Grayrock

April 8, 2007, 07:37 PM

Does anyone have a conversion table for the Lee dippers for weight of #8 shot they hold? For example, how many ounces does 3.1cc of shot weigh?

Grayrock

April 8, 2007, 07:37 PM

Does anyone have a conversion table for the Lee dippers for weight of #8 shot they hold? For example, how many ounces does 3.1cc of shot weigh?

If you enjoyed reading about "cc's to oz conversion table" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Ol` Joe

April 8, 2007, 09:13 PM

I know of no chart showing this, but I believe you should wgt it yourself on a scale to see. The size of the shot will make a difference as it will alter the density of the shot in the cup. #12 will likely wgt more then a scoop of # 5s.

Grayrock

April 8, 2007, 10:01 PM

Sorry Ol' Joe- but that helped like- none at all.

I know of no chart either- hence my post. I don't have a scale- hence the post. I realize different shot will weigh differing amounts- hence my specifying #8 shot.

Anyone else?

I know of no chart either- hence my post. I don't have a scale- hence the post. I realize different shot will weigh differing amounts- hence my specifying #8 shot.

Anyone else?

HeedJSU

April 8, 2007, 10:27 PM

CC's and ML's (at least of liquids) are very very close

IN liquids, there are 30 ml's (6 tespoons) in an ounce.

So for instance,

30 cc = 1 ounce

60cc= 2 ounces

90cc= 3 ounces.

and so on.

I don't know how that converts to the shot or the weights though

IN liquids, there are 30 ml's (6 tespoons) in an ounce.

So for instance,

30 cc = 1 ounce

60cc= 2 ounces

90cc= 3 ounces.

and so on.

I don't know how that converts to the shot or the weights though

Grayrock

April 9, 2007, 12:05 AM

30 cc = 1 ounce

Problem here is ounce in this case is FLUID ounces=> volume.

It is not ounces as a measure of weight. 2nd problem is that volume to volume conversion is actually pretty close- as long long as you are talking about water, which has a density of 1 gram per milliliter. I am asking about #8 LEAD shot- which has a different density than H2O.

So I guess I still need help to answer my question.

Problem here is ounce in this case is FLUID ounces=> volume.

It is not ounces as a measure of weight. 2nd problem is that volume to volume conversion is actually pretty close- as long long as you are talking about water, which has a density of 1 gram per milliliter. I am asking about #8 LEAD shot- which has a different density than H2O.

So I guess I still need help to answer my question.

IDriveB5

April 9, 2007, 01:23 AM

The density of lead is: 11.34 g/cm^3. Mass=(density)(volume). Then multiply by the number of shot. There are 28.35 grams in one ounce. Be sure to observe your units.

CZ57

April 9, 2007, 01:59 AM

IDriveB5: That is some sexy math, Now I'm excited except that there is no solution! Compounded a bit by the fact that the shot is spherical. Since I'm not the original barer of bad tidings, I'm afraid you have the conclusion Grayrock. You'll have to weigh the lead. CCs can of course be converted, but as a measure of volume. As far as ounces, there are 437.5 grains per ounce.;)

Ol` Joe

April 9, 2007, 08:40 AM

As a last resort give Lee a call. They make, or did years ago, an adjustable dipper for measuring shot that went with their little kit one used a hammer with to load. It may be a long shot but they might be able to help.

Sorry I can`t offer more help.

Sorry I can`t offer more help.

Mal H

April 9, 2007, 11:26 AM

3.1 cc's of #8 shot weighs 280 grains (.64 ounce).

I had a 3.1 cc Lee dipper and a bag of #8 - nothing like empirical data, eh?

I had a 3.1 cc Lee dipper and a bag of #8 - nothing like empirical data, eh?

IDriveB5

April 9, 2007, 11:33 AM

IDriveB5: That is some sexy math, Now I'm excited except that there is no solution! Compounded a bit by the fact that the shot is spherical. Since I'm not the original barer of bad tidings, I'm afraid you have the conclusion Grayrock. You'll have to weigh the lead. CCs can of course be converted, but as a measure of volume. As far as ounces, there are 437.5 grains per ounce.

Well, the volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*r^3, so all hed need to do is measure the diameter with his trusty caliper, which all reloaders have, right? :)

Well, the volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*r^3, so all hed need to do is measure the diameter with his trusty caliper, which all reloaders have, right? :)

RexDart

April 9, 2007, 12:58 PM

You might try Convert, a handy little freeware program for doing unit conversions:

http://joshmadison.com/software/convert/

It's also possible, should the existing formulae be lacking, to enter one of your own under the custom tab.

http://joshmadison.com/software/convert/

It's also possible, should the existing formulae be lacking, to enter one of your own under the custom tab.

brickeyee

April 9, 2007, 01:01 PM

Purchase a scale.

You need it to reload safely anyway.

You need it to reload safely anyway.

CZ57

April 9, 2007, 06:22 PM

IDriveB5: Absolutely nothing wrong with your premise! It's the variables that would concern me. Is shot spherical, or is it a sphere? Would the diameter be consistent enough to base radius on?

Next question: what is the number of #8 shot in a 3.1 cc Lee dipper?:D

Interesting exercise and I think you'd be close . . .

Then again, the chances that you would get exactly 280 grains every time you weighed 3.1 cc of #8 shot with a LEE dipper, say ten times . . . like Captain Ramius said in The Hunt for Red October: "personally, I'd rate our chances no better than one in three."

The law of averages is definitely a factor here.;)

Next question: what is the number of #8 shot in a 3.1 cc Lee dipper?:D

Interesting exercise and I think you'd be close . . .

Then again, the chances that you would get exactly 280 grains every time you weighed 3.1 cc of #8 shot with a LEE dipper, say ten times . . . like Captain Ramius said in The Hunt for Red October: "personally, I'd rate our chances no better than one in three."

The law of averages is definitely a factor here.;)

IDriveB5

April 9, 2007, 11:42 PM

I would bet (some pocket change?) that the diameter of shot would be pretty consistent, especially if it is of high antimony. You could take a sample, measure them, calculate average, standard deviation and set up a confidence interval for the radius of the shot. I think you'd find that approximating each shot to be a sphere would be a reasonable approximation.

Then, to be even more accurate, you'd have to account for the fact that most lead shot is 97% lead and 3% antimony (p=~6.6g/cc).

So, now you have your weight of one #8 shot. All you have to do is count up your 262 #8s and you can multiply that by your weight for your individual shot. :D I'll pop the popcorn!

I'm almost curious enough to open up a shell.

...

Well, I got a little curious, so I opened up a shell, measured 25 #8s, made a couple assumptions and:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/IDriveB5/Random%20Pics/8shotexper.jpg

Conclusion: Approximating shot to be a sphere is a fair, but not perfect assumption. But who the hell counts out their shot anyway?;)

Grayrock- I'm sure you didnt expect all this debate when you posed a simple question, did you. I have to ask: you do have a scale, dont you?

Then, to be even more accurate, you'd have to account for the fact that most lead shot is 97% lead and 3% antimony (p=~6.6g/cc).

So, now you have your weight of one #8 shot. All you have to do is count up your 262 #8s and you can multiply that by your weight for your individual shot. :D I'll pop the popcorn!

I'm almost curious enough to open up a shell.

...

Well, I got a little curious, so I opened up a shell, measured 25 #8s, made a couple assumptions and:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/IDriveB5/Random%20Pics/8shotexper.jpg

Conclusion: Approximating shot to be a sphere is a fair, but not perfect assumption. But who the hell counts out their shot anyway?;)

Grayrock- I'm sure you didnt expect all this debate when you posed a simple question, did you. I have to ask: you do have a scale, dont you?

Grayrock

April 10, 2007, 01:29 AM

I'm sure you didnt expect all this debate when you posed a simple question, did you

You got that right.

I have to ask: you do have a scale, dont you?

See post #3 above. I only load black powder and everything is done by volume.

With all the time you took to measure 25 spheres of shot and create the spreadsheet for it, you could have been dippin' and weighin' instead. THEN I would have had an answer.

You got that right.

I have to ask: you do have a scale, dont you?

See post #3 above. I only load black powder and everything is done by volume.

With all the time you took to measure 25 spheres of shot and create the spreadsheet for it, you could have been dippin' and weighin' instead. THEN I would have had an answer.

Mal H

April 10, 2007, 10:44 AM

You DO have an answer - that is if you didn't just skip over my post above.

redneck2

April 10, 2007, 11:16 AM

Mal H....never overlook the obvious :rolleyes:

Amazing how many people look hard for an answer that's right in front of them

Maybe if you'd say LOOK AT POST #9 they'd get it

Amazing how many people look hard for an answer that's right in front of them

Maybe if you'd say LOOK AT POST #9 they'd get it

IDriveB5

April 10, 2007, 03:45 PM

My reply was more in response to CZ's post, regaurding consistency in diameter:

IDriveB5: Absolutely nothing wrong with your premise! It's the variables that would concern me. Is shot spherical, or is it a sphere? Would the diameter be consistent enough to base radius on?

and not so on the topic of the original post.

IDriveB5: Absolutely nothing wrong with your premise! It's the variables that would concern me. Is shot spherical, or is it a sphere? Would the diameter be consistent enough to base radius on?

and not so on the topic of the original post.

Grayrock

April 10, 2007, 07:58 PM

You DO have an answer - that is if you didn't just skip over my post above.

Got it- thanks. Do you think a simple ratio calculation would work for the other sizes? I just used 3.1cc as an example. I am looking for a conversion table that would detail the capacity for all of the dippers.

0.3cc

0.5cc

0.7cc

1.0cc

1.3cc

1.6cc

1.9cc

2.2cc

2.5cc

2.8cc

3.1cc DONE

3.4cc

3.7cc

4.0cc

and last but not least- 4.3cc

I appreciate your efforts. Better than the response I got from Lee- they told me to purchase the slide card (that I already have and that only details powder capacities- which was not what I asked them about.)

Oh, and redneck2: that was kind of negative, don't you think?

Got it- thanks. Do you think a simple ratio calculation would work for the other sizes? I just used 3.1cc as an example. I am looking for a conversion table that would detail the capacity for all of the dippers.

0.3cc

0.5cc

0.7cc

1.0cc

1.3cc

1.6cc

1.9cc

2.2cc

2.5cc

2.8cc

3.1cc DONE

3.4cc

3.7cc

4.0cc

and last but not least- 4.3cc

I appreciate your efforts. Better than the response I got from Lee- they told me to purchase the slide card (that I already have and that only details powder capacities- which was not what I asked them about.)

Oh, and redneck2: that was kind of negative, don't you think?

CZ57

April 10, 2007, 08:02 PM

As far as I see it, Q&A ended in post #9. The component manufacturers are well aware of the differences likely to result in metering #8 shot.

Nevertheless, I happen to believe that math does have its place in reloading. If one doesn't have an inclination to feel the same way, I understand that as well.

IDriveB5, I applaud your tenacity in looking for a mathematical solution. What I'm seeing here is that you have 9 different diameters of shot in a sampling of 25. This is why I raised the question of diameter consistency for your original equation, especially since cubing radius is a factor. To make your original premise work, you would have needed at least an average of the nine diameters that also accounted for the deviation.

Now, is the popcorn ready?

"But who the hell counts out their shot anyway?" Well, the question I posed that resulted in you asking this, was a bit tongue in cheek, because some count would be necessary to establish at least an average diameter.;)

There is a conversion chart and I believe I have it around here somewhere. I believe it was done by Winchester.

Nevertheless, I happen to believe that math does have its place in reloading. If one doesn't have an inclination to feel the same way, I understand that as well.

IDriveB5, I applaud your tenacity in looking for a mathematical solution. What I'm seeing here is that you have 9 different diameters of shot in a sampling of 25. This is why I raised the question of diameter consistency for your original equation, especially since cubing radius is a factor. To make your original premise work, you would have needed at least an average of the nine diameters that also accounted for the deviation.

Now, is the popcorn ready?

"But who the hell counts out their shot anyway?" Well, the question I posed that resulted in you asking this, was a bit tongue in cheek, because some count would be necessary to establish at least an average diameter.;)

There is a conversion chart and I believe I have it around here somewhere. I believe it was done by Winchester.

IDriveB5

April 10, 2007, 08:20 PM

grayrock- what you could do is fill you scoop with the desired shot, then dump this shot in water to measure the volume via displacement. This way you could very easily figure your weight of each scooper. Not having a set of these scoopers, I cant very well do it. I am suprised that there wasnt any sort of chart supplied. Also suprised that Lee wasnt of very much help- they are usually very helpful when I call them up.

CZ- thats why I used the average weight to do calculations. The number of different diameters is less important than the standard deviation. With 63% of all the shot being within a tenth of a grain, I would feel confident enough. Certainly not six sigma, but good enough.

CZ- thats why I used the average weight to do calculations. The number of different diameters is less important than the standard deviation. With 63% of all the shot being within a tenth of a grain, I would feel confident enough. Certainly not six sigma, but good enough.

Mal H

April 10, 2007, 08:24 PM

Grayrock - having one data point, though not sufficient for most exercises in the reloading game, does give you a figure to work with. So if 3.1 cc's weighs 280 grains, then that translates to approx. 90 grains/cc.

Intuitively, I think the smaller dippers (.3 cc to 1.0 cc for example) would be less consistent due to the irregular shape of the shot, and inconsistent air space in the dipper when filled with shot.

Since I have a small collection of Lee dippers - tell ya what I'm gonna do - I'll fill each with #8 and see what it weighs. Hold on a sec ...

.

.

.

I'm back (pretty darn quick, eh?)

(averages of 4 weighings with each dipper)

.3 cc = 23 grains

2.2 cc = 202 grains

3.1 cc = 284 grains (I did some more refining/averaging of this one)

3.4 cc = 310 grains

I believe my guess above about the small dipper is correct. The .3 cc dipper was all over the place in weights even though the average is given above.

The other 3 were fairly consistent and came in at an average of 91.5 grains/cc. I think that figure is useful for the dippers larger than 1.0 cc.

Oddly enough, each single shot ball of #8 was almost exactly 1.0 grain, but not quite close enough to use a shot count only for weight.

Intuitively, I think the smaller dippers (.3 cc to 1.0 cc for example) would be less consistent due to the irregular shape of the shot, and inconsistent air space in the dipper when filled with shot.

Since I have a small collection of Lee dippers - tell ya what I'm gonna do - I'll fill each with #8 and see what it weighs. Hold on a sec ...

.

.

.

I'm back (pretty darn quick, eh?)

(averages of 4 weighings with each dipper)

.3 cc = 23 grains

2.2 cc = 202 grains

3.1 cc = 284 grains (I did some more refining/averaging of this one)

3.4 cc = 310 grains

I believe my guess above about the small dipper is correct. The .3 cc dipper was all over the place in weights even though the average is given above.

The other 3 were fairly consistent and came in at an average of 91.5 grains/cc. I think that figure is useful for the dippers larger than 1.0 cc.

Oddly enough, each single shot ball of #8 was almost exactly 1.0 grain, but not quite close enough to use a shot count only for weight.

Ol` Joe

April 10, 2007, 08:35 PM

One would think Lee could be of more help they offer a shot dipper that is adjustable for various wgts by volume.

http://www.leeprecisioncatalog.com/2007/lg_display.cfm?page_number=31

http://www.leeprecisioncatalog.com/2007/lg_display.cfm?page_number=31

CZ57

April 10, 2007, 09:33 PM

IDrive: Maybe I'm missing something, but are you saying that you had this covered in post #6?

Also, referring to the chart, with two known parameters: 280 grains and 3.1cc, if your values are for individual shot, it should be relatively easy to find the number of shot in a 3.1cc dipper dividing by volume cc, then multiplying that number of shot by weight to get 280 grains. What am I missing here?;)

Also, referring to the chart, with two known parameters: 280 grains and 3.1cc, if your values are for individual shot, it should be relatively easy to find the number of shot in a 3.1cc dipper dividing by volume cc, then multiplying that number of shot by weight to get 280 grains. What am I missing here?;)

redneck2

April 10, 2007, 09:55 PM

Oh, and redneck2: that was kind of negative, don't you think?

If pointing out the obvious (to me) is negative, then yeah, I guess it was.

If pointing out the obvious (to me) is negative, then yeah, I guess it was.

Grayrock

April 11, 2007, 01:41 AM

So this is what I come up with for #8 shot-

0.3cc- 27.5gr- 0.063oz

0.5cc- 45.8gr- 0.105oz

0.7cc- 64.1gr- 0.147oz

1.0cc- 91.6gr- 0.209oz

1.3cc- 119.1gr- 0.272oz

1.6cc- 146.6gr- 0.335oz

1.9cc- 174.1gr- 0.398oz

2.2cc- 201.5gr- 0.461oz

2.5cc- 229.0gr- 0.523oz

2.8cc- 256.5gr- 0.586oz

3.1cc- 284gr - 0.649oz

3.4cc- 311.5gr- 0.712oz

3.7cc- 339.0gr- 0.775oz

4.0cc- 366.5gr- 0.837 oz

and last but not least- 4.3cc- 393.9grains- 0.900oz

Now I can sleep soundly at night knowing that all is ordered in the universe.

0.3cc- 27.5gr- 0.063oz

0.5cc- 45.8gr- 0.105oz

0.7cc- 64.1gr- 0.147oz

1.0cc- 91.6gr- 0.209oz

1.3cc- 119.1gr- 0.272oz

1.6cc- 146.6gr- 0.335oz

1.9cc- 174.1gr- 0.398oz

2.2cc- 201.5gr- 0.461oz

2.5cc- 229.0gr- 0.523oz

2.8cc- 256.5gr- 0.586oz

3.1cc- 284gr - 0.649oz

3.4cc- 311.5gr- 0.712oz

3.7cc- 339.0gr- 0.775oz

4.0cc- 366.5gr- 0.837 oz

and last but not least- 4.3cc- 393.9grains- 0.900oz

Now I can sleep soundly at night knowing that all is ordered in the universe.

Grayrock

April 13, 2007, 09:12 AM

My latest response from Lee:

No we do not have information on the capacity of lead shot, however we have an Adjustable Shot Dipper # 90973 and it is $3.98 plus $4.00 for shipping and handling.

(Insert "scratch head" smilie here.)

No we do not have information on the capacity of lead shot, however we have an Adjustable Shot Dipper # 90973 and it is $3.98 plus $4.00 for shipping and handling.

(Insert "scratch head" smilie here.)

Mal H

April 14, 2007, 10:23 AM

I guess I don't understand the "scratch head" part. They have created a dipper that measures lead shot of any size in increments from 7/8ths to 1 7/8ths ounces. Isn't that what you were looking for?

Grayrock

April 14, 2007, 10:33 PM

I'm scratching my head because they did not answer my question and they are trying to sell me something else. But I guess that is the goal of a retail oriented corporation- sell me something I didn't even know I needed. I need something that will tell me how many ounces from a given finite volume, not vice versa. You see, I already have the "dippers" and am not wanting to purchase anything else. I am loading shot shells and need to reduce the payload of shot. I have a volume of shot in a shell that allows for a proper crimp. I want to know how many ounces that portion weighs. If I had had a conversion table like I was originally seeking, I could have just poured the shot into the dipper that fit and read off the weight. Luckily now I have my conversion table from a couple of posts back- so all is well.

CZ57

April 14, 2007, 11:11 PM

Grayrock: I was hoping to get a response to post #24 because when I ran some numbers from the table based on what you need to do, the numbers didn't equate to 280-284 grains. Maybe I was running it wrong, but it appeared to me that you should be able to divide 3.1 cc by volume cc to get number of shot and then multiply the value for individual shot weight to get the weight for 3.1cc but it doesn't compute.

I haven't found mine yet, but these charts do exist. If your component dealer has load guides and such, they probably have one for shotgun reloading and it may have the table you need.;)

I haven't found mine yet, but these charts do exist. If your component dealer has load guides and such, they probably have one for shotgun reloading and it may have the table you need.;)

Mal H

April 15, 2007, 12:48 AM

CZ57, I think the flaw in that calculation is that air space is ignored.

CZ57

April 15, 2007, 01:54 AM

Mal: that would certainly be a factor based on the number I got.;)

Ol` Joe

April 15, 2007, 10:44 AM

Gray rock I know you don`t want to hear this, but I still feel your best bet is to pick up a cheap scale if you are doing any type reloading. The amount you get of anything when useing dippers is suspect without a scale to verify the weight.

I`ve a set of Lee powder dippers I have used off and on from the mid `60s and trust me I can dip 5 different weight charges with 5 dips useing the same dipper and powder. Lee gives a chart showning the "weight" value of each dipper but in my experiance they normally dip lite. They can however dip heavier then listed if one gets sloppy or lighter simply by dipping from a full powder can or running it in a shallow ashtray. Pulling the dipper through the powder varies the charge. Shaking the top off the dip varies the charge, Brushing the top of the dipper to "even it out" varies the charge. Ball powders seem to dip more evenly then extruded and "Flake" powders seem to give "me" the most variation. You may do better then me, but with out a scale to verify the wgt you don`t really know how consistant you are.

Lead used in shot also varies depending on whether or not it is hard or soft shot. The amount of tin and antimony used will change the density, there may be measurable change in a 5cc volume of one over the other you won`t know about with out weighting. How much does the shot density vary between a short squat dipper cup to a tall thin diameter one? Does the air space stay the same between them?

I can see Lee not wanting to offer untested uses for their tools for other then their designed purpose.

Lee offers a cheap scale that would give some assurance and answer your question quite accurately for you. I would at least give one a thought.:)

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=712103

I`ve a set of Lee powder dippers I have used off and on from the mid `60s and trust me I can dip 5 different weight charges with 5 dips useing the same dipper and powder. Lee gives a chart showning the "weight" value of each dipper but in my experiance they normally dip lite. They can however dip heavier then listed if one gets sloppy or lighter simply by dipping from a full powder can or running it in a shallow ashtray. Pulling the dipper through the powder varies the charge. Shaking the top off the dip varies the charge, Brushing the top of the dipper to "even it out" varies the charge. Ball powders seem to dip more evenly then extruded and "Flake" powders seem to give "me" the most variation. You may do better then me, but with out a scale to verify the wgt you don`t really know how consistant you are.

Lead used in shot also varies depending on whether or not it is hard or soft shot. The amount of tin and antimony used will change the density, there may be measurable change in a 5cc volume of one over the other you won`t know about with out weighting. How much does the shot density vary between a short squat dipper cup to a tall thin diameter one? Does the air space stay the same between them?

I can see Lee not wanting to offer untested uses for their tools for other then their designed purpose.

Lee offers a cheap scale that would give some assurance and answer your question quite accurately for you. I would at least give one a thought.:)

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=712103

Grayrock

April 16, 2007, 01:34 AM

I feel a scale is in my future. The electronic ones- any good? Or is the ol' triple beam balance sufficient? Don't all shotgun shell reloaders use charge bars that measure out both powder and shot based on the volume of a hole in the bar? Do I need to chunk my bars and measure out each load of powder and shot so I can get consistency? How does a Dillon 650 measure out powder?

IDriveB5

April 16, 2007, 01:40 AM

I use a RCBS 5-0-5. has been a good scale and holds zero. Measures up to about 500 grains.

If you enjoyed reading about "cc's to oz conversion table" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.