In the long run which is more precise or accurate on target

308sako

308sako

New member
I have noticed that when I make up a batch of my favorite ammunition that I will either use my scale for a specific charge weight, or I will use my Redding BR3 measure with a specific volumetric setting which has in the past thrown the desired charge weight.

Opinions and experiences Please...
 
+ or - .1

I have a lab balance which can be calibrated to measure to the 3rd decimal place. I have checked various powder measures and other scales against it. It seems as though most digital balances you can buy for reloading and most of the powder measures are no more accurate than one another irrespective of whether you throw or weigh a large or small amount of powder. Most will produce a variation of + or _ one tenth of a grain.
Andy.
 
BINGO...HAND THE MAN A CUPIE DOLL!!!!!!!
and excellent for hunting loads....practice your technique....keep the beam scale clean and use it the same way...pan placement.
some electronic scales do not "trickle up"...pick up the pan and replace it to check your work.

mike in co

Andy Cross said:
I have a lab balance which can be calibrated to measure to the 3rd decimal place. I have checked various powder measures and other scales against it. It seems as though most digital balances you can buy for reloading and most of the powder measures are no more accurate than one another irrespective of whether you throw or weigh a large or small amount of powder. Most will produce a variation of + or _ one tenth of a grain.
Andy.
Click to expand...
 
A lot also depends on the powder in question. I've read articles by people who claimed to be able to throw charges ±0.1 gr with any powder (including long granule 4831), and it all depended on proper technique. Proper technique is certainly important, but throwing uniform charges of powders much coarser than N133, or maybe even H322 and most ball type powders can be difficult to impossible in my experience. Throwing uniform charges of IMR4198 or the older long granule H4198, 4064, and long granule 4350 and 4831 is well nigh impossible from what I can tell. Maybe I'm just insufficiently coordinated though.

That being said, a variation of ±0.4 gr isn't likely to cause much of a problem in a case holding 70 or 80 gr of powder.

The only way to know for sure is to load the same load with thrown and weighed charges to see if there's any difference in group size. If you're looking for minute of deer or elk accuracy there's not likely enough difference in accuracy to make any difference. If you're shooting Benchrest it might make enough difference to make a difference.
 
My thanks, and agreement too!

I guess the second part of my question would be regarding powder as it ages or dry's.

I wonder how much weight variation there is when based on volumetric methods.
 
Get out your scale, and your powder measure, throw and weigh some charges, say 20, recording the weight of every one, and come back and tell us what powder it was, and what your total variance was. You might also fabricate a test weight that weighs about the same (or simply reweigh one of the charges), and weigh it the same number of times, recording the weights as you go, and let us know what the variance was.
 
Mike has had a lot of good posts on measures and scales look them up.
Also there was a comparison made on 6mmbr using I think a Prometheus scale by one of the designers and showed how another electric and a balance beam compared and also a Harrel measure.
The results were very surprising.
(at least I think it was Prometheus)
 
Last edited:
I threw pounds

When I decided to check the accuracy and variations between thrown and weighed charges with the lab balance it was first calibrated with an ISO supplied set of weights. I threw and entire pound of various powders in both a Culver and PSECO powder measure. Then weighed the same canister of powder on a RCBS and Lyman unit. Finally with an Oahus beam balance. Provided the reservoir of the powder throwers were kept no lower than half full the results averaged out at a variation of + or - .1 grains. The long grain powders didn't seem to mess up the average much at all.

Using a chrono when checking the muzzle velocities the results didn't seem to alter much below half a grain difference. When a load close to maximum was reached even a half grain had less effect.
Andy.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that average variance is not the point, but rather ES of charge weights. Do you have those figures and for what powders? Also with regard to your last statement, what caliber?
 
andy....
we have done several test on n133 and the current popular br powder thrower...guess the name?....plus or minus .2/3 with an odd .4 thrown in. this is the most popular br powder and the most popular thrower......it is why guys that learn as we progress, that throwing is common, but not the best. the chargemaster is a a plus or minus .1 tool it is better that the thrower most br shooter use.
the guy has not even identified what he is doing...competiton hunting plinking no clue....
mike in co
Andy Cross said:
When I decided to check the accuracy and variations between thrown and weighed charges with the lab balance it was first calibrated with an ISO supplied set of weights. I threw and entire pound of various powders in both a Culver and PSECO powder measure. Then weighed the same canister of powder on a RCBS and Lyman unit. Finally with an Oahus beam balance. Provided the reservoir of the powder throwers were kept no lower than half full the results averaged out at a variation of + or - .1 grains. The long grain powders didn't seem to mess up the average much at all.

Using a chrono when checking the muzzle velocities the results didn't seem to alter much below half a grain difference. When a load close to maximum was reached even a half grain had less effect.
Andy.
Click to expand...
 
Boyd Allen said:
It seems to me that average variance is not the point, but rather ES of charge weights. Do you have those figures and for what powders? Also with regard to your last statement, what caliber?
Click to expand...

They will be in the loading room in one of those drawers. But I won't be digging them out tonight. It's that international date line thing. The cartridges I tested on charge weight velocity variations was a 6ppc and a 222

The powders were ADI 2206 and H4895.

Andy.
 
308sako said:
I have noticed that when I make up a batch of my favorite ammunition that I will either use my scale for a specific charge weight, or I will use my Redding BR3 measure with a specific volumetric setting which has in the past thrown the desired charge weight.

Opinions and experiences Please...
Click to expand...

You ask "which is more precise or accurate on target"? You shoot them and tell us. As to the general result if you are shooting factory equipment, it would be difficult to conclude anything.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Get out your scale, and your powder measure, throw and weigh some charges, say 20, recording the weight of every one, and come back and tell us what powder it was, and what your total variance was. You might also fabricate a test weight that weighs about the same (or simply reweigh one of the charges), and weigh it the same number of times, recording the weights as you go, and let us know what the variance was.
Click to expand...

Boyd, Thank you, I think you understand my drift here. I will record yet more information during this phase of my loading.

Thanks to all posters for their input and ideas.

The powder in question is IMR 8208 XBR. What I do prior to throwing charges is to set the Redding BR3 to the known volumetric, and then throw 10 charges 24.0 grains in this case, and see what they yield. Usually 240.2 to 240.5 grains, so less than 1/10th grain per charge on average. I maintain a consistent level in the powder hopper. Couple of months go by, time to load more rounds... set the Redding as recorded, throw charges and 238.5 - 238.9 grains... adjust Redding and get my 24.0 charge and yes the chronograph and my groups tell me something is different. I have used both a beam and an electronic scale to verify the thrown weights, and they are in agreement.
 
Last edited:
mike in co said:
andy....
we have done several test on n133 and the current popular br powder thrower...guess the name?....plus or minus .2/3 with an odd .4 thrown in. this is the most popular br powder and the most popular thrower......it is why guys that learn as we progress, that throwing is common, but not the best. the chargemaster is a a plus or minus .1 tool it is better that the thrower most br shooter use.
the guy has not even identified what he is doing...competiton hunting plinking no clue....
mike in co
Click to expand...

Good point, The caliber is .223 and the barrel is a custom Rock Creek which has been QPQ'd or melonited. Accuracy and consistency is my interest, though I also plan to be using an older 6PPC which has been in the safe for too long that Mr Sutton at HART put together for me. I want to try the XBR in that as well, therefore I wish to identify any issues before hand. Like many of you I have been loading for nearly 1/2 a century! Not my first rodeo either.
 
Found em

Boyd Allen said:
It seems to me that average variance is not the point, but rather ES of charge weights. Do you have those figures and for what powders? Also with regard to your last statement, what caliber?
Click to expand...

I found the data containing the powder thrower v scales tests on the 2206 and 4895.

I threw a full pound of each in the cluver and pseco measure also weighed the same on two beam balances. Checked them all against a calibrated ohaus lab scale with a resolution to the third decimal place. The charge was 20 grains. Powder hoppers were kept more than half full at all times. From a pound of powder which is 7000 grains I should have been able to throw 350 charges. Only obtained 343. About 140 grains short in the 2206. That could be quite a saving to the manufacturer. The results were the same for either powder.

Culver max variation was +0.2gn and - 0.3gn
Average + or - 0.13gn

PSECO max variation +0.1gn and - 0.12gn
Average + or - 0.07

Oahus beam balance Max variation + 0.12 and - 0.15
Average + or - 0.08

Lee beam balance Max variation + 0.16 and - 0.11
Average + or - 0.14

I didn't notice any agg larger or smaller no matter which way the powder was dispensed. But then I didn't have a rail or tunnel to test with.
Andy.
 
"Using a chrono when checking the muzzle velocities the results didn't seem to alter much below half a grain difference. When a load close to maximum was reached even a half grain had less effect."

andy

are you able to provide data and relevant information for the velocities and pressure assessments?

goodi
 
forget the average...look at the spread...in a small case like 6ppc/223...that is a big concern.
i use .3 steps in 223....your culver has a .5 spread...bigger than my step.
the pseco has a .22 spread nearly as large as my step.
who shoots anything with a 20 gr charge of 4895 ???( what is 2206 to the rest of the world ??)
throw reasonable charges for the powder......
to the orginal poster....what is the twist in the 223 ?? what do you plan on doing with the rifle ??/

mike in co
Andy Cross said:
I found the data containing the powder thrower v scales tests on the 2206 and 4895.

I threw a full pound of each in the cluver and pseco measure also weighed the same on two beam balances. Checked them all against a calibrated ohaus lab scale with a resolution to the third decimal place. The charge was 20 grains. Powder hoppers were kept more than half full at all times. From a pound of powder which is 7000 grains I should have been able to throw 350 charges. Only obtained 343. About 140 grains short in the 2206. That could be quite a saving to the manufacturer. The results were the same for either powder.

Culver max variation was +0.2gn and - 0.3gn
Average + or - 0.13gn

PSECO max variation +0.1gn and - 0.12gn
Average + or - 0.07

Oahus beam balance Max variation + 0.12 and - 0.15
Average + or - 0.08

Lee beam balance Max variation + 0.16 and - 0.11
Average + or - 0.14

I didn't notice any agg larger or smaller no matter which way the powder was dispensed. But then I didn't have a rail or tunnel to test with.
Andy.
Click to expand...
 
Reasonable

At the time of testing I was using a 222. 20gn I believe is /was a reasonable amount of powder for that cartridge. I don't really have any interest in conducting the tests again when it is something anyone could do if they wanted to. But if it is of any interest the variances became less as the charges thrown became larger. ....and no before you ask I didn't invistigate why it was so. I don't believe there was an importer here for N133 at the time the tests were done. The importer for the IMR powders had just closed up as well. So what is 2206 to the rest of the world. You use what you can obtain in your world. Pretty simple really.

I view of the fact the velocity differences obtained from the various charge weights with these powders doesn't relate to anything reasonable I don't see the point.
Andy.
 
To the OP, is the context of your question which of powder volume -or- powder weight is more accurate?
If so, I don't know(sorry), would like to know, and so far missed any discussion about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top