n133 thrown charges at a match

jim1K said:
Jerry, What do you check your results on the 1500 with? or do you rely on the scale on it?...... jim
Click to expand...

I have an older RCBS Model 90. In its day it was highly recognized. Sold for $400. I also recheck with two different balance scales, forgot their numbers but one is RCBS and one Ohaus. They are balance scales, which, unlike electronic scales do not get out of calibration unless earths gravity field goes down.


.
 
When i left short range a long time ago i figured i had a handle on things but i sure did get a rude awaking. I had a very good Harrell's measure and a 10-10 beam scale. My groups at long range were never were consistent, blamed it on conditions. I invested in a tuned scale and used the measure a weighed every charge, groups were more consistent. Started to measure bullets and weed out the bad ones and invest in a seating pressure gauge. then i found i needed to anneal to get uniformity and groups got smaller and more consistent. Then i bit the bullet and got a GD503 balance and it was the piece of the puzzle i should have had first. It doesn't wonder, i can hold +-.01 with RL-15, closer with LT 30....... jim
 
I shoot LT-32 and throw. When I started out with the powder, I weighed a few hundred charges in test from my 30 year old Culver measure. Had no trouble staying within +/- 0.1 grs (and even a hair less than 0.2 total spread. Measured on a GemPro 250). Since I only shoot short-range, I exclusively throw. Now at 300 yards and beyond the scale would come out.

-Lee
www.singleactions.com
 
One thing that seems to be lost in this discussion isn't wheather weighing charges is better than throwing, or visa-versa. The real question is whether weighing is better at Matches, where the real challenge comes in to play. Stable surface, wind, and time add to the difficulties in the use of a scale on a loading table.

I have a little red Honady range scale that while being convenient, is really not very accurate. You weigh a case and zero the scale, throw the charge, it reads 30.0. ( looking for 30.3), you then add powder place the case back on the scale, and it reads 29.9. Go figure.

I just bought a new RCBS ChargeMaster. The old one I had from their first year of production left something to be desired. This new one will throw +- .1 as checked against my Denver Electronics Scale.

I took it to Walker County last Sunday to check out my 6BR at 400 yards. With the power source I rigged up, it worked great. I see no problem loading at the range.

My power source is a car battery. My truck, a Chevy, has a battery mount for a second battery, so I bought one and ran cables in parallel with the regular battery, so it all acts like one big battery. That way it is always charged. I Have a small inverter to change the 12 volts to 110 AC. And extension cord runs to my loading table. I can easily take the battery out if I am at a range where I can't park my truck close enough. The car battery, I figure, has enough stored energy to last all day. At the end of the day, stick it back in the truck, let it recharge.

This is, of course, a lot more hassle than just throwing charges, but at ranges out past 300 yards, I am pretty well convinced that weighing each charge will be the better option.

With my 30BR, I have hundreds of cases, because the things never seem to wear out. I can Pre-Load for a Grand Agg in the comforts of my living room in a couple of hours.
 
Last edited:
My Results Throwing 133

I threw 36 sets (10 "record" throws per set) with a Culver-style thrower with the clicker set at 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, & 55 (6 sets per click number) and weighed each throw (except for several that I dumped back in the hopper because the "crunch" seemed too much) -- here are the results, showing the total spread (rounded to the nearest tenth of a grain) per set and the number of sets that achieved that spread:

.1 = 0
.2 = 4
.3 = 11
.4 = 5
.5 = 3
.6 = 3
.7 = 3
.8 = 3
.9= 0
1.0 = 3
1.4 = 1

To summarize, 13 sets (36% of all sets) had a spread of .6 or more -- based on that, I'd be afraid to "throw and go" with 133.
 
Hunter said:
I threw 36 sets (10 "record" throws per set) with a Culver-style thrower with the clicker set at 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, & 55 (6 sets per click number) and weighed each throw (except for several that I dumped back in the hopper because the "crunch" seemed too much) -- here are the results, showing the total spread (rounded to the nearest tenth of a grain) per set and the number of sets that achieved that spread:

.1 = 0
.2 = 4
.3 = 11
.4 = 5
.5 = 3
.6 = 3
.7 = 3
.8 = 3
.9= 0
1.0 = 3
1.4 = 1

To summarize, 13 sets (36% of all sets) had a spread of .6 or more -- based on that, I'd be afraid to "throw and go" with 133.
Click to expand...


Some folks technique is better than others I suppose.
 
Or some folks scale is more accurate than others or all of the above. I thought i had a good RCBS electronic scale till i got the GD 503. Now the RCBS scale is regulated down to weighing Devcon ........ jim
 
Only my opinion. If you have a competitive barrel and set up. It does not matter whether you throw or measure, if you do not have competitive barrel it still does not matter whether you throw or measure. With one you place the other you are last. I know from experience.
Trout
 
Throwing 133

Boyd Allen said:
No kidding. I worked with a scrap of 133 until it became distinct from all of the rest from being run through the measure so many times. I would never tell anyone that getting good with a powder measure is easy to do. Most do not have the patience, and many do not have the ability to evaluate what they are seeing and modify their procedure as needed. A key part of my program was that TV was (and is) mostly boring, and undeserving of ones full attention. I never argue against someone using a Chargemaster for short range BR.

A friend has a pretty good alternative for 133. He has a good .1 gr scale that he takes to the range. He can hit +- .1 most but not all of the time. He throws into a scale pan, weighs the pan of powder, and if is is within tolerances he dumps the charge into the funnel. For those few that are not, they go back into the hopper. At the beginning I showed him what I do for my measure. He did a baffle modificaton (I don't use one.) and worked up a variant technique that worked best for his setup, and then threw in a quick weight check as a backup. Later when he started working with the LTs he saw that the scale was unnecessary for those powders.
Click to expand...

Don't know if it makes any difference on the targets. But I will wager to anybody $100 that over a grand aggregate (50 charges) thrown with 133 that they will vary at least two tenths. Dave ( Probably vary .3 or even.4)
 
Last edited:
jim1K said:
Or some folks scale is more accurate than others....U thought i had a good RCBS electronic scale till i got the GD 503. Now the RCBS scale is regulated down to weighing Devcon.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that my $20 digital scale might be the problem? But, I saw Billy and Bart using the same scale a match. :confused:
 
I decided to test myself and do a little practicing first, since it had been a while since I have played with this particular chore. At first I was using s moderately priced digital scale, that reads to .01 gr. Even though I was hitting the tare button often and checking with the empty pan often, I was seeing more of a variance in the negative weight of the pan when I took it off of the scale....so I got out my self tuned 10-10 and the prism, a combination that I trust to .05. I roll the fine poise to zero the scale exactly and then read the result, so I am not estimating by deflection. After that, going back to my oldest technique for 133, I ran 10 straight. They were:
30.10
30.10
30.15
30.10
30.00
30.10
30.15
30.00
30.00
29.95 As you can see, I was right at +-.1gr This is the second time that the electronic scale has shown itself to be inconsistent, even though it returned to zero with an empty pan, there was unacceptable variation of the minus number when it was removed. This is what eventually tipped me off. Perhaps I should have let it warm up longer, but the last time I did. In any case, on this technique, I ran across it when making a last ditch effort to avoid having to buy, and lug a Chargemaster. It is nothing like anything that I have read anywhere. To do this right, I have to warm up to get my technique "in the goove" and pay strict attention to how I am operating the measure. I have the smaller of the Harrells Deluxe measures, that takes 500 ml bottles, and have removed the baffle.The powder was 2005 133. The one useful thing that I learned from this is to put the electronic scale back on the shelf and leave it there when doing serious work.
 
Last edited:
Most guys with the little $20.00 pocket digital scale at a match are only spot checking the weight of powder thrown as the days temp changes. Most aren't trying to use them to precisely weigh each charge
 
i do not think you will ever know if you have a competitive rifle with n133 if you are throwing at .6 spread.

r44astro said:
Only my opinion. If you have a competitive barrel and set up. It does not matter whether you throw or measure, if you do not have competitive barrel it still does not matter whether you throw or measure. With one you place the other you are last. I know from experience.
Trout
Click to expand...
 
Boyd, your post # 73 motivated me to try my beam scale to check my throwing test; this time the results were much better. I threw four sets (ten record throws per set) of 133 with the clicker set at 50, 51, 53, & 55. The results were:

.1 gr spread >> once
.2 gr spread >> twice
.4 gr spread >> once

As for my $20 digital scale, maybe I'll replace the 2+ year old batteries and try again. :D

Well, I checked my digital scale with the calibration weight and the scale is not the problem. I then threw 12 more "sets" and the results were worse than shown in post # 68 (i.e., 5/12 had a spread of .6 or more) -- and one of them had a spread of 2.5. I also compared the larger spreads, as shown on the digital scale, with my beam scale -- again, the digital scale is not the problem.
 
Last edited:
JerrySharrett said:
I've used the RCBS 1500 since they came out, about 2005. I take 2 on the road and one stays on my loading table. These 3 all weigh very close. At worse they will be off 0.5 grain since the roundoff of the display is 0.09. I. E. 1/100 of a grain below displays the lower nomber, as 1/100 grain above displays the next number above.
.

.
Click to expand...


Correction, the above "worse they will be off 0.5 grain " should have been 'worst they will be off 0.5 tenth of a grain'


.
 
What I'm saying is check your measure and scale against a good balance. Other wise you are guessing...... jim
 
one simple step in throwing charges is to throw from the same fill/height
in the reservoir. mark a high and low that is maybe 10 or 20 throws in volume,
and always throw from in that band. where the band is is not a big deal,
but being in the band is,
 
CMaier said:
one simple step in throwing charges is to throw from the same fill/height
in the reservoir. mark a high and low that is maybe 10 or 20 throws in volume,
and always throw from in that band. where the band is is not a big deal,
but being in the band is,
Click to expand...

Isn't this the specific function of and reason for a baffle of some sort?

Just to be clear, I've 7 different powder storage units including an adapter for an 8lb jug.......baffled, unbaffled, ho'made baffles, even one which feeds thru a hose.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top