Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Powder Measuring Process?

I've been reloading now about 11 years and am always looking to improve efficiency of my loading process.

As of now, I use a Lee Perfect Powder measure to drop powder in a pan and then I weight in with a RCBS 505 scale. If it is off a bit, I will trickle up with a Redding powder trickle. I do this for all of my loading whether it be for pistol, rifle hunting loads or longe range stuff.


My questions are these. How many of you use this process? Do any of you solely rely on a powder drop even for your longe range loads? Walk me through your process.

I used to drop an underweight charge and trickle it up to exact weight for each round but articles and personal experience have convinced me there is no need to do that, even for large stick powders like H4831. With a consistent technique you can keep charge weight variation down to maybe a tenth +- at worst, with fine ball powders you can keep variation down to almost nothing. And even with a tenth either side of perfect that little variation doesn't hurt anything. Maybe it would for super long range shooting but I don't do that and I haven't seen dropped charges affect groups at hunting ranges, especially when you find the sweet spot for your load anyway.

The powder measure is set with the scale by dropping three charges at once and weighing that to make sure the average of three drops is where I want it. The cases are put in a loading block, the block passed under the measure and the powder is dropped directly into each case. Then as a double check I look into each case for any powder level glaringly under or over the rest.

The main advantage I can think of doing that is that I get a rhythm going and this really helps work the powder handle uniformly each time. It really is like a drum beat or a metronome - bump bump, bump bump. I double bump the handle on the up and down stroke for stick powders - that double bump at the bottom helps prevent any bridging - but don't bother for ball or flake. But in my mind double bumping or not really isn't as important in getting a uniform powder drop as just working the handle consistently with the same force each time.

Lots of ways to skin that cat, this is the way I chose.

I use the PPM only, it is a volume device so it isn't supposed to give you a singular weight.

So here is the deal for Extruded powders only. They have their burning rates controlled by geometry, meaning volume. An extruded powder with a higher bulk density (more nitro) will have a correspondingly slower burning rate; the inverse of this is also true. Fundamentally burning rates don't change if you cut a kernel, so don't let that worn out argument bother you. If you load only by weight, you ignore this design function. And if you have the newest Norma manual, there is some wonderful test data on how much burning rates shift (loaded ammo, or sealed powder bottles) from changing moisture content. Well if you are only loading by weight, you are potentially aggrevating the burning rate issue, with a BD shift due to moisture.

So personally, I do a VMD for my bottles of powder, then begin loading. Other than
Testing my bottles VMD, I haven't weighed a powder charge in close to a decade; this includes the loads I use to a mile in a few rifles.
Is this the only way to do it? Of course not, but it's what I do. Either my marksmanship is world class and overcome a stupid loading technique, that no one knows about. OR a volume loading technique is at least as good as any weight system, and I'm a pretty decent shot also.
Choose whichever seems more reasonable.

As I've said here many times, variation does not add linearly. The smaller sources of variation contribute almost nothing to the total variation.

With the older, non-temperature compensated powders 3 degrees F change in the root of the barrel and the ammunition is roughly the same as .1 grain of powder. If you are not controlling the temperature of the rifle to within 3 degrees F, there is no point in trying to control powder within .1 grain.

With Varget in my Perfect Powder Measure, the standard deviation of the random error in the weight is .11 grains for a 223 Rem load. If you don't worry about individually weighing your bullets, checking the water capacity of each case, and testing the state of annealing for each case neck, you'll usually get an MV standard deviation of 25 FPS or so. In round numbers, in the 223, 1 grain of powder is about 100 FPS. So the standard deviation of MV due to the random error in the Perfect Powder Measure is about 11 FPS.

Now the math: If you somehow manage to get all your charges perfectly uniform, and have a 25 FPS standard deviation in your MV, and then switch to the Perfect Powder Measure, the standard deviation of the MV of the resulting loads will be

(square root (25^2+11^2)) = 27.3 FPS

You'd have to do quite a bit of shooting to statistically detect such a small change. With TAC, the change is even less.

Individually hand weighing charges is a grand waste of time.

Wow, interesting stuff. I was just cussing my Hornady Lock n Load powder measure this morning for throwing charges that varied by as much as .5 grains. I bought it to replace a LPP. I thought I was upgrading.

I had my epiphany when I tried a digital powder measure. It wandered something terrible, and it didn't take me long to realize the RCBS powder measure I inherited from my Granddad was a whole lot more consistent, and safer, then the modern digital. I try to stick with modern ball or fine extruded powders such as Tac and Benchmark when I can. I set the measure vs. the equally old balance been scale, triple check, and go.

As mentioned above, in most instances there are much larger variances to worry about.

What everybody else said, plus a couple more comments:

A big commercial pressure lab here in Montana discovered a number of years ago that their powder was losing considerable moisture because of the dry climate, which of course affected pressures when weighing charges. They eventually built a climate-controlled room for powder to help alleviate the problem.

Yet many handloaders who firmly believe that weighing every charge "exactly" will help accuracy. They not only dump a bunch of powder in a container when weighing it out, allowing it to lose moisture as they dip powder out over an hour or two, but leave the top off the powder canister, so they can dump a little more in as needed.

It's also interesting to find out how many handloaders obsessively weigh every charge, because they're convinced that's the "secret" to fine accuracy--when they've never even checked their brass for consistent neck thickness, kept track of how many times a batch has been fired, or ever annealed a case.

I do weigh many charges during a year, for load-testing when writing articles. But I only dump enough powder into a small container to get the job done, and screw the cap back on the canister immediately.

But after working up a load I always load ammo with a mechanical measure, setting my measures to the place noted in my loading notes. If I were a 1000-yard benchrest shooter I might weigh every charge, but I'd still be pretty anal about minimizing how much moisture it lost during weighing and even storage.

Dump and run. I haven't used a powder trickle since Clinton was in office.

I weigh every charge, like you.

Makes me feel better and I ain't running no race when I load. I'm doing it for the enjoyment.

To each their own.

This is so fascinating to me. I was painstaking loading down to the 10th of a grain today. With the Honady LNL and it's .5 grain variance, it's probably worth it. I should switch back to the Lee and save myself some time though. I used to dump with the Lee and managed to crank out some pretty accurate stuff. I switched to a well respected electronic scale, the Hornaday LNL and finally bought a trickler thinking I was doing myself a favor. Maybe there's something to those little yellow dippers Richard Lee believes so strongly in.

Heck I may go out and dip and weigh some charges. I'll bet the dipper is more accurate than the LNL.

Keep the information coming men. This is opening my eyes. This is some good stuff.

I tried the no tap method while using my RCBS measure and had to go back to tapping.

If I set it up for no tap, and then throw a couple of taps in there for good measure, the charges get heavy.

But if you just stay consistent in your method, it does not matter what you do, the charges will be within a tenth.

If I have a small batch to do, I will use the Chargemaster, otherwise I just throw them with the measure. Check every 20 or so and make sure the adjuster is screwed down tight and that the drum is not backing out.

I throw 99% of my charges. Using a Redding BR measure, or a little dandy or Lee Dippers or on a Dillon Square deal B.

I do sometimes weigh and trickle but it's rare. I make notes as to what the measure setting was and use that.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ the most important step of handloading^ ^ ^

Naaahhhh, I like the adventure of going into unexplored territory each time...

I have an RCBS charge master dispenser and scale. It is a little pricey but I won't go back to measuring loads anymore. You put the tray on the scale load up a bullet and by the time you're done another charge is in the tray.

By the way have you ever seen competitive rifle shooters make their loads? They don't use the scale they load by volume.

That varies by discipline and distance.

Electric powder measures are way to slow for me.

If I weighed and trickled for every case I'd take up golf.

Or have any idea of how straight (or not) their assembled cartridges are.

I've found that the internet is the greatest boon to individual bragging groups and their extrapolation to "all day long" accuracy ever invented...




Okay, in a major effort to be serious, I really have found that straight ammo offers the single greatest improvement to accuracy overall of any other technique I’ve tried. Using a compatible powder and bullets the rifle likes are still important but sorting for neck concentricity or using brass already sorted, then sizing and seating straight to minimize runout produces better groups every time no matter what other factors are involved.

I still remember the epiphany I had in the late 90’s after reading MD’s first articles on that subject. I had a M700 .300 Win Mag that was a 1 1/2” grouper at best, with most groups going up into 2” or worse. After reading about sorting I got a Sinclair gauge and sorted that brass into those with .0015” concentricity and those with more and took more pains to make sure runout of sized brass and loaded bullets was held to a minimum. Then I fired groups with the concentric brass and suddenly that rifle that had been the recipient of every voodoo technique and spell I knew turned into a 3/4” grouper.

And that was with thrown charges to boot...