Beam powder scales vs cheap digital scales vs powder scoop

I performed a simple experiment just a few minutes ago to test the accuracy of my RCBS beam scale. The experiment boils down to this. I weighed a new folded up sheet of 8.5"x11" paper and recorded the weight of 68.9gn. I then unfolded the sheet and cut from it a 1"x1" square "sample". (I took a random sample of the whole sheet.) I then carefully weighed the sample and obtained 0.6gn. So, how'd my scale perform?

The area of the 8.5"x11" piece of paper that I slid off what I estimate to be the middle of a 500-sheet block was 8.5"x11"=93.5 square inches. Again, that piece of paper weighed 68.9gn on our scale. Therefore, in theory, a 1 square inch sample should weigh 68.9 divided by 93.5 = 0.74gn, rounded down to 0.7gn. Again, I weighed a 1" square sample and obtained 0.6gn.

My conclusion? Considering my certain error in measuring and cutting the sample, and the possible differences between the physical dimensions of the sample and those of the whole piece of paper, I'm extremely pleased with our scale. :)

(For example, I could not detect the weight of the sample in my hand and I wondered if the scale would be similarly impotent. But when I placed that sample into the weighing pan, sure enough, the beam pointer slowly moved upward. I then carefully moved the little weight on the right end of the balance toward the fulcrum and, after the beam stabilized at the zero point, read 0.6gn. Amazing! Even though that's what the little guy is supposed to do, I was still amazed that it did what it did.)

I hope others are curious enough about their scales to try this simple experiment. I'd be particularly interested to hear from those who use digital scales.
 
Last edited:
Iloverevolvers said:
I performed a simple experiment just a few minutes ago to test the accuracy of my RCBS beam scale. The experiment boils down to this. I weighed a new folded up sheet of 8.5"x11" paper and recorded the weight of 68.9gn. I then unfolded the sheet and cut from it a 1"x1" square "sample". (I took a random sample of the whole sheet.) I then carefully weighed the sample and obtained 0.6gn. So, how'd my scale perform?

The area of the 8.5"x11" piece of paper that I slid off what I estimate to be the middle of a 500-sheet block was 8.5"x11"=93.5 square inches. Again, that piece of paper weighed 68.9gn on our scale. Therefore, in theory, a 1 square inch sample should weigh 68.9 divided by 93.5 = 0.74gn, rounded down to 0.7gn. Again, I weighed a 1" square sample and obtained 0.6gn.

My conclusion? Considering my certain error in measuring and cutting the sample, and the possible differences between the physical dimensions of the sample and those of the whole piece of paper, I'm extremely pleased with our scale. :)

(For example, I could not detect the weight of the sample in my hand and I wondered if the scale would be similarly impotent. But when I placed that sample into the weighing pan, sure enough, the beam pointer slowly moved upward. I then carefully moved the little weight on the right end of the balance toward the fulcrum and, after the beam stabilized at the zero point, read 0.6gn. Amazing! Even though that's what the little guy is supposed to do, I was still amazed that it did what it did.)

I hope others are curious enough about their scales to try this simple experiment. I'd be particularly interested to hear from those who use digital scales.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you did not test the overall accuracy of your scale. Without a true set of calibrated weights (the kind you need gloves to handle) there is no way to truly determine if the scale is accurate. Even if you had the weights and the gloves, the scale could only be determined to be accurate under those same exact same ambient environmental conditions. That is why none of scales on this thread are accurate.

Good news is that they don't have to be accurate. As mentioned 1/10 of a grain is .0064 grams... that is a lot of zeros. Most of the fancy digital scales claim .001-gram accuracy. That is nearly impossible to hold outside controlled lab conditions.

Also as demonstrated, the margin for error in powder charges, even on smaller case is much larger than most folks want to admit.

It is most certainly in realm of dimensioning returns.

R.
 
Iloverevolvers said:
I performed a simple experiment just a few minutes ago to test the accuracy of my RCBS beam scale. The experiment boils down to this. I weighed a new folded up sheet of 8.5"x11" paper and recorded the weight of 68.9gn. I then unfolded the sheet and cut from it a 1"x1" square "sample". (I took a random sample of the whole sheet.) I then carefully weighed the sample and obtained 0.6gn. So, how'd my scale perform?

The area of the 8.5"x11" piece of paper that I slid off what I estimate to be the middle of a 500-sheet block was 8.5"x11"=93.5 square inches. Again, that piece of paper weighed 68.9gn on our scale. Therefore, in theory, a 1 square inch sample should weigh 68.9 divided by 93.5 = 0.74gn, rounded down to 0.7gn. Again, I weighed a 1" square sample and obtained 0.6gn.

My conclusion? Considering my certain error in measuring and cutting the sample, and the possible differences between the physical dimensions of the sample and those of the whole piece of paper, I'm extremely pleased with our scale. :)

(For example, I could not detect the weight of the sample in my hand and I wondered if the scale would be similarly impotent. But when I placed that sample into the weighing pan, sure enough, the beam pointer slowly moved upward. I then carefully moved the little weight on the right end of the balance toward the fulcrum and, after the beam stabilized at the zero point, read 0.6gn. Amazing! Even though that's what the little guy is supposed to do, I was still amazed that it did what it did.)

I hope others are curious enough about their scales to try this simple experiment. I'd be particularly interested to hear from those who use digital scales.
Click to expand...
You're a fawking scientist, mate. :)
 
Rman said:
Unfortunately, you did not test the overall accuracy of your scale. Without a true set of calibrated weights (the kind you need gloves to handle) there is no way to truly determine if the scale is accurate. Even if you had the weights and the gloves, the scale could only be determined to be accurate under those same exact same ambient environmental conditions. That is why none of scales on this thread are accurate.

Good news is that they don't have to be accurate. As mentioned 1/10 of a grain is .0064 grams... that is a lot of zeros. Most of the fancy digital scales claim .001-gram accuracy. That is nearly impossible to hold outside controlled lab conditions.

Also as demonstrated, the margin for error in powder charges, even on smaller case is much larger than most folks want to admit.

It is most certainly in realm of dimensioning returns.

R.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean about diminishing returns and scale accuracy, how many more hundreds of dollars do I have to spend to get fractionally better weighing accuracy and then what is that going to translate to in my loads? Probably nothing I’ll be able to notice. As we saw with my test, which is by no means scientifical my unknown scoop charges were more consistent, both in velocity and accuracy as far as I can tell.
And then you gotta look at your use case as well. I’m not shooting in competitions.That particular gun is meant to be my 600 m bang a gong gun. For sure I’ll do some groups just to see what’s up but mainly it’s just to have fun and I think either my $30 digital scale or my $30 lee scoop set will be just fine getting my bang from my buck, oh I guess that brings me into hunting speaking of bang and bucks that $30 scale was good enough to get me just under 1 moa on my hunting rig and my first time loading for that rifle and I brought a deer home.
I don’t know. It was a fun experiment. Instead of upgrading any sort of powder measuring device and I’m just gonna spend my money on more powder and bullets.
Edit: I think the biggest improvement to my accuracy is going to be me practicing my fundamentals. I think I’m fairly consistent in my reloading. I’m just keeping it simple with the basics but trigger time behind the gun paying attention that I’m practicing my fundamentals everytime is what’s gonna shrink those groups more than anything
 
If you have a #### load a lab scale won’t fix it. If you have a good load dropping charges with a measure won’t hurt it. Within reason of course, everything has limits.
For a hunting load I’m not happy if I can’t load up 1 gr, the load, and down one grain and shoot mixture and get a satisfactory group. Higher extreme spreads will get you at some distance, which might be farther than you shoot or might be an issue. A varying zero will mess you up everytime the sun goes behind a cloud.
 
Rman said:
Unfortunately, you did not test the overall accuracy of your scale. Without a true set of calibrated weights (the kind you need gloves to handle) there is no way to truly determine if the scale is accurate. Even if you had the weights and the gloves, the scale could only be determined to be accurate under those same exact same ambient environmental conditions. That is why none of scales on this thread are accurate.

Good news is that they don't have to be accurate. As mentioned 1/10 of a grain is .0064 grams... that is a lot of zeros. Most of the fancy digital scales claim .001-gram accuracy. That is nearly impossible to hold outside controlled lab conditions.

Also as demonstrated, the margin for error in powder charges, even on smaller case is much larger than most folks want to admit.

It is most certainly in realm of dimensioning returns.

R.
Click to expand...
My experiment this morning already covered the accuracy or non accuracy (accuracy is a relative term) of the low end of my scale. Within the scale itself, the scale has good linearity. But what about the accuracy of the weight of the full sheet of paper-- 68.9 grains? How do I verify that? Might I be able to use what the paper manufacturer states about the weight of its copy/office paper to determine the accuracy of my weighing device when weighing a full sheet? Yes...............maybe. Let's find out.

Google AI says that a typical 500-sheet ream of 8.5”x11”, 20-lb copy or office paper weighs "approximately" 2.27kg. Presumably, using accepted scientific methodology, that 2.27kg figure means any number less than 2.275 kg or any number more than 2.265 kg, because, for example, if the weight of many random samples of 500-sheet reams was averaged to be 2.276 kg, the approximate weight stated by AI would have been 2.28 kg rather than 2.27 kg. In other words, since the 1000th decimal place is not shown/stated, the 2.27 kg can be assumed to be plus or minus 0.005 kg or 0.22%. (Strictly scientifically speaking, a reported 2.27 kg does not equal a reported 2.270 kg because the latter is a more precise, a more “accurate” or “reliable” weight than the former.)

So now we know that 500 sheets of 8.5”x11” paper weighs 2.27 kg plus or minus 0.22%.

We can also assume with a fair degree of certainty that one sheet weighs one five-hundredth of 2.27 kg plus or minus 0.22%.

Therefore, 2.27 kg divided by 500 equals 0.00454 kg; and 0.00454 kg equals 70.06 grains plus or minus 0.22%.

0.22% of 70.06 gn equals 0.15 grains, so 70.6 grains plus or minus 0.15 grains.

Because the precision of my balance is 0.1 grains plus or minus 0.05 grains, I say that the weight of the full sheet that I weighed was 68.9gn (but I'm not going to state the assumed precision of plus or minus 0.05 grains).

Because of the above analysis of the accuracy of my scale's reported 68.9 grains for the piece of paper I used in my experiment, I'm completely satisfied with that weight being "accurate" enough. (Maybe the water content of the piece in my dry office is slightly less than it was when it left the factory.) So no need for a 70-grain check-weight either. Both ends of the scale are accurate enough.

Yes, the good thing is that these beam weighing devices don't have to be "very" accurate -- just accurate enough to fulfill their purpose, and, for the picky, even beyond.
 
Iloverevolvers said:
My experiment this morning already covered the accuracy or non accuracy (accuracy is a relative term) of the low end of my scale. Within the scale itself, the scale has good linearity. But what about the accuracy of the weight of the full sheet of paper-- 68.9 grains? How do I verify that? Might I be able to use what the paper manufacturer states about the weight of its copy/office paper to determine the accuracy of my weighing device when weighing a full sheet? Yes...............maybe. Let's find out.

Google AI says that a typical 500-sheet ream of 8.5”x11”, 20-lb copy or office paper weighs "approximately" 2.27kg. Presumably, using accepted scientific methodology, that 2.27kg figure means any number less than 2.275 kg or any number more than 2.265 kg, because, for example, if the weight of many random samples of 500-sheet reams was averaged to be 2.276 kg, the approximate weight stated by AI would have been 2.28 kg rather than 2.27 kg. In other words, since the 1000th decimal place is not shown/stated, the 2.27 kg can be assumed to be plus or minus 0.005 kg or 0.22%. (Strictly scientifically speaking, a reported 2.27 kg does not equal a reported 2.270 kg because the latter is a more precise, a more “accurate” or “reliable” weight than the former.)

So now we know that 500 sheets of 8.5”x11” paper weighs 2.27 kg plus or minus 0.22%.

We can also assume with a fair degree of certainty that one sheet weighs one five-hundredth of 2.27 kg plus or minus 0.22%.

Therefore, 2.27 kg divided by 500 equals 0.00454 kg; and 0.00454 kg equals 70.06 grains plus or minus 0.22%.

0.22% of 70.06 gn equals 0.15 grains, so 70.6 grains plus or minus 0.15 grains.

Because the precision of my balance is 0.1 grains plus or minus 0.05 grains, I say that the weight of the full sheet that I weighed was 68.9gn (but I'm not going to state the assumed precision of plus or minus 0.05 grains).

Because of the above analysis of the accuracy of my scale's reported 68.9 grains for the piece of paper I used in my experiment, I'm completely satisfied with that weight being "accurate" enough. (Maybe the water content of the piece in my dry office is slightly less than it was when it left the factory.) So no need for a 70-grain check-weight either. Both ends of the scale are accurate enough.

Yes, the good thing is that these beam weighing devices don't have to be "very" accurate -- just accurate enough to fulfill their purpose, and, for the picky, even beyond.
Click to expand...
Rman pointed it out.

"Without a true set of calibrated weights (the kind you need gloves to handle) there is no way to truly determine if the scale is accurate."

You also need to operate the scale within given operating specs (e.g. temp, humidity,...)
 
For next exercise, weigh out some of the bullets you want to reload. You'll be surprised, maybe,...

E.g. a 100 grain projectile will vary in weight, sometimes by a grain or more. Saying your 100 grain bullet may weigh 99 grains or 101 grains is a possibility. Now, to be consistent, you gotta compensate for that with your powder load...

Some long range shooters will weigh their projectiles in order to "mitigate", those weight deviations and adjust the powder charge accordingly...
 
riversrest said:
For next exercise, weigh out some of the bullets you want to reload. You'll be surprised, maybe,...

E.g. a 100 grain projectile will vary in weight, sometimes by a grain or more. Saying your 100 grain bullet may weigh 99 grains or 101 grains is a possibility. Now, to be consistent, you gotta compensate for that with your powder load...

Some long range shooters will weigh their projectiles in order to "mitigate", those weight deviations and adjust the powder charge accordingly...
Click to expand...
And brass as well, I suppose if you wanted, you could spend hours sorting your bullets into lots that weigh the same and your brass into lots that weigh the same but not for me because then you’re left with now which bullets am I gonna match with which brass you got 100 of each you got 40 brass that way the same 57 bullets that weigh the same then you got another 20 brass that weigh something else and another 30 bullets that way something else you’re gonna end up with all those mixed matching stuff anyways I think it would be an exercise in futility. It would drive me absolutely bananas 🤪
I do realize you were being humorous, but I have a buddy who used to do that and actually weigh all his brass and bullets and match them up and stuff. He no longer does that and I’m gonna learn from his experience and not even start. In the end, there’s too many minute variables, I’d rather just roll them up and send them after I’ve got them as consistent as I can anyway. 🎯
But it is fun discussing all the 🐇 🕳️
 
riversrest said:
... your 100 grain bullet may weigh 99 grains or 101 grains is a possibility. Now, to be consistent, you gotta compensate for that with your powder load...
Click to expand...

Adjusting the powder charge to each individual bullet sounds like an interesting exercise but a non-productive one. I often feel like Sheldon on the Big Bang.... was that sarcasm? I expect so. Separating the bullets by weight is what's normally done.

I had some Sierra 7mm 120 gr prohunters that varied by up to 3 grains from the same box. I loaded them in 7mm08 with scooped powder charges, and shot 1½" 5 shot groups. Good enough for a kid's deer rifle with a limit of 150 yds. That was as good or better than that rifle ever managed with factory ammo.

Sometimes "good enough" is all you need.
 
Last edited:
jethunter said:
Adjusting the powder charge to each individual bullet sounds like an interesting exercise but a non-productive one. I often feel like Sheldon on the Big Bang.... was that sarcasm? I hope so. Separating the bullets by weight is what's normally done.

I had some Sierra 7mm 120 gr prohunters that varied by up to 3 grains from the same box. I loaded them in 7mm08 with scooped powder charges, and shot 1½" 5 shot groups. Good enough for a kid's deer rifle with a limit of 150 yds. That was as good or better than that rifle ever managed with factory ammo.

Sometimes "good enough" is all you need.
Click to expand...
1,5”@100 5 shots group is good enough for me up to 300yards and maybe beyond that for big game that is of course!
 
Ghillbert said:
And brass as well, I suppose if you wanted, you could spend hours sorting your bullets into lots that weigh the same and your brass into lots that weigh the same but not for me because then you’re left with now which bullets am I gonna match with which brass you got 100 of each you got 40 brass that way the same 57 bullets that weigh the same then you got another 20 brass that weigh something else and another 30 bullets that way something else you’re gonna end up with all those mixed matching stuff anyways I think it would be an exercise in futility. It would drive me absolutely bananas 🤪
I do realize you were being humorous, but I have a buddy who used to do that and actually weigh all his brass and bullets and match them up and stuff. He no longer does that and I’m gonna learn from his experience and not even start. In the end, there’s too many minute variables, I’d rather just roll them up and send them after I’ve got them as consistent as I can anyway. 🎯
But it is fun discussing all the 🐇 🕳️
Click to expand...
We all have our limit of what we are willing to expend our time towards our goals and we all have different goals we are trying to satisfy. Whatever your desired accuracy is at your particular distance will dictate your processes. I have learned that all those little details do in fact make a difference. But we make concessions for our efforts so as not to waste them frivolously on things that don't provide the gains that your needing. But there are legitimate reasons reloaders do what they need too. I haven't started to weigh my brass and bullets yet but may start to. And I'm just loading for accurate hunting loads. But I'm producing some really good product. For me my biggest improvement bar none was to purchase a Matchmaster powder dispenser. I realize it's not part of the OP's original question but this thread that I've been reading from the beginning is morphing a bit. So please just take my comment for what it is. Just my humble opinion. I'm not saying that any method of powder measure doesn't work. They do for the individual needs of the user and always will because we all load for OUR needs. For me this Matchmaster dispenser has made a massive difference in producing very consistent ammo. And it's reasonably quick.. not sure if it's faster than a powder thrower and trickler to a scale of your choice... that's got a lot to do with dexterity and powder type/volume. The Matchmaster weighs to .002+- . I believe the V4 is faster and more consistent but it was significantly more money at the time of my purchase. As far as drift and environmental fluctuations go. Every method with possibly the exception of the scoop are subject to them. I have found that if I don't move or breath while using the Matchmaster it is very fast and accurate. Holding my breath for a couple seconds is just part of the process. Air currents effect all scales btw, equally based on accuracy of scale. It's just really obvious when the scale is reading to the third decimal. The V4 runs a shroud and may be it's advantage over the Matchmaster though I think the V4 may have a better load sensor. Cheers just my 2cents. Great discussion BTW
Note: The Matchmaster in this vid is not set at it's highest calibration level. You must set it to match mode for the third decimal point. It gives up some speed for this setting.
 
you have lots of good info given so far ..50 years back i started reloading....lee target set ,,sot of a delux hand tool set all i used for years for my varmint rifles......lee scoops are great then got an ohas 10 10 and now an eletronic dispenser which i check with the 10 10......any scale you get should be magnetic dampened and rocker points lubed and clean.......if you get a load you like and your lee set does not fit the task i used to select a rifle case solder a wire handle on it and file or grind it down till it scoops true use a consistent dip and from a cup with the powder in it powder compacts in the can so keep it stirred up...cuff of the top of the dipper with a popsicle stick or the like same moves each time ....a good place to start,,,,,,,,,,,have fun and do it when no one is talking to you or at you if you are married be consistent
 
Everyone recommending lab grade, 1 mile precision for a gentleman looking for a reduced 40 yard plinker load for an indoor range, utilizing bulk fmj’s with a reputation for sketchy consistency…….

Congrats gents, you’ve won the internet….. and please pull up your pants while you’re at it.
 
This is a 100 yard group shot with cast bullets and charges measured with an Uncle Mikes measure (basically the same Principle as the Lee Scoop) out of an old 8.15x56R on-site between shots
Pretty sure a scooped or thrown charge works okay🙂
Cat
 

Attachments

  • 20250430_204753.jpg
    20250430_204753.jpg
    78.3 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
iron cat said:
This is a 100 yard group shot with cast bullets and charges measured with an Uncle Mikes measure (basically the same Principle as the Lee Scoop) out of an old 8.15x56R on-site between shots
Pretty sure a scooped or thrown charge works okay🙂
Cat
Click to expand...
Yeah that ain’t that great, if you’d use the latest in scale for sure this would be half that size man.. 🙄🥸🤣
 
track said:
WOW, people wanting to be a handloading ballistician or scientist. K.I.S.S (keep It Simple Silly) No need to complicate handloading, especially for newcomers. Basic fundimentals is a great start. Later-on, people can venture further into more precision practices.
Click to expand...
Kiss is always a good thing especially for hunting at saine distances, why are we trying to complicate things or reinvent the wheel when stuff already been done over and over again!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom