Recomendations for Powder Measure and bullet length

[Javaguzzi]

Currently using a Lee Perfect Powder Measure and I am not satisfied with the drops. It seems to throw different weights per drop. So I end measuring each charge to be sure the weight is correct. It's very inconsistent.

Is there a different brand powder measure that will throw a consistently accurate weight?

I understand that there is a max length that a bullet should not be past. What is the correct length for bullet to be set at Ex: 45acp max length is 1.275 so from that measurement what is the preferred length 1.270, 1.265 etc. ? or how far back from the max measurement?

 

[steve4102]

http://www.harrellsprec.com/

 

[EddieNFL]

Max length is the SAAMI spec for a particular cartridge. Depending on the bullet profile, you may be able to exceed max. The COAL is generally determined by the bullet profile, what functions in the firearm and what gives the best accuracy. My load for a 200SWC in .45ACP is 1.250.

What powder are you using? Some meter better than others.

 

[essayons21]

Cut one of these out of a tin can or coffee can lid. Or buy one from Midway. It will greatly improve the accuracy of your Lee powder measure. Make sure you have eliminated static cling by running 5 or so drops of powder before you start dropping for real. I raise the lever, tap it 3 times, drop the charge, tap it 3 times, repeat. I can throw 100 charges within .1 grains, usually with no variation at all. The only powder I have trouble with is stick powders, and that is still within .1 grains.

Take these simple steps and your Lee measure will work as well as any other, and save you some money too.

 

[Walkalong]

Harrells is the best, bar none. Pistol or Rifle. Then there are the Redding and RCBS measures with the correct insert for the job. Then there is everything else. IMHO of course.

For .45 ACP: Harrells Shuetzen, 10X Measure for Redding, Pistol insert for RCBS.

Welcome to THR

 

[Jumping Frog]

There are minor differences in powder measures by brand, with the Lee Perfect Powder Measure having average performance. But by far the most significant factor affecting drop accuracy is the powder type.

Here is an interesting article posted on LASC that performed statistically valid comparisons of various powder measure brands, powder types, and other related questions:

Chapter 6.4 Powders And Powder Measures

BTW, here is the introductory paragraph presenting their conclusion on powder baffles:

Head

Powder height in the reservoir does not affect the average weight of charges thrown. There is no purpose served in placing baffles in powder measure reservoirs, or in putting funnels in the reservoirs. This is counter to advertising claims made for several measures.

 

[Walkalong]

There is no purpose served in placing baffles in powder measure reservoirs, or in putting funnels in the reservoirs

They are wrong.

Using a baffle and keeping the powder above the baffle makes a difference vs starting with a full hopper and then letting it get low before adding powder. It also keeps the degree of "settled" consistent.

It does make a difference. Easy to test.

 

[EddieNFL]

My experiences mirror Walkalongs. I have RCBS, Hornady, Dillon and Harrel measures, nine total. The Harrell is the only one I haven't compared with and without. All operate better with.

As Frog mentioned, powder type is the biggest factor. IMR4064, AKA Lincoln Logs, requires a chainsaw.

 

[mbopp]

I've got an old Redding measure with the rifle and pistol measures. I found a PDF file for baffle templates, made one, and got more consistant drops.

 

[rcmodel]

Go here for powder measure baffle templates.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4540388&postcount=9

Your question concerning OAL is troubling.
It seems to indicate you don't fully understand there are different "correct" OAL's for every bullet weight and type.

1.275" is only the SAAMI Max length that will allow any load to fit in any magazine.
It does not take into account different bullet ogive shapes that might jam into the rifling if seated that long.

A 230 grain GI FMJ-RN might seat to 1.270" and be correct.
A 185 grain SWC might seat to 1.135" and be correct.

You get the suggested OAL length for the bullet you are using from a reloading manual.

rc

 

[SSgtG]

Can I ask what Caliber and type of shooting the reloads are for?

 

[wgaynor]

what powder are you using and what variance are you seeing? A small variance may be acceptable if you are loading for plinking and using a starting load. Also, make sure you are consistent in how you pull the arm on the powder dispenser.

I have the Lee perfect powder measure and started off having trouble with slight variances, but I believe it was due to the powder I used. I changed powders, and the problem was solved. It is consistent every time for me. (I measure every 10th charge to be sure).

 

[Javaguzzi]

According to the manual a 230gr FMJ bullets max OAL is 1.275. I am trying to figure out what the correct length should be for a standard 45 acp ?

 

[Walkalong]

As posted, 1.275 is the MAX O.A.L. for .45 ACP.

Most folks load 230 Gr RN anywhere from 1.265 to 1.270, give or take a bit. I shoot for 1.265 myself.

 

[EddieNFL]

And don't get wrapped up in an exact COAL for every round 'cause it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Jumping Frog]

They are wrong.

Using a baffle and keeping the powder above the baffle makes a difference vs starting with a full hopper and then letting it get low before adding powder. It also keeps the degree of "settled" consistent.

It does make a difference. Easy to test.

Have you? Tested it, that is?

They published their data in the article (did you read it?), and their published data supports their statistical conclusion. Do you have alternate data that disproves their conclusion?

Here is another example of published data showing a case where using a powder baffle increased the standard deviation: Baffle or not for Pro Auto Disk Power Measure

Please understand that I have no dog in this hunt, and I am not trying to be argumentative for the sake of internet argument. But I believe data before opinions.

Here is another example where I published similar data: Experience with Lee Adjustable Charge Bar and Lee Micro Disk

 

[Walkalong]

Have you? Tested it, that is?

Yes.

The baffle needs to be around 75% or so from the bottom of the hopper. (I have mine even higher) If it is down too low, it does not work as designed. It means you will be adding powder more often of course, but it does decrease powder weight variation.

You also must settle the powder before starting your testing, as you should be doing to get charge weights and loading anyway. It can be surprising how many throws it takes for some powders to settle down. And of course a good repetitive stroke is essential, whether you are doing it by hand, or it is being done by the machine.

Tested that, have you?

 

[Walkalong]

But by far the most significant factor affecting drop accuracy is the powder type.

Naturally. That stays the same of course. AA #2 is going to meter better than Clays no matter how the stars are aligned.

 

[EddieNFL]

Have you? Tested it, that is?

They published their data in the article (did you read it?), and their published data supports their statistical conclusion. Do you have alternate data that disproves their conclusion?

Here is another example of published data showing a case where using a powder baffle increased the standard deviation: Baffle or not for Pro Auto Disk Power Measure

Please understand that I have no dog in this hunt, and I am not trying to be argumentative for the sake of internet argument. But I believe data before opinions.

Here is another example where I published similar data: Experience with Lee Adjustable Charge Bar and Lee Micro Disk

As I mentioned, I did. I specifically recall the Dillon test as I had to cut the baffle out of the hopper (had an old cracked hopper). Running with no baffle, H322 had a spread as high as 0.5 grains. With a baffle it dropped +/- 0.1.

I've not seen the article, but just because they got a certain result doesn't mean it's written in stone. Some years ago one of the rags published an article about primers and how some loaders believed certain brands were "softer" than others. The article said all cups were created equal and the difference was in the mix. I primed a number of cases and fired them in a tuned S&W. FP marks on the CCIs were noticeably more shallow.

ETA: I've never used a Lee measure. Maybe it works better without a baffle.

 

[rfwobbly]

According to the manual a 230gr FMJ bullets max OAL is 1.275. I am trying to figure out what the correct length should be for a standard 45 acp ?

Java -

There's no such thing as a "standard" 45ACP. Your questions indicate there are possibly several things you need to know.....

• The 45ACP as shot in a 1911 style pistol has a huge preference for certain cartridge lengths, based on the nose shape of the bullet. So the concern is not just the cartridge you're shooting, but also the gun you're using. Some of the more modern pistol designs tilt the barrel slightly more and are not as sensitive, but some 1911's seem to have definite affinity for certain OALs, based on bullet nose shape. A lot of it also has to do with does your 1911 use a ramped barrel, and which type? Is the ramp polished or not? The point is, saying "45ACP" gives us about 1/10th the info we need.

• Operation of all auto pistols and accuracy of the round are directly linked to the pressure created in the chamber. The chamber pressure is driven by many variables, but the main 2 are a) amount of powder, and b) volume inside the case. Volume inside the case is a direct result of how deeply the bullet is seated into the case.

An XXXgr RN could have a drastically different bullet length from the same weight HP simply because to make a HP you have to subtract material from the bullet interior and add it onto the base. If you are shooting a 1911, and confined to a strict OAL range, then a longer bullet at the SAME OAL is going to seat deeper, thereby reducing volume inside the case and raising pressure. That's one reason different bullets need different amounts of powder, even at the same bullet weight. The attached graphic deals with RN vs. FP, but the idea is similar.

Perhaps if you could be more specific about your gun, bullet, powder, etc we could help you more.

 

[Jumping Frog]

You also must settle the powder before starting your testing, as you should be doing to get charge weights and loading anyway. It can be surprising how many throws it takes for some powders to settle down. And of course a good repetitive stroke is essential, whether you are doing it by hand, or it is being done by the machine.

Tested that, have you?

Yep, I agree with all that, and I have also tested it.

For example, when I tested the adjustable charge bar and the double disk kit, I explicitly examined how many initial powder charges it took before the results were statistically significant. I measured 120 consecutive powder drops and looked at the first 10 drops, the first 20 drops, the first 30 drops, the first 40 drops, and the first 50 drops, versus the last 60 drops. I found with 95% confidence that it took 20 drops to reach equilibrium using those powders in those charge volumes in that powder measure on that day.