Anybody out there with a March 2009 copy of Shooting Times? If so, what is discussed on page 18?

Is it anything close to what is posted in our numerous threads discussing P-FLR?

Has anyone seen P-FLR mentioned on any other Reloading Boards?
-----

Had a Florida buddy call and say there is a reference to a "better" Method of Resizing similar to what we call P-FLR in that issue. But, no mention was given as to the source.

My buddy acted as if the Method seemed "NEW" to the writer, Layne Simpson. Since the P-FLR Method has been around for as long as I can remember, I find it difficult to believe it is "NEW" to Layne Simpson.

I remember reading it and I recall that it was a perfect description of PFLR. You know how it is in the magazine world...they have to make things sound new if they are out of "honestly new" things to report on. Is it just me or are all the magazines getting thinner these days....all the car mag's, shooting mags, etc etc. Lack of advertising is hitting them too.

Thanks Kraky, I thought my buddy might have been kidding. Just can't imagine P-FLR is "new" to Layne Simpson.

I agree with you about the advertising. The main KY paper(Courier-Journal) is about to go under because people are tired of their Ultra-Liberal Radical-Leftist bologna. They reduced the physical size of the paper and are firing long time writers.

Their Marketing group decided to toss out a Free 6-8 page Neighborhood section(County news) into everyones yard once a week and use that to claim increased readership. They must really think their advertisers can't figure out what they are doing.

The NRA American Hunter seems to be doing pretty well. It is the only Hunting related magazine I receive. The writing in it seems better than it was 5-6 years ago. Still see some strange stuff from time to time in it, but all of our experiences are different.

I have the 2002 Hodgdon Annual manuel and Simpson explains Partial full length resizing in there. The title of the article is Building A Big-game Load That Works.

WS

Hey WS, Then that makes this even more confusing. Surely this portion of the article in the March 2009 Shooting Times isn't that old. Then again, maybe it is.

I was aware of it in the 1950s, and the Elders that taught me had used it for many years prior to that. Maybe it was a "Secret"!

I get a bit upset when people call it "partial" fl sizing....it is really fl sizing done properly. AND the diff between the two is usually .002-.020" of travel.

Well, I'd like someone to find it and quote it so we can all see what it says. That has been a burr under my saddle for a long time that different reloaders will have a different idea of what PFLR is. That is why I try to start off discussions on this topic by giving definitions. Reference this recent thread on OT.

Hey kraky, I agree with you that it is really FL sizing that is just not overdone but could you explain this a little further

quote:

AND the diff between the two is usually .002-.020" of travel.

Hey guys, No need for either of you to get upest about me calling P-FLR ----> P-FLR.

This is very interesting. If I have this straight, you should FLS new brass and trim and if your using in the same rifle to PFLS and this gives you longer life of your brass??

Woods...my statement about travel was that instead of bumping the shellholder while setting up the sizing die which most instructions tell you to do you wind up in most cases up off the shellholder just a bit. So your case is travelling up into the die just a bit less....002-.020 diff.

quote:

Originally posted by DICKY1:
This is very interesting. If I have this straight, you should FLS new brass and trim and if your using in the same rifle to PFLS and this gives you longer life of your brass??

Actually, new brass is already severely undersized and if you set your FL sizer where the instructions say to set it (where it hits the shell holder + 1/4 turn), you sould only be neck sizeing since your die would not size the case body or push the shoulder back.

But yes, you should size the neck in order to iron the dents out (unless you have Nosler brass which is ready to load). And yes if you set up your rifle to check for a crush fit, then you can neck size only for 3 or 4 loads until you get a crush fit, and then PFLR for longer case life.

And kraky, sorry bud, I'm still not getting what you are saying. I would agree that the difference between FLR and P-FLR can be .002" (going from a slight crush fit to no contact between the case shoulder and chamber shoulder) but .020" is a looooooong distance in the shoulder position where adjustments are in .001".

WOODS...obviously you haven't owned a few savage rifles in belted mags....ha ha!

Oh, so you're talking about the distance from the chamber shoulder position to the new case shoulder. Can't call it headspace cause all the finesmeckers would pop up and tell how it is not really headspace since the belt mag headspace on the belt, but let's call it Belted Mag Shoulder Gap.

I can easily believe .020" BMSG. I used to have a 264 pre-64 model 70 that had .0295" and a several others with >.020". A couple of times I have done measurements where I measured forward movement of new cases permitted before the belt stopped the forward movement, and that ranged from 0.001" in a custom chamber to .007" in a factory chamber, so headspace on the belted mag was not so large but the BMSG was.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Hey guys, No need for either of you to get upest about me calling P-FLR ----> P-FLR.

You are all wrong
It is really P-FLR for
Precision Full Length Resizing