# Weighing vs. Measuring



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Okay new thread..................

I would like to hear more on this subject. I am not new to reloading, but I was brought up with 1/2 to 1 grain changes (+/-) to find the sweet spot for a gun. In my mind this goes against measuring. 

So let the information flow..............


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

this subject can be more of a personnel pet peeve than anything else. some powders just do not meter as well as others and require that you do weigh them. like the long grain powders will always have the kernel's getting stuck and you end up cutting them in the powder measure. thus some can be a grain off.

lets just say if you are more of a perfectionist then you will weigh all of your rifle cases. then if you are a happy to go along person then you will weigh every so often in the lot that you are reloading, might as well just buy factory ammo in this case.


when i reload for a pistol using a progressive its impossible to weigh them all so I will use a powder check die, for this.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I guess that I am a middle of the road on this subject. If I am making rounds just to shoot then I use the progressive press. But if I'm looking for accuracy I have always used the single stage setup. When I do accuracy loads I do weigh every powder charge. Most of what I do is because that is the way I was taught. But as we sometimes find out, what we have been doing may not be worth much. What I am trying to find out now is were to concentrate efforts on to get a little better. I also have a 300 that has been the hardest gun I've ever had in working to that sweet load. So I would like to find the areas that have the highest return.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Your equipment plays a big part in all of this . First thing get your rifle the best it can be then work on your load development


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

The type of powder and use for the load really dictates. I am kind of odd in this matter and weigh about 85% of my loads. I'm more of an accuracy than quantity type of guy. For shotguns though I meter them I don't bother weighing when I have 400+ pellets flying out at 1250-1400 fps.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I weight every charge, every time. I use a cheap powder measure to throw charges slightly under my target, and trickle in the rest. My accuracy doubled since I started doing this and my SD on loads has reduced to very low numbers.


-DallanC


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

sagebrush said:


> Your equipment plays a big part in all of this . First thing get your rifle the best it can be then work on your load development


If you only knew how much time I have spent. It has been fun, but now it is a quest.

I have done all the basic stuff, floated barrel, trigger, scopes, and rings. Done different combinations of components on the equipment side.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

DallanC said:


> I weight every charge, every time. I use a cheap powder measure to throw charges slightly under my target, and trickle in the rest. My accuracy doubled since I started doing this and my SD on loads has reduced to very low numbers.
> 
> -DallanC


This is pretty much what I have been doing. I have tried different scales and such over the years, both beam and electronic. When I look at electronic type scales, I have one the reads out in tenths and one that reads in thousands. So at what point do you say it is as good as it is going to get?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

There were some articles written in a few gun magazines quite a few years ago about getting the best performance out of a reloaded round. Their conclusion was that you don't need to get that powder measurement down to the last tenth of a grain for each and every load for accuracy. Now these articles were written back when there were no electronic scales and they only used a beam scale to weigh their loads along with a powder dispenser to throw a load into the case. They found no difference between measuring and weighing the load. The conclusion was that if you want to weigh every load then that is fine, if you just want to weigh one every ten loads then that is fine also. 

Also in my own playing around with weighing my loads on a electronic scale and getting the load exact every time that the velocities will still vary some but usually not more than 100 fps. There are so many other factors that will change a loaded round starting with the tension on the bullet in the neck of the case and ending on the pressure used to seat the primer. Now if you use a neck reamer so that all of your cases have the same tension on the bullet along with seating the primer exactly the same every time then your velocities should almost match from reloaded round to reloaded round.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> If you only knew how much time I have spent. It has been fun, but now it is a quest.
> 
> I have done all the basic stuff, floated barrel, trigger, scopes, and rings. Done different combinations of components on the equipment side.


is this on your 300 win? if so I have one also shot it for about six years without a muzzle brake, and factory stock. changed out the stock and added a muzzle brake. I also put a different scope on it. some scopes track better than others. have zeiss on it now H&S precision stock, accurize the action, and new barrel.

it all depends on what floats your boat, and what you want.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

sagebrush said:


> is this on your 300 win? if so I have one also shot it for about six years without a muzzle brake, and factory stock. changed out the stock and added a muzzle brake. I also put a different scope on it. some scopes track better than others. have zeiss on it now H&S precision stock, accurize the action, and new barrel.
> 
> it all depends on what floats your boat, and what you want.


Yes it is the 300 win.

I put one of my Leupold's on it for a while to see if that changed anything. It did not.

What I want is 1" or less groups at a 100 yards consistently from a rest. As a hunter, I need to have faith in my gun that it is going to be consistent at a bench rest. If I miss, I want to know it is me and not the gun.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Some rifles will never shoot less than 1" at 100 yards, they were designed as a hunting rifle and not a bench rest sub moa rifle.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

If you are going for accuracy I would start off with 1/2 grain increments and weigh everything. Once you pin down the range of best accuracy, say for example between 45.5 and 46.0 grains then go in 1/10 grain increments. After you find your best load play with the OAL to optimize that for your rifle. That's as good as you can get with the reloads, the rest of the accurizing has to come from what you do to the rifle. Sometimes it may require a new barrel to get optimal performance.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Critter said:


> Some rifles will never shoot less than 1" at 100 yards, they were designed as a hunting rifle and not a bench rest sub moa rifle.


And I guess that is what I am trying to find out. What is the best that rifle can do. To me that is the fun part of reloading. There is just some aspects of reloading that I had not really thought about. Accuracy of powder weights and seating are some of them. Could that rifle be just a little better? Like I said in the other thread, the only thing that gets under my skin is not finding components. So playing with depths and weights was an area I could work on while waiting for components to show up.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

DallanC said:


> I weight every charge, every time. I use a cheap powder measure to throw charges slightly under my target, and trickle in the rest. My accuracy doubled since I started doing this and my SD on loads has reduced to very low numbers.
> 
> -DallanC


I follow the same format when I load for accuracy. This is especially true when I use extruded powders such as Varget or IMR4895 as the charge tends to fluctuate in weight by +/- .1-.2 grains. Does this really matter? I dont know, but I am analretentive about consistency when I load for accuracy as opposed to loading up a bunch of .223 to rattle off for fun.

I suppose the best test would be to weigh out a bunch of loads and record the groups and meter a bunch of loads out and record the groups. This would really determine if there is any real value to taking our precious time on weighing each load before shooting.

Another topic - shooting for accuracy. Guys get their pants in a twist over this statement. I shoot for accuracy when I have small targets such as prairie dogs. I shoot for hunting when a larger group is acceptable as the kill zone is larger (so i may change my bullet selection and muzzle velocity to accomodate for what I am shooting).


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Yes it is the 300 win.
> 
> I put one of my Leupold's on it for a while to see if that changed anything. It did not.
> 
> What I want is 1" or less groups at a 100 yards consistently from a rest. As a hunter, I need to have faith in my gun that it is going to be consistent at a bench rest. If I miss, I want to know it is me and not the gun.


so what rifle do you have? what is factory on it ?


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

I ask about your rifle because I was where you are at one time. I had to change out my stock, which was keeping me from being consistent like you want. my stock was one of the plastics Tupperware ones. I also accurize my gun at the same time on changing out the stock. I do get the consistent sub moa now. but I'm also anneal about by reloading too.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

sagebrush said:


> so what rifle do you have? what is factory on it ?


Remington 700 SPS. 26" barrel, 1/10 twist.

Not sure what you are really asking on 2nd question, but here is what I think you are asking. Action and trigger is standard 700 design. Stock is synthetic with a floated barrel, with a really good recoil pad. I was planning to put a muzzle break on it, but after shooting it I was happy with the pad. No open sights, just drilled and tap for scope mounts. Started with leupold mounts. Trigger was a little heavy for me, so I put an aftermarket gaget that cut the pull in half. I did this just to see if any difference could be noticed.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Pretty much what I had before. I would say your stock is part of the problem. Get one with the aluminum bedding block stocks in the stock . h&s precision makes one. This so called gadget? For the trigger pull either adjust what you have or Get a decent trigger. Instruction for adjusting can be found on line. Also put a brake on it you will enjoy much more and shoot alot better. And clean the copper fouling out of the barrel. I clean my all the time.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Yep, a new stock and a Timley trigger. You might also want to consider a torque rated screwdriver for attaching the stock to get the best accuracy, at least that is what I would start with. A muzzle brake is nice for extended shooting but I haven't found one necessary on a .300 Weatherby but do have one on my .340 Weatherby. 

As for your reloading start with some lighter bullets and powder charges, that way you can see what your rifle will do and then work up from the light rounds. 

My .340 Weatherby Mark V will shoot sub moa all day long with a load that I have for it. Surprisingly it was a tack driver right out of the box, either that or I hit the right combination on my first try.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*How I weigh*

It seems like this thread has not really hit the given topic yet. Doesn't the idea of measurement mean that you are measuring the volume of powder as compared to weighing the mass. The standard RCBS powder measurer essentially is measuring and not weighing, if I understand correctly??? Please enlighten me here.

My own method is to weigh every single piece of brass, generally the whole lot of 50 from the bag. I group them all together in groups of 3 (my normal group size) by their mass. The idea being that they theoretically all have the most similar wall thicknesses within each group for the most consistency. I then place each brass on the digital scale one at a time zeroing out the scale each time. I throw the powder measurer directly into the brass. I then place a number 1 on each of the three brass in group 1, etc. a little trick Bax taught me. I then log each COAL, mass of powder and type in each group. Take the same log to the range and track velocity of each shot and keep each little target to track results. 
As others mentioned, the extruded powders have a terrible time measuring accurately, they are sometimes off by two whole grains if I do it more or less quickly, etc. When it is over I just tap a little out, if low dump it all out and start over. It may be a crazy coincidence, but the granulated powders, like W760, has been much more accurate for me than the extruded powders, I wonder if it has to do with the shape leaving so much more voids between granules such that the volume measurement can have a much different mass if there are different lengths of rods???

I was so well behaved this year that Santa sent me the Hornady Auto Loader early and I really like it so far. it sure takes a long time to warm up to where it can weigh accurately, but it saves me a lot of time now.


----------



## Mavis13 (Oct 29, 2007)

I do similar but I don't weigh the brass and I throw into a ladle that came with my scale then trickle in the difference and dump it into the brass.
I don't weigh every round for my 9mm unless I'm working up a load as the slight variance from the dispenser makes little difference in that gun. I weigh every charge for my Rifles. Interesting; I might just try weighing my brass.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I'm not sure I understand the benefit of weighing the brass. If the propellant and projectile are matched regardless of slight deviations in the weight of the case what difference does the weight of the case make. Not trying to start an argument I am just trying to understand and gain knowledge. Please don't take my question the wrong way.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

LostLouisianian said:


> I'm not sure I understand the benefit of weighing the brass. If the propellant and projectile are matched regardless of slight deviations in the weight of the case what difference does the weight of the case make. Not trying to start an argument I am just trying to understand and gain knowledge. Please don't take my question the wrong way.


Ditto


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> I'm not sure I understand the benefit of weighing the brass. If the propellant and projectile are matched regardless of slight deviations in the weight of the case what difference does the weight of the case make. Not trying to start an argument I am just trying to understand and gain knowledge. Please don't take my question the wrong way.


IMO, differences in brass weights can indicate differences in case volume which can directly impact pressure (thicker walls vs thinner walls etc).

-DallanC


----------



## Mavis13 (Oct 29, 2007)

That's how I understood it. If the brass is sized but weighs more then it likely has thicker walls and thus less volume.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

DallanC said:


> IMO, differences in brass weights can indicate differences in case volume which can directly impact pressure (thicker walls vs thinner walls etc).
> 
> -DallanC


I don't even remember from where I got the idea??? I just did a ton of reading before doing any loading including the entire Lyman (at the insistence of the Cabela's guy who sold me my setup) and Barnes manuals. I know that Lapua claims no more than a 1 grain variance in a box of their brass. I think the idea is simply to match the most similar wall thicknesses and therefore the most consistent pressures in hopes of having the most consistent shot groupings. I don't know that it makes any difference, but it seems somewhat logical, arguably??


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I group brass by weight and by manufacturer. I also group the bullets by weight. But I do my powder weight similar to Mavis13, throw it short into the brass pan that comes with the scales. Trickle in the final desired weight. I typically weigh out 10 rounds, then do a visual to make sure the level in the cases are the same.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

something to think about while you all are weighing and sorting your brass and bullets.

you will never see any sufficient/reliable data from all of this unless you can always duplicate your shots over and over again. taking out any error requires that all your equipment is up to par. if not you are wasting your time. (your equipment is tools, rifle, and components)

but if it does feel good, is all that counts.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Huge29 said:


> I don't even remember from where I got the idea??? I just did a ton of reading before doing any loading including the entire Lyman (at the insistence of the Cabela's guy who sold me my setup) and Barnes manuals. I know that Lapua claims no more than a 1 grain variance in a box of their brass. I think the idea is simply to match the most similar wall thicknesses and therefore the most consistent pressures in hopes of having the most consistent shot groupings. I don't know that it makes any difference, but it seems somewhat logical, arguably??


Again, not trying to argue just trying to rationalize. I understand the wall thickness idea but it is my understanding that all cartridges regardless of wall thickness expand upon powder detonation and expand to fill the chamber. If that is indeed the case it seems to me that wall thickness would be inconsequential as the chamber is holding in the actual pressure. As for not having a full case of powder or because of wall thickness a variation. Well it also seems that powder can settle as well as simply using 1 less grain would create a bigger void. When the reloading manuals give a range of say 45-49 grains as the min and max obviously by using the min you will have some void in the case after putting powder and seating the bullet.

I would love to see any actual tests regarding weighing the cases and accuracy. I have weighed my cases before just out of curiosity and have noticed differences, however I it never dawned on me until reading this that it is potentially possible that the differentials in cases could affect accuracy. I'm going to have to ponder this one a bit.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

For the majority of you on here weighing bullets and cases will not make enough difference for you to notice. You have to remember that you are shooting hunting rifles and without a couple hundred dollars worth of work on your rifle you will not see much accuracy. A hunting rifle is different than a bench rest rifle and was never intended in being a sub moa shooter. They will do it buy that wasn't their purpose. 

Now if you are into bench rest shooting or enjoy the smaller game animals such as ground squirrels or prairie dogs at extended ranges then every little bit of accuracy that you can squeeze out of the rifle will help.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

sagebrush said:


> something to think about while you all are weighing and sorting your brass and bullets.
> 
> you will never see any sufficient/reliable data from all of this unless you can always duplicate your shots over and over again. taking out any error requires that all your equipment is up to par. if not you are wasting your time. (your equipment is tools, rifle, and components)
> 
> but if it does feel good, is all that counts.


I guess that one of the reason's I reload the way I do is because for many years all I had is one gun. I used the same bullets and powder. I did notice in this gun that case manufacturer made a difference.

I now have another gun that I am having trouble with. I will try some of the ideas that have been suggested. It is a good gun, but not quite as good as my old gun. That is what started me thinking about some of these areas of reloading that I did not need to think about with the old gun.

We have talked about pretty general stuff, but I would still like to know if a .1 of a grain makes a difference say in powder weight. Does 2 grains +/- make difference in bullet weight? I guess I just see a conflict when we say wall thickness in a case makes a difference, but powder weight does not.

But I do thank all for this discussion. Has been a lot more fun than all the fighting.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The only way that you are going to be able to tell if a tenth of a grain is going to make a difference is to try it yourself. That along with bullet weight. For a hunting rifle it isn't going to make that much difference that I doubt that you will be able to see and that is if you can shoot that well. 

I have a .22-250 that will shoot sub 1/4moa groups all day long but I have a friend that has shot it and he is lucky to get down to a moa group with the same rifle. On the reloads for that rifle I don't weigh every charge or every bullet, but I do sort the cases but that isn't that hard to do since I only use one type of a case and by them in lots of 1000. Each case is shot and then placed into the reloading box to wait until all the others have been shot or close to it and then they are reloaded. That way I know just how many times that case has been shot. That is the only load and round that I am anal about when it comes to reloading. My regular hunting rifles just get shot. I have a couple that will shoot sub moa groups and I have some that are just hunting rifles that shoot a great moa group.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I'm in the software industry, one where performance is of critical importance. When given a task of "optimizing" code, a tool called a profiler breaks down the program and lists the amount of time spent in each section. It is of bigger benefit for example, to work on a section that is taking 20% of the execution time over a section that takes 2%

When we reload, we are really doing the same thing... we work at reducing the "worst" variable negatively affecting accuracy. There are MANY variables affecting internal ballistics, but as we start tweaking we see improvements in accuracy. We have reduced some of a "bad" variable.

Eventually, as you reduce those "bad things", all of the variables become rather "even", there is no single problem area to tweak... which means across the board adjustments need to be made. This is a point of diminishing returns... and I personally stop there. 

Alot of shooters take it further, trueing case necks, measuring runout PER BULLET, working on primer pockets etc etc. But all of that assumes your gun itself isnt a "bad variable", meaning that the gun itself, doesnt have some limitation causing it to be more accurate than xyz MOA. If you know the gun has the ability of 0MOA, then continued refinement of loads will be fo use... but if the gun itself has a poor barrel or other components, no refinement of cartridges will be of use.

If someone wants to push to the absolute edge of accuracy, then I really suggest they start hanging out on the bench rest shooters forums, learn from those guys the tricks and tips to get super fine accuracy.


-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> I have a .22-250 that will shoot sub 1/4moa groups all day long but I have a friend that has shot it and he is lucky to get down to a moa group with the same rifle.


This is a great point... I've talked to soooo many people shooting their guns off a jacket on the hood complaining about how they cant get a good group. You HAVE to eliminate errors in shooting the rifle from the equation initially, before starting on reloading components.

Shoot off a cement bench. Rest the gun on something that absolutely will not move. Absolutely make sure there is no movement in the rifle when the trigger is tripped. If most people did that, they would be astounded at how well their "inaccurate" rifle shoots.

-DallanC


----------



## lifes short (Sep 11, 2013)

Unless you are shooting off of some type of machine the Nut Behind The Butt is pretty important


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Case weight: like has been noted, this can be an indicator of case volume. You want your volumes to be the same. This is why you don't mix brands and makes together. If you look at wildcaters, and more specifically, those that were focused on "improved" versions of existing cartridges, like P.O. Ackley, you will see that case geometry, and volume were the variables that were focused on. This is because these are some of the most important variables, in the burning of nitro cellulose powder, aside form the powder itself.

Powder volume: In much the same way that case volume and geometry affect the way the powder burns, so does the volume of the powder. The volume is a direct representation, of the surface area of the powder. It is the surface area of the powder that affects the ignition and burning of the powder. Weight is a good representation of powder also. But with extruded powders for example, the conditions under which it was extruded, will affect how dense the extruded pieces are. This can affect the weight, yet the volume and surface area can remain the same. Same with "punched" powders. 

If you work up your loads with a scale, then you have set a base line. As has been mentioned before, you are not going to see a tenth of a grain, and in many loads, in many guns, you won't see the difference a singe grain makes, with everything else being equal. 

Once you work up a load, and you know the weight of the powder that works for that load, then you can determine volume, and create a measure. This all depends on the powder. Some powders require a trickler, and certain shapes of measure cavities can have a huge affect on the accuracy of the results. Therefor the way you measure your powder, and the cavity you use to determine the volume, will affect the repeatability of this. A lot of guys use cut down cases, and while it is just a convenient container/cavity, there is some science behind this. The base of most cartridges have a rounded shape in the bottom of them. This is key, sharp edges, especially with extruded powders, cause inconsistency. Another factor is height verses width of the opening. Some powders will be more consistent with a larger opening, where as some do well will taller cavities and smaller openings. 

Anyway, weighing is fine, nothing wrong with it. But you can achieve the same consistency, and accuracy, with less time spent at the bench, with a volume measuring system. So how many rounds you are going shoot can be a big determining factor in which way you may want to go.

Bax, Huge29, Good call on weighing cases. Another benefit to this method(weighing cases and powder together), is that it can help assure that you don't end up with double powder chargers.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

DallanC said:


> I'm in the software industry, one where performance is of critical importance. When given a task of "optimizing" code, a tool called a profiler breaks down the program and lists the amount of time spent in each section. It is of bigger benefit for example, to work on a section that is taking 20% of the execution time over a section that takes 2%
> 
> When we reload, we are really doing the same thing... we work at reducing the "worst" variable negatively affecting accuracy. There are MANY variables affecting internal ballistics, but as we start tweaking we see improvements in accuracy. We have reduced some of a "bad" variable.
> 
> ...


So If I understand right the reason my 1942 Military Surplus M38 Mosin Nagant can't shoot sub MOA with open sights might not be because of my hand loads?:shock:


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Case weight: like has been noted, this can be an indicator of case volume. You want your volumes to be the same.


The problem here, is volume can be variable even with the same case weights / wall thicknesses. This can vary as a function of resizing, how elastic (how much it rebounds after being sized down) the brass is ... which in and of itself changes over time as the brass is "worked" via prior reloadings and hardens.



> Powder volume: In much the same way that case volume and geometry affect the way the powder burns, so does the volume of the powder. The volume is a direct representation, of the surface area of the powder. It is the surface area of the powder that affects the ignition and burning of the powder. Weight is a good representation of powder also. But with extruded powders for example, the conditions under which it was extruded, will affect how dense the extruded pieces are. This can affect the weight, yet the volume and surface area can remain the same. Same with "punched" powders.


I cant find the reference, but I read a article a few years ago that mentioned powder burn rates based on its surface area. Basically to test the author put live rounds in a tumbler and ran them allowing the powder to fracture into smaller pieces. Over a cronograph the velocites were the same. If I remember right, the article was initially about if it was safe or not to tumble live rounds, if they would go off during the tumbling... and secondarily how the powder burn rates were effected and velocity. I'll keep looking to see if I cant find the original source.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> So If I understand right the reason my 1942 Military Surplus M38 Mosin Nagant can't shoot sub MOA with open sights might not be because of my hand loads?:shock:


I'm saying poor cheap quality guns wont have the accuracy of expensive quality guns... and no amount of reloading magic can overcome an inaccurate sloppy barrel.

-DallanC


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

For me, all of this underscores the value of a mentor


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

DallanC said:


> The problem here, is volume can be variable even with the same case weights / wall thicknesses. This can vary as a function of resizing, how elastic (how much it rebounds after being sized down) the brass is ... which in and of itself changes over time as the brass is "worked" via prior reloadings and hardens.
> 
> I cant find the reference, but I read a article a few years ago that mentioned powder burn rates based on its surface area. Basically to test the author put live rounds in a tumbler and ran them allowing the powder to fracture into smaller pieces. Over a cronograph the velocites were the same. If I remember right, the article was initially about if it was safe or not to tumble live rounds, if they would go off during the tumbling... and secondarily how the powder burn rates were effected and velocity. I'll keep looking to see if I cant find the original source.
> 
> -DallanC


Yeah, the case volume will vary, but within the same maker, they will all be within an acceptable "range". You are only looking for outliers that fall well outside of this.

Yeah, I don't see the velocity changing, the volume of powder does not change, but the case volume could. Surface area is not really going to affect velocity, if the volume is the same. Powders come in particular forms for a reason, some is handling, some is manufacturing, but much of it is because this is the form that provides the best surface area and burn characteristics.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> For me, all of this underscores the value of a mentor


In all reality if you pick up a couple of reloading manuals and follow their directions you can put out a quality reloaded piece of ammunition. You can then follow a lot of the information that we give you and do some tweaking of the loaded round to see what it will accomplish.

One problem with reloading is that you need to buy at least a pound of powder to try it. I have seen some 1/2 pound cans but very seldom. Then if your rifle or you don't like that powder you are stuck with it unless you can find someone that likes it. The same goes for bullets. You have to buy at least 50 of them to try, and like powder if you don't like them you are stuck with them unless you can find that reloader that likes what you have. Primers are a little bit different but there are some that will shoot nothing but Federals and will go without if there are none of them on the shelf at the store even if there are some CCI, Remington, or Winchesters sitting right there. Now cases are usually a personal preference, I like Federal, Remington, and Weatherby which is made my Norma but if you have a collection of what ever you have been shooting then they will do quite well.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Another good reason for knowing other hand loaders, They may be willing to sell you an ounce to try something out.


----------



## lifes short (Sep 11, 2013)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> For me, all of this underscores the value of a mentor


Muleskinner this discussion goes way beyond reloading 101 (with which you can turn out ammo superior to factory), this is like a getting doctorate in accuracy. After reloading and getting great shooting loads for your gun you will end up wanting to try some of this. Aint it fun


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

very interesting conversation. I am, not necessarily by choice, an information junkie. The background I have in physics lends well to topics such as this. Good stuff.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Lonetree
"Powder volume: In much the same way that case volume and geometry affect the way the powder burns, so does the volume of the powder. The volume is a direct representation, of the surface area of the powder. It is the surface area of the powder that affects the ignition and burning of the powder. Weight is a good representation of powder also. But with extruded powders for example, the conditions under which it was extruded, will affect how dense the extruded pieces are. This can affect the weight, yet the volume and surface area can remain the same. Same with "punched" powders."

When you are talking about filling a volume (space) with a dry product, is there not a difference in surface area of the dry product when you compare loose packed verse compressed packed?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> Lonetree
> "Powder volume: In much the same way that case volume and geometry affect the way the powder burns, so does the volume of the powder. The volume is a direct representation, of the surface area of the powder. It is the surface area of the powder that affects the ignition and burning of the powder. Weight is a good representation of powder also. But with extruded powders for example, the conditions under which it was extruded, will affect how dense the extruded pieces are. This can affect the weight, yet the volume and surface area can remain the same. Same with "punched" powders."
> 
> When you are talking about filling a volume (space) with a dry product, is there not a difference in surface area of the dry product when you compare loose packed verse compressed packed?


Yes, there can be. That is why you start with weighing charges, and then find an accurate way to reproduce that powder charge via volume. Whether you are weighing or measuring, consistency is the most important thing. Avoiding, or imparting a certain amount of compression, may be part of that consistency. So the goal with measuring, just like with weighing, is to get it the same every time. Most powders don't "compress" very much, unless you apply some pretty good force.

This is a whole other subject with shotgun shells, compression that is.

My grandfather did some experiments with this years ago, because he thought full powder containers on the reloading press, compressed the powder more than partially filled ones, affecting the volume. Turns out it does not, most powders required upwards of 8 pounds placed over them, in a measure, to compress them to the point that it affected weight and therefor surface area/density.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

Here is a subject that _everybody_ knows the answer to - right? If a person takes the time to weigh _each and every_ charge to the last tenth of a grain, then those loads are going to be more accurate in your rifle than loads that are dumped _by volume_ from a powder measure that often can vary by two or three tenths of a grain or so if you weigh a representative sample. Therefore we can assume that both velocity variation from shot-to-shot and as measured by accuracy on paper will be superior for the weighed charges, as opposed to those we merely measured.
As a measure of the lengths many will go to for "accuracy", here is a quote from a guy on another forum as to his loading technique for his 700 Rem SPS Tactical .308:


> 44.3 gr of RL15... I dump to 44.2gr and *tweezer* in the rest.


So why don't Benchrest competition shooters, who shoot the smallest groups in the world, weigh each charge? What do they know that we don't?

What are the opinions of other experienced reloaders when it comes to weighed vs. thrown charges for most rifle applications? Because this subject interests me, and I shoot a lot of .223 that is loaded on a Dillon progressive and that I can't bother weighing, just how much accuracy am I giving up?

One thing that I have decided is that you have to look at the percentage of charge weight deviation as compared to the total charge weight. If we take a .223 Remington load that uses 25.0 grains of powder and find that our (volume) measure will vary from this nominal weight by 0.1 to 0.3 of a grain - what is that variation percentage of the total charge weight?
If we check the calculator, we find that 0.25 of a grain is only *1%* of the total charge weight. Therefore it is _extremely_ unlikely that in any normal, but accurate, rifle with the other variables such as primers etc, that 1% or possibly even as much as a 2% charge weight variation could possibly be noticed. As one sound/radio technician/reloader put it this minuscule amount would be "lost in signal noise".

#####*Here are some answers from people smarter than me:*#####

Gun writer *John Barsness* is a very experienced reloader with a lot of shooting industry inside information. A very intelligent writer, during his tenure at HANDLOADER magazine, he set out to test common "truisms" as applied to handloading ammo - and found that some are just myths handed down over the years that, if they every applied, do not do so now. Here is his take on this subject:

"There isn't any real advantage in weighing each charge rather than using a powder measure, except perhaps in some very small cases with very large-grained powder, an unlikely combination. This is because powder doesn't always ignite exactly the same way from each case, so any tiny amount of charge variation is lost.

Plus, when we are looking for an accurate load, we're trying to match the powder charge with the vibrations of the barrel. Usually a half-grain either way won't affect this much."

Gun writer and military gun specialist *Patrick Sweeney* in the magazine BLACK RIFLE ACCURACY - Guns & Ammo Book of the AR15 - 2010 has this to say about reloading for the AR15 and accuracy:

"What about weight uniformity? Many a reloader and shooting experimenter has looked at the problem, and come to the same rational conclusion: greater uniformity in powder charge has to have a positive effect on accuracy. And just as they have all looked into it, they have all come to the same conclusion: it hardly matters at all.

Oh don't get me wrong. If you vary the powder charge by a full grain or more, you're going to have accuracy problems. But the weight differences between charges thrown by a volumetric measuring tool don't matter. The couple of tenths of a grain variance don't even track with velocity differences in a measured set of cartridges. The powder measure, using volume, will throw charges of powder (especially spherical powders) consistent enough to provide sub-MOA accuracy, if you've tended to all the other variables.
Not convinced? Then consider this: benchrest shooters, who shoot groups so small they have to be measured with special dial calipers, throw powder charges by volume."

The Feb 2013 issue of HANDLOADER had an excellent article by the ever inquisitive John Barsness, quoted above, on The "Exact" Amount of Powder - Testing Powder Dispensers, that I would recommend finding and reading.

This article focuses on a couple of different powder measures when it came to throwing charges in line with John's findings stated previously. However it did neglect measures like the one on the Dillon progressive press.

As for that particular measure, except with long grain powders which it hates, the Dillon always mechanically throws more consistent charges during a normal reloading cycle than I do by hand unless I concentrate on making every throw with the exact same effort. I would guess that this is due to the mechanical dampening effect of the operation going on in 3 or 4 stations that evens out the jar transmitted to the measure - whereas my hand is directly involved in the jar of the stand-alone measures and that seems to affect the consistency more if I'm not super consistent. And the more rounds you load in a session, the more chance of human inconsistency arising.

The Lee Perfect Powder measure excels at metering long grain powders. I always would throw low and trickle to exact powder charges before with long log-like powders like IMR 4064 and 4350 for my hunting cartridges using my RCBS measure, but with the Lee I saw that it was far more consistent than the half-grain maximum for big cases mentioned by John Barsness. Therefore I took a leap of faith and threw all the charges of 4064 for my 25-06 without trickling up to the exact weight. Amazingly the accuracy of that load was all I could ask for.
On the flip side, the Lee leaks fine powder when metering from what I've seen posted by others. That's okay with me as I have the other measures for those.
I have info on how to adapt that Lee measure to the Dillon as well. There also may be other measures that can be adapted to the Dillon.

So one needs to be aware of their particular measure's strengths and weaknesses and tailor the powder used accordingly.

Certainly in the scheme of things with the huge amount of available powders now it isn't hard to find a powder that meters better like a short grain or ball type. Hodgdon makes 4831 as an "SC" (short cut) powder for metering purposes that can replace IMR 4831, and there are a lot of good ball powders available from Ramshot for bigger rounds now. RL-22 is another example of a powder that meters pretty good compared to IMR 4831. Certainly when I switched to it from long-grain 4831 my metering experience was improved with no loss of accuracy or velocity in my .270. 
In another case of mine, after testing both Varget and RL15 in the .223 I found that they performed virtually identically. Therefore I opted to use RL15 due to the fact that it metered better in the Dillon. Certainly that is one good reason to stick with a ball powder in my case for my 55-gr varmint loads that are a volume concern, as it meters like water and even with a maximum charge there is no concern. Weighing and trickling 1000 rounds ain't my idea of fun. And in .223 it is dead easy to find an accurate powder that meters extremely well if you just are willing to try something new.

In the HANDLOADER article by Barsness he mentions that only if you are shooting over 500 yards and using a powder that doesn't throw consistently should weigh/trickle be used. And that electronic measure/scales that do it automatically are both very slow and seem to have a .2- to .3-grain variation with _any_ powder tested.

*In hundreds of experiments, John has always found the difference between thrown and weighed groups (after an accuracy load has been found) is within 0.1 inch or so at 100 yards. Normal statistical-sample-variations sometimes have the thrown group smaller, or the other way around.*
John is not a fan of 3 shot groups for hunting rifles and prefers 4 for big game rifles, and 10 shot groups for varmint rifles (though there is evidence that 7 is quite indicative). The downside is that your bragging groups won't be as good. I guess you can shoot 3 or 5 for bragging and shoot more to see the consistency. But many psyches can't take 10 shots groups that aren't MOA or less, even though they will get the job done exactly the same.

Obviously shooter and hold variation is also a bigger factor with group size than +/- .2 of a grain as well. Or the little zephyr that zaps a bullet just a tad.

Using single-base powders, the velocity varies arithmetically with the powder charge. If powder charge is upped 1%, so is velocity. His example is that if a charge of 58.5 grains of H-4350 averages 2900 fps, if the powder charge varies + or - .2 grain from the ideal of 58.5, that's .0034 percent of 2900, or about 10 fps. Tiny variations in the flame of individual primers and diameter of bullets produce larger changes in velocity.

A consistently accurate load almost always occurs when the barrel's in a relatively still place during its up-and-down flexing due to the violence of the shot. This has far more influence on accuracy than minor variations in muzzle velocity. When working extensively with a chronograph, all of us have seen handloads varying no more than 20 fps in muzzle velocity that didn't group very well, while another with a variation of 40 fps shot very well. Barrel flip is the reason: The load with more velocity variation happens to leave the muzzle during relatively still points in the up-down cycle.

A consistently accurate load normally occurs in the ideal pressure range for the powder we're using. Some powders are more flexible than others, but most modern rifle powders are designed to burn most consistently between 55,000 and 65,000 psi. Consistent burning does more for accuracy than +/- .2 grains of powder. Particularly modern ball powders need to be at intended pressure, which is often nearer to or even at maximum, as found in the manual data.

The larger the cartridge, the less difference minor variations in powder charge make. +/- .2 from ideal is much less of a percentage factor in a .308 than a .223. But usually the best powders for small rounds are small grained or ball, therefore allowing better metering than those used in big game rounds.

And yes, using a very good measure rather than an average measure will make things more consistent. The Redding BR-30 has an adjustable baffle, steel edges to cut larger granules, and a micrometer adjustable stem for repeatable adjustments. The advantages of the BR-30 in John's testing were with extruded powders in accurate metering - as basically any powder measure will meter fine-grained powder just about as consistently as weighing. But you have to be willing to pay $182 (Midway) for this outstanding measure. And with throwing logs like 4350, it still isn't exact.

*John's summation? "There is no reason for us to spend time weighing charges when quality mechanical measures result in equally fine accuracy for almost any handloading."*

So why is all this so? The best explanation comes from the April-June 2010 issue of VARMINT HUNTER MAGAZINE in an article called: 
HOW CHARGE POSITION AND GRANULE-PACKING SCHEME AFFECT BALLISTICS AND ACCURACY by the rather scientific *M.L. McPherson*. He is the author or co-author of "Accurizing the Factory Rifle", "Cartridges of the World", "Metallic Cartridge Reloading". This article is way to long and technical to reproduce in its entirety here, and also has some outstanding information on the issues of charge position is a case. But some of the highlights, and a solution to make your weighed charges pack more accurately is covered below. M.L. McPherson found out that the way the granules pack in the case affects ignition, and the more uniform the granules pack, the more uniform the ignition and velocity deviation from shot-to-shot.

"Many years ago, I studied some most interesting results from a very simple test conducted at a major ballistics laboratory. Those conducting that experiment compared loads created using dropped and (carefully) weighed charges of one tubular-type (IMR-4895, as I recall) and one ball-type (H380) propellant. Contrary to expectations, loads created using carefully weighed charges showed significantly greater ballistic variation with both propellants!...

...While the mass of the metered charges of the ball-type propellant might have been almost as consistent as the weighed charges, the mass of the dropped charges of the tubular-type propellant could not have been anywhere nearly as consistent as the weighed charges... some other variable was at work...

Only two pertinent variables exist in this situation:
1.	Charge weight consistency-INCREASING charge weight variation simply cannot DECREASE velocity variation.
2.	Case charging consistency-Using a measure, the charges are routinely introduced into the cases very similarly.

When using a scale, consistent charging depends upon pan technique, and evidently this matters.

...Granule packing scheme consistency, or the lack thereof, explains why loads created by using dropped charges can be more consistent than loads created using weighed charges. It is not that the charge weight consistency does not matter; rather, it is that granule-packing scheme consistently can matter more. Specifically, typical charge-to-charge variations in granule-packing scheme (as commonly results from dumping charges from a pan into the cases) can result in more load-to-load velocity variation than typical mass variation of measured charges does (when those charges are uniformly dumped into the cases from the measure).

When simply dumping the charge out of a pan, through a funnel, and into a case, it is difficult to charge each case in exactly the same manner. Therefore, it is difficult to maintain a consistent granule-packing scheme, either within the entire charge of any one load or from one charge to the next. Conversely, when dumping charges from a measure, when using any consistent technique, it is easy to generate charges that have similar granule-packing scheme. That is the natural consequence...

[For those who want the best results when weighing charges in a pan and dumping them into the case with a funnel use] the following technique, to create what I now call a Swirl-Charge:

*>*Rest scale pan on lip of standard funnel. Do not pour at an angle facing directly towards, or away from the funnel side. Rather, the pan spout should be parallel to the right or left side of the funnel.

*>*Carefully tip pan enough to keep a moderate stream of granules pouring against the middle of the side of the funnel cone. The swirl of powder granules should form a "J" shape (spout facing you on right side of funnel) from the spout along the side of the funnel and curling at the bottom to finally go into the hole of the funnel.

*>*Control pour rate to maintain a moderately dense mass of granules passing through the funnel throat (_as with so many things, this is easy to demonstrate but not so easy to describe!_)"


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to provide some great information. This has been great!!!!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

> Oh don't get me wrong. If you vary the powder charge by a full grain or more, you're going to have accuracy problems.


That is the problem that I have, regularly having over a grain difference in the way my measurer works. Tweezers certainly does seem a bit of a waste. I am not shooting bench rest, therefore I can't justify the expense of a progressive set up and loading only 15-20 rounds takes very little time as it is. Interesting info, thanks Pete!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

frisco pete said:


> while the mass of the metered charges of the ball-type propellant might have been almost as consistent as the weighed charges, *the mass of the dropped charges of the tubular-type propellant could not have been anywhere nearly as consistent as the weighed charges*... some other variable was at work...


☝☝☝


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Fishrmn said:


> ☝☝☝


That is why you have to find, or my preference, build, a measure that will work for specific powders. I have found it is the shape, and geometry of the cavity that makes the difference. I worked on an R&D project for a propellant company about 10 years ago. They were designing adjustable powder measures for large(1/4oz) powder charges. That is one of the instances where I found that having rounded interior corners, really helps with larger grain, hard to meter powders. Rounding those corners alone took care of the bulk of the inconsistency problems. How you fed the measure, took care of the rest. I did not work on that part of it as much, but it was a novel approach. Basically the measure was over filled, and the excess powder was "brushed" off the top.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

> That is the problem that I have, regularly having over a grain difference in the way my measurer works.


You need to either change your measure, or the powder you use.

As was mentioned in my post, there are better measures, particularly the Redding BR-30 which proved superior in metering long-grain powders (though my cheap Lee PPM is surprising)
OR
experiment with a different powder that meters better.

We tend to find a powder that works and stick with it for years because working up is work.
But things change and new powders have been introduced at an astounding rate in the last decade +. Many of these meter better. An example is Hodgdon reworking 4831 into both a temperature-insensitive "Extreme" powder, and also changing granulation into a Short Cut for better metering. Or new slow burning ball powders by Ramshot etc.

If you only load a box or two occasionally then throwing low and using a trickled to top off is fine (but remember that even here a tenth or two is not a big deal).
But for us that load more than that metering - and metering well is important.

Of course we could suggest replacement powders to try.


----------



## waspocrew (Nov 26, 2011)

I had a powder thrower and never used it. I would scoop to get close and then trickle to the right charge. I have since bought a RCBS Chargemaster and it's awesome. I rarely have overthrown charges. If they occur, it's usually with IMR 4831 or the like. The bigger logs can clump and drop when trying to get the last .1 grain. Ball and flake powders are on every time. It was a spendy investment ($250 after rebate) but I reload a lot more often now and save time. And I've been getting some great results from the accurate charges.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> Again, not trying to argue just trying to rationalize. I understand the wall thickness idea but it is my understanding that all cartridges regardless of wall thickness expand upon powder detonation and expand to fill the chamber. If that is indeed the case it seems to me that wall thickness would be inconsequential as the chamber is holding in the actual pressure. As for not having a full case of powder or because of wall thickness a variation. Well it also seems that powder can settle as well as simply using 1 less grain would create a bigger void. When the reloading manuals give a range of say 45-49 grains as the min and max obviously by using the min you will have some void in the case after putting powder and seating the bullet.


Consider the volume of a chamber without a case. Now when you place a case in it, the volume is diminished by the amount of brass that is in the case. More brass in the case uses up more volume in the chamber. It doesn't have as much to deal with volume inside the case, which is fairly elastic and as you stated, expands to the dimensions of the chamber upon firing.

-DallanC


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Frisco Pete said:


> If you only load a box or two occasionally then throwing low and using a trickled to top off is fine (but remember that even here a tenth or two is not a big deal).
> But for us that load more than that metering - and metering well is important.
> 
> Of course we could suggest replacement powders to try.


I always enjoy your insight and thanks for speaking up on the topic, I have learned something new. I did fall into the category that you mention, of only loading a few hundred loads per year, which is way more than before learning to hand load. Santa just brought me the auto dispense measurer, which I really like, so I don't think I am going to change anything anytime soon.


----------

