Cutting powder?
- Thread starter thefitter
- Start date
Re: Cutting powder?
I call BS. One or two or five kernels out of how many hundred/thousand in the charge? Come on.
I believe the common belief is that cutting = the charge might be on the heavy side, a threat to uniformity.
However, I have actually *measured* thrown charges from at least three types of measures (Ideal #55, RCBS, I think it's called Uni-Flo, Dillon...maybe a Li'l Dandy too...) and found that most of the time, the throw that does NOT cut any kernels are usually the heaviest.
Perhaps someday I will transfer all those scraps of paper with weight results to spreadsheets. What was odd, though, was that overall variance and standard deviation between charges was *smaller* with the #55 when I did NOT use the "knocker" on the powder pickup position, but the variation and sd was *smaller* with the Dillon slide-type measure when I DID rap the housing 3-5 times with a 3/8-inch open end wrench on powder pickup.
With either method, though, there were frequent enough .4-grain heavier than average throws that I don't trust them for ammo to be used beyond 300 yards. Even if I just tossed the "no cut" charges.
I call BS. One or two or five kernels out of how many hundred/thousand in the charge? Come on.
I believe the common belief is that cutting = the charge might be on the heavy side, a threat to uniformity.
However, I have actually *measured* thrown charges from at least three types of measures (Ideal #55, RCBS, I think it's called Uni-Flo, Dillon...maybe a Li'l Dandy too...) and found that most of the time, the throw that does NOT cut any kernels are usually the heaviest.
Perhaps someday I will transfer all those scraps of paper with weight results to spreadsheets. What was odd, though, was that overall variance and standard deviation between charges was *smaller* with the #55 when I did NOT use the "knocker" on the powder pickup position, but the variation and sd was *smaller* with the Dillon slide-type measure when I DID rap the housing 3-5 times with a 3/8-inch open end wrench on powder pickup.
With either method, though, there were frequent enough .4-grain heavier than average throws that I don't trust them for ammo to be used beyond 300 yards. Even if I just tossed the "no cut" charges.
Re: Cutting powder?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I call BS. One or two or five kernels out of how many hundred/thousand in the charge? Come on.
I believe the common belief is that cutting = the charge might be on the heavy side, a threat to uniformity.
However, I have actually *measured* thrown charges from at least three types of measures (Ideal #55, RCBS, I think it's called Uni-Flo, Dillon...maybe a Li'l Dandy too...) and found that most of the time, the throw that does NOT cut any kernels are usually the heaviest.
Perhaps someday I will transfer all those scraps of paper with weight results to spreadsheets. What was odd, though, was that overall variance and standard deviation between charges was *smaller* with the #55 when I did NOT use the "knocker" on the powder pickup position, but the variation and sd was *smaller* with the Dillon slide-type measure when I DID rap the housing 3-5 times with a 3/8-inch open end wrench on powder pickup.
With either method, though, there were frequent enough .4-grain heavier than average throws that I don't trust them for ammo to be used beyond 300 yards. Even if I just tossed the "no cut" charges. </div></div>
+1... I have to agree. I cut kernels all the time. Even in my benchrest loads. If you feel 1 or 2 cut. If it makes you feel bad, or causes concern, weight the charge.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I call BS. One or two or five kernels out of how many hundred/thousand in the charge? Come on.
I believe the common belief is that cutting = the charge might be on the heavy side, a threat to uniformity.
However, I have actually *measured* thrown charges from at least three types of measures (Ideal #55, RCBS, I think it's called Uni-Flo, Dillon...maybe a Li'l Dandy too...) and found that most of the time, the throw that does NOT cut any kernels are usually the heaviest.
Perhaps someday I will transfer all those scraps of paper with weight results to spreadsheets. What was odd, though, was that overall variance and standard deviation between charges was *smaller* with the #55 when I did NOT use the "knocker" on the powder pickup position, but the variation and sd was *smaller* with the Dillon slide-type measure when I DID rap the housing 3-5 times with a 3/8-inch open end wrench on powder pickup.
With either method, though, there were frequent enough .4-grain heavier than average throws that I don't trust them for ammo to be used beyond 300 yards. Even if I just tossed the "no cut" charges. </div></div>
+1... I have to agree. I cut kernels all the time. Even in my benchrest loads. If you feel 1 or 2 cut. If it makes you feel bad, or causes concern, weight the charge.
Re: Cutting powder?
Now hold on... if you have a Prometheus II, and you are about .276 kernels light, the only way to make the load uniform is to cut that kernel, right? Or do most of you just dump the load and dispense a new one?
Now hold on... if you have a Prometheus II, and you are about .276 kernels light, the only way to make the load uniform is to cut that kernel, right? Or do most of you just dump the load and dispense a new one?
Re: Cutting powder?
Yea Idk about this.. When I reload my varget sticks every other throw in my powder thrower I have to break a few sticks to chuck a load. Its almost impossable to not break a single grain with stick powder
And breaking a stick of powder doesnt take the coat off.. So I dont see how this affects anything..
Yea Idk about this.. When I reload my varget sticks every other throw in my powder thrower I have to break a few sticks to chuck a load. Its almost impossable to not break a single grain with stick powder
And breaking a stick of powder doesnt take the coat off.. So I dont see how this affects anything..
Re: Cutting powder?
I sift my powder then measure every single kernel with a micrometer then individually stack them in the case for uniform fill.
I sift my powder then measure every single kernel with a micrometer then individually stack them in the case for uniform fill.
Re: Cutting powder?
LOL! This is gay! Let's pick H4350 powder. I know that 1 kernel of powder weighs a little less than .02 grains, call it .02 grains for simplicity. It takes about 4 kernels of powder to make .1 grains. I measure this on an Acculab, which is accurate to .02 grains. If you throw a charge, of say 43 grains of powder, you will have about ~1720 kernels of gunpowder in the case. I don't think it's going to make any difference if you cut 1 or 4 kernels of gun powder in a case. But, I don't use a thrower, since the spread on a thrown charge is easily .2 to .4 grains and slows me down. So cutting a kernel makes no sence. Just add or subtract a kernel or two to get the the weight you need. And most scales are only good to .1 grains (about 4 kernels worth), which most can not tell within a few kernels anyway.
LOL! This is gay! Let's pick H4350 powder. I know that 1 kernel of powder weighs a little less than .02 grains, call it .02 grains for simplicity. It takes about 4 kernels of powder to make .1 grains. I measure this on an Acculab, which is accurate to .02 grains. If you throw a charge, of say 43 grains of powder, you will have about ~1720 kernels of gunpowder in the case. I don't think it's going to make any difference if you cut 1 or 4 kernels of gun powder in a case. But, I don't use a thrower, since the spread on a thrown charge is easily .2 to .4 grains and slows me down. So cutting a kernel makes no sence. Just add or subtract a kernel or two to get the the weight you need. And most scales are only good to .1 grains (about 4 kernels worth), which most can not tell within a few kernels anyway.
Re: Cutting powder?
id guess that burn rates theoretically could increase with the greter surface area created by cutting if one did a ridiculously deliberate and thorough job of it. by accident, highly improbable.
id guess that burn rates theoretically could increase with the greter surface area created by cutting if one did a ridiculously deliberate and thorough job of it. by accident, highly improbable.
Re: Cutting powder?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I sift my powder then measure every single kernel with a micrometer then individually stack them in the case for uniform fill. </div></div>
I thought I was the only one...... I do this during breaks from filing my primer cups to the exact same height
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I sift my powder then measure every single kernel with a micrometer then individually stack them in the case for uniform fill. </div></div>
I thought I was the only one...... I do this during breaks from filing my primer cups to the exact same height
Re: Cutting powder?
For me, the issue with cutting granules isn't about the burn rate; it's about charge weight and consistency.
I seriously doubt the burn rate alteration effects on a granule or two are going to cause any detectable inaccuracy.
But when my Dillon measure goes "Kachunk", the resulting charge weight (and the one after it) becomes unreliable, according to my scale. So now, I simply dump that charge, the next, and maybe the one after it back into the powder hopper. Quicker and simpler in the long run.
Greg
For me, the issue with cutting granules isn't about the burn rate; it's about charge weight and consistency.
I seriously doubt the burn rate alteration effects on a granule or two are going to cause any detectable inaccuracy.
But when my Dillon measure goes "Kachunk", the resulting charge weight (and the one after it) becomes unreliable, according to my scale. So now, I simply dump that charge, the next, and maybe the one after it back into the powder hopper. Quicker and simpler in the long run.
Greg
