Tips for Setting up an RCBS 1010 scale

[Peter M. Eick]

I decided I needed a beam scale for some reason so I bought a 1010 scale yesterday from Midway. I have a nice digital but recently I have decided that I should also have a beam backup because I don't trust my lee safety scale that much. While it works, it requires a bit of futzing with it.

So if you have a 1010, do you have any tips on setting one up or usage tips?

I did order a lyman set of scale check weights because the ones that came with my RCBS digital scale have gotten pretty oxidized over the years from use.

 

[Matt Dillon]

You made a great choice, Peter. To set it up, place it on a level surface, preferably as close to eye level as possible. You zero it by using the screw on the left side of the scale, to move the pointer up and down. Without a check weight, I would set the pan on the scale, just as you would use it while weighing powder, then bring the pointer to zero by moving the counterweight on the beam to zero, and moving the counterweight on the right side to zero, and use the knob on the left to move the pointer to zero.

 

[Bad Flynch]

Well, Matt covered things for the most part. I will leave you with a couple of things from someone that was trained with an old equal-arm, free-swinging laboratory balance:

Fist is that for best results, his advice about being level is spot on. However make that side-to-side and for-and-aft, too.

These are really a type of unequal-arm balance, even though we use them as scales. Their pivoting surfaces are made of 1)knives (small triangular pieces of metal) and 2)planes (agate vee-blocks). One must be very careful not to dull the knives or accidentally mark a bearing. Therefore, place the knives in their resting spots in the bearings very carefully and do not bounce the beam around unnecessarily. When placing a load on the pan, remove the pan from the scale, load it, and gently place it back on the pan carrier, causing as little excess movement as possible.

Keep the dust cover on the thing when it is not in actual use and clean it often, especially the knives and bearings, with a Q-Tip.

I have the old Ohaus precursor to this very scale (and yours is really made by Ohaus) that I bought in the 1970s and it is still a useful balance. The only real difference is that it has a beam rider for the single grains and tenths, instead of a Dial-O-Grain. I prefer the bearm rider.

These balances are balanced at the factory on a dead-level surface by adding or subtracting shot pieces that are stored in the base of the pan carrier. Do not, under any circumstances, unscrew that little gizmo and tinker with it--things will never be right after that if you do. In the same vein, the vee-blocks are maintained in their holders by spring loading and if you take one out to clean it, extra thoroughly, and lose a spring, it means a trip back to the factory: just clean the vees with a Q-Tip on occasion.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Thanks.

I was thinking about setting it up on its own shelf so I could make sure it was level and stable since I knew that the vibration of the workbench would be bad for it.

I also have to say I will be curious just how accurate my digital RCBS really is. I bought the 1010 specifically as a check against the digital. I guess it is probably an expensive way of checking but at least it is easy to do.

Thanks again.

 

[Bad Flynch]

Peter,
I really do not want to disappoint you, but you will probably never be able to tell how accurate your scales really are. Unless you are prepared to buy a set of calibration weights certified by NIST, it is impossible to tell at home.

Best bet is to regularly calibrate your scale(s) by using the supplied weights that came with them. Most digital scales have calibration weights. Then buy the reference weight sets offered by the manufacturers. RCBS and Lyman, both, formerly offered these sets. They are close enough for reloading use.

BTW, when you are talking about calibrating balances and scales the following terminology applies:

Accuracy: how close a result is to the absolutely correct weight.

Precision: how close a group of results are to each other.

Both precision and accuracy count. A consistent or determinate error, such as one in accuracy can be accounted for and worked with. An irregular result, such as a group of readings that are very far from one another, cannot be worked with.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

It is not a disappointment about the calibration/precision.

I am making the following basic assumption, ie that the beam scale will be more accurate and repeatable then the digital. The calibration of my digital is easy, but it hinges on the assumption that my scale weights are correct. Now with the beam scale, I will have a second "opinion" about what is the correct weight. My assumption is that I can adjust and tune the 1010 to be more precise then my digital. This way I can use it to check and verify my digital and continue to use the speed of the digital over the beam.

The main problem I see with this logic is the old problem of having two watches. The main with one watch is sure of the time, the man with two watches, well he has a problem.

Thanks for the advice and comments.

 

[Bad Flynch]

>I am making the following basic assumption, ie that the beam scale will be more accurate and repeatable then the digital. The calibration of my digital is easy, but it hinges on the assumption that my scale weights are correct. Now with the beam scale, I will have a second "opinion" about what is the correct weight. My assumption is that I can adjust and tune the 1010 to be more precise then my digital. This way I can use it to check and verify my digital and continue to use the speed of the digital over the beam.<

Unfortunately, because of the nature of balances and the nature of these types of measurements, the assumptions are not valid. There is always some error in any measurement, whether or not we like that. The digital scale may very well be more accurate and repeatable, but you will never be able to tell because the digital readout will always round the numbers off to the nearest tenth of a grain. In addition, the sensitivity/sensibility of the scale may be better than the 10/10, but it will be impossible to tell. Because the scale rounds/displays only to tenths of a grain, you will never know if it is +/- 0.01, 0.02,0.03, etc., or any number in the hundredths place. The sensitivity may be worse; you will not be able to tell, because you cannot derive that basic figure.

Calibration weights are just that: calibration weights, and normally are far better than the instrument on which they are used.

The new 10-10 is a fine scale, but unless you can take the magnetic dampening out and use the free swing method, you will never resolve enough decimal places to derive the basic accuracy, precision, and sensitivity numbers for it, either.

Just buy a good set of calibration weights and trust them. You could, if you want, send them to NIST and pay the calibration fee. Then you would know within the tolerances of NIST. Basic calibration weight sets are good enuff for reloading any day of the week.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Thanks for the insights. I see where you are going with this and I understand what you are implying.

The real question is the reading precision of the digital (0.1 grn) vs. the possible ability to read the 1010 to an implied finer precision. Having not used the 1010 I am not sure if this is possible.

When I get the check weights, what I can do is take them to the office and measure them on one of the Mettler Balances we have around in the labs. I know that some of them are routinely calibrated so I expect that I could have a NIST like "link" without paying to have my test weights measured.

I do appreciate your comments and thoughts on this matter.

 

[ranger335v]

I am a retired electronic instruments tech. I reload with a 40+ year old Ohaus (Lyman branded) 1010 scale and have NO use for any digital scale selling for less than a few hundred dollars, and then only if they are properly calibrated by a properly equipped lab on at least an annual basis. NO "reloader" digital scale for me!

As stated above, what we need is absolute repeatablity (precision) from a scale. So long as we can repeat the charge of powder in a given load there is nothing to be gained by KNOWING if it is absolutely 56.6 gr. or 57.1 gr.

Ditto knowing a charge weight to a second decimal, the tenth grain level is more than sufficent for our purposes.

What affects both accuracy and precision is beam/bearing friction. We MUST keep the pivot knives and bearing grooves clean - I use an alcohol dipped toothpick to clean the bearings and Q-tips for the knives. AND don't let the ends of the knives rub against the stops on each end of the bearing holders - this one is hidden and seems to drive some folks up the walls from time to time!

E. Tech's Note: A magnetic scale's dampening system is just that, dampening for a moving beam. The (static) magnetic field has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT after the beam comes to rest, so the beam cannot be affected in any way.

 

[Bad Flynch]

>I expect that I could have a NIST like "link" without paying to have my test weights measured.<

That is a really good idea. Best way I know of to beat the cost game.

>The (static) magnetic field has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT after the beam comes to rest,<

Well, this is the mantra that was foisted on us to get us to buy them, but I remain unconvinced. However, the effect is less than what really counts, so it is a moot point. Thanks.