I reload for shotgun, pistol and rifle.

My objectives differ for each:

• Shotgun = Game/target loads in high quantities
  
• Pistol = Target loads in high quantities
  
• Rifle = Hunting load near max. in quantities of about 40 rounds
  

So...Reload by volume for shotgun and pistol. But reload weighing each charge for rifle.

stillbeeman

quote:

Apparently noone read Alberta Canuck's post.

Apparently you did not read my post. I guess you were too busy dreaming up the next nit you were gonna pick.

quote:

Alberta Canuck
Thank you for posting that.

Chill. I am only messing with you and agree with you. It is what I have seen myself and why I quoted Alberta Canuck. My opinion is that if loading from a measure only gives the same groups as loading over a scale I will take loading with a measure. I have speeded up my loading five times faster and improved my grouping. I wish I knew this long ago.

Hello!
OK... I've been reading this thread and all the great posts so far, and I've noticed something. Nobody (at least in a form I recognize) has brought up this factor:
All the assumptions regarding the mass (molecular quantity) of powder as being the more accurate method due to caloric release, etc. have NOT taken into account the possibility that NOT ALL OF THE POWDER is fully combusted by the time the bullet leaves the barrel.
Any thoughts on how this could relate to the weight vs. volume argument?

quote:

3a) count the grains/flakes (So far this school of thought has no advocates. Please join in.

This would give the least accurate loaded ammunition with the greatest variation in velocity as not all the grains IMHO.

I used to be a volume man, and certainly am for powder like Vihtavouri N140 etc., but I too have found that, and it's odd, H4831SC meters LESS WELL in my RCBS Uniflow than RCBS H4831 with the normal long grain!

Rarely did I get that "squeak" or "graunch" as I operated the Uniflow with long grain H4831 but I get it seven to eight out of ten operations with H4831SC.

Such that when my current tub is empty I will abandon the "SC" and either go back to regular long grain H4831 or Vihtavouri N160 or Re-22.

In fact I'm going to post the above as a new topic.

Many times I use the lee scoops for rifle loads I scoop up some powder and dump it into the pan on my scale then trickle or take out what I want they are great for working up a load where you might be loading only 5 rounds and don't want to fool with a powder measure.

One thing I have noticed is there real close to what there supposed to be and would not have any quams about using them for a min. or middle of the road load.as there always within a 1/4 to 1/2 gr

quote:

If ultra accuracy is what is sought at bench rest matches, why have I NEVER seen ANYONE weigh their powder charges? Considering the elaborate tents and work stations they set up at the matches, it would be a small thing to add a balance beam or electronic scale.
I am not saying that using a scoop or a measure one can get closer to a certain weight of powder than one can with a scale but is it important? Or has loading accurate ammunition as an end fallen by the side as a goal in this long tedious thread?

Stillbeeman - Thank you very much for your post. It is nice to see that practical folks still post here among all the theoreticians.

If accuracy is what we are all after, and if both methods are sufficient to obtain the desired accuracy, why not just go with the method which does that with the least work?

Incidentally, that record I mentioned was not for a single 5-shot group, but for the 10-shot group AGGREGATE. So it wasn't a fluke lucky single group of a small number of shots.

My work in senior management in both private industry and government long ago taught me, there are "Theoreticians", and there are "Doers". And there are a very few folks who really are both. Those which I have found it best to listen to for my purposes, in order of credibility are:
1. Doers who also know their theory,
2. Just plain Doers,
3. Theoreticians.



BTW, some of the information in this thread about the effect of the column of powder in powder measures is somewhat deceiving. Has no one here ever heard of "baffles"? Almost all good powder measures come with baffles, either insertable/removable ones, or built-in baffles. They rather much eliminate the downward force of a changing column of powder. Basically, they reduce the column to a height of a couple of inches or less, sometimes considerably less, and the powder above the baffle(s) keeps that powder height constant in the "below baffle" area.

Powder measures are like everything else in accurate shooting; as a general rule you get what you pay for. Buy cheap, and you get less precision.

Also, like everything else in shooting, accurate powder measure operation requires the development of skill. You can't just pay money and yank the handle any more than you can pay $5,000 for a super benchrest rifle, just yank the trigger, and automatically win matches.

Best wishes,

AC

quote:

Originally posted by Rat Motor:
Guys
I do not want to get involved in a brand name war but some powder measures we were shown were not good either. Avoid measure with tall thin powder hoppers and small diameter cylinder shaped metering devices. Powder measures with a lot of play in the mechanism is also not very good.

I do not want to start a War either, but I would really like to know which PMs are the most accurate. If I am going to switch over to throwing all of my charges I want to know that my PM is up to the task. Right now I use a RCBS Uniflow measure. Is the RCBS going to cut the mustard, or should I purchase something better?

Steve-

It depends upon whether you consider your measure a long-term purchase, or something you may not use enough to justify that sort of cost.

Personally, I would recommend a Harrel brand measure as a good compromise of cost/quality, preferably the one with roller (needle) bearings. The Harrels also come in a couple of different sizes, to match the kind of work you will be doing with them.

Oddly enough, the really cheapo Lee "Perfect" measure will work pretty darned well too (and never "cut" a granule), but it takes some experiments adjusting the tension screw on the right hand side to get it to work accurately in many instances.

The Lee, however, no matter how well you get it working, will always look and feel "cheap"...and likely won't last nearly as long as the others. Still, at around $20 new, I guess a guy couldn't bitch if it wore out in 3-5 years of heavy use.

The Cadillac is the Harrel, and the Rolls-Royce is the Neal Jones brand. The Jones, though, are $300 and up.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

3a) count the grains/flakes (So far this school of thought has no advocates. Please join in.

This would give the least accurate loaded ammunition with the greatest variation in velocity as not all the grains IMHO.

I authored the "3a) count the grains/flakes" school of thought (as opposed to the 1a and 1b, weighing school and to the 2a, 2b and 2c, volumetric school. It was mostly an attempt at humor, but also to show that there is no end of possibilities for experimental and theoretical research which may appear to be ridiculous at first glance, but which can only be legitimately ruled out by application of experimental rigor. It is in my posting 24 February 2008 04:25

quote:

Originally posted by Gaillo:
Hello!
OK... I've been reading this thread and all the great posts so far, and I've noticed something. Nobody (at least in a form I recognize) has brought up this factor:
All the assumptions regarding the mass (molecular quantity) of powder as being the more accurate method due to caloric release, etc. have NOT taken into account the possibility that NOT ALL OF THE POWDER is fully combusted by the time the bullet leaves the barrel.
Any thoughts on how this could relate to the weight vs. volume argument?

That question was hinted at in a link provided by Jagter on 23 February 2008 16:22. Not directly, but by bringing in the factors of load density theory, burn rate (quickness of the powder) and their effect on the location of the point of peak pressure. The linked article does mention unburned powder, but only as it relates to induced turbulence when it ignites with the bullet beyond the muzzle.

Good catch on that omission.

Thanks for contributing to our furthur educations.

Larry (Lost Sheep)

This has been a good thread. Middle of winter and everybody's blood is up. Here we are talking about $300 powder measures when the whole thread was started by a guy with a $20 Lee Loader.
The original question was does TINY weight variations make a difference etc, etc. I think the answer is,Not so you can really tell. There's only been about a gazillion rounds of good, accurate ammo loaded just like you're doing it. Have fun reloading.

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
This has been a good thread. Middle of winter and everybody's blood is up. Here we are talking about $300 powder measures when the whole thread was started by a guy with a $20 Lee Loader.
The original question was does TINY weight variations make a difference etc, etc. I think the answer is,Not so you can really tell. There's only been about a gazillion rounds of good, accurate ammo loaded just like you're doing it. Have fun reloading.

The question was also asked (not by the original poster) of what was the best measure out there, which is why I recommended the Harrel as the best compromise between paying a fortune and getting a really top quality measure for somewhat less.


I think it has been a good thread too. And just to be clear, I am not recommending a $300 powder measure to anyone. I have one, but ever since I bought my Lee Perfect measure for $16 dealer cost on sale and got it properly adjusted, I use it a lot more than my $300 Jones.

I was just trying to show the range available out there, and certainly agree that excellent ammo can be loaded with ANY powder measure on the market if the user develops skill in operating the measure consistently. (...And maybe makes a baffle from a piece of tin can or plastic sheeting, and puts that in his measure if it doesn't already have one.)


Pax vobiscum, y'all

I watched Al Mirdoch one night shoot 5 rounds at 100 yards into one very small group with the cronograph reading 3165 + or - 1 fps. The fourth round opened that group slightly I remember -it was probably under .1 .Fantastic conditions -dead calm at dusk at Namaka.

The rifle was a Pindell built 6 PPC using thrown charges (at the range) of Nobel H-4198.
I went home and phoned Al one hour later that night - I bought that rifle the next day.

I have a lyman 55 powder measure with a Culver conversion - I added a plastic Hornaday baffle . I use this to load all my ammunition - it does take a bit of pratice to throw consistant charges . You have to do everthing exactly the same each time.

Listen to Alberta Canuck guys -this is experiance talking.

Do a search on Br.com and you will find the same information.


On the same note Al Mirdoch test fired some .22 cal match bullets that he made in a .22 PPC . He found that between 50 -52 -55 gr weight all went into the same group at 100 yards. He made those test bullets in the same die changeing only the core weight.

Glenn

Hi Stonewall - Good old Al, I sure miss him. I was not one of his close shooting buddies; even though we both belonged to the Namaka range group, we were into different types of competition at the time. He WAS, however one of my closer reloading buds and we used to exchange loading tips/components a lot. He and McCracken both lived in the same area of Calgary as I and they were good people. My world is much smaller and worth less to me since they passed on.