You guys with Star sizers, riddle me this......

[JIMinPHX]

Here's how I make my Lyman dies -

[Buckshot]

Buckshot

Wouldn't it be easier to turn it around, and do the lower end away from the collet? So you would
You still have to change from 7/8 the 3/4 collet, but you don't have to mess with trying to put the lip on the backside of the 3/4" collet.

.............Firebird, you're 100% right. You sure could simply use a lefthand tool and cut away from the headstock. I feel pretty dumb for not thinking of that, except my thinking was directed to simplifying the whole proceedure to save time and money. (Alibi )

The whole issue hinges on the suitability of using a circlip instead of a 1/8" (or so) wide 7/8" OD flange to retain the 3/4" die body. So far in apparently limited use it seems to serve the purpose. If it proves out, then you also get 3 added benefits. One is the ability to use less expensive material (3/4" vs 7/8"). The second is the elimination of unnecessary machining and waste. Finally the operation to create a die body is faster.

As an example, when making RCBS/Lyman lube sizer blanks, I can make a blank in about 5 minutes or less if I stay after it. I use 3/4" stock, and have to remove ~ .030" for the 'O' ring end, then dial in another .016" after .200" travel, for the .702" body OD.

I COULD use 23/32" stock at .718" to start with as the lost .002" at the 'O' ring end is no big deal. All I'd have to do then is infeed .008" for .016" total material removal on the body, but I don't. The reason I don't is that ENCO usually ALWAYS has the 3/4" size on sale @ 4 for $9.34 and the 23/32 is NEVER on sale and is $11.23.

Actually for what I was charging for Star dies, I'd STILL make them with the flange if people insisted only if I didn't have to deal with those lame 2 diameter location specific lube holes

.................Buckshot

[GSM]

Buckshot:

Do the holes have to be 2 diameter? Would a chamfer hold a piece of smashed shot to block out unwanted lube ports?

[garandsrus]

Buckshot,

The one Star die I made was turned as suggested by Firebird. The top of the die was towards the headstock. I also turned towards the headstock. After the final diameter was cut, I just withdrew the bit to face off the bottom of the flange and then parted the piece off.

In the interest of learning, why are you thinking that you want to turn away from the headstock?

Thanks,
John

[warf73]

Do the holes have to be 2 diameter? Would a chamfer hold a piece of smashed shot to block out unwanted lube ports?

To add to this question a little couldnt a guy just put the holes in the die that he wanted instead of putting in holes that wouldnt be used? Since this is a custom type die.

Just thinking out loud.

What do you think?

[Buckshot]

Buckshot,

The one Star die I made was turned as suggested by Firebird. The top of the die was towards the headstock. I also turned towards the headstock. After the final diameter was cut, I just withdrew the bit to face off the bottom of the flange and then parted the piece off.

In the interest of learning, why are you thinking that you want to turn away from the headstock?

Thanks,
John

............You don't HAVE to, but the reasons I would is because making the plunge cut (simply partial parting off) is also forming the relief between it, and the .750" body shoulder. Beginning your cut in the groove formed by the parting tool and moving away from the headstock leaves the groove clean. Turning toward the HS means your tool passes into the groove, and doing so can form a burr over the edge, or actually create a small thin washer. It falls off into the groove and then you get to fiddle with a scribe or needle nose pliers to fish it out.

The other thing is, how fast are you turning? Since the .750" body is critical I'm not going to simply dial in .0625" and take it all in one pass. Nor am I going to do it at .0018" IPR either, except for the final finish pass. I'll take a .050" cut, then a .010" pass, mike it and make the final pass at that slow feed to get a nice finish. Those DOC's aren't deep so you don't have to doddle on the other one or two passes. By starting the tool in a groove and turning away from the headstock the tool simply runs off the end of the work. You don't have to stand there bent over watching the tool closely as it approches the shoulder.

It's just me. If you don't HAVE to turn up to a shoulder, why do it? If you have to then you have to, but if there are options check them out. Will it be faster, smoother, easier, less nerve wracking, or eliminate the possibility of a crash?

When I thread, if the part allows it, I will ALWAYS thread away from a shoulder or other feature. Even when batching out push through sizer bodies, which are .875" OD, there is no feature except the end of the threaded part. You have to begin retracting the crosslide and then a split second later open the half nuts. You're in backgear and maybe turning 60 rpm, yet you have to be positive and quick, especially if close to full depth.

Instead I single point off the backside. Why? Well I can run the lathe 3 times faster, which give s a cleaner thread, it's faster, and best of all, the tool runs off the end of the workpiece and you're not hunched over watching the toolpoint with one hand on the crossfeed dial and the other holding onto the halfnut lever with a death grip.

It's really odd that there appears to be a real fan club for that big flange on the Star die. I suppose it may LOOK nicer then a crummy old black circlip. I guess it also really provides a lot of room to stamp or engrave the dies' bore ID Heck, rather then a 7/8" flange, why not one a full 1"? In fact I think I've even seen one with a 1" flange. That way we could peel off a whole 1/4" of steel. If 1/8" is good, 1/4" has gotta be twice as good.

I find it hard to believe no one else has thought of a circlip to retain the die? Maybe they did but it doesn't work long term? Or maybe not in automatic machines? Or maybe they've just always made them with the flange, so why change?

A newlywed couple are hosting their very first Thanksgiving dinner. The husband notices that his new bride cut off about an inch off each end of the ham before putting it into the pan, and then into the oven. He asks why, and she shruges and said that's what her mom always did.

Her mom arrives and as the new husband is taking her coat, he mentions the ham cutting thing and asks about it. The brides' mother says she really doesn't know, but HER mom always did. Grandma shows up and heads off into the kitchen with the new husband following. He finally has a chance and asks her why she would cut the ends off the ham before putting it into the pan.

She seems perplexed at first but then smiles and says, "Years ago all I had was this one pan to use. It was always too small for the ham so I had to cut some off each end to get it into the pan".



.............Buckshot

[garandsrus]

Buckshot,

Thanks for the reply...

John

[lathesmith]

Like Buckshot, I fail to understand the fixation of that 7/8 flange on the top of the die. After learning to make some of these dies, and studying the mechanics of the thing, I have my own ideas:
The main thing I see about that flange is that it makes the die more or less idiot-proof. How are you gonna install it upside down? It will only go one way, or not at all. I guess with the C-ring, I can see where someone could try and install the thing upside down, or leave the lube grooves sticking out, or something. Also, you could leave the ring off and push the die thru the bottom of the press. This would be a bad idea, as I notice that my press's die chamber tapers slightly from top to bottom. Okay, so from a company's point of view, the flange makes the product more idiot-proof, but you notice this has nothing to do with actual mechanical integrity. It just limits their headaches when dealing with idiots. Also, the flange die is obviously a bit more difficult to copy, as demonstrated by the tons of threads just on this forum devoted to the subject.
Okay, that's my take on the flange; how 'bout the groove under it? Simple! The factory dies with the flange are finish GROUND on the outside. Ever try and run a grindstone right up to a flange? Why not just cut a groove and not worry about getting so close? Now you can let guys do all kinds of speculation about O-rings and other nonsense about this, as an added benefit! Let folks think it is a lot more compicated than it is! The groove is there to facilitate quick grinding, period.
I also set my factory dies out next to each other, and you know what? They are ALL made a little different(all 4 of them). Is this a big deal? Not in the least! There are only two critical dimensions to these dies, OD and ID. Speaking personally, I can rough out one of these dies in 15 minutes, start to finish. Ahhh, but its the FINISHING to within .0005(or less) that takes a lot more time than this. Darn those details!
As for that nonsense that a C-ring can't handle the force of sizing, and will mar the top of the press, well, what can I say? I have seen automotive and industrial applications of these C-rings that require them to handle a lot more force than you can generate with that wimpy 1/2" diameter sizing handle and rather flimsy linkage. And after examining my factory die and press closely, I see that the flange was not in contact with the press at all, due to a build-up of a film of lube between the two! No metal-to-metal contact at all! What kind of marring can occur here? You tell me....
Personally, I'm done with the flange, I don't need it. But, as in other areas of life, some folks insist on the hard way, even when there is a demonstrated easier way.
lathesmith

[JIMinPHX]

A slightly more robust version of Buckshot’s idea might be to put the C-clip a little higher on the die, then use a little aluminum bushing below it that has a shallow counterbore. The ID of the counterbore would be just a few thousandths larger than the OD of the installed C-clip. That way, the C-clip would not be able to open up & slip off. It would also give padding between the C-clip & the surface below it. C-clips do sometimes have a sharp edge or burr on them.

[KYCaster]

Like Buckshot, I fail to understand the fixation of that 7/8 flange on the top of the die. lathesmith

Lathesmith, Magma's Size Master automated sizer uses the same dies and has a counter bore for the flange so the bullet feeder can slide over it.

I suppose for the sake of interchangeability they make all the dies with the flange. Other than that, I agree with you...for the Star sizer, the C-clip should do the job just fine.

Jerry

[lathesmith]

Thanks for pointing that out Jerry, a sensible reason has emerged at last! And to realize it is just an interchangability thing. I had thought about those commercial sizing machines, but hadn't really addressed that issue because I've never personally seen one. Nor am I likely to own one in my lifetime. A commercial caster would probably size more bullets in a month than I am likely to in 10 years.
I suppose that it might be accurate to call the C-clip design the "poor man's die" or "economy die". Perfect for those of us who cast smaller quantities of several different kinds of bullets, and who cannot afford to invest their life savings in sizing dies. It sure is convenient to have a sizer for each style of bullet, or at least a couple of different sizers for the same caliber with one-, two-, and maybe three- lube groove capablity,and not to have to mess with that shot nonsense. That is my goal.
lathesmith

[Firebird]

Lathesmith

Wouldn't it be easier to just make a set of custom sizing dies, one per bullet, with the die lube holes set so that the sizing punch wouldn't need to be adjusted between different bullets. Then all you would need to do is change sizing dies to match the bullet and not need the expense of different machines (except for using different lubes of course).

[lathesmith]

Firebird, that is kind of the idea, although setting your holes on various sizers in order to maintain the same distance isn't really practical or needed. However, having a sizer in each caliber set up for one, two, or three lube grooves is really handy. You have to remove the top punch to pull the dies anyway, so re-setting the top punch for each die isn't an extra step as you will have to re-set it after die replacement anyway.
Jim, we had discussed that very idea of a washer, but that is an extra step that at this point just don't seem to be needed. As you point out, it is easy to add later, and I made these c-clip dies a little long to accomodate this possibility. And, those clips usually do have a slight burr on one side; one can either file this off or just make sure that it is placed up, away from the sizer chamber.

[JIMinPHX]

Jim, we had discussed that very idea of a washer, but that is an extra step that at this point just don't seem to be needed.

One c'bored washer could cover all the dies that you make. It seems like a small investment in time & material.

[quasi]

for you guys that wan't to do a CNC run of blanks, there is at least one and maybe more sites on the internet that have an easy CAD design program. Once designed the site has a review and suggestions mode, and a pricing calculator. The one I have played with was free. Minimum parts order was 50.

The site lets you pick the materials to use, and the type of machine to use. I cannot remember the name of the site, I think I bookmarked it but am on a borrowed computor right now. I got the sight from practical machinist.

I am a computor idiot, (and an idiot in general), and I found doing the cad designing easy and fast to learn. I had never done it before.

[quasi]

I found it, use is free.

http://www.emachineshop.com

[MtGun44]

I have been using a really nice Star die that lathesmith made for me.

Great workmanship, he deserves a real pat on the back for INSTANT
service and a beautiful internal polish job.

It uses the circlip on the top and works just fine. It is a touch smaller
in the body than some of my other dies which is a GOOD thing as it
is easier to change out.

Great job.

Bill

[triggerguard1]

If someone wants to send me a a basic drawing............napkin, whatever, I can convert it to cadd in about 5 minutes......

I've got a CNC lathe that mostly sits, so I could cut the guys here a helluva lot better deal than $20 or $40.

I'd be willing to trade my knowledge on CNC work and gunsmithing with some of you guys who are experts in the casting.

If 45nut still lives in Prineville, he knows who I am and we've talked, though it's a pretty long time ago.



Matt Williams

[45nut]

I remember you Matt, I can drop off a Star sizing die in .429 I obviously have no use for. Maybe you can get the dimensions you need and open it up to something useful, I will be in town thursday and drop by your place. Good to see you here.

[triggerguard1]

Sounds like a plan.........

I'm working graveyard right now, trying to keep my machines running as long as possible.

If you could bring it by at about 9:00 p.m., I'll be there and I'll get the cadd work done and see what we'd be up agains't on price.