on mechanical RCBS M500 you can easily see the difference of one kernel 0,02gr of powder. on bigger kernels more...
so why you need 0,001gr accuracy? to select kernels ??
so why you need 0,001gr accuracy? to select kernels ??
You could weight sort your kernels just like brass or bullets.
Throw the rest nonconforming powder on the lawn for fertiliP
Indeed it is.I understand that they have a new revision coming, (V4) or maybe it’s already released.
and how many people can actually shoot the difference? I know some can, but the average shooter cannot.
Can't believe this guy is still at it.You can never shoot better than your rifle can.
Can't believe this guy is still at it.
No need for an expensive calibration weigh for our purposes. The important thing is to use the same weight for every calibration. If you really need a reference weight, you can borrow a very good weight, weigh your cheap weight and put in the correct offset.Frankly, if not verifying the scale accuracy with a good set of proven scale weights, it matters little if the scale is electronic or beam. When using our son’s electronic scale, we check both and verify each charge with the beam scale. And, I am constantly chasing the correct charge weight on the electronic. (which both are kept on separate tables away from the vibrations from affecting the scales)
At home, my Dillion is also getting long in the tooth. I set up the scale at each reloading session with scale weights. Throw the charges with an old fashioned RCBS powder throw, weigh the charge, trickle using a very old fashioned hand trickled and if the scale centers (and the charge was centered with my carefully kept scale weights, it is considered good. Then, each case is inspected to assure that it has a similar powder charge)
Yes, those little weights are eye watering expensive, but with the money.
Yeah, and still has yet to answer any questions about his background or provide data to back up his claims. Serious troll. I bet his eyes are brown too.
No need for an expensive calibration weigh for our purposes. The important thing is to use the same weight for every calibration. If you really need a reference weight, you can borrow a very good weight, weigh your cheap weight and put in the correct offset.
That's not hard for me to believe at all honestly. I'm not there yet, but I'm glad that some are so I can learn from their trial and error.I fail to see the argument in this thread. More powder is more powder, less powder is less powder... by 1 kernel, or 1 grain. More is more, less is less. When you say you don't need to-the-kernel charge uniformity, you're saying you don't notice any difference in more or less powder on the target. Doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist. Some people wouldn't notice anything. They aren't asking for anything they aren't getting.
None of this is about any one thing. It's about all of the things. It's cumulative.
Those of you that are looking for the maximum in precision and accuracy, don't let anyone convince you that something doesn't matter. It all matters. How much that one thing matters, depends on what you are trying to achieve, and how many "other" things you're accounting for as well. Nothing else. Uniformity of all variables, is what this entire discipline of handloading is about. Justification to allow non-uniformity to exist is the same type of justification that will allow someone to continue doing things in life they know are wrong and do not serve them, but continue to do it anyway.
I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt, that I can shoot the difference between my autotrickler V4, and my Prometheus. At 600yds and beyond, by the time 20 shots are fired from each, everything else being equal... a very clear trend surfaces. If everyone had a prometheus, everyone would know that. Instead, since most people don't... it's just conjecture. Yet, if the rest of my ecosystem weren't totally uniform as well, my Prometheus would be useless and I would notice no difference between it and anything else.
This is likely the essence of the discussion.I fail to see the argument in this thread. More powder is more powder, less powder is less powder... by 1 kernel, or 1 grain. More is more, less is less. When you say you don't need to-the-kernel charge uniformity, you're saying you don't notice any difference in more or less powder on the target. Doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist. Some people wouldn't notice anything. They aren't asking for anything they aren't getting.
None of this is about any one thing. It's about all of the things. It's cumulative.
Those of you that are looking for the maximum in precision and accuracy, don't let anyone convince you that something doesn't matter. It all matters. How much that one thing matters, depends on what you are trying to achieve, and how many "other" things you're accounting for as well. Nothing else. Uniformity of all variables, is what this entire discipline of handloading is about. Justification to allow non-uniformity to exist is the same type of justification that will allow someone to continue doing things in life they know are wrong and do not serve them, but continue to do it anyway.
I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt, that I can shoot the difference between my autotrickler V4, and my Prometheus. At 600yds and beyond, by the time 20 shots are fired from each, everything else being equal... a very clear trend surfaces. If everyone had a prometheus, everyone would know that. Instead, since most people don't... it's just conjecture. Yet, if the rest of my ecosystem weren't totally uniform as well, my Prometheus would be useless and I would notice no difference between it and anything else.
I don't understand some of you guys... It's like you are trying to console each other that some crappy old scale is good enough buddy. You not need to be afraid of better...
No, you do not NEED a better scale... But don't go off convincing each other that what you have is the ultimate standard either. If it's good enough for your needs, then its good enough.
The 3rd decimal place is not needed to shoot 1 MOA at 1000 yards, it is needed to minimize vertical dispersion so guys can realistically hold 1/4 MOA of vertical. Again, in the context of F Class with a round 1/2 MOA X ring, this maximizes the width of the center so rounds that hit high or low and off 1/4 MOA on wind do no leak out into the 10 ring.
Yes, with FX120 you will see at best a .08 grain variance in load charges. That will appear in the velocity spreads over a weekend long match.
Yes guys have set records with Chargemasters, either by luck, or before the other guys started getting better scales.
There is one other factor to consider, the larger the powder charge, the lower the error represents as a percentage of variance. So a guy loading 30 grains of powder will have twice the velocity spread of a guy loading 60 grains of powder, by load variance as a percent of total charge.
Even with perfect powder loads, you will still see a variance in FPS, but whatever that variance is, you can add to it the variance caused by the powder charge. You may not see it over 3 rounds, you may not see it over the 6 FPS error on your Labradar, but they are in there whether you want to see it or not.
These are not my opinion, these are simply statistical mechanical facts.
But again, if what you're doing is good enough for you, then good for you. Don't get a better scale.
I fail to see the argument in this thread. More powder is more powder, less powder is less powder... by 1 kernel, or 1 grain. More is more, less is less. When you say you don't need to-the-kernel charge uniformity, you're saying you don't notice any difference in more or less powder on the target. Doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist. Some people wouldn't notice anything. They aren't asking for anything they aren't getting.
None of this is about any one thing. It's about all of the things. It's cumulative.
Those of you that are looking for the maximum in precision and accuracy, don't let anyone convince you that something doesn't matter. It all matters. How much that one thing matters, depends on what you are trying to achieve, and how many "other" things you're accounting for as well. Nothing else. Uniformity of all variables, is what this entire discipline of handloading is about. Justification to allow non-uniformity to exist is the same type of justification that will allow someone to continue doing things in life they know are wrong and do not serve them, but continue to do it anyway.
I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt, that I can shoot the difference between my autotrickler V4, and my Prometheus. At 600yds and beyond, by the time 20 shots are fired from each, everything else being equal... a very clear trend surfaces. If everyone had a prometheus, everyone would know that. Instead, since most people don't... it's just conjecture. Yet, if the rest of my ecosystem weren't totally uniform as well, my Prometheus would be useless and I would notice no difference between it and anything else.
But I will continue to laugh at anyone that claims to be able to shoot the difference to the thousands of a grain without proof of any kind.
Straw man much?so you can see the difference in target, if you have 10 rounds of 2750 kernels of powder (55,00gr) and 10 rounds of 2751 (55,02gr) kernels of powder?
give a break...
you dont know what you are writing?Straw man much?
MarkyMarks statement sums up the over arching misconception throughout this thread.V4 is not a scale, but let's say you have A&D FX-120i, which is said to be accurate to 0,02gr (if it doesnt drift; but maybe it drift because it's not the best scale, it is just the beggining of the accurate scales) which is 1 kernel..
I don’t find this to be true.The 120 is precise enough to for all practical purposes handle single kernel accuracy.
I could see where a finer powder than N140 could benefit from real and accurate 0.01 or even 0.005 resolution, but not really more than that. As long as you have a theoretically perfect resolution less than half that of the object to be measured you are at the maximum possible resolution.I don’t find this to be true.
6BR Remington? seriously? lolOk so lets do the math using load data from the Nosler web site for the old fav 6 BR.
6mm Bench Rest Remington Load Data
Explore the world of Nosler, renowned for crafting the finest bullets, ammunition, rifles, and brass. Discover our extensive lineup, including Partition, AccuBond, E-Tip, Ballistic Tip, Custom Competition, and more. Experience superior quality and performance with Nosler products.www.nosler.com
32.5 grains of Varget goes 3160 FPS according to Nosler
30.5 grains of Varget goes 2999 according to Nosler
So, between these two loads is 2 grains of powder resulting in a velocity difference of 161 FPS
161 FPS divided by 20 equals 8.05 FPS per 1/10 of a grain.
So whatever velocity spread you actually get with an FX120 is about 8 FPS worse than it could be with a better scale.
According to JBM Ballistics (using 0.535 G1 BC)
3000 FPS drops -281.2 at 1000 yards
3008 fps drops -279.4 inches at 1000 yards
8 FPS equals 1.8 vertical inches at 1000 yards.
As stated earlier, for F Class with a 5 inch X ring and 1000 yard bench rest, competitive shooters want that 1.8 inches.
If you shoot steel, I doubt you will notice the difference, but whether you notice it or not, the error is there.
It's up to each of us to decide how badly we want to lower our ES by 8 FPS.
Please don't go off the deep end bragging about your 3 ES load with a beam scale. You just haven't tested enough rounds to see the difference. Or it was chronograph error.
if you cant win conpetitions with a&d fx120, than it's your fault, not scales... be 100% sure about that.I don’t find this to be true.
MarkyMarks statement sums up the over arching misconception throughout this thread.
MarkyMark does not realize there is a difference between a number displayed on the scale and the actual charge weight.
Readability does not equal the actual accuracy of the scale. If a scale increments in 0.02 then you can figure the error is actually +-0.04 on a good day and probably worse if you have any sort of voltage stability issue.
Yes it displays a number that is rounded not to 2 decimal places but to increment every .02. Not every .01.
Using a decent scale that reads to 0.002, the error is more like +- 0.004 grains. With such a scale you can get accuracy to one kernel or less if you have OCD.
If you actually took the time to validate the level of inaccuracy of the FX120, you would stop defending it as the pinnacle of perfection.
The point is that to actually be accurate to within 0.02 grains, you require a scale that is more accurate and precise than 0.02 grains. And the FX120 is not that scale.
Furthermore, there are challenges with any automated system to actually drop the last one single kernel and not 2 or 3. Dropping just one kernel to perfect the load is difficult for any affordable mechanized system.
I mentioned the Vibra HT220 but surely there are many other good 3 decimal place scales a guy could purchase. I saw a bunch on Amazon that were in the $600 range, but this is a case where I would rather pay a little too much and be happy, than cheap out and be disappointed.
The HT200 has internal calibration which is something I really appreciate.
That’s not even close to what he said or alluded to.if you cant win conpetitions with a&d fx120, than it's your fault, not scales... be 100% sure about that.
Meanwhile, old boy has something to say about spending money on quality tools elsewhere. He couldn't help but to share his opinion: