weighing VS throwing powder

A

alinwa

oft dis'd member
I hope everyone's reading the various threads on "new powder" and weighing VS throwing......

It is my opinion that the "best" BR powders of the past and present are those powders which METER best.

There are lessons to be learned from this.

I furthermore hope that more people will purchase accurate, lab type scales and TEST THIS STUFF!!!!

It is my opinion that WEIGHING any powder accurately (I don't care how many hoops it takes) will alter your perception.

On many things.

Once you've achieved single digit ES from the simple act of weighing charges it throws into question MANY "accuracy enhancements."

Like weighing primers,
and weighing cases,
and segregating by neck tension,
and "normalizing" cases,
and altering flashholes,
and (egads!!) annealing,
and on and on andonandonandon.....

Keep up the good work fellows, winter is time to TEST this stuff :)
al
 
Al,

After all these years, I think weighing has resonated. I notice more and more Chargemasters at the range. That said, where does one stop when it comes to the quality of the scale? I now use a Chargemaster to extrude my loads a bit light, transfer the charge to my AcuLab and weight them to .00. Being able to trust the "Accurate Scale" becomes an issue. A friend turned me on to the Omega 2 Speed Electic Power Trickler and this little Devil sure makes it a lot easier to satisfy myself as to my charges being Dead Nuts.

Pete
 
Pete, I've found that to get ES down I must weigh to the individual kernel of powder. Like you I rough-in with a Chargemaster and finish on a finer scale.

NOT like you, I trickle with my fingers!! :)

I can trickle a pinch of powder quicker than scat using my (dry) fingers.

LOL
al
 
Al,
I presume that you are talking long range benchrest, with this single grain of powder stuff. Because I don't think that there is any data that supports it for the short range game.
Boyd
 
alinwa said:
It is my opinion that the "best" BR powders of the past and present are those powders which METER best.

al
Click to expand...


Al,

I respect your opinion however I am not convinced that even with the use of near standard reference conditions and the very best of lab scales (2X’s) that powders that meter best are necessarily the powders that have the single greatest affect on the pressure – velocity relationship.

But then again who knows………………..


Ken
 
(Assuming you have a gun/ barrel that will shoot really small when in tune.) I test everything and here are some things I think you can use. When working up a tune dropping is a good choice. You will be hard pressed to drop under an es of 2 tenths. That error will become your friend as you raise your load to the best zone, the deversity in the load will show up until you are in the correct place or charge or seating depth where the gun will then swallow what ever you shoot. We load 3 tenths different charges in half the cases then test the tune with our tuners. We have proven you can have 3 tenths error and the gun shoot repeating zeros in tune. To say it differently if you are on the right spot with the tuner or the right weight of charge the gun will shoot less than .1 groups with a 3 tenths error. Now weighing charges works great but there are times when your charges are so good you get a great group in a bad spot. If you are going to weigh, then test your tune with a set of cases with a 3 tenths different charge.

I shoot dropped charges to test and weighed charges in big matches. By the way most of the es diversity is caused by the primers rather than the powder. Try weighing them and see the difference. Low es is a different objective than being in tune. You can have one and not the other. Zero es at the right tune will be optimum.

I hope that helps you and makes it easier.

Stewart
 
Last edited:
I use to be able to do it by feel but have lost said feel over the past few years. I use to be able to tell how many kernels I had between my thumb and finger but can no longer do that.
 
I don't understand, if one is going to transfer to a second scale for fine tuning or verification, why even start with a powder dispenser? Through a charge with a run-of-the-mill powder thrower and trickle up on the scale of choice. Who needs the ChargeMaster to do that?
 
Stewart said:
(Assuming you have a gun/ barrel that will shoot really small when in tune.) When working up a tune dropping is a good choice. You will be hard pressed to drop under an es of 2 tenths. That error will become your friend as you raise your load to the best zone, the deversity in the load will show up until you are in the correct place or charge or seating depth where the gun will then swallow what ever you shoot. Stewart
Click to expand...

This!!!!!......... :cool:-Al
 
Having lot of experience trickling, and some with a Chargemaster, I would say that they allow you to dispense a finished charge while at the same time seating a bullet. I have helped a friend (who is a expert procrastinator) load ammo for several hunting trips, and if the Chargemaster were mine, I would do a little filing to create two powder pans that were exactly the same weight. That way it could be metering the next charge as soon as I switched pans. I don't suppose that anyone needs one, but for certain applications, they are nice to have.
 
Interestingly enough, I always assumed spherical (ball) powder metered best........ until I had opportunity to load up several hundred rounds using 6 different ball powders.

Turns out I was wrong. IME it doesn't meter as well as "square" extruded powder.

I hope someone else takes the time to test this,
al
 
One little detail that escapes many is that different powders can require different techniques in the same measure, as can the same powder in different measures. There is more to it than may meet the eye.
 
I shoot both long range and point blank. These days, point blank is mainly score, but I shot group for a number of years.

For point-blank, I throw charges. For the .30s, either BR or PPC, I use an older Harrell, from when there was only one model. When I got it, I tested it by throwing an entire bottle of powder, three times, and weighted each charge. It was close, but the biggest difference in the charge came depending on how full the bottle was. It was pretty good for 1/4 of the height of a bottle.

So, I got a bottle that lets you add powder from the top, and never let it get less than 3/4 full.

For the 6PPC, I use a Hensler -- no longer available, I'm afraid. It's entire range is 20 to 30 grains -- why I can't use it for the .30s. Again, I threw three bottles worth, weighing each charge. It never threw a charge that weighed more than +/- .1 grain. I say weighed, because the scale itself (Denver Instruments) has a .1 grain resolution. Y'all figure out what that amounts to in terms of total error. I can't shoot it if the rifle's in tune. If the rifle isn't in tune, I can't shoot it either, for a different reason.

Given that testing, and some testing to determine how hard to work the handles, I throw all charges for short range.

Test to see what a .05 (or whatever) difference in charge means in terms of MV. Go look at a ballistics program that shows trajectory (JBM is nice) and see what a 20 fps difference in velocity -- or whatever a .1 grain difference in charge works out to with your rifle -- means at 100 and 200 yards. Make your own decision.

For long range, I weigh each charge, on two different scales. One's a Chargemanster, one is that DI mentioned above. When calibrated, they are *about* .05 grains apart -- about one kernel of H4831SC. I use the DI as "more right" than the Chargemaster. When throwing 70 grains of 4831, the Chargemaster is off a significant number of times (based on trusting the DI, of course).

I weigh to .1 grains only for long range. But that's .1 grains with a 70 grain charge, i.e., the charges are withing 99.857% of each other. When everything is right, ES is around 5 fps.

Everything is not always right. I have winning loads that are 20 fps apart, and yes, I know what that means at 1,000 yards, using a ballistics program. I believe they call that "tune".

Somebody earlier remarked they felt primers are a bigger factor than .05 grains of powder variation. I believe that too. Not so sure about weighing them, though -- particularly Federals, with all that sealant, which to my eye, varies a lot. Seating pressure on the primer -- the "crush" -- does matter. I think significantly. Brand matters too -- not the manufacturing quality, but the particular primer working with a particular powder in a particular chambering.

It's all a crap shoot, Do your testing, decide what matters to you, and do that. Probably change your mind a few times along the way, as well.
 
Just to fuel certain people's fires and HOPEFULLY inspire some people to TRY THIS STUFF!!! I believe that a single kernel of 133 is worth about 5fps in a PPC and a single kernel of H4350 or RL17 is worth 3-4fps in a 308 sized case.

:)

al

incidentally I also am in complete agreement w/Al....... Big Al.... altho I don't believe that weighing charges right fat in the middle of it all can be detrimental ;)
 
Zdog said:
You're probably right Al. But it's likely that small amount of velocity change would get lost in the "noise" (variations), caused by other factors such as, neck friction-hardness, primer variation, etc., etc. The BR cartridge and rifle is a very complex system - and as such - is prone to a host of variations as it operates. It's been my experience that when two shots chrono the same, it's more chance than design. Then there are those darn fire-form loads! Underpowered powder charges, necks out of round and crooked, cases undersized in the chamber, bullets jammed into the lands, bolt "squeaking" when closed (which takes two men and a small gorilla) - yet many will shoot into one hole! Go figure! :p
Click to expand...


Exactamundo!
To me, claiming to be able to tell what one kernel of powder does in the terribly inefficient process of solid to gas combustion is similar to saying that you can tell what one drop of octane booster does when added to your gas tank by
measuring the increase in speed simply by looking at your speedometer as you burn that one drop going down the highway! The machine is too inefficient and the measuring tool is too crude.
Furthermore, anyone who's ever loaded up and shot a load ladder over a chronograph can plainly see that some loads will have high SD's and some will have low SD's even if both are measured out to the hundredth of a grain! Some loads just simply don't have good combustion characteristics no matter how closely you think you're loading the rounds.
Also, switching primers may lower SD's, but it can also make them higher as well. It all depends on the load and how the components interact. Sometimes, powder X will give single digit SD's across the board and powder Y will never give a good SD load result. Obiously, in that situation, powder X would be a better choice. And if you were to take powder X and load some ammo up with .2 grain variation within the group, you would still find that it yields single digits! But, lets say you take that best pet load that gives great SD's and you shoot it three times over the chrono. There is a near 100% probability that it will not give the exact same SD all three times. It could go from 8 to 4 to 6. Why not be, say, 4 fps every time because you've weighed out every charge to the .01 grain?? Because, it's not a perfect machine! It can't duplicate it's result perfectly every time despite the fact that you've made every round as good as you possibly could.

On another note, yes, we're seeing more Chargemasters at the matches. But it's always surprising to me how few BR shooters own chronographs or ever use them. If they did, they would quickly see that .1 or .2 variations in powder charges don't mean squat. And most folks using the Chargemaster (myself included sometimes) will be honest when you ask them if they've been able to tell any difference in their aggs when they switched from thrown charges to weighed, and the answer has always been, "not really". It just makes them feel better. If something makes you feel better, then of course you're going to see an increase in it's usage amongst the population. It doesn't necessarily mean it works any better.
Someone told me that 4 out of the top 5 shooters at the Nationals this year were throwing powder. 'Nuff said.
 
Variations from round to round.

Linear Burn rates (for a given weight and composition) are determined mostly by the powders grain size and geometry however; the powders Initial Burn Rates are mostly about how easily the powders coating is ignited. Certain coatings are harder to ignite than others and produce a greater variance from round to round (chamber pressure at a given velocity)

It is a complex system with a lot of variables. Like I say who knows…………..

I think that the best powders are those that are tailor made for specific chamber / pressure requirements. Mostly done for the military.


Ken
 
Zdog said:
You're probably right Al. But it's likely that small amount of velocity change would get lost in the "noise" (variations), caused by other factors such as, neck friction-hardness, primer variation, etc., etc. The BR cartridge and rifle is a very complex system - and as such - is prone to a host of variations as it operates. It's been my experience that when two shots chrono the same, it's more chance than design. Then there are those darn fire-form loads! Underpowered powder charges, necks out of round and crooked, cases undersized in the chamber, bullets jammed into the lands, bolt "squeaking" when closed (which takes two men and a small gorilla) - yet many will shoot into one hole! Go figure! :p
Click to expand...

Well, no......I can keep ES (SD is a hoax, a crutch for number cruncher) under 10fps all the way through a "ladder test" (altho I don't DO ladder testing, I graph for a sine wave) and through a wide range of other variables. This happens to be the crux of my post. But it keeps getting obscured by guessers.

AGAIN it's obvious from most of the answers here that few of the respondants have actually DONE any testing like this.

:)

BTW a Chargemaster is no more precise than a powder thrower...... but to be able to say this, one must have actually TESTED instead of surmised.... Pete Wass is of course an exception here, since he is actually using the Chargemaster as it's intended, within it's parameters, as a rough THROWER.

I'm beggin' here guys.... TEST HIS STUFF!..... At least before opining out here in front of God and everybody...it gets really old hearing "I know this guys a nutjob because you an' I BOTH know that Cheerios are better than Cornflakes!! And Waltrip drove the TIDE car!"

;)

al
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top