Grains to grams

[higgite]

Besides cardinal points, there are also cardinal numbers. Here are 2 examples.

{Edit: removed hotlinked image. Hotlinking is not allowed on this board.}

[dahermit]

...And anyone who thinks beam scales are foolproof is only fooling themselves.

The beam scales are not foolproof...only more foolproof than the electronic scales.
The RCBS balance beam scale I had since way before 1986 is still working but the three or so electronic scales that I attempted to "upgrade" to have all failed...the longest lasting three years (RCBS Partner).

[Marco Califo]

Ohhh. So, you guys are saying to calibrate your digital scale you have to point it in 8 different directions, and, what? Take an average? For one charge, you have to record results, and then do math? And by then the batteries fail.

[FlyFish]

FYI, if you bring up a Google search box and enter "X grams in grains" - or the reverse, or just about any other two units of measure - then hit enter, you'll get the answer.

[Marco Califo]

I tried that. Mass x grains didn't work. Reference Ohier's post above.

CC's are used by Lee as a 'preset' value to dial in powder charges on the first try. Lee publishes a table of weight x CC for each powder. It is missing some. But the system actually works very well to get you at your desired charge weight quickly. None of the powders I have ever used came in liquid form, so I have no idea where that person's comments originate.
I thought the Cardinal numbers started with a Zero: 0 for 2, 0 for 5, etc.. Increasing as the season progresses.

[primerman]

I wonder, when was the last time gravity was calibrated?

[dahermit]

I wonder, when was the last time gravity was calibrated?

It is dependent upon your altitude.

[FlyFish]

I tried that. Mass x grains didn't work.

Of course it didn't - mass is not a unit of measure.

[F. Guffey]

There was a post here several years ago where a guy had one of those cheap multi-unit digital scales. He got it set to some other unit than grains, grossly overloaded his ammo, and wrecked the gun.

I purchased an Ohaus/RCBS 10/10 scale with two beams, one in grams and the other in grains. For me there was little chance of getting them mixed up. The case will not hold the powder when using the gram scale when it is confused with the grain scale.

F. Guffey

[Elkins45]

Originally Posted by reddog81

FWIW, My $36 Frankford Arsenal scale is still going strong after 6 years and my $24 Smart Weigh Gem Tech20 is still going strong after 2 years.

IMO digital scales are much easier to use than any of the manual ones and even the cheap ones designed for reloading are sufficient for measuring with any normal reloading setup. And anyone who thinks beam scales are foolproof is only fooling themselves.

The problem with cheap digital scales losing calibration is that it is often is only discovered after an overcharge or a squib. Unless you break the beam or lose a counterweight a beam scale will always remain at least somewhat accurately calibrated. I’ve seen cheap digital scales do really stupid things, and do them in totally non-repeatable ways.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Nube

I am in the process of getting ready to reload and just doing some research on different scales and their calibration

As LeverGunFan wrote in post #8, forget conversions and buy a scale that measures directly in grains. You'll be using it a lot in reloading (or you should), and you'll quickly drive yourself nuts if you constantly have to convert. Either that, or you quickly find that you're weighing a lot less often than you should because it's too much trouble to convert.

And an error in converting can have consequences.

[primerman]

Originally Posted by dahermit

It is dependent upon your altitude.

So if I'm reloading in Denver i'll weigh less than if I'm reloading in Miami? I'm packing my bags now.

[Unclenick]

It depends. If you gain altitude by getting on a mountain, you can actually gain weight. The solid rock is denser than loose earth or water, so its greater mass raises the gravitational field. If you want to go where you'll weigh least, get a boat to take you out over the Mariana Trench. Water is less dense than rock and there is a lot of it under you there, so you have a less intense gravitational field.

That said, electronic scales and spring measure weight (how much force a given mass presses down on a scale in a gravitational field) while balances measure mass. If you go the moon, the electronic scale will say your bullet weighs less unless you recalibrate it for the moon). But a balance will still say you have the same bullet weight because it is balancing mass on one side of the balance point against a mass on the other. Both masses will lose the same amount of weight going to the moon, so they will still balance against each other at zero.

Mass (the physical and not the religious kind) has units of slugs in the Avoirdupois system. A slug is the amount of mass 1 lb of force accelerates at a rate of 1 ft/s².

The Avoirdupois system of measure uses pounds for force and for weight and has slugs for mass.
The metric MKS system has mass and weight in the same units, kilograms, but force is a separate unit, the Newton. One Newton of force accelerates a mass of one kilogram at a rate of 1 m/s².

All European and other CIP countries use grams for bullet and charge weights. The resolution for charge weight is usually 0.01 grams or about 0.15432358 grains in European load data.


Nube,

There really isn't anything here for you to determine unless you intend to substitute yourself for the international standards and measures organizations. These organizations tell us there are 7000 grains in a pound, but only 453.59237 grams in a pound. How much bigger is 7000 than 453.59237? 15.432358 times bigger. Hence, that is how many grains there are in a gram.


Cardinal Numbers, according to Merriam Webster:

cardinal number, noun
Definition of cardinal number

1 : a number (such as 1, 5, 15) that is used in simple counting and that indicates how many elements there are in an assemblage — see Table of Numbers

2 : the property that a mathematical set has in common with all sets that can be put in one-to-one correspondence with it.

It's the correspondence between a check weight and scale reading that follows the second definition of being a cardinal number.

[primerman]

screw that, I'm getting off this rock. I'm buying a boat...

[FrankenMauser]

screw that, I'm getting off this rock. I'm buying a boat...

Better keep a .470 Nitro with you. Graboids can swim.

[Unclenick]

If you really want to lose some weight, fly over the Mariana trench at high altitude. In fact, save your pennies and buy a Space-X or Virgin Galactic ticket. You won't be light for long, but you will be among the world record weight loss rate holders.

[Howland]

Here you go.

[Unclenick]

2016? I thought I put that Excel table together longer ago than that. Maybe not.

[F. Guffey]

I just sold a 4 beam Ohaus lab. type scale that measured in grams; at the same time I have Ohaus/RCBS scales that measure in grains. And for the need of parts I purchased a 10/10 RCBS scale with two beams, one beam measured in grams, the other in grains.

Not over yet: I have an 2 additional Ohaus 3 beam lab type scales that I am going to sell. When it comes to conversions I want not because I have an option, I can measure in grams and or grains. And with all of these scales it would be a waste if I did not have check weights. I have two sets of Ohaus 47 piece check weights.

I have check weights that do not agree.

F. Guffey

[Reloadron]

I have check weights that do not agree.

So is that like having two watches and not knowing the correct time? I doubt it matters with check weights as long as any error between the two does not come in light of their intended use. Within any class of check weights there is an allowable uncertainty as can be seen in the spread sheet Unclenick put together. All standard weights used for calibration and or certification of scales have a class and each class has an allowable tolerance or error. The tables and charts may be found here. So we can have class by ANSI/ASTM E617 or International Organization of
Legal Metrology Recommendation R 111.

The difference between a test weight and the unit under test (scale) is a test uncertainty ratio so all we need to do is know how accurate we need a standard to be as compared to the device under test. Would 1:1 be OK? Maybe 4:1 or even 10:1?

The thread has gone well off track since we started with grains to grams or grams to grains and every US printed reloading manual I have seen uses grains and in reloading grams is a rather large unit of measure unless we like decimals.

Ron

[hounddawg]

I find the check weight thing laughable, Only on a reloading forum would anyone care if the powder was weighed on a scale that was calibrated with a check weight that is .001 grams off. I doubt if a world class 1000 yd BR shooter shooting a 10K custom rig would notice as long as all of their rounds were consistently .001 grams off. But my 1903 Springfield with the original barrel sure would...no kidding.......chuckle, sure it would

I keep a .20 cal 32 gn bullet that my scale say weighs 32.02 gns or 2.704 with my scale on the A&D. If I weigh that bullet on the A&D before the loading session and it comes up 32.02 grains then I am pretty sure if I weigh out 38.4 gns of H4350 that it will weigh the same as the 38.4 gn charge I loaded last week, My $20 Smartweigh scale has shown that same bullet as weighing 32.04 gns consistently. I don't sweat .02 grains in my loads

[Reloadron]

I agree. I don't shoot F class so can't comment on how important 0.001 grain would be but doubt it matters. Personally I don't see any of this as relevant to the thread topic. Question asked and question answered. While we all want uniformity in a charge starting to split even 0.01 grain seems taking it to an extreme. Shooting 500 yards I don't see much difference in +/- 0.1 grain of my target weight. Then too, maybe for those at the 1,000 yard line it matters.

Ron

[F. Guffey]

I find the check weight thing laughable,

A reloader in the neighborhood called to ask me what was wrong with his OHAUS 10/10 scale; I did not jump out into the fast lane and start showing off, I told him "I do not know". He brought the scales to me, that gave me the opportunity to check the scales.

First thing? The machinist level, calibrated to .001" per foot, next was the stick-um pad for leveling the scale test plate. There was a chance his scale was correct when weighing in one position and incorrectly in another. Because he is one of the most disciplined reloaders/shooters/craftsman I know I was not surprised he sent the scales back to Ohaus for repair and then purchased another Ohaus 10/10 type scale because he will not be without one when reloading.

F. Guffey

[F. Guffey]

The beam scales are not foolproof...only more foolproof than the electronic scales.

Another friend/reloaders/smith/builder of bench rest type rifles decide he would go with RCBS combination scale/powder measure. He was running two of them at a time. He had it down to running one and dumping the other. And then one day one of the machines went dark.

In the DFW area, not a problem. The company that made the scales is in Grand Prairie, TX. So he waited and waited etc., and then the other scale: the spirit that operated it decide to leave it, by then they had both of his scales and the waiting continued on and on and my friend was not a patient man and then he has his lawyer get involved. He did not receive the same scales he gave them, I know; what is the difference but when all of your equipment is green and one scale is returned 'GRAY'

It was about that time he informed me this was the second time around, the first time he asked them if they could speed them up when they repair them.

I offered to loan him two of my units, it was about that time one of my scales had a load cell failure and then one of the chargers failed, I saw the little spirit leave. I could not blame the dryer or long white tubes/bulbs with ballast.

F. Guffey

[hounddawg]

If you develop the load correctly you should have a flat node of .3 to .5 minimum. I always seem to find a node where I could vary by .1 or .2 gns and it would not matter. This is just a example of what done, and I am still a newbie at precision reloading. At 21.5 gns of powder the avg speed was 2604 and at 22.0 gns it was 2609 FPS. Both groups had roughly the same POI and were .5 groups. I could load rounds at random weights between 21.5 and 22.0 gns of Varget and do headshots on ground squirrels at 200 and never adjust the crosshairs


https://thefiringline.com/forums/att...2&d=1555593899