Larry in wyoming
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2021
- Messages
- 629
I found I needed one for 223. Will I need one for 308?
I hope not I already have 2 sets of 308 dies. LOL
I hope not I already have 2 sets of 308 dies. LOL
You already have the dies.... Try them, if the experiment doesn't work, proceed with a different plan.
it is much better to cut the shoulder and neck out of the small base die and use it ONLY as a small base BODY ONLY die. When we small base size, we are really trying to influence only ONE dimension of the brass - the base diameter - but most SB dies will smush every dimension to minimum spec, which can cause multiple other problems, so making the SB die into truly ONLY an SB die is the better move.
One of the shortcuts to that is to size .308 brass in a .30-06 die... it sizes the body all the way down, without doing anything with the neck, then continuing on with a normal .308 sizer. That's one of the hot setups when processing machine gun fired brass... supposedly.
I was given the same advice when I swapped from a Garand to an M1A for SR, until I mentioned it to my mentor and he pointed out the problems with the idea. He contended that simply sizing twice in a 308win die did the exact same thing as sizing in a 30-06 die first.
Just get a 308 Win small base die, or otherwise, some sunny day, you will be kicking the charging handle to extract an unfired case that won't go in the chamber.
I love forester dies, and a lot of their sizers are small base. The national match series has reduced dementions depending on which one you get.I load and shoot in excess of 5k rounds a year out of match and standard chambered semi-autos - 223, 308, and 30-06 - and have never owned or loaded with a small base die.
I have however had .005" removed from the bottom of both of my Forster sizers (223 and 308) so that I can size fired brass down to work in match chambers cut between .000" and .0015" of minimum headspace.
Having used Dillon rifle dies (which are small base) for years without any issues, I find much of what is stated in this thread to to be incorrect. So, why is that?
Thanks for all of the replies. I'll just have to see how it goes I guess.