Omega

The pin is replaceable, all that holds them in is a collet at the top which is great when you get a crimped primer it just pushed the pin up instead of breaking...most times.

Yea, these are not forming dies so they need a tweak here and there.

I have the older turret and once I reset my dies to almost 3/4 turn, I also polished the shell holder; so one of the two or both made it size correctly.  One other thing you can try is to size, then turn the case and size again leaving the handle pulled a few seconds before releasing each time.

If you have/want to tumble then yes, just slowly deprime and start over.  Otherwise just pull the decapping pin and resize that way.  As for not sizing right, what press are you using?  Use a single stage press with little to no flex and make sure the die touches the shell holder then give an extra 1/4 to 1/2 turn.  See if that improves the die performance; if not then take a bit off of either your shell holder or die (I would do the shell holder since they are cheaper) and it should work then.  IMHO I think a lot of the Lee die issues with the 300Blk are due to the shell plates on the progressives having too much flex and people not giving their die that extra 1/4 to 1/2 turn.

I would play with your COAL a bit, I found the same thing with some bullets I had to seat just a hair deeper to get them to load.  Use a black marker on the bullet to see if it is touching the lands and grooves and seat accordingly.   Here are some OALs I garnered from others, confirm these as they are off the web:   • Hornady 110 V-Max, OAL: 2.000 • 110 TAC-TX, OAL : 2.015 Others say 2.250 and claim anything shorter is heavily compressed. • Nosler Ballistic Tip 125 grain, OAL: 2.085 • Remington AccuTip 125 grain, OAL: 2.085 • Sierra H2120 125 ProHunter, OAL: 1.950 • Sierra 125 OTM, OAL: 2.215 • Speer TNT 125 1986, OAL: 2.010 • Hornady 130 SP #3020, OAL: 2.010 • Hornady 150 FMJ-BT 3037, OAL: 2.065 • Sierra 155 Palma, OAL: 2.150 • Lapua B416 200 grain, OAL: 1.960 • Hornady 208 AMAX, OAL: 2.150 • Sierra 220 SMK, OAL: 2.089

Definitively not the way to demonstrate any gun feature, not to mention the drinking.    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-man-shoots-himself-in-the-head-while-trying-to-demonstrate-gun-safety-feature-7624980

Actually that may help since the zirk didn't have time to rust.  The easy outs that Lowes carries will do it pretty easy.   http://www.lowes.com/pd_280440-41877-8520P_1z0wcjb__?productId=3030140&pl=1 

Slow with high torque works better than high speed, I broke a couple due to the drill I used.  But they work pretty good as long as its not too rusted and by the pic it doesn't look it.

I would choose to have at least one, but your choice of dog can make a big difference.  A medium terrier may be a good choice, he/she can alert, hunt small game and sense many things we can't.  A larger breed can be used as a guard to defend you, or your family if you need to go hunting.  So I guess you need to decide if the benefits outweigh the extra mouth to feed.

I have fired a geissel equipped AR and a Rem 700 and have to admit they're nice, but I just can't bring myself to spend that much for one.  I have more time than money so I will polish the snot out of a trigger and even installed one of Dolo's trigger upgrade screws which have made it much better, though no geissel, but it does good at the range. This is the cheapest I have seen these though, so for those that want one, this is a perfect opportunity.

I have a few Oakleys which came as an SOEP kit.  They are M-Frames with clear and smoke lenses, I know they are ballistic quality but not sure about the polarized part.

Me I'm just cheap, I have more time than money and when I start with something I finish with what I started with and upgrade later.  I do like good deals though so when the other trimmers came along at less than half price I got them.  I would rather spend on components than tools so I shy away from most of the expensive stuff when the cheaper ones will do.  

What quantities, and what's your budget?  Trimmers run a wide range of prices as you can see by the above examples.

There is a plethora of free online storage solutions which will work for most people.  There is Dropbox, the Amazon Cloud, Apple iCloud, Onedrive, Google drive etc.  Then there are picture sites too, but they only accept graphic files but will store quite a few.   This site lists a few more:  http://www.networkworld.com/article/2932962/cloud-storage/19-free-cloud-storage-options.html     

It takes a little getting used to, the jaws fit in the groove of the case and if not secure it can spin off.  I didn't see much wobble but if you have a used drill that part can introduce a wobble as well.  With the length gauge in the primer hole though, a small wobble wont be much of an issue.

Oh I powered it with my drill.  The 3 jaw chuck was in my drill and did quite fast after I got the hang of it.  I even started with out the wooden handle and chuck for the first 5 or 6 hundred, then went to Midsouth and got the upgrades, made the rest a breeze.  The case holder that comes with it works ok but the 3 jaw chuck is much faster to change cases.

I have three, A Lyman universal case trimmer,  a Forster case trimmer and a Lee hand case trimmer for all my calibers.  Each has its uses, the lyman is set for my large caliber rifle rounds such as my .308, 30/06 and .270 etc.  My Forster is setup to outside neck turn my .308 rifle rounds.  My Lee is when I just have to do a few real quick but I upgraded it to use the wooden handle for the cutter and three jaw chuck.  It really depends on just how many you plan on doing, I did 1K 300 Blackouts with the Lee setup before I got the other two, don't recommend it for that many but will get it done.  

What is a "right"? A right is something you are born with, a natural right, such as self defense, life, liberty etc.  Having a right does not mean others will not violate them, either by force or threat thereof.  Just because that right is taken away or regulated does not mean you don't have it. Where do they come from? Force, because again, others will violate them if not defended. How do you exercise them? Depends on the right, self defense is a given, 1st Amendment is exercised by not allowing the government to silence those that oppose government actions. The 2nd is exercised by owning guns and supporting others to to do the same and resisting efforts by those that would violate those rights by passing laws that limit them unnecessarily. What are their limiting factors? The major limiting factor is when that right violates an other's right.  The law (society) also can have an impact, we regulate left and right limits to the 1st, tools for the 2nd etc.   Do you still possess them if prevented from exercising them? Absolutely.  Rights cannot be taken away, they can be violated, but not taken away.  You can forfeit certain rights by violating the rights of others such as by murder or grievously injuring someone, but those are legally violated by agreement within a civilized society. Can you have a right to a thing? Yes, and no.  We have the right to anything we can afford to own or make, we do not have the right to a thing which is owned or payed for by others.   Can you have a right to a service? No, and yes.  Again, we have the right to services which we pay for, or are qualified to receive.  Such as medical, fire and yes, police enforcement.   The last two are not what I would deem natural rights, but an extension of those rights.  Making laws which limit how we can exercise or defend our rights is a tricky proposition to except. Laws such as speed limits or not being able to yell fire in an elevator, come from protecting others and many will accept that without question.  Other laws such as gun rights are more polar, some, like me, do not believe ownership should be regulated, while others do not feel anyone should own guns.  Now gun use is a trickier situation, as the line between my right and yours is much more blurred.  I firmly believe that we have the right to have a gun anyplace where our lives may be put in danger, and we have the right to have what ever is needed according to the threat. If we lived in a Utopian society, where no one wanted to hurt one another then maybe I can accept not being able to carry, but as it is those laws only hinder the law abiding.

Let's take deities out of the equation; I mistakenly used it as an example of what I always hear as an argument.  I personally am not a believer of any deities.  I believe everyone has a natural right to self defense, and any tool which may be used to defend one's self is therefore an extension of that right.  I never said I, or anyone, should lay down due to the lack of weapons.  But at the same time there should be no limit to what weapons one can use.  Allowing these restrictions only emboldens them to make more restrictions until we no longer have access to any weapons.    Felons in prison have forfeited certain rights, this is what we have come to agree upon to be a civilized society. They have the right to self defense with whatever their opponents have, and since they attempt to keep all weapons away from all parties that leaves guns out.   As far as citizenship goes, I agree with you to a point.  But currently we would need to change the Constitution in order to change that, and that should not be taken lightly because they may change more than that.

Looking across the web it's hard to avoid anti government sites, this one does a decent job at at least trying to describe the two:   http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=273    One can slip off the far right side of this cliff if you are not careful.

I beg to differ, I see the right of Self Defense as the basis for the Second Amendment.  If the threat is such that a tank is needed to preserve one's own life then so be it; no one should be allowed to keep anything away from you that is required for self defense.  If we concede that having a gun is a privilege, we are in deep trouble with those that want to take that "privilege" away.   "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   Nowhere does it state you need to be a citizen.  It's one of those things that seems counterintuitive, but every human has the right to self defense, no matter what soil their feet are standing on at the moment.  

Voting is reserved for citizens but the rest are allowed to be applied, specifically, to all. And we only deny rights, such as gun possession, to those CONVICTED of a felony.

With respect to the internet, it may be a safety valve of sorts.  Crazies have a place to spout off without having to resort to actually doing anything.  And if some look to be getting out of hand, maybe a quick call to LEO for a personal interview can be arranged.

I have come across a few movie sets in public areas, most will have it marked quite well to let the public know a scene is being filmed.  In this case, it would of been easy enough to yell at the guy to get his attention before deciding to fire.  Its speculative I know, since the right set of circumstances would of been needed to get involved prior to him firing.  But he took enough time between holding the gun and actually firing for someone to get the attention of any of the three, their reaction would of cemented the fact that he was up to no good.  Of course many of us may of hesitated long enough that it may not have mattered either way so its mere speculation at this point.

From this link, there are others but it does a good job of explaining that the Declaration of Independence is based off of "inalienable rights" and the Constitution attempts to codify those rights.   "The legal philosophy known as Declarationism seeks to incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of American case law on a level with the United States Constitution, since the unanimously agreed upon Doctrines of the Declaration of Independence is the foundational authority upon which the People and the Continental Congress of the 13 British Colonies of America based their power to legitimately separate from England and establish its own government (i.e. the Constitution of the United States). Declarationism philosophy, therefore, insists that if the United States rejects the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence upon which it was founded, it of necessity becomes, retro-actively, an illegitimate government in treasonous rebellion against its rightful government of Crown and Parliament in London; and therefore, the Declaration and Constitution must be held as legally inseparable throughout the entire United States of America (both Federal and State) and its territories."