handle with your left hand and seat bullets with your right.  A finished round recepticle can be mounted on the plank on the bench and will catch ammo as it ejects from the machine.  A hole can be drilled though the plywood base to allow spent primers to fall through into a large pill bottle mounted to the underside of the base.

I also like the auto-eject feature on the Dillon machines, my presses have been modified to auto-eject but the Dillon's are set up to do it plus you have the press designed with a box to catch your loaded ammo.  The best modification I've seen is the one that Bill Cunningham at Star Pioneer does but he is so busy I don't don't know if he is still modifying presses.  I also like the M-A eject ease but it is expensive and more complicated than the Dillon design.

The 1050 auto-indexes.  You can still get attachments and the old Brewster type is the most common.  I don't like the Brewster for a couple of reasons;  The first being that the spring tension in the Brewster unit counters the mainspring on the Star and we used to have to modify our Star machines to use bigger springs in order that the toolhead would remain at the top of the stroke when at rest.  The second and more important reason is that on one of my visits to Star in San Diego, they showed and gave me some worn out Star bases with a noticeable trough on one side.  They explained to me that the Brewster indexer would cant a case in the shellplate slightly as it PUSHED the case.  The result was the case rim could act as a scraping tool and over time, wear a groove in the base of the machine.  I like the M-A auto indexer as it pulls the shellplate and doesn't exert force on the cases, it's drawback is that it is expensive.  I use the Star machines with just a Hulme case feeder and take care of the indexing manually.

I like the variable charge bar feature of the Dillon.  Dillon's charge bar is OK, but I have found it is easire for me to repeat settings using the MR. Dial kit.  I have a couple of Hogue variable bars for the Star machines and I understand that the fellow on the Bullseye list makes a good one.

The blast shield around the Dillon primer magazine is comforting.

Dillon's powder meter holds a lot more powder so you don't have to re-fill as often.  I like and use the Powder-Check system as it saved me from a disaster once when I got a .40 case stuck inside a .45 case and the decapping pin perforated the 40 primer and went on to decap the .45 case.  The machine primed the case but the Powder-Check caught it and told me something was amiss.

I really like the Dillon seating dies in that you can remove the seating stems/nose punch for cleaning without losing asjustment.

I wish Bill Cunningham sold t-shirts and REALLY wish he'd start a calender 8).

Now, .223.  I have never loaded .223 on a Star.  I have read about the Super Star and have seen some parts from an old one but have no experience with one.  Before Star closed it's shop in San Diego, George showed me some machines that they had built in .308 but I have never used one.  My recollection is that they had a longer main shaft and a much larger charge bar housing. I tried the Dillon 1050 route for .223 Service Rifle ammo and had mixed results.  I don't think mere mortals can get really good 600 yard ammo from a Dillon as it comes from the factory.  I tried replacing the powder system with a Redding meter and a Hornady actuator and it worked but it still didn't throw charges that were consistant like those that I throw, trickle and weigh for the long line.  Another problem is the 1050 was really designed as a pistol machine and there isn't clearance to seat a bullet using the Redding Competition Seater Die with a .223 case due to the plunger system in the die protruding out of the base of the die.  I think you'd have room with a Dillon Super 1050 but never tried it.  What I ended up doing was stealing ideas from David Tubb and set a Dillon 650 up with free-floating dies, a powder funnel and Promethius scale (www.speedweigh.com).  The Promethius is expensive but now all of my .223, .308, and 6XC ammo is made utilizing weighed charges for all distances.

These are the thoughts that came to mind this morning.  I am sure you'll have your own when you operate the machines.  I always wished I had machinist's skills, I was always thinking of things I wanted to make.  Invent something cool and I'll be your first customer.

Take care,

Marvin
Best Regards.

Bob

bummer7

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Question
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2004, 01:53:13 pm »
Lifetyme,

Granted there are improvements to be had on the Star.  No one is going to argue with you on that point.  IMO, the Star is a well designed, well thought out piece of equipment.  It was the reloading machine for its time.  The Dillon may be the current production king and big seller but it got this way because of Star.  There is nothing wrong with either machine that cannot be improved.  

Rather than wishing Bill sell t-shirts and put out a calender, I rather he gear up production and marketing.  I would like to see Bill ramp up production for Star Machines, spare parts, accessories, doo-dads, etc.,  If Ray is able to manufacture parts, I'd buy from him (along with many others).  Then again, perhaps some enterprising person could create a website/forum dedicated to Dillon loaders?  

-Steve

Lifetyme

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Question
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2004, 02:20:59 pm »
He already has.

www.brianenos.com

I never said the Star wasn't a good machine.  I own four of them and have been loading on them for twenty-five years.  Ray asked me what features of the Dillon I liked in order that he can make improvements to the Star...or at least that was my impression.   My mention of t-shirts and calendars was an attempt at levity, I am sorry if you think me stupid for mentioning it.  If Ray has any questions about my expreiences he knows how to contact me.

Regards.

Marvin
Best Regards.

Bob

Lifetyme

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Question
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2004, 03:38:50 pm »
Tom O'Neal.  I am unable to reply to your PM as nothing will leave my outbox and I don't know if the e-mail went either.  If you can PM an e-mail address I will respond tomorrow.
Best Regards.

Bob

bummer7

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Question
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2004, 04:31:45 pm »
Marvin,

I apologize if I offended you.  My intent was not to be arguementative but to foster a discussion on improvements.  In this respect, you mentioned several improvements that can be made.  Most of these improvements were incorporated with the Dillon machines.  I like both Star and Dillon and believe both have the supporters.  

Your comment on Bill selling t-shirts and calenders went over my head.  I did not catch the levity of the statment - my fault there.   If you have suggetions, ideas, etc, please post them.  I would like to see where things can be improved and made better.  
-Steve

roc1

  • Active Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Press
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2004, 10:12:36 pm »
Do any of you know anything about the Hornady AP press I have one it works great but am considering getting another Dillon to go along with it any input would be appreciated.
Thanks
roc1