Discontinued RCBS Scale

[danny]

Does anyone have, or has used the RCBS Scale manufactured by Ohaus that looks like this?

http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/ohaus/images/310-00.jpg

I think the RCBS version has been discontinued quite a while back.

I am kind of curious about it and wonder if anyone has anything much to say about it.

Danny

 

[ireload2]

Research RCBS 304 scale and Dial O grain scale.
I never owned one but I always thought the dial feature might be handy.

 

[danny]

Research RCBS 304 scale and Dial O grain scale.
I never owned one but I always thought the dial feature might be handy.

I remember using that type of scale in High School Chemistry Class. I remember them as a nice scale, very simple to use. I liked them a lot, which was the reason I posted on it. I rembember a picture of Bob Milek using one in my first reloading manual, a Lyman.

Danny

 

[acloco]

Made by OHaus.

 

[Kings X]

I use mine almost everyday. Added a fine wire to pointer and now a big magnifying glass. can see kernels of 4350 drop. Feed it with a Lyman Gen 6. I am an old fart.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Looks like it should be weighing crank for small street deals! Seriously theyre good scales. I think ohaus still makes something similar but dont think it weighs in grains tho

 

[watercam]

Ebay has a few for sale...

 

[Milo 2.0]

Ebay has a few for sale...

I paid 109.00 for one in 1987, with lab grade scales in the 500 range, I'd have a tough time paying 300+ for one today.

 

[jpretle]

I wouldn't give mine up for a dozen electronic scales.

 

[mjtripper]

I have one and love it, wouldn't trade it for anything. To get one these days you pretty much have to buy used.

 

[sparker]

There is far more folklore and hype about these scales than anything else. They are the Dial-O-Gram scale with grain graduation plates. This is essentially the same scale they supply to middle school science classrooms for $75 each. There are better scales.

Scott Parker

 

[JRS]

There is far more folklore and hype about these scales than anything else. They are the Dial-O-Gram scale with grain graduation plates. This is essentially the same scale they supply to middle school science classrooms for $75 each. There are better scales.

Scott Parker

Speaking of better scales… I have another M5 that needs a good tuning, Scott!

 

[jpretle]

There is far more folklore and hype about these scales than anything else. They are the Dial-O-Gram scale with grain graduation plates. This is essentially the same scale they supply to middle school science classrooms for $75 each. There are better scales.

Scott Parker

There is always, 'better of everything'; but then there is that threshold of diminishing returns.
Not saying it is the best, only that it does what i need it to do, and does it well. Maybe I got a good one.
Maybe it has been tuned, at some point. I have had it for 30+ years, so that is doubtful.
If a bbl shoots .0001 and another shoots .00001, does it really matter????
'I'm just sayin.'

 

[M-61]

I also have had one for at least 30+ years. Never been 'tuned'. I bought it new. Works exactly to my needs from day one to right this moment. I did not know they were sold to middle schools for $75. If it is the same and at that price I'd be on board for a spare.

 

[ireload2]

Better scales sometimes do not convert to anything convenient to use. The RCBS 304 always appeared to be very convenient to use compared to the common handloaders scale. But no one expects it to be a Mettler analytical balance.

There is far more folklore and hype about these scales than anything else. They are the Dial-O-Gram scale with grain graduation plates. This is essentially the same scale they supply to middle school science classrooms for $75 each. There are better scales.

Scott Parker

 

[sparker]

Better scales sometimes do not convert to anything convenient to use. The RCBS 304 always appeared to be very convenient to use compared to the common handloaders scale. But no one expects it to be a Mettler analytical balance.

I also have had one for at least 30+ years. Never been 'tuned'. I bought it new. Works exactly to my needs from day one to right this moment. I did not know they were sold to middle schools for $75. If it is the same and at that price I'd be on board for a spare.

Considering that these commonly sell for $250+ on this forum, Gun Broker and EBay, I believe some level of transparency about the true cost of the scale is warranted. The rather large footprint of the scale along with the large reciprocating mass in the beam head are two features that are undesirable in my opinion.

Scott Parker

 

[ireload2]

>>>>Considering that these commonly sell for $250+ on this forum, Gun Broker and EBay, I believe some level of transparency about the true cost of the scale is warranted. The rather large footprint of the scale along with the large reciprocating mass in the beam head are two features that are undesirable in my opinion.

Scott Parker<<<<<

Considering that the reciprocating mass of Lee's scale is very low, it is a crummy scale that is very slow to dampen. That makes that your argument somewhat irrelevant.
I have currently have six mechanical scales and 2 digital scales so the foot print of it means very little. In fact it is not that much more than any other scale unless your are loading in a phone booth. For example, my box of .001" increment gauge pins from .251" to .500" take up way more space and I love having them handy.

 

[sparker]

>>>>Considering that these commonly sell for $250+ on this forum, Gun Broker and EBay, I believe some level of transparency about the true cost of the scale is warranted. The rather large footprint of the scale along with the large reciprocating mass in the beam head are two features that are undesirable in my opinion.

Scott Parker<<<<<

Considering that the reciprocating mass of Lee's scale is very low, it is a crummy scale that is very slow to dampen. That makes that your argument somewhat irrelevant.
I have currently have six mechanical scales and 2 digital scales so the foot print of it means very little. In fact it is not that much more than any other scale unless your are loading in a phone booth. For example, my box of .001" increment gauge pins from .251" to .500" take up way more space and I love having them handy.

If you like your equipment, enjoy! Good for you. I'm not here to bash your equipment. The OP asked an open question entreating opinions of those with experience with the particular scale. I have said experience with the 304 scale and many, many others. It is not my desire nor I believe the purpose of the OP to start some pissing match. However, that seems to be the norm of discussions in recent years.

Scott Parker

 

[ireload2]

If you have objections to the mass of the beam how do you translate that into actual performance?
Many discussions degenerate over matters that are opinion (good vs bad or like vs dislike) as opposed to something that is quantified.
For my shaky hands the dial would be much easier to use than the little drums on the RCBS 5-10 and similar scales. That is a preference that I cannot quantify but it means a lot in terms of ergonomics.

If you like your equipment, enjoy! Good for you. I'm not here to bash your equipment. The OP asked an open question entreating opinions of those with experience with the particular scale. I have said experience with the 304 scale and many, many others. It is not my desire nor I believe the purpose of the OP to start some pissing match. However, that seems to be the norm of discussions in recent years.

Scott Parker

 

[sparker]

If you have objections to the mass of the beam how do you translate that into actual performance?
Many discussions degenerate over matters that are opinion (good vs bad or like vs dislike) as opposed to something that is quantified.
For my shaky hands the dial would be much easier to use than the little drums on the RCBS 5-10 and similar scales. That is a preference that I cannot quantify but it means a lot in terms of ergonomics.

My experience is based upon two model 304 scales, one, my own and another that was sent to me. Both were sluggish to dampen. Both exhibited a small but noticeable variation at zero. The apparent sensitivity was lower than with other scales.
I attribute the sluggishness and the lower apparent sensitivity to the greater mass of the beam head. The variation at zero I
attribute to manufacturing tolerances.

Scott Parker