Man, I'm way out of the loop. I've been using mostly Lee equipment the last 6 years including a Challenger press, Perfect Powder Measure, Zip and Trim, and Auto Prime. I finally upgraded one piece of equipment and went with a Lyman Gen 6 Compact Digital Powder System.

Yeah Scott .... those sub-MOA loads that you're producing aren't going to be adequate anymore now that you know how outdated your manufacturing equipment is.

LOL. Yes, now that I know better, they probably won't work.

FWIW, the guy that routinely wins our 500 yard matches here runs a RCBS Rock Chucker that has most of the paint worn off, and measures with a Lee Perfect Measure and a set of tuned balance scales. He intentionally throws light charges and trickles up. Never turned a neck. He shoots a 6BR that is scary accurate and has a trophy room to prove it. I've learned a lot from talking with him over the years.

His philosophy: Your reloads can't overcome a bad barrel or bad trigger.

A runout indicator and headspace/shoulder gauge are two pieces of equipment that many omit, but they are some of the more important tools to help produce quality ammo.

FWIW... you can buy a Hornady Auto Charge for $159 right now at: https://www.natchezss.com/hornady-lock-n-load-auto-charge-powder-dispenser.html

Almost 1/2 the price of the RCBS (even with $75 rebate RCBS is still some $50 more)

I like mine so much, I just ordered another one. Having 2 is not necessary, but it does help to speed it up for charging magnum cases. And as a backup.

You don't need a powder trickler if you have one of these. The Auto Charge has a trickler function built in. I'm sure RCBS does too. I rarely ever need to use that function, as the Auto Charge let's me tune the charging profile to the powder's discharge characteristics, so I can get it to spit pretty much spot on every time.

Not sure why you'd need an analog scale just to "double check". Digital scales typical come with 2 reference weights and I always calibrate before each session.

At least on the Chargemaster, the scale drifts over a loading session, despite calibration.

A decent beam provides a true measure for improved consistency.

I now throw on a Chargemaster and then have an Omega trickler finish it on a beam. They finish weighing about as fast as I can keep up with pouring it in a case and seating a bullet, and then turn for the next one.

Once every load is put on a beam, the real weaknesses of an electronic scale, or at least the RCBS scale, become very apparent, drifting up to 0.3 grains in a session.

I have noticed the drift if I don't allow the CM to warm up but if I warm it up it weighs the check weights the same at calibration and at the end of the loading session.

Thanks for the input, much appreciated.

I have had the Hornady and have the RCBS charge master and of the 2 experience less drift and over throws on the RCBS even before the charge master. I also manually trickle in the last couple tenths on an old balance beam a lot of the time.

My lowest extreme spread loads definitely are when trickling the last of the powder using the balance beam.

The OPs list is very good equipment and I am sure will load some great loads with it and that press is my choice since I bought it a couple years ago. I do get less runout with it than the Lee or RCBS, but have loaded lots of half MOA or better rounds with the Lee, RCBS and a Herters press that is over 50 years old.

The only time I neck turn brass is when I have to when working some wildcats or necking down other brass and the necks are just too thick. Perhaps I could get more accurate ammo if I did but I am not sure my shooting could justify the time and effort.

Like JEFFBIRD said ..... they drift. All of them. I don't shoot so much that I check every load on my balance scales. I had a chargemaster for a while and finally sold it because I didn't trust it. And if I'm going to check every load I'd just as soon use a drop measure.

As red said above, I always allow the Auto Charge to sit there powered up for 15-30min before I calibrate. I usually re-check calibration after a session, sometimes during if I have to break off to do something else mid-session. Since I have not noticed any drift many times over, these days I don't always bother to re-check at the end, especially if it is a relatively short run. Making sure the environmentals (temp, humidity) of the work area are kept as constant as possible also helps.

Overthrows are just a matter of setting the optimum charging profile (speed, grains left to switch to trickle, etc.) that work best for the powder and charge weight. It's kinda like doping a scope. I've compiled a data sheet that lists the settings for each powder and caliber I have "developed" the best settings for. I simply switch to the right set before I start each caliber.

At the end of the day, they are all just tools, each has its strengths and foibles. It's up to the user to understand them and decide which tool(s) they are most comfortable using and suit his needs best. I've dealt with electronics and instrumentation all my life, both professionally and home/leisure, so that's what I prefer. More power to those that prefer other types.

"True" is a relative term. Even the best balance beam needs to be checked for calibration, too. Even if the beam is made of Invar (and I doubt most of the common ones are), it'll still have a coefficient of thermal expansion, which will throw off measurements unless you have exact equal length cantilever on both sides of the pivot. That's why they come with calibration nuts. So can you really be sure which scale is off? For many of the instrumentation at work, we send one reference unit off periodically to get calibrated in order to maintain NIST-traceability. That instrument then only gets used to calibrate all other meter/sensor/etc., which do get used (and sometimes abused).


I guess everybody works differently. When I charge powder, I do nothing but, to get it done as quickly as possible. I tune the charge profile to dispense as quickly as possible but just slow enough not to overthrow. The scale is stored and used at a different location and does not get moved around, so it stays electronically and mechanically stable. The load cell is so sensitive that any bump on the table or whiff of air will throw the reading off. Same as with an analog scale if it is of equal sensitivity.

All said and done, I agree with kmon1 that ultimately what matters is the velocity ES and SD. If those results meet/exceed the reloader's expectation, what equipment/process is used matters none. I can only say I'm happy with mine.

Yes, "true" is a relative term. But the reference to Coefficient of Thermal Expansion means SQUAT for discussing balance scales used for metallic reloading. Heck, should we also take humidity into consideration when we're throwing charges? How about density altitude? Dew points? Moon phase to allow for the change in gravity? What about the Coriolis Effect?

In PRACTICAL reloading, none of these things are going to make even 1/10th of a grain in difference on a day to day basis. But you can bet your azz that electronic scales will drift far more than that in a 1-2 hour period. I've seen it numerous times as have others. If you have an electronic scale or powder dispenser that does not drift you're in the minority and should consider yourself fortunate.

Every reloader should take every reasonable precaution to assure that they are loading safe and consistent loads.

Mind me asking what extreme spread and standard deviations are you getting?

LOL.

Try again.

Hey, I am asking nicely, aren't I.

Would adding a PLEASE help?

You're fishing. Do it with someone else.

I don't have to validate my statements and recommendations with you.

I see. Fair enough.

Let me ask it a different way, so as not to seem so personal...

What SD and ES would you consider to be acceptable for general precision shooting? That is... rounds that might be used for sighting in rifles, load development, etc., not necessarily match grade.

I am being genuine about this. Not calling you out or anything. Just trying to get a feel of what experienced handloaders consider acceptable.

OK ... I'll bite.

ES under 25fps and SD under 10 is excellent. But mine hardly ever get that good. And it doesn't really matter to me anyway.

Why? Because how they group is far more important.

When I work up a load, I run a ladder test with varying charge weights. This allows me to tailor the best charge weight for that rifle's barrel harmonics. Chronograph data has nothing to do with it.

SD is worth looking at but performance on the target (and ultimately the game) is what I'm most concerned with.

The lowest SD load does not guarantee the best groups. There are many variables and SD is just one of them.

And I'm not an electronics genius (like some claim to be) but I do know that most chronographs have some variability associated with them due to the noise level of the instrument and that makes the info way less important. At least to me.

In the end, I'm not a big chronograph person. I have one and use it sporadically. If the bullet goes where I am trying to put it and the load proves consistent enough to suit me that's all I care about.

I absolutely agree with grouping being the ultimate decider for overall reload performance. I mention SD and ES mostly because - all else being equal - the powder charge accuracy has a fairly direct correlation, and powder measurement accuracy was the topic at hand. Especially in small cases like .223, if the charge is off by .3 gr, chances are SD and ES will reflect that. No doubt the bullet could have runout, or seating depth not quite on the mark, or the shooter could simply lack marksmanship, but muzzle velocity consistency is influenced greatly by powder measurement. Am I correct in that assumption?

V,

Short answer, holding all other variables constant, rounds loaded on a Chargemaster will have less precise results on paper than rounds finished with the Omega trickler on a beam. That is not a guess, but observed fact.

ES of 30 fps is good enough for most of my purposes. ES of 30 fps translates into a variance of just over 1/4 MOA at 500 yards with a 175 SMK from a 308.

I've been told by those stronger in math than I that 5 or 10 shot groups really are not enough data points to achieve statistical significance for SD, so I quit worrying about it. fwiw - SD shown on my chrono is usually in the single digits for my 308, which is the rifle I really care about.

What is a minimum acceptable level of accuracy? For me, I want to be able to hit 100% on a 1 MOA target at 100 and 200 yards consistently and reliably. Any rifle that will not do that is going to receive more work or be sold. That means hitting 1" dots at 100 yards, not shooting 1" groups. There is a very real difference in those two measures. My goal for practice is to be able to go 20 for 20 on a 1/2" dot target at 100. Why 100? Wind. For testing the loads and also my shooting form, I want to minimize wind as a variable. The dots up close reveal weaknesses in the gear and shooting technique. Master that at 100 and 200, then add distance, and keep refining and reducing inconsistencies.

Jeff,

I agree with your observations and the trickle on the balance beam scale getting me the most consistent ammo. I do have some rifles that I do not worry that much about accuracy and others I do. On the ones I do fret over it they get each load measured on a balance beam 17 Remington, 22-243, 6.5 Grendel Boltaction, 6.5-284 and a7mm-08. All of those have shown to be very accurate guns for hunting rifles some being completely stock factory guns that shoot sub half MOA. With that list using the trickle method into a balance beam scale ES for 20 rounds has been in the single digit range and even thought not a large sample it does give me confidence.

How are you guys allowing for the coefficient of thermal expansion on your beam scales?

Groups, groups, groups. That's all that matters. SD isn't important if they all punch through the same hole. Chronographs are a tool like anything else. But some people get obsessed with them.