Figuring that they are the best way to measure real pressure, what kind do you like best and why?

I have an old Brown & Sharpe vernier micrometer, but as my eyes age, it's getting tougher to read. So, any suggestions?

Appears the RCBS digital electronic got panned by some users on the Midway website.

Any help would be appreciated. I always come away impressed by the knowledge represented on this forum.

That method is really not reliable. It is very imprecise, and there are too many variables (brass thickness, brass hardness, brass toughness, brass age, brass geometry[manufacturing tolerances], chamber size, chamber concentricity, actual pressure of the factory round that you are using as a reference, etc., etc.). Having said that, you will get the best results from using a blade type micrometer, either a Mitutoyo or a Mitutoyo. You could also try a Mitutoyo. They make one with a digital readout that my old eyes appreciate. You could go with a Starret. I think they buy theirs from Mitutoyo.
My girlfriend unit is buying me a pressure trace strain gauge set-up for pressure measuring for christmas "Did you hear that honey?". This method is now certified for commercial work by SAAMI so it should tell you what you want to know.
JCN

Hey HT, I've been using Micrometers for nearly 5 decades to check Pressure Indications and the Elders that taught me used them long before I was born. The only real trick is to make sure you get a set that is 0.0001" capable.

Basically what you have is a 100% reliable method. It is very precise, and it is the only method which takes into account all the many variables (brass thickness, brass hardness, brass toughness, brass age, brass geometry[manufacturing tolerances], chamber size, chamber concentricity, when used properly. And it is the only way to use the actual pressure of the factory round as a reference with any reliability.

Having said that, you will get the best results from using a 0.0001" capable micrometer of whatever style you like the best. I prefer the old non-electronic style because it doesn't keep "shifting" figures. That tends to get old quickly. But, any of them, including the under $20 RCBS standard style fom www.wideners.com will work.

Lots of problems with the Home Strain Gauge Systems when a person is attempting to use them outside a Lab. So, I just don't recommend them. I feel sure denton will chime in with my list of reasons of why they have problems. You just have to sort through all his nonsensical foolishness to find them.

HSGS = Reloader's Pyrite (aka Fool's Gold)

1. Standard list of Hot Core fabrications, unsupported by any known facts or credible references, all posted on this board for all to see---
1.1. Mounting a strain gage on a rifle will spoil the accuracy.
1.2. You need a CMM to measure the ID and OD of a chamber.
1.3. Mounting a strain gage will rust your rifle.
1.4. Strain gage systems cannot be calibrated, and the results are just a guess.
1.5. PRE is completely repeatable and reliable.
1.6. PRE is calibrated.
1.7. Claims to have 20 years of experience with strain gages.
1.8. Claims that strain gages don�t work outside a laboratory.

2. Standard list of Hot Core self-contradictions�
2.1. Claims that you can, and that you cannot use factory ammunition as a maximum pressure reference.
2.2. Claims that you need SAAMI standard ammunition to calibrate a strain gage, but that you don�t need it to calibrate PRE.
2.3. Claims that you cannot use chamber dimensions to calibrate a strain gage, but that you can use brass dimensions to calibrate PRE.
2.4. Claims that he gets four significant digits measuring brass with a micrometer, but the rest of us can�t get three when measuring a chamber.

3. Hot Core logical fallacies/half truths--
3.1 Hot Core can teach anyone to use a micrometer in five minutes, and it is a precise instrument. Since it is a precision instrument, and easy to use, it follows that the dimensions of a brass casing accurately and precisely reflect the pressure of a load.

4. Most childish Hot Core behavior�
4.1. Resorts to name calling when things aren�t going his way.
4.2 Issues childish insults rather than presenting facts.

5. Actual experiment says�
5.1. Strain gage systems are very repeatable, and the one I have tested is on a par with equipment currently in use by people who write reloading books. Two cartridges subjected to the same peak pressure give you very close to the same peak reading, routinely.
5.2. Strain gage systems are easily calibrated, and they routinely produce peak pressure readings that correspond with the expected pressures of commercial ammunition.
5.3. PRE and CHE are very non-repeatable. Two cases subjected to the same pressure produce the same dimension only if you are very lucky.
5.4. Details of how to replicate my experiment have been posted, for anyone who cares to try it. You can love it, or you can hate it. The data don�t care.

6. Ken Waters actually said�
6.1. PRE is inferior to strain gages and to CUP.
6.2. PRE is a relative system only. (Relative system = not calibrated.)
6.3. Speaking of PRE, �...no such system of judging pressures can reveal the actual pressure in pounds per square inch or copper units of pressure.�