beam scale vs digital

[benek]

Been using a Ohaus 10.0.5 beam powder scale for over 50 plus years. Recently treated myself to a Hornady GS 1000 digital.
Drop a charge of, say 4.1 grain, 231 powder from my RCBS Uniflow, and the digital weighs in at 4.1 to 4.3 while the beam shows a consistent 4.1 (occasionally 4.2)
Checked batteries and calibration.
Need I be concerned, or accept this fluctuation.? I ask because 4.2 is shown as the max load for my wc's, and I don't like seeing 4.3.
Thanks in advance

[462]

Benek,
Digital scales have their place, but they still operate within a +/- range, and there is always the problem of weak or dead batteries...it happened to me, last night.

I use both, and check one against the other. For the light powder weight, wadcutter loads, I prefer the beam scale and powder trickler.

[rhbrink]

I'll second 462 I do like the Digital for weighting boolits, making a quick check on powder or something. Serious scale work and I go to the balance beam, and not only that but I can weight out powder much faster with the balance beam as opposed to waiting for the digital to make up its mind over a + or - one tenth of a grain.

[Le Loup Solitaire]

Hi and welcome to the forum. I have used Redding beam scales for 1/2 century; I have check weights for them that were made using pharmacy scales. They've always been exact and have never varied. Occasionally I have set both scales up and weighed charges first on one and then on the other...same readings. I have no plans for a digital scale and can't honestly comment on them. Other users talk about warmup time differences, battery condition, ambient temperatures etc. that effect performance. Others sometime swear by them, or at them. This is just a personal opinion, but getting powder charges right is one of the last places or steps that have to be observed carefully, that don't need to be the subject of controversies or dubious hype that is printed on a box. I'll stick to the beams. LLS

[benek]

Nice to see people with the same mindsets as I. I personally love the beam over the digital, and will continue to rely on it for accuracy.
If it ain't broke - etc etc
Thanks for the quik comments !

[Crash_Corrigan]

I finally boke down and bought one of those cheapo digital scales. Good for weighting and sorting cast boolits. Not so good to weigh charges. Mine always goes into a mode where I hafta push a button 5 times to get to measure the load in grains every time I put a new charge into the pan.

Seems to negate the speed aspect of the scale? Accurate yes, slow yes, better than the RCBS 10-10-10 beam scale NO!

[Lead Fred]

I bought one once, tried to use it for a few months.
Gave it away.

It seems they dont like to work if its too cold/hot, and I got real tired of it having to warm up.

Went back to my 50 year old beam

[Doc Highwall]

Most scales have a accuracy of +- .1 grain unless you want to spend $300.00 or more. Electronic scales are hard to beat when you have to weigh a lot of things like cases or bullets to separate into lots. When I use mine I have a known weight that I use to check the accuracy of the scale like the ones made by Lyman or RCBS.

[alamogunr]

I had been thinking about starting a thread asking about digital scales. Glad I ran across this one. I will stick with my RCBS10-0-10.
John
W.TN

[benek]

Ditto on sticking with the Reliable !!
Will use the digital for bullet/caseweight only.
Why mess with something that has never failed me yet

[Mike W1]

Think it was Handloaders Digest years ago that had 2 different articles on weighing things with the balance beam scales which was very enlightening to me. A number of the pros surveyed in the one article weren't doing too good a job of using a scale. I concluded if one didn't have a set of accurate check weights you didn't really know what you were getting accuracy-wise.

My old Lyman-Ohaus 1010 is dead on with the check weights. I have an older Pact BBK and I only use it for weighing bullets after running extensive tests with both scales. Personally I'm not real impressed with Pact as far as customer service either.

Both my scales when used sit on small "platforms" I made that have plate aluminum top and leveling screws so they sit perfectly level. The one for the BBK is even hooked to a good electrical ground and the one for the 1010 sits at eye level and has a magnafying glass mounted for easier reading.

[Ben]

You want to bet on the reliability of gravity or an electronic mechanism made by someone in Taiwan making .40 an hr. ?

I've tried a Pact Electronic scale.......it reminded me of these politicians, - - - you could never be certain when it was telling the truth.

I think I'll stay with my balance beam.....it always seems to tell me the truth.

Ben

[cajun shooter]

I have and use 3 electronic scales. They are great for speed if you have the correct brand. I have found the Digi-Weigh 100 to be one of the best. Now having said that I will agree that if I was weighing out max rifle loads or max anything to do with gunpowder I would use my 1010 scale. When sorting a fresh load of cast bullets I can weigh 10 bullets on the electronic before the beam stops moving on the 1010 though. There is a place on your bench for both. All three of my scales give the same readings.

[Bent Ramrod]

I checked my Dillon D-Terminator and my RCBS Reloading Scale with Class "S" weights and both were in good agreement, both with each other and with the actual weights, out to the limit of the weights (20 gm, about 308.6 gr). However, the Dillon is pretty useless for trickling up powder charges to that last tenth of a grain. Typically, it will hold back, giving no change in reading, as powder is trickled on, then it will jump 0.3 gr or more. So I use the D-Terminator for all-up weighing, such as checking charges thrown by powder measures or sorting boolits or cases, and use the RCBS for load development or other reloading that requires weighing of charges.

In point of fact, I couldn't do without both of them anymore.

[AZ-Stew]

Digital scales can be affected by air currents and static electricity charges on their plastic parts in addition to the warmup issues mentioned earlier. Most electronic scales have a plastic cover to deflect the air currents, as well as to act as a dust cover.

My Lyman DPS 1200 has a difficult time with charges under 20 grains, but reads with my two Lyman balance beam scales for charges over 20 grains.

Someone suggested that I wipe down my scale with a drier sheet to get rid of the static. I've done the wipe but haven't yet checked the scale with light charges. Too busy casting with a new mould. I'll get around to it in the next couple of days.

I beat the electronic warmup period by leaving mine plugged in and turned on at all times.

Regards,

Stew

[Dennis Eugene]

bought a digtal, tried it for a while been sittin' on the shelf ever since. I guess that's what they mean when they say they have there place. Can't compare to my Ohaus 1010. Dennis

[garandsrus]

I have a PACT electronic scale and like it very much. It came with check weights and has a calibration sequence you can use if needed. It is supposed to be accurate to within .1 grain. My testing would indicate that it is.

John

[mike in co]

Been using a Ohaus 10.0.5 beam powder scale for over 50 plus years. Recently treated myself to a Hornady GS 1000 digital.
Drop a charge of, say 4.1 grain, 231 powder from my RCBS Uniflow, and the digital weighs in at 4.1 to 4.3 while the beam shows a consistent 4.1 (occasionally 4.2)
Checked batteries and calibration.
Need I be concerned, or accept this fluctuation.? I ask because 4.2 is shown as the max load for my wc's, and I don't like seeing 4.3.
Thanks in advance

both instruments are plus or minus 0.1......

you cannot reliably check one with the other.

cannot be done......

your beam at 4.2 is only capable of 4.1 to 4.3...no mater what it says.....same for the digiital.
iif you want 4.1 and no 4.3 buy a better scale.....or shoot 4.0 with what you have.

better scale will be a bunch more expensive.

mike in co

[AZ-Stew]

While Mike is technically correct, the only way to be sure any scale is "accurate" is to have it calibrated at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Same goes for your check weights. I'm sure there are some Lee balance beam scales out on the benches of handloaders that are both accurate and repeatable. It may be a small number of all the ones ever produced, but I'm sure they're out there.

In reality, it doesn't matter. If I work up a load using X value of powder weight as indicated by my scale and it shoots accurately in my firearm, and if my scale will repeat the value of X every time I use it, I will get accurate ammo, regardless of whether or not it checks "accurate" with a NIST calibration. In the vast majority of cases, +/- 0.1 grain variation in charge weight will make NO difference in the outcome. Therefore, a precisely calibrated, "accurate" powder measure is not needed. All you need is one that's repeatable enough to reproduce your handloads every time you use it. Since variations in powder lots and primer brands or lots can have more of an effect on your handloads than +/- 0.1 grain variation in your scale's measurement capability, scale "accuracy" is a moot point. The VAST majority of balance beam scales are more capable than +/- 0.1 grain repeatability and accuracy. That's good enough.

Regards,

Stew

[cricco]

I use a 5-0-5 scale. I tried a digital, and it just wasn't accurate. I'll stick with a beam scale.

[Geraldo]

I use both, my old RCBS 5-0-5 and an early Dillon electronic. When I checked them they were both in agreement. Usually I use the Dillon for quick checks when loading a lot of rounds, but lately I've tried it with my trickler and it's worked well.

[mike in co]

i do agree with the basics of what stew said.....but the poster has two scales and they do not agree, and he never said what the load was so we do not know if a tenth is an issue or not.
primers vary lot to lot/powder varies lot to lot. bullet weights vary in one box. case weight /volume varies.

having said that.....there are still those few of us that are ammo crafters, not reloaders. for us precision is part of the process. beam and cheap electronic scales just don't make it. plus or minus a tenth is not acceptable.

there is a big difference in blasting pistol ammo and precision rifle ammo. heck some guys even do precision pistol.

just my opinion


mike in co

[AZ-Stew]

The benchresters don't even bother to weigh. They have precision measures that will do less than +/- 0.1 grains, but they're never EXACTLY the same from throw-to-throw. Even for "crafted" rifle ammo, +/- 0.1 variation in powder charge will not be seen on target for most shooters with most rifles. Too many other variables. Disassemble some factory loads sometime and check the variation. I've seen them vary all over town and still shoot decently.

I don't just throw my ammo together. That's why I always call it "handloading', rather than "reloading". I take care in my assembly of ammo. But I've learned what matters and what doesn't. Unless you're shooting a true benchrest rifle, with weighed cases that have been put through all the normal "benchrest" processes, with benchrest-quality bullets, fired by a world-class shooter, +/- 0.1 grain doesn't matter. Warren Page went a whole season of true benchrest competition without cleaning primer pockets, a true gasping no-no by all accounts, and could fine NO difference in performance. As I said, some things don't matter. And with off the shelf hunting rifles, MANY things don't matter. The rifle will shoot an inch at a hundred, and no manner of manipulation of the ammo will make it shoot any tighter. Been there, done that, with 50+ rifles. That's the situation here for the great majority of subscribers to this board. You can obsess over powder scale accuracy and repeatability and "crafting" your ammo all you want, but for most folks here it will never matter. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to make this issue plain and clear in practical terms for most of the shooters here.

Regards,

Stew

[benek]

Mike in co
I did indicate that I was loading 231 at 4.1 and the variance was 4.1 to 4.3, depending on which scale I used.
It was under a cast 148 gr wc which Hornady indicated 4.3 was a max load.
Appreciate all the input/comments that reinforced my personal feelings that the beam is still the way to go.
Will still use the digital for bullet/case/misc weights and leave the touchy powder issue for my tried and true Ohaus 10.0.5
Regards to all !

[HeavyMetal]

Have both types and use a beam scale to load and the digital for weighing boolits and case's.

The digital is just plain faster for boolit weighing and the + or- a tenth of a grain is no biggie for a cast boolit. Not taking a week to make sure I have no lite or heavies is much more important to me.

I prefer the "accuracy" of a beam scale while doing load set up. Truth of the matter is my beam scale ISN'T ANY MORE ACCURATE THAN THE DIGITAL scale but because the beam actually sits still on zero it makes me feel a lot better about the size of my powder charge.

I never load to the point that a tenth of a grain would be disasterous, heck I have no idea how I would be able to predict such a load or event and have no plans to try!

That's my take on scales.

[mike in co]

Mike in co
I did indicate that I was loading 231 at 4.1 and the variance was 4.1 to 4.3, depending on which scale I used.
It was under a cast 148 gr wc which Hornady indicated 4.3 was a max load.
Appreciate all the input/comments that reinforced my personal feelings that the beam is still the way to go.
Will still use the digital for bullet/case/misc weights and leave the touchy powder issue for my tried and true Ohaus 10.0.5
Regards to all !

but need an oal to work with est pressure to see if it is an issue or not...38 or 357 ?

[sgabel1]

I agree with HeavyMetal about accuracy. The beam balance is magnetically dampened and appears to stay closer to zero. I am a chemist that has worked in Labs since the early eighties. Digital balances are great but only if you buy a commercial lab balance. Previously I had been using a Lyman 1000 beam.

I finally found A used Mettler PC 180 balance that was last made in 1982. It is digital and weighs +/- 1 mg. If my beam balance were converted to grs the accuracy of a beam balance would be +/- 6.4 mg. This digital balance holds tare for days on end. The only problem is that I had to make a table in Excel to convert mg's to grains. I found it on Ebay for $129 delivered. Big problem is that to replace it new with a comparable digital balance would be $1200.

[mike in co]

The benchresters don't even bother to weigh. They have precision measures that will do less than +/- 0.1 grains, but they're never EXACTLY the same from throw-to-throw. Even for "crafted" rifle ammo, +/- 0.1 variation in powder charge will not be seen on target for most shooters with most rifles. Too many other variables. Disassemble some factory loads sometime and check the variation. I've seen them vary all over town and still shoot decently.

I don't just throw my ammo together. That's why I always call it "handloading', rather than "reloading". I take care in my assembly of ammo. But I've learned what matters and what doesn't. Unless you're shooting a true benchrest rifle, with weighed cases that have been put through all the normal "benchrest" processes, with benchrest-quality bullets, fired by a world-class shooter, +/- 0.1 grain doesn't matter. Warren Page went a whole season of true benchrest competition without cleaning primer pockets, a true gasping no-no by all accounts, and could fine NO difference in performance. As I said, some things don't matter. And with off the shelf hunting rifles, MANY things don't matter. The rifle will shoot an inch at a hundred, and no manner of manipulation of the ammo will make it shoot any tighter. Been there, done that, with 50+ rifles. That's the situation here for the great majority of subscribers to this board. You can obsess over powder scale accuracy and repeatability and "crafting" your ammo all you want, but for most folks here it will never matter. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to make this issue plain and clear in practical terms for most of the shooters here.

Regards,

Stew

not true.
the harrels precision powder thrower is actually plus or minus 0.2 with n133 the most popular short range powder and the problem is that it aint plus or minus 0.1 its plus or minus 0.2 which means doing 0.3 steps is a waste of time. true statement about the average guy with the average rifle.
and since you go back to the plus or minus 0.1 in the next paragraph, i'll say it again. in benchrest competition, with a powder thrower, it is not plus or minus 0.1. it is plus or minus 0.2 or more and that is noticeable on paper at 100/200. what has happened now is that more and more cutting edge br shooters are going to electronic lab scales. these scale are typically plus or minus 0.02/0.01 and cost $3-500.
i do not know what cast bollet br shooters do, i do not follow them. i do shoot conventional br, and watch the sport closely.

mike in co

[AZ-Stew]

not true.
the harrels precision powder thrower is actually plus or minus 0.2 with n133 the most popular short range powder and the problem is that it aint plus or minus 0.1 its plus or minus 0.2 which means doing 0.3 steps is a waste of time.
mike in co

I don't use N133, but I think my Lyman #55 will do better than 0.2 with most small-grain stick powders (i.e. 4198 and RL15). It will do better than +/- 0.05 all day with H335 (ball). I thought you bench guys had the measuring business down better than that.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

Regards,

Sstew

[mike in co]

yep them little ball powders are so accurate thru a good measure its simply amazing.

a bunch of guys still just throw powders for br, but the people on the edge watched the testing and learned.

the competition is getting tuff and those with the smarts are starting to look for places to improve the consistancy of thier loads.

bullet weights have been consistant from custom br makers...but the base to ogive varies a little and they sort for that.......

every little bit


mike in co

[1hole]

AZ Stew is correct; Absolute accuracy in a reloaders scale is nice but it's certainly not critical. Absolute repeatablility IS critical.

No digital will ever have the long term repeatability of a beam scale. Nor, for many of them, is their short term repeatability very good. (No one keeps a digital around to recheck and confirm their beam scale!)

[StarMetal]

Too many threads come down to this....who's right. Then it gets a lot deeper and a :takinWiz:contest starts.

Bottom line....reloading can be dangerous if the powder isn't measured correctly. I believe the original question has been answered....it's better to bet your life, hands, eyes, whatever...on a balance and beam scale.

[shooting on a shoestring]

Electronic scales can be very stable, precise and accurate, if you spend $5000. But for $100 to $200, nope. Spotty performance at best, or call it good luck, sometimes.

Gravity is cheap and old, and works every time.

I use electronic scales in my daily work. They cost much more than my pick-up. I use a beam on my loading bench.

[Reverend Recoil]

I use a RCBS 1010 beam scale to load my 600 yd service rifle ammo. These loads hold the X-ring at that range.

[madsenshooter]

I found an old OHaus GT4000 laboratory scale at a yardsale for $20 once. Interesting piece of 60s or 70s technology. Lots of different units of weight, and you can add a custom unit. I programmed it to read hundreths of a grain, just for the fun of it. Takes it too long to settle down and decide what the final weight is, and the slightest stirring of the air will make it change. So I depend on my old Hornady balance beam. I don't doubt that the OHaus is accurate, I bought calibration weights to check it out, it didn't need calibrated after all these years, spot on. Customer service at OHaus was nice enough to send me a PDF of the old owner's manual too.

[mtgrs737]

I use a beam scale, I just don't trust the electronic scales. but I am old fashioned.

[Dye]

Just what is .1 grain. Can some one give a description of .1 grain so I can get a mental picture
of it. Thanks


Dye

[AZ-Stew]

One ounce = 437.5 grains. Divide one ounce by 4375 and you have 0.1 grain.

Regards,

Stew

[rollmyown]

I'll stick to the beam scale.Unless I drop it or drop something on them they will outlast me. You can't say the same about any electronic device. No batteries to buy either! Speed is not an issue as I mostly use them to check evry 10th charge, and I'm throwing the next while they are settling.

[shotman]

most of the time as said .1 gr dont mean a thing till you get to 25acp then it does I have the 10-10 and a good digital use the 10-10 for the 25 you aint loading them fast anyway

[mike in co]

AZ Stew is correct; Absolute accuracy in a reloaders scale is nice but it's certainly not critical. Absolute repeatablility IS critical.

No digital will ever have the long term repeatability of a beam scale. Nor, for many of them, is their short term repeatability very good. (No one keeps a digital around to recheck and confirm their beam scale!)

the problem is the average beam scale is plus ot minus 0.2...that is not repeatability....well not to me.

maybe you would like to tell that to the br crowd.....

most statements need to be qualified......for joe blow relaoder and his hunting rifle, yes.

for my br guns, no.

an x ring in highpower is one moa(even at 600).....again not acceptable in br, but over kill in minute of deer.

mike in co........

[1hole]

Not at all sure I get your points. Maybe they need a bit of qualification?


"the problem is the average beam scale is plus ot minus 0.2...that is not repeatability"

I don't know of any reloading beam scale with that kind of error in repeatablility. I wonder how you support that "average" claim, I don't believe it to be true; could you qualify it? I have read of an experiment in which some magazine "experts" were so clumsly they got that much error but it wasn't because of the scale.

But, neither I nor anyone else has suggested such a margin of error in repeatablity should be acceptable in any powder scale. In fact, what I wrote on repeatablilty was exactly the opposite of that, was it not ??


....well not to me."

At least you qualify here that you are speaking for yourself but it would be interesting to hear what a plus/minus .2gr spread does to your accuracy and at what range.


maybe you would like to tell that to the br crowd....."

I don't think I need to tell the BR crowd anything. They tend to be bright boys and don't need me to tell them what they already know. The better ones know what matters and it doesn't matter what the lesser ones think. A lot of the better ones couldn't even tell you what their charges ARE, they tend to measure in "clicks" on their measure. Nor would many of them really know how precisely repeatable it is because at the ranges they normally shoot, 100 & 200 yds., a couple tenths makes no difference.

IF you refer to the 1.000 yard BR group that's uncommon and you need to qualify what you are taking about!

:roll:

[KCSO]

Got an RCBS digital, tried it , didn't like it it's new in the box and for sale cheap!

[mike in co]

maybe you would like to tell that to the br crowd....."

I don't think I need to tell the BR crowd anything. They tend to be bright boys and don't need me to tell them what they already know. The better ones know what matters and it doesn't matter what the lesser ones think. A lot of the better ones couldn't even tell you what their charges ARE, they tend to measure in "clicks" on their measure. Nor would many of them really know how precisely repeatable it is because at the ranges they normally shoot, 100 & 200 yds., a couple tenths makes no difference.

IF you refer to the 1.000 yard BR group that's uncommon and you need to qualify what you are taking about!

:roll:

your assumtion is wrong.....there are more and more top shooters, shooters on the edge going to lab quality scales and skipping the beams and powder throwers.
you are sorta right on the click stuff...losts of shooters doing it...but fewer and fewer ......most people shooting 100/200 br are lemmings..no thought to thier process. they do what they have alway done. 6ppc/n133 and a harrels thrower....and mid range finishes. match after match.

and since when do you get to decide that 1000 br is "uncommon" lol
a lot of 1000br shooters will disagree with you.
colorado shoots 1000 each month, just like most clubs shoot 100/200 once a month.

you have a nice day.

mike in co

[John Guedry]

Bought a BBK had to send it back "fix" lasted an hour. It sits on a shelf, an expensive dust collector. My Lyman beam scale is much better.

[1hole]

"since when do you get to decide that 1000 br is "uncommon" lol ....colorado shoots 1000 each month, just like most clubs shoot 100/200 once a month."

Okay, I accept your Colorado and spot you an occasional N.C.. So, we are up to two states holding 1K mathces on some kind of schedule...?

That may qualify 1K matches as "common" for you. It doesn't for me!

[Mike W1]

I have a PACT electronic scale and like it very much. It came with check weights and has a calibration sequence you can use if needed. It is supposed to be accurate to within .1 grain. My testing would indicate that it is.

John

Just curious. Did it actually come with check weights or did it come with calibration weights? They are not the same thing.

[AZ-Stew]

Mike W1,

I use factory jacketed bullets to check my scale. Gasp!, Yeah, bullets.

The manufacturer's can't afford to make them too heavy (0.1 grain times 1 million bullets = 14.3 pounds of lead. It adds up.) and the lawyers won't let them make them too light, due to the possibility of being sued for false representation of the packaged product. Sure, there is some weight variation within a box, but generally, rifle bullets run within +/- 0.15 grain or less on average. If I weigh five 150 grain .30 cal bullets and the average is 150.02 grains for the lot of 10, I figure I have a pretty accurate scale. I can do better with match grade bullets, and it always pays to weigh some .22s, some .25s, some .30s and some .375s to get a good idea what the scale does across its range. If the range of measurement prints a straight line on a graph, that's good enough.

Regards,

Stew

[garandsrus]

Mike W1,

I guess that they are more correctly calibration weights. I use them when calibrating the scale. One is marked as 20g and the other 50g. After calibrating the scale, I can put the 20g weight on it and it will read 308.6 or 308.7. The actual conversion is 308.646 so I am not going to argue.

I have weighed bullets as Az-Stew mentioned also. From what I remember, Sierra advertises that their match bullets are within .1 grain. My scale supports that also.

John

[Mike W1]

I see you guy's point but you're still only checking one section of the range of the scale. I don't know squat about scales but I'd think one could be pretty far off on the upper or lower reading if one is just checking in the midrange for instance. And then again I could really be all wet on that idea. Just a thought.

[fryboy]

digital works great for cases boolits etc or just a charge check ...not so good for trickling ... i didnt care for the 10-10 ( gave mine away for a song) i tried alot of various ones ,the lee ( after the learning curve) would weigh the lightest things ( one of my beard hairs to be exact) it never moved the other scales but my personal fav( for fat finger room lolz ) for ease of reading and use is the old pacific model m

for those of u who say u can weigh a few boolits with a digi before ur balance beam quits rocking try setting it in there softly hold it down and then let go very lil swing that way and i can do boolits faster on it than the digiital [shrugz]

[AZ-Stew]

I see you guy's point but you're still only checking one section of the range of the scale. I don't know squat about scales but I'd think one could be pretty far off on the upper or lower reading if one is just checking in the midrange for instance. And then again I could really be all wet on that idea. Just a thought.

Mike,

If you weigh 10 bullets at a given weight (as described in my earlier post) you divide by 10 and get the average for that bullet weight. By weighing 40 grain .22 bullets, 100 grain .25 bullets, 150 gr .30 bullets and 300 grain .375 bullets and getting the average weight for each increment, you can plot the averages on a graph and draw a line between them that will, in most cases, predict the scale's performance at all weight ranges. No, it's not perfect, but it's pretty close. You can add pellet rifle ammo if you want to get more data on the scale's lower range, but that should fall on the line, as well.

If you want perfection, send the scale to NIST. They'll probably laugh a lot and charge you a bundle, but you'll have a good scale if it doesn't get damaged in shipping.

As I said earlier, the scales we buy for handloading are plenty accurate and repeatable right out of the box. If you're loading such that 0.1 or 0.2 grains inaccuracy of your scale is going to cause your firearm to unexpectedly disassemble, you're loading WAY too hot.

Regards,

Stew

[mike in co]

Mike W1,

I use factory jacketed bullets to check my scale. Gasp!, Yeah, bullets.

The manufacturer's can't afford to make them too heavy (0.1 grain times 1 million bullets = 14.3 pounds of lead. It adds up.) and the lawyers won't let them make them too light, due to the possibility of being sued for false representation of the packaged product. Sure, there is some weight variation within a box, but generally, rifle bullets run within +/- 0.15 grain or less on average. If I weigh five 150 grain .30 cal bullets and the average is 150.02 grains for the lot of 10, I figure I have a pretty accurate scale. I can do better with match grade bullets, and it always pays to weigh some .22s, some .25s, some .30s and some .375s to get a good idea what the scale does across its range. If the range of measurement prints a straight line on a graph, that's good enough.

Regards,

Stew

sierra's std is plus or minus 0.3.................opppssss

[mike in co]

"since when do you get to decide that 1000 br is "uncommon" lol ....colorado shoots 1000 each month, just like most clubs shoot 100/200 once a month."

Okay, I accept your Colorado and spot you an occasional N.C.. So, we are up to two states holding 1K mathces on some kind of schedule...?

That may qualify 1K matches as "common" for you. It doesn't for me!

my i suggest you do some research before "claiming" facts......
you are not even close..........get ready the nationals are comming up. they just had the 600 yd nat, and co just had thier state championships last weekend.....


plian and simple....you are wrong.


mike in co

[mike in co]

digital works great for cases boolits etc or just a charge check ...not so good for trickling ... i didnt care for the 10-10 ( gave mine away for a song) i tried alot of various ones ,the lee ( after the learning curve) would weigh the lightest things ( one of my beard hairs to be exact) it never moved the other scales but my personal fav( for fat finger room lolz ) for ease of reading and use is the old pacific model m

for those of u who say u can weigh a few boolits with a digi before ur balance beam quits rocking try setting it in there softly hold it down and then let go very lil swing that way and i can do boolits faster on it than the digiital [shrugz]

again...right for cheap scales, not right for quality scales.

my scale is sensitive to 0.03....it will resolve trickling of powder.

cheap scales are often sensitive to 0.1 .....which as i have said before means your plus or minus 0.1 scale is actually plus or minus 0.2.....you never know.


mike in co

[Doc Highwall]

mike in co, who's scale do you have? I am considering the mx123 that has been written about at 6mmbr.com

[mike in co]

mike in co, who's scale do you have? I am considering the mx123 that has been written about at 6mmbr.com

yes....
i live in denver metro area and at the time they were based here. they have merged with another company...not sure where they ship from now.

be on the lookout for a chunk of granite.

the machine tool catalogues have them.

12 x 18 x 3 is about 50 lbs...makes a nice frim platform for the scale.
i got mine for a bout 30 with free shipping....made the deal.

mike in co

[AZ-Stew]

sierra's std is plus or minus 0.3.................opppssss

Their "standard" and what actually comes off the line are two VASTLY different values, and for the reasons stated. Don't tell me what their factory tolerance is, tell me what you measure for 1000 weighed bullets.

Since you're using Sierra for a "standard" and seem to know it all, what is the allowable tolerance for Speer, Hornady, Berger, Barnes, et. al? Just because Sierra lists +/- 0.3 doesn't mean it's the industry standard.

I work for an electronics manufacturer that produces more extreme precision product in a week than Sierra does in three months. I know what the drawing tolerances are (it's my job) and I guarantee you the actual product is 5-10 times better than the allowable tolerance. Have you ever heard of CPK, 3 Sigma, 4 Sigma, 6 Sigma or RSS? This has to do with statistical tolerancing. There are maximum limits, and production targets. The idea is to put a narrow production tolerance value within the maximum limits. This is why there is little variation of bullet weights within a lot. Pure economics.

Now stop being so damned huffy and know-it-all. I'm getting tired of your attitude. You may be the first in four years on this board to make my "ignore list".

Regards,

Stew

[mike in co]

Their "standard" and what actually comes off the line are two VASTLY different values, and for the reasons stated. Don't tell me what their factory tolerance is, tell me what you measure for 1000 weighed bullets.

Since you're using Sierra for a "standard" and seem to know it all, what is the allowable tolerance for Speer, Hornady, Berger, Barnes, et. al? Just because Sierra lists +/- 0.3 doesn't mean it's the industry standard.

I work for an electronics manufacturer that produces more extreme precision product in a week than Sierra does in three months. I know what the drawing tolerances are (it's my job) and I guarantee you the actual product is 5-10 times better than the allowable tolerance. Have you ever heard of CPK, 3 Sigma, 4 Sigma, 6 Sigma or RSS? This has to do with statistical tolerancing. There are maximum limits, and production targets. The idea is to put a narrow production tolerance value within the maximum limits. This is why there is little variation of bullet weights within a lot. Pure economics.

Now stop being so damned huffy and know-it-all. I'm getting tired of your attitude. You may be the first in four years on this board to make my "ignore list".

Regards,

Stew

you brought up the sierra number...not me i just clairified thier std. i did not say it was an industry std...you brought it up. i said nothing about any other brand, so why bring it up ?
yes i know what 6 sigma is.
the bottom line is that while box one is 168.0 plus or minus 0.1...there is no guarantee that box two will be plus or minus 0.1.
yes i have weighed lots of bullets...on a scale that is better than 0.1.

so its huffy if i point out a FACT ?

how many times has sierra replaced bullets for you ? that have for me. inspite of standards and tolerances...chit happens. when was the last time a name bullet manufacture sent you bullets( by the box, not a couple) to evaluate for THEM ??? i have for both sierra and berger.

DID SOMETHING JUMP IN YOUR SHORTS ??

mike in co

[AZ-Stew]

To quote you, ".................opppssss" (though it should have more "o"s)

Time to see the optometrist, Mike. I didn't mention Sierra until after your mention of them in post #53. Why did I bring up other manufacturer's outside tolerance limits? Because you mentioned one manufacturer, yet ignored all the others. That makes it look like you hold Sierra as some kind of Golden Standard. What IS the overall, average industry standard? Maybe you don't know as much as you'd like everyone to think you do.

My point was that within a manufacturing lot, the manufacturers (all of them) hold pretty consistent weight variations with a small tolerance value, even though from lot to lot the center of that tolerance band may wander within the factory imposed max/min limits. This makes it pretty easy to use factory bullets to check a scale. As I said before, for most folks this is good enough. And for most folks, higher precision doesn't matter.

No, I've never had any bullet manufacturer replace bullets. My rifles would never know the difference between the high and low end of the +/- 0.2 grain weight span. Don't have the time nor do I need the hassle of weighing every bullet I shoot. As I said earlier, I've learned what does and doesn't matter with my rifles. I won't waste the time if it doesn't matter.

Mike, it's your attitude that makes you "huffy". Go back and look through this thread. More than half of what you posted is telling someone else they're wrong. Sometimes in so many words. You're so damned proud of your big $$ scales that you can't accept the fact that for 99.9999 percent of the handloaders out there, their off-the-shelf, sub-$100 scales are perfectly adequate and for the most part, more precise than they need to be. Continuously harping on the fact that yours are "more accurate" (are they NIST calibrated?), makes you a BIG huffer. You're like the kid with the $50 shoe skates with composite wheels when everyone else is having a great time skating down the sidewalk with clamp-ons with metal wheels. For skating down the sidewalk, it doesn't matter. We just get tired of hearing about it.

Regards,

Stew

[mike in co]

you are right ...you did not metion sierra.
you did mention a plus or minus number, and i picked sierra because they have told me thier spec.
my bad
but a good gun will tell the difference in plus ot minus .3..................
and in 1000 yd br...plus or minus 0.2..a .04 spread, makes you a looser.

its too bad you are set in your ways, i'm not. i learn all the time...i listen to others and tear apart what they say to see if there is fact or truth in thier statement....why...to learn the good stuff not the bad stuff.

i point out stuff about accuracy....not min of deer huntin accuracy, but smal group consistancy.

yuo cannot get to the second doing the first.

the smallest group i have ever shot is a 0.116....at 100 yds. i shoot under .25 all the time with my target rifles. my small cast boolit group is under 3/4"......nothing compared to what cast boolit br shooters do, but mine wasn't a br gun..it was a stock 308 win.
because i look at the little things.

not everyone needs or wants this accuracy, but if you want to improve, you need to look at the little things.

just because you don't want to hear something does not mean others are not learning from it.

you can put me on your ignore list, it wil not hurt my feelings.

mike in co

[highscore]

I use a 5-0-5 scale. I tried a digital, and it just wasn't accurate. I'll stick with a beam scale.

So do I! My digital "floats" and always needs to be re-zeroed. I only use it for weighing brass and bullets, never powder.

[AZ-Stew]

So do I! My digital "floats" and always needs to be re-zeroed. I only use it for weighing brass and bullets, never powder.

Try wiping it down with a dryer anti-static sheet. That should straighten it up a bit. Also, try weighing charges greater than 20 grains. I believe static charges on the plastic parts of most digital scales cause inaccuracies with small powder charges. Part of the problem could be cured if the manufacturers would provide proper grounding of the digital scale circuit board and plastic housing through the wall-wart power supply. But nooOOOooo. They have to be cheap and give us an isolated power supply. A few cents extra (which I'd gladly pay) would be too much to ask to fix the problem.

In the mean time, try the dryer sheet.

Regards,

Stew

[Lloyd Smale]

Sorry but in my opinion if any of the quality electronic scales sold to handloaders or the typical beam scale isnt accurate enough for your reloading your either to anal or are a world class competive bench rest shooter which i doubt anyone here is, or your blowing smoke up everyones *** to make them think you are. How much of your loading could possibly need precission like that? Certainly no handgun or lever action loading and no bolt rifle loading that doesnt involve a 3000 dollar gun. Id make a wager that 99 percent of the shooters here measure there groups with a ruler not a caliper.

[10mmShooter]

I use my beam for powder only. The digital is only for weighting bullets or brass quickly the digital floats way too much and as mentioned needs to be re-zeroed too often for reliable operation.

I use my trusty Dillon Eliminator (made by Ohaus) its magentically damped and has served me well for 15 years. I do verify its calibration using RCBS check weights monthly. You do have to make sure its level, and calibrated and is not a draft such as near as ac vent or fan or you own breath aslo you need to keep the dust off it. At under <$100 it cant be beat for accuracy you would need spend upwards of $300 or more to get a "better" scale.

[mike in co]

Sorry but in my opinion if any of the quality electronic scales sold to handloaders or the typical beam scale isnt accurate enough for your reloading your either to anal or are a world class competive bench rest shooter which i doubt anyone here is, or your blowing smoke up everyones *** to make them think you are. How much of your loading could possibly need precission like that? Certainly no handgun or lever action loading and no bolt rifle loading that doesnt involve a 3000 dollar gun. Id make a wager that 99 percent of the shooters here measure there groups with a ruler not a caliper.

i have a sinclair group measuring tool that mounts to a caliper and measures from the optical center ( dia) to optical center. its available in multiple calibers.
i know i'm not the only br shoot that also shots cast boolits.
i don't own any $3000 dollar guns.
i do own three br rifles.
and yes i bought my mx-123 scale for br shooting....but i use it on small lots of cast boolit shooting ocassionaly.

its ok to call me anal if i just beat you, i'm fine with it.
45nut out shot me with my own ammo and my own rifle to take first place in small group , scoped rifle, at 100 yds.......i was second...same ammo same gun.....at my first winnemucca cast boolit meet.

i like details....
mike in co

[adrians]

5.0.5 ,,on the money every time (got both ,but only use beam)..[smilie=l:

[gray wolf]

Well I guess I can put my foot in the water on this.
But let me say that every time this comes up we have the same kind hostility.
Seems friends forget they are friends and we take ten steps turn and fire.
All I can do is say what works for me, if it helps fine -- if not then no harm no fowl.
I have used my rcbs 505 for many years, got it with the two size cylinders ( large and small )
at a tag sale for about 5 bucks with some other good stuff for not much more.
( it was a good day ) Then I got a rcbs 1010 for not much more from a friend.
Ann-nd >>>>>>>>>>> then I was able to get a rcbs charge master
(Don't ask how I just got one )
Let me say that I am from the school that thinks if your scale is at least OK for 2/10 your not going to blow anything up ( 25ACP not included--32 ACP not included )
If i set my guns up to run at lets say 25 grains and I am happy with it, I don't care if my load is 2/10 over or under. What does matter to me is that the charge is the same every time,
and my scale/scales will read the same every time. ( consistency ).
So what I did was to take the 505 and the 1010 and zero them perfectly.
I took a piece of Aluminum can and cut little squares and weighed them on the 505,
I had them from 1 grain up to what ever you like. For me it was
1, 1.5, 3, 5, 8.5 10, 15, 20.5 and 30. grains. The 505 and the 1010 scale were perfect with each test weight, if one said 10 grains so did the other, and so on for all the test weights I made. Were they scientific test weights ? NO but they were my test weights for my two scales. I keep them as my test weights in a little box. They have never change for me and as long as my scales are zeroed they are right on.
Now for the charge master, scale. I can use the same test weights on it and it reads the same, Did I get lucky with three scales that all shake hands ?
Like I said the 505 and the 1010 always agree, not close--they are the same.
If they are not I look for the reason why. Now the C/M at times is 1/10 off--most time when it is, it is 1/10 light, I have found that if I re-zero it it gets back on track and agrees with the test weights. No I do not use three scales at a time but if I use the C/M I check it against my 505 or the 1010. I like the C/M for the 32 ACP that I use 1.7 gr. of tite group for.
Yes I have one of my little test weight for 1.7 grains. My thinking is that if the test weight Say's 1.7 and my charge Say's 1.7 and the little 32 ACP Tom Cat likes the 1.7 who am I to dispute it. The same is for all my other loads. ( hey you got to trust something EH. )
Yes it took my some hours to make all the test samples and get them all as correct as I could
But I don't mind doing things like that, and I find myself going back to them very often.
Again that is just my personality, I just don't like close enough--call me anal, it's me.
Yes I clip little corners off the sample weights to get them just right, and if need be I use a little ( as in small spot of nail polish to get the sample to just how I want it.
Nice thing to do on a bad weather day.
I wont get into good scales--as in more money$$ and how they hold up against less money scales, but I will say that if a load works for me and it's 26.5 grains --well I don't want 26.3 or 27. But again that's me and I enjoy what I do.

Sam

[1hole]

Ref. absolute "accuracy" in a powder scale:

"In reality, it doesn't matter. If I work up a load using X value of powder weight as indicated by my scale and it shoots accurately in my firearm, and if my scale will repeat the value of X every time I use it, I will get accurate ammo, regardless of whether or not it checks "accurate" with a NIST calibration."

Absolutely true. All the agonizing I read about a having check weights to "make sure of the accuracy" misses the point; what we need is reasonable accuracy and absolute repeatability over years of service so we can be sure of duplicating a load every time we use it. That pretty much means a beam scale; gavity don't change, electronics do. ;)

[c3d4b2]

Here is a couple of links with some advice on electronic scales.

http://www.6mmbr.com/chargemastertips.html

http://www.6mmbr.com/BlogJune2005.html

The info is buried the text follows.


RELOADING TIP--Electronic Scales: We've received reports from users of certain brands of electronic scales complaining of fluctuating weight readouts. In some cases users have been able to isolate interference sources. One Lyman 1200 Digital Dispenser user found that his zero became unstable after adding a new cordless telephone in his house. Others have reported that having fluorescent lights on the same circuit can cause problems. If you have a stand-alone PACT scale with AC power, make sure to unwrap the power cord. If the cord is wrapped in a tight coil, this can cause magnetic interference. One user reported +/- 0.3 grain variance when he put his hand near the unit, but that this resolved itself just by straightening out the cord.

[1bluehorse]

Sorry but in my opinion if any of the quality electronic scales sold to handloaders or the typical beam scale isnt accurate enough for your reloading your either to anal or are a world class competive bench rest shooter which i doubt anyone here is, or your blowing smoke up everyones *** to make them think you are. How much of your loading could possibly need precission like that? Certainly no handgun or lever action loading and no bolt rifle loading that doesnt involve a 3000 dollar gun. Id make a wager that 99 percent of the shooters here measure there groups with a ruler not a caliper.

Lloyd, I'm sure it's of absolutley no concern to you, but after this reply you just moved way up on my O.K. meter...

[prs]

I have two rather inexpensive beam scales. I have a set of try weights for checking calibration. Both scales seem to be consistent, accurate, and pretty much fool proof. Just keep them clean. Neither has ever required a battery change over the past 30+ years. If any of this changes, I may buy a new one; maybe a digital, but if what I got ain't broke..............................

prs

[Russ in WY]

I have [2] Pact plug-in type scales. On two separate loading benches, left plugged in all the time & the displayed turned OFF. Both sitting under or near fluorescent lights. They come with 20 & 50 gram calibration weights. Procedure for calibrating calls for 0 the 20 gram ,then 50 gram, then both for 70 gram & back to 0 ) as I recall. if you are only weighing small charges , use only the 20 gram & stop there, which is my normal procedure. I will then work up the weight I am after on the scale. I also have a separate set of check weights, [not checked NIST or whoever] to verify the weight the scale is reading. Normally they match all the time, and I am off & running with the loading. My beam scale is in the box & has been there for many yrs now. I do not shoot BR or Hi-power rifle. I still can count to "Ten" on my fingers & there are thousands of Dead Prairie Dogs in Wyoming. The Pact electronics are not Cheap & not Hi cost. They just preform , at least for Me. Again My 2¢ . Russ