Never tried it for interior neck lube but it works great for sizing! Sized many thousands of brass pieces with ole One-Shot.

@@WitchDoctorPrecision so do you clean the brass after resizing and then apply the neolube? (so there's no one-shot residual inside the neck)

@@FearlessMagpie yes, I clean the brass. I don’t routinely use One-Shot so most of my brass has nothing added inside the neck when I add the Neolube 2.

I think that is fine. The light crush bolt close shouldn’t affect precision. It’s the hard bolt close from a clicker, not headspace sized at all, and other potential explanations that seems to affect precision.

@WitchDoctorPrecision okay. That was my thoughts as well. I just wanted to confirm. This is the first rifle I built and chambered for myself. Ended up about go plus .001" Shoots good. Need to go after the firing pin assembly next. Thanks for replying.

Please post a hyperlink to dry graphite on ceramic balls.

No, no pressure signs like that noted.

No, didn’t notice any deformities.

No, have you tried that?

@@WitchDoctorPrecision I just learned about the neo lube from your video last month. I also don’t have an amp press.

@@justice1327 are you planning on using Neolube? One other thing I’ve noticed about it is if I have bullets I made but haven’t shot in months, there is no “cold weld” effect.

Yes, thanks. My newer videos are incorporating screen shots, etc. I now have better lighting too. Making improvements!

Yes, thanks for the feedback. I realize that I’m far from a pro KZbinr but I have made some recent improvements with a new video camera that has an external microphone, displaying data in a fixed manner when discussing data, and a few other things. My last couple videos should be a dramatic improvement but I’m still striving to improve more. One thing that helps with at least the equipment part is to become a patron on my Patreon to help with the cost of all of this.

Cool, Patreon link is on my KZbin channel main page. patreon.com/BryanZolnikov Yes, still use Neolube 2 and apply it with a foam q-tip to inside of necks and bullet (the part where the bearing surface is expected to seat in the brass neck).

The top rides on delrin pins. If you do an internet search “rail gun delrin pins” images should show up in the search.

Thanks for tuning in. Yes, it is the amount the anvil was compressed. You would need to measure pocket depths, primer height, and primer cup height to determine how much seating you will need to get .008” of anvil compression. For example, when I use Lapua brass with Federal 205M primers, I seat to .005” to get .008” anvil compression because the pockets are .119” deep, cups are .1075 high, and anvil protrudes .0145. Seating to .005” in this scenario leaves only .0065 from the top of the primer cup to the ceiling of the pocket so if the anvil protrudes .0145 subtract that from .0065 and you get .008 anvil compression. Since pocket and primer dimensions can vary among manufacturers, I would measure it all and then determine where you need to be in terms of seating depth.

@WitchDoctorPrecision thanks for the clarification. I was wondering about the very example you just mentioned. Where the primer is actually thicker than the cup is deep so you have to apply some "crush" just to get the primer below flush. How about the situation where the anvil protrudes less than .008"? Perhaps start with it fully crushed ie pushed completely into the cup until the cup hits the top of the pocket and experiment from there?

@@user-vm3jz8cb3y I don’t know about primers where there is less than .008 anvil protrusion. All the ones I use have .010-.015” anvil protrusion like the Federal 205, 205M, 210, and 210M and various CCI primers. I know there are other primer types, primer pocket designs, and other variations so with those, I would test things out to see if there is a sweet spot with precision.

@@WitchDoctorPrecision thanks

No, height sorting is way too impractical and my focus is on things that can be practically done. I’ve also been asked if I’ve pulled apart primers to measure every dimension and measured fires primers to see if there is anything with the hardware of the primer that accounted for the difference I found in weight. Again, my focus is on practical things…nobody is going to pull apart and put back together thousands of primers nor weight them after shooting. The results I got showing variances in velocity among the various weights was strong enough to suggest that it’s a variance in the amount of priming compound. I’m good with that and not planning any further testing. I’ve found that when I have gotten pulled down a rabbit hole, the results are insignificant. For example, in my flash hole diameter testing, I allowed myself to get pulled into a rabbit hole by some shooters who thought that a magnum primer would have a pronounced effect over a standard…well it didn’t and, in retrospect, while I thought their rationale sounded good, it wasn’t and it taught me to be careful taking the bait down these potentially insignificant rabbit holes especially among shooters who only have conjecture and no data to support their assertions. I have other testing that needs to be done and have to use my judgment to discern what is worth the effort vs what is not. In my judgment, sorting for primer height is not a worthy test but I will never dissuade somebody for testing this if they want and I will always want to see their data. I’d even help them devise the methods for the test and analyze the data but I’m not going to do that type of test myself.

Thanks for tuning in. I really should do a video summarizing all of the results and some things I’ve learned along the way. I’ll add it to the list. What I’ve found is simply weight sorting is a great idea because you will have significant vertical dispersion out to as little as 200 yards if you don’t or you’re not lucky enough to have an incredibly uniform lot of primers. For example, four primers weighing 3.68 will cluster together but one primer weighing 3.60 will drop. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen that in matches where there is an “unexplained” drop shot among shooters who do not weight sort. As for the anvil, yes, that is the key variable which is why I recommend measuring your primer pocket length and know the primer cup height and anvil protrusion. I have seen postings on shooting sites of an image that shows primer dimensions of widely used primers in the USA like Federal and CCI so you can get the dimensions from that resource assuming it’s up to date. In a nutshell, you have to have both variables (weight and anvil compression) controlled and then you will get optimal precision. As for the rim height on the brass, yes, you have to be careful with that because those heights can vary quite a bit. What I do is set my primer tool to seat to the depth that gives me .008” anvil compression and then check every primer I seat with either calipers or a primer seating depth gauge. I allow for .001” variance (Speedy Gonzales sets his threshold at .0005”). Any piece of brass that shows variance beyond .001”, I check the brass rim thickness and it’s usually off spec. I use out of spec brass for setting my neck turning tool, setting neck trimming tool, Aztec code on my AMP annealer, and other things but I definitely will not shoot it in a match because my primer seating will be off and degrade precision. I just texted Speedy about this the other day and he has a nifty custom made tool that rapidly measure the brass rim thickness…much more efficient than my method which uses primer depth as a proxy measure. He’s going to send me that tool so I can try it out…I’ll have to give it back but I’m going to use it to see if my proxy measure is accurate enough and I won’t have to make one of those tools myself or find somebody who could. With cups that are thicker (e.g., CCI) than what I’m used to (Federal), the seating force is higher but what I do is seat once, rotate the brass about 120 degrees, seat again, rotate 120 degrees, and then seat again. The primers get seated uniformly with this method. I found with thinner cups, I only have to rotate once but can’t hurt to rotate three times. The thicker cups with more seating force don’t seem to affect precision. One other thing you have to consider is differences in primer pocket design. With Alpha brass, I believe there is some kind of bevel in the cup that I suspect is crushing the primer cup and causing a disturbance to the anvil. This could be why Alpha brass shot worse than Lapua in my testing. Also, a handful of great match shooters told me that once they removed the bevel after reaming the pockets, the Alpha brass shot better but still not as good as Lapua. So, in a nutshell, as long as you get that anvil compressed to .007-.009”, the primers are weight sorted, and you’ve culled out the brass with too much or too little rim thickness, you should be good to go! Thanks for inspiring me to do another video and I hope you shoot small!

I did a quick video on the brass rim thickness issue and there is a direct relationship between rim thickness and seating depth. The thinner the rim thickness, the shallower the primer is seated. I’ll post that video on my Patreon and the maybe do a more comprehensive review on KZbin. I recommend becoming a Patron because I post there a lot. KZbin is just fliers for the concert.

@WitchDoctorPrecision Thank you for the detailed response. I can't begin to tell you how grateful I am for that information. If you only knew the amount of time, effort and grief that I've gone through to get a straight answer on that. You've definitely made a Patreon member out of me and will look forward to learning more from your testing and will gladly contribute to helping keep that going.

@@BenchAddict-hs1nu welcome to the team! Everything I do is to support shooters by having practical data that answers practical questions. I’ve grown weary of the keyboard warriors, fake experts, pseudo intellectuals, and others who only have conjecture. One test is worth 1000 expert opinions! Follow the data!

Thanks! Both should do fine but the .790s seem to do great for me in a shorter free bore (.035-.045”) while the .825 do better in longer free bores (.065-.070”). I would check your free bore length and select according to that. One other thing is both .790 and .825 seem to shoot great .002” off touch so when doing load development, I would consider trying .010” into the lands and work back .003” at a time. I bet you will find a sweet spot somewhere in .004 into the lands and .004 off lands. Good luck and I hope they work out as great for you as they did for me!

I truly appreciate the help. My free bore is listed as .045 on the reamer print. Thank you

@@stevecraig1203 I’d give those .790s a try first. Try .002 in, touch and .002” off. I bet you’ll find the seating sweet spot in there somewhere.

Awesome !!! That’s exactly what I’ll do. Thanks again

No. It is a March 10-60x but I have used and still have a NF 42x44. Both are great scopes.

@@WitchDoctorPrecision would you sell that one. I'm trying to find one of those. 42x44 42x44

@@treece1 I need it for my back up rifle.

No, never seen that after several examinations of the bore. There is no build up like you are likely to see with fully coated bullets.

The only way I prefer is not to have hard bolt close. Whether you can drop it with one finger or two doesn’t matter as long as it’s not a hard close.

Yes. Works great. On the inside of the neck and bullet bearing surface where it is seated.

@@WitchDoctorPrecision thanks man i will try, i always put it only inside the neck, never on the bullet, i will try it for sure! do you dip the bullet directly in , or you use a cotton swab?

@@teo59 I use a foam swab…don’t want any cotton pieces sticking to the neck or bullet

@@WitchDoctorPrecision thanks a lot

Benchrite

Varget

The 4ml glass ones. They fit plenty of small to medium powders. For magnum cartridges, I’d look at 5+ml. They have to be glass because the plastic will have kernels sticking to it. www.amazon.com/Cadbibe-4ml-Plastic-Stoppers-Leak-Proof/dp/B0BKFQ85BL/ref=mp_s_a_1_7?crid=1ULPDM4740DH5&keywords=1+3%2F8+4ml+glass+vials&qid=1688493081&sprefix=1+3%2F8+4ml+glass+vials%2Caps%2C220&sr=8-7

All I have is a personal phone number but I won’t post it to KZbin without permission or will find another way to contact and then post here. I contacted Eddie Harris about this and am waiting to hear back. If you’re on FaceBook, please send me a private message on there about this.

It was a thesis from a student so sounds like they at least can (and have) done tests like this.

Seems like a waste of time and resources to do humidity control when the jugs, manual powder dispensers and electronic dispensers keep the humidity out. You have to leave the powder fully exposed to the humidity for quite a while to get any moisture sucked in. I don’t know about you but I don’t know anybody who leaves powder out in the open for long periods. Seems simple enough to close the lid after dumping powder into a dispenser and then remove powder from the dispenser and store it in a closed jug within a reasonable time frame. You won’t have any humidity affecting the powder if you do it that way which is the way all the shooters I know do it. No need for humidity control if you do it that way.

If you’re using high quality brass (e.g., Norma, Lapua) then it’s not absolutely necessary. However, if you’re using low quality brass, it is helpful.

@@WitchDoctorPrecision Thank you sir. Appreciate your videos and the quick response.

@@occortes9411 thanks for tuning in. Shoot small!