Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Precision reloading guide

Would be interesting to see the weighing-vs.-throwing analyses done with one of the modern lab scales that are available, like a Sartorius or A&D. In other words, if there is no statistical difference between a good powder measure and a Chargemaster, is there any statistical difference between a good powder measure and an A&D FX120i or similar?

Maybe this has already been done, dunno. I've always weighed each charge, probably for no other reason than it makes me feel better...

If someone were to say that it makes no difference if you use your left hand or your right hand to place a case in a shell holder, someone would instantly pop up to state that it might not make much of a difference to the average shooter (not them), but if a person is truly interested in fine accuracy, it does.

I haven't done exactly that, but I have run the stats on my Lee Perfect Powder Measure ($27) and my Hornady balance scale. For the balance scale, the smallest change or difference it has a 50% chance of detecting (Probable Error) is better than .04 grain. With ball powder, the measure is only slightly less capable.

If you run through the math at the link I posted earlier, in most cartridges a standard deviation in throw weight of .2 grains produces an effect so small that you would have to shoot many, many cartridges to even detect it.

There are things to work on that matter more.

Boy, that’s a darned fact.

Charge accuracy has very little if anything to do with why BR shooters use the measures they do. If you understood how effective they are for range loading and/or keeping a BR rifle in tune you'd understand why shooters use them. Have fun with your spoons and I'll gladly continue using my Harrells measure.

I use a Lee measure. Or scoops.

5sdad,

Once read an article by an expert who claimed that dumping powder into the funnel so it swirled clockwise resulted in lower standard deviation in muzzle velocity than if the powder swirled counter-clockwise. Or maybe it was the other way around. Can't remember, perhaps because I did not test his claim....

That must have been difficult for people in the other hemisphere. Perhaps the old IMR cans had spouts located on the other side of the can when made for export.

have shot 100-200 yard bench rest,FTR class,1000yd. and other stuff, but i hunt with my handloads in the fall and many years ago i wasn`t happy because i couldn`t shoot small 1/4 inch groups with this one rifle i was going to hunt with. well my old hunting partner Jonny Bell said this to me that fall : you are not hunting mice your hunting deer so a 1 inch even a 1 1/2 inch group is good enough for regular deer hunting. so just enjoy yourself with your handloads ,i will say this the Berger handloading book is a excellent read about Walt Berger and Mule Deer`S Gun Gack volumes 1 & 2 are another great reads and he does have volume 3 coming out soon too. i will talk about this one 100-200 yard bench shoot i went too everyone was using all their hand hammer resizing tools and the Harrel powder measure except this telephone construction worker who came to the bench rest shoot that weekend with the company telephone truck and his telephone uniform on. he did have a nice rifle but all`s he had was a set of regular 2-die Redding reloading dies,a press he c-clamped down and a Redding powder measure and his 2 aluminum cleaning rods and some hoppe`s solvent. he kicked everyone`s butt that weekend with the best groups 100 and 200 yards,best averages. i was new to all this and shot in the middle of the pack but this telephone lineman sure gave those guys a eye opener with his average reloading equipment.

RMI 5984 is darn good powder down there

Whatever, Selby....

Precisionly....

Nothing wrong with either one. While it's been quite a long time since I've used dippers, I've been a fan of Lee's for difficult stick powders. It's just that clicks are so easy to use for range loading I can't see ever going back

Rickshaw,

Having chased precision reloading spec’s in the different disciplines, keep in mind I actually trained as a gunsmith as well.. that’s a lot of time and on hand work.

As MD and Steve said - if you are happy where you are on accuracy results... then if you have time to try a few new tricks when reloading do so, if not... no sweat.

The reality is that if you go into any specific discipline of shooting you’ll find different things people do to increase their score, which could me custom chambers (non SAAMI), or different platforms all of which create different results based on what you change factor wise. I.E. a bench rest shooter will point you to neck turning, but a high power shooter won’t... PRS, and F-class tend to look more at kick and performance (PRS), where F-Class might look at dodging the wind... which means bullets.

So in the end it depends where you are - my only advice here would be to identify the range at which you typically shoot game, and then find a sport that aligns to that and investigate what they do accuracy wise. BUT only if you are a accuracy nut !! 95% of shooting inside of 300 yards doesn’t require anything more than what you have in general off the shelf reloading manuals.
IMO, Once you cross that 300 yard line then it’s best explore a shooting disciple I.E. - PD shooters follow bench rest guys path, practice shooters follow PRS, Highpower & F-class, ...

For the most part, what I did 25 years ago with varying bullet weight, then powder, then seating depth to find the best performing load for any specific rifle Still holds very, very true...
I now know the science behind them, plus MD’s articles help point out .. oops you bent the stem in the forming dies and now are screwing up your necks... type stuff really help a guy ID things that they may unknowingly being doing wrong...

With regards to throwing case charges vs. weighing each load;

About 15 years ago I came to a conclusion (however false this conclusion might have been) that some of the so-called extremely accurate factory ammunition that many of the rifle-smiths of the day were using to prove they had “accurized” your rifle, were actually weighed on the assembly line and not thrown from a powder measure. Considering the very real issue of varying case weights coming down the assembly line, the heavier (thicker) have less volume inside, thus producing more pressure compared to a lighter case with more powder.

I decided to do an experiment with military brass that I had formed from Mil-Spec 30-06 brass. The brass was from different lots and varied considerably in weight but were all fire-formed in the same chamber and trimmed. I will have to dig through my notes to find what chambering I conducted the test in since I have formed 8X57, 7X57 and 308 all from the same Mil-Spec brass.
But what I essentially did was take 20 cases and weighed them all and marked the weights on the side of each case. I then took the three lightest cases and worked up what I considered a safe working load with that particular powder & bullet combo. So let’s say the safe load was 50 grains of powder X in a case that weighed 180 grains. I then filled the three lightest case along with the 50 grains of powder X charge inside and recorded the total weight of case and powder. The result would be a case weighing 230 grains. I then took the remaining heavier cases and filled each case with the same powder to equal the same total weight of the lighter cases, i.e. 230 grains.
In other words I had 20 cases all weighing exactly 230 grains with powder inside. Now remember the cases themselves varied as much as 3-1/2 grains or more, so the end result was the heaviest cases had 3-1/2 grains or so less powder inside them. I then seated the bullets to the same depth and fired them at a 100 yard target over a chronograph.

This very “limited” experiment produced some surprising results. As I recall the velocities did vary more than most shooters would like but the loadings produced pretty decent accuracy, roughly about a 1-1/2” to 2’” groups at 100 yards.

weighing every charge for every cartridge could be more accurate for a benchrest shooter maybe ? but volume loading is to me accurate enough and makes reloading still fun and much faster. a good friend of mine builds some real precision rifles for people and shoots bench rest alot and still does very well ,he`s 71 years of age ,he volume loads always. i have seen and shot myself some very good groups volume loading , i see no reason to ever weigh powder for every cartridge,i did notice no deer complained .

During the life of the magazine, Precision Shooting, I was a subscriber. Among mostly benchrest shooters, that argument existed. Almost without exception the perennial winners always dumped powder by volume out of a measure, mainly for speed and ease of loading between rounds. I bought a Harrell's measure, which I still have. I shot many hundreds of rounds both ways and never really saw any real difference. I ultimately went to weighing each charge in preference, mainly to eliminate any question in my mind when one didn't go where it was supposed to.

Bob338,

Which is why before the Harrell's many benchrest shooters used the Lyman 55 with the Culver conversion: It was consistently adjustable to the same charge weight.

Luckily, I have one, a generous gift from Ken Oehler.

That's how I got started using BR measures. Some years ago a friend lent me a Neil Jones converted 55 and it didn't take long to almost entirely ditch my old measures.

Life was simpler before the internet. My loading bench wasn’t so crowded with fancy equipment. Lately, like a few people here ( Steve ) I have started to regress, and just load to have fun and shoot. My rifles still shoot about the same and I can find things on my bench.

None of my rifles are capable of the gilt edge accuracy that all this extra effort requires. All are factory wood stocked rifles. Some have triggers replaced or massaged, but that’s all. None are glass bedded or have after market barrels..although my Swift might soon.

I guess what I’m trying to say is as long as you are enjoying your hobby, your doing everything right, no matter how you do it.