Measure vs Weigh Powders, Culver or Scale perferred methods.

[Linko]

we discuss various scales a lot, but I dont see much discussion regarding the use of voulme measuring using a Harrells type culver measureing device. When reading Zendeckers books He discusses the benefits of measuring instead of weighing for consistancy. Checking with a scale to begin. What are everyones thoughts on this subject. Benchrest folks are big users of culver measures.

 

[fguffey]

http://harrellsprec.com/index.php/products/classic-culver-measure


They had me at “This measure is made for the discriminating shooter, the person who insists his measure look as good as his fine custom or bench rest rifles" and then they lost me At $330.00. That does not mean I do not have options. I can continue using my Visible powder measure. I also have two Ohaus powder measures that look good also.


F. Guffey

 

[riflewoman]

Long before the Culvers a lot of the BR community used the old Belding and mull powder measure. For a while Seely Masker made a conversion of the SAECO powder measure. The reason for the Culver is that the adjustments have the backlash removed mechanically so it doesn't matter if you start from below or above a click setting of X clicks is the same volume. You still need to know what powder weight your setting of X gives you in weight. One other advantage is that a setting of X in one measure and powder is VERY close to the same volume between measures.

The Harrels is a refinement of the Culver.

Measuring done right can be more consistent than weighing depending on the scale used. Some scales didn't necessarily read right if you trickled the charge in the pan. It was better to trickle the charge in the pan off the scale but that gets very tedious. For over-the-course high power it generally isn't necessary to weight each charge. I loaded 4064 and 4895 just using powder measures. I generally only weighed 1000 yard ammo. You can get very consistent with a powder measure when you develop a good technique.

 

[shoot4fun]

I owned a Culver when I shot a bit of 100/200 BR and used it with confidence. I did some test measuring before I put it into service and found it to be generally .1 or so accurate. That, in my mind, was good enough for short range use. I became bored with the short range game and now most shooting is a minimum of 600 yards. I am now dispensing with either RCBS Chargemaster or Uniflow and folloing up with a GemPro and Omega trickler.

 

[hpshooter]

I owned a Culver when I shot a bit of 100/200 BR and used it with confidence. I did some test measuring before I put it into service and found it to be generally .1 or so accurate. That, in my mind, was good enough for short range use. I became bored with the short range game and now most shooting is a minimum of 600 yards. I am now dispensing with either RCBS Chargemaster or Uniflow and folloing up with a GemPro and Omega trickler.

 

[hpshooter]

I have a Harrels and a Belding and Mull. The Harrels works great with spherical powder for most of what I do but is not so good on stick powder. The Belding and Mull gets used the most since I like the ability to examine each charge before it is put in the case.

Consistent technique is necessary regardless of whether you are going by volume or weight.

T W Hudson

BTW, I see I inadvertently posted a quote from a previous poster, not savy enough to take it down.

 

[Scott Harris]

we discuss various scales a lot, but I dont see much discussion regarding the use of voulme measuring using a Harrells type culver measureing device. When reading Zendeckers books He discusses the benefits of measuring instead of weighing for consistancy. Checking with a scale to begin. What are everyones thoughts on this subject. Benchrest folks are big users of culver measures.

You don't see this issue discussed much because it has pretty much been settled. Culver measures do not provide the consistency needed for long range shooting. the preferred equipment is a good electronic scale or a tuned up balance beam scale.

 

[madmixerman]

I use the Harrell for the 100/200 meter BR game. For the groundhog shoots 100- 500 meters I weigh each one on a Scott Parker tuned 10-10 scale.

 

[brian427cobra]

The world record at 100 yards,.0074 was shot with to the kernel weighed powder charges.

 

[JamesnTN]

http://harrellsprec.com/index.php/products/classic-culver-measure


They had me at “This measure is made for the discriminating shooter, the person who insists his measure look as good as his fine custom or bench rest rifles" and then they lost me At $330.00. That does not mean I do not have options. I can continue using my Visible powder measure. I also have two Ohaus powder measures that look good also.


F. Guffey

It's a nice me I must say.

 

[BoydAllen]

I have spent as much time experimenting with measures and weighing the results with a good scale (both .02 grain accurate electronic, and well tuned balance) as anyone that I know of, more than most. Back in the day, some form of surplus 8208 or possibly 322 were common in short range benchrest, and the groups and aggregates were larger than they have been for some time, pretty much all of the loading for short rang e competition was with thrown charges. That carried through after 133 came along, with good results, but some came to believe that they were leaving something on the table, and when the Chargemaster came along, they started to show up at matches. Some top shooters use them, and others do not.

If someone tells me that he throws +-.1 with a coarse powder, I know that he is kidding himself, with a medium powder, he is exaggerating, and with a fine extruded or ball powder possibly telling the truth. I throw a lot of charges for short range work, and for some powders, if I strictly adhere to the proper technique for that powder and measure, I can throw +-.1 with relative ease. Benchmark, H322, the LT line of powders, surplus 8208, and ball powder fall into that category, but if you tell me that you can throw 20 charges in a row of 133 +- .1 , my experience would lead me to want some proof. This is because I have spent a lot of time and effort learning how to do that.

It is no accident that so many top shooters have turned to Chargemasters. It is because of the popularity of 133 and the fact that they believe that they can get better results using weighed charges. On the other hand, my friend Gary Ocock, who is in the NBRSA record book in multiple places throws his charges, but with a powder that is finer grained than 133.

There are three main variables that control the accuracy of thrown charges, the shape and size of powders' granules is at the top of the list, technique would come in second, and design third. I have lots of different measures and have worked extensively with all of them. My Harrell's can do very good work, if you know the tricks, Another measure that does well, is a pain to set is the Lyman. Probably at the top of the heap on pure geometry of design are my SAECO Micro-Measures, but they are not as convenient to haul to the range, nor is their setting system as convenient as the Harrell's. I also have a couple of old Hollywood measures that are fine for more utilitarian applications when I am throwing and trickling, or throwing ball powder.

0

 

[JamesnTN]

I have spent as much time experimenting with measures and weighing the results with a good scale (both .02 grain accurate electronic, and well tuned balance) as anyone that I know of, more than most. Back in the day, some form of surplus 8208 or possibly 322 were common in short range benchrest, and the groups and aggregates were larger than they have been for some time, pretty much all of the loading for short rang e competition was with thrown charges. That carried through after 133 came along, with good results, but some came to believe that they were leaving something on the table, and when the Chargemaster came along, they started to show up at matches. Some top shooters use them, and others do not.

If someone tells me that he throws +-.1 with a coarse powder, I know that he is kidding himself, with a medium powder, he is exaggerating, and with a fine extruded or ball powder possibly telling the truth. I throw a lot of charges for short range work, and for some powders, if I strictly adhere to the proper technique for that powder and measure, I can throw +-.1 with relative ease. Benchmark, H322, the LT line of powders, surplus 8208, and ball powder fall into that category, but if you tell me that you can throw 20 charges in a row of 133 +- .1 , my experience would lead me to want some proof. This is because I have spent a lot of time and effort learning how to do that.

It is no accident that so many top shooters have turned to Chargemasters. It is because of the popularity of 133 and the fact that they believe that they can get better results using weighed charges. On the other hand, my friend Gary Ocock, who is in the NBRSA record book in multiple places throws his charges, but with a powder that is finer grained than 133.

There are three main variables that control the accuracy of thrown charges, the shape and size of powders' granules is at the top of the list, technique would come in second, and design third. I have lots of different measures and have worked extensively with all of them. My Harrell's can do very good work, if you know the tricks, Another measure that does well, is a pain to set is the Lyman. Probably at the top of the heap on pure geometry of design are my SAECO Micro-Measures, but they are not as convenient to haul to the range, nor is their setting system as convenient as the Harrell's. I also have a couple of old Hollywood measures that are fine for more utilitarian applications when I am throwing and trickling, or throwing ball powder.

0

Boyd,

Do own or have you used the Neil Jones powder measure? I've wanted one for a while but at a 500.00 price tag I'm just convinced it's that much better than a Harrell's. If you have owned and or used one I'd love to hear your experience with one.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

I have both james. Even tho the neil jones is very fine its not as good as the premium harrels with the ball bearings. Better than the standard tho so its around that quality.

 

[JamesnTN]

I have both james. Even tho the neil jones is very fine its not as good as the premium harrels with the ball bearings. Better than the standard tho so its around that quality.

Thanks Dusty for the info. Guess I'm glad I didn't buy one. I do like my classic but I'm not proficient at dropping consistent charges.

 

[LHSmith]

What most shooters (with the exception of those competing in Benchrest) fail to factor in- is a powders' affinity to "aDsorb" (not aBsorb) moisture causing powder charges thrown while operating the measure at different humidity levels to vary in weight. Loading at the range, powder will generally weigh more in the AM than the PM. How much variation depends on the powder used. Add to this the trait of some powders to abruptly change behavior at certain humidity thresholds, you get some idea why shooting SR BR is not a simple "pre-load 'em all the same and just pull the trigger" discipline.

 

[bheadboy]

I have 3 Culvers that I purchased from Homer, the use in the 70's - loading at the range between relays, dictated using a thrown charge from his conversions as the wind would effect any scale, and the ranges did not have loading houses.

so you drove to the range, set up a card table, and used the same 10-15 cases all weekend loaded with a culver measure and made sure your technique was consistent. if you check the records from the 68-late 70s 90 % of the charges were done this way. the other option was to go to the drug store and buy a gross of small pill bottles with caps, weigh the charges at home and load form the bottles, the problem here was there was no way to adjust if you found you needed to.

Hart, Stole, Page, Warren, Culver, and many others I remember throwing charges, it was the way to go.
I still do unless shooting out to 400+

Bob

 

[amlevin]

I have spent as much time experimenting with measures and weighing the results with a good scale (both .02 grain accurate electronic, and well tuned balance) as anyone that I know of, more than most. Back in the day, some form of surplus 8208 or possibly 322 were common in short range benchrest, and the groups and aggregates were larger than they have been for some time, pretty much all of the loading for short rang e competition was with thrown charges. That carried through after 133 came along, with good results, but some came to believe that they were leaving something on the table, and when the Chargemaster came along, they started to show up at matches. Some top shooters use them, and others do not.

If someone tells me that he throws +-.1 with a coarse powder, I know that he is kidding himself, with a medium powder, he is exaggerating, and with a fine extruded or ball powder possibly telling the truth. I throw a lot of charges for short range work, and for some powders, if I strictly adhere to the proper technique for that powder and measure, I can throw +-.1 with relative ease. Benchmark, H322, the LT line of powders, surplus 8208, and ball powder fall into that category, but if you tell me that you can throw 20 charges in a row of 133 +- .1 , my experience would lead me to want some proof. This is because I have spent a lot of time and effort learning how to do that.

It is no accident that so many top shooters have turned to Chargemasters. It is because of the popularity of 133 and the fact that they believe that they can get better results using weighed charges. On the other hand, my friend Gary Ocock, who is in the NBRSA record book in multiple places throws his charges, but with a powder that is finer grained than 133.

There are three main variables that control the accuracy of thrown charges, the shape and size of powders' granules is at the top of the list, technique would come in second, and design third. I have lots of different measures and have worked extensively with all of them. My Harrell's can do very good work, if you know the tricks, Another measure that does well, is a pain to set is the Lyman. Probably at the top of the heap on pure geometry of design are my SAECO Micro-Measures, but they are not as convenient to haul to the range, nor is their setting system as convenient as the Harrell's. I also have a couple of old Hollywood measures that are fine for more utilitarian applications when I am throwing and trickling, or throwing ball powder.

0

All of what you say is true but here's one for you.

I have been using a Lee Perfect Powder Measure for my latest 'at the range' loading sessions. 25 straight 'drops' of Varget that measured dead on when weighed before dumping in the case. Up and down the line those using the Culver/Harrels measures, and were also weighing their charges, had to adjust up or down by a tenth or two. One of the "top guns" even commented that he thought the Lee was great for it's ability to drop consistent charges but his argument against it was "It looks too cheap".

Go figure.

 

[LHSmith]

All of what you say is true but here's one for you.

I have been using a Lee Perfect Powder Measure for my latest 'at the range' loading sessions. 25 straight 'drops' of Varget that measured dead on when weighed before dumping in the case. Up and down the line those using the Culver/Harrels measures, and were also weighing their charges, had to adjust up or down by a tenth or two. One of the "top guns" even commented that he thought the Lee was great for it's ability to drop consistent charges but his argument against it was "It looks too cheap".

Go figure.

Don't know what kind of match you were at, but you do realize that veteran competitors constantly adjust their powder drop as a means to "tune" ....they adjust according to what the target tells them ....and as already said +/- 0.1 gr difference is lost in all the other noise (SR Benchrest specifically). Harrels and Culver inserts are precision machined and as such give the shooter "feedback" as to how the measure is handling the powder........not sure plastic parts can get you to that zone where you have complete confidence in your measure.

 

[BoydAllen]

I have heard good things about the inexpensive Lee. There is a new, more expensive cast iron and brass version that I would love to test, but since I have so many measures, I would find buying another hard to justify.

On the topic of wind and scales, some years back, I came up with an idea that a friend was kind enough to build, one for him and one for me. It is a box that has a sliding glass (tempered) front (originally plexiglass but I discovered that the static charge was a problem), leveling screws on the base, that the scale and a trickler on the inside, with the operating handle of the trickler sticking out from one end, through a closely fitted hole. With it I have been able to weigh charges at the range when I want to do load workups for hunting rifles using powders that are too coarse to throw accurately. I do not use it very often, but when I have it has been a real time saver.

Friends who go back and forth to the range to work up loads take forever to get the job done. If the rifle is properly smithed of good components, I can generally get the job done in a morning, if the wind is light.

It is amusing to me how many people resist trying loading at the range when it works so much better for efficiently working up a load. The other thing that I do not see much of, are wind flags. The only ones that use them around here are those that do or have shot competition short range benchrest, and a couple of schutzen (cast bullets at 200 yards for score) competitors. The rest are truely clueless about how much effect the wind has on bullets.

One little tip on loading at the range. Once you have your load, go ahead and load some for whatever purpose that you are going to use them. That way the moisture content of the powder will be the consistent. The next time that you need to load for that rifle, repeat the process, it will only take a few minor adjustments to perfect tune and then you can load another batch.

A friend who chose to ignore the effect of ambient temperature on pressure and velocity used to work up loads for spring and summer prairie dog shooting in the winter, and experience significant pressure issues, because he is always looking for top velocities. It is better to work up loads in the same conditions that they will be used. Eventually it dawned on him what the problem was, and he stopped having those problems. I generally load right before I am going to use, and keep my brass as fired, except for cleaning the outside of necks, until I am ready to load and shoot. Brass that has been sized a week or more before it is loaded will give heavier seating force than freshly sized. I try to avoid this for applications where I want the finest accuracy.

 

[LHSmith]

Also, powder type is dependent

Good input here^^^


LH, would you say what you see in sr.... Guys weighing would chase the tune MORE than guys measuring? My peabrain says yes.

As a long range guy, I weigh of course. But I preload, but not everyone does. It seems like I don't chase my tune as much as a person would expect.

Tom

I see two methods used here in my region: 1/ load @ match between relays (predominately Group comp) with some going to the line with up to 3 different loads 2/ Arrive at match preloaded either a) based on previous gun/load performance shot under "like" conditions where the one load will agg well enough to be competitive or b) same as (a) except with the ability to fine -tune to conditions through use of a tuner...... common in VFS competition.
Best answer I can give as to who chases tune the most - the competitor who showed up with the wrong barrel/load combination irregardless of preloading or loading at the range.