Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Problems With A Digital Scale Vs A Beam Scale


Airic

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to work up my major 9 load for my new SJC glock. I have two scales, one is a RCBS 5-0-5 beam scale, and the other is a cabelas digital scale. They both are showing me different weights on the same powder load.

Example:

I weigh out 7.0 grains of HS-6 on the beam scale, take that load of powder and put it on the digital scale and it reads 7.4 gns. I have no idea which one is right....

I have a check weight with the digital scale, and it shows the correct weight for that every time. The check weight is too big to measure on the RCBS scale, so I cant check that one. I weighed a bullet on the digital scale and it gave me 125.0 gns, same bullet on the beam scale is 124.6 gns....

Which one do I trust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would always trust a beam balance if it is giving repeatable results and looks like it's not trashed.

I think too much worry is put into what charge weight IS, versus whether it stays the SAME. I would pick the beam balance as the base and just make sure it always disagrees with the digital by that same amount. If anything will drift around, it will be the digital IME. A beam balance has to get pretty beat up before it won't be consistent.

Besides, we work our own loads up for this major PF 9x stuff anyway, so whether it's 8.2, 8.4 or 8.6 grains actual is no biggie as long as the charge weight does not vary and your scale reads the same 2 years hence as it does today. Just settle for whatever you decide is the real 8.2 here, or buy some check weights and just settle it ;-)

I bought check weights (1 to 20+ grains) a few years back (through Brian BTW) and after 15+ years of blind trust, I found my old beater RCBS beam balance was right on the freakin' money across the board. I use it as a check scale for my digital now ;-)

For what it's worth, I think actual charge weights are a bad thing to toss about willy nilly anyway. The variables in OAL alone make comparison loading a dangerous stunt with the stuff we do. I figure knowing the exact charge weight you are using is a lot less important than knowing the exact velocity of the component combo your measure is throwing consistent volume charges into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would always trust a beam balance if it is giving repeatable results and looks like it's not trashed.

I think too much worry is put into what charge weight IS, versus whether it stays the SAME. I would pick the beam balance as the base and just make sure it always disagrees with the digital by that same amount. If anything will drift around, it will be the digital IME. A beam balance has to get pretty beat up before it won't be consistent.

Besides, we work our own loads up for this major PF 9x stuff anyway, so whether it's 8.2, 8.4 or 8.6 grains actual is no biggie as long as the charge weight does not vary and your scale reads the same 2 years hence as it does today. Just settle for whatever you decide is the real 8.2 here, or buy some check weights and just settle it ;-)

I bought check weights (1 to 20+ grains) a few years back (through Brian BTW) and after 15+ years of blind trust, I found my old beater RCBS beam balance was right on the freakin' money across the board. I use it as a check scale for my digital now ;-)

For what it's worth, I think actual charge weights are a bad thing to toss about willy nilly anyway. The variables in OAL alone make comparison loading a dangerous stunt with the stuff we do. I figure knowing the exact charge weight you are using is a lot less important than knowing the exact velocity of the component combo your measure is throwing consistent volume charges into.

I was kinda hoping you would reply to this post. I actually used your load that you posted on the original 9 major load data (Alan Meek's post) as a reference. I haven't been loading as short as you do yet. I want to test it all out first. I have a TF basepad as my big stick and I will have your info in mind when I test the big stick for reliability vs my OAL.

After I posted this, I actually thought "why don't I run to the store and get some smaller check weights". I agree with you about the beam scale, for some reason I trust it more. Ive used it for .40 loads for years, but now I'm in the high pressure league. I also agree with you that measure consistency is the key, my 8.0 grains of powder doesn't actually have to be 8.0 grains, as long as its is consistent for every load and my scale stays the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had a balance beam scale for about 15 years.

Got lazy, bought a digital, did not have confidence in it.

I use the balance beam, I know and understand the technology :D and know it is WORKING correctly at all times!! :P

Edited by zhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres an advantage to living 10 mins from Cabelas. I ran there this morning and got myself some smaller check weights. Both scales checked out fine....

How can both be correct when they give different weights for the same object?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres an advantage to living 10 mins from Cabelas. I ran there this morning and got myself some smaller check weights. Both scales checked out fine....

How can both be correct when they give different weights for the same object?

Thats what confused me also, but after I checked them this morning with the new weights I started loading again.....I'm consistently getting the same loads when I check them against each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've owned the Pact, RCBS and Dillon electronic scales. I currently use the Dillon scale and use Lyman check weights frequently to validate the results. When the check weight is not right I know it's time to recalibrate. The electronic scales tend to drift immediately after they are powered up. I usually keep the electronic scale in my bench continously powered. In addition, when setting up the powder mesure I throw ten charges and weight the total.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...