My 10 round ES is usually in the 15-18, but I use Hornady, with unturned necks. So probably can’t do any better there anyway until I upgrade absolutely everything. Working on shooting skills is the best for me until my barrel burns out.
RCBS Chargemaster
- Thread starter remington jim
- Start date
I really WONDER how much -often some of you REALLY check the accuracy of your Chargemaster throws and how you check it ? SO with what and how ? - Just wondering -Thxs RJ
Accuracy of the powder throws is tested at the range, if the rounds are grouping at 1000y then its going good! im definitely not holding 1/2 Moa vertical at 1000 but vast majority of my groups are .5-.75 Moa at 1000y, and shooting off bipod and gamechanger laying in the cactus haha
Again im not saying chargemasters will win you Fclass or LR bench, but for a lot of LR shooters, like hunters, PRS shooters and plinkers, 8" or smaller groups at 1000 is great.
Plus they are fast and affordable. Im hoping to get my third Charmaster lite soon, that will speed things up even more.
To really get the most out of a high end scale like those, things like bullet sorting and neck turning etc become increasing important, just adding unneeded complexity and time, for me anyway.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Given my waterline at 1000yds is below the X ring, I would say missing a wind condition will have a far larger affect on my end result then 1 kernel of Varget.
But a shooter has to get to a level of trust with their gear and load. problem is shooters tend to keep looking for the next 'magic pill' to resolve what is a skill issue.
And worry more about numbers on a spread sheet then what is happening on target downrange.
There are a couple of top US F open shooters offering youtube vids and shotmarker vids of their strings. All in the same hole? All on the same line? Nope. The air between you and 1000yds is going to move things around ALOT. Was it predictable.. driveable? Absolutely.
Clean scores at distance is what really matters... 95% of F class shooters can't do this on a consistent basis. Work on hitting the 10/5 rings every shot regardless of wind or condition and you are well on your way to a World title.... the X/V's will sort themselves out.
Some high scores were shot today... I get to shoot with some FANTASTIC wind readers.... and many use slings and open sights.
Obsess about the insignificant and you will most certainly miss the obvious and significant.
Jerry
But a shooter has to get to a level of trust with their gear and load. problem is shooters tend to keep looking for the next 'magic pill' to resolve what is a skill issue.
And worry more about numbers on a spread sheet then what is happening on target downrange.
There are a couple of top US F open shooters offering youtube vids and shotmarker vids of their strings. All in the same hole? All on the same line? Nope. The air between you and 1000yds is going to move things around ALOT. Was it predictable.. driveable? Absolutely.
Clean scores at distance is what really matters... 95% of F class shooters can't do this on a consistent basis. Work on hitting the 10/5 rings every shot regardless of wind or condition and you are well on your way to a World title.... the X/V's will sort themselves out.
Some high scores were shot today... I get to shoot with some FANTASTIC wind readers.... and many use slings and open sights.
Obsess about the insignificant and you will most certainly miss the obvious and significant.
Jerry
I don't understand your point Jerry...
You sound derogatory when you mention the "magic pill"
Its probably fair to say that readers on this forum know that anyone can have all the right gear and not know how to use it.
On the other hand a guy can have all the right gear and know how to use it.
Every shooter on earth can only shoot as well as the sum of every variable that influences the result. To this point you cannot choose to ignore any particular variable because it has less of an influence than some other variable.
Accuracy is the result of all the variables in the shooting system and all the variables in the shooters ability to estimate and compensate for the condition changes.
At the end of the day, every single variable adds up and the closer anyone gets to the top of their game, the more important any source of variability becomes.
Acknowledging that these variable exist is the first step toward a solution. Controlling variables that can be reliably controlled takes them off the table. In this discussion of scales, this is low hanging fruit.
All you need is a real good scale and the influence of weight variability is off the table. Once that is the case, the shooter can go focus on whatever else he needs to work on.
There is no one magic pill. There is a hundred magic pills and to be a top competitor we need them all.
Why on earth anyone would endorse a commitment to an inaccurate scale is counter productive, unless your motivation is to taunt your competitors into using ineffective techniques so they are easily beaten during a match. Ya sure, if I were a d!ck I would hope every f class shooter on the range uses a ChargeMaster. I would own every single one of them past 600.
Last edited:
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Some will read into a post what they want to see.
They have already made up their minds and enjoy trying to find the nit pick.. whether what they are nit picking is there or not....
did I endorse the Chargemaster?
As I said, those that focus on the insignificant... miss the bigger picture.
Focus on what matters but only to the level it actually matters... then focus on the more important aspects of LR precision shooting.
YMMV
Jerry
They have already made up their minds and enjoy trying to find the nit pick.. whether what they are nit picking is there or not....
did I endorse the Chargemaster?
As I said, those that focus on the insignificant... miss the bigger picture.
Focus on what matters but only to the level it actually matters... then focus on the more important aspects of LR precision shooting.
YMMV
Jerry
Pretty good advice I’d say.
Lots of INFO ? being Said ! Now any one have the New RCBS Matchmaster powder dispenser and if so hows it working out ?
Or The New HORNADY Autocharge Pro powder dispenser ? Thxs RJ
Or The New HORNADY Autocharge Pro powder dispenser ? Thxs RJ
At least a Match Master is trying to be accurate with a 2 decimal place scale but that is misleading as I believe the second decimal place increments by 0.05, whereas the FX120 increments by 0.02.
In either case, with automation you are into the cost of an analytical balance that will increment by 0.002 grains.
If I had to chose only between a match master and an FX120 with automation, I'd pick the FX 120.
If I had to chose between FX20 with automation and a stand alone Analytical balance with the same price tag, I'd get the analytical balance.
In either case, with automation you are into the cost of an analytical balance that will increment by 0.002 grains.
If I had to chose only between a match master and an FX120 with automation, I'd pick the FX 120.
If I had to chose between FX20 with automation and a stand alone Analytical balance with the same price tag, I'd get the analytical balance.
Here's an opportunity to compare a review of the performance of an analytical balance compared to a milligram balance.
You should take note of the kernel weight shown on the Ultimate Reloader video is showing that kernels weigh 0.04 grains each (around 7 minutes into the video) when they actually weigh about 0.02 grains each.
If you don’t know how much a kernel of powder actually weighs, you would never notice the error.
Here’s a video from Practical Tactical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1T1bdJ6E0Q
Here’s the video from Ultimate Reloader
Jump to 7 minutes in.
You should take note of the kernel weight shown on the Ultimate Reloader video is showing that kernels weigh 0.04 grains each (around 7 minutes into the video) when they actually weigh about 0.02 grains each.
If you don’t know how much a kernel of powder actually weighs, you would never notice the error.
Here’s a video from Practical Tactical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1T1bdJ6E0Q
Here’s the video from Ultimate Reloader
Jump to 7 minutes in.
Last edited:
Not the same powder in the videos, also the moisture level is likely different that the powder has absorbed, but ya they are accurate.
Rifle # 1 example. Poi is the same between D,E,F,G,H, and I with Beam scale.
What is the benefit of a scale accurate enough to load in the F and G or even only the G range?? The second video he mentioned he would have to cut kernels to match the exact scale readout between charges to make use of the resolution of the scale.
FX120i and V4 would be plenty in my opinion. More accurate and faster than a beam and more accurate than a Chargemaster.
Rifle # 1 example. Poi is the same between D,E,F,G,H, and I with Beam scale.
What is the benefit of a scale accurate enough to load in the F and G or even only the G range?? The second video he mentioned he would have to cut kernels to match the exact scale readout between charges to make use of the resolution of the scale.
FX120i and V4 would be plenty in my opinion. More accurate and faster than a beam and more accurate than a Chargemaster.
The second video is BS. That FX120 scale is not accurate to the kernel never mind a partial kernel. The weight of 2 kernels of powder registered as twice the actual weight on the FX120 video. I doubt The FX120 is accurate to 4 kernels on its best day and ideal conditions.
From Ned Ludd...
"0.01 gr ~ 0.0007 g (= 0.7 mg, corrected typo)
That's equivalent to one corporal (i.e. one half kernel) of Varget. Charge weight variance at that level in a typical rifle cartridge will translate to approximately 1 fps velocity variance. I don't know of a single commonly-used chronograph than can even approach that level of precision. In other words, if you're already weighing powder to the nearest 0.1 gr, weighing powder to a ten-fold finer increment of 0.01 gr is not going to have a huge and obvious effect in terms of generating smaller ES/SD. It simply isn't. I know this because I routinely weigh charges to that level of accuracy/precision using a very expensive Mettler Toledo magnetic force restoration analytical balance. Somewhat as a sanity check, I will on occasion purposely weigh charges to a much less precise increment (i.e. 0.1 gr). It makes no difference whatsoever in my ES/SD values, because charge weight variance was never the limiting source of error in terms of the ES/SD of my loads to begin with.
Having said that, I will continue to weigh powder to +/- one corporal. Why? Because I can. And because when you select a working tolerance for some step in the reloading process that is as overkill, as is weighing charges to the half kernel, you have effectively removed that step as a variable in the process. Thus, I never, ever, ever have to worry about having unacceptable charge weight variance when I'm behind the rifle in a match. So I have no issues at all with someone having the desire to weigh powder to +/- 0.01 gr precision. Doing so effectively takes me little more time than it would to weigh powder to a much coarser increment.
Along this line of thinking, I am pleased to see Creedmoor taking an interest in providing better powder weight precision/accuracy to the reloading community at a reasonable cost. I hope their TRX-925 scale lives up to everyone's expectations, although I have some reservations about whether it will in practice. First off, I have yet to see a strain gauge type scale that would reliably hold zero (tare). They claim to have solved this issue using an "internal algorithm". Second, the scale is being marketed as "making this scale the only reloading scale that offers true +/-.01 grain accuracy" >>> their words, not mine. From what I can tell without having the actual specs in hand, this unit has "readability" of 0.01 gr, which is not at all the same as being accurate to +/- 0.01 gr. Readability is not the same as accuracy or precision. Most high end analytical balances with readability to 0.1 mg will have an accuracy of about two to three times the readability value, or about 0.2 to 0.3 mg, depending on the unit. So my best guess from the limited information is that this unit will likely have an accuracy somewhere in the +/- 0.02 to 0.03 gr range, if their information regarding readability is correct.
There are good reasons that reputable laboratory magnetic force restoration analytical balances cost as much as $1200-$1500, or more. Until now, if you wanted a laboratory MFR analytical balance to weigh powder, one of the most reasonably priced units available has been the Sartorius Entris 64, which is a very, very fine analytical balance. However, the current version of the Entris 64 has a price tag of around $1800. I am skeptical that a strain gauge-type scale costing about 1/5 the price will be able to keep pace with an Entris. Nonetheless, I'll be looking forward to hearing user's reviews of this unit and keep an open mind."
Variances in your neck tension/interference fit and even your annealing consistency will have more of an affect on your ES than cutting kernels of powder into tenths.
"0.01 gr ~ 0.0007 g (= 0.7 mg, corrected typo)
That's equivalent to one corporal (i.e. one half kernel
) of Varget. Charge weight variance at that level in a typical rifle cartridge will translate to approximately 1 fps velocity variance. I don't know of a single commonly-used chronograph than can even approach that level of precision. In other words, if you're already weighing powder to the nearest 0.1 gr, weighing powder to a ten-fold finer increment of 0.01 gr is not going to have a huge and obvious effect in terms of generating smaller ES/SD. It simply isn't. I know this because I routinely weigh charges to that level of accuracy/precision using a very expensive Mettler Toledo magnetic force restoration analytical balance. Somewhat as a sanity check, I will on occasion purposely weigh charges to a much less precise increment (i.e. 0.1 gr). It makes no difference whatsoever in my ES/SD values, because charge weight variance was never the limiting source of error in terms of the ES/SD of my loads to begin with.Having said that, I will continue to weigh powder to +/- one corporal. Why? Because I can. And because when you select a working tolerance for some step in the reloading process that is as overkill, as is weighing charges to the half kernel, you have effectively removed that step as a variable in the process. Thus, I never, ever, ever have to worry about having unacceptable charge weight variance when I'm behind the rifle in a match. So I have no issues at all with someone having the desire to weigh powder to +/- 0.01 gr precision. Doing so effectively takes me little more time than it would to weigh powder to a much coarser increment.
Along this line of thinking, I am pleased to see Creedmoor taking an interest in providing better powder weight precision/accuracy to the reloading community at a reasonable cost. I hope their TRX-925 scale lives up to everyone's expectations, although I have some reservations about whether it will in practice. First off, I have yet to see a strain gauge type scale that would reliably hold zero (tare). They claim to have solved this issue using an "internal algorithm". Second, the scale is being marketed as "making this scale the only reloading scale that offers true +/-.01 grain accuracy" >>> their words, not mine. From what I can tell without having the actual specs in hand, this unit has "readability" of 0.01 gr, which is not at all the same as being accurate to +/- 0.01 gr. Readability is not the same as accuracy or precision. Most high end analytical balances with readability to 0.1 mg will have an accuracy of about two to three times the readability value, or about 0.2 to 0.3 mg, depending on the unit. So my best guess from the limited information is that this unit will likely have an accuracy somewhere in the +/- 0.02 to 0.03 gr range, if their information regarding readability is correct.
There are good reasons that reputable laboratory magnetic force restoration analytical balances cost as much as $1200-$1500, or more. Until now, if you wanted a laboratory MFR analytical balance to weigh powder, one of the most reasonably priced units available has been the Sartorius Entris 64, which is a very, very fine analytical balance. However, the current version of the Entris 64 has a price tag of around $1800. I am skeptical that a strain gauge-type scale costing about 1/5 the price will be able to keep pace with an Entris. Nonetheless, I'll be looking forward to hearing user's reviews of this unit and keep an open mind."
Variances in your neck tension/interference fit and even your annealing consistency will have more of an affect on your ES than cutting kernels of powder into tenths.
Last edited:
7...
Myths Busted:
Powder charges, as long as they were fairly consistent and bracketed within a couple of grains, were not important. He threw all of his charges with a Belding & Mull powder measure, and for one experiment he shot groups using three different powder measure settings (51, 52 & 53) … all three groups were identical.
Lot variation in powder didn’t seem to have any effect on accuracy, even on when using IMR 4198, which has a reputation for varying considerably from lot to lot. He would just buy powder as he needed instead of laying in a big supply, because he found no evidence to support that powder lot variance affected accuracy in the least.
He never saw an inaccurate primer, and was unable to detect any accuracy variances resulting from seating pressure.
Rumors have persisted for years that some rifles shoot proportionally better at 200 yards than 100 yards, or vice versa. Virgil files that one under “occultism.” His experience in the warehouse was, if a rifle was shooting a consistent .100″ at 100 yards, it shot a consistent .200″ at 200 yards.
He did NOT uniform primer pockets or turn the case bases. He also did NOT size his case necks.
https:/ / precisionrifleblog.com/2013/10/18/secrets-of-the-houston-warehouse-lessons-in-extreme-rifle-accuracy/
Last edited:
