Erratic Beam Scale

Status
Not open for further replies.
As higgite implied, you need to refine the way you are describing the problem. The scale can't read 1.0 grain low with only the 0.5 grain check weight in the pan.

.
The scale has +/- ability by the "hashmarks", the lateral marks on the frame at the pointer end. The center hashmark is "zero". The marks above the mid point are "plus" and those below are "minus". The marks are in .1 gr increments. So yes, a beam scale can read "minus"...

I believe I would clean the scale well; the pivot bearings and knife. and wipe down/clean the beam and adjusting screws, etc. Leveling the surface the surface the scale sits on may/may not help but it wouldn't hurt...
 
The scale has +/- ability by the "hashmarks", the lateral marks on the frame at the pointer end. The center hashmark is "zero". The marks above the mid point are "plus" and those below are "minus". The marks are in .1 gr increments. So yes, a beam scale can read "minus"...

I believe I would clean the scale well; the pivot bearings and knife. and wipe down/clean the beam and adjusting screws, etc. Leveling the surface the surface the scale sits on may/may not help but it wouldn't hurt...

While a scale can show a minus on the scale if a weight is below what ever is placed in the pan does not match what the poise is set for ....

However .. If a scale is zeroed with nothing in the pan and it really does read "zero" then the beam should move up into the plus side when a weight is added that is detected ....not down into the negative side ...
 
The way I have read his posts he is putting his check weights in his pan, setting the scale for that weight and is referencing the pointer on the end. I think he missed a decimal in his typing of 1gr but he hasn't answered that yet. His terminology definitely needs some refinement.
But anyways,
I just put my 10 gram check weight in my Redding #1 scale and the set it for 154.3 gr. The pointer on the end reads -1 increment, below zero, it should be .5 below or .5 above for = + or - .1 in a perfect world, but that is only if the scale is perfectly graduated, most of them aren't.
That is what I think he is trying to say.
But until he clarifies this it is still up in the air.
 
I think he missed a decimal in his typing of 1gr but he hasn't answered that yet. .

Same here, kinda why asked previously.....
Are you mistaking the tenth of a grain increments on the left side as grain increments?

Iffin' it is indeed tenths and not whole and half grains, it is within the stated accuracy of the scale and not really a legitimate concern, as it's a taken, that using proper reloading procedures and techniques, that is acceptable accuracy for a scale. One reason published loads tell us to start low and work up while looking for signs of overpressure is this variance in scales. Odds are, in a modern firearm, a tenth of a grain is not going to be the difference between a safe load and a grenade, +/-.....especially if that load is a published recipe has been properly worked up. My RCBS scale is about a .1 gr low all across it's capacity. I know it from using checkweights and double checking charge weights with a digital scale. I just compensate for this when developing new loads. Since I rarely if ever load to max, .1 gr is not a concern for me.
 
DB, just for clarity, can you post a pic of the scale while it is weighing one of the check weights that gives a negative reading and tell us what you interpret that reading to be?

I repeat:

DB, just for clarity, can you post a pic of the scale while it is weighing one of the check weights that gives a negative reading and tell us what you interpret that reading to be?
 
Do you live where there is a high metal content in the ground?
If so, it messes with anything that uses magnets if the content is high enough.
This is a grasping at straws thing.
 
From the last picture, if there is nothing in the pan, it appears that the scale is not zeroed.
Turn the black screw clockwise until it reads zero.
 
I think your check weights are off. Some of mine are WAY off. Here is my 10gr check weight on a beam and digital scale.

Scale zero'd
IMG_20190106_162249.jpg

10gr in the pan
IMG_20190106_162346.jpg

Beam set to 10gr and it's reading low
IMG_20190106_162358.jpg

Beam set to 9.3gr and it's just a tad high now
IMG_20190106_162445.jpg

What the weight actually weighs according to my cheap digital scale. It reads the same on multiple scales, btw.
IMG_20190106_162552.jpg
 
Using a set of RCBS check weights and starting with a "zeroed" scale, the scale indicated the following:

0.5 grain weight reads -1.0 grain
1.0 grain weight reads -1.0 grain
5.0 grain weight reads -1.0 grain
10.0 grain weight reads -1.0 grain
15.0 grain weight reads 0 grains
20.0 grain weight reads somewhere between negative 0.5 and 0 grains
40 grain weight reads +0.5 grains
50.0 grain weight reads somewhere between negative 0.5 and 0 grains

Hope that makes it clearer.

That’s pretty clearly a nonlinear error, so if you correct it at one point you will make it worse at another.

If you were always x.x gn low or high you can add or subtract weight from the hanger but that is not what I am seeing from your results.
 
I don't know what to say, guys; I can only report what I observe. However, I did screw up the decimal points in my original post. Where I was stating "0.5 grains" I was really intending 0.05 grains. I apologize.

I cleaned the bearings and knife edges with alcohol and a nylon brush (all I had at the moment), and checked the level of the bunch with a torpedo level, which, much to my surprise, showed the benchtop perfectly level. I couldn't believe it, so I rechecked it in several places-all perfectly level (bubble completely inside the lines.)

So I zeroed the scale again and noted the following results, all of which, you will notice are within the 1/10 grain margin of error that Redding claims.

The 0.5 grain weight reads right on 0. (or weighs 0.5 grains)
The 1.0 grain weight reads right on 0. (or weighs 1.0 grains)
The 5.0 grain weight reads right on 0. (or weighs 5.0 grains)

The 10 grain weight reads +0.05 (or weighs 10.05 grains, which it doesn't because it's a check weight, and I have nothing to verify the weight of the check weights, so I must assume that the weight weighs 10 grains, and the scale is off by +.05 grain)
The 15 grain weight reads +0.05 (or weighs 15.05 grains. if the 10 grn weight really is .05 grn too heavy, it would show here as well because I placed the 10 grn and 5 grn weights together on the scale.)

Here, I rechecked the zero of the scale by removing all weights and setting the counterpoises to zero. The scale returned to -0.05 (or the pan lost 0.05 grains of weight, or the scale simply doesn't return to zero.)

At this point, I re-zeroed the scale.

The 20 grain weight reads a hair over 0. (or weighs a hair over 20 grains)
The 30 grain weight reads right on 0. (or weighs 30 grains) (This tends to refute the idea that the 10 grn weight is too heavy and weighs 10.05, as discussed earlier, because, for 30 grains, I placed the 10 and 20 grain weights on the scale at the same time. If the 10 grn weight weighed 10.05 grns, then the 30 grn would have read 30.05 grns.)
The 40 grain weight reads a hair over 0. (or weighs a hair over 40 grains)
The 50 grain weight reads right on +0.1 (or weighs 50.1 grains)

All of this is within the 1/10 (0.1) grain margin of error specified by Redding, so cleaning the pivot points helped. I'm not sure sending this back will be of any help, unless it's to correct the not returning to zero issue.) Is it standard procedure to constantly re-zero these types of scales? Should I "zero" the scale with the check-weights on the pan, rathe than an empty pan? (In other words, I'f I know I'm loading 43.3 grains of powder, should I zero the scale with a 40 grn check weight in the pan and then start weighing? Ignore the empty pan zero?)
 
The way I have read his posts he is putting his check weights in his pan, setting the scale for that weight and is referencing the pointer on the end. I think he missed a decimal in his typing of 1gr but he hasn't answered that yet. His terminology definitely needs some refinement.
But anyways,
I just put my 10 gram check weight in my Redding #1 scale and the set it for 154.3 gr. The pointer on the end reads -1 increment, below zero, it should be .5 below or .5 above for = + or - .1 in a perfect world, but that is only if the scale is perfectly graduated, most of them aren't.
That is what I think he is trying to say.
But until he clarifies this it is still up in the air.
Correct. And yes, I misses a decimal place when typing up my results.
 
Of course it can, no one is saying it can't. We are saying that if the scale is zeroed, and something, anything with any weight is placed on the pan, the only way for the pointer to go is up with a properly working beam balance.
You're assuming the scale is working properly. I am assuming that it is not.
 
I repeat:

DB, just for clarity, can you post a pic of the scale while it is weighing one of the check weights that gives a negative reading and tell us what you interpret that reading to be?
I started out taking photos (all I have is a DSLR, so it's challenging to get the images from there to here.) But in my second test after cleaning, I no longer saw the negative readings, so I didn't photograph the scale at every weight check.
 
So you are afraid the difference of one kernel of Varget is going to...?

Or the difference of six little spheres of CFE?

I don't want to say 'don't sweat the small stuff' , but you'll enjoy handloading more if I do. :)

Your hold will affect more than the poor little scale will. Take it easy on him, he's trying.:D
 
Glad you got this all sorted out !

I been playing with my two scales ... a RCBS 5-10 I purchased around 1970 ... and the Franklin digital that I got for a gift a couple years ago ...

just happened my wife picked me up a Deluxe set of RCBS check weights ... I had a cheap set ... it has been raining here and cool ... So I set up both scales ... the RCBS checked out within 1/10 grain of the check weights except for when I combined all the weights .... it checked up 3/10 difference of the 506.2 total ... The Franklin surprisingly checked out close but would get different numbers by lifting and putting the weight back on ....

I am happy with both results .... You should be happy with your Redding ....it is good to go...
 
New
I don't know what to say, guys; I can only report what I observe. However, I did screw up the decimal points in my original post. Where I was stating "0.5 grains" I was really intending 0.05 grains. I apologize.

Ok, now I am confused. Your scale doesn’t even have a resolution to the hundredth of a grain (unless you have added something to it). A single kernel of an extruded powder can weigh .02 grains so being off .05 won’t be a big deal at all.
 
Ok, now I am confused. Your scale doesn’t even have a resolution to the hundredth of a grain (unless you have added something to it). A single kernel of an extruded powder can weigh .02 grains so being off .05 won’t be a big deal at all.
I'm "guesstimating" there. When I say 0.05, the pointer is essentially close to half way between o and .1.
 
Ok, now I am confused. Your scale doesn’t even have a resolution to the hundredth of a grain. . .
Reading to half of the smallest tick value is acceptable technique. Smallest tick is 0.1 grain, therefore resolution is 0.05 grain.

Resolution =/= Accuracy!
 
You should be happy with your Redding ....it is good to go...

I think so to. I think it was sticking and cleaning it mostly resolved that. As for it not returning to zero, I can compensate for that by zeroing more frequently. The other lesson learned here is not to just leave it out on the bench when not in use. I dug out the original box, and that's where I'm storing it from now on.
 
Reading to half of the smallest tick value is acceptable technique. Smallest tick is 0.1 grain, therefore resolution is 0.05 grain.

Resolution =/= Accuracy!


Don’t be fooled that resolution = accuracy or for that matter that precision = accuracy.

Not that it matters one way or another in most cases.

In any case I would not call readings off by .05 gn “erratic”, lots of scales couldn’t even recognize that and or would cover them up anyway.

 
I think so to. I think it was sticking and cleaning it mostly resolved that. As for it not returning to zero, I can compensate for that by zeroing more frequently. The other lesson learned here is not to just leave it out on the bench when not in use. I dug out the original box, and that's where I'm storing it from now on.
If you want to leave the scale on the bench I'm fairly sure this cover will work but I hope someone here has tried to verify it.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/557920/rcbs-dust-cover-for-502-505-scale
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top