Hornady or Sinclair concentricity guage

[Kevin Rohrer]

I just started using the Hornady gauge and am happy with it. I especially like the option of using the gauge to correct excessive runout.

Right now I am checking rounds loaded on various presses using the same dies. After checking three presses (with six to go), I am finding that the difference in presses is minimal. All rounds have checked out in the range of .001-.0024. Once my test is completed I will publish my data on Castboolits.

My question is for you all: is the Sinclair method (case body supported by rollers) more accurate than the Hornady method (case supported by a combination of the case head and bullet nose)?

There are good videos of both gauges on Youtube.

 

[Mikecr]

is the Sinclair method (case body supported by rollers) more accurate than the Hornady method (case supported by a combination of the case head and bullet nose)

YES
This gage is for 'concentricity': HORNADY : Hornady Lock-N-Load Concentricity Gauge (050076 ) -
This gage is for runout:
SINCLAIR INTERNATIONAL : Sinclair Concentricity Gage with dial indicator (09-175 ) -
(I know they call it a concentricity gage instead of a runout gage,,, It's a runout gage)

Runout, concentricity, and ecentricity are different things. In fact, you should never be searching for concentricity, but eccentricity instead.
You can have low eccentricity(concentric ammo) with a great deal of runout remaining.
But if you eliminate runout, your ammo will be concentric.
It's not a play on words, once a round is chambered.

Speaking of play on words, what's with this?
Hornady Manufacturing Company :: Reloading :: Metallic Reloading :: Tools & Gauges :: Lock-N-Load® Ammunition Concentricity Gauge :: Ammunition Concentricity Tool
Hornady claims:

"Hornady never ceases to find ways to provide unmatched accuracy in every facet of the shooting experience"
YEAH, THEY 'FIND' OTHER PEOPLE'S PRODUCTS, COPY THEM, AND STEAL AWAY THEIR MARKETS..

"The new Ammunition Concentricity Tool is the first tool on the market to both identify and eliminate bullet runout"
HELLO?? WE KNOW ABOUT BERSIN, AND H&H Concentricity Gauge
WE ALSO KNOW ABOUT RCBS CHARGEMASTER, WHICH YOU'VE 'FOUND' FOR US: HORNADY : Hornady Lock-N-Load Auto Charge -

"Just place ammunition in the tool, roll it, identify runout, and use the dial indicator to adjust runout to zero"
TOTAL BS, AND THEY FORGOT CONCENTRICITY!!
NO THEY DIDN'T FORGET. THEY NEVER KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

 

[Trickymissfit]

I just started using the Hornady gauge and am happy with it. I especially like the option of using the gauge to correct excessive runout.

Right now I am checking rounds loaded on various presses using the same dies. After checking three presses (with six to go), I am finding that the difference in presses is minimal. All rounds have checked out in the range of .001-.0024. Once my test is completed I will publish my data on Castboolits.

My question is for you all: is the Sinclair method (case body supported by rollers) more accurate than the Hornady method (case supported by a combination of the case head and bullet nose)?

There are good videos of both gauges on Youtube.

the original Sinclair gauge used ground steel dowl pins, and it was replaced by the ball bearing job. Nothing to write home about, but cheap to build. You can do a certain amount with the Sinclair gauge, and then you stop. You can pretty much do it all with the NECO.

I've owned three presses, and have used about six more extensively. There is a difference in presses, just like there is in dies. 95% of the press / die combinations will not consistantly do .0025 TIR
gary

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

I don't believe I have ever seen a more acerbic Hornady basher.

Most companies "borrow" product ideas from each other and release their own versions, hopefully with improvements and at a better price. That's not stealing as long as patents aren't violated. No one should be faulting anyone for wanting to build a better mousetrap (e.g. Lee released a handheld primer tool a long time ago. Since then, RCBS, Hornady, Sinclair, and probably others have released similar products. Are they all thieves who should be called out for seeing a good thing and releasing their own versions? e.g. Someone, somewhere, at some time in the past manufactured a bench-mounted reloading press. Others heard of it and released their own. Should all reloading companies be called thieves?).


Concentricity vs Runout:

And from reading many posts, magazine articles, and reloading books, everyone seems be using the term "concentricity" interchangeably with "runout".

*From Wikipedia: "Concentric objects share the same center, axis or origin with one inside the other. Circles, tubes, cylindrical shafts, disks, and spheres may be concentric to one another."

*From The High Road: "The Bersin tool holds the round in a jig and measures runout. You turn the round until the dial indicator reads maximum runout. On the opposite side of the dial is a knob you turn to "push" the bullet."

*Zediker's Handloading For Competition, 11th printing (2008), page 161: "Determining concentricity is easy enough...(if you have) the proper tool...The simplest is made by Sinclair...The gage will measure runout at any point along the cartridge".

"This BERSIN Ammunition Measuring and Adjustment Device is a revolutionary invention in precision shooting. The device diagnoses and eliminates errors in the longitudinal axis in rifle ammunition (concentricity flaws)."
source: http://www.centuryarms.com/bersin.pdf

Comparing the BERSIN to the Hornady, I see both doing the same thing: measuring bullet runout and correcting the problem. I also see the Hornady gage doing the same thing as the Sinclair: measuring bullet runout.

I think that what you are saying is that "runout" is a subset of "concentricity". That bullet runout can be caused by different factors including deviations in neck wall thickness that can cause the bullet to go out of alignment. If that is not correct, please educate us.

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

...die combinations will not consistantly do .0025 TIR
gary

Interesting. My equipment isn't anything special, and yet I am getting numbers <.0025.

Perhaps my methodology is wrong. Shouldn't I be setting the gage as far forward on the bullet shank as possible, just short of the ogive?

 

[Derek M.]

While we all want whatever gadgets we can get our hands on that will aid in making the very best handloads, ultimately, I don't think any of us can tell much difference at the range.

I have seen several of the mentioned ones in use, and I settled on the Sinclair. No other gauge is going to improve my groups IMO, whether cheaper or more expensive.

 

[Trickymissfit]

Interesting. My equipment isn't anything special, and yet I am getting numbers <.0025.

Perhaps my methodology is wrong. Shouldn't I be setting the gage as far forward on the bullet shank as possible, just short of the ogive?

first of all I don't care whatkind of a loading system you use. That's the user's own business.

To put concentricity into the frame of mind we're talking you have to imagine a centerline running thru the exact center axis of the case. Errors are measured off that axis. There's also a "yaw" measurment which tells us just how strait the bullet is seated in the neck (even if the case is dead perfect). When I check a bullet to see how strait it is to the center line axis I will check it just in front of the case rim. Then I'll usually move about 2/3's to 3/4 of the way down the bullet and recheck it. If the high points are in line with each other the bullet is at least strait, but not always centered with the case axis centerline.

Now I'm gonna knock both Hornaday and Sinclair a bit, so take it for what it's worth. They both use a bad indicator setup (to say it's bad is putting it mildly). The gear & rack indicators they are using are built with about 10% lag in them (a term used in gauging that refers to backlash). You can buy jeweled gear & rack indicators that have about 3%, but they also are expensive. The Sinclair uses a cheap ball bearing setup that is actually built to ease moving of a part into a precision locator for precise measurement. These often have anywhere from .0015 to .010 error built into them. They do make a super precision version that cost more than their gauge per block. There is a much better way to do this for about twenty dollars a bearing pack (I won't say here). There's also a problem with the Sinclair in axis alignment that will actually cause error. Of the two I like the Hornaday better after I throw their dial indicator in the trash can
gary

 

[Trickymissfit]

While we all want whatever gadgets we can get our hands on that will aid in making the very best handloads, ultimately, I don't think any of us can tell much difference at the range.

I have seen several of the mentioned ones in use, and I settled on the Sinclair. No other gauge is going to improve my groups IMO, whether cheaper or more expensive.

the idea of a gauge is to see just what your doing and thus knowing where to tweek it. Some gauges do more than others do, and some do certain things better than the other. You have to sort out what fits your bill, and work with that. After buying two or three, I started a path to build a better mouse trap. Maybe six or eight later I happy with what I have. Yet it still will not do everything, but does most everything I ever check these days. It is due for a slight redesign, as I've slightly out grown it (needs to be a little bigger).
gary

 

[B-P-UU]

This thread brought me out of the woodworks. Hello, I've been absorbing a lot of info from this site for a long time; truly great stuff. I would like to start off by saying I personally own none of the tools mentioned on this thread, so take this for what it's worth. I reload, just not to the level of some of the members of this site. I do, however, have experience applying runout to engineering prints.
MikeCR is 100% correct in stating "if you eliminate runout, your ammo will be concentric." The converse is not true, however; you can be 100% concentric and have lots of runout, as he also mentioned.
By definition (ASME Y14.5 GD&T Standard), the proper way to measure runout is by chucking the sample (in this case, a loaded round) via the datum you are comparing your dial indicator to (in the case of a loaded round, the case head) to find the center axis of the case (sorry, tried attaching pic to clear this up). Thus, the Sinclair tool mentioned does not actually measure runout; it references datum points on the case surface via rollers as opposed to referencing the case axis, the theoretical center of the case. To visualize this, imagine if the piece of brass was egg shaped. When rolling the loaded round, your dial indicator on the bullet would give readings all over the place. In that example, it is also possible the bullet is 100% concentric with the 'egg' shaped brass, even though your dial indicator says otherwise. While that may not be a likely scenario, dents or imperfections on the case body is. These imperfections would also show up on your indicator as 'false runout'.
From what I can tell, the Sinclair tool and tools like it are actually measuring bullet position with respect to the OD surface of the case as the reference datum. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just is not runout.
Unlike concentricity, runout also controls feature shape (roundness). In reloading, regardless of the measurement device used, you are making one fairly safe assumption: the bullet is perfectly round. God himself can prep your brass, but if your bullets are out of round, i.e., surface imperfections or a lobed surface (triangular w/ rounded corners), your dial indicator will bounce around.
Concentricity is much more difficult to control and measure. If dial indicators are used to measure concentricity, you really need two of them to do so. The dial indicators need to be 180 degrees apart and the case needs to be rotated, collecting data points each time you stop (this can be every 45 degrees, 15 degrees, etc.). Once data points are collected, the median points of the tolerance feature (bullet) must be within the tolerance zone of the case datum axis. Fuzzy? On a loaded round, you would need to collect data on the case as described above, calculate the center based on that data (MATH), then do the same for the bullet and compare the two values. CMM's are often used for this, collecting 100's to 1000's of points. The points are generated and math functions in the CMM are used to give you a magic 'center' number. These two 'center' numbers are then compared to the specified tolerance. Most reloading benches I've seen do not have CMM's.
For what it's worth, every time I've seen concentricity specified on a print, the author really means runout. Most shops don't understand concentricity well enough to accurately/reliably measure it – they can measure runout fairly easily though. Even the ASME Y14.5 Standard recommends using runout or true position instead of concentricity. The reason; it is often misused.
Finally, I cringe every time I hear someone say 'total runout' when measuring bullets with respect to the case. Total runout is measured similarly to runout with one exception; the dial indicator must be moved horizontally along the measured surface. Total runout applies to the ENTIRE surface. Although they seem similar, total runout controls concentricity, straightness, roundness, and taper. This is a big deal. Unless your bullets are perfectly straight with respect to case datum axis (achievable), round (achievable), concentric (tricky, but doable), and have zero taper (a bullet without an ogive), you are correct. If your bullets curve to a point like mine, you are measuring runout.
Looking purely at the design of Sinclair vs. Hornady, I would buy the Hornady to measure/correct bullet runout (with that being said, I have no idea what the gauge R&R is of either companies dial indicators – maybe they're both junk??). But if the runout is actually in the case mouth, the Hornady tool cannot correct that; that would need to be corrected by your die setup.
I hope I have not further confused those already confused or angered those who are shooting ridiculously small groups with their current setups. Good Luck.

 

[Mikecr]

My equipment isn't anything special, and yet I am getting numbers <.0025.
Perhaps my methodology is wrong.

It's your tool that's WRONG...
If you put that same ammo on either the Sinclair, or NECO, your delusion here would break down pretty quick.

Picture a stiff jump rope with both ends pinned while indicating arc very near one PINNED end. This is your Hornady.
Does it seem like the best place to measure the diameter of an arc(runout)?
Or wouldn't it indicate only a fraction of the arc?
YOU ARE SEEING ONLY A SMALL PART OF YOUR RUNOUT.

That tool is giving you what you WANT to see, instead of what you DO NOT WANT to see, which I suspect is why it's so popular..
Now you can bend that rope, again very near the indicator, which will of course cause any reading you DESIRE. But unless it reads low runout on a Sinclair, it ain't straight, and you can take that to the bank.

I've tested an H&H, with the Sinclair, back & forth, over & over, every which way but loose, because I really really wanted the straightest ammo in the world. In the end I concluded that runout under 5thou off the ogives, as measured on Sinclair, would not even indicate on the H&H. It would barely indicate even with a 10thous' indicator.
So I modified the H&H to indicate off the center of the case(center of arc), & with this readings were closer. Then I concluded that very low runout ammo(<1thou), as measured on my Sinclair, was ALWAYS very concentric on the modified H&H.
So I didn't need the H&H. I don't care about eccentricity. Ammo can be made straight, but NOT by bending it. It was a waste of money.
I care about runout, reducing it, and the Sinclair approach is the 1st step in the right direction.

 

[flashhole]

Interesting thread. I just went through this same exercise and ended up ordering the Forster tool. I felt it offered greater flexibility and I don't buy into the fact that the Hornady tool can correct runout (not a bash on Hornady). To my way of thinking the tool is supposed to point to those process steps that need correcting to minimize run out, not "fix" it.

 

[nheninge]

Sinclair all the way. Tells u if you have made mistakes along the way and makes a nice bullet sorting stand too (base to ogive) with cheap Sinclair adapter. Spending billions of hours making perfect ammo does not teach u how to dope the wind. MUCH more important imho, but all this theory/conjecture depends on your specific uses and your perspective. Are u a benchrest OCD bughole guy, or an ethical kill by "minute of elk" at 1200 yards?

 

[Derek M.]

Thats an interesting post BPUU. What is also interesting is that upon changing some of my load techniques after using my Sinclair gauge, this is the result:

I agree about the gauges taking into account brass imperfections. This has been something that has crossed my mind many times but ultimately, we can only do so much with our loads. I admit I'm lazy but I'm also satisfied with my handloads and I don't think shrinking my groups is going to do much. I have more pics on a retired computer. If I get time I'll dig it out of storage.

 

[B-P-UU]

Derek, your groups are what's called empirical data and they are tough to argue with.