Originally Posted by SidecarFlip
The Forrester has a bit more mechanical advantage than the Rockchucker and the nifty shell plates but I'll keep my Rockchucker too. I do like their Co-Axial bench primer. I'll be getting one of those soon.
I've got an Webber cylinder square. I'll have to see how much deflection the chucker has. Never been an issue though.
I like the mechanics of the new RCBS Summit press but I haven't seen one close up yet. It may be a consideration because it sits entirely on top the bench. I'm always banging into the chucker when I walk by...clumsy me.
you know what my line work was, so you probably know that I had access to just about any device to check alignments with. I had a 4", 6", and a 12" cylinder squares that had a magnetic base. These were "lab grade", and all error in them was calibrated (the 12" one had .000033" and .00015" taper in it). The four inch one was extremely close, and all it's error was measured in tenth of an arc seconds. Just be sure to rotate the square 180* to figure the built in error of the square out of what you measure. I was lucky in that the post on the four inch square was 20mm in diameter, so it would pass right thru the slots on the Forster. Had I todo all over again, I'd have used the 12" one as it'd been easier to work with.
After you make you inspection, you might find it kind of interesting to check the press under a load in several places (I like doing it in three points 90* apart). Nice thing about the conventional "O-frame" presses is they are pretty easy to rebuild, should you desire to do one. That knee mill and a good angle plate will make the job a lot easier than doing it in a vertical machine. I know an old guy that chambers his barrels on a war finish K&T knee mill, and they usually come in at about +/- .00015"!