Better beam scale? Especially for light charges?

[1066]

Referring to the original post and loading for .32 and .25, I know just where he's coming from. Way, way back in the '70-'80's I was into the European UIT precision pistol game. Pistols of choice were good quality, specialized .32.target pistols such as the Walther GSP, Des 69, FAS, Pardini, Hammerli etc.
These were straight blowback pistols and most shot the .32 S&W Long with a 98gn full wadcutter. It was always a balance between best accuracy v 100% reliability - long sessions with ransom rests were involved. The problem was, the charges were so small and needed to be so exact that I just couldn't get a measure to work consistently. When your desired charge is 1.5gns of Bullseye, a 10th grain either way is quite noticeable, so weighing each charge became general practice - however, I was needing to load around 300 rounds a week, which, apart from becoming mind numbing, it was extremely time consuming.

This spurred me on to make an auto-trickler, that evolved into the Targetmaster in around 1984 - working with a good beam scale it gave accuracy withing a kernel of two in a quarter of the time.
As for beam scales, most of them work very well and are sensitive enough to detect single kernels of powder, the main problem is actually seeing the deflection - for example, the Lee is one of the most sensitive scales but with a beam of only about 4" long it's almost impossible to see these tiny movements.
Adding a camera (or a phone) is very easy and cheap and will show even the smallest movement it will also eliminate any chance of parallax error.

Video Display for Balance Beam Scale within AccurateShooter.com
Monitor Balance Beam with Magnified Image on SmartPhone « Daily Bulletin (accurateshooter.com)

 

[Bat Rastard]

I have one of Allen's (1066) TargetMasters and like it quite well.
I use it on a 10-10. I am not fond of the 10-10's barrel adjustment. But it works well.

 

[doubleh]

Just my two cents about the Lee. They don't cost much or didn't when I bought one just to see what was what. I found it to be accurate using check weights but too fiddly for me to mess with and put it back in it's little box it came in. I guess my old RCBS beam scale has me spoiled. I also have a digital but it gets little use. Again the RCBS thing and I don't load a great deal of ammo anymore.

I am curious about the ability to weigh one kernel of powder. Is there any data to support that it makes a difference in the accuracy of your loads? Please don't respond that it might be the kernel that causes a ker-boom. Maybe I'm not doing things right but I have never found the best accuracy with a max load and I'm after accuracy, not as fast as I can possibly push a bullet without blowing something up.

 

[LiveLife]

I am curious about the ability to weigh one kernel of powder. Is there any data to support that it makes a difference in the accuracy of your loads?

Depends on purpose/application of your loads.

If you are loading general purpose range blasting ammo, particularly at lower target velocities to punch holes in paper, probably not.

But if you are shooting matches or longer distances where utmost accuracy is desired, then reducing/eliminating as many reloading variables will help, including powder charge weight variance.

For me, scales used for reloading, whether beam or digital, really need to resolve down to .1 gr as start/max charges for common calibers like 9mm can range around .5 gr. So if you are off by .2 - .3 gr, you could be over charge. So use of check weights is crucial, especially around powder charge weight range (If powder charge is around 4 - 5 grains, then use check weights around same weight range).

And yes, check weights come in lower weights of .1 gr and some even down to .015 gr.

 

[PWC]

Check weights...always check weights, no matter which scale. I use a powder balance not a scale.

 

[Atavar]

If you are dealing with very small charge weights you will want to invest in an actual lab grade scale, pretty much ignore anything under $300. The resolution and precision on most reloading scales is .1 grain, which means your actual weight could be +- .2 grains from indicated.
You will need the be extra cautious to get your sample in the center of the pan every time. Just the distance from the center of the pan to the outside or inside of the pan can change your reading.
You may want to consider a double pan scale instead of a beam scale for tiny charges. With these you put check weights equal to your target in one pan and the powder in the other pan. When they balance you are good.
Another thing that can throw you off with tiny weights is the scale dampening. This makes the scale settle faster but can introduce small errors. On small weights I jog the scale a bit so it resettles and check to see that the settling point repeats.
Make sure that the pivot and fulcrum are scrupulously clean. Not one speck of dust or film of oil. I like do keep my scales in a plastic dust proof box when not in use.

 

[doubleh]

Depends on purpose/application of your loads.

If you are loading general purpose range blasting ammo, particularly at lower target velocities to punch holes in paper, probably not.

But if you are shooting matches or longer distances where utmost accuracy is desired, then reducing/eliminating as many reloading variables will help, including powder charge weight variance.

For me, scales used for reloading, whether beam or digital, really need to resolve down to .1 gr as start/max charges for common calibers like 9mm can range around .5 gr. So if you are off by .2 - .3 gr, you could be over charge. So use of check weights is crucial, especially around powder charge weight range (If powder charge is around 4 - 5 grains, then use check weights around same weight range).

And yes, check weights come in lower weights of .1 gr and some even down to .015 gr.

I think you should re-read my post. You answered a question I didn't ask.

 

[LiveLife]

I think you should re-read my post. You answered a question I didn't ask.

My apologies.

While retired, I am currently spending most of day gutting our second house to studs for remodel (Wife and I may downsize to second house later in our retirement when our primary house on acreage gets too much to maintain) and have been doing quick casual replies to THR posts.

I did try to generalize my reply factoring OP's questions too but based on your response, I didn't do a good enough job.

BTW, here's THR thread on "Study of powder weight per piece" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...powder-weight-per-piece.902618/#post-12229251

FWIW, my work on resolving Varget down to single kernel and beyond with resolving Promo down to single granule - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-and-discussions.778197/page-11#post-12406419

Peace.

 

[LiveLife]

Getting back to OP, here's the "Original Post" of thread:

Better beam scale? Especially for light charges?

... reloading for about 2 yrs ... using the Lee Safety scale ... only load for pistol, including small stuff like .32 magnum and .25 acp ... I've read many scales are dampened so they don't take as long to settle as the Lee. I read others are easier to read, too.

What beam scale would be an upgrade for me?

So the OP is looking to "upgrade" to a different scale that has better dampening and easier to read.

During past 30 years of reloading and myth busting accuracy/repeatability/sensitivity of various beam and digital scales (Do a THR search for "Myth busting digital scales") using Ohaus check weight set down to .015 gr and having owned various Ohaus/RCBS 5-0-5 and 10-10 scales along with Lee Safety Scales, I can report that cleaned 10-10 and Lee scales on flat level surface without environmental influence of moving air can demonstrate greater sensitivity than 5-0-5.

@LiveLife testing of various beam scales, the Lee scored very high on accuracy.

Yes, Lee scale actually has more like .05 gr working resolution but OP is looking for better dampened and easier to use scale which would be 5-0-5/10-10 scales but sadly Ohaus no longer makes them in the USA and moved manufacturing to China/Mexico.

I don't think I need to spend more than $100 for a scale I like

Your best bet maybe to find a good used Ohaus/RCBS 5-0-5/10-10 made in USA.


Verifying accuracy and sensitivity of scale down to .1 gr:

You can test this yourself whether your .1 gr resolution beam scale can actually detect .1 gr by using .1 gr check weight. If not, either your scale needs a good cleaning, more level bench top, better isolation from environmental factors or your scale is not capable of detecting weight down to .1 gr resolution due to wear and/or damage.​

Don't have .1 gr check weight?

No problem. Take a sheet of 20 lb copy paper and cut a 1/4"x1/4" pieces to use as check weights and they should weigh around .05 gr (.0468 gr actual). With .1 gr resolution scale, detection/movement of pointer should take place with 2-3 pieces of "paper" check weights.​

Can't cut paper precisely down to 1/4"?

No problem. Do you have a set of calipers accurate to .001"? Use that.​

Well, pour a cup of coffee and make a sandwich and sit down.

Get ready for a onslaught of opinions, all backed up by users performance

Several Ohaus 10-10s and Lee scales I owned detected single piece of 1/4"x1/4" 20 lb copy paper and read around .1 gr with 2-3 pieces - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-busting-digital-scales.821449/#post-10551544

My "bench" Ohaus 10-10 showing detection of 2 pieces as .1 gr (NOTE: Each pointer lines are actually .2 gr markings)

When 10 mg (.154 gr) check weight from Ohaus ASTM Class 6 set was placed, I got the following reading below. Looks to me the pointer is between .1 and .2 gr.

Why not go digital?

While most beam scales can best verify check weights down to .1 gr, some digital scales can verify check weights further down to .08, even to .06 gr - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-and-discussions.778197/page-11#post-12029676

 

[doubleh]

My apologies.
I did try to generalize my reply factoring OP's questions too but based on your response, I didn't do a good enough job.



Peace.

All's good.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I think you should re-read my post. You answered a question I didn't ask.

But it was still a good answer.

 

[Shivahasagun]

There was a time I must have really proof-tested a pistol, last year.

I forget what I was going for, I'd have to check my notes. I think it was 1.2 gr of Titegroup in a .25 acp Beretta 50 gr FMJ bullet at standard OAL. (.900?)

I fired 9 shots and average was about 960 fps. The highest were about 1005, 1002, 998, and the lowest about 875.

It was snappier than usual and reading high but I finished the magazine. I later disassembled the other 20 or so rounds from that batch.

I never really figured out what went wrong as I weighed every load.

I've loaded .25 with 1 gr Titegroup, 1 and 1.1 gr 700x and got expected results.

When I used the computer program to repeat what had occurred nothing, even way overpressure, could get that bullet so fast.

That's when I learned Titegroup isn't a powder to push max with. Would 700x be any better?

Sometimes I wish I'd stocked up and set up Lee drums and made custom dippers on AA#2 or HP38 instead of Titegroup but oh well. I'll use it up eventually.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Sometimes I wish I'd stocked up and set up Lee drums and made custom dippers on AA#2 or HP38 instead of Titegroup but oh well. I'll use it up eventually.

Good luck with that. TiteGrope self-replenishes. I've been trying to use up the same pound for about a year now loading 9mmMak and .380ACP. It just keeps getting heavier.
I know this doesn't help much with your question but, I don't think you can ever go wrong buying old scales in fair or better condition. Keep the Lee (or send it to me) and try a few different scales out to see if they work better for your workflow. @LiveLife published a pretty extensive list of scales to have in the reloading library of wisdom. It's not a waste of money, it's an investment.

 

[Shivahasagun]

Is a pound of Titegroup really 7000 grains?

If so, that would load 2,333 3-gr cartridges.

 

[PWC]

"A pound's a pound the world round"

1 lb = 7000 grains; unless they are putting less than a pound in a can and calling it a pound.

Seems Joe's economy and COVID got together to downsize products and increase the amount of air you pay for in packaging.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

"A pound's a pound the world round"

1 lb = 7000 grains; unless they are putting less than a pound in a can and calling it a pound.

Seems Joe's economy and COVID got together to downsize products and increase the amount of air you pay for in packaging.

Actually the saying is, “A pint is a pound the world around.” But only in the U.S.
…it’s not like anywhere else in the world really matters.

 

[PWC]

Actually the saying is, “A pint is a pound the world around.” But only in the U.S.
…it’s not like anywhere else in the world really matters.

LOL....You're right...I got my tongue over my eye tooth and couldn't see what I was saying.

 

[barnfrog]

Actually the saying is, “A pint is a pound the world around.” But only in the U.S.
…it’s not like anywhere else in the world really matters.

Not only that, but the saying is wrong since a gallon of water actually weighs 8.3 pounds.

LOL....You're right...I got my tongue over my eye tooth and couldn't see what I was saying.

I gotta remember that one.