Effect of Roll Crimp vs. Lee Factory Crimp

[Southern Shooter]

I have shared on this forum about some hand loading experiences with my Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan .454 Casull and a couple of loads. From the 2.58" barrel gun some of the past data I have gathered are:

362 grain cast bullet
23 grains W296
CCI Small Rifle Primer
Roll Crimp
Average Velocity 947 FPS


264 grain cast bullet
17.5 grains Blue Dot
CCI Small Rifle Primer
Roll Crimp
Average Velocity 1193-1195 FPS

Today I loaded up these same loads with one exception. I used the Lee Factory Die Crimp in stead of just a roll crimp. The results were considerably different than when using the roll crimp.

362 grain cast bullet
23 grains W296
CCI Small Rifle Primer
Lee Factory Crimp Die
Average Velocity 985 FPS


264 grain cast bullet
17.5 grains Blue Dot
CCI Small Rifle Primer
Lee Factory Crimp Die
Average Velocity 1167 FPS

As you can see the velocity in the 362 grain bullet average went up nearly 40 FPS. While the velocity in the 264 grain bullet when down close to 30 FPS.

Input?

Thanks

[dsmjon]

My initial questions would be:

When were the previous data collected?

What is the deltaTemp b/w sets? deltaPressure?(baro).

Was sure temp, gun temp, and ammo temp all the same b/w roll groups and taper groups?

[Southern Shooter]

The conditions were the same.

[MtGun44]

How many rounds fired each time? If less than 25, the results are statistically meaningless,
sorry to say. Too small of a sample if 5 or even 10 rounds.

Also, any small change in temp will make that much difference, easily, assuming the diff
is real, which is highly questionable if the sample size is the normal 5 rds that most people
run over a chrono. To accurately resolve that small a difference with any kind of statistical
certainty, more than 25 rounds would be required per test. Even 25 rds is marginally into the
'small sample' range of statistics where the results are at least somewhat unreliable.

Bill

[Southern Shooter]

I have placed a few of the results on this forum. But, I have shot much more than what I printed in this forum. I do understand that my numbers may not be statistcally significant, but the differences, from what had been the base-line, were enough to be taken note of.

The numbers have been roughly the same. So, why all of a sudden, with the only variable modified being the type of crimp, would there be a difference in velocity?

Given the variables being the same with the exception of the crimp, why would one load lose velocity and the other gain velocity?

[rintinglen]

The first thing to do is establish whether the test results are true. Repeat them, on the same day at as nearly the same temperature as possible. test them in 10 shot samples, and accumulate 3 10 shot strings. Calculate the standard deviation for each string, and for each group of 30. Determine the mean average velocity for each string, and for each group of 30. There are time consuming, difficult statistical tests that you can do, but quick and dirty, add the average standard deviation of the slow group to the slow group mean velocity, subtract the average standard deviation from the fast group's mean velocity, and compare the result. If they overlap, (and I suspect that they may), then the numbers are substantially the same and the apparent difference is most likely not significant. Any good college level Statistics Text book can show how to compute the standard deviation and also how to test sample results, if you really want to get the "real" answer as to whether there is an actual difference between the observed and the estimated.

[DLCTEX]

And be sure to use the same lot of powder, of course.

[Larry Gibson]

And make sure the powder charges, especially if thrown, are all thrown from the same lot of powder at the smame time with no measure adjustment change.

There are indeed many things that can effect the average veloctiy of a test string. As mentioned the test strings must be of sufficient sample size to be statistically valid. The test componants must be loaded consecutively at the same time on the same equipment with exactly the same adjustments. Only the subject of the test (in this case the crimp) should be varied.

Also, unless you have laboratory type indoor shooting range where the test equipment is permantly mounted/installed and the atomosphere controlled and maintained at a constant then different trips to the range on different days under different light conditions, temperature conditions, humidity conditions and barometric pressure conditions let alond screen spacing and distance from muzzle to start screen can change the results more than your 40 fps difference.

Additionally if you test 3 ten shot strings back to back with the same set up and equipment of the exact same lot of ammuntion you will most likely get 3 different average velocities with different SDs and ESs. They may be close but with a short barreled revolver with loads such as yours a 40 fps variation wouldn't surprise me at all.

As an example; over the last 3+ years I've used a specific .308W rifle with a specific lot of factory ammuntion to ensure "calibration" of my Oehler M43 PBL when I set up for high velocity load velocity and pressure testing. I have done this 30+ times using 10 shot test strings all on different days over the 3 years with different conditions. The screen spacing has remained the same and i measure the muzzle to strat screen distance and set up as close as I can each time at 15'. The time of day, light conditions, ambiant temperature and atomospheric conditions are sometimes close but not always. After 30+ tests I can assure you that a 40 fps difference in the average velocity is not really uncommon.

Larry Gibson

[runfiverun]

the h-110 is temp sensitive, so is the blue dot.
what you have is just the same but different day velocities.
30-40 fps within a shot string is nothing.
also if the cases were new or first reload on the first set and the third or so on the second set the neck tension alone would account for the better ignition.

not saying there wasn't a difference just sayin there are other things to account for it besides a crimp.

[35remington]

"I do understand that my numbers may not be statistcally significant, but the differences, from what had been the base-line, were enough to be taken note of."

Reread the underlined part of the quote. If the numbers are not statistically significant, or you cannot state here a figure from a number that is statistically significant, any differences from the base line aren't enough to be taken seriously.

If you have done other shooting, what numbers from the statistically larger sampling can you show us regarding crimp variation that compare better than this small sampling?

[.357MAN]

Why are you guys being so mean! All the OP said is he got differing velocities when switching crimp die. Why not address that, and not questioning his tactics. For starters I know H110 is extremely crimp sensitive, and I would have expected more deviation from the first crimp he used. When I was working up H110 loads in .357 magnum I altered the degree of crimp a lot, and every time I increased the crimp I could feel and hear the increase of pressure. So how much more would the pressure curve change if the lee die exerted a heaver crimp?

.357MAN

[Southern Shooter]

.357MAN, thank you for stepping in. I have to admit the tone of some replies have been less than encouraging. Some polite bedside manners would be helpful when someone is trying to understand this "new to me" world of reloading.

I am not sure how this thread took such a negative direction. But, all I was really trying to ask is this....

Using powders from the same lot, each charge individually weighed, bullets individually weighed to keep the weight the same, the same primers from the same lot, the same amount of roll crimp used on each bullet, even having the bullets themselves kept at the same temp up until just before being fired, and the velocity averages being within a few feet per second of eachother from string to string....

Why when I change the crimp to a Lee Factory Crimp did the 362 grain cast bullet with 23 grains of W296 go up in velocity about an average of 40 FPS while the 264 grain cast bullet with 17.5 grains of Blue Dot go down in velocity about an average of 30 FPS?

I just want to learn. So, teach me. Don't scorn me.

Thank you

[runfiverun]

think about it like this.
a crimp really covers a small amount of the boolit compared to the rest of the case.
call it a generous 5%.
now if your roll crimp only makes contact on the shoulder of the crimp groove that's a 0% gain in case contact.
and if it is pushed down when being formed, it makes a little bulge there, so it's actually a contact loss.
if the lee squeezes more of the brass into contact with the boolit you increased case tension by upping the contact the whole 5% which would make a slight velocity increase by increasing powder burn time before the boolit starts moving forward.
it's as simple as that.

[Southern Shooter]

runfiverun, thank you for sharing that with me. And it makes sense to me. Especially, in relation to the slower burning W296.

Did I "hurt" the velocity of the liter bullet charged with the Blue Dot by using the factory crimp? Did the faster burning powder and liter bullet react differently to the factory crimp, thus reducing the velocity? I have to say, that this time the liter bullet with Blue Dot seemed to have a harder "thump" to my hand. It felt very different from when just using the roll crimp.

Why the opposite reactions to the same modification?

Thanks

[jonas302]

How did they shoot in comparison? Was the volocity spread more or less with each shot with roll crimp or lee fcd?

[35remington]

I'm not being "mean" or "scorning you"........just trying, along with others, to convey the high potential variability of ammunition. Variables affect observed results to a great degree, often to the point wherein observed results have less to do with what is being "tested" than those variables that are uncontrolled.

The first question a reloader must ask himself is, "has this observation been consistent over time and repeated observances?"

An observation based on small sampling is especially questionable considering the nature of ammunition. A great deal of associated and unassociated things happen when you pull the trigger on ammunition.

As a new reloader, this is a lesson in Statistics 101. I've seen any number of instances where a new guy is ready to anoint a load as "most accurate he's ever fired" based on a couple of three shot groups, or is convinced a tenth grain variation in a powder charge makes an enormous difference in accuracy.

Mean? No.

Just trying to instill the knowledge that when observing handloading results, the first obligation one has to ensure repeatable, accurately representative results is to ask, essentially, "On what amount of information is this observation based?"

This is doing the OP a service, and is best acknowledged early on when asking others to diagnose your observations. The validity of what we tell you may or may not have anything to do with your observed results. More shooting might find little difference between the two. Velocities may go up rather than down.

Relevant information:
Here's an observation about the LFCD versus a roll crimp:

The roll crimp irons out of the case on firing. The LFCD crimp often does not, and some amount of the "crimp ring" likely drags against the bullet on the way out of the case. Depending, of course, on just how deeply you've crimped and how deep the crimping groove on the bullet allowed you to crimp with the two crimping types

How that affects the situation in your testing I do not know. Once might logically posit that the reduced diameter crimped area might cause more drag against the bullet and increase velocities due to the creation of more pressure (bullet does not come out of the case as easily) but how does one explain that observed velocities with the LFC were actually lower in your testing with one powder and faster with another?

If increased drag caused it, velocities should be higher with both powders with the LFC. But you haven't shown that.

So all you can conclude, based on your testing, is that more shooting is necessary to figure out whether varying powder burn rates (296 is slower than Blue Dot) are differentially affected by the two different crimps.

The exactly opposite results found in your testing (crimp found to be both faster and slower) don't support a hypothesis as to the cause one way or another.

Further, we don't know to what degree the crimp was applied. Was the case deeply roll crimped in a deep crimp groove, or shallowly? Did the LFC have a deeply incised ring that went well into the crimping area of the bullet or not?

See what I mean? Variables in application of crimp may have as much or more to do with the results than the crimp type used.

What's fun about handloading is the opportunity to learn. What's misleading about handloading is that insufficient allowances for variability and statistics often lead one to the wrong conclusions.

If in doubt, keep shooting. And here there is considerable doubt, to the point that no one can answer this question for you.

Only you can.

So, hmm........maybe more shooting is in order?

You've only scratched the surface, and when handloading that's often the case. Valid observations occur with repeated applications that show the same results.

[Southern Shooter]

Valid observations occur with repeated applications that show the same results.

35remington, thank you for the explanation of your approach towards me and the reminder of variables and the attention they need. I do understand repetition is important and will keep a log of my efforts. That way I can look for patterns.

But, you may be in a trouble, now. Because, now when my better-half ask why we can't go out to dinner, and why do I have my lead ladle in hand, I am going to quote you. "Honey, 35remington said, 'If in doubt, keep shooting.' And, I am still in doubt.". :bigsmyl2::cbpour:

Last night I poured another 300 boolits. Next weekend will be a time of experimentation and observations.

Thanks

[MtGun44]

If it sounds like "being mean" I am quite sorry. That is not the intent. The issue is that if
one is failing to take into account the actual variation which has nothing to do with the
tested variable (in this case, a change in crimp).

Statistics is a careful, mathematical study of variations in things. It turns out that there are
very solid mathematical relationships that can help you understand if an apparent variation,
such as the difference in measured velocity that you have seen and reported, is actually a
REAL effect or just the effect of the NORMAL variation in velocity, NOT due to the variable
being studied. This requires large numbers of samples to show what the actual NORMAL
variation is with NO CHANGES, so that you can then see if, by changing the variable of
interest (crimp in the case) you get a variation LARGER than the natural variation.

Getting the baseline (variation with no changes) takes a large sample, and then testing
the variable ammo (with the crimp changes) takes, also, a large sample.

Unless you actually do the proper statistical sample size and calculate the uncertainty, which
is based on the sample size - larger samples (more shots) means smaller uncertainty.

At 5 shots, the uncertainty is huge, to the point of almost being a meaningless test.

Serious testing really will take about 100 shots to get the uncertainty down to small values.

If you look at what the military does to test ammo for accuracy, they make 50 or 100 round
groups (or they did many years ago, when the reports I have read were written) so that
they know what the actualy accuracy of the ammo is. We routinely fool ourselves with
things like 3 shot groups.

With small samples like you are using, the uncertainty is easily of the same approximate size
as the variation you are seeing, so it is unknown if the effect is real. If the crimp change caused
a 350 fps change, then it would be significant because this effect is much larger than the expected
variation, so is probably real.

In lab work we call small effects like this as "down in the noise", meaning that the variation seen is
in the rough same magnitude of the random variation (noise) in the data. Science is done carefully
and with an understanding of and respect for the underlying mathematics, or it is invalid.

Sorry if this sounds mean, but it is true and if you ignore it, you are mostly wasting your time.

Bill

[Mk42gunner]

How did they shoot in comparison? Was the volocity spread more or less with each shot with roll crimp or lee fcd?

I'm with Jonas, how was the accuracy comparison? I would be more concerned about an increase or decrease in group size than +or- 40 feet per second.

Robert

[Bwana]

I'm not being "mean" or "scorning you"........just trying, along with others, to convey the high potential variability of ammunition. Variables affect observed results to a great degree, often to the point wherein observed results have less to do with what is being "tested" than those variables that are uncontrolled.

The first question a reloader must ask himself is, "has this observation been consistent over time and repeated observances?"

An observation based on small sampling is especially questionable considering the nature of ammunition. A great deal of associated and unassociated things happen when you pull the trigger on ammunition.

As a new reloader, this is a lesson in Statistics 101. I've seen any number of instances where a new guy is ready to anoint a load as "most accurate he's ever fired" based on a couple of three shot groups, or is convinced a tenth grain variation in a powder charge makes an enormous difference in accuracy.

Mean? No.

Just trying to instill the knowledge that when observing handloading results, the first obligation one has to ensure repeatable, accurately representative results is to ask, essentially, "On what amount of information is this observation based?"

This is doing the OP a service, and is best acknowledged early on when asking others to diagnose your observations. The validity of what we tell you may or may not have anything to do with your observed results. More shooting might find little difference between the two. Velocities may go up rather than down.

Relevant information:
Here's an observation about the LFCD versus a roll crimp:

The roll crimp irons out of the case on firing. The LFCD crimp often does not, and some amount of the "crimp ring" likely drags against the bullet on the way out of the case. Depending, of course, on just how deeply you've crimped and how deep the crimping groove on the bullet allowed you to crimp with the two crimping types

How that affects the situation in your testing I do not know. Once might logically posit that the reduced diameter crimped area might cause more drag against the bullet and increase velocities due to the creation of more pressure (bullet does not come out of the case as easily) but how does one explain that observed velocities with the LFC were actually lower in your testing with one powder and faster with another?

If increased drag caused it, velocities should be higher with both powders with the LFC. But you haven't shown that.

So all you can conclude, based on your testing, is that more shooting is necessary to figure out whether varying powder burn rates (296 is slower than Blue Dot) are differentially affected by the two different crimps.

The exactly opposite results found in your testing (crimp found to be both faster and slower) don't support a hypothesis as to the cause one way or another.

Further, we don't know to what degree the crimp was applied. Was the case deeply roll crimped in a deep crimp groove, or shallowly? Did the LFC have a deeply incised ring that went well into the crimping area of the bullet or not?

See what I mean? Variables in application of crimp may have as much or more to do with the results than the crimp type used.

What's fun about handloading is the opportunity to learn. What's misleading about handloading is that insufficient allowances for variability and statistics often lead one to the wrong conclusions.

If in doubt, keep shooting. And here there is considerable doubt, to the point that no one can answer this question for you.

Only you can.

So, hmm........maybe more shooting is in order?

You've only scratched the surface, and when handloading that's often the case. Valid observations occur with repeated applications that show the same results.

35remington,
If you are going to wax eloquent on the LFCD, as you did here: "The LFCD crimp often does not, and some amount of the "crimp ring" likely drags against the bullet on the way out of the case.", you could at least make sure you are talking about how the LFCD for the 45 Colt/454Casull applies it's crimp. That is, it applies regular roll crimp and not the type you reference. The type you are talking about is applied by the rifle and bottleneck pistol factory crimp dies. So let's try to get it straight.

[.357MAN]

Bwana, 35remington was not referring to the rifle FCD, he was saying that the Lee FCD crimp ring ( the actual physical crimp ring that holds the bullet in the case ) is still present after the round is fired. Thus he said " some amount of the "crimp ring" likely drags against the bullet on the way out of the case."
I have noted this also, after firing a round crimped with the Lee FCD try to insert a bullet into the fired case, it meets resistance from the previous crimp.

So it's very conceivable that the crimp ring does drag on the bullet causing more pressure buildup before exiting the case. And in the scenario of the faster powder, the only reson I can think of was that the Lee FCD crimp created so much pressure at the beginning that more pressure was released through the cylinder gap than normal, This idea is extremely hypothetical and I am assuming that in both rounds ( one normal crimp and the other Lee FCD ) the powder had fully ignited before exiting the barrel, so the only variable is the pressure curve of the two different rounds.

.357MAN

[35remington]

357 nailed it. The crimp applied by the LFCD for pistols often seemingly does not allow the case mouth to straighten completely on firing, and I am somewhat at a loss to explain why except to note it happens. I am presuming the combination of what is, in effect, sizing with the carbide ring at the bottom and roll crimp at the top has something to do with it, but exactly how I don't know.

In theory it should, but for me it does not and did not in some instances. I would presume the relative pressure of the load might affect how "straightened" the case mouth gets after firing.

I realize the application of crimp is different than the rifle die.

But the double application of carbide ring at the bottom and roll crimp at the top may or may have something to do with it, or maybe it's how I or the OP are using it with our particular bullet/crimp groove/case combination. Or maybe it's solely in how the Lee die roll crimps at the top, with a different taper to the crimped section than other dies that accounts for it.

In any event, a die that sizes the case and bullet at the bottom and crimps on the top is a different application that a die that only roll crimps on the top. Some say bullet pull is loosened after the round is sized in a pistol LFCD, and velocities should therefore be lower than if it was not used. That isn't what happened here in both instances, so either the case/bullet was not sized going into the carbide section of the die, or it doesn't matter what is happening, or something else is going on.

Here's an interesting thought:

Ed Harris recommends placing unsized bullets in unsized brass and sizing it in a pistol LFCD......to hold bullets in the case and uses the product in autoloading pistol cartridges where bullet pull must be tight. Something's going on, but darned if I can quantify exactly what it is with a die that has both a carbide ring that often sizes the loaded round at the bottom of the die and a crimp at the top.

I myself don't particularly care for the idea of a carbide sizing ring in a crimping die for pistol cartridges, but if someone is happy with how their results are turning out who am I to say that good results are to be ignored?

I thought the OP has a good question, and I still do. Getting a good answer, at least from me, is a lot harder.

[ku4hx]

Wow, interesting thread. I'd still opt for the one that was most accurate in my gun even if it gave up a little muzzle velocity. I doubt if the target, living or nonliving, could tell the difference.

[44man]

Some things need straightened out.
Crimp has little affect on burn or velocity unless you STAKE in the boolit, not good at all. Stakes are not removed at firing. The boolit and brass are ruined.
Any crimp left on a fired case is bad.
Case tension can't be made by sizing the brass to the boolit, spring back loosens boolits. Over crimping loosens boolits.
Case tension comes from proper sizing and expanding, dead soft lead will be sized when seating. Over expanding to seat soft lead ruins tension.
The .454 is an ANIMAL and I have seen way over crimped factory loads pull under recoil while my easy roll crimps held because of proper case tension.
Is it crimp mania? Crimp is there to only hold a boolit under recoil, not to make powder burn better.
Crimp should ONLY go to the bottom of the groove, never into the boolit.

[tomf52]

die adjustment variations

[Bwana]

Bwana, 35remington was not referring to the rifle FCD, he was saying that the Lee FCD crimp ring ( the actual physical crimp ring that holds the bullet in the case ) is still present after the round is fired. Thus he said " some amount of the "crimp ring" likely drags against the bullet on the way out of the case."
I have noted this also, after firing a round crimped with the Lee FCD try to insert a bullet into the fired case, it meets resistance from the previous crimp.

So it's very conceivable that the crimp ring does drag on the bullet causing more pressure buildup before exiting the case. And in the scenario of the faster powder, the only reson I can think of was that the Lee FCD crimp created so much pressure at the beginning that more pressure was released through the cylinder gap than normal, This idea is extremely hypothetical and I am assuming that in both rounds ( one normal crimp and the other Lee FCD ) the powder had fully ignited before exiting the barrel, so the only variable is the pressure curve of the two different rounds.

.357MAN


Sorry, you are incorrect as to what 35remington was talking about as this part of his post clearly points out: "The roll crimp irons out of the case on firing. The LFCD crimp often does not, and some amount of the "crimp ring" likely drags against the bullet on the way out of the case. Depending, of course, on just how deeply you've crimped and how deep the crimping groove on the bullet allowed you to crimp with the two crimping types

How that affects the situation in your testing I do not know. Once might logically posit that the reduced diameter crimped area might cause more drag against the bullet and increase velocities due to the creation of more pressure (bullet does not come out of the case as easily) but how does one explain that observed velocities with the LFC were actually lower in your testing with one powder and faster with another?"

Now, what were you saying?

[MT Chambers]

To me, it just points out how unnecessary an extra crimp die, and the extra step, is. Been crimpin' things since 1962 and never needed it.

[.357MAN]

44man I agree with you on all you are saying except the part about the crimp not influencing powder burning. I don't know if you have ever used a Lee Pistol FCD, but when I have used it on 357 magnum brass to roll crimp, It did not fully iron out after firing, it helped H110 fully burn while under a 140 GR. XTP bullet, and it did destroy the brass after a few reloads. Those loads where not accurate and I lost a lot of brass because of it. I know better now about bullet weight case sizing and crimping affects on the powder burn rate, and I will not make the mistake of using a light bullet over H110 again, and I will not ever use a roll crimp again because it does destroy brass, and I like my brass to last longer than 3-5 reloads. These are my conclusion after my results.

Here are some pictures to show how hard I was crimping and the effect on my brass. The empty brass was reloaded 3 times with the Lee FCD.

.357MAN

[.357MAN]

Bwana, I was assuming the crimp recessed deeply into the bullet crimp groove, thus doing what 35remington said " some amount of the "crimp ring" likely drags against the bullet on the way out of the case."

As to what I think about the faster burning powder, reread the lower part of my post you quoted, but like I said that idea is hypothetical.

.357MAN

[Bwana]

Bwana, I was assuming the crimp recessed deeply into the bullet crimp groove, thus doing what 35remington said " some amount of the "crimp ring" likely drags against the bullet on the way out of the case."
As to what I think about the faster burning powder, reread the lower part of my post you quoted, but like I said that idea is hypothetical.
.357MAN

The thing is, .357MAN, unless we all use the proper terms and understand the correct funtioning of the devices we reference, there will be no useful communication. 35remington went off track when he incorrectly ascribed a function to a type of die. That makes everthing after that nonsense. That's just the way it is.
Now as to the 'faster burning powder" thing, there would be more gas volume passing through the barrel clyinder gap if the pressure is higher. If. The biggest word in the English language. The amount of increase most likely is not proportional to the overall increase of the amount of gas produced. One last thing, the powder is almost never totally comsumed or even close to that in normal length barrels. Tests using very long barrels have proven this.
To me the reason for the difference in the OP's loads is not as important as the fact that it is there and therefore he is aware of it and will take it into account in his load development in the future.
I have found that, for me, when dealing with load development with a familiar powder or set of load components and gun, three rounds is sufficient for load development. Only when all or most of the actors are unknown do I load more than three rounds each when working up a load.

[rintinglen]

Lacking the data to do anything else (no listing of individual shots, no SD, no sample size), The only testing of this data I can do is Chi Square analysis. Simply put, a x2 score is the sum of the observed values (1195, 1167 and 947, 985) minus the estimated value (1181, 966), then squared and then divided by the estimated value.
The x2 score for the heavy bullet, if I hit the right buttons, is .75. The x2 score of the lighter bullet is .33. For either of these differences to matter, they would have to have (at a 95% confidence level) a value of at least 3.841. To have that value, the samples would have to have a spread of at least 67.31 fps with an SD not larger than 19.

Given that neither result is even close to the critical value, I will state as a fact that there is no valid statistical difference in the results reported. The variations in velocity are the result of normal variations in testing, assembly, and whatever else the lead gods choose to toy with.

[.357MAN]

Bwana, I understand what your saying now. Sorry, I didn't understand what you where disagreeing at in 35remington's post. I interpreted 35remington's post as this " The regular roll crimp irons out of the case on firing. The Pistol LFCD crimp often does not iron out, and some amount of the "crimp ring in the actual brass" likely drags against the bullet on It's way out of the case. Depending, of course, on just how deeply you've crimped and how deep the crimping groove on the bullet allowed you to crimp with the two crimping types".

So this is what I understand is your interpretation "The regular roll crimp irons out of the case on firing. The rifle LFCD crimp often does not iron out, and some amount of the "crimp ring" likely drags against the bullet on the way out of the case. Depending, of course, on just how deeply you've crimped and how deep the crimping groove on the bullet allowed you to crimp with the two crimping types"

After rereading I now understand the confusion, and I don't know which one of us was thinking the same as 35remington.

As far as what you last said about the OP's load is concerned, I agree with you, but he did ask, and I has trying to get creative. But I do stand by my statements about H110 building more pressure with the pistol LFCD which is based on my experiences.