there are two types of people reloading. Old school and new school. Those who don't want to change as technology evolves and those who are new or dislike change.
And why this subcategory of THR is titled "Reloading" but also "Handloading". For many of us, reloading is a hobby or means to produce cheaper ammunition. For some of us, reloading is a passion in pursuit of greater and greater consistency of finished rounds and smaller and smaller groups.
I am old school and likes beam scales and dial calipers and vintage USA made tools but open to recognize that technology improves and like fuel injection vs carburetor, newer technology may be beneficial in improving the consistency of reloading.
If two watches were widely different in quality and technology, the tried and true watch would be used as the "standard"
Precisely.
To verify if any watch or clock is telling accurate time, regardless of brand/cost and whether mechanical or quartz movement, we need to check it against a known standard.
Same for any measurement tool, we need to check it against known standards to see if the tool is accurately reading measurements whether beam/digital scale or dial/digital calipers at the weight range or measurement range being used as wear can take place at different parts of the tool. I learned this from many THR members who are machinists and they told me the same when I posted my Ohaus 10-10 beam scales (I have two) were "accurate enough" to verify other scales and in the myth busting thread, we found out the digital scales were more precise with higher resolution using Ohaus ASTM Class 6 check weights down 1 mg (.015 gr).
Same for calipers when Walkalong suggested I buy gage blocks/pin gauges to verify accuracy of my caliper measurements for posting 9mm bullets being sized different from .354", .355", .3555" and .356". And he was correct as my trusty dial calipers (I had two that I used to verify each other) used for reloading for decades were worn and had .001"+ play and I replaced them with a new FA dial calipers that had no play and accurately verified not only pin gages but feeler gages.
And whether new or used, it doesn't matter as new scale could have been damaged during shipping or something could have happened to used scale (Like mount base being out of level or batteries draining, etc.) to alter the accuracy of readings.
When I received a brand new milligram resolution "Analytical Lab" digital scale for the latest myth busting thread, how did I know what the sensitivity/detection of scale was? I didn't until I used check weights to verify the scale and found it was sensitive/repeatable down to 5 mg (.08 gr) but as member Nature Boy (Who competes at 600-1000 yards) pointed out, being able to measure to the kernel of powder is beneficial and I am able to detect addition of Varget kernels, depending on size (As close up picture showed different lengths and cut angles), additional kernel weight could vary by 1 mg to 2 mg (.02 gr to .03 gr) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...lab-scale-for-120.873830/page-2#post-11627511
And perhaps we are being too picky or OCD about verifying our reloading tools with standards. I mean, .1 gr or even .2 gr variance should be "good enough" for reloading, right?
Well, load data for many faster burn rate powders list start/max charge range of .5 gr, so .2 gr variance could affect group size, that could "tolerance stack" on top of OAL/bullet seating depth variance and add to any bullet setback after being chambered.
Chances are, for general purpose range blasting ammo, sweating the details down to .1 gr or .001" may not matter but this is the "High Road" and I am simply paying forward information my bullseye match shooting mentor and many seasoned/match shooting THR members imparted on me to share with other THR members, just in case they need or want more consistent match grade ammunition.
I like having choices in life.
