• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Case water weighing procedure ?

I was reluctant to add anything to this post except for what I already did, because I am just getting back into reloading and things were very much different when I was not only reloading, but running a business in Rockland County New York called Mt. Ivy Reloading Company, Inc.

There were no LLCs in those days, no electronic Scales, not Internet / Google and no On Line No Less on Line Forums.

Without going into a lot of background I applied for a Manufacturers license so I could load for a local indoor range that I frequented in Haverstraw, New York. This was 1970.

I moved up to Star Reloader's and my garage was turning out about 1,600 rounds an hour of target 38 / 45 / 9mm and some 357 and 380auto.

I had developed some good loads for my Parker Hale 1200 in .30-06 and my Remington 700BDL Varminter in .22-250.

Through a mix up initially received a dealers license for the ATF and they told me it would be easier to keep it and re-apply for the manufacturers license, which I did.

So I started selling some rifles also and the buyers knowing that I was reloading for the local range asked me if I would work up hunting loads for them. With no internet, I purchased some loading reference manuals and got started.

As a member of a Haverstraw Gun Club, I could shot 25 - 300 yards on the grounds of Trap Rock (Now Tilcon) Quarry in Haverstraw. I went out and bought all the equipment and a chronograph, a pretty pricey piece of equipment in those days that also required a pair of sheets for the holders for every shot.

To separate once fired brass, I tumbled clean and emptied, neck sized, trimmed to length, check the neck inside diameter and weighed the cases. I tried filling with water, which in the days of no electronic scales was pretty much a waste of time. More spillage trying to get the water fully into the pan. (A note on Full Length Resizing - I am now learning that the current thought is to full length resize, where in those days using fireformed cases in the exact same chamber was the rule of thumb.) I also tried kiln dired fine sand with limited results, but it was easy to fill the case. You must remember that I was not loading for bench rest shooters, but for hunters that wanted accurate and consistent loads out to about 200 yards.

It was also a time when you could buy any kind of chemistry equipment at a good pharmacy as no one that I knew was cooking crystal meth if it was even known about then.

I bought a overflow beaker - one that had a glass tube on the side well below the neck. Filled it with water till it overflowed. Then with a volumetric tube below the overflow tube I put one case at a time into a full beaker and measured the volume of the water that it displaced and separated cases that way and then reweighed them.

My theory was that brass from the same lot, would PROBABLY have the same metalergical make up, hence if the the cases were fire-formed, cleaned, trimmed and the inside neck diameter returned to the same size, then they should weight the same. Since actual volume was not my goal, uniformity was, this was the method I started with.

After weighing enough cases post water emersion, I concluded for my requirements, the consistency I got with just prepping the cases consistently and weighing them got me good results.

Probably too loose for Bench Rest Shooting, but it sounds like people are having problems getting consistency using water even now in this electronic era.

OK, I am ready for getting holes blown into this. 8)

Bob
 
I can't shoot well enough yet to probably tell the difference, but I used to find reloading a challenge and relaxing and I look forward to doing it again. I still have my 30 gallon tumbler and a friend with a Walnut company that I can get commercial volumes of hulls from.

Thanks Joe, I am enjoying being here already and learning a bunch.

Bob

PS - What does Trade Count mean?
 
gstaylorg said:
I'll try this once more. This is not rocket science. You want the internal case volume, which STOPS AT THE TOP OF THE NECK. Get it???

Reference please? Or just a reasonable, admittedly logical opinion? Because others I respect disagree, and just as emphatically.

I am only searching for a reference to a formalized procedure, not saying you are wrong. Such a reference may not exist - if it does not, that lends credence to your position. However, WRT the elusive reference: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
 
Thank you! That's good enough for me. QuickLoad has become the standard of sorts, and has usually been remarkably close to real-world results in my experience.

I don't have QuickLoad, but a chap who does (and will provide QL data on request over on another forum) is the very same chap who insists one should weigh the meniscus. Go figure.
 
You probably get better return on time invested simply sorting by case weight. It's unlikely two cases of equal mass, from the same lot, would have hold significantly different volumes of water.
 
brians356 said:
You probably get better return on time invested simply sorting by case weight. It's unlikely two cases of equal mass, from the same lot, would have hold significantly different volumes of water.
This is not true, weight sorting cases is useful only to cull out obvious problem cases.
Where you want accurate predictions you need actual H20 capacities.

Think of it in terms of load density. When you step on a case and then charge it, you find that load density is different, and it would fire with different results -even though it weighs the same.
Well the same holds with FL sizing(actual FL sizing). You affect load density with this.
By the time the case expands fully to the chamber and case weight somewhat reaches assumed volume, it's too late.
Bottom line, unless you're running heavily into a pressure node(6PPC at ~75Kpsi), variance in load density is detrimental, and regardless of case weight.

You can see the affects of capacity with QL, and determine what H20 variance is significant to you.
 
One is after thinking about this a bit more carefully, the seated bullet idea is a non-starter. There is some good idea in there but the problem is you cannot use the value you get for “Maximun Case Capacity, overflow” in QL for the simple reason that the volume you get is not that value but the value in question minus the volume taken up by the bullet.
 
I am not interested in measuring case volume for any kind of use in QL or pressure estimation. I am interested in measuring case volume for the purpose of case sorting. I am interested in finding a method that is repeatable to .01 or .02 grain which nobody has come up with yet. I also weigh my powder charges to the nearest .002 grain. If anyone can measure a cases internal volume with a liquid, dump out the liquid and repeat 5 times +/- .02 grain let us know. Also - if anyone thinks that weighing powder with an analytical balance is not the way to go I would have them give Dave Tubb a call and then watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr1Wso6P9ZI
 
I understand, but if you put this method out in a thread discussing specifically about looking for case volume for QL, you are going to get the answer I gave you. It’s the responsibility of the poster to clearly state that the method offer will not give the answer to the question being discussed.
 
jlow said:
I understand, but if you put this method out in a thread discussing specifically about looking for case volume for QL, you are going to get the answer I gave you. It’s the responsibility of the poster to clearly state that the method offer will not give the answer to the question being discussed.

Please feel free to provide us here with the part of my original post where I stated that I was looking for case volume for use in QL. Take your time. We can wait.
 
zipollini said:
jlow said:
I understand, but if you put this method out in a thread discussing specifically about looking for case volume for QL, you are going to get the answer I gave you. It’s the responsibility of the poster to clearly state that the method offer will not give the answer to the question being discussed.

Please feel free to provide us here with the part of my original post where I stated that I was looking for case volume for use in QL. Take your time. We can wait.
I think if you look at my comments, I never said you did.

What I said was you “put this method out in a thread discussing specifically about looking for case volume for QL”. Basically hijacking the thread to talk about something you are interested in and resulting in the confusion.
 
zipollini said:
I am interested in finding a method that is repeatable to .01 or .02 grain which nobody has come up with yet.
You're just wasting your time, and our time, with your .01gr H20 measure(which you did not declare up front). Also, many here know that powder kernels weigh considerably more than .002gr, and to the kernel is as good as we can do.
 
OK I,ll try to splain.
Set up a desk lamp of some sort behind the scale. Put on a magnifying visor
There should be some writing on the bulb or the underside of the lampshade .
Get the lamp, and filled case on the scale lined up so you can see the reflection in the liquid .
When you can read it ,and the liquid will be “flat”on top.
Use a syringe with a fine needle for the final adjustments.
I have used this method with 50 cal brass and is very repeatable with 90% alcohol.
The guy in the video using water ,spilling it wiping, etc is a joke and could never work.
John H.
 
mikecr said:
zipollini said:
I am interested in finding a method that is repeatable to .01 or .02 grain which nobody has come up with yet.
... many here know that powder kernels weigh considerably more than .002gr, and to the kernel is as good as we can do.

Why not split a kernel?
 
brians356 said:
mikecr said:
zipollini said:
I am interested in finding a method that is repeatable to .01 or .02 grain which nobody has come up with yet.
... many here know that powder kernels weigh considerably more than .002gr, and to the kernel is as good as we can do.

Why not split a kernel?

There is probably a market for a single kernel micro-guillotine
 
In as much as I have worked in the lab and with analytical grade equipment capable of measuring both volume and weight aspired to, the first question one should always answer before diving into the deep end is what is the proof that this level of accuracy is needed for the task in hand? Unless someone can proof that 1/10 of a kernel difference in Varget (0.002 grain), which normally weights in around 0.02 grain, is going to make a measurable difference in precision/accuracy, it’s just a total waste of time, or worse still mindless bragging.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,795
Messages
2,203,584
Members
79,130
Latest member
Jsawyer09
Back
Top