It's probably good that someone is filling this gap in the MEC process, but the ability to do this has been around for 40 years or more. Just one of the machines that produces this AS PART OF ITS NORMAL PROCESS, is the Hornady 366 progressive, I believe there are others that will produce similar results as delivered, but this is what I've used for the last 30 years. The first 2 pics are some of my crappy reloads for practice.(they look even better on once or twice fired hulls for matchs) It's entertaining to see the comments that pop up when someone rediscovers what's possible, or what was/is available from the factory. You'll notice the factory AA load in the 2nd 2 pics is identical for all practical purposes. It's a shame AA's quality has slipped so much, but STS's are still being made nicely.(insert much hand wringing about cost/availability) For all the hand wringing rules people, who, what and how would you measure any of it? Set actual dimensional go/no go? Check using calibrated calipers, or micrometers? Compressed plastic or touching lightly? Its a ridiculous notion. I've never seen a match director/RO bother to look at someones ammo(most/all of what we're discussing is hidden in the shotshell belt). What's next, ammo checks at major matches?! Ammo checks at the line? Seems like everyone is walking around with an orange sizer on the posse, just before they shoot these days, wish I'd a dreamt that one up. I'd be more concerned about what some people put IN the shells, than how they look. Back in the day of crappy knockdowns, a lot of us were experimenting with double loads of shot ahead of guessed at powder charges with cut down wads. There is only so much deformation of the plastic hull that the basic shape will retain, this new gizmo doesn't appear to do as much as is possible with other readily available methods, but if you have a MEC, and want to fool with it, it appears to make better looking and likely functioning ammo. Clearly it's not something that could be regulated.