I am not using any powders that my BR 30 does not meter well. There are some pistol powders I use that the 10X meters OK but not great, but the rounds shoot great, so what the heck.
The big stick powders pretty much need to be weighed.
Are Electronic Scales As Good As Beam Scales?
- Thread starter vtail
- Start date
- Status
The big stick powders pretty much need to be weighed.
I bought the Lyman set for $34.59 from Midway ...
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=612694
It has 0.5, 1, 2 (x2), 5, 10, 20 (x2), 50 and 100 grain weights and comes in a little box with a pair of tweezers. I made a post a few months ago after checking Lyman's weights on a $10,000 analytical balance ... needless to say, I was VERY impressed.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=433321
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=612694
It has 0.5, 1, 2 (x2), 5, 10, 20 (x2), 50 and 100 grain weights and comes in a little box with a pair of tweezers. I made a post a few months ago after checking Lyman's weights on a $10,000 analytical balance ... needless to say, I was VERY impressed.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=433321
R.W.Dale
Member
I don't know why you guys have this phobia about measuring extruded powders.
I'll throw any and every powder under the sun even IMR5010 a powder that looks like chopped up pencil lead. By weight it'll throw this powder as accurately as H110, you just have to get over the phobia of crunching a few errant grains.
I find it ironic that everyone is OK with throwing a 5 grn handgun charge at +or- 0.1 accuracy but they will freak out over +or- 0.2 accuracy throwing a 70grn charge of extruded powder for a 7mm mag.
.1 grains is 2% of a 5 grn charge in a 9mm
.2 grain is 0.28% of a 70grn 7mm mag charge
It's completely backwards to be concerned with throwing RIFLE charges but to be OK with it for handguns
I'll throw any and every powder under the sun even IMR5010 a powder that looks like chopped up pencil lead. By weight it'll throw this powder as accurately as H110, you just have to get over the phobia of crunching a few errant grains.
I find it ironic that everyone is OK with throwing a 5 grn handgun charge at +or- 0.1 accuracy but they will freak out over +or- 0.2 accuracy throwing a 70grn charge of extruded powder for a 7mm mag.
.1 grains is 2% of a 5 grn charge in a 9mm
.2 grain is 0.28% of a 70grn 7mm mag charge
It's completely backwards to be concerned with throwing RIFLE charges but to be OK with it for handguns
Stew4570
Member
I have an RCBS Rangemaster 750 Scale that is great. Its much faster than my 505. I recheck the calibration every 3rd or 4th round. I like getting 3 round sub MOA groups from my Browning Stalker 30-06. Only thing that sucks is that after more than 4 rounds the bullets start to walk.
Well of course it isn't.
I have never weighed a charge in my Bench gun, and it will shoot them through one hole when I let it. H322, N133, Ramshot, 2015. They have all shot well for me. I don't know the charge weight or the varience, and don't care. (Do not load this way unless you are very experienced, have knowledgeable folks helping you, or just like to blow things up)
I shoot some handgun loads that barely hold +/- .1 Grs, and some that won't do better than +/- .15 Grs, but they shoot lights out at reasonable range.
Your point about the actual percentage a little charge is off vs a big charge is a good one, and one many people, I think, don't ever consider. It is much easier to get a low percentage of variance with a big charge than a little one. Simple math. Same reason we use light neck tension in Benchrest vs heavy. It's easier to get them all more consistent doing it that way. Simple math again.
To get real consistent charge weights and super low ES & SD numbers like the long range guys want when using stick powder, it needs to be weighed. I asked a couple of them. I didn't guess.
krochus said:
Could it be that I'm perfectly happy with 2" groups at 25 yards with my ALL my handguns but cringe at the thought of a 1" group at 100 yards with ANY of my rifles!
Walkalong said:
I've thought about it plenty ... even made a post about it many months ago.
Funderb
Member
the problem with the really good electronic scales is that they plug into the wall and are enclosed because air currents affect the reading.
Those tend to be fairly expensive though. darn.
Those tend to be fairly expensive though. darn.
R.W.Dale
Member
I agree
I tried weighed charged against thrown in my bench gun and the thrown charges were just as accurate or more so than the weighed ones.
I have a rifle that shoots in the .2's with thrown charges we're hardly talking about 1" groups here. Have you actually tested weighed vs thrown or are you just assuming?
ranger335v
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,797
"Which ones should I stay away from?"
Digitals. And you won't need a list of other things like "check weights" to insure it hasn't gone crazy.
What do you think a digital can do that a beam scale can't do as well or better and for a LOT longer?
Digitals. And you won't need a list of other things like "check weights" to insure it hasn't gone crazy.
What do you think a digital can do that a beam scale can't do as well or better and for a LOT longer?
krochus said:
krochus, I notice a difference with 0.3 grain variations between loads during load development at 100 yards (verified with check weights and a digital scale). The variations show up as differences in velocity and point of impact rather than grouping. Since I'm trying to land in a 0.5 MOA X ring at 600 yards I feel that I need all the help I can get even if some of that help is psychological. I haven't checked my Uniflow to see how accurate it is with extruded powders, but accuracy aside, I'm not sure that I'll save much time using the Uniflow vs. the ChargeMaster anyway.
Hungry Seagull
member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,167
I had the pleasure of weighing myself on a old express beam scale of about the early 1900's and after a bit of fiddling found that it was within a few pounds of my weight. Close enough after 90 years.
I was invited to put the steer axle onto it but at 13,000 pounds divided across two wheels.. I chose not to.
I was invited to put the steer axle onto it but at 13,000 pounds divided across two wheels.. I chose not to.
qajaq59
Member
Since you asked.... For powder I prefer the beam scale. For weighing cast bullets the electronic is far quicker. And as to why? Probably because I began with a beam scales years ago and they've never let me down.
loadedround
Member
As I had said previously a quality digital balance has it all over a beam type balance. The dgital is faster, more accurate and more convenient. Once the digital balance is calibrated(usually with just one weight) it should hold it's calibration until it is shut off. Quality digital balances do not drift because line operated balances use a regulated DC power supply and battery operated balances will not drift either since it's quality alkaline battery will keep a constant charge until exhausted(most of you that have battery operated lap top computers...do those batteries drift?) To conclude, beam balances are obsolete in the scientific world and will be in the reloading field very shortly. Last comment if I may, visit any scientific lab or hopital research lab if you have the opportunity...I will buy you a beer for every beam balance you find there! BTW, I am not condemming beam balances at all, I started out using one and I still have an Ohaus 505 as a back up. I'm just pointing out there is a choice and both will do the job, although one will do it easier. 'nuff said!
Last edited:
Stormbringer
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12
I use the RCBS Charge Master 1500 and would not go back to a standard balance scale unless I had to. I prefer the digital scale and it hasn't had a single issue.
krochus said:
I've been thinking about this and it occurred to me that the my .223 Rem loads are compressed loads and my .308 Win, .300 WSM and .300 WM loads are all VERY close to being compressed i.e. there's virtually no free space in the case. With handgun loads, I don't have any compressed loads and most if not all have a lot of free space in the case. I would think that this would make pistol loads less sensitive to +/- powder error (as a % of desired load) and I think this may explain why in my experience, 0.3 grains (or less) difference in a 72.0 grain load (compressed or very close to it) has a significant affect on the point of impact (not necessarily group size), particularly at longer distances. Just a thought.
R.W.Dale
Member
I've been thinking about this and it occurred to me that the my .223 Rem loads are compressed loads and my .308 Win, .300 WSM and .300 WM loads are all VERY close to being compressed i.e. there's virtually no free space in the case. With handgun loads, I don't have any compressed loads and most if not all have a lot of free space in the case. I would think that this would make pistol loads less sensitive to +/- powder error (as a % of desired load) and I think this may explain why in my experience, 0.3 grains (or less) difference in a 72.0 grain load (compressed or very close to it) has a significant affect on the point of impact (not necessarily group size), particularly at longer distances. Just a thought.
I don't know if you look at kbooms handgun vs rifle handguns can be exploded with overcharges of the correct powder that may not be all that drastic. But with a rifle it's practically impossible to catastrophically overpressure when a propellant of appropriate burn rate is being employed. This is because of 3 reasons
One The same variance is a much much lower percentage of a rifle vs handgun. In my experience my powder measure is as accurate measuring 3.5 grs as it is throwing 55 possibly more so as the charge increases. With ball flake or extruded powders
Two Rifles structurally typically have a much larger safety margin than a thin handgun bbl or revolver cylinder
Three as you note this free space in handguns can allow for double charging with many powder bullet combo's but again a proper rifle powder will overflow by as much as 100% in the event of a double charge.
So I stand by my assertion that it's completely backwards to be OK with throwing handgun charges but be apprehensive about thrown rifle charges.
Incidentally I just weighed 15 56grn thrown through my unbaffled uniflow charges of varget and got an extreme spread of .3grs. I then went back to find out just how much .3grs of varget is only to find my scale won't weigh an increment that small, I had to throw a much larger charge and pick out individual grains of powder. Anyhow as best I could tell 0.3grs of Varget by weight is somewhere between 17 and 22 individual granules of powder.
While I agree that you LR shooters need all the help you can get, For us short range group or casual shooters and hunters this simply isn't enough variance to matter. You may in fact be on to something....I wonder if less compressed rifle loads are less sensitive to variances in charge weight than highly compressed ones
Last edited:
The Bushmaster
Member
Man I'll tell ya. Don't you just love the digital/beam wars? Almost as good as the 9mm X 19/.45 ACP wars...
Furncliff
Member
A newbie's observations. I've been using the RCBS 502 for my first year of loading. If I had it to do all over again today I'd go electronic (probably Range-master). I have big hands, the beam scale is a total PIA to set the balance weights correctly without smacking something. The scale is mounted in a cabinet up over my bench at eye level so that I can close the door on it but more important so that there is no parallax error reading the balance, or the weight settings. Even at that the markings are small and well, my eyes aren't young anymore. Not to go into all the details but recently I weighed 500 bullets on the 502, what a royal pain. Throw an extra twenty bucks in the pot and get the Range-master, or equivalent. Cripes some people still have a rotary phone, but this IS the 21st century.
ranger335v
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,797
" Cripes some people still have a rotary phone, but this IS the 21st century."
Yeah, a few still do. But, consider that many of those phones are some 50 years old and still work fine. Do you know of anyone with a digital phone thats half that age and still works? And what happens when they fail? Tossed out and buy another, not worth repairing are they?
The question isn't which is "modern", that's not a contest. But understand that what made digital phones popular is that they are CHEAP throw-aways, not reliable! I used to repair rotary phones because they were worth it. Not many because few every gave a problem. Neither do beam scales, if properly treated they will last forever. Or at least one has since '65 and still counting on my bench.
Anyone who thinks digitals are "more accurate" than a beam needs to re-read their spec sheets. And faster? By how much, pray tell? Quarter second, maybe?
Anyone too clumsy to work with beams should get a digital, no question. But don't say it's because the digital is 'better', it isn't.
I was an "aerospace" tech repairing and calibrating precision electronic test equipment for a long time. Had good job security until we won the cold war. There are no digital scales on my bench.
Yeah, a few still do. But, consider that many of those phones are some 50 years old and still work fine. Do you know of anyone with a digital phone thats half that age and still works? And what happens when they fail? Tossed out and buy another, not worth repairing are they?
The question isn't which is "modern", that's not a contest. But understand that what made digital phones popular is that they are CHEAP throw-aways, not reliable! I used to repair rotary phones because they were worth it. Not many because few every gave a problem. Neither do beam scales, if properly treated they will last forever. Or at least one has since '65 and still counting on my bench.
Anyone who thinks digitals are "more accurate" than a beam needs to re-read their spec sheets. And faster? By how much, pray tell? Quarter second, maybe?
Anyone too clumsy to work with beams should get a digital, no question. But don't say it's because the digital is 'better', it isn't.
I was an "aerospace" tech repairing and calibrating precision electronic test equipment for a long time. Had good job security until we won the cold war. There are no digital scales on my bench.
Considering that Sierra Bullets uses metered powder charges (about 3/10ths spread) to test fire their 30 caliber bullets and their best MatchKings get 10-shot groups in the ones (under .2 MOA); precise charge weight ain't all that important.
I'm convinced stool shooters (those good folks also called bench resters) could almost use a tea spoon to measure powder charges and still shoot one holers up through 200 yards.
Check your ballistic tables for down range bullet drop at different muzzle velocities. When I first did this, I was a bit awed by the fact that at 100 yards with a .308 Win., a 50 fps spread in muzzle velocity typically would cause only 1/10th inch vertical shot stringing. 'Course at 1000 yards, it would be about 20 inches. Which means 1/10th MOA at short range and 2 whole MOA's at a very long range.
I prefer my beam scale for long range loads as it doesn't have to be recalibrated once in a while like my old Lyman electronic scale. But the electronic one is great for sorting cases into 1 grain weight spreads. Or weighing .22 rimfire match ammo.
I'm convinced stool shooters (those good folks also called bench resters) could almost use a tea spoon to measure powder charges and still shoot one holers up through 200 yards.
Check your ballistic tables for down range bullet drop at different muzzle velocities. When I first did this, I was a bit awed by the fact that at 100 yards with a .308 Win., a 50 fps spread in muzzle velocity typically would cause only 1/10th inch vertical shot stringing. 'Course at 1000 yards, it would be about 20 inches. Which means 1/10th MOA at short range and 2 whole MOA's at a very long range.
I prefer my beam scale for long range loads as it doesn't have to be recalibrated once in a while like my old Lyman electronic scale. But the electronic one is great for sorting cases into 1 grain weight spreads. Or weighing .22 rimfire match ammo.
I haven't read all the replies, so maybe I am echoing someone else. With that being said, I'm sure a decent electronic scale is fine for most types of shooting. However, I think a decent "beam" scale simply has to more inherently accurate. With a beam scale, you rely on gravity and that does not change or need adjustment. As long as you can read some lines it is going to be more reliable and more accurate. However, an electronic scale would have its purpose. It would be quicker if your eyes are too bad to match up lines. But in reality, I don't think it would really be possible to be more accurate with an electronic scale.
From THIS thread ...
... so it's up to the individual and their application to determine how accurate they want/need their loads to be. In other words, there's no "one rule fits all" here. 0.3 grains of variation in powder affects accuracy which may be important to some but not to others. Some calibers/loads may be more sensitive to powder variations than others. So far, I've found that .300 Win Mag is more sensitive to small variations in charge (0.3gr) than .308 Win but that's just me, in my rifles, using the specific components that I use.
Unless you're calibrating/checking your beam or electronic scale with a set of quality check weights that are representative of the range of loads you're trying to dispense then it's ALL guesswork. Since buying the Lyman check weights I feel that I'm no longer guessing.
On a side note, why the heck the RCBS CM comes with two 50 gram check weights and a calibration routine at 0, 50 and 100 grams is beyond me. I could care less about a 1500 grain load .... I'm not loading mortar rounds!!! I need accurate check weights and a calibration routine from 0.5 to 300 grains (to weigh cases) but that's it. The older 750 has two calibration routines depending on the range that you need ... that's better but still not ideal.
Bart B. said:
... so it's up to the individual and their application to determine how accurate they want/need their loads to be. In other words, there's no "one rule fits all" here. 0.3 grains of variation in powder affects accuracy which may be important to some but not to others. Some calibers/loads may be more sensitive to powder variations than others. So far, I've found that .300 Win Mag is more sensitive to small variations in charge (0.3gr) than .308 Win but that's just me, in my rifles, using the specific components that I use.
deacon8 said:
Unless you're calibrating/checking your beam or electronic scale with a set of quality check weights that are representative of the range of loads you're trying to dispense then it's ALL guesswork. Since buying the Lyman check weights I feel that I'm no longer guessing.
On a side note, why the heck the RCBS CM comes with two 50 gram check weights and a calibration routine at 0, 50 and 100 grams is beyond me. I could care less about a 1500 grain load .... I'm not loading mortar rounds!!! I need accurate check weights and a calibration routine from 0.5 to 300 grains (to weigh cases) but that's it. The older 750 has two calibration routines depending on the range that you need ... that's better but still not ideal.
dmazur
Member
Assuming a quality load cell with a linear response, any two points should be sufficient for calibration. At least, that's how we calibrate 4-20ma transducers in the power industry.
If they aren't near the ends of the scaled range, you can have accuracy problems.
It appears that most of the scale manufacturers are coming up with check weights that allow calibration at zero and near full scale, and are assuming linear behavior in between.
The RCBS Partner I have (made by Pact) uses four calibration points, so I'm not sure what they are doing. (0, 20 grams, 30 grams, 50 grams then 0 again.) The 50 gram combination is near the 750gr capacity of the scale.
If they aren't near the ends of the scaled range, you can have accuracy problems.
It appears that most of the scale manufacturers are coming up with check weights that allow calibration at zero and near full scale, and are assuming linear behavior in between.
The RCBS Partner I have (made by Pact) uses four calibration points, so I'm not sure what they are doing. (0, 20 grams, 30 grams, 50 grams then 0 again.) The 50 gram combination is near the 750gr capacity of the scale.
- Status
