quote:

Originally posted by Scott F:
I have three measures, and old Lyman, A RCBS and a Harrell's. I never trickle any more. I like and try to use ball powders when they fit my needs. I find AA powder cans outnumber the rest on my shelf. I have found a baffle in my measure improves repeatability drastically.

I also have developed a habit of repeating how I move the handle every time. IE, up and tap twice, down and tap twice. Doing it the same every time seems to help too.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Consistancy, aka repeatability, in your motion trumps a whole lot of dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott F:
I have three measures, and old Lyman, A RCBS and a Harrell's. I never trickle any more. I like and try to use ball powders when they fit my needs. I find AA powder cans outnumber the rest on my shelf. I have found a baffle in my measure improves repeatability drastically.

I also have developed a habit of repeating how I move the handle every time. IE, up and tap twice, down and tap twice. Doing it the same every time seems to help too.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Consistancy, aka repeatability, in your motion trumps a whole lot of dollars.

yeah right

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Western,
I weigh my extruded charges with an old AMT Auto Scale. It is basically two power tricklers (one fast and one slow) connected to a conventional Ohaus scale. Like any other Ohaus with the drum poise you can read it to .1 grains. Most of my charges are in the 45 grain range. If you load huge amounts of ammo or very large cartridges just use 2 of them.

Thats a new one on me. Saw one in a search and they look intresting. Pretty rare though.

I just goofed around a bit in the reloading room and found that basicaly any extruded powder, 4064, 4350, 3031, Rlr 19 and so on. They ALL varried about +/- .2 for on overall variation of about .4 grs, sometimes a little more. That was from my Lyman 55. Tapping, no tapping, doesnt matter, the variance is still there. I guess until I find a better measure I'll just have to trickle all extruded powders or live with sub standard charges.

Keep the suggestions coming though. Id like to know how the reddings, and RCBS measures compare to my findings..

That is about what I find with my Redding measure. All my medium bore stuff I trickle if I am using a stick powder. The Short Cut powders are some better, IMR 4064 and 4198 being some of the worst. I do use some ball powder for the very reason that it does meter good. Especially in .223 and the like where I shoot quite a bit of it. That stuff I just throw and go, weigh one every now and then just to make sure the adjustment hasn't got bumped or anything.

The Redding seems to be about the best until you get into those costing megadollars. Even the best will still "cut and grind" the coarser stick powders like IMR 4350. I used to use H570 and some 5010 -- those big logs of powder were hopeless in any measure. So with the coarse powders I drop and trickle.

With ball powders you just can't weigh any closer than a Redding will drop. And with the newer shorter-grained versions of powders like 7828, 4831, H4350, etc., the Redding will drop them to much less variance than can be detected with your chronograph.

By the way, don't even begin to attribute most of the shot-to-shot velocity variation to the difference in powder charges. Old Surplus 4831 would usually stay within a standard deviation of 10 or less fps in something like a .270 even when charges varied by .25 grains; whereas many other powders will exceed that SD even with weighed charges.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
The Redding seems to be about the best until you get into those costing megadollars. Even the best will still "cut and grind" the coarser stick powders like IMR 4350. I used to use H570 and some 5010 -- those big logs of powder were hopeless in any measure. So with the coarse powders I drop and trickle.

With ball powders you just can't weigh any closer than a Redding will drop. And with the newer shorter-grained versions of powders like 7828, 4831, H4350, etc., the Redding will drop them to much less variance than can be detected with your chronograph.

By the way, don't even begin to attribute most of the shot-to-shot velocity variation to the difference in powder charges. Old Surplus 4831 would usually stay within a standard deviation of 10 or less fps in something like a .270 even when charges varied by .25 grains; whereas many other powders will exceed that SD even with weighed charges.

Well, I found myself one of those antiquated, dinosaur Belding and Mull Powder measures and will give that a try. If it works as good as many people claim, great. Picked it up for 50 bucks from gunbroker.com. Why not? Some report that they are more accurate than a harrels with extruded powders. Some complain that they dont like pouring from the charge tube for every round. But I think that would be faster and simpler than weighing each and every charge. We will see how it goes. If it works as well as I hope, then I may end up eliminating ball powders from my loads as opposed to the other way around.

I recently built a 260 rem for target/varminting and have been invited to try some "gun golf". Completly new to this sort of thing. If I still end up weighing each charge for that purpose then so be it.

As for the claims that the variation in powder measures makes no difference in accuracy I couldnt disagree more. Some may have less variation, good for them. But as I stated mine showed an easy .5 grain spread with certian powders. Teancum produced an article stating that such variation is null and meaningless. Thats fine. But what were the conditions, calibers and specific loads. What powder measures were used, and were not used? Did they include any 40 or 50 year old measures? In what rifles? And what was considered acceptable accuracy? I submit that their study is not a consensus and we shouldnt etch anything into stone just yet. I doubt if anyone here would disagree that the closer to a maximum load you get, the more variation 1/2 grain will cause. It is also apparent that the smaller the case and bullet, that the greater effect variations in the powder charge will have. A 25/20 with a 75 gn bullet will feel the effect of 1/2 gn powder variation more than a 45/70 with a 400 gn bullet. Especialy if you load close to max.

Stonecreeks point that some variation can be attributed to specific powders is well taken. But I suspect that burining rates in various volumes can also either nullify or exacerbate variations. My personal chronographing experiences have shown a distinct difference in SD between extruded powders vs ball powders thrown from a powder measure. Again, YYMV. And one other point, did the article in the gun rag take harmonics into consideration? It is well established that slight variations in velocities will cause verticle stringing.

Here is an intresting article about bbl tuning and the effects of different velocities.

http://www.border-barrels.com/.../tuning_a_barrel.htm

Accuracy = repeatability.

Buy "The Book of Rifle Accuracy" by Tony Boyer. Not only is it packed full of good info it's a really good read.

Let me simplify this for you, WH:

I use a Redding powder measure. How other measures "measure up" against the Redding I can't say because it is the only measure I have used for the last 40 years. I'm told that the Redding is well above average. I did happen to come by an RCBS incidental to a trade, and judging from its poorer finish of the drum and how stiffly it operates compared to the Redding, I am prepared to believe what I am told.

Here are the powders that I drop and don't bother to weigh: All ball powders, H4198, H4895, AA4064, VH 135, VH 160, IMR 7828 SSC, H4350, RL 25, and all flake shotgun and pistol powders. I'm sure there are other fine-grained powders which would fall into this category, but I just don't happen to have them in my inventory or use them.

Here are the powders I drop, then dribble: H4831 original, IMR 4350, IMR 4064, IMR 3031. There are other coarse powders which I'm sure I would feel the need to dribble if I used them.

H570 and H5010, neither of which I have used in two decades, are so coarse that I would dip and dribble, rather than attempt to cram them through a measure.

In terms of velocity variations, it is apparent that you are not a benchrest shooter (and neither am I, at least not formally). I don't know of ANY benchresters who weigh their charges, though I'm sure there are exceptions. Velocity variations, and the attendant inaccuracy cause by them, are, as I said, much more related to inconsistency in the performance of the powder than to tiny variations in the weight of the powder. After all, powder weight will vary to some degree with ambient humidity, which is one reason most benchrest shooters prefer to rely on volumetric measurements than on mass measurements to give them a more consistent amount of chemical energy in each cartridge.

While the topic is specifically about throwing accurate charges....

Consider that 0.1g difference in weight is usually only a 3-5 fps difference in velocity... This should not be enough to scatter bullets all over creation or create significant differences in bullet drop by itself...

Personally I have found SIGNIFICANTLY more velocity variation resulting from primer choice.... and more accuracy variation resulting from the bullet construction and how well the bullet fits the chamber.....

I did some chrono testing on one of my rifles... My normal go-to primers were averaging 150+ FPS variations shot to shot, and in cold weather - it went up to 400 fps.... I tested out many different primers - and the best one cut the variation to 8 fps.... This is with exactly the same load, cases, and bullets....

Accuracy wise - I noticed that my flat base bullets were being shaved upon insertion into the case.. and that shaved bullets didn't shoot as accurately... Chamfering the cases eliminated shaving the bullets - and accuracy improved....

I also noticed that there is significant differences in the bullets - that can make differences in accuracy.. The biggest one I saw was shooting 1950's Mil-surp pulldown bullets vs modern commercial Match bullets... The same load would scatter the old Pulled bullets into 3" groups - where the Match bullets shot well under an inch....

Thanks

TruckJohn: You are correct that there are many factors which may contribute to or cause velocity variations. You correctly point out that a miniscule variation in powder weight isn't a very significant factor.

Years of ballistic experimentation have determined that velocity is very proportional to powder charge (even if pressure isn't). In other words, a 1% increase in powder on average results in a 1% increase in velocity.

Let's take a relatively small cartridge, in which a given weight of powder variation is of more significance than in a large cartridge. Let's say that you use 27 grains of powder in your .223 for an average velocity of 3200 fps. Now, let's say that your powder measure drops between 26.95 and 27.05 grains -- a .1 grain variation. One tenth of a grain represents .37% of the charge. Multiply 3200 fps by .37% gives you a total velocity variation of up to 11.84 fps, or only 5.92 fps from average. The same variation in a .270 Winchester using 60 grains of powder for 3100 fps would be 5.16 fps (plus or minus 2.08 fps from average), and for a .416 Remington using 80 grains of powder for 2400 fps the variation would be 3 fps (+ or - 1.5 fps).

Sometimes, with the right primers and the right powder you can build a load with a standard deviation as low as 10 fps (meaning that the typical shot is 10 fps different from the average shot, and that the difference in high and low in a string could be a great deal more), but it is rare. Considering this, the variation in velocity potentially caused by a .1 grain variation in powder weight is negligible. And considering that most modern powders will drop through a good powder measure with a weight variation of more like .05, you can see that dropping powder charges with most fine-grained powders is by far the most efficient and effective approach.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
The Redding seems to be about the best until you get into those costing megadollars. Even the best will still "cut and grind" the coarser stick powders like IMR 4350. I used to use H570 and some 5010 -- those big logs of powder were hopeless in any measure. So with the coarse powders I drop and trickle.

With ball powders you just can't weigh any closer than a Redding will drop. And with the newer shorter-grained versions of powders like 7828, 4831, H4350, etc., the Redding will drop them to much less variance than can be detected with your chronograph.

By the way, don't even begin to attribute most of the shot-to-shot velocity variation to the difference in powder charges. Old Surplus 4831 would usually stay within a standard deviation of 10 or less fps in something like a .270 even when charges varied by .25 grains; whereas many other powders will exceed that SD even with weighed charges.

Stone, You'd be wrong about a Belding & Mull. Mine doesn't cut stick powder and it will giver zero reading with fine powder, pistol powders, and ball powders. It will often give that zero with stick powders. Fist powder measure I bought and it performs so well I'm not about to change. I have friends that have the Reddings and they said they aren't that great, but better then RCBS. I was going to buy a Redding I guess just to have it and they said if your B&M runs that well don't bother.

Back in mid 60's when I started reloading an old time reloader recommended the Belding & Mull measure, so that's what I bought. I don't recall ever using any other measure. Since then I have read many times about one powder or the other not metering well. I have yet to find a powder my old Belding & Mull wont throw consistently to whatever I set it to. I have noticed some that have not used A Belding & Mull before will have initial difficulty, but with a little practice they are throwing consistent charges. In my books it is pretty foolproof. I can see where a measure that dumps directly into the case would be faster, but if you want accuracy get a B&M. The link to the other measure appears to be of the same principle as the B&M. BTW even back in the 60's when it was new it looked like an antique.

Im still waiting for my B&M. But I also came up with something else that worked to my satisfaction in the meantime. Again, if I were able to get as little as a 0.1 gn variation, then I wouldnt think twice about rolling with it. But an overall swing of 0.5 is a bit much IMO.
Anyway, I recieved an adapter for my good ol Lee measure and set the measure right where I wanted it with some IMR 4831 for some 7X57 practice loads. I proceeded to scale each one and about 9 out of 10 times it was within 0.1. But there was an occasional throw that was unacceptable. So rather than trickle every one, I just dumped those ones back in the hopper and continued on. I kind of liked that process. It wasnt as tedious as trickling every load, and yet I was assured that each charge was within acceptable parameters.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Im still waiting for my B&M. But I also came up with something else that worked to my satisfaction in the meantime. Again, if I were able to get as little as a 0.1 gn variation, then I wouldnt think twice about rolling with it. But an overall swing of 0.5 is a bit much IMO.
Anyway, I recieved an adapter for my good ol Lee measure and set the measure right where I wanted it with some IMR 4831 for some 7X57 practice loads. I proceeded to scale each one and about 9 out of 10 times it was within 0.1. But there was an occasional throw that was unacceptable. So rather than trickle every one, I just dumped those ones back in the hopper and continued on. I kind of liked that process. It wasnt as tedious as trickling every load, and yet I was assured that each charge was within acceptable parameters.

Like I said with most powders I get 0 variation. I rebuilt my B&M. It had the aluminum sliding chamber/block. It hauled on the cast body so I made a brass one and I fit it precisely. Man what an improvement. I also make addition drop tubes. When that sliding block slides it cuts off the main reservoir. That is the main reason B&M's are so consistent because the drop tube is exposed to the same amount and gravity of the same size charge all the time.

Looking forward to trying the B&M. I cant help but wonder just how much a baffle would help with the consistancy of a Lee perfect plastic or one of the other similar designs. I might try making one out of aluminum flashing just to give it a try.

I have used the Lyman 55 and the Redding BR30 for 20+ yrs now, at home, and on the bench at the range. The only issues are the long grained stick powders, and most of those are now available as an SC version, which work OK. The consistency of the method you use to throw is the major key to getting consistent charges, same as on a progressive, like a shotshell or rifle press.
I set up the thrower at home, and can use it at the range, at the bench with confidence, in a match. There are just too many other variables in play, at an outdoor range, to sweat out the exact charge weight. The scale itself is a variable, primers, neck tension, hold on the gun, lighting in some cases, temp & wind can all negate the charge weight factor.
When you are using a thrower, you work by volume, weight is only an indicator of the consistency of that volume. One stick of powder can be on the boundary of the weight shown, and give you a light or heavy reading, and then add the .01 variable of the scale itself. you could have a .03 variance from one stick of powder.
So, to me the weight means little, other than I have the right volume.

I do a lot of shooting, from 2000 rounds per year of centerfire and up. In order to do this much shooting with the accuracy required, I have developed a method that involves many powders of all types. I do not throw any loads but I am looking at it with a .223 I will be shooting extensively. I utilize two of the old Lyman Autoscales (auto dispensers with a balance beam) each with a specific powder I shoot weekly I also have two Lyman 1200 DPS (digital dispensers with digital scales) each with it's own specific powder that I shoot extensively weekly. I also have my old RCBS beam scale and the Lyman Digital 1500 with a trickler attached. With these six powder measures I find I can keep up with my shooting needs and those of 6 grandsons and my son as well as a grandaughter and great grandson someday. Might sound confusing but it works for me and mine. Good shooting.