This topic came up on the thread about mobile reloading. I thought it would be good to explore it a bit on it's own thread. First, my standard disclaimer. I am not the final word of reloading and shooting, I only know what I have experienced for myself and what works for me. Others will see things differently and that is okay with me.

I started throwing my powder with a Harrell measure a couple years ago and will not likely ever go back to weighing charges. That is unless I get really good at long range shooting (IE over 600 yds), but first I have to actually start shooting at those distances. I won't even likely start until next year.

As such, I am reloading primarily for hunting rifles. Though I have thrown a few charges for the 7.62x39, the smallest cases I have seriously thrown for are the 6mm Rem and 7-08 Rem. The largest case was the 338 RUM.

With long grain extruded powders, specifically H4895, Varget, H4350, H4831 SC, and H-1000, I find I can throw to +/-.03 grains. This means a max potential difference of .6 grains of powder charge between cases.

I am currently of the opinion that .6 grains will not make a significant difference in velocity and group size in cases as small as the 6mm Rem/7-08 Rem. Others have told me the same about the .223 Rem, but I haven't tried the .223 yet. I do make one important caveat: if you find yourself over the max recommended pressure, then .6 grains may indeed make a difference.

Mr Harrell himself told me he doesn't think +/- .3 grains makes any difference, but he has an obvious stake in the issue. One of the techs at Sinclair told me the same thing, and he sells both scales and measures. BR shooters commonly throw their powder, though they do use smaller grained stuff like H322. However, many BR shooters also use Harrell measures, and I found I could throw the finer grained stuff with mine +/- .2 grains. I am guessing the 1000 yd BR guys may be more inclined to weigh each charge. The Sinclair tech also told me a properly set up Redding 3BR measure, with the bottle adapter and all the other upgrades, threw as well as the Harrell.

I read an article by David Tubb where he describes using the Prometheus, which is a complicated looking reloading device that automatically meters powder onto a scale and then fills the case via a drop tube. This is the best of all worlds--fairly quick operation, the accuracy of a scale, and the filling of the case through a drop tube. Evidently, filling the case through a drop tube provides a more uniform powder column and is suppose to yield better results.

For me, the bottom line is my results have been about the same whether I have thrown the powder or weighed it. However, I have not yet conducted a side-by-side test with a load of known accuracy, with say four groups from thrown powder and four from weighed powder. I have shot the best groups I have ever shot with thrown charges. I think the best measured .130" at 100 yds. The successes with thrown powder include the following rifles and their average group size with the best load.

- 6mm Rem: .375" groups w/Matchkings
- 300 Win: .375" groups w/Siroccos
- 338 RUM: .75" groups w/Partitions
- 338 Win: .5 to .6" groups at slow velocities w/Partitions

Here are the rifles for which things haven't gone as well as I liked.

- 30-06: .6 to .7" with occasional fliers opening the group up to 1 1/8" (Gamekings/Siroccos/Prohunters)

- 338 Win: .7 - .9" groups with occasional fliers to 1 1/8" at faster velocities (Partitions/Accubonds)

- 7-08: .8 to 1.5" groups, but this rifle is just not sorted out yet (X bullets/Interbonds)

Looking at the above, the results are about what one would expect. Except for the 338 which is in both categories, the heavier barreled rifles that weigh more are shooting better than the lighter barreled rifles that weigh 1-2 lbs less.

Here are some of my averages for rifles with weighed powder charges.

- 416 Rem: .6" groups (X bullets)
- 375 Ack: 1.0625" groups (A-Frame)
- 300 Win: .54" groups (Sendero w/Gamekings)
- 7mm Rem: .5" groups (Sendero w/Gamekings, 5-shot groups)

The Ack had a factory barrel, but the rest had/have heavy barrels and all weigh/weighed 10+ lbs. I do not have any data for lesser contoured barreled rifles that I weighed powder for. I am not showing the data for the rifles I did not find good loads for even though I was weighing every charge, which include a 340 Wby and another 338 Win.

The biggest problem I have in making an apples-to-apples comparison is that when I weighed charges, I typically did not shoot consecutive groups of the same load on the same day. However, with throwing, the least test is three consecutive groups on the same day. More typical is four or more consecutive groups. In fact, I just did not do anywhere near the amount of testing when weighing charges as I do when throwing. BTW, most of the groups were shot at 100 yds, with some at 200, but they are all corrected for 100 yds. (The 7 Mag has a couple 200 yd groups thrown in. If I were to take them out the average gets larger because the bullets MOAed better at 200 yds than 100 yds.)

Eventually, I will do the side-by-side test with my most accurate rifle, the 6mm Rem. I think it is accurate enough to show a difference between throwing and weighing if one can be found. I will test at longer ranges as well. All the above is good only for drawing rough generalizations, and to me that generalization is that weighing is no advantage over throwing.

All this brings up some questions.

- Is powdered best measured by weight or volume? If it is by volume, then throwing may well be more accurate.

- If it is best measured by weight, then does the a drop tube's ability to better fill the case make up for the less precise charge?

- What have your experiences been with weighing vs throwing, and what type of powder measure did you use?

One last note. I have already been informed I am stupid and dangerous because I throw my powder during load development, so we can scratch that one off the list and focus on the other issues.

All my rifle loads with extruded powder are hand-weighed to +/- 0.0g. Ball powders (rifle and pistol) get thrown and tend to fall in the +/- 0.1g range.

Blaine; My results reflect yours. I NEVER weigh charges [except to set my powder measure] unless I am shooting really long range comp. ie. 1000 yards. Regards, Eagleye.

I weigh my 1k rounds and my maximum charges, but when loading for hunting rounds or plinkers, My Lyman 55's get the go to.

I check the charge occasionally, but for the most part have no problem throwing charges , even my long range stuff.
I consider shooter form, OAL and condition reading far more important than a grain of powder when shooting inside of 600 yards.
Catnthehat

I don't get nearly as much range time as I'd like, so I'm sure that my shooting form is a bigger detriment
than small round-to-round variations in powder charges. However, knowing that my powder charges could
vary by 0.6 grains from one round to the next would bug the heck out of me, so I weigh them. Mostly I load
for 308 Win. and I'm testing H4895 and Re15 to see if I can replace IMR-4064. Maybe I should convert to
ball powders and be done with it!

Dave

I use the Harrels Precision to throw my powder charges and haven't noticed any difference in group size as opposed to weighing, it takes a while to perfect a technique to get constant throws, I've run a full 1 lb. can of RL 25 once to get an average runout and came up with .5 difference.

The only time I weigh my powder charges is when I am working with hot maxed out loads during load developement.

When I reach any signs of pressure I back off 1.5 grns. and throw the rest of my charges, never had any problems..

I can just see all the hundreds of thousands of people at Hornady, Federal, Speer and all the others weighing each and every charge. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Phil

Phil,

Not to mention Black Hills Ammo and all the High Power competitors that reload for their ARs on Dillion 550s.....................

I'm hoping someone here has done a side-by-side comparison. Also, I wonder if volume is a more accurare way to determine how much powder to use than weighing?

I sort of wonder if this debate isn't obsolete ?


They advent of the speedy "autoscales" like the Lyman and Pact for around $200+ would seem to give you the best of both worlds..............

The autoscales still aren't as fast as a measure. At the range, they are bulkier and would potentially be sensitive to breezes.

Of course, if volume is the way powder shuld be measured, the the autoscale has no advantage...........

Blaine; I have done just such a side-by-side comparison in two rifles with two powders. IMR 4064 in the Swift and H380 in the 22-250. The results of 10-5 shot groups are as follows:

Ruger 77V
220 Swift 50 Ballistic tip/40 gr 4064 in WW cases with a BR-2 primer;
Weighed charges group size avg .556" Avg velocity 4011
Measured charges group size avg. .549" Avg velocity 4014

Remington 40X
22-250 50 Ballistic Tip/37 grains H380 in WW cases with a Fed 210M primer;
Weighed charges group size avg .328" Avg velocity 3777
Measured charges group size avg .344" Avg velocity 3765

As can be seen by this very limited test, the difference is not enough to even consider, and I have had geater day-to-day variations than you see here.

Blaine,

I determined, a long time ago, that there is absoultely no advantage to wighing charges for me.............however there are several advantages to measuring, not the least of which is the time involved.

Haven't weighed charges, except to set the measure. for at least thirty years! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ted

Thanks--your results are about what I expected.



I am still puzzled why someone would think load devlopment while throwing powder is dangerous. I know about what my measure throws and start on the conservative side. Then I increase the charge two clicks at a time (1-1.2 grains). I find that the long grain extruded stuff throws about 57 grains at 100 clicks. I use a factor of grains / .6 to get a starting number of clicks.



Does anyone have any idea on the volume vs weight issue?



Also, does anyone find that you do more load testing since you started throwing powder?



Blaine

I throw everything................

I kinda' figured that. With all the shooting you get to do as well as fallin' those big trees, if you weighed every charge you'd never have time to sleep...................... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

I proved to myself,many moons ago,that for my pursuits I couldn't discern a difference. So the thrower got the nod,due to volume.

I've loaded some stuff on my Dillon,that is just plum scary accurate.

My thoughts are that there is much to technique. Not that running a thrower is difficult,but the key IMHO,is consistency.

Same goes neck turning. It is a waste of my time...............

Exactly! Got a lot better things to do than that.

No doubt it makes a difference if you are trying to squeeze the last three thousandths off a group, but it sure as heck has never made a difference on a hunting trip. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Blaine,

Can I assume you use the 'Premium' model, which throws up to 120 grains? As in this link?...

Harrells Premium

Thanks, for the informative post, I like the idea of not weighing each charge in the future.

I agree on the neck turning thing , also.!

I only turn for the riflesa that need it, a few of mine have tight chambers that require turning the necks, but otherwise, it don't make a lick.

I used to index my matxh brass , but don't bother anymore, because I have stopped shooting competitions, and have nto found any great difference but for a few of my S/S. rifles...

Catnthehat

BW,

Yes, it is the premium model. I also bought the stand ($40) that Sinclair has. It was spendy, but I like buying such stuff only once.

Blaine,

Since, according to yourself, you are no longer responding to thread linked here Hey Mtn Hunter....... I provided you with a link and would be more than happy if you respond in either of the threads.....

Roads

I'll just post it here to save you the trouble of clicking on the link....

Blaine,

Did YOU read the thread (this thread)???? Seems you're the only one discussing throwing charges during load development without any scales to calibrate. You're on one subject and everybody else is on another. Not one person, other than yourself, has even hinted of developing a load without the use of scale. This is your reply to EagleEye....



EagleEye's test was based on calibrating the thrower with a scale and then simply throwing his loads. Here's another quote from EagleEye..



Your response is as if EagleEye agrees with your "no scales required" theory. It aint even close. You are out there man. Go back and read the thread and if one person has even remotely addressed your "no scales required during load development theory" , then post a quote here and I will eat crow. But I believe I'll have steak tonight.....

Roads

I'm of the opinion that consistency of powder volume such as a good powder thrower can give you, produces better results than weighed charges. In fact with weighed charges I can sometimes see a difference in powder volume in the case even though the charge is identical in weight. with the trrown charges the volume of powder in the case always looks to take up the identical amount of volume in the case even though the charges may very in weight up to .3 or more grains depending on the coarsness of the grains of powder used. In many cases I have gotten more consistent velocities and grouping out of thrown charges as opposed to weighed charges. I've never gotten worse consistency with the thrown charges. A lot of benchrest shooters subscribe to this theory. Its my experience that a load tuned for an individual rifle will work just fine if it is within a half grain + or - of what your prescribed powder weight for that load is. If you ask most benchrest shooters what the weight of their load is they may not be able to tell you in weight exactly but theywill tell you how many clicks on their powder measure that they are using for a certain load that works in their rifle.

Take factory loads apart and sometimes each shell will very up to a grain and a half between shells out of the same box.

Let's make this even more simple. Does anyone, other than Blaine, NOT use scales during load development. When I say not use scales, I'm referring to not using them at all. Not to calibrate your thrower, not nothing.......




Roads

The answer to your question is NO! I always use a scale to adjust my measure and while working up loads. Once the load is settled on, I record the powder measure setting for future reference. Even then, I will check a couple of "thrown" charges before I use them in subsequent loading. Regards, Eagleye.

Not an attack to either way but I always weigh each and every round - mostly cuz I am too lazy to mess round with the thrower. I will admit I have (now) been tempted to try throwin (with a scale) to see for myself on a weight vs volume theory.

Once I get around to getting set up for "apartment closet reloading" very much liking that set up in Sinclairs - no range loading for me (as of yet)!

Roads,

Thanks for bringing the post over here. I am trying to build a single thread that covers all the aspects of weighing vs throwing. There is more to this than just load development, I also want to see what accuracy differences folks are seeing with weighing vs throwing as well as discuss the volume vs weight issue.

I am puzzled that this is being so easily misunderstood. It's actually kind of comical--I didn't know I was so bad at typing............ Let me try again. This IS important lest someone really go do what a couple of you think I am doing.................

I have calibrated my powder measure using my scales. I also periodically recheck the thing.

When I use a powder that I have used before, which means I have already checked the measure to see what weight of powder it throws, I do not check the measure against the scale before each time I use the measure. However, if it is a powder I haven't used before, then I do get out the scale to see what the Harrell will throw.

Now if you are of the opinion that you should check your measure with a scale each and every time you use it, then you do indeed have a disagreement with me, which is fine.

However, if you consider only the following as not using scales for load development:



In, light of that, I guess I have to say I use scales for load development. Bottom line, I NEVER throw any powder unless I KNOW how much (in grains) I am throwing. Well, at least to within .2 to .3 grains of what I am throwing....................

With all sincerity, did I do any better explaining what I do this time? I'm not bothered if you disagree, I just want to make sure you are disagreeing with the right thing......... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Of course, that brings up the question of the Lee Loader and it's powder dippers. No scales, no measure, just scoop and dump. Would that be dangerous? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

Blaine

Bushrat,

Thanks much for your input. I didn't even want to mention about looking in the cases. I'll often charge a couple cases and look at them side by side. If they don't look even then I start over. I also think it is very important to look at each and every powder charge.

Blaine

Roads,

I missed this.



I do not presume to put word's in Stick's mouth, and he may have meant everything except load development. However here is what he said................



.........with everything certainly qualifying as "remotely" addressing my very misunderstood "no scales during load development theory", even if that was not his intent.............

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Blaine

I once conducted an experiment with an RCBS Uniflow powder charge, the same one that consistently throws ball powder to +/- 0.1g in charges from 7.9g through 41.0g.

The experiment went like this: First I selected two different extruded powders, one of which was IMR4831. (I forget what the other was, but it doesn't matter as the imortant results involved IMR4831.) I then threw 10 charges with each powder and weighed each one. When I was done I put the resutls in a spreadsheet and calculated average, extreme spread and standard deviation for the two powders. With IMR 4831 I found that the extreme spread was in the neighborhood of 3.0g.

Looking at my chrono results for various workup loads, those 3.0g of powder makes a very noticeable difference in consistency, one that I'm not willing to put up with. For example, My 7mm Mag 160g Barnes XLC load goes from 12fps Extreme Spread to 136fps Extreme Spread. With other powders, my .45-70 Hornady 350g/H4198 load goes from 18fps Extreme Spread to 142fps Extreme Spread. And so it goes with other loads as well, with Standard Deviations going from single digits to the 40's, 50's and 60's.

My favorite hunting load for the .45-70 goes from 7fps Extreme Spread and 2.8fps Standard Deviation to 99fps Extreme Spread and 28.2fps Standard Deviation with only 2.5g difference in powder charge. I wouldn't mind too much except that my chrono/target data shows a direct correlation between group sizes and Extreme Spread and Standard Deviation - smaller numbers generally mean smaller group sizes.

You guys keep on throwing, I'll keep on measuring. At least when it comes to extruded powders.

Blaine posted:









Blaine,



I am throwing out the BS flag on the above statements posted earlier by you. If Blaine have been using a scale to check/verify his powder measure settings then why did he question my use of a scale in developing loads over on the Mobile Handloading thread? You posted:



"Why use a scale? If a charge is within .2 to .3 grains there will not be a measurable difference in velocity or group size unless you are way over the max or using a very small case. After all, BR guys shoot out to what, 300 yds and they throw their powder. I'm not sure about the 1000 yd BR guys, but for them a scale may make a difference. " Blaine



You also failed to list a scale as part of your range loading equipment, you posted:



"My range reloading stuff includes: the Co-Ax, the Harrell, dies, an RCBS Casemaster, A dial caliper, Stoney Point OAL tools, a pair of c-clamps, a loading tray to hold the cases, a couple of pliers; then bullets, primed brass, and powders." Blaine



Mobil Handloading



Now I'm going to ask you why you questioned and basically attempted to ridicule me for advocating the use of a scale along with tips for using the scale at the range for load development? Part of DogZapper's mobile handloading setup is an electronic scale set up under a hinged plexiglass cover. Why did you not question him?



I really think you ought to read some of Dogzapper's past articles on load development from the VHS magazine. Another good read would be Metallic Cartridge Reloading (3rd Edition) by Mic McPherson.



Mic wrote " Those dumped charges don't deliver more consistent results because they are more consistent in weight. Compared to weighed charges, dropped charges are introduced into the case with a greater level of consistency."



In other words, the consistency of the technique used in throwing the powder charges benefits accuracy somewhat better than an exact weighed charge that is merely dumped into a case unless you know how to pour your weighed charge down the funnel in a consistent manner.



Mic explains why one should consider weighing their charges for each case if they are using tubular powders that don't meter well. As for consistency and accuracy of these weighed charges, its all in the technique when pouring the charge down the funnel. He wrote about it in a later magazine article and called it the "swirl" technique. You simply pour each charge into the funnel off to the side a bit so the charge flows down the funnel in a swirl motion. If one pours each weighed charge down the funnel in a consistent manner then the cartridges will have a packing scheme very consistent and similar to "thrown" or "dumped" charges.



For myself, I do volume load pistol and 223Rem cartridges with thrown charges right off the measure with established/developed loads. The pistol powders, Hodgdon's Benchmark and Win 748 meter well enough for high volume handloading using thrown charges. These loads are usually moderate loads however and the powder measure is checked againest a scale every 50 rds. The charged pistol cases also get the visual lookover for double charging.



As for my big game hunting rifles, most of them shoot extremely well at or near listed max load data. For this type of handloading for an already established/developed load, I simply set my powder measure up to throw about .5gr low into the powder scale pan and I trickle charge the rest in using an electric trickler. I then charge each case a with a funnel/drop tube from Midway using the swirl technique. It takes a little longer charging the cases this way than thrown charges but I feel better doing it this way with long extruded powders that do not meter well. (and that includes H4350SC btw)



I was hoping I was not going to have to explain my loading techniques to you Blaine but I have never had problems achieving fine accuracy using weighed charges in my rifles unlike you.



MtnHtr

I use scales to check that I'm throwing the correct amount of powder but once I have the thrower set I don't worry over being out a couple tenths of a grain. I use a harrels also with repeatable clicks for the smaller cases and finer types of powder.

Coyote, I use a RCBS thrower for large stick powders like 4831 but I've never got more than 1 grain variation between charges usually a lot less, although I can manipulate it to make variations like you mention. A lot of it has to do with the consistency with which you use the thrower. I also use a powder baffle. If you don't have a consistent technique of doing the same thing each throw then you surely can get large variations such as you have experienced. Some guys flip up the handle gently and then drop it to release the charge, some guys flip the handle up and tap it hard at the top two or three times to settle a little more powder in the dumper, the thing is you have to do it the same every time. Sometimes grains of large stick type powder gets caught and sheared off, some guys rock the handle back and forth which has a habit of compressing whats in the dump and allowing more to fall into it and dropping a heavier load, when this happens some guys just dump the charge back into the hopper and do another. It is a matter of spending some time with a scale and practicing different technique till you find one that works for you. Myself I just gently raise the handle and let it stop at the top for a second or two for the powder to settle and gently bring the handle down to drop the charge. If it wants to shear a stick off I don't try to move the handle back and fort to avoid cutting it off I just continue pulling down till it cuts it off. Three grains of powder in a large capacty case like an ultra mag is only 3% variation on a 100 grain load, which isn't a huge difference unless you are loading to max. In a .223 case three grains would be 10% or more difference which could bring on problems.

Some guys like to weigh charges and thats good. Some guys like throwing charges and thats also good. It's best you do what your comfortable with. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Getting back to the volume vs. weighing..... anyone ever check to see what effect a drop tube had when charging cases? I've used it some for high volume charges. It would seem to fill the cases to a very uniform level. Anyone done a test to see it this is so?
If a thrown charge can vary by .1 gr, but the volume is always nearly the exact same couldn't it possibly cut extreme deviations or spreads?
I usually throw charges and trickle to finish a charge when loading rifle cases and my 6.5 JDJ. Handgun rounds I load on my square deal and never load max loads to be safe. My square deal has been just fine with checking accasional weights, but I visually check every case for powder, or double charges with fast powders. Call me paranoid, but I've had good results with my dillon

Jian Wa

Bushrat �

I agree a consistent technique is key. Like you, when a grain gets in position to get cut, I simply let it get cut. I have found, however, that that particular charge is generally close and that the charge that follows will be off more than normal. Then there is the random charge that is off more than normal for no apparent reason. The problem I have is that I cannot predict with any certainty which charges will be close enough (+/- 0.1g when I used my old Lyman M5) and those that are off by an unacceptable amount.

If I was shooting competition I would probably look for a ball powder or short extruded powder that met my needs and throw everything. But the fact is that I don�t shoot competition and can easily keep up with my ammo supply requirements by measuring each charge.

My measuring technique is to throw light charges that are within a few tenths of a grain and hand-adjust to +/- 0.0g using a PACT scale, checking the scale every 5-10 cases using a �homemade� 52.0g checkweight (a .224� Hornady 52g BTSP that always reads 52.0g when the scale is properly calibrated and zeroed). To adjust I use a plastic Dairy Queen spoon I picked up over 20 years ago. The final adjustment is often only a few kernels of powder, usually under 5. Within a few cases it gets pretty easy to read the scale and drop in exactly what is needed (or remove the right amount if the reading is too high). With a little practice, this process yields a loaded case every 10-15 seconds on average.

My process will never win any speed races, but I�ll put my ES and STD numbers up against anyone that merely throws extruded powder. And when I shoot a bigger than average group, I generally know why � shooter error.

But to each their own�

I use a redding BR measure, and since then don't weigh every charge. It has been a tremendous time saver, and my load notes are written down noting the setting of the thrower, not grain weights.

If I know the powder I'm using, and I'm not running at max loads, I'll even skip weighing charges. This is primarly with milder cast bullet loads. If I'm working at the upper end, yes I confirm with a scale.

The only problem is top loads with my 500 Jeffrey use more powder then the max charge the measure can throw <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> On the upside, I don't shoot enough of those rounds to worry about individually weighing them <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Coyote,



Three grains is a big deviation, and if I had experience that I wouldn't throw that powder either.



Like I posted earlier, .6 is the max I have seen with Hodgdon Extreme powders. However, I am using powders that meter well, primarily H4895, Varget, H4350, and H4831, and some with H-1000. I did try some RL and IMR powders recently--using up old powder for fireforming--and I had a lot of trouble with "bridging". Maybe the coating on IMR powders makes them more susceptible to bridging?



Did you get any bridging with the IMR4831?



Also, I'm not sure if the RCBS has as good of uniform powder filling in the measure's "powder chamber" as the Harrell or a Redding with the bottle adapter.

I have the same question..........

I think the drop tube allows a more uniform case fill, but I haven't tested it either.

I have thrown 90-100 grains before, and it seems like it takes a long time to run through the drop tube!

When working up a load, I throw with the powder measure because, well, what else am I going to throw with? However, I weigh my charges and check with the scale every time I change the powder measure. This has saved me problems a few times when I've adjusted the measure and not the scale, or vice versa.

My measure is a cheap one from Lee; it meters most ball powders closer than I could trickle by hand, and also does very well with smaller-grained extruded powders such as RL-15. When I'm making up 50-100 rounds, I meter into a scale pan, then swirl into the funnel. I check every 5-10 rounds just to make sure the meter hasn't gotten off, and also look into the cases when they're all charged.

This powder measure does have problems with "bridging" on bigger grained powders like IMR 4350 and especially IMR 4831. So I probably would weigh all of those, but haven't been using them much so the issue hasn't come up. Even then, when it happens, you pretty well know it -- like a 60% charge followed by a 140% charge.

John

Blaine -

I have had some problems bridging when I had the smaller "nozzle" on the RCBS measure, but don't recall any with the larger "nozzle".

Hodgdon powders do seem to throw more consistently due to their smaller kernel size. I use several Hodgdon extruded powders (H4198, Varget, Benchmark, H4831SC, H4895, H4350) and have been pretty happy with all of them, but I still measure each charge. Old habits die hard...

Well, I think Bushrat said it best:







Well said sir..................

4,231...4,232...4,233...



Huh, what? Weighing or throwing? Geez, you guys just slop any ol' charge in your cases and hope they shoot, right?



Me, I count individual granules of powder.



Got a load worked up for a .300 RUM, it only takes about 35 minutes to charge each case.



Four thousand, two hundred and - aw, shoot, where was I?



1, 2, 3, 4, 5...





<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



Still using the same RCBS Uniflow measure I bought circa 1976. For the long IMR powders - 4350, 4831 - I weigh every charge, for shorter stick powders like IMR-4895 or most of the Reloder series and all ball powders I just throw the charge.

I weigh my rifle loads where .1gr in 50 - 60 grs amounts to squat, and throw my handgun loads, living with a possible couple tenths variation in 5-10 gr loads <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
I`ve never said I know what I`m doing , just that I do it.......works for me though.

I weigh and trickle all of my powder charges as it is not a big deal if you are only loading 20 or so big game rounds. if I am loading 60 grains, my acceptable range is 59.9-60.1. I do not know if it makes much of a difference but it is too easy not to do for a box of ammo.

I had one gun that gave me a good lesson in how very precise powder charges aren't always important. It was a contender 14" pistol, in a wildcat chambering that necked the 30/30 down to 6.5mm and sharpened the shoulder to as I recall 38 degrees. Anyhow, that setup should be inacurate right? Break open action, crummy thutty thutty brass, and a pistol to boot. Well, at the time all I had was a lee powder measure, and of RL 15, Varget, VV N550 and H-4350, 4350 would shoot twice as well as the other powders.

I don't recall the exact powder charge, somewhere around 35-36 gr, but the lee measure would very charges by upwards of a grain. Despite the varrying charges from the Lee measure, that gun would consistantly shoot 3 shot 100 yd groups of 1/2".

Guys,



Between talking with Mtn Hunter and Bxroads, I think I have figured out what all the fuss was about.



I have only used the Harrell powder measure. The Harrell is marked in gradations from zero to 200 in 1/2 "click" increments. The powder capacity setting knob is a cylinder that�s about an inch in diameter and is very easy to set and to read.



If my setting last week at the range was 120 clicks, all I have to do is turn the knob until it reads 120 again and start throwing--it will throw the same charge. The Harrell is very consistent and repeatable. However, if it didn't have any numbers marked, then I agree that you'd want to verify at least the first setting, if not each setting, with a scale.



I agree with Mtn Hunter that if you use a powder measure that does not have numbered gradations, then you are indeed reloading blind if you don't verify your measure's settings with a scale each time you make a change.



When I said I didn't use a scale during load development, it makes sense many would call that dangerous, given a powder measure without numbered gradations and/or not checking to see what one's measure actually throws.



Here is what I do. Each time I use a new powder, I throw 10 charges into my scale. I do this at home. I see how much powder it throws and what the variation is. I write this down. H-4350 throws .57 grains per numbered gradation. "Numbered gradation" is what I mean by "click". To be on the conservative side, I use .6 grains per click. I then find a minimum load in grains from the manual, and divide that by .6. IE, 50 grains of powder equals 83 "clicks". Then I set my Harrell on 83 clicks and start loading.



To me, the above doesn't constitute using a scale for load development because I don't take it to the range with me. However, I am using a scale to check my measure for each type of powder I use, I just do that at home.



I hope this all makes more sense...........

About the only way I'll believe it is if I can try it myself. So send me a Harrell and let me give it a whirl <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Roads

Next time I will make sure I am very clear on how my measure is set up. Though some of this stuff is better "shown" than "told"................

Here is a link to Harrell. I have the premium, but the picture on the home page gives the best view of how it's gradations are marked.

http://www.harrellsprec.com/index.html

I too use the Throw vice weigh method. I keep a reloading diary that lists the bullet weight and make, the setting for my Redding powder thrower (all though I check it at the begining of each session and note any discrenpicies), the brass and primer used where I got the starting load, the date, the results and chronograph results as well as any think else that runs through my mind while reloading.

I also include the trim length and setting for my wilson trimmer.

Harrell's is reputed to be one of the most consistent measures. I haven't had the spare bucks to get one to try. About the only suggestion that I can make is to try Tim Johnson's Quick Measure to see whether it's more consistent than Harrell's measure.

All the best tests that I've heard-of agree that carefully thrown charges � even with second-rate measures � produce more-consistent groups than carefully weighed charges. I'm not satisfied that the ultimate comparison has been made, so there may be more light out there waiting to be lit.

I think this ***may*** be true when comparing charges from different lots of powder, but I find it hard to believe when comparing charges thrown using the SAME lot of powder.

My RCBS Uniflow is extremely consistent when throwing ball powder (+/- 0.1g), very consistent when throwing small kernel extruded powder (+/- 0.5g), but may vary by a total of 2.0g or more when thowing large extruded powder like IMR4831 (most are more consistent than that, but you have to work with Extreme Spread and Standard Deviation in charge weights). From my load development work, which I do in 0.5g increments, I can tell you there is no way that thrown charges that vary by 2.0g will be as consistent as weighed charges that vary +/- 0.0g.

Some of my most consistent loads have been for my Marlin .45-70 and my buddy's Marlin .30-30. Part of the reason may be because we crimp the loads and the crimp helps ensure a more consistent ignition, but shooting 5-shot strings will often yield Extreme Spreads under 5fps, with Standard Deviations as low as 1.7fps. Hand-weighed charges, of course.

Does it make a big difference for hunting purposes? I think it would be hard to build a case for that argument. But still, I throw my ball powders and weigh my extruded powders.

I don't think that I've ever run across any claim that thrown charges are more consistent in weight and don't remember any claim of more-consistent velocities than with weighed charges � only that their groups are more consistent. I thought that was what I said.

Jim I not only count each granule of powder I also weigh each one and anydifference in a granual varining more than 2 percent gets thrown out. Some day soon I will get that second round loaded then look out we is gonna be talking some kinda accuracy. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

Bullwnkl.

Way to go, 'Winky! (Long way to go.)


<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

A two round group don't count. Were it me I'd keep going till I at least had three! Like Ken said, "You got a long way to go!" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
We're cheering you on. We'll expect a range report in 2006. That's not toooo soon, is it??? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


I drop close to weight, and then trickle up. Works for me.

I think it was in Hatcher's Notebook (???) where Hatcher (or someone) described his efforts to improve the arsenal National Match loads by weighing the powder charges, which at the time used 4064. Unfortunately, and perhaps intuitively paradoxically, the weighed charges consistently produced LESS accuracy than the machine thrown volume charges. He repeated the experiment several times, and always got the same result, too, so it wasn't a statistical fluke. He checked all the loading equipment and techniques, and could find nothing to slant the tests one way or the other.

He said he really couldn't fathom the reason for this, unless it was a factor of how the powder charges ignited. Perhaps, he theorized, the bulkier thrown charges left just enough more air space between the powder granules that the flash from the primers penetrated the charge better, producing more uniform ignition. He firmly stated this was just a theory, and wasn't sure it was THE reason, but it was all he could think of, and I suspect he was correct, though I too can offer no real proof. It just sounds "good," since ignition of the charge is or can be a very significant factor in accuracy.

I think the only real answer will have to come from actual shooting of the load with both weighed and thrown charges. If the thrown charges are more accurate, do we REALLY need to know just exactly WHY??? the main thing is finding THE load, right?

Just because Hatcher's experiments with the National Match loads shot better with thrown charges don't necessarily mean your charges with some other extruded powder will follow suit, of course, and that's why one needs to try the thrown vs. weighed charges in one's own gun. Without this, we're just speculating, and if one shoots better than the other, just use it, and maybe one day someone will figure out the reason you're getting the results you get with your gun.

Mysteries like this aren't really a "bad" thing. Surely makes us re-think what we do sometimes, doesn't it?

Wanted to see if this thread could be brought to life 'cause I have some comments to be made.


Big Al

Earlier in this thread I posted that maybe I should convert to ball powders and be done with it. Well I haven't done that, but since the majority of my loading lately has been for 308 Win., 300 and 250 Savage my main powders have been IMR & H4895, Varget, IMR4320 and RL-15. With these small kernel powders I find that I can throw charges to +/- 0.2 grains. In fact when I was setting up the measure yesterday to throw charges of 41.5 grains of H4895 for my 300 Savage, I was able to hold them to +/- 0.1 grains most of the time. I think this tolerance is way tighter than anything I need to worry about, so I'm content to throw and go.

BTW, I'm using a plain old Uniflow with one of those bent metal powder baffles dropped into the bottom of the hopper being the only modification.

mathman

The question is very easy to answer, if you are willing to do a little bit of basic math.

The 223 is fairly sensitive to variation in charge weight. Very roughly, a grain of powder is about 100 fps, vs. 50-65 in larger cases. So use the 223 as a near worst case example.

Standard deviation is the most sophisticated measure of variation available.

If I'm not being terribly fussy, the standard deviation of my handloads, with individually weighed poweder charges, is about 25 fps, normally distributed.

Using Varget, and a $23 Lee Perfect Powder Measure, the standard deviation of powder weights is .11 grains.

A grain of powder is about 100 fps, so the "thrown" charges have a standard deviation of 11 fps.

BUT:

Standard deviations do not add linearly. They add by the square root of the sum of the squares. Compared with 25 fps for individually hand weighed, the standard deviation for "thrown" charges will be

(25^2 + 11^2)^.5 = 27.31 fps.

So assuming that I can perfectly hand measure charges, the penalty for using the measure is an increase from 25 to 27.31 fps. In larger cartridges, it makes less difference than that.

You would have to shoot many hundreds of rounds to statistically detect that a change this small even existed at all.

Has anybody tried the JDS Quick Measure?I saw their ad on p.117 of Rifle magazine.www.quick-measure.com
Any opinions?
Thanks,
Jim

Took me a day or so to write in bits and pieces, here and there, in Word, what I wanted to say. Here it is.

To those who are tired of this thread; sorry! Wish I�d been a 24HC member back then. I was probably spending most of my time over on AR15.com, Shootingsportsman.com or gunshop.com. I�ve been reloading since 1974; Everything! My favorite rifle, a 1982 heavily custom built Rem 700 in 30-06 has seen maybe 15-20 rounds of factory loads thru it. The other thousands of rounds have been put together by me.

I first want to say to Blaine what a wonderful job of thoughtfully putting together and posting his first and subsequent posts on this string; except that one �oops� where he said.

"am still puzzled why someone would think load development while throwing powder is dangerous. I know about what my measure throws and start on the conservative side. Then I increase the charge two clicks at a time (1-1.2 grains)."

I too own a Harrell�s Premium powder meter and when I read this post, I knew what Blaine meant. One click actually equals about .1 grains give or take .05 gr, and knew many others would be confused.

To Coyote Hunter, I hope by reading other�s posts here, you realize that if you are throwing an extreme spread of 3.0 grains of IMR 4831, your technique needs some serious work. I too would not �throw� any powder if it had that large an ES. It�s commendable to be throwing +/- .1 gr of ball powder with a Uniflow; many can and do equal that or better. With my Uniflow and 4831, I�m running +/- .4 gr at worst and my Harrell�s is giving me +/- .3 gr at worst.

You know what convinced me to start 1) �throwing� powders and 2) building loads at the range WITHOUT a scale. Glen Zediker�s book on Competitive Reloading. He covers these two subjects in scads. If he does not write about it sufficiently one way, he will write it one or more ways to explain his point until everyone �should� get it. Even if you still disagree, then you�re just too set in your ways. No argument there.

What really switched me over to use volume vs. weighing was the issue of constantly changing variances unique to powder and powder scales. The convenience of throwing is nice too!

Powders, by their very nature, over a period of time, can and will loose or gain moisture which means their weight/density fluctuates. If I buy a new can of XYZ powder and develop a great shooting load via weighing, then the next time I load up a batch using that same powder who�s to say the charge is exactly the same as it was before. I�ve got a great example. I�ve got a Nosler 180 gr Ballistic Tip or AccuBond 30-06 load. The load uses H4895 and is on the max edge with 49 grs. I didn�t develop this load by weighing, but by throwing. My Uniflow is set at 4.502 or my Harrell�s is set at 86.0 clicks to throw 49 grs. How do I know its 49 grs? I can take some loaded rounds home, pull the bullets and weight them. Or, I could simply throw the same charge from either meter at home and weigh it. Now all throwing did for me was to establish, for me, it was 49 grs on that particular day. Tomorrow, next week, next month or next year, that same setting on either meter will throw the same �volume� of H4895 but it might weigh 48.7,8,9 or 49.1,2, or 3 grains. Hope this is clear. Volume for volume does not change. If it does, you had better buy yourself a better powder meter. I will probably never use my Uniflow again. I will keep it so that if I ever damage, loose, or have my Harrell�s stolen, I will have a back-up meter on hand until I can get another Harrell�s.

As for dangerous loading without a scale; let me cover why it�s a very safe way to do that. If Hodgdon says I can load between 41 and 46 grs of H48985 with a Sierra spitzer BT for that 180 gr in an �06, then at home I�m going to figure out what settings (71.4 clicks) will start me at 41 grs and what settings will get me to 46 gr (80.4 clicks) and then some more. We all know every load in a different gun is an individual unto itself. The loading data is a starting place. So I go to the range with my meter, powder, bullets, prepped and primed brass, seater die already locked into my little Lee press, chronograph, and .0001� micrometer, etc. I set up my little portable loading/shooting bench and start with a couple of rounds loaded at a meter setting of 71.4 clicks (or higher if I don�t wish to start at the beginning). I shoot, check the typical pressure signs, annotate the chronograph velocity readings and very importantly, I mic the case heads to .0001� just ahead of the extractor rim. Things look good, I crank on 3 more clicks (actually .095 grains of powder for each click) I load up 2-3 more rounds and repeat. As I keep working up I see a pattern of typical velocity increases with each .3 gr increase. At a point where I�m getting smaller and smaller increases with .3 gr I know I�m nearing max and will probably reduce my increases to 2 or even 1 click on the meter. I really start paying attention to my chronograph and mic readings. Once I hit an average of .0006 case head expansion, I know I�ve hit MY max, for that combination of components in MY rifle. Low and behold, when I get home and check the �weighed� amount of powder from some pulled bullet loads or throw some charges, it�s 3 gr over the book max. If could have gone the other way. My rifle might have had a tight chamber or barrel, or a short leade. I could have ended up less than the book max of 46 grs. You know what�s neat, I didn�t have to keep going back and forth from home to range with either the need to load up more rounds or pull bullets because I knew they were over the max.

The next variance is powder scales. Simply put I just don�t trust weighing as much as I used to and I�ve got a lab grade scale from Ohaus which will measure to .025 grains. Let me clarify my mistrust. On any given day, I know my scale, when zeroed, works perfectly. What I don�t trust is the next day or week or month compared to today. On the day my load of 49 grs was developed, I know I could load up more rounds by throwing a 48.5 gr charge and trickle in the last .5 grs. But, when I decide to load up the same load in the future, the first thing I do is check my zero; as I�m sure everyone does. Too many times my zero is different from the last time I used that scale and I have to re-zero the scale. I�m sure the good book (reloading manual; that is) says �Let him who has not had to re-zero his scale throw the first bullet!�

The final determiner is accuracy. Many folks feel they need to hit +/- .00 grs on the scale to get that accuracy. �You live with what you live with�. In my rifles, I can live with out worrying about the last .01� in that group and I can live with out that +/- .00 grs when the scale comes to a complete stop. In the reloading world, at least mine, many say they should try for a goal of +/- 1% of a powder charge.

In a small 223 case where 25 grs is a base figure, that would be .25 grs. I can throw H4895 +/- .15 gr or an ES of .3 gr; usually +/- .1 or .2 gr ES.

A case the size of a 30-06 where 60 grs is about max, .6 grs is the number. I can throw 4831 +/- .3 gr or .6 ES. Though I use H4350 and keep it to +/- .2 or .4 ES.

A big case like a 300 RUM holding around 100 grs needs 1 gr as the number. Don�t know. Don�t own one, don�t want one. Haven�t thrown powders like Retumbo.

Ok, there! I�ve made my comments.

Big Al

I want to thank everybody who contributed to this thread so far. The level of expertise of posters on this site is unreal. I've never, in 30 years of reloading, used a powder measure, believing that weighing was the best way to measure powder. However, the knowledgeable discourse on this thread has convinced me that, all things considered, measuring volume has significant advantages over measuring weight. I'm off to get a powder measure!

Must read! This is a different powder measure design and explains the differences. www.quick-measure.com/design1.htm