Getting back to weighing powder
- Thread starter Wilbur
- Start date
sofarfrome
New member
This is my one and only comment on this. I modified an RCBS measure (I am still using it today) that would consistently throw charges +/- 0.2 gr (believe it or not, I sat down and threw 200 charges and recorded the data. The STD was amazingly small). I use it at the range without a scale. I have shot many "0" groups right along with groups much larger. I firmly believe it is not the powder measure. It is ME!!!
But then again, this is just my humble opinion.
But then again, this is just my humble opinion.
L
LorenC
Guest
Not just in this thread, but lots of posts I see where guys are dismissing lots of maybes just because they can't put a finger on it. I have no money to spend on things to prove errors or not, but I sure don't want to leave something on the table that I can eliminate as an error in my setup.
Exactly
There's a lot of guys that believe if everything weighs the same and has the same measurements...they have eliminated all the variables. They then turn to external ballistics with the belief that they're getting beat by superior shooting talent. Well... that ain't right! Weight, length, width, height and perfection have little to do with winning a benchrest match.
There's a lot of guys that believe if everything weighs the same and has the same measurements...they have eliminated all the variables. They then turn to external ballistics with the belief that they're getting beat by superior shooting talent. Well... that ain't right! Weight, length, width, height and perfection have little to do with winning a benchrest match.
Wilbur you are right, I've beat myself up cause I figured the powder charge was off, seating depth wasn't right, bullets etc. but I think its the nut behind the gun is having a bad day! So if things are set up right and the rifle shoots a great group one day but not the next, why keep changing things to the point where you forgot where you were at. Now that I'm getting old I can say that my eyes are getting bad.
Joe Salt
Joe Salt
C
caroby
Guest
Powder measures an bullets/barrels
I too.... One should develop a "technique" with their measure and the "technique" is unique to the powder/measure one is using......
Dupont Thunderbird / Dupont 8208 / Today's LT32 and AA2015 are VERY consistent powders in Diam and length >small< that allows
most powder measures to really perform well with minimal "technique"..
I don't shoot longrange Benchrest but DO understand the need to weigh to sub .09 gr... Just that 100/200 Benchrest does not require such measuring, IMOP .20 to .10 range is plenty accurate to shoot Teen yardages and Aggs (though I strive for sub .10 (but can't see much diff between .15 or a .09 diff load) and why I have interest in this thread).....
On another note, Barrels and Bullets.... The barrels either >SHOOT< or not. But, most barrels today are darn good (some may argue..).. The vast majority of barrels today will win and shoot teen Aggs.. (some may argue)..
Bullets... Dead asleep, where their stability/balance in 13.5 - 14.0 twist barrels (common today) is perfect.... The Berger Column bullet comes to mind....
Previous poster noted that the perty looking 300-500 round barrels >under< his loading bench that don't quite meet his Agging demands... Try some Columns in a few of them barrels.... Like I have found...... HELLO..! Ole FRIEND..!
cale
I too.... One should develop a "technique" with their measure and the "technique" is unique to the powder/measure one is using......
Dupont Thunderbird / Dupont 8208 / Today's LT32 and AA2015 are VERY consistent powders in Diam and length >small< that allows
most powder measures to really perform well with minimal "technique"..
I don't shoot longrange Benchrest but DO understand the need to weigh to sub .09 gr... Just that 100/200 Benchrest does not require such measuring, IMOP .20 to .10 range is plenty accurate to shoot Teen yardages and Aggs (though I strive for sub .10 (but can't see much diff between .15 or a .09 diff load) and why I have interest in this thread).....
On another note, Barrels and Bullets.... The barrels either >SHOOT< or not. But, most barrels today are darn good (some may argue..).. The vast majority of barrels today will win and shoot teen Aggs.. (some may argue)..
Bullets... Dead asleep, where their stability/balance in 13.5 - 14.0 twist barrels (common today) is perfect.... The Berger Column bullet comes to mind....
Previous poster noted that the perty looking 300-500 round barrels >under< his loading bench that don't quite meet his Agging demands... Try some Columns in a few of them barrels.... Like I have found...... HELLO..! Ole FRIEND..!
cale
Wilbur, Yes i can pick out .1 powder charges, i lost most of the time. With .01 weight i win most of the time. I saw how small the groups were compared to .1 weight, i move one thing at a time and see the difference. I can see the point of spending money and no results,this is really noticeable in the Dasher at even 100 yds. My best PPC group was .044 with Tbird and the Dasher beat it with RL-15 and a 103 Spencers…….. jim
Are you willing to show me that you can? I'll do the traveling, buy the stuff, and promise not to cheat. I have no motive to cheat as I don't care how it goes. My motive is to settle the matter for everyone. Certainly, if you can pick out the variance, I'll be wrong...but good will be done.
Anybody seen Larry Costa? Would be good to get a second data point either way. Perhaps Larry will oblige a year later in February - or sooner.
Or, as they say in another er, sport, "Let's settle this once and for all."
Except they don't. Risky here, too. Make sure that anyone who volunteers is willing to say, after the test, that the results settle things, rather than "yeah but."
I suspect that will cut down on takers considerably in the long range game. There will still be the yeah buts; no testing will ever banish them.
Larry Costa would be fine for point-blank. Or any of the past or present WBC shooters. I'm sure there are others, but these guys have proven they both go and succeed with what shows on paper. Host country supplies powder... the WBC in South Africa was a "challenge," as I remember
As for the testing itself: worth noting would be Harold Vaughn, RAF, pages 75-76, "Accuracy Testing,"as well as pages 235-36, "Statistical Error."
(Another interesting test would be to do it twice. Once with a very, very good barrel someone's willing to sacrifice 50-rounds out of it's life, and once with an average, club-match level barrel.)
Edit:
I just had another thought. I'm perfectly willing to believe you can sometimes find a long-range load where .1 grains matters. Scott Fletcher did just that with his .30 Boo-Boo and 240 Sierras. He proved it to his satisfaction (he's an engineer), so I tend to believe him. I further believe it's a lousy load -- a window that small. Unless you also believe that NO changes in conditions require a change in load (does anyone believe this?), you're better off with a load where the window is considerably broader. I suppose that's my "yeah but..."
Last edited:
Hi Wilbur.
Just caught up with the thread. Sorry!
My understanding of our test is that I would shoot about 4 groups each of 29.8, 30.0, 30.2, 30.4 and 30.6. I would have the weighed charges pre-measured and you can verify them before you pour them in the cases. I would seat the bullets. You would then give me whatever load you chose without my knowledge and I would shoot it.
At the end I would tell you which groups were shot with the same loads. Of course there will be some error due to tolerances but I'm confident it will be pretty close.
February would be good for me. I'm taking a break right now. Got a case of the burnouts....
Larry
Just caught up with the thread. Sorry!
My understanding of our test is that I would shoot about 4 groups each of 29.8, 30.0, 30.2, 30.4 and 30.6. I would have the weighed charges pre-measured and you can verify them before you pour them in the cases. I would seat the bullets. You would then give me whatever load you chose without my knowledge and I would shoot it.
At the end I would tell you which groups were shot with the same loads. Of course there will be some error due to tolerances but I'm confident it will be pretty close.
February would be good for me. I'm taking a break right now. Got a case of the burnouts....
Larry
Larry, What do you weigh the charges on? Most digital only weigh +-.2 maybe .1 at best
Wilbur, Will be walking on the water soon, The weather may not be the best. I;m going to Dave Bruno's this week to pick up some new barrels.so i will have to put a gun together.
Jeff, A GD 503……..jim
Wilbur, Will be walking on the water soon, The weather may not be the best. I;m going to Dave Bruno's this week to pick up some new barrels.so i will have to put a gun together.
Jeff, A GD 503……..jim
Larry, mix them up, if you shoot five of the same load with five different loads what does that prove? If i would shoot 5 shots with 33.305 and a 103 at 1K and shot 33.505 with the same bullet,i would have two different groups and that is .2 variation.Plus one would be a lot larger than the other. all you have to do is color code them and you can pick out the loads…… jim
Jim,
I don't have a clue what you said. We will basically load 100 cases , 20 of each load.
For group one Wilbur will give me 5 bullets of one of the loads and record what he gave me. Next group he could give me something else and record that, etc. We need a statistical significant sampling.
The point is not to test if a group shot with mixed up loads shoots bad it is to put to rest the belief that sloppy loading is okay.
As to the scale, in competition I use a rcbs charge master, for this test I will use a gempro-250.
Hope that helps.
Larry
I don't have a clue what you said. We will basically load 100 cases , 20 of each load.
For group one Wilbur will give me 5 bullets of one of the loads and record what he gave me. Next group he could give me something else and record that, etc. We need a statistical significant sampling.
The point is not to test if a group shot with mixed up loads shoots bad it is to put to rest the belief that sloppy loading is okay.
As to the scale, in competition I use a rcbs charge master, for this test I will use a gempro-250.
Hope that helps.
Larry
Larry, You answered my question. Those scales are not capable of measuring .1 or less. You will need a better scale and you will see what i mean,the scale used on the charge master is a .2 scale and gem pro may be a little better. Check the weights against a GD 503 and you will see what i mean. You will see the difference, I been there and done that…… jim
Hunter
Chasin' the Sunset
+ 1
If you don't shoot "mixed up loads" in the same group how do you test for sloppy loading? How does shooting different groups with each load weighed, but each group loaded a bit differently, reflect on sloppy loading?
Ok, last post until test if Wilbur comes over in Feb.
Jim, I have the scale you mentioned and don't use it. A single speck of 133 weighs .01 grains on average. Measuring to 1/2 of one is not practical when competing unless you preload and in short range benchrest we expect to shoot a few hundred rounds. Besides, other factors end up being a bigger influence than a couple of specks. Reading wind, influence of humidity, bench manners, etc., are more important.
The point , in my mind, that the test can do is set a practical minimum difference in powder load, where we should expect to see a difference in the group shape, so that we can see it on the target and adjust for it.
That's it.
Hunter, I want to show a clear pattern change in the group shape with different loads, as mentioned above, so shooters can then recognize them and adjust loads as conditions require. Mixing up loads is like the old data entry saying, "garbage in, garbage out".
Larry
Jim, I have the scale you mentioned and don't use it. A single speck of 133 weighs .01 grains on average. Measuring to 1/2 of one is not practical when competing unless you preload and in short range benchrest we expect to shoot a few hundred rounds. Besides, other factors end up being a bigger influence than a couple of specks. Reading wind, influence of humidity, bench manners, etc., are more important.
The point , in my mind, that the test can do is set a practical minimum difference in powder load, where we should expect to see a difference in the group shape, so that we can see it on the target and adjust for it.
That's it.
Hunter, I want to show a clear pattern change in the group shape with different loads, as mentioned above, so shooters can then recognize them and adjust loads as conditions require. Mixing up loads is like the old data entry saying, "garbage in, garbage out".
Larry
Larry, What i'm saying is if you would load two 5 shot groups .2 apart it will print two different groups at 1000 .This does demonstrate the variation in the accepted loading practice. This is very easy to see at long range. If you have and use a GD 503, check your scales against it, then load the same load from the other scales hours latter and see how much they vary. I use a Harrell's measure and it was used to win a National event and at it's finest setting it isn't close to what you need to win at 1K. Maybe you can get away with it at short range but at 1K you will just be on the match report ……. jim
Lee Martin
Active member
I could be wrong but didn't Virgil King say they never weighed individual charges during the Houston Warehouse years? Nor did he or TJ Jackson think a tenth up or down made any difference at 100 - 200? Considering their near ideal conditions that tells me a lot. Past 200 it sounds like it does however based on previous posts.
Interesting subject though and worth pursuing.
-Lee
www.singleactions.com
Interesting subject though and worth pursuing.
-Lee
www.singleactions.com