Inexpensive digital powder scales

[gwpercle]

I have an inexpensive digital powder scale also ... I had to try them .

It isn't worth Doodly-Squat . As unreliable as all get out !

It will never replace my Beam Scale ...

RCBS 5-0-5 Dead Nuts Reliable and Accurate !
Gary

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by Metal god

I’ve always figured that it doesn’t matter if the check eights are off as long as you use the same check weights, each and every time.

More than that, if you just want charge weight repeatability, develop the load and cut a piece of stainless wire to weigh what the powder charge does, and any time you want to replicate that load, just toss that wire onto the scale and use whatever number it comes up with on that day. But if you are going to bother with check weights at all, then you are trying to define absolute accuracy for some (sharing the load with somebody, for example), and in that case, you want to know how close your number will be.

A famous example of failure to do that occurred with gun writer Jack O'Connor. A lot of people had found his load recommendations a bit more peppy than their gun seemed to be happy with. After he died, someone got his reloading scale and found it to be off by something like two grains on the light side of reality when weighing in the range of 270 Winchester loads. So he'd been publishing loads too hot by that amount for years. Did he not use check weights? Or did he have one that was off, and he didn't know it? I don't know. But it's still an object lesson in why absolute numbers can matter.

[RC20]

That is why I weigh my powder pans.

I cross check 4 scales and yes, there is a few tenths difference.

If you have a know weight (pan) you tare it, lift it and you get a negative number. Matters not if its negative or positive, you have zeroed out a positive weight.

So each time you weight a charge (or one is dispensed and it hits the target and the machine beeps) you lift it off and you should have that same pan weight albeit a negative number in front of it.

I cross check regularly to ensure there is not a weird drift off and I am fooling myself.

A beam is only as good as its calibration and its a very narrow weight.

I won't tell someone to give up their Beam, but they in turn should respect people that understand the issues of electronics weighing and manage it the same way.

If it works for you and its accurate, that is what counts. A cheap digital can work as a general weigh tool. Like a beam you need to check it.

[Metal god]

More than that, if you just want charge weight repeatability, develop the load and cut a piece of stainless wire to weigh what the powder charge does, and any time you want to replicate that load, just toss that wire onto the scale and use whatever number it comes up with on that day.

Another great idea , thanks .

A famous example of failure to do that occurred with gun writer Jack O'Connor. A lot of people had found his load recommendations a bit more peppy than their gun seemed to be happy with. After he died, someone got his reloading scale and found it to be off by something like two grains on the light side of reality when weighing in the range of 270 Winchester loads. So he'd been publishing loads too hot by that amount for years. Did he not use check weights? Or did he have one that was off, and he didn't know it? I don't know.

Interesting , I’m assuming he didn’t have check weights . Maybe possible but I’m having a hard time believing that you could throw a check weight that’s two grains off on any scale and get that scale to zero to the checked weight . I mean, you probably could, but I don’t believe I could without noticing my scale needing significant adjustment to do so that it normally never needs .


I know ……….. hold my beer , I’ll be right back


I just tested it both ways on my Redding scale . Two grain light I couldn’t get the arm to move, even if I tried. Two grains heavy, I had to adjust the scale so far passed. It’s available adjustment to where I needed to put a half inch wedge underneath the scale. Even then, I couldn’t get it to zero because the pan bottomed out on the bench. It was close, but it did not zero.

Now I’d like to know, was he using a digital scale? Lmao that would be hilarious.

You get to know your own scale when you use it for years . You learn its tendencies it’s range of motion and general adjustments needed etc.. I can throw 43 grains onto my scale , really just about any charge weight and I can tell if it’s gonna zero by where it stops at the top of its swing and starts coming back down. I know right then and there if I’m gonna need to trickle or pull the pan and tap a few out. I wait to be sure, but 99.999% of the time I’m right on what I’ll need to do next .

[BJung]

I have a Harbor Freight $10 scale used primarily for separating brass by weight. It is frustrating to use because the weight could vary if I reweigh a casing. I use a RCBS 5-0-5 to measure powder weight

[Unclenick]

MG,

Yes, it's funny. I would think along the lines of him having the scale in the same place for decades and having inadvertently switched to a mismatched powder pan without realizing it or rezeroing it. Bad practice not to check at every loading session. But I wasn't there, so I don't know who made the determination or how, unless I find the article again.

[tangolima]

Was an electronic scale that Mr O'Connor using? Different powder pan is a likely reason.

When a seasoned loader starts making such low-level mistakes, it would perhaps be a time to rethink whether he should continue. Handloading is like flying a plane. You can't afford to make a single mistake. From time to time though, experienced pilots still stall during landing, which is a rookie mistake.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Ricklin]

I might remind that the great Jack O'Conner passed in 1978. No digital powder scales existed in his day.
Great article on old Jack https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/rem...utdoor-writer/

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Ricklin

I might remind that the great Jack O'Conner passed in 1978. No digital powder scales existed in his day.

See that? Beam balance, or the use of, can fail too. In this case, it could be pretty bad if he did pistol loads with 2gr on the heavy.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Ricklin]

My favorite big game caliber, I have a pair of identical rifles, one in .270 the other in 30/06. It is like having two flavors of vanilla, only the very top and the very bottom are much different, both are very flexible calibers.
A project on the list here is a rebarrel of the 30/06 to something spicier. The .270 will stay around.

[GeauxTide]

Thanks, Tangolima. I did mean .1 grain.

[Unclenick]

Not cheap at $400, but Creedmore Sports has stock of its TRX-925 again. It's a true 0.01 grain resolution scale (all ten numbers from 0 to 9; no gram conversion rounding) that has a unique 3-check weight linearization calibration system and it comes with three F1 class weights (F1 is an OIML class weight, which, at powder scale calibration levels, falls between ANSI (the tables I posted) Class 2 and Class 3 for heavier and lighter weights, respectively). Still very good, and much tighter than the usual ANSI class 6 we see come with scales.

The main downside is that this is a strain gauge load cell scale rather than a magnetic force restoration load cell scale, and, historically, strain gauge scales are less drift resistant and settle more slowly than MFRs. However, Creedmore claims special strain gauges are used, and reports on the YouTube channel are favorable.

Personally, for about $120 more, I would consider the A&D FX-120i. It is not without the rounding error in the second decimal place, so 0.02 grain resolution instead of 0.01 grains you get with the TRX-925, but it uses a hybrid load cell design that settles in just one second, which I think is more practical for most folks, and it is extremely low drift, at ±2ppm/°C, or about 0.0038 grains/°C. So, you would need almost a 10°F temperature change in the load cell to see 0.02 grains of drift.

Both scales have three selectable display update speeds, but that doesn't necessarily reflect comparative settling times, and I don't see a drift spec for the TRX-925.

[RC20]

I would say you have busted well out of inexpensive per the OP Title (grin)

[Metal god]

I would say you have busted well out of inexpensive per the OP Title (grin)

I heard Elon Musk , Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, saying that’s not really that bad of price .

[Unclenick]

It's high, but that seems to be the current threshold of guaranteed higher precision and stability with electronic scales. There have been less expensive ones that did OK at 0.1 grain resolution, but having owned several, whether I got a good one or a drifty one seemed to be luck of the draw. I've got one of the discontinued CED battery-operated pocket scales that is rock solid, but they were discontinued because of complaints that they weren't. I got lucky in that instance.