Tweet
Make sure you have at least a .002 interference fit and this will not be an issue. Have you ever measured this on your setup. Case mouth ID after resizing needs to be at or just under .222, if not, maybe you need to rethink this concern of yours based on metal to metal without some carbonization being the reason bullets won't set back. Just sayin' that maybe something else is wrong here in your process if that's the way you think. Many many people have been reloading .223 without crimping AND without setback issues for many many moons now and most of it has occurred before the advent of SS tumbling. In fact, many people lube cases (including inside case neck) then load on a progressive without removing the lube and still have no problem with setback. AND they don't SS tumble either 
Basically, and the facts on this are clear here, the only plus SS tumbling has to offer is in the cosmetic arena, not in the downrange performance or reliability arenas, end of story here.
BTW, the last time I remember a "new and improved" process being touted as doing many special things downrange and in the chamber was the moly craze a few years back. In the end it's benefits were mostly discounted and NO downrange performance increase was ever really documented. It has now mostly been relegated to the realm of "juju", but when it was new, the hype was the same, moly does this, moly does that, everyone needs to use moly, and so on...
The truth about moly can be found here: http://www.shootingsoftware.com/moly.htm
There are still adherents to the moly myth, most notable among them is David Tubb, who just so happens to also run a business providing moly coating products http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com...avid-tubb.html
Anyrate, every new process has it's adherents and it's "supposed" benefits, but eventually someone does some well performed AND empirical testing and then some others recreate the same tests and results and then just like in the scientific community, the truth ultimately tells and everyone moves on with life.
Until then I am going to continue to ask the same question, "show me the results on the target face?"
Basically, and the facts on this are clear here, the only plus SS tumbling has to offer is in the cosmetic arena, not in the downrange performance or reliability arenas, end of story here.
BTW, the last time I remember a "new and improved" process being touted as doing many special things downrange and in the chamber was the moly craze a few years back. In the end it's benefits were mostly discounted and NO downrange performance increase was ever really documented. It has now mostly been relegated to the realm of "juju", but when it was new, the hype was the same, moly does this, moly does that, everyone needs to use moly, and so on...
The truth about moly can be found here: http://www.shootingsoftware.com/moly.htm
There are still adherents to the moly myth, most notable among them is David Tubb, who just so happens to also run a business providing moly coating products http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com...avid-tubb.html
Anyrate, every new process has it's adherents and it's "supposed" benefits, but eventually someone does some well performed AND empirical testing and then some others recreate the same tests and results and then just like in the scientific community, the truth ultimately tells and everyone moves on with life.
Until then I am going to continue to ask the same question, "show me the results on the target face?"
Comment