Scale reccomendation for culling rounds?

T

twentytwoguy

Guest
Anybody have a reccomendation for a digital scale to weigh individual rounds of rimfire ammo to check and sort by weight? Anybody try the Gempro unit?
 
Nobody I know sorts by weight. If you're using half way decent ammo it's a complete waste of time.
 
I have a Lyman LE-1000 that I have used in the past, but like Tim said, I have found it a waste of time. I used to weigh my rounds and seperate into + or- .1 grains, but found out that my culls shot just as good as my weighed ammo.. :eek:

JMHO

Dave
 
Scale...........

22Guy
The scale i use is a model from PACT. I was/am unable to make myself pay the cost of the really good ammo so i use SK Standard that i weigh into generally 3 lots.I segregate at about .4 g. weights into two lots and the rest are foulers. With good ammo i feel this is totally unnecessary but with the cheaper ammo it works for me. As you can see by last years ARA results i am not a top shooter though.:D
Colt.45
 
I have an Acculab 123, which I don't really use to cull rounds. It does come in handy in testing. With some recent test lots I had someone weigh 30 rounds of each lot and plot those. I didn't know which weighed what but, without exception, the testing of the lots followed the deviation of the weight in those 30 rounds. I think weighing is better for verification of testing than anything else.
 
Le-1000

I also have the LE-1000, and it appears to be a consistent scale. I don't recommend sorting quality match ammo, as I have seen no improvement in the results on the target. After all, thats where it counts. Although, I you feel it will make a difference, by all means give it a try. You can always use an extra scale for other endeavor's.
 
Beau said:
I have an Acculab 123, which I don't really use to cull rounds. It does come in handy in testing. With some recent test lots I had someone weigh 30 rounds of each lot and plot those. I didn't know which weighed what but, without exception, the testing of the lots followed the deviation of the weight in those 30 rounds. I think weighing is better for verification of testing than anything else.
Click to expand...

Might I inquire as to what ammo you tested?
 
Beau said:
I have an Acculab 123, which I don't really use to cull rounds. It does come in handy in testing. With some recent test lots I had someone weigh 30 rounds of each lot and plot those. I didn't know which weighed what but, without exception, the testing of the lots followed the deviation of the weight in those 30 rounds. I think weighing is better for verification of testing than anything else.
Click to expand...
That's interesting.

There was also a recent thread where someone weight sorted a bunch of ammo and ran some t-tests or an ANOVA, and found significant support for weight sorting.
 
Well I'll tell you that while you tested a few dozen rounds of black box, a couple folks tried weighing hundereds and hundereds of rounds and discerned nothing from weighing. The biggest varience is probably the lube, most of which ends up left in the bore.
 
Yeah, plenty of people have tried weighing. I weighed thousands of rounds back in the BR-50 days and believe there is a little advantage to be gained. Whether or not it's worth it, I don't know. But what I'm saying is different and I'm not suggesting sorting a lot by weight will help at all. What I AM saying is there seems to be a correlation between weight variance within the lot and the precision of the lot itself. Of course, the one experiment I did could be a simple fluke.
 
weighing ammo

I have been weighing 22 ammo over the years (since the early 80's)and have found that on some ammo it works but on others it doesn't. Sometimes I think it is just a mind thing. You all know what happen when you get your mind right.
I have culled some ammo that later was found to have no powder in them. Most of the time I just sorted by weights and shot each group of weights. In my mind I thought I could see the a difference.
This all took place when I was young and had lot of energy to do this sort of thing now as I have put on a few years and pounds I find that I just shoot better ammo because I don't know how much time I have left.
MHO
Larry
 
Indeed, a few tests recently over on RFC. Two in agreement for, and one against, that I recall. The test with results against are rather puzzling though, and I have my doubts about them. Anyway, my single t-test showed a P of 0.0228 (or 97.7% probability it wasn't luck) in favour of weighing Lapua Super Club, for a 0.093" improvement at 50 yards. I've yet to get around to trying it with more ammo, and better ammo. Been too windy lately to attempt more tests, a downside to being so near the ocean, heh. My guess is that as you go up the price scale, that P will look less and less interesting. But, it's another reason/excuse to go do more shooting, hehe. Going to try Eley Target Rifle and Club Xtra next, and eventually some Match EPS and Tenex Ultimate EPS. Someone mentioned being interested in hearing how sorted Match does against unsorted Tenex, and that does sound intriguing. Just need to find the time and ammo, should be interesting. The other test was done with a lot more than my single example of ammo, and there were mixed results there among the different ammo, but with an overall positive result. I think the question of whether or not it's worth it really depends how much you've spent, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the results bear that out. I'm convinced without a doubt that it helps with something like Lapua Super Club and Eley Target Rifle anyway.
ThaiBoxer said:
That's interesting.

There was also a recent thread where someone weight sorted a bunch of ammo and ran some t-tests or an ANOVA, and found significant support for weight sorting.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top