Charlie Darnell, FreeChex III

[ditchtiger]

Charlie Darnell, FreeChex III

Is there a link or website for this fellow?

[edsmith]

go to gunbroker and search for freechex.

[ditchtiger]

I don't want to go to gunbroker.
I want to deal with the guy directly.

[edsmith]

try freechex.net

[Sonnypie]

That works Ed.
Freechex.net <Click here<

[ditchtiger]

Thank You very much,

[pastorcurtis]

For guys who have used both Freechex and Pat Marlins - what are the pros and cons?

[pistolman44]

Did use the FreechexII, sold it after 1 week of use. All my checks using .014" alum where loose after sizing 44 caliber. Small percentage where tight if I ran them a second time thru sizer. I can't report on Pat's maker as I am still waiting one that I have ordered. I bought Gator gas checks off of Blammer here and they all sized tight to boolit shank and couldn't be pulled off.

[Sonnypie]

For guys who have used both Freechex and Pat Marlins - what are the pros and cons?

FreeChex III is a one shot, pop and drop a completed gas check.

Pat Marlin's is a two step. Punch a bunch of disks, then fumble the disks into a forming cup.

I find Pat's to be more labor intensive (obviously, with multiple operations).
__________________________________________________ ______

I ordered from Pat. Paid in advance, and rounded it up (paid extra). Then sat a month. This was when he was advertising he had 30 cal's "Ready to Ship, Who wants one?"
Got an email that a USPS label had been created. 12 days later the die arrived.

I emailed Charlie. He called me within two hours. His die was delivered via 1st Class mail the next day.
__________________________________________________ ______

FreeChex III is made by a Tool & Die Company. Then hardened to Rockwell 60-62 hardness. It is a professional Industrial caliber tool. In fact, it is used by manufacturers to make Gas Checks for clients, in punch presses. 10's of thousands every week.

Pat Marlins is made in a barn, in the woods.

I donno. You decide. Both are currently in my shop.
I don't exactly tolerate excuses very well.
I have a special project I am working on.
See Ya! Break is over, back to work for me.

Don't ask unless you want an honest answer.

[JeffinNZ]

A barn in the woods is probably a bit harsh Sonnypie. Pat's workshop does appear to be very well fitted out.

Charlie did have the Lane Punch Co. do a run for him and they were unbelieveably tight in tolerances. Just remarkable what can be achieve with CNC technology now and yes, very hard. One of his dies was returned to him from a commercial user and after a predicted 100,000 cycles had .0005 of wear.

I like the one stroke, one check part of the FC III system. Remarkably fast. There is a video on Youtube IIRC of a guy who had a coil of material the correct width to feed his FC III. He hangs it on a spindle and with an arbor press goes nuts. Has to be making 50 a minute easy. Of course the FC II is good also, just slow but still produces a complete check on each cycle.

The benefit of Pat's system is the compatibility with loading presses if that is what is required. Now if Pat comes up with the FC III style device to fit a loading press then that would be something. Checks dropping into the primer catcher fast as you can work the lever. An arbor press is better suited due to the mechanical advantage but the loading presses appear to work.

Horses for courses really. Either both, both systems allow us to save a poultice of money for a little input and that's a great thing.

[Dan Cash]

I have one of Pat's .30 tools. It makes serviceable checks but is almost as slow as Pat was in delivering it. For now, I will buy gas checks as neither Pat nor his cult following speak ill of me for complaining about the wait; the purchased checks come in the mail 7 or 8 days days after I send money. Pat took over 6 months.

[Sonnypie]

A barn in the woods is probably a bit harsh Sonnypie. Pat's workshop does appear to be very well fitted out.

Sorry Jeff. But it's accurate.

Charlie did have the Lane Punch Co. do a run for him and they were unbelieveably tight in tolerances. Just remarkable what can be achieve with CNC technology now and yes, very hard. One of his dies was returned to him from a commercial user and after a predicted 100,000 cycles had .0005 of wear.
They still are Jeff. Outstanding quality and fit.

I like the one stroke, one check part of the FC III system. Remarkably fast. There is a video on Youtube IIRC of a guy who had a coil of material the correct width to feed his FC III. He hangs it on a spindle and with an arbor press goes nuts. Has to be making 50 a minute easy. Of course the FC II is good also, just slow but still produces a complete check on each cycle.

Yes. And he and I have become friends and I am doing testing for him. He owns a slitter mill.
He is also a member here.

The benefit of Pat's system is the compatibility with loading presses if that is what is required. Now if Pat comes up with the FC III style device to fit a loading press then that would be something. Checks dropping into the primer catcher fast as you can work the lever. An arbor press is better suited due to the mechanical advantage but the loading presses appear to work.

I do have to point out that the shock incurred when the punch breaks through the metal is harsh on a reloading press. The presses were never intended for that sort of shock loading.
I use a Herter's Model 3 C-Press to run mine. It is a very old time, close grained cast iron press. Heavy duty as the hubs of hell. Sought after by swagers for swaging operations a friend told me when he tried to talk me out of it. But it was my Dad's, and he and I reloaded with it during my childhood. Can't let it go.
I moved the old booger back to its original place on a massive 9 foot bench with steel legs. Still, it is a bit harsh in operation. Makes my junk jump.
And it required clean up work and deburring. I've sharpened it twice in a few thousand checks.
The FreeChex III (Two different ones now) came out of the package and straight to work.

Horses for courses really. Either both, both systems allow us to save a poultice of money for a little input and that's a great thing.

I'm not complaining, just stating the truth based on experiences. Sorry but I never was one for cults. Nor excuses....

[lead chucker]

I ordered on from pat and hope i don't have to wait six months.

[lead chucker]

Sonny pie what is Charlies log on name I might send him a pm

[JKH]

pistolman44,

I have to take this opportunity to put forth a little education concerning homegrown gas checks and tools, I am assuming by the tone of your post that you blame the Freechex tool for making checks that would not stay put, please correct me if I am worng but it seems plain enough.

The tool has nothing to do with your particular issue, if you stop and analyse the situation you will see what I mean. You made the checks on Charlies tool and they fit snugly on your boolits gas shank (you made this exact statement on another thread) BEFORE sizing which suggests that the fit was proper, however, after sizing you state that the checks became loose and would invariably come off the boolit. Is this all correct to this point?

Now, for some education, aluminum comes in many thickness and more importantly many different alloys, and on top of that fact there is also the issue of how the material was annealed. The harder or more brittle the alloy used the more you will experience "spring back" meaning that when you size the material down it will attempt to return to its original size a certain amount and in this case a few ten thousandths of an inch are sufficient to cause your problem, this phenomanom is also common in the brass cases we use and is why the manufacturers of dies makes them to size a case several thousandths smaller than the final desired dimension as the brass will spring back and may still be too large after sizing particularaly in a tight chambered firearm (jacketed bullets as well, I size .323" bullets down for a .318" bore Mauser and the final sizing die I use must be .317" as if it were not then my finished bullets would be .319").
Annealed material is much softer and more DUCTILE meaning that it will maintain the dimension you size it to better and with little or no spring back. If you are using aluminum flashing material you can tell quickly how it will react to sizing by taking a piece and simply bending it, or attempt to bend it, the harder the material the more it will simply curve and spring back towards its original state, softer/annealed aluminum will bend with ease and will stay where you bend it to, that is why many people such as myself will only use newspaper lith plate material because it does not exhibit spring back when sized.

With any check making tool they are built to use material of a certain thickness, tolerances are tight and critical to form a good product, however, if you deviate from what the manufacturer designed the tool to use then you will have issues with your end product, using too hard, too thick, too thin and yes, even too soft material will cause issues and those issues have NOTHING to do with the tool itself! I own numerous FCII and FCIII tools from Charlie and have made many many thousands of checks, some have been fantastic and some have been ****, all depending on the material I use, I have no experience with Pat Marlin's tool but from the pictures I have seen, etc. it appears to be a very well made tool, in my opinion though it falls far short of the FCIII system due to its very slow and cumbersom nature as well as the complication of having so many parts that need to be changed to several configurations to form a check, a lot of wasted effort in my opinion espcially when the end result is no better. Of course if you like slow, complicated machinery and tools than have at it! It is your business to buy and use what pleases you. Having said that though I feel it is very disengenuous to blame the tool for the failure of your checks when it was obviously the fault of the material in use, I wager that if you use the exact same material in your new PM tool and the checks are the same dimension that you will have the same issues with your checks, I have read numerous accounts of other PM tool owners with the same issue and it is equally disnegenuous for them to blame the PM tool for the failure when it was poor material choice and not the tools fault.

So, I urge you to think this over and put things in perspective, and please do not place blame where none is due.

If anyone wants to know first hand how well the FCIII tools work and hold up Isuggest you contact James Sage at sageoutdoors.com James has Charlies tools ranging from .22 to .50 caliber running on hydraulic actuators he puropse built to operate these tools, he makes checks commercially for sale to the public and also has a few large contracts with commercial boolit casters to provide ALL of their gas checks, we are talking some very considerable quantities here as well as high quality standards, these folks are selling tens of thousands of cast bullets monthly and being a long term company with a good reputation they are not about to stick their necks out and order inferior gas checks! Business is business after all ;^ ) James can also back up waht I have said concerning material, he has used about everything there is and settled on newspaper lith plate where possible as the best material possible, I was going to be his supplier until he was fortunate enough to find a steady supply locally. So, there ya go, lith plate and FCIII tools and you will be making the best checks possible in the shortest time possible, what could be better than that?!

Respectfully

Jeff Hampshire

[JKH]

P.S.

I also have to add this to the equation. The particluar alloy used to cast boolits will also make a considerable difference in how gas checks will fit befoe and after sizing, lead alloy can and will spring back as well, but take iinto consideration that if you are using a very soft alloy or pure lead, that you will have little to no spring back. If you have gas checks made from hard, springy material and soft boolit alloy, the check will stay larger than wanted and the boolit will swag down and stay smaller. Its like buying hard leather shoes when your feet are swollen, once you get them back down to size the shoes will be very loose as they dont have the capacity to shrink down to fit, whereas if you buy a set of stretchy neoprene shoes they will squeeze down and still fit your feet when they are smaller.

Jeff

[Roger Ronas]

Hello Jeff,
Curious about the litho plates. Where to purchase, cost and dimensions. pm is ok if desired.
Thanks
Roger

pistolman44,

I have to take this opportunity to put forth a little education concerning homegrown gas checks and tools, I am assuming by the tone of your post that you blame the Freechex tool for making checks that would not stay put, please correct me if I am worng but it seems plain enough.

The tool has nothing to do with your particular issue, if you stop and analyse the situation you will see what I mean. You made the checks on Charlies tool and they fit snugly on your boolits gas shank (you made this exact statement on another thread) BEFORE sizing which suggests that the fit was proper, however, after sizing you state that the checks became loose and would invariably come off the boolit. Is this all correct to this point?

Now, for some education, aluminum comes in many thickness and more importantly many different alloys, and on top of that fact there is also the issue of how the material was annealed. The harder or more brittle the alloy used the more you will experience "spring back" meaning that when you size the material down it will attempt to return to its original size a certain amount and in this case a few ten thousandths of an inch are sufficient to cause your problem, this phenomanom is also common in the brass cases we use and is why the manufacturers of dies makes them to size a case several thousandths smaller than the final desired dimension as the brass will spring back and may still be too large after sizing particularaly in a tight chambered firearm (jacketed bullets as well, I size .323" bullets down for a .318" bore Mauser and the final sizing die I use must be .317" as if it were not then my finished bullets would be .319").
Annealed material is much softer and more DUCTILE meaning that it will maintain the dimension you size it to better and with little or no spring back. If you are using aluminum flashing material you can tell quickly how it will react to sizing by taking a piece and simply bending it, or attempt to bend it, the harder the material the more it will simply curve and spring back towards its original state, softer/annealed aluminum will bend with ease and will stay where you bend it to, that is why many people such as myself will only use newspaper lith plate material because it does not exhibit spring back when sized.

With any check making tool they are built to use material of a certain thickness, tolerances are tight and critical to form a good product, however, if you deviate from what the manufacturer designed the tool to use then you will have issues with your end product, using too hard, too thick, too thin and yes, even too soft material will cause issues and those issues have NOTHING to do with the tool itself! I own numerous FCII and FCIII tools from Charlie and have made many many thousands of checks, some have been fantastic and some have been ****, all depending on the material I use, I have no experience with Pat Marlin's tool but from the pictures I have seen, etc. it appears to be a very well made tool, in my opinion though it falls far short of the FCIII system due to its very slow and cumbersom nature as well as the complication of having so many parts that need to be changed to several configurations to form a check, a lot of wasted effort in my opinion espcially when the end result is no better. Of course if you like slow, complicated machinery and tools than have at it! It is your business to buy and use what pleases you. Having said that though I feel it is very disengenuous to blame the tool for the failure of your checks when it was obviously the fault of the material in use, I wager that if you use the exact same material in your new PM tool and the checks are the same dimension that you will have the same issues with your checks, I have read numerous accounts of other PM tool owners with the same issue and it is equally disnegenuous for them to blame the PM tool for the failure when it was poor material choice and not the tools fault.

So, I urge you to think this over and put things in perspective, and please do not place blame where none is due.

If anyone wants to know first hand how well the FCIII tools work and hold up Isuggest you contact James Sage at sageoutdoors.com James has Charlies tools ranging from .22 to .50 caliber running on hydraulic actuators he puropse built to operate these tools, he makes checks commercially for sale to the public and also has a few large contracts with commercial boolit casters to provide ALL of their gas checks, we are talking some very considerable quantities here as well as high quality standards, these folks are selling tens of thousands of cast bullets monthly and being a long term company with a good reputation they are not about to stick their necks out and order inferior gas checks! Business is business after all ;^ ) James can also back up waht I have said concerning material, he has used about everything there is and settled on newspaper lith plate where possible as the best material possible, I was going to be his supplier until he was fortunate enough to find a steady supply locally. So, there ya go, lith plate and FCIII tools and you will be making the best checks possible in the shortest time possible, what could be better than that?!

Respectfully

Jeff Hampshire

[JeffinNZ]

Given the nature of making checks and the variance in materials and gas check shank sizes I firmly believe that a prospective buyer should work backwards when thinking about the device to make checks with. That is to say, find a material you can use, measure YOUR gas check shank THEN have the device made to YOURS specs. This is sorta what I did. My very first device was a FC I. I bought a .30cal from Charlie and immediately honed the forming anvil out to .315 for my .303 Brits. Then, I had to find a way to make checks thick enough. I needed 16 thou material but can't find any so ply up 12 thou litho and 4 thou soda can wall. Charlie now makes his .303 FC devices to my specs though not after berating me for 'monkeying' with his tool. LOL.

SONNYPIE: Re the loading presses, yes, I agree, the stresses on the press are not great. I have only made .22 checks in my Lyman T Mag and was not really that happy with all the 'clunking' that went on. The arbor press is MUCH better. Bottom line is, loading presses are not made to make gas checks. Forming is fine. Cutting the material, not so much.

[JKH]

Hey Roger, PM sent concerning my lith plate prices, etc.

Jeff

[kbstenberg]

Since Jeff suggested about thinking ahead for check making. Can someone give any suggestion on which arbor press is workable with Charlie's check maker.
Kevin