Grains to grams

Reloadron

New member
As a former surveyor I have to take exception to that statement. Cardinal refers to compass points (North, South, East, West and you can box the compass with finer breakdown) , not calibration points on a scale (sigh)

As a former Metrologist in the field of Metrology we refered to the calibration points as cardinal points (sigh). :)

Just as an example:
"For the purposes of Pressure Gauge Calibration, Cardinal Point Calibration is one where a specific value is set on either the test or the reference instruments. Nominal Point Calibration is one where a value is set near the target value".

Yes, I also agree that in surveying the Cardinal Points are points on a compass, for example 8 Cardinal points could be N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W and NW. So calibrating a compass at 8 cardinal points the above points would work. My guess here is the term can be applied for more than one meaning.

Maybe I just should have said check the scale using reliable check weights? :)

Ron
 

Jim Watson

New member
There was a post here several years ago where a guy had one of those cheap multi-unit digital scales. He got it set to some other unit than grains, grossly overloaded his ammo, and wrecked the gun.

There are measurements that USED to be in grams.
A 125 gr 9mm bullet is the result of converting 8 grams to grains, then rounding up to a multiple of five that we Anglophones are comfortable with.
 

gwpercle

New member
The grains to grams charts that I have found are saying that there are a lot of grains in one gram. I am just a noobe so I just need some reassurance that this is right that one gram equals approximately 15.5 grains.
Thanks for the replies
If you are using a gram scale to measure powder... DON'T !
Sooner or later a conversion will sneak up and bite you on the butte .
Measuring powder is the most important thing to get right...throw in converting grams to grains/ grains to grams and it is way too easy to make a mistake.

Buy a proper powder scale that measures in GRAINS ...it will be worth every penny...trust me on this .
Gary
 
Last edited:

reddog81

New member
FWIW, My $36 Frankford Arsenal scale is still going strong after 6 years and my $24 Smart Weigh Gem Tech20 is still going strong after 2 years.

IMO digital scales are much easier to use than any of the manual ones and even the cheap ones designed for reloading are sufficient for measuring with any normal reloading setup. And anyone who thinks beam scales are foolproof is only fooling themselves.
 

dahermit

New member
...And anyone who thinks beam scales are foolproof is only fooling themselves.
The beam scales are not foolproof...only more foolproof than the electronic scales.
The RCBS balance beam scale I had since way before 1986 is still working but the three or so electronic scales that I attempted to "upgrade" to have all failed...the longest lasting three years (RCBS Partner).
 

Marco Califo

New member
Ohhh. So, you guys are saying to calibrate your digital scale you have to point it in 8 different directions, and, what? Take an average? For one charge, you have to record results, and then do math? And by then the batteries fail.
 

FlyFish

New member
FYI, if you bring up a Google search box and enter "X grams in grains" - or the reverse, or just about any other two units of measure - then hit enter, you'll get the answer.
 

Marco Califo

New member
I tried that. Mass x grains didn't work. Reference Ohier's post above.

CC's are used by Lee as a 'preset' value to dial in powder charges on the first try. Lee publishes a table of weight x CC for each powder. It is missing some. But the system actually works very well to get you at your desired charge weight quickly. None of the powders I have ever used came in liquid form, so I have no idea where that person's comments originate.
I thought the Cardinal numbers started with a Zero: 0 for 2, 0 for 5, etc.. Increasing as the season progresses.
 
Last edited:

F. Guffey

New member
There was a post here several years ago where a guy had one of those cheap multi-unit digital scales. He got it set to some other unit than grains, grossly overloaded his ammo, and wrecked the gun.

I purchased an Ohaus/RCBS 10/10 scale with two beams, one in grams and the other in grains. For me there was little chance of getting them mixed up. The case will not hold the powder when using the gram scale when it is confused with the grain scale.

F. Guffey
 

Elkins45

New member
FWIW, My $36 Frankford Arsenal scale is still going strong after 6 years and my $24 Smart Weigh Gem Tech20 is still going strong after 2 years.

IMO digital scales are much easier to use than any of the manual ones and even the cheap ones designed for reloading are sufficient for measuring with any normal reloading setup. And anyone who thinks beam scales are foolproof is only fooling themselves.

The problem with cheap digital scales losing calibration is that it is often is only discovered after an overcharge or a squib. Unless you break the beam or lose a counterweight a beam scale will always remain at least somewhat accurately calibrated. I’ve seen cheap digital scales do really stupid things, and do them in totally non-repeatable ways.
 
Nube said:
I am in the process of getting ready to reload and just doing some research on different scales and their calibration
As LeverGunFan wrote in post #8, forget conversions and buy a scale that measures directly in grains. You'll be using it a lot in reloading (or you should), and you'll quickly drive yourself nuts if you constantly have to convert. Either that, or you quickly find that you're weighing a lot less often than you should because it's too much trouble to convert.

And an error in converting can have consequences.
 
It depends. If you gain altitude by getting on a mountain, you can actually gain weight. The solid rock is denser than loose earth or water, so its greater mass raises the gravitational field. If you want to go where you'll weigh least, get a boat to take you out over the Mariana Trench. Water is less dense than rock and there is a lot of it under you there, so you have a less intense gravitational field.

That said, electronic scales and spring measure weight (how much force a given mass presses down on a scale in a gravitational field) while balances measure mass. If you go the moon, the electronic scale will say your bullet weighs less unless you recalibrate it for the moon). But a balance will still say you have the same bullet weight because it is balancing mass on one side of the balance point against a mass on the other. Both masses will lose the same amount of weight going to the moon, so they will still balance against each other at zero.

Mass (the physical and not the religious kind) has units of slugs in the Avoirdupois system. A slug is the amount of mass 1 lb of force accelerates at a rate of 1 ft/s².

The Avoirdupois system of measure uses pounds for force and for weight and has slugs for mass.
The metric MKS system has mass and weight in the same units, kilograms, but force is a separate unit, the Newton. One Newton of force accelerates a mass of one kilogram at a rate of 1 m/s².

All European and other CIP countries use grams for bullet and charge weights. The resolution for charge weight is usually 0.01 grams or about 0.15432358 grains in European load data.


Nube,

There really isn't anything here for you to determine unless you intend to substitute yourself for the international standards and measures organizations. These organizations tell us there are 7000 grains in a pound, but only 453.59237 grams in a pound. How much bigger is 7000 than 453.59237? 15.432358 times bigger. Hence, that is how many grains there are in a gram.


Cardinal Numbers, according to Merriam Webster:

cardinal number, noun
Definition of cardinal number

1 : a number (such as 1, 5, 15) that is used in simple counting and that indicates how many elements there are in an assemblage — see Table of Numbers

2 : the property that a mathematical set has in common with all sets that can be put in one-to-one correspondence with it.​

It's the correspondence between a check weight and scale reading that follows the second definition of being a cardinal number.
 
Top