New Toy In My Loading Room

[dixieppc]

Dixie

I have had my FX120I for 18 months now and have weighed thousands of powder charges and it has performed great.

Always turn it on 30 minutes prior, level it, and calibrate it prior to use. Mine has always stayed true to .02 gr of measurment and each kernel of Varget has always registered.

You will be happy with it.

Good Shooting.

Rich

Rich, in order catch those single granules of varget, I had to set my response to Fast. Setting to Slow would not catch a single granule and a setting of Mid would be hit and miss on catching a single granule. Now that observation was on an unbalanced, uncalibrated and cold scale soooo.... What Sensitivity/Response setting are you using to catch a single granule?

Regards....

 

[338 Mollett]

Get that clean organized picture of a loading bench off of here! ;D

 

[carlsbad]

Well, just got home from a grueling day at the VA. On the way home I stopped at my Gun Smiths and dropped off my two 50 grain check weights. One of his other customers is a pharmacist which does pharmaceutical compounds which requires a set of scales well beyond anything that we probably use. Already knowing that my two 50's are on the high side of 50, he is going to "adjust" them both down close enough to 50 grains so both together will weigh 100g +/- .05g which is what A&D says is optimal for calibrating this scale. Even though I will not get the scales calibrated for a few days or so, I am going to let them warm up for 24 hours, level them and do that repeatability test again. They don't have to be calibrated to test repeatability unless linear calibration effects that (not sure). I'll post the numbers when done. I'm sure they will be a lot better than they were on a cold, unlevel scale.

Regards.....

Don't sweat calibration much. Repeat-ability is the key. So you think you're loading 28.6 grains and you're really loading 28.65. Who cares. It is the variation within the batch that matters most. Frankly, you have to be very, very good to tune a load anywhere close to that tight.

--Jerry

 

[Martin52]

Have you checked the accuracy of the GemPro 250 against the FX120i ?

I have the FX 300i and a Gempro 250. Both weigh accurately to 0.02 gr with a static load but the FX is much better when trickling powder. Makes a big difference. I use the Gempro for mainly weighing brass these days.

Martin

 

[Erik Cortina]

Repeatability was within .04 gr? That's actually pretty bad, calibrating might help. My Sartorious GD-503 will repeat to .005 gr.

Erik,
I use a Sartorius too but accept +/- .01 grain to keep within rounding error on my .1 gr load spec. The reason I do this is to avoid splitting powder kernels, each of which weigh about .02 each.

Are you loading to +/- .005gr? I guess that would work with some fine ball powers like AA2460. Haven't tried them though as I use them mostly for AR plinking.

To me the huge disadvantage that disqualifies the gempro from consideration is the strain gauge measuring cell that requires a bump to register making it unsuitable for trickling.

--Jerry

I believe he was talking about having a charge and removing the pan and putting it back on. I suggested that his machine should do better than that if it's the same weight being put back on.

 

[Erik Cortina]

Repeatability was within .04 gr? That's actually pretty bad, calibrating might help. My Sartorious GD-503 will repeat to .005 gr.

Didn't your Sartorius cost 3X as much?

The guy just got the scale, give him a bit to work out the use. It will be more accurate and repeatable than 0.04 Gr.

RMD

That's was exactly my point, that it should be better than that after calibration.

 

[Fretka]

just a thought........... why not ask the lab at the VA to weigh a penny on their super scale for you and use that to calibrate?

 

[JamesnTN]

just a thought........... why not ask the lab at the VA to weigh a penny on their super scale for you and use that to calibrate?

You can't just calibrate the scale with any known weight. It ha to be done with a weight the scale is designed for. I did just as you mentioned with a couple of 10 gram weights and the scale faulted out and t cost me nearly 200.00 to have it fixed. That includes shipping but the point is use why the manufacturer recommends and don't skimp and think you can get by.

 

[mattri]

Not to highjack but I have a question regarding trickling on a gempro-

I will use a dipper to get "about" close to my charge weight, and then trickle in to the actual weight, or use tweezers to place in individual kernels if I'm within .06. As stated earlier bigger powders like H4350 are usually .02 per kernel, where smaller powders can be 2 kernels per .02. I then pour about half of measured charges back onto the scale to verify, and am within .02-.04, is this not recommended?

 

[dixieppc]

just a thought........... why not ask the lab at the VA to weigh a penny on their super scale for you and use that to calibrate?

You can't just calibrate the scale with any known weight. It ha to be done with a weight the scale is designed for. I did just as you mentioned with a couple of 10 gram weights and the scale faulted out and t cost me nearly 200.00 to have it fixed. That includes shipping but the point is use why the manufacturer recommends and don't skimp and think you can get by.

Made a call to A&D technical support in San Jose, California, 408-263-5333. No wait on the telephone, got directly through to technical support and got a very nice gentleman willing to answer all my questions.

Even though you have other options when selecting the weight you're using during calibration in the menu the optimal weight is 100 grams for setting the scale up for best accuracy. The weight needs to be 100 grams +/- .05 grams because the scale's internal adjustment range for the check weight is +/- .05 grams. The scales do not know or care where the weight comes from just as long as it is 100 grams +/- .05 grams. Then he says with a chuckle, and I quote him, "if you don't have to be certified and if you have a dog turd that is within +/- .05 grams of 100 grams, that will work". One last thing he said was that you have to know exactly how much that check weight weighs within that upper and lower limit because you have to tell the scales what the exact weight of the check weight is.

Example: when calibrating, you tell the scales you are using a 100 gram check weight. Next you tell it how much to adjust for within +/- .05 grams. So if your check weight weighs 100.05 grams, you choose 100 grams then tell it to adjust +.05 grams. It will not let you choose an adjustment of more than +.05 grams or -.05 grams.

This is what tech support at A&D told me. I haven't done it yet because I don't have the check weight back from the pharmacist that is setting the check weight up for me. BTW, A&D does not make check weights but will provide you a certified third party check weight if you want for north of $100. That's why you don't get a check weight with the scales, they leave that option up to you if you don't already have check weights that fit the tolerances they require for calibrating their scales and any certifications, if any, you might need.

Regards.....

 

[dixieppc]

I forgot to mention that tech support said that calibration has nothing to do with repeatability only accuracy. However, repeatability is dependent on the proper warm up, leveling and fluctuating environmental obstacles such as temp, humidity, air movement, scale movement, etc.

Regards.....

 

[dixieppc]

Okay, just did my repeatability test. Scales were turned on at 7 a.m. this morning and the test was run at 3:30 p.m. Eight and one half hour warmup time. Scales are also dead nuts level and the room is stable as far as drafts and temp. Zeroed the scales. NO CALIBRATION.

Threw a load of Varget that said it was 28.66g. Trickled one granule in and immediately got 28.68g. Trickled a single again and immediately got 28.70g.

Removed the pan, let scale settle to zero and returned pan. Got 28.70g. Did this 10 times and only once did it not immediately return to 28.70g but showed 28.68g. However, after waiting around 10 seconds, it finally went to 28.70g on that one.

Removed pan, rezeroed scale and returned pan, 28.70g. Did this 5 times and got 28.70g each time. Before quitting, I trickled one last granule and it immediately got 28.72g.

I think these things are repeatable and handle trickling very well. Anyway, I am damned happy!

Regards.....

 

[charlesbr]

I have a question Dixie. Let's say you have a 100.08 gram weight. You calibrate your scales with it but keeping within the upper and lower boundaries that you say your scale has for a 100 gram check weight, you tell it that the check weight actually weighs 100.05 grams. Does this mean that the scales would just simply be off by 0.03 grams? If so, that would be acceptable to me and a lot less hassle or expensive coming up with a 99.95 gram to 100.05 gram check weight.

Charles

 

[snakepit]

Another check I do with my FX-120i or any other digital scale I use is to check the indicated weight in the digital readout after you remove the pan with your powder. The weight of my powder pan is 101.12 gr which you re-zero/tare to zero. After you remove the pan with your weighed powder from the scale it should read -101.12 gr until you put the empty powder pan back on the scale and then it should read zero. If not your next measurement may be off. The first thing I look for when this happens is a piece of powder that may have fallen on the scale pan while I was trickling powder.

 

[dixieppc]

I have a question Dixie. Let's say you have a 100.08 gram weight. You calibrate your scales with it but keeping within the upper and lower boundaries that you say your scale has for a 100 gram check weight, you tell it that the check weight actually weighs 100.05 grams. Does this mean that the scales would just simply be off by 0.03 grams? If so, that would be acceptable to me and a lot less hassle or expensive coming up with a 99.95 gram to 100.05 gram check weight.

Charles

Wow, that's a darn good question Charles. I wish I would have thought of asking that when I was talking to the A&D tech guy. But without knowing for sure I'm afraid that you might be entering an area that JamesnTN was talking about where something screwed the scales firmware or software up.

Regards....

 

[dixieppc]

Another check I do with my FX-120i or any other digital scale I use is to check the indicated weight in the digital readout after you remove the pan with your powder. The weight of my powder pan is 101.12 gr which you re-zero/tare to zero. After you remove the pan with your weighed powder from the scale it should read -101.12 gr until you put the empty powder pan back on the scale and then it should read zero. If not your next measurement may be off. The first thing I look for when this happens is a piece of powder that may have fallen on the scale pan while I was trickling powder.

I used a magic marker to write the weights of all of my pans on the bottom of them. After I get this thing calibrated, I'll have to redo all of those. Problem is, this FX-120i might weigh the weight of the magic marker ink (grin).

Regards.....

 

[snakepit]

Have you checked the accuracy of the GemPro 250 against the FX120i ?

I have both a FX-120i and a GemPro 250 and after I calibrate both of them they read the same. The main difference for me between the two is the GemPro starts to drift after a while and I have to tare it every so often and/or recalibrate it. The FX-120i just keeps weighing with no drift or other problems and is my main scale for reloading.

One thing that did help my GemPro 250 accuracy and consistency was doing the linear calibration which requires a 20 gram and a 50 gram weight instead of the single point calibration with just a 20 gram weight. I learned this method from a post by forum member jlow.

 

[RallyFan]

Can I suggest that people run the FX-120i scale in its native gram mode... This will give the reloader better resolution than running in grain mode.

For example, the resolution in grain mode is 0.02 grains. This equates to increments of approximately 1.296mg rather than increments of 1.0mg in gram mode.

This means an error of +/- 1 digit in gram mode equates to a charge error of +/- 0.154 grains rather than a charge error of +/- 0.2 grains for the same +/- 1 digit error when measuring in grain mode, that's a 23% improvement for nothing..!

Google is very helpful in converting grains to grams; my standard load of 38.5 grains of Reloader 17 converted to 2.49475804 grams; this I rounded to 2.495 grans or the equivalent of 38.5037341grains... (38.504 grains).

 

[JamesnTN]

Can I suggest that people run the FX-120i scale in its native gram mode... This will give the reloader better resolution than running in grain mode.

For example, the resolution in grain mode is 0.02 grains. This equates to increments of approximately 1.296mg rather than increments of 1.0mg in gram mode.

This means an error of +/- 1 digit in gram mode equates to a charge error of +/- 0.154 grains rather than a charge error of +/- 0.2 grains for the same +/- 1 digit error when measuring in grain mode, that's a 23% improvement for nothing..!

Google is very helpful in converting grains to grams; my standard load of 38.5 grains of Reloader 17 converted to 2.49475804 grams; this I rounded to 2.495 grans or the equivalent of 38.5037341grains... (38.504 grains).

You're asking for something that will end in a disaster. We are use to using grains and all it takes is someone to forget or do the math wrong and cause a blown action or a scorned bolt.

 

[snakepit]

Can I suggest that people run the FX-120i scale in its native gram mode... This will give the reloader better resolution than running in grain mode.

For example, the resolution in grain mode is 0.02 grains. This equates to increments of approximately 1.296mg rather than increments of 1.0mg in gram mode.

This means an error of +/- 1 digit in gram mode equates to a charge error of +/- 0.154 grains rather than a charge error of +/- 0.2 grains for the same +/- 1 digit error when measuring in grain mode, that's a 23% improvement for nothing..!

Google is very helpful in converting grains to grams; my standard load of 38.5 grains of Reloader 17 converted to 2.49475804 grams; this I rounded to 2.495 grans or the equivalent of 38.5037341grains... (38.504 grains).

What kind of improvement did you see in your groups using the more accurate grams instead of grains in your weighing?