Jump to content


Photo

Ammobot at it again on BENOS


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 ToddKS

ToddKS

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,502 posts
  • LocationGetting killed in the streets

Posted 20 February 2018 - 08:12 PM

I would like to see 223 brass processed on your new machine. I would be very interested to see if the Mark 7 press delivers consistent shoulder setback. To date I have not been able to get my 1050 to do this (by hand or with the Ammobot. I suspect toolhead flex may be the issue).

#22 SomeGuy

SomeGuy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts

Posted 20 February 2018 - 09:50 PM

I would like to see 223 brass processed on your new machine. I would be very interested to see if the Mark 7 press delivers consistent shoulder setback. To date I have not been able to get my 1050 to do this (by hand or with the Ammobot. I suspect toolhead flex may be the issue).

How (in)consistent have you got it? I get ridiculously consisteny OAL on loading 9mm, but Ive never measured shoulder bump for rifle on it. Im curious now.


#23 Stoitch

Stoitch

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 07:32 AM

@ToddKS If you are only loading 1400 rounds per hour on your Ammobot, that is a personal preference as opposed to a machine limitation.  I've owned both the Rev 2 and the Rev 3. I load on the Rev 3 now. The Rev 3 cycles at little over 3000 rounds per hour.  There are videos of actual Rev 3 user loading ammo at 2500 and processing brass at 3000 rph.  FYI, the Rev 2 maxed out at about 2850 (IIRC).  I load at about 2000.  That is a good speed for my purposes, but I could go faster. 

 

The Ammobot sensors are equally as good  if not better (IMHO) than the Mark 7.  The are some features that I like about the Mark 7 (adjustable clutch).  Maybe an honest head to head comparison of the latest versions of both would be beneficial to all.  Also, it will be interesting to see the impact the Revolution will have on the market. I wonder what Dillon's response will be. 

 

Personally, I think that the Ammobot and the Mark 7 are both very good tools.  They both make the really good ammo.  That being said, the Ammobot is about half the price of a comparably equipped Mark 7 1050 pro.  Approximately $1600 vs $3200 respectively. That price difference can get you a nice production back up gun or pay a whole bunch of match fees. 

 

We should also analyze the cost to quantifiable benefit between the Ammobot over the Mark 7 1050 pro.  So when I objectively (as much as possible) compare the actual features of the Ammobot with the features of the Mark 7 1050 pro.  I feel I'm getting a superior tool at about half the price with the Ammobot.

 

The main benefits to me are:

1. The high overall quality of the machine.

2. Powerful motor that provides high torque and high speed processing,

3. The availability of sensors.  There are a lot

4. The handle.  The handle allows me to run the press manually.  This makes it easy to change something about the rounds (powder charge, seating depth, etc) or just run a few individual rounds

5. Customer support. It has been outstanding

 

These have been my personal experiences. FWIW I don't work for nor am I affiliated with Ammobot, and they don't give me kickbacks for talking about their product.


  • Trigger Warning likes this

#24 maximis228

maximis228

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 329 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 08:07 AM

So you can load at an effective rate of 1375ish/hr when pre processing brass. Seems lame.



#25 Stoitch

Stoitch

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 08:51 AM

So you can load at an effective rate of 1375ish/hr when pre processing brass. Seems lame.

I load pistol at 2000 rph single pass.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk



#26 Stoitch

Stoitch

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:17 AM

I would like to see 223 brass processed on your new machine. I would be very interested to see if the Mark 7 press delivers consistent shoulder setback. To date I have not been able to get my 1050 to do this (by hand or with the Ammobot. I suspect toolhead flex may be the issue).

There are a bunch of videos on the Ammobot FB page of users processing rifle brass. I haven't seen any in depth videos on the shoulder setback issue you are having.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk



#27 SomeGuy

SomeGuy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 01:15 PM

Based on a sample size of 15.. Im +- .002 with 2 outliers that make it +-.005 which isnt great. I'd be perfectly happy with +- .002 However.. based upon my own experience of trying to get my precision ammo sized on a single stage to +-.0005... Lube inconsistency is most likely to blame. Just from lube alone I can vary my sizing by .004 or more. So.. I need to find a way to lube more consistently or live with the variance. Based on my oal range of loaded ammo that is nothing short of amazing, I dont think I can blame the machine.

#28 ToddKS

ToddKS

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,502 posts
  • LocationGetting killed in the streets

Posted 21 February 2018 - 02:12 PM



@ToddKS If you are only loading 1400 rounds per hour on your Ammobot, that is a personal preference as opposed to a machine limitation. I've owned both the Rev 2 and the Rev 3. I load on the Rev 3 now. The Rev 3 cycles at little over 3000 rounds per hour. There are videos of actual Rev 3 user loading ammo at 2500 and processing brass at 3000 rph. FYI, the Rev 2 maxed out at about 2850 (IIRC). I load at about 2000. That is a good speed for my purposes, but I could go faster.

The Ammobot sensors are equally as good if not better (IMHO) than the Mark 7. The are some features that I like about the Mark 7 (adjustable clutch). Maybe an honest head to head comparison of the latest versions of both would be beneficial to all. Also, it will be interesting to see the impact the Revolution will have on the market. I wonder what Dillon's response will be.

Personally, I think that the Ammobot and the Mark 7 are both very good tools. They both make the really good ammo. That being said, the Ammobot is about half the price of a comparably equipped Mark 7 1050 pro. Approximately $1600 vs $3200 respectively. That price difference can get you a nice production back up gun or pay a whole bunch of match fees.

We should also analyze the cost to quantifiable benefit between the Ammobot over the Mark 7 1050 pro. So when I objectively (as much as possible) compare the actual features of the Ammobot with the features of the Mark 7 1050 pro. I feel I'm getting a superior tool at about half the price with the Ammobot.

The main benefits to me are:
1. The high overall quality of the machine.
2. Powerful motor that provides high torque and high speed processing,
3. The availability of sensors. There are a lot
4. The handle. The handle allows me to run the press manually. This makes it easy to change something about the rounds (powder charge, seating depth, etc) or just run a few individual rounds
5. Customer support. It has been outstanding

These have been my personal experiences. FWIW I don't work for nor am I affiliated with Ammobot, and they don't give me kickbacks for talking about their product.


My Ammobot is a rev 1 machine. It is not a question of how fast the drive can run, it is how fast the drive and 1050 can run together without malfunctions occurring in the process. For me that number is 1400 for loading and 1650ish for brass processing. Above those speeds I will have issues. Those issues are primarily driven by the transition between the upstroke and downstroke. That transition may be smoother on the rev2 and rev3 machines but that is not the machine I have.

I am not dissatisfied with these run rates. At those speeds the overall performance of the combo is nearly flawless. I would rather have that than faster performance with issues.


#29 Stoitch

Stoitch

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 03:33 PM

My Ammobot is a rev 1 machine. It is not a question of how fast the drive can run, it is how fast the drive and 1050 can run together without malfunctions occurring in the process. For me that number is 1400 for loading and 1650ish for brass processing. Above those speeds I will have issues. Those issues are primarily driven by the transition between the upstroke and downstroke. That transition may be smoother on the rev2 and rev3 machines but that is not the machine I have.

I am not dissatisfied with these run rates. At those speeds the overall performance of the combo is nearly flawless. I would rather have that than faster performance with issues.

That makes sense. Yeah the later models are marked improvements over the Rev 1

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk



#30 beerbaron

beerbaron

    Shagga

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:10 PM

Hey Mr 14.7:1. You missed the biggest problem of the ammoboot. It costs less and looks cheap. Therefore it's for poor people. No one wants to be a poor.
  • Matt1 likes this

#31 Stoitch

Stoitch

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:16 PM

Hey Mr 14.7:1. You missed the biggest problem of the ammoboot. It costs less and looks cheap. Therefore it's for poor people. No one wants to be a poor.

Go put that dick back in your mouth and shut the fuck up.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk



#32 beerbaron

beerbaron

    Shagga

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:23 PM

Go put that dick back in your mouth and shut the fuck up.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


Yikes!

#33 dansedgli

dansedgli

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 263 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:25 PM

#Housobot4lyfe.

#34 beerbaron

beerbaron

    Shagga

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:29 PM

Btw I don't actually own a mk7. I do agree it's the thinking mans reloader of choice however I also felt it was a little bourgeois for me. I load on a mk8 which is in no way affiliated with mk7. Most people could not afford it or even know how to acquire it. I'm also certain there's only one in existence. ir makes these others look... well... passé.
  • Matt1 and Trigger Warning like this

#35 ToddKS

ToddKS

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,502 posts
  • LocationGetting killed in the streets

Posted 21 February 2018 - 10:19 PM



Based on a sample size of 15.. Im +- .002 with 2 outliers that make it +-.005 which isnt great. I'd be perfectly happy with +- .002However.. based upon my own experience of trying to get my precision ammo sized on a single stage to +-.0005... Lube inconsistency is most likely to blame. Just from lube alone I can vary my sizing by .004 or more.So.. I need to find a way to lube more consistently or live with the variance.Based on my oal range of loaded ammo that is nothing short of amazing, I dont think I can blame the machine.


I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to fix this issue. My results are very similar to yours including the unacceptable outliers. I have eliminated both lube and dies as the source of my problem. I can take the same brass and dies and move them to my Coax and the variance goes away.

I think the issue may be flex in the tool head.

#36 Matt1

Matt1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • LocationDown Under

Posted 21 February 2018 - 10:43 PM

Hey Mr 14.7:1. You missed the biggest problem of the ammoboot. It costs less and looks cheap. Therefore it's for poor people. No one wants to be a poor.


Ammobot = lamb chops?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#37 Matt1

Matt1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • LocationDown Under

Posted 21 February 2018 - 10:46 PM

Btw I don't actually own a mk7. I do agree it's the thinking mans reloader of choice however I also felt it was a little bourgeois for me. I load on a mk8 which is in no way affiliated with mk7. Most people could not afford it or even know how to acquire it. I'm also certain there's only one in existence. ir makes these others look... well... passé.


I hear that Ben has been looking at upgrading to the mk9 but is worried about the reliability of the primer system 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#38 SomeGuy

SomeGuy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts

Posted 22 February 2018 - 08:15 AM

I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to fix this issue. My results are very similar to yours including the unacceptable outliers. I have eliminated both lube and dies as the source of my problem. I can take the same brass and dies and move them to my Coax and the variance goes away.

I think the issue may be flex in the tool head.

I have some brass that I process down to a .20 caliber neck. It gets sized twice. 15 rounds were +-.003. So better. Most were +-.002

I'll measure a larger sample sometime or try sizing twice with .223 and see what happens. Bad part is all my brass is processed.

#39 MemphisMechanic

MemphisMechanic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 836 posts
  • LocationMemphis, TN

Posted 22 February 2018 - 11:57 AM

If you dicks would stop shooting at things more than 100yd away it wouldn’t matter.

Winners blast ammo downrange at high speed in fist-sized groups. One slow hole is for chumps.

No one watches distant group shooting on Instagram.
  • SomeGuy and ralloway like this
I won an IDPA match once. It was neat.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users