H20 Brass Weighing...The Truth...or somewhere in that range.

[savagedasher]

try 210m primer!

If you had the same amount of powder in the same case capacity .There is only two things that would cause that much speed difference.
Primers or spike change in pressure from the bullet being close or touching the lands.Larry

 

[Endyo]

The cause of the high ES was discovered.

That batch did not get trimmed properly. Case overall length varied as much as 0.006".

A proper trim and chamfer brough my ES down to low teens or better.

I'll be picking up testing again soon.

 

[Webster]

Just wanted to share my findings over days of tedious brass weighing and data logging on and off since October.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
If you're lazy and don't want to read the post. Basically I feel H20 Weighing adds a tangible benefit and is superior to the more common method of weighing brass. This opinion is made on objective data that I've collected. I'll attach a spreadsheet that shows three different methods of weighing the same lot of brass (it's a very small sample, but these efforts have been repeated in a few hundred other pieces that I've weighed before I decided on record these findings for public viewing).
_____________________________________________________________________________________

These aren't new findings per say. These are simply my findings and opinions based on my observations.

Several High Masters and Masters in F-Class had given me much input from both Bayou Rifles and Panola County in Texas. It took me months to start back from scratch and start implementing the new techniques I'd learned...I'm still working on many new techniques on the reloading bench.

Brass Weighing is one of those techniques. Even among those qualified shooters there was a discrepancy as to how to weigh brass or the usefulness. Some hydro weighed and some didn't. I was told by some that I needed to get other facets of my game in order before I worried about weighing bullets or weighing brass.

One of which was to purchase a scientific scale able to weigh powder drops more accurately than my Chargemaster would be able to.

I see plenty of spendy electronic scales for sale on the classifieds and have spent my own hard earned money to now meter and weigh powder precisely to 0.02grs vs +/- 0.1 with the Chargemaster. I can't definitely say if 0.1 grain difference in case volume has the same effect as 0.1 grain of powder.

However, in this experiment I found an Extreme spread of 0.9grains when weighing with a primer pocket plug using premium Norma brass that had been fire formed to my chamber.

I feel I can safely surmise that a difference of almost 1.0 grain of internal volume between one shot and a second shot would result in a greater velocity change than +/-0.1 grains difference in powder drop.

However, it is tough to determine at what level one should start weighing internal volume. I have heard of older shooters making High Master while still dropping powder with an older style powder hopper and without weighing charges. This was conversation in the pits, and I don't remember the shooter's name that was referenced so I can't validate these claims.

I can validate that I made Mid-Range Master using an RCBS Chargemaster and without weighing internal case volume at last year's State match. I fell 3 points short of making Mid-Range High Master. Inexperience and Inadequate load development were my limiting factors not case weighing or the Chargemaster.
__________________________________________________________________________________


H20 (Internal Volume) weighing VS. Weighing the case: "Hornady" PDF cooresponds

We all know brass has varying thickness even among the highest quality brass. The changes in thickness effect the overall weight of the piece of brass. The supporting theory is that heavier brass = thicker walls = less internal volume. In my findings, there is a weak correlation with that assumption and there is no consistency with heavier brass having a lower internal volume. I found this very early on as I started experimenting with H20 weighing.

Attachment 1 - Will show Hornady brass I weighed today that proves this. Case weights vary significantly more than Norma brass, but internal volume happens to be better than the Fire Formed Norma brass. I suspect this is because the Hornady Brass is new. It is my understanding from reports by people such as Charles Ballard that Unfired Brass will produce the lowest ES. Unfortunately, I did not weigh the Norma brass prior to fire forming, but I suspect if I had the Norma brass would have provided more consistent results that the Hornady.

Weighing with Water vs. Salt or similar substance:
Liquid is the way to go here. I initially thought Salt or Sand would be superior and tried experimenting with it. I found granules have settling issues. Readings were not repeatable. When reweighing a batch of about 70 pieces of brass I found that a piece of brass could vary as much as 0.7grs from one weighing to the next, depending on how you tapped it. I tried using an electric toothbrush, tapping the table, finger flicking, tried covering the mouth of the brass and rapping the case aggressively to cause complete settling. This process was time consuming, messy, and inconsistent. I decided to go back to water weighing.

How to plug the brass: "Norma 284 Comparison" - Corresponds with this data.
Option 1: Reverse a fired primer (tip for forums)
Option 2: Weigh a UNcleaned fired piece of brass with the discharged primer
Option 3: Weigh a cleaned (wet tumbled) and fired piece of brass with discharged primer
Option 4: 21st Century Shooting Primer Plug


Option 1: As far as reversing primers and seating them upside-down as a cost effective option. This is by far the most dirty and tedious of the options. This is what directed me to break down and buy the 21st Century Plug. It's dirty, anvils fall out and get into the carpet and it's hard to seat the primers upside down without crushing the thin primer material. No mention of the trace lead residue and carbon you're handling. I strongly suggest you don't waste your time with this method.

Option 2: No surprise dirty brass was the least consistent. I've been told that the carbon will take up some case space and give you a false reading. However, with the primer still in place I actually got HIGHER readings than with the plug. The extra capacity is likely explained by the extra volume created by the primer cup.

Option 3: Brass was wet tumbled 1-hour. I was able to get more consistent readings among the same lot of brass. Readings were the highest likely due to the removal of the carbon, and the extra volume of the primer cup.

Option 4: The 21st Century primer plug is very repeatable in re-weighing the same brass with good technique however, it's a PITA. I wanted to see if the 21st Century primer plug actually made a difference in getting consistent readings versus the other options...and it does by a significant margin. Measuring with the 21st Century primer plug posted the smallest extreme spread and by far the most consistent results in terms of SDev.

As a mini-review. The primer plug was found the be the best tool to accurately weigh internal case volume using H20. It's fairly cheap $13ish, takes a little bit of learning (twist, don't force the plug in or you'll tear up an O-ring (you get a few spares), John also recommended wetting the O-ring, he said he'll dab his with his tongue. I find it usually stays wet from the previous piece of brass. I may reserve a full review for another post. After twisting the plug in you'll have to remember to weigh the brass and plug before filling up with water. Otherwise you'll get a false reading as some water residue stays in the piece of brass. Approximately .4-.6grains high. John was very helpful and actually sent me more O-rings free of charge when I let him know I was having issues. He didn't know I would be writing a review. I wasn't actually planning on it, but I guess I'd better.

Set Up:
Norma .284 Brass, Brass was fire formed to my chamber.
Room Temperature Water
A&D FX120i (Initial readings were rounded up or down. 2nd decimal place with 21st Plug as it appeared more accurate.)
Numbered brass from 1-21 with a sharpie.
Water bottle with small hole is used to drip water. I stopped using the powder funnel since it occasionally created large air pockets and gave false readings.
Initial weighing with dirty brass
Brass Wet Tumbled in a Thumlers for 1-hour. Still had a faint marking so I could keep track of individual pieces of brass.
Weighed Cleaned, than deprimed and retumbled for 30-mins.
Dried and a couple hours later re-weighed with 21st primer plug


View attachment 973295

Couple Notes:
-Note Primer weights vary +/- 0.15gr and can introduce weighing error.
-A couple times I accidentally poured water before weighing the brass by itself. I would dry the piece of brass as best as possible and weigh the "empty" case.
-Using Powder funnel to pour water. Creates an air bubble effect You can use a pen or case mouth as a "plunger".
-When using brass with fired primers. Tapping the brass becomes necessary. Small air bubbles collect in the primer and you will get false readings.
-Members here have stated a drop of soap will prevent bubbles

-If you have an inconsistent fill your readings can vary by more than half a grain. This is about 1 small drip of water over.
View attachment 973298

-I use my driver's license to get rid of excess water at the case mouth. This is a very important step in the entire process.

View attachment 973296

-Properly filled for a consistent weighing between cases.
View attachment 973297

Full disclosure. H20 brass weighing is very time consuming and about as fun as watching paint dry. This reloading technique has a diminishing return in the amount of time you invest. If you're still a novice shooter I can guarantee you can find bigger gains by addressing other parts of your game and equipment.

I plan on competing in Long-Range this year and I'm trying to get to single digit ES which I'm not even close, so I feel this is necessary for me.

Some people suggest using Ispropyl Alcohol instead of water. It has about the lowest surface tension of any liquid you can find. It should be bubble free. No miniscus problems. Wets surfaces extremely well. I don't think evaporation is an issue. Isopropyl evaporates very slowly. Have you tried it?

 

[savagedasher]

Some people suggest using Ispropyl Alcohol instead of water. It has about the lowest surface tension of any liquid you can find. It should be bubble free. No miniscus problems. Wets surfaces extremely well. I don't think evaporation is an issue. Isopropyl evaporates very slowly. Have you tried it?

That what I use I check my cases for making internally volume the same . They are not full I made a tool that stops at the shoulder . It displaces the air and liquid . Larry

 

[Endyo]

We discussed the use of alcohol. Some argued that the concentration would vary over time and between lots of alcohol.

Evaporation may play a small effect.

QL uses water with a meniscus if that is important to the user. I am not planning on using data for that purpose.

I am starting a new data set from scratch so I will consider it.

The focus will likely be on brass weighing vs H20 weighing. I'll monitor changes before sizing, after sizing and then, after firing. I'm going to run the same set of 100 pieces of brass several times to validate numbers and to see the value of any of fire forming.

I already have a theory on the tests I've run so far, but I want more hard facts to back it up. If I can cut this step out of my reloading process than the effort was worth it.

 

[memilanuk]

The cause of the high ES was discovered.

That batch did not get trimmed properly. Case overall length varied as much as 0.006".

A proper trim and chamfer brough my ES down to low teens or better.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Are you saying you think that the case neck varying up to 0.006" was giving you a 70+ fps range in your muzzle velocities?

 

[Endyo]

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Are you saying you think that the case neck varying up to 0.006" was giving you a 70+ fps range in your muzzle velocities?

That was a larger sample group so of course ES is going to be higher.

Nothing else changed in my handloading technique and over 200+ rounds monitored over a chrono I haven't seen an aggregate ES over 20-30fps.

 

[memilanuk]

That was a larger sample group so of course ES is going to be higher.

Nothing else changed in my handloading technique and over 200+ rounds monitored over a chrono I haven't seen an aggregate ES over 20-30fps.

I get that you only changed one thing, thereby concluding that that must be the culprit... I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that trim length has a significant effect on ES. Any theories as to the 'why'?

 

[Endyo]

I get that you only changed one thing, thereby concluding that that must be the culprit... I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that trim length has a significant effect on ES. Any theories as to the 'why'?

I'd have to spend more time investigating. I noticed an immediate change in my ES after trimming. 2.158-2.163" OAL is what a box of brand new Norma brass measured. I trim to 2.160" since only 5-6% of brass is shorter than that.

It is possible that "bullet grip" or neck tension is altered since more of the bearing surface of the bullet is deeper in the neck by as much as 0.006".

I imagine that would effect the timing of the bullet being released allowing more pressure to build up.

 

[memilanuk]

I'd be more inclined to think it may be something to do with how the case mouth region interacts with the bearing surface of the bullet - some rougher, some smoother, a burr or something of that nature. 5-6 thou is such a small portion of the overall contact area to be causing significant variations in MV in and of itself. Not saying 'not possible' but it seems improbable.

It would be interesting to take a few batches of brass from the same lot, and subject them to different treatments over a period of several firings. One batch left untouched as they come out of the box, one batch trim/chamfer/deburred to minimum length every firing, and one batch allowed to 'grow' 0.006"+ and then trimmed every firing to maintain that new length. Then do an ANOVA test to see how the difference between the batches compares to the variance within each group.

Someday, in my "spare" time maybe

 

[savagedasher]

I'd have to spend more time investigating. I noticed an immediate change in my ES after trimming. 2.158-2.163" OAL is what a box of brand new Norma brass measured. I trim to 2.160" since only 5-6% of brass is shorter than that.

It is possible that "bullet grip" or neck tension is altered since more of the bearing surface of the bullet is deeper in the neck by as much as 0.006".

I imagine that would effect the timing of the bullet being released allowing more pressure to build up.

Any thing can

I'd be more inclined to think it may be something to do with how the case mouth region interacts with the bearing surface of the bullet - some rougher, some smoother, a burr or something of that nature. 5-6 thou is such a small portion of the overall contact area to be causing significant variations in MV in and of itself. Not saying 'not possible' but it seems improbable.

It would be interesting to take a few batches of brass from the same lot, and subject them to different treatments over a period of several firings. One batch left untouched as they come out of the box, one batch trim/chamfer/deburred to minimum length every firing, and one batch allowed to 'grow' 0.006"+ and then trimmed every firing to maintain that new length. Then do an ANOVA test to see how the difference between the batches compares to the variance within each group.

Someday, in my "spare" time maybe

If the case capicity isn't the same you will never get low Es . Larry

 

[Endyo]

I'd be more inclined to think it may be something to do with how the case mouth region interacts with the bearing surface of the bullet - some rougher, some smoother, a burr or something of that nature. 5-6 thou is such a small portion of the overall contact area to be causing significant variations in MV in and of itself. Not saying 'not possible' but it seems improbable.

It would be interesting to take a few batches of brass from the same lot, and subject them to different treatments over a period of several firings. One batch left untouched as they come out of the box, one batch trim/chamfer/deburred to minimum length every firing, and one batch allowed to 'grow' 0.006"+ and then trimmed every firing to maintain that new length. Then do an ANOVA test to see how the difference between the batches compares to the variance within each group.

Someday, in my "spare" time maybe

I'm going to try and integrate your ANOVA test into the test I was already going to run. Sheldon since you have been charting the raw data please give any input on any changes you want to see in the test or different variables let me know in the next few days. Any one else is welcome to suggest any changes.

68 pieces of New Hornady Brass (6.5X284 necked to 284 WIN)

Numbered
Brass Weight Sorted
Internal Volume Sorted
Case OAL Measured
Groups #1-3 will be fired a total of 3 times @ 300 yards.
Number of firings, Group size, and velocities recorded

Group #1 (Pieces 1-22)
Cleaned, Trimmed/Chamfered, Mandrel, Skim Neck Turn, Annealed (Unsized first firing, Sized all subsequent firings)

Group #2 (Pieces 23-45)
Cleaned, Sized, Chamferred, Mandrel, Skim Neck Turn, Annealed (Not trimmed/Allowed to grow)

Group #3 (Pieces 46-68)
Cleaned, Sized, Trimmed/Chamferred, Mandrel, Annealed (Unturned)

 

[Sheldon N]

Thanks, this looks like it should be good information. Just to make sure I understand what data will be gathered...

Every piece of brass gets a number and is tracked individually through the course of 3 firings?
Data gathered for each individual piece will be weight, volume, then OAL plus velocity for each firing?
Each load is the same (primer, powder weight, seating depth)?
The case volume would be measured before resizing, after the first firing?

The three subsets could be best described as:

1) Do everything
2) Do everything, but don't trim
3) Do everything, but don't neck turn

Do I have it correct?

The group size info I'm less interested in, since that would mainly just be applicable to your gun and load. It is still something that would be interesting to see.

 

[Endyo]

Yes. Everything is correct except for the first firing I decided not size or anneal any of the groups.

All subsequent firings will be H2O weighed AFTER sizing so we have a true picture of internal volume.

A mini-test I ran before already showed me that full length sizing should make the brass consistent in volume. We'll see if that holds true.

 

[Sheldon N]

Yes, I would think either firing or sizing will eliminate the variability that exists in virgin brass.

Generally I would think that fired, unsized brass is the preferred choice since the fired brass shows the actual size of the combustion chamber in your gun, without introducing any variables from the sizing process. I think most people are also using the fired, unsized volume for Quickload since that is the more relevant data point for pressure calculations.

 

[David Christian]

@Endyo , @Sheldon N ,

Did this final test of 3 batches ever get completed? I just read the entire string and feel like I need to see the sequel. Thanks for posting your testing and results.

 

[Endyo]

David,

There was a lot of ES/SD in the test results, but after gathering and compiling all the data Sheldon and I came to the opinion that weight sorting brass by any method did not provide discernible improvement in reduction of ES/SD.

I believe there are bigger gains in other areas.

Examples:

There was a noticeable improvement in ES/SD (somewhere in the range of 25%-35% reduction if I remember) on a test ran with neck turned brass vs unturned. If I ran future testing It would likely be to verify this, but it would be impossible with my current equipment: Testing was performed in a no turn .321" chamber so after firing the turned brass was trashed (would not hold a bullet after firing). That barrel has since been set back and rechambered to a .315" turn only chamber

A new series of tests I ran multiple times showed that bullet pointing reduced vertical at 600 yards by up to 2".

For me these two provided much bigger gains.

 

[Sheldon N]

It was a fun exercise for sure and very interesting. I'm a PRS shooter so a bit diffierent mindset but I've settled on not sorting my brass at all, other than to run a single lot of Lapua and keep track of the # of firings. I am bullet sorting by OAL and pointing.

 

[savagedasher]

I just piled through the rest of the replies. Wow. Thanks everyone, this is still a work in progress. You can tell some here have YEARs worth of experience H20 weighing or maybe better called Internal Volume Weighing.

I've heard of QL and have a faint idea about it. I had understood it to be a way to measure pressure, but here my ignorance shows. I didn't realize the case's internal volume was a part of the formula. So obviously some have been doing this for a while as a means to further end. I imagine that develops more technique and skill. My purposes have been for the sake of curiosity and small gains in ES as a "superior" way to weigh differences in brass.

I use a Giruad trimmer to trim all brass to equal length. I failed to mention that.

I will definitely try using soap. Straight water tested over several days didn't find a difference in weight at "room temp". Having a consistent "bubble" or lack thereof had a bigger role in inaccurate measurements.

An actual syringe would make this process a lot easier. I am a Firefighter and I thought on my feet a water bottle seemed to be an easy solution. I'm sure I can find an expired 14ga IV needle and syringe at the training center.

As to measuring the neck junction I have not heard of this. Wouldn't it be difficult to measure since this is a visual process vs mechanical? (i.e. credit card or straight edge against case mouth).

On the same note for those using QL how do you decern if your "bubble" is consistent in size. I find it doesn't take much water to increase readings by 0.01grains?

Being a firefighter
You should have access to the product that you make water that penetrate

 

[Ned Ludd]

I just piled through the rest of the replies. Wow. Thanks everyone, this is still a work in progress. You can tell some here have YEARs worth of experience H20 weighing or maybe better called Internal Volume Weighing.

I've heard of QL and have a faint idea about it. I had understood it to be a way to measure pressure, but here my ignorance shows. I didn't realize the case's internal volume was a part of the formula. So obviously some have been doing this for a while as a means to further end. I imagine that develops more technique and skill. My purposes have been for the sake of curiosity and small gains in ES as a "superior" way to weigh differences in brass.

I use a Giruad trimmer to trim all brass to equal length. I failed to mention that.

I will definitely try using soap. Straight water tested over several days didn't find a difference in weight at "room temp". Having a consistent "bubble" or lack thereof had a bigger role in inaccurate measurements.

An actual syringe would make this process a lot easier. I am a Firefighter and I thought on my feet a water bottle seemed to be an easy solution. I'm sure I can find an expired 14ga IV needle and syringe at the training center.

As to measuring the neck junction I have not heard of this. Wouldn't it be difficult to measure since this is a visual process vs mechanical? (i.e. credit card or straight edge against case mouth).

On the same note for those using QL how do you decern if your "bubble" is consistent in size. I find it doesn't take much water to increase readings by 0.01grains?

I would avoid the use of detergents or alcohol. They are simply not necessary. The use of a small lamp behind the case will allow you to easily ensure the meniscus is flat. Shaking down the case a couple times before it is completely full and/or tapping it on a solid surface will normally dislodge any bubbles inside the case. Then you can fill the case the rest of the way until you achieve a flat meniscus using drops from your fingertip, or a small Pasteur pipet (which are available in an inexpensive reusable polypropylene form). I described the approach I use some time back; you may find it helpful:

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/case-volume-determination-pic-heavy.3896148/