Powder scale recommendations please.

[Shadow9mm]

I had a budget lyman. In the $30 range. It was not a good scale it would not work with batteries. It did not register small 0.1g changes. Had to tap the pan to get it to see it. The hinge on the cover broke. And it's very cheap plastic.

Had a hornady lock n load auto powder dispenser. Scale was very accurate. Powder dispenser was fickle.

If I were looking at a electric powder scale again, I woukd look at hornady.

 

[cdoc42]

What if the maximum load is 75 gr and you repeatedly obtain 75gr but the true delivery is 77gr? The precision is granted but accuracy is not. You need both.

Why is not group 2 accurate? Just change your scope position.

If your representation is with the same bullet, the same load, the same day, I question the validity. I have never, in 44 years, had a pattern like that with the same load from the same rifle, on the same day, that gave me two acceptable groups in a different position from the point of aim.

 

[nhyrum]

Why is not group 2 accurate? Just change your scope position.



If your representation is with the same bullet, the same load, the same day, I question the validity. I have never, in 44 years, had a pattern like that with the same load from the same rifle, on the same day, that gave me two acceptable groups in a different position from the point of aim.

Because that's just the definition of accuracy vs precison. All the data points were close together, but not where they were intended. Yes, adjusting an optic, point of aim, whatever would resolve it. It was simply an example to visually show the difference

And yes, we want both accuracy and precision in scales. But, in your example of the 77 vs 75 grain charge weight, if you know the scale is off by two grains, consistently, you simply adjust till the scale shows 75. The numbers it displays don't really matter, they're just a reference (akin to the "well, just adjust your scope" above. But yes, we want the number displayed to be the true value.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Reloadron]

nhyrum, thank you.

It does not hurt to throw a known value check weight on a scale to make sure the scale is accurate. Several manufactures market check weights which all things considered are not very costly. I suggest people use them.

Group #2 in my cartoon is not accurate because of the deviation from point of aim. Accuracy being unbiased precision. Group #2 reflects a bias from point of aim.

Ron

 

[cdoc42]

"And yes, we want both accuracy and precision in scales. But, in your example of the 77 vs 75 grain charge weight, if you know the scale is off by two grains, consistently, you simply adjust till the scale shows 75. The numbers it displays don't really matter, they're just a reference (akin to the "well, just adjust your scope" above. But yes, we want the number displayed to be the true value."

But when weighing a charge for your cartridge development, the number it displays is extremely important. Do you really want to use a scale that is consistently off by 2 grains and you just "adjust" for the difference? How reliable is that scale? How do know if it doesn't wander beyond or toward the accurate number?

Here is a definition from a search on the net: "Accuracy Versus Precision of Measurement. Both accuracy and precision reflect how close a measurement is to an actual value, but accuracy reflects how close a measurement is to a known or accepted value, while precision reflects how reproducible measurements are, even if they are far from the accepted value."

So in the example given by Reloadron, certainly if you expect group 2 to be in the Bullseye, it is not accurate, but precise. Those shots in the bull are both accurate and precise. But neither has anything to do with the use of scales to weigh charges.

In contrast to Hounddawg's position, I want my scale to be accurate AND precise, not just precise. In nhyrum's position, if the scale consistently shows 5 grains when he wants 3 grains, he is satisfied to recognize that it is off by two grains.

 

[ChasHam]

The two key elements of measurement are validity and reliability.

Validity means the reading is correct; i.e., if the powder in fact weighs 40 grains, the scale reads 40 grains.

Reliability means the readings are consistent; i.e., it reads 40 grains every time.

The variabilities of each of these dimensions can be expressed statistically--- and the smaller, the better.

 

[Unclenick]

The shooting analogs are accuracy and precision, as mentioned earlier.

It's been interesting to see the trend toward higher scale resolution when enough drift is still possible in some designs to make either their validity or their repeatability little or no better than a scale with a full digit less resolution. A lot of the digital scales internally run ten times higher resolution than the display has in an attempt to limit LSB error to help reliability, but with enough drift, it doesn't help.

Still, overall, they have been trending toward more bang for the buck over the last twenty years, and those who can afford the magnetic restoration and hybrid load cell scales get the best high-resolution performance. Whether they really need it for powder is questionable. Part of the definition of a sweet spot load to me is one that has low exact charge weight sensitivity, but it certainly adds confidence to see an extra digit.

 

[hounddawg]

I always look for a flat spot in velocities that covers at least .3 grains. That way if my measurement is off by .1 either way My POI should still be pretty close to the same.

However during the load development precision is paramount. If your charge weight is off by plus or minus .1 gns is that sweet spot 33.0 to 33.3 gns or 32.9 to 33.4 or 32.9 to 33.0 or 33.0 to 33.1 to etc etc

 

[DaleA]

Despite my experience with a low-cost digital scale I'll easily admit there may be some good ones out there.

That said, this might be one of them:
Lyman Micro-Touch Digital Powder Scale 1500 Grain Capacity from Midway USA at about $38.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/101286312?pid=142513

Once again, I have no personal experience with this scale but IMhO Lyman makes good stuff.

 

[Shadow9mm]

Despite my experience with a low-cost digital scale I'll easily admit there may be some good ones out there.

That said, this might be one of them:
Lyman Micro-Touch Digital Powder Scale 1500 Grain Capacity from Midway USA at about $38.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/101286312?pid=142513

Once again, I have no personal experience with this scale but IMhO Lyman makes good stuff.

I have that scale. I would not recommend it. See post #21

 

[DaleA]

My bad Shadow, missed that post.
That's sad that a Lyman product did poorly. I've always been an RCBS fan but thought anything with the Lyman name on it would be probably as good.

I don't think companies safe guard their reputation as much as they used to but I'm also sure that statement brands me as an old fogey.

Again, thanks for the info about the scale.

 

[cdoc42]

"I don't think companies safe guard their reputation as much as they used to but I'm also sure that statement brands me as an old fogey."

DaleA, I'd believe an "old fogey" any time these days.

 

[WESHOOT2]

Can't hardly beat my trusty old mean green RCBS balance beam.

Had it for years. Stored under a cloth cover. Accurate to a gnat's hair. Don't take no stinkin' batteries…

This.

 

[bbqncigars]

I own and use a couple of different digital scales (kitchen and D-Terminator for reloading), but my main powder scale is a Lyman M that was tuned by Scott Parker a few years ago.

 

[hounddawg]

if you want to find out how accurate your scale is take a old case, a bullet, piece of solder or a fishing sinker down to your local drugstore and ask the pharmacist to weigh it for you on their certified balance. You want to use something that is close to the weight of your normal load plus the weight of your pan. Write the number down then come home and put it on your scale. If the pharmacists scale said it weighed 165 gns and your scale says it weighs 164.2 grains simply and the maximum weight for a load is 45 grains then you never go above 44.2 gns and you should have no problems.

A few years back I took a little non certified 10 gram test weight that came with one of my scales with me to the dogs Vet appointment and asked the Vet to weigh it. Their $5000 balance weighed it at exactly at 9.98 grams, same reading I get on the 20 dollar scale.

 

[44 AMP]

Some years back I got a little green RCBS digital that runs off a 9v battery.
I found it to be accurate and repeatable enough for my use,

However, it was hugely sensitive to any air movement, much more so than my balance beam scales.

Also, with it turned off, but the battery connected it would drain the battery flat dead in just a few days (2-3, I forget exactly but noticeably short of a week)

I've heard that fluorescent lights can screw with the electronic scales as well. Don't know about that, but I do know they can add a "hum" sound to the older electric guitar amplifiers with old standard cables...

 

[Reloadron]

Short of some of the higher end more expensive scales out there most scales digital or mechanical beam types are likely right off the boat from China and branded however someone wants them branded. Most are likely made in the same location.

The below is about a 25 year old plus RCBS originally made by PACT. It remains On just about 24/7. The lower image it has a 0.5 grain check weight on it. You don't need a high end set of check weights, simple inexpensive check weight sets can be had from a dozen distributors. They are a nice to have.

Unless you are really concerned about accuracy and resolution any +/- 0.1 grain is fine. Some of the F Class guys shooting 1,000 yards seem to want a high accuracy and high resolution scale but for everyday use I really see no need.

Placing a fluorescent tube beside the above scale has no effect however if I turn a fluorescent tube On the scale will show momentary jitter when the tube ionizes its gas. Once the tube is lit a good scale should not be affected.

Ron

 

[Bottom Gun]

I tried a couple of digital scales but have since gone back to using my Ohaus beam scales.

My gripe with the digitals was they were too sensitive to air current and impedance from lights or other electrical items. After a number of bogus readings, I no longer trusted digital scales.

I also found the digital scale to be more time consuming than my beam scale yet produced the same level of accuracy. It was taking me longer to accomplish the same tasks when I used the digital scale.

The major shortcoming I experienced was when weighing trickled charges. At the time I was using a lot of extruded powder for my rifle loads and was trickling those powder charges. There was so much delay in the digital scale’s reading, it made powder trickling virtually impossible.

So, I decided that for me, sometimes the old ways are best.

 

[Reloadron]

Bottom Gun:
Likely one of my best scales is a Lyman M5 made by Ohaus. I throw a short charge using a RCBS Uniflow and then use the M5 and just trickle. That's when I really want uniform powder measures. Time consuming? Maybe a little but loading match quality ammunition is not something I feel should be rushed. Pretty sure the guys walking off the line placing in matches don't rush their loading process.

Ron

 

[Bottom Gun]

I agree 100%, Reloadron. I do the same only I use my Saeco measure a bit more often than my Uniflow but they both do a fine job.

I never try to rush things because that can lead to mistakes. However, it doesn’t make sense to intentionally add to the time it takes to achieve the end result, which is what the digital scale was doing for me.

I use the same scale as yours only mine says Ohaus 10-10. I use an Ohaus 10-0-5 as well. I do a lot of double checking between the two if I’m loading hot.

Lately, however, I have been gravitating toward using ball powders like H335 and Win 748 that meter very accurately so I can just throw my charge right from the measure and skip the trickling.
I’m becoming lazy in my old age.