Powder Scales @ Shortrange Benchrest Matches

Are the chargemaster advocates saying that all those previous tests (albeit not witnessed tests) reporting that weighed charges vs dropped charges looked the same to a chronograph were not reported correctly? Or is there something else I need to know?
 
Dick, there are some videos on YouTube for the Hornady (actually all the devices out there) and it seems faster than the RCBS to me and much more fixed-income friendly. The green machine is about at cult status.

There is chasm between the weighers and throwers and it's interesting to see the opinions. I'm still in the throwing camp and still use an RCBS 505 when I need to weigh. Of course, I haven't won any big matches but my rifle and my loads are capable of it if they could find a shooter with real eyes.

Hope to see you this summer.
 
Dick Grosbier said:
I saw that and it is cheaper too, but I have not read any good reports on it. Also I really could care less about color. I am fine with RCBS Green. Performance is much more important to me than color.
Click to expand...

Paint it yallar (between dewalt and canary) and I'll let ya'll send me one.
HFV
 
i do not own a charge master...coments are from previous threads on these forums.
i weigh at home and pre load
and one of my ranges actually has an indoor loading area....
mike in co
Bashful said:
Couple of questions for Mike in Colorado,
Do you weight you charges from your Chargemaster directly to your Lab Scale?
If so, how do you integrate it directly to Chargemaster?
At a bench rest competition or any other outdoor range environment (i.e. in the outdoor elements or inside a drafty building), How do you get your Lab scale to measure any more accurately than the RCBS scale or any other method? From all the literature I’ve read a Lab Scales must be in a very stable environment to have any more accuracy than any other measuring device.
I also think that an RCBS Chargemaster electronic scale has a +- of .1 to .2 grains, if so what’s to say it any more accurate that a thrown charge?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MIKE,
If you don't own a charge master or ever load outside now can you be so sure it is more accurate?

Why in your previous posts do recommend a charge master?
Do you take your lab scale to the range
 
Last edited by a moderator:
did you read what i said ??
the consistancy of the chargemaster has been discussed. the inconsistancy of throwers has been discussed.
the end result is that if you use n133, you are more consistant with a chargemaster than with thrown charges.
neither are great, but n133 appears to have a large sweet spot and talented shooters seem to do well with charges that are plus or minus .1 with an occassional .2 this is much better than the plus or minus .2 with an occassional .3 that is seen with n133 and throwers.
now have i said that enough times?
you have two post both on this subject and at me..i assume you are a troll.
mike in co
Bashful said:
MIKE,
If you don't own a charge master or ever load outside now can you be so sure it is more accurate?
Click to expand...
 
No I just think a lot of shooters use thrown charges with great results. You don't need to call me names for asking a question
I just don't think a lot of benchrest shooters have the time to use lab scale at the range to get the last bit of accurate load. A chargemaster is faster, but it still doesn't have ant more accuracy than the electronic scale which isn't perfect outdoors. I don't dispute that you can measure a more accurate load with alab scale in a controlled environment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the problem is that what you think and the facts are in conflict.
see below...since some people like to take things OUT OF CONTEXT....
and please note he ediited his post AFTER i posted...

"No I just think a lot of shooters use thrown charges with great results. You don't need to call me names for asking a question
I just don't think a lot of benchrest shooters have the time to use lab scale at the range to get the last bit of accurate load. A chargemaster is faster, but it still doesn't have ant more accuracy than the electronic scale which isn't perfect outdoors. I don't dispute that you can measure a more accurate load with alab scale in a controlled environment. Last edited by Bashful; 03-20-2012 at 09:41 PM."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe there are a number of things people who shoot competitively do just to satisfy their own needs, with very little proof in the pudding. Now, I'm not against that as there is a certain psychological edge to feeling you are at the line with the best possible equipment. The weighing vs. throwing thing has been going around the forums for a few years now and I've not yet seen a definitive test. When someone shows up at the range with 100 rounds carefully weighed to the upteenth of a thousandth of a grain and 100 rounds carefully thrown by a "good thrower" and no one knows which is which, and then the weighed ones indiscriminately blow the thrown ones out of the game -- then I may think there is some credibility to the every-kernel-matters school of thought.

In the annals of recorded BR history, how many current records have been shot weighed or thrown -- and can you believe what the shooter says anyway?

What I want is one of those ChargeMaster thingeys that can read the wind and mirage and tell my tired old mind what to do with it. My gun works, my loads work, my mind has dumb spells.

At this point in time, I am willing to put up with the idiosyncrasies of N133 or 8208XBR thrown from my Harrell's BR measure just because of the convenience of it. I can't do any worthwhile load testing as to weighed vs. thrown because my useless Lyman scale doesn't have enough accuracy and I don't move my RCBS 505 which is what I weigh on when I need to, so in the meantime I'll keep throwing and trying to learn that pesky wind.

A bad day at the range with a poor-boy scale and loads that probably don't cut it is still better'n a good day just about anywhere else ...
 
I used to get really irritated with Mike over his attitude about scales until one day... I always figure ok accurate to .1 +- as long as the thing reads the same weight the same every time I should still be good to go.
NOPE I took an rcbs electronic scale and started weighing some bullets. After about 20 of them that separated out into 3 diff weights by .1 I decided to reweigh them.....uhoh some of them weighed differently than the first time by----- .1.
Then there used to be (and now I cant find it) a posting on accurate shooter with a study done by one of the guys who works for one of the lab scale companies. He compared various throwers and electronic measures with the lab scale.
What really surprised me was how much the harrels was actually off.

This doesnt mean your off the hook Mike I still get irritated with you but you are right sometimes.
 
You are right Vern, sometimes he is right, albeit caustically so most of the time.. :)
With his calling Bashful a troll, I do take exception to what Mike said to Bashful "the problem is that what you think and the facts are in conflict."
1. Bashful said to Mike "I just think a lot of shooters use thrown charges with great results." That thought does not conflict with the facts!
2. Bashful said to Mike "I just don't think a lot of benchrest shooters have the time to use lab scale at the range to get the last bit of accurate load." I can't see any conflict with the facts here either! Bashful could have added that not only time, but having the facilities for all, many or most to set up a lab scale at the range and load using it between relays is a very difficult thing to do at best.
3. Bashful said to Mike "I don't dispute that you can measure a more accurate load with alab scale in a controlled environment." Once again, no conflict between thinking and fact!
I don't believe that anyone here really disagrees that a very high quality digital scale is far more accurate than thrown charges. Many do believe that in the realm of point blank BR, the time trouble and expense of setting up a lab scale to weigh charges is far more trouble than it's worth!
I believe that much of the accuracy gain that is theoretically possible with this setup is nullified by neglecting to weigh primers to .001 grain, matching brass volume to .001 grain, bullet base to ogive measurement to .001, and bullet weight to .001 grain. Then, if you do all that...the game ceases to be fun! With no enjoyment...why even shoot!

Vern said:
I used to get really irritated with Mike over his attitude about scales until one day... I always figure ok accurate to .1 +- as long as the thing reads the same weight the same every time I should still be good to go.
NOPE I took an rcbs electronic scale and started weighing some bullets. After about 20 of them that separated out into 3 diff weights by .1 I decided to reweigh them.....uhoh some of them weighed differently than the first time by----- .1.
Then there used to be (and now I cant find it) a posting on accurate shooter with a study done by one of the guys who works for one of the lab scale companies. He compared various throwers and electronic measures with the lab scale.
What really surprised me was how much the harrels was actually off.

This doesnt mean your off the hook Mike I still get irritated with you but you are right sometimes.
Click to expand...
 
Lime red again. There is a shooter from Salem Va. that does not use a scale of any type. He does not clean primer pockets, case necks, does not use neck, full length, bump die. He uses a decapping pin from Wilson sizer, to punch primers out, seats primers w/Lee auto prime, drops powder from a Culver, sets bullets in the case neck w/fingers and shoots. He shoots fast w/no neck tension. I've been to many matches in southeast region that he attended for 20 years or more, and have yet to see him leave w/o getting @ least one pine board. I have also witnessed him winning four gun aggs, using his 10-1/2Lb sporter, putting a different barrel on for each class, but still not exceeding the 10-1/2 lb class. This included 10 shot unlimited. He did this @ Buccaneer Gun near Wilmington NC,, Unaka @ Johnson City , Tenn and (I can't say for sure but pretty sure) @ Roanoke. His name is Ted Manning and many shooters will verify this. He does his own fitting, chambering and, bedding. First class guy, I might add.
 
nice comments taken out of context 2 of three times.

please note.....THE ISSUE is N133 and THROWN CHARGES. not what a lab scale can do, nor about 0.001 of anything else.

so another time...
n133 in thrown charges is typically PLUS OR MINUS 0.2 WITH OCASSIONAL PLUS OR MINUS 0.3.
that is not good, it aint even close.
the fact that guys win throwing charges of n133 is:
A) a testement to excellent shooting skills and
B) the large sweet spot of n133.
so, you can drag in as much other nonsense as you want, muddy the waters with bs, but thrown charges of n133 is the issue.

mike in co
MarkR said:
You are right Vern, sometimes he is right, albeit caustically so most of the time.. :)
With his calling Bashful a troll, I do take exception to what Mike said to Bashful "the problem is that what you think and the facts are in conflict."
1. Bashful said to Mike "I just think a lot of shooters use thrown charges with great results." That thought does not conflict with the facts!
2. Bashful said to Mike "I just don't think a lot of benchrest shooters have the time to use lab scale at the range to get the last bit of accurate load." I can't see any conflict with the facts here either! Bashful could have added that not only time, but having the facilities for all, many or most to set up a lab scale at the range and load using it between relays is a very difficult thing to do at best.
3. Bashful said to Mike "I don't dispute that you can measure a more accurate load with alab scale in a controlled environment." Once again, no conflict between thinking and fact!
I don't believe that anyone here really disagrees that a very high quality digital scale is far more accurate than thrown charges. Many do believe that in the realm of point blank BR, the time trouble and expense of setting up a lab scale to weigh charges is far more trouble than it's worth!
I believe that much of the accuracy gain that is theoretically possible with this setup is nullified by neglecting to weigh primers to .001 grain, matching brass volume to .001 grain, bullet base to ogive measurement to .001, and bullet weight to .001 grain. Then, if you do all that...the game ceases to be fun! With no enjoyment...why even shoot!
Click to expand...
 
Just for grins, I did a little short run testing with a couple of SAKO measures, and older one, without the knocker, and one that is like new, with. I mixed up techniques a little, but none of them involved a simple up and down motion. I did the runs without any warmup at all, because I wanted to see if there was a difference as I went on with each test. I was using '04 133 and weighing with an Acculab VIC-123. The first run of ten throws had an ES of .28 gr., the second with a slightly different technique, (both with the older measure) was .26. The test with the new measure, that has a built in knocker and tighter drum clearance, utilized a simpler stroke and the knocker. Its ES for 12 throws was .18, which works out to +- .09. I know that more samples would be better. If you want more, be my guest. The Harrell's is in my range kit in the garage. I will do a run with it later this evening.
 
In previous tests I determined that when tests get to higher numbers, focus and consistency suffer, and in the real world, loading at the range, I do short runs, with a lot of attention to technique. I didn't to this for the statisticians and scale hobbyists, but to demonstrate that practice and finding the best technique for your measure and the powder that you are throwing can have a significant impact on the outcome. Too often, fellows think that because they were only able to throw to a certain level of consistency, that this is some sort of universal truth.

BTW, I need to correct myself. In looking back over the test with the newer measure, the last 10 of the dozen throws ended up with an ES of .18, but if you count the first two. it was .22. I would say that in the case of this technique, using the knocker in a very consistent manner, that a couple of warm up throws are in order. With the other two tests, using different techniques, there was no obvious trend that would lead one to the conclusion that warmup throws would be an advantage.
 
In the past, what I have done is to do the complete setup, as if I was unpacking at the range, several nights in a row. That way, I have dispelled any doubt that my results were just one time luck. I have learned that is some cases that it was, and from there tried making changes in what I do so that the results are more repeatable. It is like anything, if you are somewhat analytical, and enjoy working on certain types of problems, the more times you try something the more refined your approach becomes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top