Opinion on scales

VinnyQC said:
How do you guys sanity-check a beam scale using an electronic scale? If anything can go boinker, it's the ES, not the Beam. I don't understand, it's like trying to measure a calibration weight using a scale to make sure the calibration weight's weight hasn't changed. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

I agree, I thought that was a strange comment as well. I use test weights to check and calibrate my Gempro250 but sometimes I'll double check a couple with my beam scale just to make sure nothing has gone wrong with the digital.
What I've had happen once is my digital would only calibrate at one test weight, and was way off on the actual charge weight. I noticed the problem because the volume didn't seem right so I used my beam scale to verify the problem.
I find the Gempro faster to use than my beam scale.
 
VinnyQC said:
How do you guys sanity-check a beam scale using an electronic scale? If anything can go boinker, it's the ES, not the Beam. I don't understand, it's like trying to measure a calibration weight using a scale to make sure the calibration weight's weight hasn't changed. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

mod7rem said:
I agree, I thought that was a strange comment as well. I use test weights to check and calibrate my Gempro250 but sometimes I'll double check a couple with my beam scale just to make sure nothing has gone wrong with the digital.
What I've had happen once is my digital would only calibrate at one test weight, and was way off on the actual charge weight. I noticed the problem because the volume didn't seem right so I used my beam scale to verify the problem.
I find the Gempro faster to use than my beam scale.
Click to expand...

Measure twice...cut once? Maybe that's a stretch for most on here who are experienced and have advanced to user proven higher end equipment but a confirmation on setup is something I do. Especially at this step for reasons all reloaders know.

The digital scale is used to verify that the beam hasn't been set up incorrectly between calibers and rifles. For an instant, the ES can confirm error of the beam scale set up. That's it. I find that more convenient than charge weights.

The accuracy of the charge and calibration of whatever scale is a different story. The electronic scale is not used for that on this end.

I haven't second guessed my tape measure for many years...but reloading...well just not there yet. I've never criticized any newbie on any of my jobs for getting it right the first time. :)

Regards
Ronr
 
RonR said:
Measure twice...cut once? Maybe that's a stretch for most on here who are experienced and have advanced to user proven higher end equipment but a confirmation on setup is something I do. Especially at this step for reasons all reloaders know.

The digital scale is used to verify that the beam hasn't been set up incorrectly between calibers and rifles. For an instant, the ES can confirm error of the beam scale set up. That's it. I find that more convenient than charge weights.

The accuracy of the charge and calibration of whatever scale is a different story. The electronic scale is not used for that on this end.

I haven't second guessed my tape measure for many years...but reloading...well just not there yet. I've never criticized any newbie on any of my jobs for getting it right the first time. :)

Regards
Ronr
Click to expand...

I agree, I wouldn't use a digital scale as a calibration check. My Gempro has done some finicky weird sh1t and sometimes it has taken recalibrating a few times to get it to settle down. The worst time was when I was weighing a few different 22 caliber bullets and accidentally dropped one from a couple inches down into the pan on the scale. The readings went wonky so I grabbed the calibration weight that comes with it and went through the calibration process. The calibration weight is 308.65gr (20 grams). After calibrating I started weighing out 24.5 gr charges for my 223 and the volume was too much to get all in the case. I measured the charge with my beam scale and the charges were over something like 2 to 3 grains. I tested the Gempro with a 55 gr bullet and it was also out, but still weighed the calibration weight perfectly. If this was in a bigger case it may have gone unnoticed. I couldn't get it to calibrate, I switched to battery power which actually straightened it out, but wouldn't stay calibrated when switched back to cord and wall socket. I got more calibration weights and went through a two weight calibration still with no luck. I was going to send it away for repair but wound up leaving it plugged in and turned on for a few days before I got back to it. I tried calibrating one more time and for some reason it worked normally. Now I leave it plugged in and turned on 24/7 and always check with a few different test weights before I start and quickly confirm with the test weights once or twice during the session. So although I like the digital better, I wouldn't trust it without test weights.
 
Last edited:
RonR said:
Measure twice...cut once? Maybe that's a stretch for most on here who are experienced and have advanced to user proven higher end equipment but a confirmation on setup is something I do. Especially at this step for reasons all reloaders know.

The digital scale is used to verify that the beam hasn't been set up incorrectly between calibers and rifles. For an instant, the ES can confirm error of the beam scale set up. That's it. I find that more convenient than charge weights.

The accuracy of the charge and calibration of whatever scale is a different story. The electronic scale is not used for that on this end.

I haven't second guessed my tape measure for many years...but reloading...well just not there yet. I've never criticized any newbie on any of my jobs for getting it right the first time. :)

Regards
Ronr
Click to expand...


If you measure twice and both measurements don't come out the same, you don't cut at all.

The point is that if 2 measurement instruments don't give you the same measurement for the same item measured, all you know is that one or two of them is faulty, not which one, and not by how much. If one is more reliable than the other, chances are that the unreliable one is wrong and the reliable one is right. For scales, beams are usually more reliable than electronic, so you could calibrate an electronic using a beam, but not the other way around.

Note that if you check a scale using a different scale, you're actually using test weights, it's just that they're random instead of set weight, and your knowledge of their actual weight is not very good considering it comes from another scale of more or less dubious quality.

If you want to sanity check your scale, get weights that are around the weight of the powder you usually measure (for example, if you load 300wsm at 62gr, get a 223 bullet of 62gr), go to your local college/university/research lab/friend-with-too-much-money and get it weighted on one of those fancy 15k$ electronic scale professionnaly calibrated every month. You'll have a test weight of known weight (to the 5th decimal) which is close to your operating range, so even if your scale is non-linear for any reason, it'll operate near its calibration point, so it'll still be close enough compared to its published accuracy. Even if you're just using it as a sanity check (wheter it's for a BS or ES), it'll be much faster and safer than using another scale.
 
VinnyQC said:
How do you guys sanity-check a beam scale using an electronic scale? If anything can go boinker, it's the ES, not the Beam. I don't understand, it's like trying to measure a calibration weight using a scale to make sure the calibration weight's weight hasn't changed. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

Very good point. I should probably clarify what I mean by "sanity check".

I'm not trying to calibrate the beam scale with the cheapo digital scale. I am just weighing twice to make sure that the powder charge is close to what I think it should be.

For example, if I trickle up to 3.2 grains on the beam scale and then it measures as 4.0 on the digital, I'll look over the entire powder dispensing process to make sure that I did not mess up. I'm looking for a significant difference in the weights as a quick indication that something may have gone wrong.

I'm not looking for absolute 3-decimal accuracy. I am just doing a quick check to confirm that the charge is close to its nominal weight.

The sanity check is more a check on my sanity than a check of either scale. It's just an attempt to remain vigilent.

I may be wasting my time but I find this process somewhat reassuring.

That said, I'm waiting for a turret press and on-press powder measure to arrive. I'm looking forward to getting it set up but I have to say that I think it's going to take me a very long time to get to trusting a powder measure. I have a bench-mounted measure now but I only use it to drop close to weight and then I trickle up on a scale. I think that's going to be a hard habit to break.
 
A new Canadian dime weighs 27 grains. A new Canadian nickel weighs 60.95 grains (rounded up to 61). Checking calibration on a beam scale costs less than a buck.
 
Bowyer said:
A new Canadian dime weighs 27 grains. A new Canadian nickel weighs 60.95 grains (rounded up to 61). Checking calibration on a beam scale costs less than a buck.
Click to expand...
That's helpful. Just for the record my Canadian nickel (2010) weighs 61.90 gr. (on my RCBS electronic scale). ;)
 
MDF said:
Very good point. I should probably clarify what I mean by "sanity check".

I'm not trying to calibrate the beam scale with the cheapo digital scale. I am just weighing twice to make sure that the powder charge is close to what I think it should be.

For example, if I trickle up to 3.2 grains on the beam scale and then it measures as 4.0 on the digital, I'll look over the entire powder dispensing process to make sure that I did not mess up. I'm looking for a significant difference in the weights as a quick indication that something may have gone wrong.

I'm not looking for absolute 3-decimal accuracy. I am just doing a quick check to confirm that the charge is close to its nominal weight.

The sanity check is more a check on my sanity than a check of either scale. It's just an attempt to remain vigilent.

I may be wasting my time but I find this process somewhat reassuring.

That said, I'm waiting for a turret press and on-press powder measure to arrive. I'm looking forward to getting it set up but I have to say that I think it's going to take me a very long time to get to trusting a powder measure. I have a bench-mounted measure now but I only use it to drop close to weight and then I trickle up on a scale. I think that's going to be a hard habit to break.
Click to expand...

My point is: what do you do if you BS say 4.0gr and your ES says 3.2gr? You can either suppose that:
1-Your BS measures high;
2-Your ES measures low;
3-You dropped powder while going from BS to ES (human manipulation error);
4-Combination of the above.

If either your ES or BS is boinker, you can take these measurements 50 times and get the same result 50 times. That won't tell you which one is boinker (hint: 99% of the time it'll be the ES, it's much less reliable than the BS). If you've dropped powder while transfering from one scale to the other, then you've just created yourself a problem. In any case, you've either created yourself a problem (e.g. by dropping powder or by checking a working scale against one who doesn't).

And in all those cases, the fastest way to clear the air is a known ~3.2gr test weight. Which is what you should have started with, since test weights are much harder to mess up than a random powder charge, and are one of the few things even more reliable than a beam scale.

Doing the opposite (reloading using an ES while checking the ES with a BS) makes a lot more sense: ES are much faster than BS, but you want to make sure they're set correctly and not drifting.
 
VinnyQC said:
And in all those cases, the fastest way to clear the air is a known ~3.2gr test weight.
Click to expand...
Where can one obtain these very small test weights? I have a 250 gr. test weight that came with one of my scales, but I'd like one closer in weight to the powder charges I'm using.
 
VinnyQC said:
My point is: what do you do if you BS say 4.0gr and your ES says 3.2gr? You can either suppose that:
1-Your BS measures high;
2-Your ES measures low;
3-You dropped powder while going from BS to ES (human manipulation error);
4-Combination of the above.

If either your ES or BS is boinker, you can take these measurements 50 times and get the same result 50 times. That won't tell you which one is boinker (hint: 99% of the time it'll be the ES, it's much less reliable than the BS). If you've dropped powder while transfering from one scale to the other, then you've just created yourself a problem. In any case, you've either created yourself a problem (e.g. by dropping powder or by checking a working scale against one who doesn't).

And in all those cases, the fastest way to clear the air is a known ~3.2gr test weight. Which is what you should have started with, since test weights are much harder to mess up than a random powder charge, and are one of the few things even more reliable than a beam scale.

Doing the opposite (reloading using an ES while checking the ES with a BS) makes a lot more sense: ES are much faster than BS, but you want to make sure they're set correctly and not drifting.
Click to expand...

If my beam says 4.0 gr and my target was 3.2 gr, I dump that powder and start over. I would not even check the weight on the electronic scale in that scenario.

I am not really looking for absolute precision to multiple decimal place accuracy. I am just looking for a quick confirmation that the powder charge seems to be right. I'm looking for egregious error that might indicate that I've done something wrong. Did I spill powder? Did I double-charge the case? Did I not pay attention when I was trickling on the beam scale?

When I am weighing the charge on the digital scale, I am thinking "3.2 plus or minus 0.1? Yes? Ok, good, I did not mess up." It's just a quick double-check.

I am not thinking "Absolute agreement between the two scales at a sub-Planck-scale quantum level?" I am not looking for sub-molecular consistency in my charges.

It is just a quick "yes, I'm in the ballpark and just want to make sure" verification.
 
South Pender said:
Where can one obtain these very small test weights? I have a 250 gr. test weight that came with one of my scales, but I'd like one closer in weight to the powder charges I'm using.
Click to expand...

You can get test weight sets from various sources, both new and used. For example: http://www.ebay.com/bhp/ohaus-weights

I have a vintage Ohaus Sto-A-Weigh set that I've used for playing with the scales.

Of course, the question becomes "do you trust your test weights?" Do these things deteriorate over time? I imagine they would change over time as the brass oxidizes.
 
Last edited:
South Pender said:
Probably a good argument for stainless steel or chrome-plated weights.
Click to expand...

Stainless can still oxidize, depending on its composition. Chrome plating can wear and flake off.

Hell, just handling the weights transfers a few atoms of the weight to your finger and various biological ooozings from you to the weights.

I don't mean to be snarky here, but how accurate do we need to be? I guess it depends on what sort of shooting you're doing, but I am curious about how precise we really need to be for both safety and accuracy.

Reading the Lee instructions for their scale, Mr. Lee writes --

If only 2 lines are visible (plus a tiny amount on either side), you are then exactly halfway between graduations and reading to .05 ( A/bj ) grain. See example 4 below. There is never any need for this kind of accuracy in reloading.
Click to expand...

I am probably in that range of accuracy with my loads, which are proably pretty sloppy by the standards of A&D and Sartorius users.

Adam MacDonald has a good article here at http://www.autotrickler.com/accuracy.html where he writes --

I believe +/- 0.02 grains is exactly the right amount of precision.
Click to expand...

I may get there someday. But I wonder if I really need to.
 
What's the advantage to a E scale?

I tried one for reloading what a pain!
It can't be set for a target weight instead you have to watch the numbers go up until it reach's target
you have to remember to put the empty pan on the scale to check zero in case it wanders off
Everyone that uses one checks the accuracy on a beam scale or they should
They are good for weighing bullets or cases
beam scale
I dump a load -.5 grain short with a powder measure in my pan, set it on my beam scale set to my target weight then trickle up with a Dandy power trickler when the beam levels dump into a case.
What could be easier?
I loaded 50 rounds of 9.3x62 with 58.5 grs. it took me 15 mins to charge the cases and 10 mins to seat bullets
Again who needs a E scale.


KNm3ERIm.jpg
[/IMG]
 
MDF said:
Stainless can still oxidize, depending on its composition. Chrome plating can wear and flake off.

Hell, just handling the weights transfers a few atoms of the weight to your finger and various biological ooozings from you to the weights.
Click to expand...
Minuscule re SS; not worth considering. My SS 250-gr. test weights weighed 250 gr. when I got them, and still do--15 years later--on the same scale. It would be good practice to wash your hands before weighing....

MDF said:
I don't mean to be snarky here, but how accurate do we need to be? I guess it depends on what sort of shooting you're doing, but I am curious about how precise we really need to be for both safety and accuracy.
Click to expand...
Standard digital reloading scales (like the RCBS that I have) give readings to .1 gr. This means ± .05 gr. accuracy. This is sufficient, but, if I can get to .02 gr. (± .01 gr. accuracy), then I'd prefer that (even though it might not be strictly necessary), providing it doesn't take longer than with the coarser scale. Possible with the A&D FX-120i. Like most things associated with this hobby, it's less about "need" and more about "want." ;)

Edit: Just one last point: with my digital scale, I try to eliminate any air disturbance by making sure the door is closed of the small room in which I do the weighing, plug the scale in and let it warm up for 30 min., and re-zero before every weight taken. This latter may seem unnecessary, but it takes all of 1 second.
 
Last edited:
bat119 said:
What's the advantage to a E scale?

I tried one for reloading what a pain!
It can't be set for a target weight instead you have to watch the numbers go up until it reach's target
you have to remember to put the empty pan on the scale to check zero in case it wanders off
Everyone that uses one checks the accuracy on a beam scale or they should
They are good for weighing bullets or cases
beam scale
I dump a load -.5 grain short with a powder measure in my pan, set it on my beam scale set to my target weight then trickle up with a Dandy power trickler when the beam levels dump into a case.
What could be easier?
I loaded 50 rounds of 9.3x62 with 58.5 grs. it took me 15 mins to charge the cases and 10 mins to seat bullets
Again who needs a E scale.


KNm3ERIm.jpg
[/IMG]
Click to expand...

The advantage for me is speed and comfort. From looking at your picture, it looks like we have the same beam scale and our process is similar. I leave the pan on the scale, no matter if electronic or beam, and I throw charges into a small prescription pill bottle. I found dropping charges into the pan could be a little messy. The pill container is taller and powder doesn't bounce out. I dump the charge into the pan on the scale and quickly trickle up. My Gempro responds faster than my beam scale and is more comfortable looking down at the readout while trickling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom