Powder measures - Page 4

Sequins · August 14, 2018, 08:43 PM

I use a redding 10-x pistol for most of my loading and I find it works good with some powder, terrible with others. Universal powder from Hodgson is +/- 0.75gn, way beyond acceptable. With AA#5 its accurate to 0.05gn repeatable. I now buy more AA#5, and less universal.

I want one of those fancy powder-insensitive trickles now so I can use up this dang universal powder...

wileybelch · September 18, 2018, 10:32 PM

I wish there was a way to fix the semantic problem of the words 'accurate' and 'precise'. Everyone of the above comments should substitute 'precision' for 'accuracy'. Do we need to develop an editorial policy to clarify what we are really talking about in our data?
To me, it is meaningless to talk about an 'accurate' handload. But I understand you when you say 'I have a powder measure that is PRECISE to 0.2gr'.
Didn't you people take high school chemistry?

August 14, 2018, 08:43 PM	#76
Sequins Senior Member Join Date: October 14, 2014 Posts: 394	I use a redding 10-x pistol for most of my loading and I find it works good with some powder, terrible with others. Universal powder from Hodgson is +/- 0.75gn, way beyond acceptable. With AA#5 its accurate to 0.05gn repeatable. I now buy more AA#5, and less universal. I want one of those fancy powder-insensitive trickles now so I can use up this dang universal powder...

September 18, 2018, 10:32 PM	#77
wileybelch Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2009 Posts: 115	I wish there was a way to fix the semantic problem of the words 'accurate' and 'precise'. Everyone of the above comments should substitute 'precision' for 'accuracy'. Do we need to develop an editorial policy to clarify what we are really talking about in our data? To me, it is meaningless to talk about an 'accurate' handload. But I understand you when you say 'I have a powder measure that is PRECISE to 0.2gr'. Didn't you people take high school chemistry?