• 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.

Speed up your Powder Weighing? A different approach...

So I've been weighing out powder down to the kernel for a while now using a couple different precision digital scales. I've also got an Omega powder trickler and have carefully trickled up each charge until I hit the target weight. Slow, meticulous work.

Through this process and trying different things I've made a couple observations.

1) If a scale has a variation of +/- 0.02gr, it's going to exhibit that variation whether it's the first, second, or third time you weigh a charge. Only way to get around it is to double and triple check a weight then take the average of multiple readings.

2) The Hodgon powders I load are remarkably consistent in terms of weight per kernel. I'd find myself knowing how many more kernels I needed to hit my target weight as soon as I see the initial weight.

3) Lots of time is wasted waiting for scales to register a weight, either a sensitive scale naturally responding to one more kernel, or an "insensitive" scale needing to have the pan lifted/reset so it could register a new weight.

4) I spend an inordinate amount of time staring at the Omega trickler watching kernels fall out one by one, or watching to make sure I didn't get a double kernel drop, then reweighing when I wasn't sure.

All of these things are general inefficiency problems that I was running into. So I thought, what if I just bypassed them all? If don't want to weigh repeatedly to "average" the results and I trust the scale the first time, then why not just weigh once? If the kernels are consistent and I know how many I need, why try to trickle them in one by one when you can just cut them out of a pile and sweep them off the counter into the powder pan? So here's my new approach...

Throw a charge, weigh it once, add the correct number of kernels. Done.


Now I've actually done a fair bit of double checking to make sure this works. I know how many kernels per 0.1g that I should add, I know what the crossover point is where I need to add or drop a kernel is if I'm putting in a larger number of kernels like 10-15.

But enough words.... a video makes it so much more clear.


~15 seconds per charge, and I'm confident that they are +/- 0.02gr. All done with a cheap RCBS powder thrower and a $120 Gempro. Use a straight edge to cut/count out the number of necessary kernels to add.

Has anyone else tried something like this? Any other suggestions for how to speed things up while keeping accurate charge weights?
 
I spread a few grains of powder on the counter top then press my finger down on however many kernels I need. Roll em in the funnel and your done.
 
I like your approach. Simple and effective. I used to trickle a kernel at a time with a battery operated device and it was tedious. It was the one process during the reloading sequence that I dreaded.

I have the FX-120i and it is capable of measuring to .02 grains (even better when converted to grams) which is basically one kernel of Varget. So let's say my powder charge is 45.0 grains of Varget. That is roughly 2,250 kernels. . . The auto trickler that I use now is accurate to +/- 1 kernel and it does it fast and painless. Whether it throws 2,249 or 2,251 kernels doesn't bother me anymore.
 
I run 2 chargemasters and like you, I know exactly how many kernals equals the amount I am either high or short. My Gempro never wanders and I can weigh a charge 3-4 times and it never gives me a different reading. I'll throw 50 charges accurate to the kernal in 15 minutes. With a single RCBS though, it took 50 minutes. That 2nd unit made such a huge different, and like you said...made it almost enjoyable again.

Ball powder though, that would be a different story.
 
While I understand the serious bench shooters obsession with exact powders weights. I do not concern my self too much with it.. Than again I am not a serious target/bench shooter.. I am a serious varmint shooter/hunter who likes his accuracy..

That said It is my understanding that the "sweet" spot in a powder load is that small variances in measuring have little or no effect on accuracy or impact point. If I do a ladder test and find my sweet spot at say 25-26 grains of a given powder then I go right in the middle..
 
I would do similar with stick powders....throw a charge on the Harrel's, trickle with the Dandy within .1gr then just drop the number of kernels that equaled the amount short and pour the charge; I would not wait for the scale to settle after the final addition which saved a few seconds. I now have an Autotricker tied in with my scale...I throw a short charge and wait about 8 seconds or less for it to do it's thing. The FX-120 will work with one;).
 
While I understand the serious bench shooters obsession with exact powders weights. I do not concern my self too much with it.. Than again I am not a serious target/bench shooter.. I am a serious varmint shooter/hunter who likes his accuracy..

That said It is my understanding that the "sweet" spot in a powder load is that small variances in measuring have little or no effect on accuracy or impact point. If I do a ladder test and find my sweet spot at say 25-26 grains of a given powder then I go right in the middle..

Exactly. A good forgiving load isn't gonna care about a couple-few kernels of difference in charge weight.
 
Oh don't get me wrong, I'd love an FX-120i with the autotrickler. Just trying to make the best of what I've got right now.

Having a pair of chargemasters to handle the initial throw would speed things up by making the first weight more consistent and avoiding the occasional under/over throw I get from the RCBS powder drop.
 
Thanks for making the video. To the other posters....of course the need to be this precise when charging cases depends on the distance that one is shooting. Friends who compete a 1,000 yards assure me that for that distance, to keep ES low, to minimize vertical from variance in powder charge, tight tolerances for charge weight must be observed. For short range competition this is not the case. I am impressed with the speed and precision shown in the video. Well done.
 
Does the GemPro 250 have enough accuracy & repeatability to determine the weight of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. grains so a "chart" can be printed (needed because 71 y.o. memory isn't reliable) ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Urv
To come up with the weight of one kernel of powder, count out and weigh a number and then the combined weight by how many there are in the scale pan. Using this method one could generate charts for all of the powders that one is using. It would only have to have two columns, one that indicated the amount that the charge was under the desired weight, and the other showing the number of powder granules needed to make up the difference. For me, the interesting thing is the speed, and that he came up with a way to get around the cost of a magnetic force restoration scale. If we combine this tip with the ones that I have seen on the thread on the automatic trickler, that used a light shot measure to throw powder into so that powder can be thrown into a container that is on the scale, time per charge could be shortened up even more, without sacrificing accuracy.
 
Does the GemPro 250 have enough accuracy & repeatability to determine the weight of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. grains so a "chart" can be printed (needed because 71 y.o. memory isn't reliable) ?

I don't have a chart per-se, but I have experimented a bunch to know kernel weight. Like Boyd mentioned you can put 20 or 30 kernels in the pan and weigh it, then divide the weight to get an average. Or just test a bunch of times to see how many kernels you need to get 0.1g or 0.2g increase, etc.

I'm loading with Varget and I find that I can use 0.02gr per kernel up to around 9 kernels, at which point I need to subtract one since the kernels are just a hair heavier than 0.02 and 10 of them usually gets me an 0.22gr increase. The mental math actually comes pretty quick since it's 5 per tenth.

I will confess that when I get an underthrow that approaches 0.3gr low, I just "wing it" and throw in a bunch based on my best guess of pile size without actually counting. Then I'll reweigh and see how close I got. Surprisingly I can usually hit it within a kernel or two, sometimes spot on.

For me the main thing is that with this new approach I'm DRASTICALLY faster than my old trickle, reweigh, seat a bullet, move to the next case method. Literally twice the speed. And I don't feel like I'm giving up anything for precision. Plus it's something you can do on the cheap, no real fancy gear required other than the scale.

I wish someone had showed this to me when I was starting out, I would have saved myself lots and lots of time.
 
I toss from a Harrell into a GemPro & "dig" out the number of kernels I need with a leaf shaped spill of paper. Been doing it for maybe 15 years now with my 1000-1200 yard loads. The paper spill lets me tap the powder pan to demand that it evaluates again every time I add powder.
 

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
165,791
Messages
2,203,214
Members
79,110
Latest member
miles813
Back
Top