Mathematicians - how to interpret the data?

[jmorris]

This is not a lie but it is not the whole truth. They are not using just any powder drop and they use powders that meter very well.

Tim

That’s not a lie or the whole truth either, the guns, equipment and components they use would likely still shoot better than 99% of out of the box rifles with equal or more precisely loaded ammunition. So you are back to the “many folks over think…” part.

Does make it worth working up loads that use powders that meter well though, if powders that metered crummy but weighed to the kernel won more matches than thrown charges, the winners would be doing that as well as everyone trying to beat them. That’s not the case at the short range matches (100&200 yards).

If one develops a great load, the “node” where multiple charge weights shoot to the same POI will be larger than less great loads that are very picky. This gives a powder “range” where performance is satisfactory vs an exact point. Then even poorly metered loads shoot great.

[Land Owner]

My "competition" is the correct placement of a preferred bullet into game for its swiftest dispatch. There is a LOT of trigger time in hunting hogs. All those chasing "one hole" (and I am [not] immune to that either), may find these data points and this thread a study in futility. Still, the effort to be and stay CONSISTENT in the reloading and shooting of ammunition remains the goal. With time on one's hands (retired), three scales, and a nice set of (tweezer held) calibrated weights (gravity in your location may vary), testing and comparing scales became, "What else was I going to do today?". Now I "know" more (useless stuff) than I knew yesterday.

[jetinteriorguy]

Are you handling the weights with bare hands? You could be leaving sweat & grease off your fingers each time you touch the weights. Not a lot, but it adds up. Been a long time since I needed accurate weights, but back when I was playing with Chemistry, the scale went in an enclosure that prevented air currents from touching it, and the test weights were handled with gloved hands or a pair of forceps.
Remember that .1 grain is 6.479891 milligrams. That isn't a lot, either. How big a piece of gunpowder is that? What temperature is your work area where you're doing these measurements, and most important of all, what accuracy do you really need? How much variance in the speed of a bullet is really important to you? I understand CDO*, but sometimes you really don't need to go there. Even if you want to.

* CDO is like OCD, but with the letters in the correct alphabetical order.

GMO, your comment on OCD is so hilarious.

[Scrounge]

GMO, your comment on OCD is so hilarious.

The line is stolen, but it's pretty real. And I'm definitely the pot. There are places where it comes in handy. Time spent in the military tells me that if you're not CDO when you enlist, you will be when you retire. Only the universe will not cooperate. I'm learning to be a machinist, and at least in that field, you're given tolerances. How close to perfect do you need to be? Read the blueprint, and it will tell you. +/- .005"? +.0000"-.0001"? Whatever. Now I just need a set of drawings for life.

Bill

Bill

[dtknowles]

Just curious. Does your beam scale have magnetic damping? My 505 does and I have noticed that when the beam is swinging - before the damping is complete - each succeeding peak is lower than the previous one. While this is a sign that the damping is working it could also mean that the final position is slightly above or below the true zero point. This could be due to the magnetic field holding the beam a little bit high or low because the beam movement can't break it loose.

I said, "I don't know if the stickiness is the damping or the bearings but it is there but it is less than 0.1 grains."