Lee and RCBS powder scale inaccuracy...

[boomtube]

"I think I'll stick to using a digital scale from now on."

Good luck. I won't .

As you have now defined your "certified" digital, it seems you understand the common public doesn't have access to any routine maint. service traceable to any certification agency. Mostly meaning the only relationship between your wife's scale and common ones is they all have digital readouts.

I've been reloading a long time. I have three beam scales now and have used several others. None of them ever had an error greater than about .2 gr at any point on the beam and, for me, that's quite acceptable so long as the scale is precisely repeatable - and mine are. I suspect that is a common accuracy level.

My 46 year old Lyman beam continues to read EXACTLY the same today as it did when I bought it, ditto my 42 year old Herter's scale, and they are NOT unique in that life expectancy. My little Lee "Safety" scale is a PITA to use but it's very sensitive and dead on. In fact, all three of my scales are much more sensitive than any reloading grade digital I've used and beams follow a powder trickler much better. I strongly doubt that any non-professionally maintained digital scale, at any price, will last half as long as my beams and they are still going strong; I really like that.

I can't imagine a hobbist reloader working on a viberating industrial machine room floor but I suppose it's possible to eventually damage a beam's knives if he does.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

boomtube---I couldn't have said it any better than you did in your post. For the money spent on a good beam scale, there is no way you could buy a good digital scale even the way prices have come down on things! Touching on accuracy of the two, I would bet if I could go back through my state records that the failure rate of digitals on my inspections exceeded those of mechanical scales! Anything with circuitry and using electricity is going to have problems more than a well maintained mechanical device IMHO. Also, I definitely agree with your analogy of trickling powder using the two because the beam is continually moving until you arrive at zero and stop the powder flow. With a digital scale, unless you have an expensive one that will accurately display those very minute changes, rather than internally until it reaches the break-point and displays the next readable figure, you could have problems stopping the flow where you want. Buy a good beam scale and it will last a lifetime if cared for and you can't say that about any digital scale that is comparably priced!

 

[TracySes23]

Boom Tube & Top Gun 30-06

Your are both dead on correct, especially about the remark made, about a break-point from one number to the next on a digital scale. All digital devices that display numbers have this problem. More than once while working in a machine shop over 46 years, I've had to prove this to a number of people during this time, by using a 1/10,000" analog dial indicator & a digital indicator side by side to prove this. It was easily seen by the naysayers who instantly, could no longer argue the point. It always amazes me how often people seem to disbelieve old technology could possibly be superior.

I have a Lyman M-5 beam scale made by Ohaus I've used since mid 1969. It's as accurate now as it was then. That's 44 years. Plenty reliable & accurate enough for me. The only thing I've done for maintenance, is to use a small soft brush to insure any dust was cleaned from the knife edges & the v-shape the knife edges pivoted in.

 

[jeff 300]

so whats the bset beam scale out there???????????? i'm ready to buy a realy good one and use my charge master to just get me close to the load then finish on the beam with a trickler. So i would like to buy a really good beam scale.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

This is an old thread but I'll jump in... I used a 10-10 for years and it has worked fine except for oncw it started acting up a little. I cleaned it up real well and it's working fine again. I use a Charegemaster now and will never go back. I keep the 10-10 for occasional cross check and back up but the Charegemaster is what I use period. The Chargemaster dispenses and measures fast and accurate. When I put my 250 gr check weight on it, it reads 250.0 gr. Can't get much more accurate than that.

If you're dead set on a beam scale, most of the ones on the market should do fine. Bottom line is you need to set it up properly and you need a good check weight to check it. I think the 10-10 is hard to beat for a beam scale.

 

[TracySes23]

so whats the bset beam scale out there???????????? i'm ready to buy a realy good one and use my charge master to just get me close to the load then finish on the beam with a trickler. So i would like to buy a really good beam scale.

If you want a new one, the RCBS Model 1010 Magnetic Powder Scale 1010 Grain Capacity, identically the same design with a couple of minor changes as The Lyman M-5 made by Ohaus. Midway USA sells it. Here's the link:
RCBS Model 1010 Magnetic Powder Scale 1010 Grain Capacity

Midway USA doesn't show a cover or mention a cover for this scale, but I just checked the RCBS website and their description shown below says it comes with a cover. The beam, the pan & other parts store in the base when they aren't being used. I paid about $30 for mine in 1969.

10-10 Scale Description
Need up to 1,010-grain capacity with 0.1-grain sensitivity? You get it with the RCBS 10-10. Its approach-to-weight system speeds reloading and helps you avoid overloads. A micrometer poise allows easy adjustment at any setting from 0.1 to 10 grains. Other features: magnetic dampening, non-stick / non-spill aluminum pan, self-aligning agate bearings, hardened steel pivot knives and a tough plastic cover.

I'm pretty certain anyone who has used one will vouch for it's accuracy & reliability.
RCBS retails it at $201.95, but Midway USA has it on sale now for $143.99.
I've seen the Lyman M-5 many times on the Internet for around $25 - $40. Just from appearance alone, I suspect parts would be interchangeable.
It has a leveling screw at the left side that also stores a weight standard. Since there is no bubble, I suspect leveling is a little confusing. But even if it sets on a surface that isn't perfectly level, you adjust the screw until the two lines match up with each other for calibration before using it each time (a very simple procedure).

http://www.rcbs.com/downloads/instructions/Model_10-10_Scale_Instructions.pdf

 

[Sully2]

This is an old thread but I'll jump in... I used a 10-10 for years and it has worked fine except for oncw it started acting up a little. I cleaned it up real well and it's working fine again. I use a Charegemaster now and will never go back. I keep the 10-10 for occasional cross check and back up but the Charegemaster is what I use period. The Chargemaster dispenses and measures fast and accurate. When I put my 250 gr check weight on it, it reads 250.0 gr. Can't get much more accurate than that.

If you're dead set on a beam scale, most of the ones on the market should do fine. Bottom line is you need to set it up properly and you need a good check weight to check it. I think the 10-10 is hard to beat for a bean scale.

MARK: Same deal here. I used a 1010 for mucho / many years and 2 years ago bought a ChargeMaster. Use 99% of the time the ChargeMaster. I get load "more accurate" and LOTS quicker.

 

[Bart B]

In my opinion, a powder scale should be repeatable from day to week to month to year. Doesn't matter if it's 3/10ths grain off perfect, exact and zero tolerance. Beam scales tend to do this better than electronic ones.

Besides, a grain of powder from lot A will not have the same energy output as a grain from lot B, C, D and so on.

 

[TracySes23]

In my opinion, a powder scale should be repeatable from day to week to month to year. Doesn't matter if it's 3/10ths grain off perfect, exact and zero tolerance. Beam scales tend to do this better than electronic ones.

Besides, a grain of powder from lot A will not have the same energy output as a grain from lot B, C, D and so on.

You're 100% correct!

Fans of the digital technology often mistakenly believe the digit display is an absolute, which it rarely is. it could be 9 tenths of a tenth off either way and they have no way of knowing whether it is or not. That gives a possibility of a total of 1.8 tenths variation from load to load. At least a beam scale will repeat and you can see f it's off or not.

Once I cut a 1.5" square of paper and weighed it. Leaving the sliding weighs where they were, I removed the paper & wrote my name on it. I then placed the signed paper back in the pan and could see a distinct difference in weight. That can't be consistently be done on a digital scale if you signature weighs 1/4 of a tenth grain.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

You're 100% correct!

Fans of the digital technology often mistakenly believe the digit display is an absolute, which it rarely is. it could be 9 tenths of a tenth off either way and they have no way of knowing whether it is or not. That gives a possibility of a total of 1.8 tenths variation from load to load. At least a beam scale will repeat and you can see f it's off or not.

Once I cut a 1.5" square of paper and weighed it. Leaving the sliding weighs where they were, I removed the paper & wrote my name on it. I then placed the signed paper back in the pan and could see a distinct difference in weight. That can't be consistently be done on a digital scale if you signature weighs 1/4 of a tenth grain.

I don't know how I can explain this any clearer but I have checked my Chargemaster with the 250 gr check weight that came with my 10-10. It reads 250.0 gr. That is to +/- .05 gr accuracy, not +/- .9 gr. I also occasionally weigh a Chargemaster charge on the 10-10 and it always checks out. +/- .05 gr amounts to about 2 kernels of Retumbo. My chronograph doesn't know the the difference with ES's of 10-20 fps.

If you old school balance beam guys like your manual scales that's fine. But you should get your facts straight before posting stuff in the forums.

When I'm set up, I can charge and seat about 4-5 cases with the Chargemaster for every 1 I can do manually. When I take a charge off the scale and pour it in the case, I dispense another charge while I'm seating the bullet... works great! And when I'm pressure or ladder testing, I don't have to mess with scale adjustments for each new increment. Just punch in 65 and dispense, 66 and dispense, 67 and dispense, etc.

I can not imagine going back to the manual way.

 

[Bart B]

There's also the situation when some powders with a 3/10ths spread in charge weight, 5% spread in peak pressure and 40 fps spread in muzzle velocity producing better accuracy than other powders with less than 1/10th grain charge weight spread, 3% spread in peak pressure and less than 20 fps spread in muzzle velocity.

Benchresters have been measuring powder charges by volume instead of weight for matches up to 300 yards for decades. They use powders having small muzzle velocity changes for a 1/10th grain change in charge weight. Such powders typically produce best accuracy as their pressure curves are more repeatable in size and shape. Military arsenal match ammo's charges have been measured by volume, too, and typically produce better accuracy than many folks making their own ammo with exact charge weights.

There's other things about cartridge components that cause more accuracy problems than a 1/10th grain change in powder does. Charge weight's way down the list of important things to have and do.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I have no idea how TS23 came up with that explanation of his because, as was stated by MontanaRifleman, it is incorrect, and the example given by MR is spot on. The breaking point on a digital scale is when the weight on the pan is close to the midway point of the minimum graduation that is displayed on the device. Thus, it is just as MR stated in that there shouldn't be more than +/-1/2 that weight that the scale will be off when it is deciding to stay at what it's showing on the display or move to the next figure. That sensitivity test is one that I did in the field during testing of commercial w&m devices as a State W&M Official. In other words, if my target weight is 50 grains of powder and the scale shows it is 50 grains, the actual weight could be 49.5 to 50.5 grains. Depending on the scale sensitivity in use it is probably going to be a little less than that and certainly would not be the large range of error as mentioned by TS23. I would also question the TS23 statement about weighing the paper with and without his name on it on a reloading bench beam scale. That kind of sensitivity can only be seen on a very expensive scale like we had in our Michigan State Metrology Laboratory and not with a device that a person would have available at their home reloading bench. All this being said, I prefer my 505 beam scale because I can see the actual movement in the pointer as it approaches and hits the target weight during powder trickling, rather than seeing the weight jump an entire digit as happens on a digital scale. I can understand why a person would use a digital scale though and it would be basicly for speed as MR stated. I feel that reloading for me is a time of peace and I'm not interested in seeing how many loads I can put out in a hour. Thus my use of the 505 beam with an RCBS trickler.

 

[CogburnR]

Regardless of the type of scale accuracy is influenced by how the charge is weighed.

Typically a charge that is trickled in up to the target will be consistent. If the charge is overthrown and some removed it will typically be off a little. I remove the pan and replace it when this happens and trickle up a little again. It works that way with both my beam and electronic scales.

When pressure testing and chronographing loads I am pretty fussy about technique with the scale.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I have no idea how TS23 came up with that explanation of his because, as was stated by MontanaRifleman, it is incorrect, and the example given by MR is spot on. The breaking point on a digital scale is when the weight on the pan is close to the midway point of the minimum graduation that is displayed on the device. Thus, it is just as MR stated in that there shouldn't be more than +/-1/2 that weight that the scale will be off when it is deciding to stay at what it's showing on the display or move to the next figure. That sensitivity test is one that I did in the field during testing of commercial w&m devices as a State W&M Official. In other words, if my target weight is 50 grains of powder and the scale shows it is 50 grains, the actual weight could be 49.5 to 50.5 grains. Depending on the scale sensitivity in use it is probably going to be a little less than that and certainly would not be the large range of error as mentioned by TS23. I would also question the TS23 statement about weighing the paper with and without his name on it on a reloading bench beam scale. That kind of sensitivity can only be seen on a very expensive scale like we had in our Michigan State Metrology Laboratory and not with a device that a person would have available at their home reloading bench. All this being said, I prefer my 505 beam scale because I can see the actual movement in the pointer as it approaches and hits the target weight during powder trickling, rather than seeing the weight jump an entire digit as happens on a digital scale. I can understand why a person would use a digital scale though and it would be basicly for speed as MR stated. I feel that reloading for me is a time of peace and I'm not interested in seeing how many loads I can put out in a hour. Thus my use of the 505 beam with an RCBS trickler.

Move the decimal point over one space. The accuracy of the Chargemaster is +/- minus .05 gr, not +/- .5 If I dispense 50 gr of powder, it reads 50.0 gr and it is accurate according to my check weight. When I put the 250 gr check weight on the CM electronic scale it reads 250.0 gr.