Linear Automatic Reloader?

[beeser]

There have been a number of linear automatic reloading machines made (RCBS Green Machine, AutoChampion, etc.) but none that I'm aware of are still being manufactured. Is there something inherently wrong with a linear reloader design as opposed to the circular indexing type?

[jaguarxk120]

Check the Camdex automatic loading systems.
They build 11 station machines for large loading operations.
They have a Rapid Loader that will do 100 rounds per minute.
These machines are not cheap since every operation is monitored by
a computer.

[nhyrum]

The first draw back that comes to mind is footprint. Set up 5 stations in a line vs a circle. Linear machines are more for production.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[beeser]

Camdex, AmmoLoad, etc. are more commercial machines. No doubt the footprint of the linears are a little larger but not by much. I was just wondering if there was a design or manufacturing limitation that made them undesirable.

[nhyrum]

I feel like a rotary shell holder is easier to get to work than a linear system. Just rotate it, where are with a linear system you have to have the system be able to move back without moving the rounds back, which is more complicated. But I'm no engineer

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[dverna]

I have used two. The Green Machine is basically junk. It has two issues. The one that cannot be solved is primer delivery. It uses the most Mickey Mouse system I have ever seen and the guy who was playing engineer should have lost his job...as well as every beta tester RCBS used. That leads to the second problem...indexing of the cases. No primer results in powder on the track and then it does not index well.

The Camdex is a heck of a machine and it should be for the price.

BTW, when Dillon came out with his progressive he could have "copied" the Star or the GM/AutoChamp designs. That should answer any questions.

Lastly, If you want to prime off the machine, the GM works OK until you have a boo-boo. Then if you do not pull the pins to disable the rotary powder drop, you get powder spilled on the track...and need to clear the machine to clean it up. If I still had my GM I would add a case activated powder drop and prime off the press. But, to me, priming off the press defeats having a progressive. If you want to prime off the press, a cheaper Lee would be OK.

EVERY progressive press lives and dies around the priming operation. The other operations are easy.

[Guardian]

I’ve got a CH MK IV. I like it. Priming on it works well, as long as you don’t let the station run empty and dump powder into the priming system directly below. The major issue with it is reset of the case advance mechanism. When it slams home, it knocks powder out of the brass, even with relatively small volumes of powder in a medium case. I’ve just learned to place my finger on the charged case as it advances.

Another issue is adjustments. The design was intended to be set up for one load and run it. It is not well suited for caliber changes.

They are quirky, but when running right they can produce a significant amount of ammo quickly. But when it gets out of adjustment, it is going to take several minutes, at minimum, to get it back going. After running it a while, I’ve gotten a feel for when things are beginning to get out of whack and can usually catch it before it causes an extended delay.....usually.

[Petrol & Powder]

There have been a number of linear automatic reloading machines made (RCBS Green Machine, AutoChampion, etc.) but none that I'm aware of are still being manufactured. Is there something inherently wrong with a linear reloader design as opposed to the circular indexing type?

"Is there something inherently wrong with a linear reloader design as opposed to the circular indexing type?"

When you start by asking, "is there something inherently wrong.....", you're setting up some assumptions.

It's not wrong verses right. You could ask the question, "is there an advantage to circular indexing"?

I think nhyrum's comment about the footprint being smaller with a circular design is insightful.
I also think efficiency and cost of manufacturing come into play.

A circular layout probably has more parts that can be made or finished on a lathe as opposed to a mill or shaper, resulting in lower production costs.
A circular layout can generally be assembled with a single ram, where a linear design will need two rams or complicated linkage.

To answer the OP's question, " is there something inherently wrong with a linear design" ? The answer is NO.

[jmorris]

Camdex, AmmoLoad, etc. are more commercial machines. No doubt the footprint of the linears are a little larger but not by much. I was just wondering if there was a design or manufacturing limitation that made them undesirable.

Cost, new those machines are over $25,000 in one caliber. Once you get one running right, you don’t convert them over to load another caliber, you buy another. They are more capable but also more complex.

[oldhenry]

"[QUOTE=dverna;5053830]I have used two. The Green Machine is basically junk. It has two issues. The one that cannot be solved is primer delivery. It uses the most Mickey Mouse system I have ever seen and the guy who was playing engineer should have lost his job...as well as every beta tester RCBS used. That leads to the second problem...indexing of the cases. No primer results in powder on the track and then it does not index well."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This one paragraph nailed it!

I could not believe RCBS would put out such a piece of junk. Also I couldn't understand some of the glowing reports from some of the "respectable' sources at the time it was introduced.

It would make a fairly good boat anchor for up to a 16' craft.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I had an C&H Auto Champ I could get it to run pretty well. The issues that were mentioned about the Green Machine which RCBS purchased the rights to Mfg from C&H, were common problems. Covering the charged case so it didn't spill powder during the advance cycle was one.

Cleaning the machine after you dumped powder was done with an Air Hose so that wasn't the end of the world. Teh priming sysem sucked outright.

However once you learned the machine they would make some ammo. I sold mine when a D550B came home.

Randy

[beshears]

Had a CH. nothing but problems. Blew up primer tube twice, it is now retired. Poor at indexing case and would dump powder with no case under it. Have Hornady AP now. Lot better. Must have case on station for it to charge and primers are separate from priming station.

[Mk42gunner]

I have most of a CH Autochamp out in the barn, waiting its turn in the project line. The powder measure is the basic design that Dillon copied for his progressives.

I got it when one of my commands decommissioned and I couldn't see throwing it away. I do use the two die sets that came with it for .45 ACP and .38 Special in my other presses.

I may get to it one of these years, but I have probably 93 projects in line in front of it.

If I really wanted a progressive for handgun calibers, I think the Dillon Square Deal is very hard to beat.

Robert

[blackhawk44]

The linear machines fell out of favor for a number of reasons all related to its basic design. Whether built by RCBS, Ransom, Cougar & Hunter, CH and others, they all suffered to one degree or another from the same shortcomings. First was a "jerky" feed system from station to station that would shake the powder out of the case (even small charges) and spill it into the case advancement system, tying up the system. Secondly, most primer feed tubes were unshielded in case of detonation. Next, that primer feed system was a design hard to maintain and prone to jams and possible detonations. Finally, their mechanical, rather than case activated, powder measures would spill into the machine without a case underneath, which was common due to the clunky case advancement causing the case to jump out of the feed tracks. Again you had to stop and clear the machine. Even though I loaded thousands of rounds on my Cougar & Hunter, I finally became leary enough of it to partially disassemble it and lock it down so that others would not be tempted. Having also used a couple of the higher priced machines, I truly believe their demise was brought about by their design not their build quality.

[abunaitoo]

I have a strange one.
Still not sure what it is, or who made it.
It is for 38spl.
Needs a good cleaning.
Attachment 273732

[gl89aw]

I have one, best I’ve been able to find out is they were sold and possibly made by the Kansas police supply company. The one I have works great. I believe they date back to the 1930’s

[GBertolet]

I have both the in line and carosel loaders, and they all work fine for me. As previously mentioned, the in line loaders are more difficult to convert to other calibers, as you lose all of your adjustments, when you switch. It can take several hours, and many crushed cases to get it right again. RCBS planned to offer caliber conversion kits for the Green Machine, but gave up. In lines are best left on one caliber. One of my 2 in lines is a Green Machine, in 45acp, the other is a Jet. The basic faults, I have corrected on my Green Machine. I replaced the powder measure with a Lee Disk, which does not drop powder, unless there is a case underneath. Also I converted to a stick primer feed. The typical primer tube fits in the hole the disc used. Adding a slip over, piece of pipe, for a blast shield is a good idea also. I tend to place a finger over the powder charged case, by force of habit, when it advances, eliminating any spillage. After the inexpensive alterations, the Green Machine functions pretty well. The designer of the Green Machine lamented, that he overestimated the mechanical aptitude of the typical buyer, and their failure to read the instructions that came with the machine.

The carosel machines are much simpler in design and are more foolproof. They take up less space, and are easy to change calibers on. Being the dies are close to a central column, there is less chance of flexing when sizing. This flexing is an issue with the in lines, especially with rifle cases, due to their increased sizing effort. The tool head holding the dies, tends to be torqued downwards towards the seating die, varying the bullet depth. I do have a Dillon SDB also, and can see both sides of this equation. The in line Jet loader I have, is capable of loading rifle cartridges, and the 3 columns do flex, under the increased sizing effort, so I use it for hangun cartridges only. When the Dillon carosel machines started hitting the market, it was the kiss of death for the in line loaders. I use Hornady One Shot spray lube on all my cases loaded on any of my progressive loaders. Even though the sizers are all carbide, the lube makes the cases glide through the loading process.

[GarrettP1]

I agree that the hang up for automated (turret or linear) is priming.
I've been trying to Rube Goldberg something automated (linear) that uses already primed cases, with the cases in a track, and the dies moving vertically. Loaded case falls off the end.
One of the guys here has manufactured these machines (commercial use) and I'm just trying to copy his design for hobby use.

But you've already nailed the big turd in the punch bowl: caliber change. It only makes sense to do this if you're going to reload 5K cases at a time. Now you've got your 2-3 year supply of ammo in caliber X, and it's worth the 10 hours or so to adjust the machine for caliber Z.

To bring it back to the OP, I think linear is easier for full automation-the next case pushes the previous case forward until done. Eliminate priming, and the footprint is the size of a card table.

[jmorris]

To bring it back to the OP, I think linear is easier for full automation-the next case pushes the previous case forward until done.

Doesn’t leave much room for dies does it?