"Match" Powder Measures any better?

[mbruce]

RCBS and Redding have "Competition" and "Match" grade powder measures....they are getting close to a Harrells' price, but that's a side point.

Does anyone know if these "more-precise" measures are more precise, or easier to throw more consistently than the less expensive RCBS/Redding models?

Thanks

 

[LiveLife]

I use C-H 502 micrometer measure and a Los Angeles Silhouette Club member did a powder measure comparison years back and got the following results - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/c-h-502-micrometer-powder-measure.761239/

CH4D still sells C-H 502 for $91 and the base threads are standard 7/8-14 to fit any press (I got mine to use with Dillon 650) - https://www.ch4d.com/products/equipment/powder-tools/502


Standard deviation based on 20 drops using following powders:

SD - C-H / Redding / Harrell / B&M / RCBS / Lee / Hornady / Lyman 55

AA #9 - 0.000 - 0.000 - 0.000 - 0.000 - 0.032 - 0.000 - 0.043 - 0.037
I 4227 - 0.025 - 0.032 - 0.038 - 0.102 - 0.000 - 0.051 - 0.031 - 0.061
Unique - 0.145 - 0.127 - 0.150 - 0.100 - 0.129 - 0.142 - 0.139 - 0.185
I 4198 - 0.138 - 0.177 - 0.103 - 0.125 - 0.169 - 0.141 - 0.170 - 0.114
SR4759 - 0.128 - 0.099 - 0.151 - 0.127 - 0.146 - 0.157 - 0.135 - 0.205

Average - 0.087 - 0.087 - 0.088 - 0.091 - 0.095 - 0.098 - 0.104 - 0.120

 

[daboone]

I've collected 7 different PMs, one of them is a Harrells. Each one has powders it meters very well and powders it doesn't. Even the lowly Lee PPM does a better job of metering stick powders than the Harrell. Each one of the PMs I have does well with ball/flattened ball powders. Some have difficulty with flake powders and most of them choke on large extruded/stick powders. The advantage of a high end PM is the ease of adjustment or the press it works with.
If you want precise metering then get an electronic powder measure. I don't believe my electronic measure produces any better results on target than anyone of my other PMs, for a specific powder in a trusted PM.

 

[mbruce]

Thank you, bds. I will give them a call on Monday. Their price is very reasonable and I'm fond of smaller companies.

I use C-H 502 micrometer measure and a Los Angeles Silhouette Club member did a powder measure comparison years back and got the following results - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/c-h-502-micrometer-powder-measure.761239/

CH4D still sells C-H 502 for $91 and the base threads are standard 7/8-14 to fit any press (I got mine to use with Dillon 650) - https://www.ch4d.com/products/equipment/powder-tools/502

Thank you, daboone. I'm more into an OCW range and don't get too bothered by safe variances. I've been reloading pistol for several years, just getting into rifle reloading. It seems people take powder measures used for rifle reloading to a whole other level. ha. I'm just looking for safe variances.

I've collected 7 different PMs, one of them is a Harrells. Each one has powders it meters very well and powders it doesn't. The advantage of a high end PM is the ease of adjustment or the press it works with.
If you want precise metering then get an electronic powder measure. I don't believe my electronic measure produces any better results on target than anyone of my other PMs, for a specific powder in a trusted PM.

 

[LiveLife]

And one of few remaining USA companies that has not gone global.

 

[cfullgraf]

With 20 years of use, I feel my Redding 10-X is more precise throwing hand gun level charges than my RCBS Uniflow or Hornady L-N-L. So much so, that I modified a 10-X for use on my progressive presses. But, my testing methods are not very scientific and have lots of "touchy/feely" data points.

On the other hand, I do not feel the 10-X is any more precise than my RCBS Little Dandy powder measure. The 10-X replaced the Little Dandy because the Little Dandy is not infinitely variable in the adjustment of the measuring cavity.

I have and use four different drum style powder measures from different manufacturers. One distinguishing feature of all of them is the powder metering cavities are all different diameters. As a result, I have found that different measures seem to be more consistent with different ranges of powder charges.

I use the 10-X for handgun loading. The RCBS Uniflow works well with 223 Remington level charges and a discontinued Midway Indispensable powder measure with the large metering cavity works well with 30-06 level powder charges.

All of my drum style powder measures have micrometer adjusters and powder baffles. The micrometer adjusters do not make the powder measure any more accurate or precise. The micrometer adjusters do make returning to a powder charge quicker and easier and make dialing the powder charge in easier and quicker. With some powder measures, the micrometer adjuster is an "add on" option that raises the cost of the measure.

One final disclaimer, there are several powder measures that I have not used such as the Redding BR30 or Lyman 55 so I cannot comment on them.

 

[Walkalong]

Technique is very important for consistent powder drops. Some measures do better than others. It's hard to compare them if you don't have them.

I was using a Redding BR-30 in Benchrest and having success, but just had to have the "best" measure out there at the time, so I bought one. It was expensive and a lot of money for me. I could not make it meter any better than the BR-30, so I sold it and continued using the BR-30, which I still use today. The price gar between measure by Redding, RCBS, etc and the big name "match" powder measures has narrowed a lot since then.

But the bottom line for me is we don't have to have zero spread with powder in pistol or rifle to shoot great. When we get to shooting past around 600 yards (Estimate), excellent ES & SD numbers help keep bullet drop consistent, more precise charges helps those, and many people weigh those charges to be exact.

 

[mbruce]

Thank you for your replies.

I'm going to try a C-H 502. If it doesn't work out, and I "know" it's not me, then i'll just try another one.

 

[Bart B.]

I read an article some years ago stating there's a bigger spread in the several measures used by all the people using them than the worst one had by itself. Half a dozen or more measures were used in the test. Point being, some people have a better technique than others.

However, most people can learn to use most measures that dispenses extruded/stick rifle powders to a 3/10ths grain spread at worst. Ball rifle powders to 2/10ths grain spread. "Repeatable and gentle" was the author's conclusion as the solution.

Sometimes a big muzzle velocity spread will produce better accuracy at short and long ranges compared to medium range. That happens often when bullets leave on the muzzle axis up swing. Slower bullets leave later at higher angles that compensates for their greater drop down range. Tuners on barrel muzzles adjust back and forth to "tune" the vibration frequency of the muzzle axis for the load used to get smallest groups on target.

 

[rfwobbly]

The problem is that most powder measures, meter by volume. However, in reloading we want powder by weight. There is no way to get accurate weight from a volume dispenser except by having consistent density.

Consistent density can only be achieved except by consistent and well-practiced technique. This is the basis of what Mr Along has correctly pointed out.

The marketing tells us if we only spend the money on the Porsche or Farrari we'll be the best drivers in the world. But the reality is...


Ultimately, if we need exact powder measurements by weight, then the best powder measures available are going include a powder scale.

 

[Sunray]

"Competition" and "Match" in the name of any reloading kit is marketing. Like Walkalong says, technique matters more than brand.
"...one of few remaining USA companies that..." More that they're not owned by Vista. Mind you, Redding is private too.

 

[mbruce]

Initially I was after the most mechanically consistent --for rifles-- out of the bigger brands. Not looking for exact throws, just as minimal variances as I can obtain. Then I saw all this "competition ready" "benchmark" "Match" series of powder measures, and wasn't really buying into the hype, but wasn't sure. Saw how the prices of these "match ready" throwers are comparable to Harrell's. So, then I was open to Harrell's, and now C-H 502. If a $100 C-H 502, can produce the same minimal variances as a $165 Redding "Match Ready" measure, then I'll take the C-H! And vice versa, I'll spend the extra $65 if Redding is capable of being more mechanically consistent. I will practice my technique --but want to do so on a mechanically consistent measure.

 

[Fatelvis]

That powder measure write-up is very interesting! I appreciate when members put in time and effort to evaluate products or techniques, and reports the results to us.

 

[Skeet 25]

Very interesting reading to a new reloader of rifle ammo. Not even a Neil Jones pm can get a 100% satisfactory rating . From my research powder make and throwing style has more to do with a pm accuracy than high cost.

 

[FROGO207]

Interestingly I have a selection of powder measures and find that my old Ideal 55 (now Lyman) will give the best repeatable throws when I "tune" it by setting the cavities to optimal widths for each propellant I have found during experimentation, especially with large flake powders in handgun charges. Noting the settings and returning to them are the way to go here. Also boringly repeatable moves while operating a measure will work wonders with the bottom line as far as repeatability I have found. I even have custom scoops I made and will practice weighing the drops with them to see what the best technique is to be consistent and then follow it religiously. YMMV

 

[Bart B.]

A load having the lowest spreads of charge weight, velocity and pressure spread doesn't always produce best accuracy. Theory often says it should. If it doesn't happen, then something is different with the bullets shot that isn't happening to the same lot of bullets shot with bigger spreads of charge weight, velocity and pressure.

That happened with the loads testing Sierra Bullets' first lot of 155 grain 30 caliber Palma bullets. Theory was the bullets were slammed too hard into the rifling when fired distorting and unbalancing them with those low powder charge parameters. Ball powders had those wonderful parameters. Stick powders did not but shot the same bullets into smaller groups.

 

[mustanggt]

Just got the Redding BR30 measure a few months ago. The RCBS model couldn't be consistent at all no matter my technique. The BR30, with ball powders, is dead nuts on. It never varies more than a tenth of a grain. It even does well with stick or flake powders but I use my Chargemaster for them. I came to the point of getting it because I was getting too much inconsistencies in SD and ES from the chrony.