Hi all, i've been using a 30+ yr old Redding beam scale, i just bought a cheapy digital to compare, my usual charge is 5gr of Unique, when i measure it out on the digital & dump on the beam pan, it sinks like its a double charge, i'm leaning to trust the beam, what would you guys do?
which scale would you trust?
- Thread starter boombag13
- Start date
- Location
- West Quebec
For a Beam I use a RCBS beam scale it seems decent and it is my backup
By far the best answer. I have seen both digital and beam scales proven to be in error by check weights.
Buy a good quality scale right off the get go. I have a Dillon digital that reads exactly the same as my old Ohaus and a RCBS scale I have. I like the digital because with my aging eyes the large readout numbers are much easier to see and I can use it on the bench. The beam scales are used on a shelf/platform above the bench so that the beam point is at eye level. Saves on the back but accidents can and o happen when taking the powder pan from the measure to the scale and down again to the cases.
You can pick up some very cheap digital scales. I have one with the Hornady name on it that is small and portable. As long as it's level it measures within a tenth of a grain on any of my control weights. That is ok because it reads 1/10 grain on the high side. I would not suggest a scale that measures on the low side for pistol or small cartridge cases like the 218 BEE. Mind you if you know it measures one way or another and can remember to take that into account each time you use it all should be well.
I compared the very cheap Hornady to the Dillon on one hundred 9mm 115 grain bullets after setting zero the scales. They were both very consistent other than the Dillon gave a 1/10 grain lower reading on each bullet. The Hornady was slower to respond of the two.
You can pick up some very cheap digital scales. I have one with the Hornady name on it that is small and portable. As long as it's level it measures within a tenth of a grain on any of my control weights. That is ok because it reads 1/10 grain on the high side. I would not suggest a scale that measures on the low side for pistol or small cartridge cases like the 218 BEE. Mind you if you know it measures one way or another and can remember to take that into account each time you use it all should be well.
I compared the very cheap Hornady to the Dillon on one hundred 9mm 115 grain bullets after setting zero the scales. They were both very consistent other than the Dillon gave a 1/10 grain lower reading on each bullet. The Hornady was slower to respond of the two.
- Location
- North Shore, BC
Beam scale works for me.
I have a Lymans digital scale that will increase in weight the longer you leave the powder on the scale, sometimes it will decrease in weight.
I have a Lymans digital scale that will increase in weight the longer you leave the powder on the scale, sometimes it will decrease in weight.
I have a similar issue with my digital Lyman Scale. I find that although the readout will fluctuate from time to time, the physical powder being dumped and thrown (as long as my hand is consistently steady) is reliable for the loading I do. I would recommend using (or at least learning how) a beam scale as there is no power needed and for sure get a reliable reference weight for testing the calibration.
I bought an inexpensive Frankford Arsenal digital scale and it has proven quite accurate based on my lab quality check weights. I always make sure it is level, has strong batteries and warms up before I use it. I check it every 10 loads with a check weight that is near the weight of my powder load. I believe that using high quality check weights is the best way to know how your scale performs.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I won't trust any scale until it's proven repeatable. By that I mean that if I weigh a check weight 10 times, I get the same reading 10 times. I don't zero my scales to 0, I zero the scale to the charge weight I'm going to load, using the check weights. So if I'm loading 50.0 grs of 4350, I put a 50 gr check weight on the scale first to ensure its reading correctly. If the scale gets bumped at some point through the loading process, I check it again, and adjust it if necessary.
As to type i have both an electronic and beam scale, and in my opinion the beam scale is more accurate. When I'm loading with the electronic scale, I'll check the charges with the balance beam, when they don't agree, I correct the charges to the balance beam reading.
When it comes to brands, I'm most comfortable with Ohaus, and least comfortable with the Lee powder scale, the example I had was wildly non-repeatable.
As to type i have both an electronic and beam scale, and in my opinion the beam scale is more accurate. When I'm loading with the electronic scale, I'll check the charges with the balance beam, when they don't agree, I correct the charges to the balance beam reading.
When it comes to brands, I'm most comfortable with Ohaus, and least comfortable with the Lee powder scale, the example I had was wildly non-repeatable.
cdn1canhunt
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- southwestern ontario
+++++++++++++++1
- Location
- Saskatchewan
I have never had a beam scale fail, but I have had electronic scales drift as they warm up, hang up with a powder grain in the works, show wonky readings when battery is low, and react to static electricity. I still like them though, and use a beam scale for some quick jobs when i don't have time to warm up and calibrate and check weigh the electronic scale.
In would trust the beam with some cautions. Make sure that the beam pivots freely without touching the frame at any point. I had a beam balance at one point the was very erratic. I narrowed it down to two factors. The copper plate to reduce bouncing was rubbing the frame and the pivot point could slide on the bearings and affect the reading as a result. When I made sure these two factors were controlled, it was very repeatable. As an electronics technician, I can say that there are many variables within the components of the electronic scales that can introduce errors. Some will cancel each other and others may compound the errors. Even having the scale in a cool r warm area or temperature swings can introduce or compound errors.
Sizing .308 to .243
I bought a .243 recently as well as dies for same. Being that I could not find .243 brass locally, I bought a bag of .308, thinking I would just neck it down.
The theory is sound, but the dies I purchased would not size the neck down to the shoulder, stopping about .006" short. I could not chamber this brass. I thought the dies were the issue, but the manufacturer replied that their dies were for resizing, not reforming. After thinking a bit, I bought another shell holder, shaved it down .01" and tried again. Bingo. Problem solved. I can now use the shaved shellholder to form brass and the regular one for day to day sizing duties. Plus, I saved the cost of a set of forming dies.
I bought a .243 recently as well as dies for same. Being that I could not find .243 brass locally, I bought a bag of .308, thinking I would just neck it down.
The theory is sound, but the dies I purchased would not size the neck down to the shoulder, stopping about .006" short. I could not chamber this brass. I thought the dies were the issue, but the manufacturer replied that their dies were for resizing, not reforming. After thinking a bit, I bought another shell holder, shaved it down .01" and tried again. Bingo. Problem solved. I can now use the shaved shellholder to form brass and the regular one for day to day sizing duties. Plus, I saved the cost of a set of forming dies.
I have seen beam scales that were not properly calibrated, as was proven with check weights. They were properly zero'd, but they consistently read high or low. The people that were using them had no idea that they were out of calibration.
