Checks- To size or not to size?

Those dark purple bullets were coated,then Lee-sized to .359 , then heat treated. I then seated Hornady checks with a Lyman lubrisizer using the seater,checks snapped on, crimped and measured .362.

No neck tension problems loading,I also get a very clean barrel,shooting these from a Rossi carbine with a rough,large bore.

Green and gold bullets were fully sized with the Lyman,checks are measuring .3595 , bullets being .359 (that is a modified 358 die.)

Depending on your glasses,you can actually see the check size difference in the pic. Purple ones look like "scrapers", which they are.

Is there a general rule or reason to size gas checks closer to bullet size?

https://i.postimg.cc/90x3NYTD/IMG-20...104348-650.jpg

Is there a general rule or reason to size gas checks closer to bullet size? If the gas check is too much larger than the bullet it is going to expand the casing/neck and you won't have neck tension.

I'd crimp them all.
As well as the neck tension issue and pain in the butt seating them in the case you might get fliers if they get cock-eyed upon firing. Not too likely but why introduce non standard procedures that could work against accuracy.

if you don't size them to bullet why use them?

I seat, crimp, & size all in one stroke, and have good results.

But if that process works for you, its a good idea.

As far as doing the seating, sizing, etc in more than one step:
I try not to make extra work for myself.
I've found that there are plenty of other people more than glad to do that for me.

Thanks everyone. They are all crimped,just not all sized.

Just wondering how much over bullet size everyone else is using them. And why. Gas checks are a new variable to me,I shoot plain base everything. Now this Rossi carbine is giving me unusual leading so I'm giving checks a go here

At least the 362's keep the barrel clean @ 1900 fps. Oddly enough,I have no neck tension or loading problems. Accuracy was normal,no group testing yet though. Breaking claybirds ok @ 75 m.

https://i.postimg.cc/0jX9DN6T/IMG-20191127-124922.jpg

I guess if it ain't broke don't fix it!:drinks:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swheeler

I guess if it ain't broke don't fix it!:drinks:

---

This is also true. I wish I knew the bore size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petander

This is also true. I wish I knew the bore size.

---

Now I know. .3566.

https://i.postimg.cc/prBjdhyw/IMG-20191128-125634.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/SRGZpK4s/IMG-20191128-132522.jpg

Man the chamber must be large. None of my revolvers (38/357) will allow a for a bullet even close to that large. Do you get good case life? I would say keep using them as long as you get good performance.
n.h.schmidt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n.h.schmidt

Man the chamber must be large. None of my revolvers (38/357) will allow a for a bullet even close to that large. Do you get good case life? I would say keep using them as long as you get good performance.
n.h.schmidt

---

I apologize,it was the .3566 GROOVE diameter being miced above,not bore. My bad plus the language barrier. :)

Bore is about .3485- .349, can't mic that one,calipers only.

New Hornady checks are tighter, seated base is .3615 and they snap better,old ones were generally just a little loose with my particular mold/alloy.

Snap is good. Old ones came with a mold I got recently.

https://i.postimg.cc/2yZzJgdm/IMG-20191211-234547.jpg

Now I need to pass a lead boolit down the bore of my Rossi 92 and measure.