Digital scale, FX-120i

[jlow]

I know I am going to get feedback from this. When weighing primers it is so much faster. Even if the Etrius is off on the third digit it is still 10 times more accurate. What you have to really look at is the plus or minus accuracy of the scale and the speed. Falconpilot if yours drifted more something was wrong. No draft shield, no filtering of power, power not consiststant or something. I played with both and the Etrius was way faster and stayed more stable. Actually the FX 120 drifted way more. Matt

No way, now that I have the FX-120A which was touted on this very board as so super, you now tell me it drifts way more.... LOL!

Seriously, its accuracy to me is absolute more than adequate but I don't shoot 1k BR. When dealing with drifts of 0.1 mg or 0.002 grain range, I have in fact used balances that can handle those small weights in the lab but they are in fact so sensitive to environmental factors as one would imagine that they would be. Very doubtful I would have to patience to use them at that range since I don't have a need for it.

 

[BenPerfected]

I know I am going to get feedback from this. When weighing primers it is so much faster. Even if the Etrius is off on the third digit it is still 10 times more accurate. What you have to really look at is the plus or minus accuracy of the scale and the speed. Falconpilot if yours drifted more something was wrong. No draft shield, no filtering of power, power not consiststant or something. I played with both and the Etrius was way faster and stayed more stable. Actually the FX 120 drifted way more. Matt

Can you see on paper the preformance impact shooting the same lot of primers with the only variable being in the weight of the primers? What causes the weight variance and how much variance do you sort to?
Ben

 

[dmoran]

@BenPerfected -
If Matt didn't see the difference on the targets, he wouldn't do it.
Myself have had Lot's of primers that yield little to no variance, and other Lot's that have.
So like Matt, I weigh them and test them (and know others that do the same).
Guess were weird...lol
Donovan

 

[nakneker]

I read that 'sales pitch' you linked to, decided it's just that & little else.

In a word, I'd say NUTS.

Point your browser-of-choice at this forum thread here, read it start to finish then decide for yourself.

Read it. It's like a book, I appreciate the link.

 

[rardoin]

I have an Entris 64...love it. If I had a FX-120i instead, would it ever cost me a point at MR or LR versus the Sartorious??? Probably not...(well, definitely not at the level of experience I am at now). I bought it because of my reliance on Sartorious products (top notch) in a past life and it would interface with an autotrickler. IMO, the cheaper Sartorious or FX-120i are plenty enough for weighing powder.

 

[jlow]

Personally I don’t have problems with people weighting their primers – if you find that it makes a difference in your shooting – do it. Sometimes, even the placebo effect is worth it..

However, I still have doubts as to any real world difference between the two scales. Just for a laugh, I went downstairs and turned on the FX-120A. With zero warm up which in my book would be the worst case situation, I weight three Wolf SRM primers. Here are the numbers:

Primer 1 – 0.236, 0.236, 0.236, 0.236

Primer 2 – 0.236, 0.237, 0.237, 0.237

Primer 3 – 0.235, 0.236, 0.236, 0.235

So it seems within each primer, the weight variance from the weighting is only at most 0.001 gram (I use grams because it gives me more significant digits), the autotrickler is always run in this mode as recommended by Adam.

The question is even with the small primers, a 0.001 gram variance means you are off by about 0.001/0.0235*100 = 0.4% . So even if one is consistently off by this number for each primer (which it is not), can one reasonably shoot the difference in this degree of error? I very much doubt it.

 

[dmoran]

@jlow
Better keep weighing... that is either to small of sample or a very good Lot of primers -IME.
With SR, I've seen as much as +0.4-grains ES (+10% of total weight) on bad/poor Lots
Even on good Lot's almost always see at least 0.2-grains (5% of total weight) variation.
Donovan

PS... what is a FX-120A ? ("A" instead of "I" being the key question)

 

[spclark]

There are three components to primers: cup, compound, anvil.

To my thinking the variations in weight of any one of the three would have different effects on consistency of loads made with them.

Compound ought to be most critical (size, strength & duration of ignition), cup next (stiffness), anvil... not so much.

BUT if it makes you happy, or you perceive that it actually does make an improvement in your results down-range, by all means DO IT!

 

[dmoran]

@spclark
I don't do it because it makes me happy..... I do it because the targets tell me it makes a difference.
Like so many aspects, testing/targets is what tells the truth and where many theorem's are proved wrong.
If you don't want to do it, DON'T DO IT!
Donovan

 

[jlow]

@jlow
Better keep weighing... that is either to small of sample or a very good Lot of primers -IME.
With SR, I've seen as much as +0.4-grains ES (+10% of total weight) on bad/poor Lots
Even on good Lot's almost always see at least 0.2-grains (5% of total weight) variation.
Donovan

PS... what is a FX-120A ? ("A" instead of "I" being the key question)

Donovan – You are barking up the wrong tree. As mentioned in my intro, I was not pushing back on the idea of weighting primers or that they deviate significantly in weight for that matter.

My point is that the scale – FX-120i (not A, my bad) is more than precise and consistent enough to weight primers and to sort them in terms of significant weight differences.

 

[dmoran]

@jlow -
All depends how "tight" of sub-lots one may want to qualify primers and/or weigh powder charges to.
If one hasn't tested sub-lots against sub-lot of primers, and charge weight against charge weight of powder, how would they know how much makes a difference?
They don't know, in my experience, and are purely speculating.....
Donovan

 

[jlow]

One other thing to keep in mind – the OP’s ORIGINAL question was a comparison between an FX-120i vs. an Entris 313-1S and not an Entris 64-1S. The difference is both the FX-120i and the Entris 313-1S can weight down to 0.001 gram. The Entris 64-1S which was introduced later on by Cody and not the OP can indeed weigh down to 0.0001 gram and does not relate to the OP’s original question.

 

[jlow]

@jlow -
All depends how "tight" of sub-lots one may want to qualify primers and powder charges to.
If one hasn't tested sub-lots against sub-lot of primers, and charge weight against charge weight of powders, how would they know how much makes a difference?
They don't know, in my experience, and are purely speculating.....
Donovan

So are you saying that a weight difference error of 1 mg by the balance or for that matter an actual weight difference of 1 mg out of a 235 mg primer makes a difference on paper?

That is going to be an incredible hard sell. As splark already mentioned, that is assuming all of that 1 mg came from the primer and none of it from the cup or anvil which is a huge assumption. You are going to have to "show me the beef" first.

 

[dmoran]

@jlow -
Sorry, but I talk in "Grains" (like 99.9% of the members here do), and am not going to take the time to convert "grams" and "milligrams", to answer your questions of what I do.
Donovan

 

[jlow]

@jlow -
Sorry, but I talk in "Grains" (like 99.9% of the members here do), and am not going to take the time to convert "grams" and "milligrams", to answer your questions of what I do.
Donovan

OK for those un-educated in metric, 1 milligram = 0.015 grain does that help you?

 

[dmoran]

@jlow -
What I see in testing is that 1-tenth of a grain to either charge weights or primers, can easily be seen from my own comp rifles petloads at 1000yds. Which means that a 1/2-tenth is to much, and is moving the dispersion. There for it is to my opinion and experience that a 1000-grain scale is needed to assure my weights to the 100th of a grain, so that I am accurately far less then 1/2-tenth in my weights.
Plus like Matt stated, there faster....
Donovan

 

[jlow]

@jlow -
What I see in testing is that 1-tenth of a grain to either charge weights or primers, can easily be seen from my own comp rifles petloads at 1000yds. Which means that a 1/2-tenth is to much, and is moving the dispersion. There for it is to my opinion and experience that a 1000-grain scale is needed to assure my weights to the 100th of a grain, so that I am accurately far less then 1/2-tenth in my weights.
Plus like Matt stated, there faster....
Donovan

Donovan – thanks! So keeping to the grain nomenclature so that I don’t get into trouble, 1-tenth of a grain is 0.1 grain which in my own experience is pretty big and I don’t doubt you see a difference with the charge (don’t know about the primers), but my question relates to not 1-tenth of a grain but 1-one hundredth of a grain i.e. 0.015 grain.

Even in the worst case situation with 0.02 grain variance, which is 0.04 grain for the FX-120i, that is still not 0.1 grain. Like I showed in my own example, multiple measurements of the same primer with the FX-102i shows in real life only a 0.015 grain variance.

This is very hard for anyone to swallow because on one hand, you are saying that you need 0.004 grain variance to accurately bin your primers, but in the same breath, you are willing to assume that all of that difference without any proof comes from the primer compound and not the heavier component of cup and anvil. It’s a bit of having your cake and eating it too don’t you think? If I presented this at work I would be laughed out of the conference room...

 

[dmoran]

@jlow -
I never said it was the primer compound in any reply, that's "your own mediating" to what I actually said.
What I have learned in my own testing is that 0.1 (1-tenth) grain variation in primer weight can: "easily be seen from my own comp rifles petloads at 1000yds. Which means that a 1/2-tenth is to much, and is moving the dispersion."
What aspect or combination of aspects is creating the weight variation in the primers, I have not explored or know, and do not care. What I care about is what I see on the targets when testing the variations in weight alone.
Donovan

 

[jlow]

@jlow -
I never said it was the primer compound in any reply, that's your "mediating" what I actually said.
What I have learned in my own testing is that 0.1 (1-tenth) grain variation in primer weight can: "easily be seen from my own comp rifles petloads at 1000yds. Which means that a 1/2-tenth is to much, and is moving the dispersion."
What aspect or combination of aspects is creating the weight variation in the primers, I have not explored or know, and do not care. What I care about is what I see on the targets when testing the variations.
Donovan

So I basically have no problem with you just stated. Like I started in my first post on this topic, I said:

“Personally I don’t have problems with people weighting their primers – if you find that it makes a difference in your shooting – do it. Sometimes, even the placebo effect is worth it..”

My comment was only the challenge the idea that it takes a scale able to measure down to 0.002 grain to bin the primers and that a 0.02 grain scale i.e. the FX-120i was inadequet.

 

[jlow]

Jlow,

To save you the trouble of weighing a large sample, I ran out and snapped a photo of some 450's I already had done. See below.
View attachment 996750

Notice the "outliers" both on the light end and heavy end. I wanted to test this myself, so I kept sorting until I have enough at each end that all measure the exact same height. I loaded 5 of each up with my pet load with the greatest of my ability, and color the bullets. I really wanted to see the two groups overlap because sorting sucks. Guess what, as you see I'm still sorting.

@dkhunt14 you know you want to respond! lol

Merry Christmas everyone,

Tom

Looks convincing to me....