What beam scale are you using?

[SHootSTraight22]

I have an old silver Lyman but don't know where the model number is... What's yall's M5 look like??? Mine has teflon looking v-shaped pads where the knive edges set.. Also a little turn dial on the right side/front to raise and lower a ram which takes pressure off an on the beam.

I think you may have an old Lyman D-7 scale - The Teflon looking pads are actually very hard Agate, just the same as in the RCBS scales but fixed in position, not floating.

The Lyman M-5 is one of the very best reloading scales - It looks very much like a RCBS 10/10 but without the rotating barrel poise system. It was made when engineers had more say than the accountants.

Where would the model number # be located on my scale... Could someone post picks of this Lyman D-7 so I can compare it to mine please... It's seems to be a good scale, weighing out 1 kernal at a time isn't a problem... It also has very sharp blades on it..

Here you go - this is a D7

and this is an M5

Yep, that's them on the top pic!!! They seem to work pretty good but playing with them last night I noticed they wanted to drift/or stop on one side of the zero line, but a little blow of air from me would make them settle... Do you know of any small mods I could make to them to perform better??

 

[Brians356]

Scott, what would be causing my scales to stick at the bottom and haved to be bumped slightly once replacing the pan for measurment?? It's almost like theirs a magnet underneath where the pointer part of the arm rests in the down postition.. I say that because I can't see one place the arm touches to be getting stuck...

I get that with my 5-0-5, too. I believe it's a very slight "stiction" between the bottom of the beam and whatever the beam rests on when the pan is removed. It could be a slight static charge. Try cleaning both points of contact there with some alcohol. But I look forward to Scott's comment about this.

 

[sparker]

Hi. The beam swings through an arc. Sometimes the position of the copper plate is such that it ever so slightly wedges itself down in the bottom of the slot between the magnets. A small strip of rubber band place in the bottom of the slot usually fixes it.

Scott Parker

 

[BillPa]

Hi. The beam swings through an arc. Sometimes the position of the copper plate is such that it ever so slightly wedges itself down in the bottom of the slot between the magnets. A small strip of rubber band place in the bottom of the slot usually fixes it.

Scott Parker

My 505 does the same thing so I slipped a piece of foam in the bottom of the slot to stop it from hanging up. BTW, the new old stock '05 I recently tuned...

The pan support is from an older Lyman D7 and I use a Lyman funnel pan. The D7 support with it's more rounded 'arm' allows more room than the original for my fat clumsy fingers to put the pan on and remove it. With the funnel pan I throw a charge, trickle and dump the charge in the case, no need to move a separate funnel around.

Bill

 

[michaelbz]

What are the best new <$200 beam scales, or are they all crap?

 

[amlevin]

What are the best new <$200 beam scales, or are they all crap?

It will depend on who you ask. One mans "crap" is another's "gold".

 

[SHootSTraight22]

Hi. The beam swings through an arc. Sometimes the position of the copper plate is such that it ever so slightly wedges itself down in the bottom of the slot between the magnets. A small strip of rubber band place in the bottom of the slot usually fixes it.

Scott Parker

Thanks! I noticed in that pic of the D7 in the foam box above that the pan support is facing a certain way... Does it matter or effect our weighing by having this support face "open end inward" or "open end outward??" I noticed the way the scale is placed in the box above that the support "open end" is facing inward, this makes replacing the pan feel wrong because of the supports arm attaching it to the beem being in the way, for using your "right hand..."

 

[hogan]

Any grain scale made by Ohaus is going to be Quality!

What really matters is: Are you using a Checkweight Set?

 

[Brians356]

What really matters is: Are you using a Checkweight Set?

Having check weights is a curse. You discover just how unstable and unrepeatable your trusty scale is.

Arlo Guthrie, the folk-rock musician, said:

Once you take acid you realize there's no such thing as "in tune".

That's kind of equivalent to playing with check weights for the first time.

 

[amlevin]

What really matters is: Are you using a Checkweight Set?

Having check weights is a curse. You discover just how unstable and unrepeatable your trusty scale is.

Then again, that "trusty" scale may eventually be a curse when it fails to correctly weigh a critical load.

 

[Sheldon N]

Has anyone tested a "tuned" beam scale against a quality digital scale? What sort of consistency/precision can you reasonably expect?

I've tested my RCBS 505 beam scale against nicer digital scales and the RCBS comes up sorely lacking. To quantify, I'll put this in terms of standard deviation in grains between measurements.

With trickled individually measured charges, I'm getting a standard deviation of around .013 to 0.014 grains with digital scales, checking scales against each other and against known check weights. My RCBS 505 gave me a standard deviation of .106 grains with individually trickled charges... just abysmal.

How good can you actually make a beam scale?

 

[1066]

Has anyone tested a "tuned" beam scale against a quality digital scale? What sort of consistency/precision can you reasonably expect?

How good can you actually make a beam scale?

This is a video of my 502 scales, I'm quite happy with the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnVOoGd1bDU

 

[Sheldon N]

That's a great video and a nice setup, but have you cross referenced the actual charge weights against a quality digital scale calibrated and checked with known reference weights?

I did most of those same things to my 505 beam scale, cleaned up the knife edges, cleaned all the contact points with alcohol and zeroed it before use, and still got poor results when actually checking the weights.

I loaded a series of 15 charges and checked each one. I had two "outlier" charges that were a couple tenths high or low, and the rest fluctuated with an average around the correct reading. Even if I throw out the two outlier charges, the standard deviation from the RCBS is .05 grain, almost three times worse than the digital scale.

I hear a lot of good things about the repeatability and sensitivity of a quality turned beam scale, just wondering if anyone has done a comparison of loaded charges against something like an Fx120 or Sartorius scale.

 

[Brians356]

I did most of those same things to my 505 beam scale, cleaned up the knife edges, cleaned all the contact points with alcohol and zeroed it before use, and still got poor results when actually checking the weights.

I've an older 5-0-5 (not the newer MIM ones) and, while it is good enough general hunting accuracy, it is really not very repeatable, and drives me crazy. I made sure the knife edges were perfect, cleaned the V pivots, still is just seems to drift. Mr Parker stated earlier (either here or in a parallel thread) that it is the C-shaped main poise, which doesn't always settle exactly the same in the beam notches when you move it. That makes sense to me. Scott, is there a way to replace the C poise with a simple flat poise of appropriate mass?

 

[dixieppc]

I hear a lot of good things about the repeatability and sensitivity of a quality turned beam scale, just wondering if anyone has done a comparison of loaded charges against something like an Fx120 or Sartorius scale.

Okay, Here you go.....

Equipment used:
1975 Vintage Ohaus 10-10 Parker Tuned
A&D FX-120i Digitals
Omega 2 Trickler
N133 powder (fine granular)

Setup Process:
Since I use 29.2 gn of N133 in my PPC's, I have a small brass nut that weighs 28.90 gn I use to level the 10-10's to that weight. After leveling at 28.90, I turn the tenth drumb an additional 3/10 gn so it will zero with 29.2 gn in the pan.

I then calibrate the 120i according to their required way with my Class 2 calibration weight.

Method of Test:
Throw light and trickle a charge on the 10-10's to a point where the needle zeros.

Transfer that charge to the 120i to confirm charge weight.

Do this 10 times

Results:
10 light throws tricked to zero of the needle on the 10-10's gave the folliwing 10 results when the charge was transferred to the 120i

29.22
29.20
29.20
29.22
29.22
29.18
29.20
29.22
29.18
29.20

Data Results:
Avg: 29.204
ES: 0.04
SD: 0.01578
Variance: 0.00025

Note: If a trickle went over on the 10-10, I removed enough powder to go under and trickled back up. I always approach Zero on the 10-10's from one direction which I choose to be from below.

From the above results, I would say that a well tuned, properly setup in a proper atmosphere set of 10-10 scales are highly accurate and repeatable. The only Con is that I can light throw/trickle a charge a lot quicker on the 120i's than I can on the 10-10's. I took a lot of time SLOWLY trickling on the 10-10 while keeping an eye on the needle to get it just exact. Takes a lot longer than tricking to the same exactness on the 120i's.

Regards,
Thomas

 

[SteveOak]

I've been using an old school, cast iron 5-0-5 for many years and have been very happy with it.

Recently I acquired and old school, cast iron 10-10. I am amazed at how smooth it is and the micrometer adjustment makes it so easy to use.

Definitely recommend the 10-10.

I currently have a 505 and its' leaving a little for desire and would like some input from you guys. I just did a little search and from what I can tell rcbs discontinued 1010? Either way, what are you guys using that works well.

Thanks!

 

[Sheldon N]

Thank you Thomas, that is excellent information. Your Parker tuned 10-10 scale is performing every bit as good as a comparably priced digital scale. I appreciate you taking the time to share that.

It seems that it's simply my 505 that's not up to the task.

 

[dixieppc]

Thank you Thomas, that is excellent information. Your Parker tuned 10-10 scale is performing every bit as good as a comparably priced digital scale. I appreciate you taking the time to share that.

It seems that it's simply my 505 that's not up to the task.

Please remember that my 10-10's have a needle as the pointer which enables you to hit the zero mark dead on. The needle is not part of tuning the scale's mechanics but is just an enhancement to help the user better visualize the exact moment of balance.

Also, for the test, I took an adnauseum amount of time trickling up to the final point, ie. trickle in a single granule of N133 and wait for the beam to respond and then settle and then to another single granule and so on and so on. So, yes the tuned 10-10's are extremely accurate and repeatable but at a cost of speed. I would hate to load up let's say 50 rounds to a 2 place tolerance with my tuned Ohaus 10-10's. It would take all day.

To me, Tuned Balance Scales fit two purposes - an accurate/repeatable backup to a good set of Magnetic Force Restoration (MFR) Digital Scales or an alternative to MFR Scales if one can't afford the MFR Digitals. If one doesn't need this level of repeatability/accuracy then an untuned balance or inexpensive set of strain gauge digital scales should be just fine.

Just an observation from an unsophisticated old man....

Regards,
Thomas

 

[bsekf]

I have both M5 and a 10-10. I think Scott Parker likes the M5 best. It seems to me as if the micrometer type adjustment on the 10-10 is more precise. Although I do have trouble reading the numbers. Am I missing something?

Bill

 

[AckleymanII]

I have a 10/10 and a Denver instruments Commercial electronic.

The 10/10 is dead nuts verified by the Denver Instruments electronic Commercial.