You're right Fredj338, technique can only get you so far.

It’s the same with the history of computer systems. Years ago, when there were mainframes (about the power now of your laptop or phone), technique was everything in programming. You had to be as efficient as possible to process all the data because of the limited power of the hardware and hardware was very expensive. But there was only so much you could do. The price was that the programs were hard to debug and very difficult to change. Now with the technological leaps that occurred over the years, the focus has been on maintainability and modulization so that changes in systems can be addressed easily and quickly. Complexity needs to be reduced as much as possible (back to the KISS Principle (Keep It Simple Stupid)). Simple steps even if more. Technique is still important but not so much now as then. The speed of the hardware out paces any inefficiency in programming technique or process. Hardware today is relatively cheap. Could the programs today be faster? Yes, but they just need to be ‘good enough’ to get the job done as long as they are easy to maintain. You can always throw more hardware at it. Total Cost of Ownership is most important, not absolute efficiency in most cases. Hardware is cheap, people aren’t.

In my case Total Cost of Ownership is safety, simplicity and reasonable speed. I am not saying that other approaches are not safe and simple. I respect other ideas and want to hear them. That's why I posted this inquiry.

Kind of looking at the same idea here. I will never need to load 600 rounds an hour. I just want to increase my speed to be ‘good enough’ and still feel comfortable. I know that if I change some of my processes I can pick up speed with my current hardware. That’s a given. However, even with that, there is a wall and a challenge to my current comfort zone (comfort zones change over time based on experience and improvements in technology, and yes - I have primed on a press for years). By possibility upgrading to the right hardware, even if the process remains the same, I think total time can be reduced. A progressive may do that even if only get half the efficiency of what the hardware is capable of and still accomplish my goals. And if I need to load 600 rounds an hour, I can improve the process. Having options is always good.

There have been many differences of opinion expressed here. We have different needs and experiences. That is very good. We all do, however, share a common love for shooting sports and can learn from each other. I thank everyone who has responded. I am listening and paying attention to what is said and value your expertise and experience even if we don’t always agree. That’s how we grow.