Does this exist? Study of powder weight per piece?

[wombat13]

My challenge is finding a node! I suspect it is a combination of lack of shooting skill (most likely due to lack of focused practice) and secondarily the rifles themselves. In any event, this thread gives me confidence that while time consuming, my process for measuring charge weight is not increasing my group sizes.

My loading process is to drop the powder using the powder measure on the Dillon 550 set to drop at least 0.3 grains less than my target weight. This ensures that the dropped charge is very rarely overweight. Then I put the charge on my balance and trickle (by hand) until I reach the target charge. I can get within 0.05 grains that way. The balance is marked at 0.1 grain intervals. I get within 0.05 grains by never stopping before the target charge and then removing a kernel (or more) if necessary to get back to within 0.05 over. It takes me about a minute per loaded round. I can get closer than 0.05 but the time spent grows non-linearly. By the way, my hand trickler is just an empty brass with spent primer filled with powder. I simply angle it over the tray and tap it with my finger while watching the scale.

Question: What would be my best bang for the buck in increasing my loading speed while maintaining the same charge weight accuracy?

 

[Odd Job]

There's a whole bunch of noise and aggro that I have deleted. I suggest those not interested in the topic of this thread busy themselves with another thread.

 

[Varminterror]

Question: What would be my best bang for the buck in increasing my loading speed while maintaining the same charge weight accuracy?

How fast are you dispensing each charge currently?

The fastest method I have used is also the most precise - A&D Fx-120i with Auto-throw and Auto-Trickle (although there is a new screw type trickler which is a bit faster with this kit). It’s something on the order of $1400. I was hitting about the same speed (less precision) with two Chargemasters AND a Lyman dispenser before that - I had $100 into the Lyman, used, $200 into one of the Chargemasters, used, and $250 into the 3rd, bought new… but precision was 5x looser, and drift between 3 machines was stressful. In either set up, I was charging a case about every 9-10 seconds.

Manually throwing into a pan, then tricking on a beam or .02grn precision scale tends to be exceptionally cheap, but a guy ends up doing a ton of hand moving, and still only charges around 30sec per charge. A single Chargemaster (or other conventional reloaders auto dispenser) will meet or beat that pace. The precision scales will hit 0.02grn precision, conventional dispensers only +/-0.1grn.. the RCBS Matchmaster runs relatively fast for its precision - and has the versatility of running fast with lesser precision, or running slower with greater precision, which is a unique feature. Very nice for a guy which might load hunting and plinking ammo as well as competition ammo on the same machine.

There’s nothing faster than a manual powder drop. But it’s not precise.

Personally, I find the FX-120i set up to be worth every penny. No hand moving, great automation, extreme precision, and still relatively affordable, considering how many rounds I run across it in a year.

 

[wombat13]

I would have to actually time myself to give a precise answer, but probably about 1 to 1.5 minutes per loaded round (I'm loading on a progressive). I can usually load a box of 20 in 30 minutes.

 

[JFrank]

Quote; My challenge is finding a node! I suspect it is a combination of lack of shooting skill (most likely due to lack of focused practice) and secondarily the rifles themselves. In any event, this thread gives me confidence that while time consuming, my process for measuring charge weight is not increasing my group sizes.

I don’t think your scale is holding you back from finding a node.
Jim

 

[RealGun]

In my precision loads I will measure to the kernel, only because I can with the equipment I have.

Is it necessary to measure to +/- 0.02gn if my accuracy node is +/- 0.4gn? Maybe not, but I still do it.

If you’re going through the trouble of being precise, may as well go as far as you can.

But the number one seeks for a load may be somewhat arbitrary.

 

[wombat13]

Quote; My challenge is finding a node! I suspect it is a combination of lack of shooting skill (most likely due to lack of focused practice) and secondarily the rifles themselves. In any event, this thread gives me confidence that while time consuming, my process for measuring charge weight is not increasing my group sizes.

I don’t think your scale is holding you back from finding a node.
Jim

Neither do I and forgive me if I gave that impression. I think my scale is slowing down my reloading. I think my difficulty finding a node is the result of (in descending order of importance) my shooting ability, the rifles' accuracy, and my loading technique.

 

[wombat13]

But the number one seeks for a load may be somewhat arbitrary.

I don't understand this. The number I seek for a load is not arbitrary. It is somewhere between the minimum and maximum published charge weights for a given cartridge and bullet. I look for good accuracy in a charge weight that is near maximum (accuracy being more important).

 

[Nature Boy]

But the number one seeks for a load may be somewhat arbitrary.

How so?

 

[RealGun]

How so?

If you decide your load is going to be 5.0 instead of 4.9 or 5.1, how scientific is that? Does it matter that you measure to .02 grain accuracy?

 

[Nature Boy]

If you decide your load is going to be 5.0 instead of 4.9 or 5.1, how scientific is that? Does it matter that you measure to .02 grain accuracy?

Depends on your goals. For me, pistol loads are a bit arbitrary. I want a load that’s safe and cycles all the pistols chambered for that cartridge. I use published data and conventional wisdom to set my parameters and if it meets the goal I call it good. I then load them on a progressive press with a powder checking die and crank out as many as I can. I’m not doing any powder trickling.

Precision rifle loading is a whole different goal. I’ll be following a load development process that requires analysis of powder charge, bullet seating depth and primer type. It requires tricking up to your intended powder charge and there’s nothing arbitrary about it.

 

[RealGun]

Depends on your goals. For me, pistol loads are a bit arbitrary. I want a load that’s safe and cycles all the pistols chambered for that cartridge. I use published data and conventional wisdom to set my parameters and if it meets the goal I call it good. I then load them on a progressive press with a powder checking die and crank out as many as I can. I’m not doing any powder trickling.

Precision rifle loading is a whole different goal. I’ll be following a load development process that requires analysis of powder charge, bullet seating depth and primer type. It requires tricking up to your intended powder charge and there’s nothing arbitrary about it.

But the intended powder charge, not measuring it, is somewhat arbitrary, less so after accuracy and chronograph data collection.

 

[Nature Boy]

But the intended powder charge, not measuring it, is somewhat arbitrary, less so after accuracy and chronograph data collection.

You would have to explain your process for me to understand your question, and to know what you’re referring to as “arbitrary”

 

[Varminterror]

I would have to actually time myself to give a precise answer, but probably about 1 to 1.5 minutes per loaded round (I'm loading on a progressive). I can usually load a box of 20 in 30 minutes.

How much of that time is specifically charge dispensing? I never actually add up my total time, would have to go back to the book to tally a total to tell the difference. My goal is generally that every step of my process should be attainable in around 6-10 seconds per piece, with as little hand moving as possible. So charging has become actually one of my slowest steps - 9 seconds for most charges, ~20-30 sec for loads I “trim” up or down. But everything else is very quick, so even being 9 sec per charge with my powder, charging is slower than most of the rest of my process (rate limiting step).

 

[Varminterror]

But the intended powder charge, not measuring it, is somewhat arbitrary, less so after accuracy and chronograph data collection.

There is absolutely nothing “arbitrary” about my powder charge target for any of my reloading processes, from blasting ammo to precision ammo - I do SOME form of load development to systematically establish a charge weight target for my loads.

Load development is a process which starts within relatively broad parameters and yields specificity. That isn’t arbitrary either at the beginning, and certainly isn’t arbitrary at the end.

I’m damned sure not pulling charge weights out of a hat, or haphazardly deciding a like the number 30.67 better than 27.82…

 

[wombat13]

How much of that time is specifically charge dispensing? I never actually add up my total time, would have to go back to the book to tally a total to tell the difference. My goal is generally that every step of my process should be attainable in around 6-10 seconds per piece, with as little hand moving as possible. So charging has become actually one of my slowest steps - 9 seconds for most charges, ~20-30 sec for loads I “trim” up or down. But everything else is very quick, so even being 9 sec per charge with my powder, charging is slower than most of the rest of my process (rate limiting step).

I don't have good data. My SWAG is at least 2/3 and maybe 3/4 of the time is related to the powder charge. It's a 3-station process (four stations in the press, but I don't crimp my rifle rounds). Once each station is occupied my process is:

1. Place unprimed brass in station 1.
2. Place bullet in mouth of brass in station 3.
3. Cycle down (size brass, drop powder, seat bullet).
4. Cycle up to seat primer (in station 1).
5. Remove primed brass from station 1 and confirm the primer is seated flush or below (have had some difficulty here and sometimes have to press the primer in again). Replace in station 1.
6. Remove brass from station 2.
7. Dump powder into weighing pan, tapping brass to make sure that all powder is in pan. Visually inspect to confirm no powder left in brass.
8. Place weighing pan on balance.
9. Trickle powder into pan until at target charge weight.
9a. Scoop out some powder if I overshoot the target charge. Trickle again. (This adds considerable time, so I really try to not overshoot).
10. Dump powder from weighing pan via funnel into brass (tapping funnel and brass to ensure all powder is in the brass).
11. Replace brass with powder in station 2.
12. Index the shell holder.

I estimate that steps 1-5 take about 20 seconds, maybe 30 if I have to press the primer in harder and check for flush again. Steps 10 and 11 are just a few seconds. These are just educated guesses based on my mimicking the motions. I would really have to time myself the next time I load. The only way to do that accurately would be to video myself and then watch the video and time each step.

 

[JFrank]

I don't understand this. The number I seek for a load is not arbitrary. It is somewhere between the minimum and maximum published charge weights for a given cartridge and bullet. I look for good accuracy in a charge weight that is near maximum (accuracy being more important).

This could be a separate thread

 

[RealGun]

You would have to explain your process for me to understand your question, and to know what you’re referring to as “arbitrary”

No, I don't.

 

[RealGun]

This could be a separate thread

Call it much ado about nothing on a slow day.

 

[Nature Boy]

No, I don't.

Fair enough

 

[Varminterror]

No, I don't.

If you’re not willing to elucidate your claim that target charge weight is “arbitrary,” for the rest of us, then you kinda have to just accept our responses that your claim is wrong.

Maybe you truly do have an application which allows truly arbitrary charge weights be used - for example, there are memes out there that load Development to achieve sub-MOA loads with Varget in 6 Dasher just requires dropping a case into a bucket of Varget and seating a bullet, or I often joke that 8208 used in 6.5 Grendel blasting ammo is “if it fits, it ships,” so those absurdisms could be construed as using or choosing “arbitrary” charge weight targets. But beyond those largely-sarcastic memes, there’s nothing arbitrary about scientific load development. Most of us have a stack of reloading manuals knee high or taller which prescribe why charge weights aren’t arbitrary.

Otherwise, our moderator said it pretty well last night:

I suggest those not interested in the topic of this thread busy themselves with another thread.

 

[RealGun]

If you’re not willing to elucidate your claim that target charge weight is “arbitrary,” for the rest of us, then you kinda have to just accept our responses that your claim is wrong.

Maybe you truly do have an application which allows truly arbitrary charge weights be used - for example, there are memes out there that load Development to achieve sub-MOA loads with Varget in 6 Dasher just requires dropping a case into a bucket of Varget and seating a bullet, or I often joke that 8208 used in 6.5 Grendel blasting ammo is “if it fits, it ships,” so those absurdisms could be construed as using or choosing “arbitrary” charge weight targets. But beyond those largely-sarcastic memes, there’s nothing arbitrary about scientific load development. Most of us have a stack of reloading manuals knee high or taller which prescribe why charge weights aren’t arbitrary.

Otherwise, our moderator said it pretty well last night:

I guess you didn't read my example. People bothered by the word arbitrary should look up its various meanings, depending on connotation. Naturally some loads are based on arbitrary decisions, guesses, tests, whatever; while some loads are based on more well-considered choices.

Think about how black powder was loaded, somewhat still. Consider accepting whatever the dipper set provides as closest to what one had in mind. Same thing with volumetric aperture sets. I think settling for 'close' or a swag is arbitrary, which is not necessarily a pejorative or indictment of ones competence as a reloader.

 

[Engineer1911]

Dissention is not allowed. Thought Police are on Duty.

Thank you

 

[Walkalong]

Dissention is absolutely allowed, just be civil, polite, and actually have a grownup debate.

That does not include being argumentative just for the sake of it.

Arguing is not civil debate, refusing to post productive answers/responses genuinely looking for the best answer(s) is not debate.