Why are most beam ballance scales 500 grain capacity?

[Webster]

The 500 grain range may have been determined based on they had to have a beam about 5" long and that beam length determined the range???

 

[XTR]

After reading bigedp51s response, and comparing it to my own experience, I am convinced that one of the greatest reasons to own a Ruger #1 or a Highwall with a .458 bore is to gain a true understanding of just what "too much" really means.

I was fortunate enough to be using a 45-70 and not a 458WM, that is likely why I did not to get a nose bleed, though the bruises on my shoulder did keep me from shooting again for weeks.

 

[CatShooter]

Re: Why are most beam balance scales 500 grain capacity?

1. Because a scale is most accurate and calibrated at its mid scale point.

2. Any cartridge using over 500 grains of powder requires having a shooting buddy standing by with a defibrillator to restart your heart again.

3. And any bullet over 500 grains is going to give you a nose bleed, which means ripping the wires off the defibrillator and using the wire ends to cauterize your nose.

Trust me, I was given three 500 grain .458 bullets for the .458 Winchester magnum and fired two of them in my 5 1/2 pound Ruger 45-70 No.3 carbine at near max velocities . I kept the third 500 grain bullet to remind me how stupid I was to pull the trigger twice and give myself two nose bleeds. I had cigarette filters shoved up my nose to stop the first nose bleed and on the second shot the massive recoil caused the bloody filters to exit my nose at the speed of light. It might of been the speed of sound, but I'm not sure how fast blood can move from a standing start. :'(

So just remember anything over 500 grains translates into pain so don't worry about the upper numbers on your scale.

I have a 45-120, and shoot 530 grain bullets - I feel your pain.

My right shoulder does not always work properly...

Did I mention that I feel your pain

 

[Brians356]

Several folks have replied with valid reasons for needing to measure things that are much heavier than the normal weight for powder charges and I totally get that. But why compromise the weighing of powder charges which is 99.9% of the usage of the powder weighing scales to make one size fit all? I have an electronic digital scale that does the occasional heavier weighing even better than the beam balance scale. I prefer to have a beam balance scale that is optimized for weighing powder changes.

I think you may have a valid point. Redding sells their powder measure which is limited to 30 grains per throw, and is touted to be more accurate for popular 22 and 6mm BR cartridges. Why not make a scale which is limited to 100 or 200 grains, so most payloads will be near mid-scale?

Having conceded that, I do question the assumption that mid-scale is significantly more accurate than near the limits with a beam balance scale. The "mid-scale is more accurate" definitely relates to spring scales, and it's likely an electronic scale may also be subject to similar constraints.

 

[1066]

The 500 grain range may have been determined based on they had to have a beam about 5" long and that beam length determined the range???

I can't agree with that Webster - the 5 inches or so might be judged to be a convenient length to sit on the reloading bench and smaller might be cheaper to make but you can make a 5 inch beam read a full scale deflection at 20 grains just as easy as 500 grains.

A 10 inch beam with a 60 grain maximum would make a really sensitive scale with a 10th grain moving the pointer maybe a quarter of an inch, not the thickness of the line we have now.

 

[Brians356]

A 10 inch beam with a 60 grain maximum would make a really sensitive scale with a 10th grain moving the pointer maybe a quarter of an inch, not the thickness of the line we have now.

You wrote earlier "I recently rebuilt a scale arm to read 0-70gn that works a treat."

Maybe you should offer that service to some of us with extra pocket money. I'd be interested in one.

 

[loneranger04]

"I prefer to have a beam balance scale that is optimized for weighing powder changes."

What does that mean? If a scale can weigh up to 500 grains (or any other number) how can it be optimized to weigh a specific material - can you weigh powder, but not something else.

If it weighs up to 500 grains, does it not weigh 50 grains (my M-5 does)... or 10 grains (my M-5 does).

A scale can weigh anything that will fit in the pan.

A scale has two characteristics:

Accuracy and Repeatably

Reloaders need some close accuracy, but +/- 1/2 grain is fine unless you are reloading 25 Auto, because you start low and work up. Many benchrest loaders do not use a scale... they use "clicks" on their powder measure... so the numbers, no matter where they come from are only relative to YOUR loading.

But reloaders MUST have repeatably. If you work up your load from 10% low, and the scale says it is a 34.6 grain load, but it actually weighs actually weigh 35.1, it makes no difference - but every load MUST be the same, even if the scale 0.5 grains off.

Any halfassed beam balance will run circles around any regular, non-laboratory, digital scale

I have to re-tare my Dillon digital every 5 or 10 weighings - so it is only used for case sorting.

One of the things that an a accurate balance beam scale can do differently than most electronic scales that use load cells is you can trickle up to your charge
better. The more expensive MFR scales can do this but at a big cost. The Gem Pro 250 is accurate enough but doesn't work well to trickle up to a load.

 

[sonofagun231]

Here's another "why" or WTH: all beam balances are designed for right handed users.

Also the design is not very ergonomic. So, a few years back I came up with a redesign of balance beam scales that solves these issues. Might be something somebody would be interested in making.

 

[1066]

Here's another "why" or WTH: all beam balances are designed for right handed users.

Also the design is not very ergonomic. So, a few years back I came up with a redesign of balance beam scales that solves these issues. Might be something somebody would be interested in making.

As you probably know RCBS has recently dumped it's existing range of scale, the 502,505 and the 10/10 and replaced them with two new scales, the M500 and the M1000 both have the beam printed on both sides and can be used both left and right handed.

 

[sonofagun231]

nope - that's news to me - I'll have to check them out.

Done, and my design still has many more improvements.

 

[1066]

Done, and my design still has many more improvements.

Are you going to let us have a peek at your design? Here's one of mine, a 0-65 grain beam on one of the new M500 scales. The extended damper plate gives an extra couple of inches of beam length when used with an auto trickler with a photo switch. Sorry about the poor quality of the pic.

 

[Flouncer]

Any halfassed beam balance will run circles around any regular, non-laboratory, digital scale

Also said above: a beam scale is most accurate at it's mid way point.


The $30 Lee scale will deflect with a single grain of 4831 and it's range is 0-100. For the stated purpose of weighing bench rest or sporting load charges of powder, which is 95% of the time for 95% of us, and the quoted statements are true, then a lot of us are throwing cash or charge card debt at inferior over priced measuring devices.

 

[Brians356]

The $30 Lee scale will deflect with a single grain of 4831 and it's range is 0-100.

Sensitivity: Check

Repeatability: ??

 

[chkunz]

I am getting off the subject of my own thread but I would like to address one point. There have been a couple of replies that state that the beam balance scale is most accurate at the mid point. I have never thought about that before and it seems reasonable but I have never seen a technical explanation for this. Can anyone explain why mid point would be more accurate than some other point like full scale? I think we can rule out the low end easy enough.

 

[amlevin]

I am getting off the subject of my own thread but I would like to address one point. There have been a couple of replies that state that the beam balance scale is most accurate at the mid point. I have never thought about that before and it seems reasonable but I have never seen a technical explanation for this. Can anyone explain why mid point would be more accurate than some other point like full scale? I think we can rule out the low end easy enough.

On all scales the most accurate point is the midpoint. This is a manufacturing expedient. Unless the scale is calibrated at every possible increment form 0 to max the mfr will merely choose start, mid, and max, then assume the rest of the readings are linear.

Same for old analog meter movements.

 

[BoydAllen]

Getting back to the original question. Reloaders use their scales for a variety of tasks, some of which require higher capacity. No one has demonstrated that there is an actual problem with longstanding designs that cannot be successfully dealt with by tuning, the addition of a sharper pointer at the end of the beam, and some form of magnification. Generally, the recommendation to start low and work up frees us from concerns about absolute accuracy, as long as we have good repeatability. After I learned how to tune a scale, I have had no issues with them. I cannot say the same for the less expensive electronic scales. There are a couple that I would rate as OK, but to have the kind of response to trickling that I am used to with a balance scale would require the purchase of a magnetic force restoration type electronic scale, which for my applications, cannot be justified in terms of what I believe that I would see on target. If I were a 1,000 yard competitor, and could not reach my goals for ES with my current equipment, that might change. I have been writing about accuracy related equipment for a number of years, and really love to see new products that improve function, but I see many shooters who have chosen to obsess on one or more small details, while choosing to ignore things that are more important. They get to do that, because one of the great things about hobbies is that we get to do them pretty much however we choose to. Beyond safety, the main thing is that we enjoy what we are doing, and there are many ways to achieve that, so you get to dream of what you think to be a more suitable scale, while I may choose something else to wish for, like a trigger that prevents me from shooting when the flags are not the same as they were for the last shot ;-)

 

[CatShooter]

Any halfassed beam balance will run circles around any regular, non-laboratory, digital scale

Also said above: a beam scale is most accurate at it's mid way point.


The $30 Lee scale will deflect with a single grain of 4831 and it's range is 0-100. For the stated purpose of weighing bench rest or sporting load charges of powder, which is 95% of the time for 95% of us, and the quoted statements are true, then a lot of us are throwing cash or charge card debt at inferior over priced measuring devices.

"Also said above: a beam scale is most accurate at it's mid way point."

Pure nonsence and meadow muffins.

The accuracy of a balance has nothing to do with midpoints.

A beam balance is a simple see-saw.

The accuracy of a beam balance is TOTALLY dependent on how precisely the notches are cut, and NOTHING else.

Of course, if you use a Lee scale, you deserve what you get, which is garbage.

 

[LHSmith]

^^^^^ One would think a balance beams ability to measure accurately would come from it's pivot and contact points ability to be as friction free as possible.

 

[1066]

^^^^^ One would think a balance beams ability to measure accurately would come from it's pivot and contact points ability to be as friction free as possible.

There's the rub. Ideally we want infinite sharpness pivoting on infinite hardness, all the rest are by products. The Lee scale is sensitive because it uses a strip of razor like steel as the knife edge, in fact there are many good design features on the Lee scale (some not so good)

Most of the other scales use an 1/8th inch steel rod with the knife edges machined at about a 60 degree angle, much like a cold chisel - they don't do it like this because it's the best, they do it because it's cheap and it works well enough.

These scales haven't really changed since the mid 1960's when magnetic damping was first introduced but think how accuracy has come on in the last 50 years. Even 20 years ago a 1 moa rifle was considered something to strive for, now it's pretty much run of the mill. Isn't it time we expected a bit more from a set of reloading scales, in fact current scale quality is well below what was available 50 years ago.

Some guys are spending $1000 on a digital scale to weigh to the second digit, I think it's time there was a better scale introduced.

 

[BoydAllen]

The scales that are being used to measure to the highest level of accuracy are not produced solely for the reloading market, and the larger market that supports their commercial viability would not go back to balance scales. The simple truth is that the demand for a better balance scale for reloading is too small to justify the cost of production. The good news is that if we view balance scales as kits that are 90% finished, and finish them, we have what we need.