Lee Safety Scale impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rcmodel

Member in memoriam
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
59,074
Location
Eastern KS
SO, I played around with the PIF Lee scale I received from Boltlover yesterday evening, and today.
I tested it against an old Cabala’s (PACT) Digital, and my old RCBS 5-10 beam scale.
Results, were ‘interesting’.

Here was the 'level both ways' set-up.
(Each scale was set on the Level top surface & Zeroed before each test.)

Scaleset-up_zpsce1d76b9.jpg

Here are the results.

Scaletestdata_zpsd38ba744.jpg

Here is the ‘interesting part.
While weighing a 50 grain Hornady V-Max, I got this reading.
Which could be telling me 50.0, or 50.85??
It was the only instance I ran into that could be interpreted so obviously nearly a grain wrong!

Scale-Leesplitreading_zps6496d6c1.jpg



SO what is my verdict?

Pro:
*Low cost.
*Accurate enough for reloading use.
*Repeatable, once you get it set and lock down the 1/10 grain poise.


Cons?
*Very hard to read the Vernier settings with old eyes.
*Yes, I have been reading vernier calipers my whole life. (Just not this one!)
*A simple V-groove and sliding weight like other less expensive scales would be way more user friendly for me to use.
*Grain Poise is way too easy to move if not locked in place. (or impossible to move if locked in place)
*Beam rubs on base way too easily and screws up reading if you wiggle or bump it whain changing pans.
*The scale is so light it is easily moved when trying to make adjustments or zero it.
*Very slow & sensitive when weighing unknown weights. (Too fiddly for me!)
*Not enough capacity to weigh most bullets larger than .224” and .243”.
*Weighing .30 cal rifle and pistol bullets is impossible.


Bottom Line:
Both the digital and the RCBS are much faster to set up, zero, and weigh unknown charge weights with.
I trust the RCBS further then the Digital!
I would trust the Lee further then the Digital too, if I was 100% sure of the vernier setting..

I could make do with it if that’s what I had.
But that isn't what I have.

rc
 
Last edited:
I have one of these. Im pretty sure its telling you its 5.9. Its the middle of three bars. I need to replace it with an rcbs one, just dont have the extra Benjamin layin around.
 
I just put a hornady 55 grain fmj bullet on a cheap digital, depending where I put it on the tray, it weighed 54 or 55 grains. (cheapo digital, with no decimal places after the last full grain number) I use it to quickly tell if I have a 115 or 124 grain for 9mm, 230 or smaller for .45, or 55 or 62 with .223. Not powder measuring! On the Lee, it measured 54 and 4 tenths grains. Who knows?

Russellc
 
Last edited:
Im pretty sure its telling you its 5.9.
Click to expand...
Its 5.9. Is that 0 on the bottom?
Click to expand...
No, it isn't 5.9!
And yes, that is the 0 in the bottom window.
The ball bearing was already in the 50 grain mark.
So, it's either 50.0, or 50.85, or 50.9?
And that's the problem I was talking about.

Yes, the Lee scale was perfectly zeroed on a front to back, and side to side leveled surface shown in the photo.
(Who else does that?)

.

The 50 grain V-Max bullet has to weigh +/- 0.1 or so of 50 grains.

It weighed 50.1 and 49.9 on the other two scales.
So I'd probably have to say the Lee Scale is reading 50.0 or 50.1!!!

And that is the exact problem with reading this thing I was talking about.


Had it not been a known weight, high quality 50 grain bullet?
And just a random powder charge thrown in the pan?

It could be either one?
And you have no way of knowing which it is! :(


Especially bad for a new reloader, who doesn't have a second scale to check it against.

rc
 
Last edited:
Rc's pic shows .9 Where are you guys getting 5.9? That's a 0 in the box right? I assumed, like he said it is showing 50.9 and just assumed the ball is in the 50 grain hole? For 50.1 your should have the ball in the 50 grain position. the vernier with 0 in the box, moved so each of the three lines are over the 2, the 1 and the 0, right?
 
Last edited:
RC, I also find its a little easier to use the Lee at eye level. I have mine on a closet shelf which places it right at eye level when I'm standing.
 
In the Lee instructions it shows a measure example for 13.9 grains. The ball is in the 10 grain hole. There is a 3 in the box on the scale slider, with the 3 marks over 9,8 and 0. Since there isnt another space beyond the 9, the third mark goes to the opposite end over the 0. This is the equivalent of the 9 "in the center"
 
One of these came with my starter kit. I didn't use it long before upgrading to an RCBS 5-0-2. My experience was the Lee was a hassle to set up, but very accurate once calibrated--I used check weights to confirm. Still have it around somewhere ...
 
This is the first time I have seen all 3 scales listed checked against each other.
I've done tests like that but without the Lee scale.

Your results do not surprise me, I have never liked ANY of the plastic base beam scales. Most are too light and may change between hot or cold conditions.

The RCBS 5-10 was my favorite scale until I broke it and got a 10-10.
I did about the same test with my rcbs Chargemaster , the 10-10 and an old Lyman and Herters beam scale. I don't have any written notes to supply here. But it was fun.:D


Thanks for your report.
TxD
 
My first scale was a used Herters (Redding type) oil dampened one I bought in 1962.
Very simple to zero and use, with no instructions or internet!

But the oil dampened part was BAD.
Oil creeps out of the resevour, collects dust, and makes a total mess out of everything.

So, you had to use it dry.
And stop breathing for long stretches while using it while waiting for it to stop in one place.

But for a simple inexpensive scale the V-Notch & slider weight 0.1 grain adjustment is very hard to improve on.

IMO: Lee certainly didn't with the overly hard to read & adjust vernier scale!

I think if they had to do it, they should include a check weight set so everyone including us old guys can figure out how to read it!

rc
 
Think I still have a Lee Safety Scale or the remains of one somewhere around here. I see the name "Safety Scale" as appropriate as when used correctly for weighing powder charges it will keep you safe when used with good reloading habits and practices. It does what it is supposed to do and yes, can be a pain in the butt to read the vernier on. Far from a high end scale but also carries a much lower price than the better scales.

Ron
 
looking at scales on line, none of the reviews seem promising! Lyman, Redding, who makes a proven accurate one? Maybe an old Ohaus triple beam like in science class a million years ago?
 
I am using the Lyman scale dad and I bought in the early sixties. I made some calibration weights in chem lab at college and it has stayed true for some sixty years. I have a Redding that is also fine. Got a Lee with some misc stuff and tried t a few times. Not confident it is close half the time and I spent many a night reading vernier calipers to .001" accuracy as a machinist. Like most of Lee stuff, it will work but is kind of cheesy. If you like to tinker, buy Lee. Ok, flame me. I have two Pro1000s, many dies, a fair number of moulds and a turret. Experience.
 
The 5.9 is just a stupid typo. My brain was seeing 5 not 50 since I load for pistols only. But it is a .9 on the end. The Lee weight uses the middle dash, 1 on the 0, 2 on the 9, 3 on the 8, the middle is 9. If the ball is in the 50 grain hole, it should be 50.9

Sorry RC :(.
 
RC I believe that weight shown is actually 49.9. I've been using mine a long time and am very used to reading the numbers.

Most of the time you know you are at the exact point on a number when there is a little white showing on both sides, if that makes any sense.
 
ljnowell - After looking closely at the scale, you may be correct, the 0 would be closer to 1 if it was 50.9. But in that picture, the 0 is to the left slightly, it should be lined up or to the right. That's why all the confusion. Good catch.
 
After looking closely at the scale, you may be correct, the 0 would be closer to 1 if it was 50.9. But in that picture, the 0 is to the left slightly, it should be lined up or to the right. That's why all the confusion. Good catch.
Click to expand...
I can assure you the Zero WAS lined up in the window.

I hunkered down in my chair and looked at it straight on with a flashlight.

It appears off center in my photo because the camera view finder and the lens are about 1 1/4" apart.
So what I see in the view-finder, and what the camera lens takes a picture of that close are not where my eye was looking at it without the camera view-finder & lens changing the perspective.

rc
 
That's the biggest problem I have with the Lee. Its fiddly, hard to read the lines, and they dont look the same at different angles. it needs to be straight on at eye level and it's still tricky even then. My eyes are not getting any younger and this isnt getting any easier with the Lee scale, I suppose I should start the selection process...something that is consistently accurate for double checking my powder drops.

Playing with the Lee device is fiddly. A Couple of times I have had a slightly heavy load. Using a powder scoop, I removed a small amount and then started gradually adding it back to get to level. There has been more than one time that it took all the powder back, and there it sets on level. It gets funky if it isnt setting on the pivot just right. Something good and true with accurate AND consistent measurements is what I need. Gunshow in the AM, maybe I will get lucky...

Russellc
 
I didn't mean to trash the Lee scale this bad in the review.

If that's what you have and are happy with it, great.

But if you haven't used anything else, don't rule buying something else out!!



rc
 
The zero is almost touching the left boundary of the square around it. ljnowell is right, if you were above zero, at the .9 level which is what you have, you would almost see the 1. I just played with my Lee scale, if you are at the 50.9, in the bottom window you would see the zero on the far right side, and the 1 starting to show on the left side. Like ljnowell suggested, you are below zero so the scale is showing 49.9.

In the picture I uploaded, this is what it would look like for 50.9. When you enlarge the picture you will notice you're almost to the 1, which is what .9 would give you. In your picture, the 0 is where the 1 is in this one. That means you're below zero, so you would have 49.9.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2317.JPG
    IMG_2317.JPG
    42.6 KB · Views: 47
Well, regardless of where the zero in the window in the photo is.
(I already told you it was a camera parallax thing.)

If this old retired machinist can't read it reliably, without squinting and using a flashlight?
And figure it out with 100% certainty?

If I can't figure it out, there has to be a whole bunch of new reloaders out there who have never heard of or seen a vernier scale that can't get it right either!

That's all I was saying.

rc
 
I use a Lee scale for a few years and I trusted it even though it was a pain to use.

I'm now using an RCBS 5-0-5 and a Hornady GS-1500 Digital.
Both are much easier to use with my eyes.
The RCBS is extremely trustworthy and the GS-1500 isn't all that bad especially when checking bullet weights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Pat Riot
  • Locked
RCBS Beam Powder Scale and calibration weight questions
Replies
22
Views
2K
PWC
PWC
S
  • Locked
Dillon Beam Scale
Replies
6
Views
692
Sport45
S
G
  • Locked
Redding beam scale
Replies
24
Views
585
Bronx kid
B
trigga
  • Locked
two scales not reading the same...
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dudedog
Dudedog
M
  • Locked
RCBS 5-10 beam scale Vs. MTM mini digital scale
Replies
13
Views
3K
MNPyro
M
Back
Top