Prometheus scale- whats the accuracy?

[taliv]

the lease was a deal breaker for me. guess I'm not worthy. I probably would have paid the $3k to cut my powder charging time in half, but still, 20-30 seconds to trickle with the same precision isn't too bad.
Out of curiosity, if you talk to him, ask him if he's ever had to hassle a widow to get his machine back after a customer dies.

 

[Switchbarrel]

In the home stretch now, mailed off my contract & check Tuesday

Can't wait to use it!

-Rick

 

[dixieppc]

Did that accuracy in powder charge weights translate to consistency over the chronograph? With that level of precision one would expect ES/SD numbers to be at the absolute minimum, even zero.

At the possibility of being flamed and cursed, I am going to throw my philosophy about the search for the ultimate 100% powder load consistency on the table. However, first let me share that I too have paid for a certain level of load consistency. I have a mid 70's ventage set of Ohaus 10-10's that have been tuned by Scott Parker. On the electronic side, I have an A&D FX-120i set of Magnetic Force Restoration Scales. I trickle to both with an Omega II Trickler. That is giving me a level of load consistency well beyond the consistency of some other components and/or proceedures that I don't have the same degree of control over, if any control what so ever, ie primers.. etc... with that said......

You know, anything tightening up on consistency should show some tightening of ES/SD. However there has to come to a point were a certain level of precision consistency of powder loads starts being offset or even nullified by varying consistencies of other components and/or setup proceedures. One component already mentioned here that we have absolutely no control over is consistency of primers from one primer to the next. Then you have literally tens if not dozens and dozens of other components and setup proceedures that no matter what you do or how gifted you are, will always have variations to some degree in their consistencies from one component to the next. I don't think I have to list all those other dozens and dozens of components and setup proceedures that offer their own collective degree of inconsistencies to the mix. When you add them all up, can one really see the zeroing (flat lining) of the consistency of any single one of those dozens and dozens of components and setup proceedures when that single component is in Consistancy-Competition with dozens and dozens of other components and setup proceedures?

So, lets say on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being absolute 100% consistant, your powder throws are rated a 10. However, your primers land on a 7, the tensile strength of your annealed necks are around 9, your case volumes are jumping around an 8 and we haven't even mentioned the consistancy of the shooter's bench technique and all the other components and setup proceedures.

I guess it all boils down to the fact that one is as accurate as allowed to be by the least consistant component and/or setup proceedure in the mix. That does't mean we don't try and be as consistent with every component and proceedure we have control over but one must be mindful of what level of consistency those components we have no control over are. And that no matter how much we spend to bring the level of a component we can control up to 100% consistency, the level of the whole will be no more than the least consistent component or proceedure in the mix which will probably be some component we have no control over.

Best Regards,
Thomas