XBBR Shooter
New member
I came up with 0.0058, and you came up with 0.004 - I can live with the differences.
Accurize a balance beam scale?
- Thread starter DSM
- Start date
I came up with 0.0058, and you came up with 0.004 - I can live with the differences.
M
mike in co
Guest
except that is not correct...my number is oem 8202..you used imr8208.
imr 8208 is larger than oem 8208.
i get .008 for imr( that is twice that of oem) and makes your .0058 aprox 25% in error.....
your beam is not moving a 10th between pointer graduations.....
did you redo the test as described ??
( the math does not support your claim of accuracy of your m5)
be back later
mike in co
imr 8208 is larger than oem 8208.
i get .008 for imr( that is twice that of oem) and makes your .0058 aprox 25% in error.....
your beam is not moving a 10th between pointer graduations.....
did you redo the test as described ??
( the math does not support your claim of accuracy of your m5)
be back later
mike in co
XBBR Shooter
New member
I'm not going to get into an argument over it - you are right and I am wrong.
M
mike in co
Guest
gentlemen and ladies,
if a poster was to come on here and claim his winchester 338 short mag shot as well as a competitive 6ppc benchrest rifle, everyone would question his claim, most all would doubt it.
it just aint so, right ??
but guys come on here and claim thier reloading quality beam scales are as good as a lab electronic scale that is .02 in accuracy and .03 in sensitivity.......and half of you( beam scale owners i assume) see nothing wrong with the claim, others say yes why not......
it just aint logical.
and in the last example, the math of his own data did not support his calimed accuracy.
honestly, just think about what is being claimed.....
mike in co
if a poster was to come on here and claim his winchester 338 short mag shot as well as a competitive 6ppc benchrest rifle, everyone would question his claim, most all would doubt it.
it just aint so, right ??
but guys come on here and claim thier reloading quality beam scales are as good as a lab electronic scale that is .02 in accuracy and .03 in sensitivity.......and half of you( beam scale owners i assume) see nothing wrong with the claim, others say yes why not......
it just aint logical.
and in the last example, the math of his own data did not support his calimed accuracy.
honestly, just think about what is being claimed.....
mike in co
XBBR Shooter
New member
Sorry... but I posted what I have. IF you don't like it, so be it, but if you are calling me a liar, then you have a problem.
I NEVER claimed that my scale was as good as your electronic scale - I just posted what I found. If that makes you insecure, then you maybe need some therapy.
You cannot compare what you weigh in Colorado, with what I weigh in Connecticut, and claim any comparison.
If you want to send me some of your "Whatever" powder and have me weigh it, then you have something to talk about - otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
The weights I posted are what I have. What you have is not my responsibility.
I think you have too much time on your hands.
I NEVER claimed that my scale was as good as your electronic scale - I just posted what I found. If that makes you insecure, then you maybe need some therapy.
You cannot compare what you weigh in Colorado, with what I weigh in Connecticut, and claim any comparison.
If you want to send me some of your "Whatever" powder and have me weigh it, then you have something to talk about - otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
The weights I posted are what I have. What you have is not my responsibility.
I think you have too much time on your hands.
Last edited:
M
mike in co
Guest
you claimed your scale was accurate to within 0.1, i do not dispute that.
what i do dispute is that one graduation on the scale of the pointer being 1/10 of a grain.
the math just does not support your claim....
no company sells powder under one name and have the wieght vary by 25%...actually more.....they sell performance by weight.
which is why i asked you redo the weight the way i described.
what lot number is on the container...
mike in co
what i do dispute is that one graduation on the scale of the pointer being 1/10 of a grain.
the math just does not support your claim....
no company sells powder under one name and have the wieght vary by 25%...actually more.....they sell performance by weight.
which is why i asked you redo the weight the way i described.
what lot number is on the container...
mike in co
Boyd Allen
Active member
Pictures of my scale with different settings for the same weight
If this works, what you will see below are three pictures taken with an inexpensive web cam, of my RCBS 10-10 scale's beam pointers alignments at three different settings, with the same weight (a quarter) in the pan. the first shows the scale balanced, reading 87.5 gr. ; the second, with it unbalanced, set to 87.6 gr.; and the last, with the scale unbalanced, set to 87.7 grains. To give an idea of the size of what you are looking at, I measured, I measured the width of the tip of the beam at .104". This scale has had some work done on it, to perform its performance. The pictures were manipulated to make the width of the end of the beam easier to see. Why argue about what you are seeing, when pictures are so easy to post? I have nothing to say about anyone else's scale or what it can or can't do. We each have our own story, and point of view.
If this works, what you will see below are three pictures taken with an inexpensive web cam, of my RCBS 10-10 scale's beam pointers alignments at three different settings, with the same weight (a quarter) in the pan. the first shows the scale balanced, reading 87.5 gr. ; the second, with it unbalanced, set to 87.6 gr.; and the last, with the scale unbalanced, set to 87.7 grains. To give an idea of the size of what you are looking at, I measured, I measured the width of the tip of the beam at .104". This scale has had some work done on it, to perform its performance. The pictures were manipulated to make the width of the end of the beam easier to see. Why argue about what you are seeing, when pictures are so easy to post? I have nothing to say about anyone else's scale or what it can or can't do. We each have our own story, and point of view.
4
4Mesh
Guest
Very cool photos Boyd. The only problem I have with them is that Mike says this isn't possible. Not on a plane, not on a train, not in the air, not with a snare. Not in a car, not on a bus, this isn't on par, with our scales set up thus. Powder won't stand still for a beam, no maam. It just won't do it Sam I Am. 
M
mike in co
Guest
boyd...did i ever say that a beam would not indicate a 1/10 ??? i think not....
now take a fine pen and mark those tenths......out where the pointer indicates......do it for several tenths....
then repeat and see how it works....
this is the mod i suggested beam scale users do when they have "accurizied" thier scales....
mike in co
now take a fine pen and mark those tenths......out where the pointer indicates......do it for several tenths....
then repeat and see how it works....
this is the mod i suggested beam scale users do when they have "accurizied" thier scales....
mike in co
Boyd Allen
Active member
Mike,
I know that, I can read. Not every post is about what you said, or did not...or suggest, or not. We can do what we do without supervision. This thread started with a request about how to make a beam scale work better. I am simply showing the degree of deflection that mine has per unit of weight change, on a one time basis, nothing more. Perhaps you should start your own thread about the validity of claims about accurized scales, and their merits, or lack thereof relative to electronic scales of a given cost.
Added later: My purpose was to illustrate the inherent difficulties in using a balance scale for measuring differences in weight less than .1. If one postulates that the beam deflection for .02 is somewhere around one fifth that of .1, then it may be easily seen that changes to the pointer and or what it points to may be needed, and that improvements to how results are viewed (webcam or magnifier) may be important, as well as greater than normal attention to parallax. with regard to the latter, I have slightly bent the aluminum piece on my scale, that has the black reference line, so that its face is in the same approximate plane as the front of the pointer, making sure that there is enough clearance.
Boyd
I know that, I can read. Not every post is about what you said, or did not...or suggest, or not. We can do what we do without supervision. This thread started with a request about how to make a beam scale work better. I am simply showing the degree of deflection that mine has per unit of weight change, on a one time basis, nothing more. Perhaps you should start your own thread about the validity of claims about accurized scales, and their merits, or lack thereof relative to electronic scales of a given cost.
Added later: My purpose was to illustrate the inherent difficulties in using a balance scale for measuring differences in weight less than .1. If one postulates that the beam deflection for .02 is somewhere around one fifth that of .1, then it may be easily seen that changes to the pointer and or what it points to may be needed, and that improvements to how results are viewed (webcam or magnifier) may be important, as well as greater than normal attention to parallax. with regard to the latter, I have slightly bent the aluminum piece on my scale, that has the black reference line, so that its face is in the same approximate plane as the front of the pointer, making sure that there is enough clearance.
Boyd
Last edited:
F
Flouncer
Guest
I am keeping my $20 Lee Safety Powder Measure which came with my $99 Anniversary kit in 6.5x55, circa 1996. It will deflect with a single grain (edit - a single kernel or granule) of H4831. That's all I know and want to to know. I can't split grains, and I am blissfully ignorant of any perceived deficiencies.
Shall we enter a poetry contest ?
In days of old
when loads were bold
and electronics weren't invented
we shot our loads
upon the roads
and went away contented.
)chill(
Shall we enter a poetry contest ?
In days of old
when loads were bold
and electronics weren't invented
we shot our loads
upon the roads
and went away contented.
)chill(
Last edited by a moderator:
P
pmcallan
Guest
This forum has actually gotten funny... Who can jerk whos chain the hardest......
I actually own all the scales yall are talking about, not tricked out, they all function well. I am also trying to find the best. Ain't found it yet. I actually found a cheap Hornaday electronic, $40.00 pocket size,works just as well. I'm new to benchrest ( a little over a year), so for I have found a few kernals is not going to make a difference. I have build my own personal 100-200 yard range on my farm. I try to spend 1 to 2 days a week burning powder.
I actually own all the scales yall are talking about, not tricked out, they all function well. I am also trying to find the best. Ain't found it yet. I actually found a cheap Hornaday electronic, $40.00 pocket size,works just as well. I'm new to benchrest ( a little over a year), so for I have found a few kernals is not going to make a difference. I have build my own personal 100-200 yard range on my farm. I try to spend 1 to 2 days a week burning powder.
Boyd Allen
Active member
In the past, I have found that I get more from seating depth changes, if the powder is close. Does this agree with your experience?
4
4Mesh
Guest
Hidden in all this text...
Hidden in all this text ... is a great example of how marketing bs will convince the masses that something easier is actually better. (when in fact it may not be).
"Digital" is not somehow better than "Analog", just cause you've been reading as much for decades. Digital music sucks. Digital movies have way less info on a Blu-Ray than there used to be on a VHS tape. Digital monitors are a joke, by comparison to their CRT analog counterparts.
How many people here had Cell phones before the "Digital Age" came? Remember back when you could make a call from anywhere, anytime. Nowadays, I can literally sit on my boat, LOOKING AT THE CELL TOWER and have no or little service. Back in the analog days, my phone worked like a charm, and I could actually TALK to the person on the other end. Now today, digital cell phones are just a worthless P.O.S.
This whole thing of accuracy of scales and what can be achieved misses the points. Electronic scales primarily purchase you speed. Accuracy can be had with a balance. Go look up Analytical Balances from Ohous or Citizen and you'll see them with a damn site more accuracy than milligrams. More like, .01mg. These are really nice balances. I have a brother who owns one (not for reloading). He uses his for testing air samples for particulate matter. It's real ak-er-ut. Unfortunately, they are not $1000. Something like that is useless for reloading anyway, because as things become more accurate, they loose speed. Not that the scale isn't faster, but the environment needs to be controlled. My milligram scale will weigh a bullet while it is rolling around on the tray, and it has already settled while it's almost still bouncing. Almost defies what I think I know about scales. Every time I put a bullet on and it topples over, I sit in amazement how it settles.
But for all that, electronic scales have weakeness, most of all is their rounding errors. In the scales we purchase for reloading, even the nice ones, there is friction involved. Somewhere. Static is an issue. Airborne items, like fine hairs, or spider webs, or dust, all contribute to the scale being innacurate. The specs are just like any other specs, you need to qualify them by sayin, "this scale will do what we say when it is clean, level, no air movement, actively de-ionized, free of emf, operating in purified air, etc." When you are talking about milligram resolution, it is not difficult for the user to remove all accuracy or repeatability.
And, specifically to 22guy above, if your scale gives 90 grain discrepancies, you really need to open in and see there is no hair, spider webs, dirt or other foreign matter in the works. You may need a magnifier and lights to see the crap thats in there, but almost certainly it is there. Static on my scale has been shown to alter its results by iirc, 28 milligrams. But, even that is way way less than you're talking.
I could easily go back to using my beam if I was forced to. I don't want to because it is slow. I own several, they all still work fine and act similar to Boyds. 2 of mine have the graduations on the scale already, and I recall being amazed how accurate they are. They are indespensible for double checking your digital scale when you want to travel 1000 miles to a big match and are not interested in having a flier cost you any chance in the match. While, we might see easily when our beam scale is not right, virtually nobody knows when their digital one has a small malfunction. How would you? I'm not talking about a test weight, I'm talking about 1 powder charge out of 100, just somewhere in the mix.
Hidden in all this text ... is a great example of how marketing bs will convince the masses that something easier is actually better. (when in fact it may not be).
"Digital" is not somehow better than "Analog", just cause you've been reading as much for decades. Digital music sucks. Digital movies have way less info on a Blu-Ray than there used to be on a VHS tape. Digital monitors are a joke, by comparison to their CRT analog counterparts.
How many people here had Cell phones before the "Digital Age" came? Remember back when you could make a call from anywhere, anytime. Nowadays, I can literally sit on my boat, LOOKING AT THE CELL TOWER and have no or little service. Back in the analog days, my phone worked like a charm, and I could actually TALK to the person on the other end. Now today, digital cell phones are just a worthless P.O.S.
This whole thing of accuracy of scales and what can be achieved misses the points. Electronic scales primarily purchase you speed. Accuracy can be had with a balance. Go look up Analytical Balances from Ohous or Citizen and you'll see them with a damn site more accuracy than milligrams. More like, .01mg. These are really nice balances. I have a brother who owns one (not for reloading). He uses his for testing air samples for particulate matter. It's real ak-er-ut. Unfortunately, they are not $1000. Something like that is useless for reloading anyway, because as things become more accurate, they loose speed. Not that the scale isn't faster, but the environment needs to be controlled. My milligram scale will weigh a bullet while it is rolling around on the tray, and it has already settled while it's almost still bouncing. Almost defies what I think I know about scales. Every time I put a bullet on and it topples over, I sit in amazement how it settles.
But for all that, electronic scales have weakeness, most of all is their rounding errors. In the scales we purchase for reloading, even the nice ones, there is friction involved. Somewhere. Static is an issue. Airborne items, like fine hairs, or spider webs, or dust, all contribute to the scale being innacurate. The specs are just like any other specs, you need to qualify them by sayin, "this scale will do what we say when it is clean, level, no air movement, actively de-ionized, free of emf, operating in purified air, etc." When you are talking about milligram resolution, it is not difficult for the user to remove all accuracy or repeatability.
And, specifically to 22guy above, if your scale gives 90 grain discrepancies, you really need to open in and see there is no hair, spider webs, dirt or other foreign matter in the works. You may need a magnifier and lights to see the crap thats in there, but almost certainly it is there. Static on my scale has been shown to alter its results by iirc, 28 milligrams. But, even that is way way less than you're talking.
I could easily go back to using my beam if I was forced to. I don't want to because it is slow. I own several, they all still work fine and act similar to Boyds. 2 of mine have the graduations on the scale already, and I recall being amazed how accurate they are. They are indespensible for double checking your digital scale when you want to travel 1000 miles to a big match and are not interested in having a flier cost you any chance in the match. While, we might see easily when our beam scale is not right, virtually nobody knows when their digital one has a small malfunction. How would you? I'm not talking about a test weight, I'm talking about 1 powder charge out of 100, just somewhere in the mix.
4
4Mesh
Guest
MyWeigh GemPro 150, and a Redding beam. I've never known the beam model, (not that it matters). It's a beam scale that works.
So you feel a $75.00 MyWeigh GemPro 150 is accurate enough for you applications?
Dave T
I appoligize for the price I stated above, I googled that scale and I mistakenly got the price for a MyWeigh GemPro 50 instead of a 150. I thought I did an edit on my mistake but must have done it wrong. What would a 150 cost? Sorry for the mistake guys....
Dave T
Dave T
I appoligize for the price I stated above, I googled that scale and I mistakenly got the price for a MyWeigh GemPro 50 instead of a 150. I thought I did an edit on my mistake but must have done it wrong. What would a 150 cost? Sorry for the mistake guys....
Dave T
Last edited:
M
mike in co
Guest
4mesh....mostly well said( you know i will never agree 100%...lol)
on the electronic being wrong....well keep it in a safe/clean enviroment.
i have no dogs nor cats, it is on its own granite surface plate, solidly supported.
pretty well isolated.
the scale i s.02 in accuracy and .03 in sensitivity....
say i want a 28.4 gr load....... i load to 28.38-28.42....which means due to sensitivity, i maybe at 28.37-28.43.......................that is plus or minus 0.03..well under the std beam at 0.1
this is much better than thrown charges, and std .1 beam scales....
thats all i am after.
the issue that is a problem with beams...is no, you do not always know when it is off.
yes in a perfect world, you would see the pionter off, but as has been pointed out, the various pivot points can change the readings when they shift...and you have no clue.
hysreious is an issue, and like all else, air currents, dirt, dust, etc....
you tricle up , look at it as it hits the mark and dump the charge....just it had not stopped moving......
not one person reported on doing the test i posted.....
i have a beam, i can use it...heck i do use it...but not for match ammo.
mike in co
same question as in the past......what works for you ??
on the electronic being wrong....well keep it in a safe/clean enviroment.
i have no dogs nor cats, it is on its own granite surface plate, solidly supported.
pretty well isolated.
the scale i s.02 in accuracy and .03 in sensitivity....
say i want a 28.4 gr load....... i load to 28.38-28.42....which means due to sensitivity, i maybe at 28.37-28.43.......................that is plus or minus 0.03..well under the std beam at 0.1
this is much better than thrown charges, and std .1 beam scales....
thats all i am after.
the issue that is a problem with beams...is no, you do not always know when it is off.
yes in a perfect world, you would see the pionter off, but as has been pointed out, the various pivot points can change the readings when they shift...and you have no clue.
hysreious is an issue, and like all else, air currents, dirt, dust, etc....
you tricle up , look at it as it hits the mark and dump the charge....just it had not stopped moving......
not one person reported on doing the test i posted.....
i have a beam, i can use it...heck i do use it...but not for match ammo.
mike in co
same question as in the past......what works for you ??
M
mike in co
Guest
maybe
the scale is listed at .015/.03 grians, two modes ...but no listing for sensitivity and that would effect trickling.
notice it says to place all items on at once.....tends to make me worry about the trickle issue and sensitivity.
your best buddy
mike in co
the scale is listed at .015/.03 grians, two modes ...but no listing for sensitivity and that would effect trickling.
notice it says to place all items on at once.....tends to make me worry about the trickle issue and sensitivity.
your best buddy
mike in co