help with harrell's pm

[jrbirdie]

i did a search and couldn't find how to start to use this pm. It came set on zero do i just fill up with powder and start clicking or do i need to know any other tricks. I intend to play with this awhile to get the feel for it as i have never used one before, I will be usuing n133 powder for my 6ppc, and will be checking with my scale as i go along. Thanks for any info anyone can share.

 

[James Whitten]

Set it about 50 and start weighing the charges.
James

 

[Geary Koglin]

Harrel Measure

i did a search and couldn't find how to start to use this pm. It came set on zero do i just fill up with powder and start clicking or do i need to know any other tricks. I intend to play with this awhile to get the feel for it as i have never used one before, I will be usuing n133 powder for my 6ppc, and will be checking with my scale as i go along. Thanks for any info anyone can share.

Here is an excell program that you can useto calibrate your Harrel measure.

You will need to set the measure at 40 clicks throw and weigh the charge. Do this several times. Then you will need to do the same at 50 clicks. Put those values in their proper cell and the formula's will figure out the amounts for each individual clic setting fro 40 to 60 which be all you need for the PPC and N133.

Of course this program works with any powder

Geary Koglin
Grand Blanc, MI

 

[Boyd Allen]

Another thing to remember, with any powder measure, different techniques produce different weights with the same setting.

 

[alinwa]

Boyd brings up a great and not often mentioned point...

The Harrells themselves believe that the proper technique is to gently load and gently dump.

NO tapping.

No ticking.

NO multiple strokes.

No undue vigor

Just simple smooth strokes, slow and steady. And CONSISTENT!!

After more than 10yrs on this forum I've known of many discussions on the subject, even some fairly rigorous testing. One test of which was featured in Precision Shooting. I've been testing a technique recently which seemed to show some early promise but now, after about 350rds of throwing and weighing with three different powders I am NOW, TODAY back to the method endorsed by the Harrel's themselves

With a small modification.


I've been conducting this test A'gain because I've got to load up 150 scrupulous rounds for a 600yd match and I'm using a stick powder which throws hard. I've got eight hours of prep into the 150 cases and I don't want to now have to weigh every charge on top of it....

I'm currently throwing H4350 using a slow smooth charge stroke and TAPPING at the end of the discharge because the 4350 tends to occasionally bridge in the measure.

Slow smooth charge, sloooow smooth discharge (It's a WICKED full case, compressed charge) and TAP_TAP at the end to drop every grain.

Yes the measure is static-free.

So, long story short........I'm with Boyd, it's all about consistency.


opinionsby


al

 

[Boyd Allen]

Al,
What kind of accuracy of charge weight are you able to hold throwing 4350? I have no experience with the newer versions of this powder, but with the old stuff I relegated it to the throw light and trickle category a long time ago.

As to measure technique, I find that there is a tendency for impatience have a negative impact on cadence. If one is not careful, one can end up paying too much attention to how many times one is doing something, and not enough to the time that is required to get good results. I have even thought of buying a metronome to improve this situation. I33 and its brethren of similar grain size are about the coarsest powders that I will attempt to throw, and it is on the ragged edge, depending on the technique used. I think that the fact that some good shooters have gone to carting around RCBS Chargemasters, and battery packs that have inverters is proof that I am not the only one that feels this way. I was about to buy one for myself until I stumbled across a new technique that has (IMHO) eliminated the need (with 133) to do so.

In my tests, 322 Extreme and 8208 have been easier to measure accurately than 133. I would spend more time learning to tune them, but given how well many are doing with 133 feel that with my limited range time, that attempting to master multiple powders would probably be a bad idea.