Why are most beam ballance scales 500 grain capacity?

[CatShooter]

"... I think it's time there was a better scale introduced."

How much better do you want vs. how much better are you willing to pay for.

My 35 year old "reloading" scale is sensitive enough to move with one granule of H-322 (0.0058823529411765 of a grain)... and I can accurately read it to 1/4 of a tenth (0.025 of a grain).

How much better do you need? How much are you willing to pay for?

 

[1066]

The good news is that if we view balance scales as kits that are 90% finished, and finish them, we have what we need.

I agree Boyd, luckily you and I are in a position to be able to finish them so they perform to a good standard, unfortunately many reloaders are not. I've seen a good few scales ruined where their owners have "sharpened" the knife edges without much thought about how they actually work.

It just seems a bit pot luck now, when you buy a new scale, if it will work as well as it should without a lot of fettling. I've had two new scales in the last week or so - one, a new RCBS M500, it works well straight out of the box, accurate and reasonable sensitive. The other, a Dillon Eliminator will never work any sense without major work.

I really can't see why a better designed scale need be much more expensive than a poorly designed scale, for example, 90% of scale problems are knife edge related, why not simply have replaceable knife edges - you could buy a pack of 5 for $1 and replace them with a single screw, just like a craft knife.

 

[BoydAllen]

I seem to remember that the knife edges in typical RCBS scales are pressed into the beam, with the part that is flush with the beam in the shape of a short cylinder. Perhaps what needs to be done is to design a replacement that could be substituted. What I have noticed is that the pieces that keep the agates in place are the issue as far as the dulling of the edges are concerned. Assembling the beam to the scale carelessly, users dull edges on the retainers. I try to remember to drop one end in, slide it over till it stops, and then rotate the beam to finish. This keeps the edges off of hard surfaces that can dull them.

 

[Brians356]

What I have noticed is that the pieces that keep the agates in place are the issue as far as the dulling of the edges are concerned. Assembling the beam to the scale carelessly, users dull edges on the retainers. I try to remember to drop one end in, slide it over till it stops, and then rotate the beam to finish. This keeps the edges off of hard surfaces that can dull them.

The retainers on my old 5-0-5 are soft aluminum, and light contact of a knife edge leaves no discernible (under magnification) damage to the edge. Does that indicate mine are not sharp enough?

Looking at the new M500, it occurs to me that with the 5-0-5. the magnetic damper paddle hanging off one side of the beam induces torque and puts more pressure down on the knife edge on that side of the beam. Or am I wrong?

 

[BoydAllen]

The way that I evaluate knife edges for sharpness is to look at them straight on, and if I see shiny spots, they need work. As to to the asmytretical knife edge load, I doubt that it make much difference, although in line seems better. The reason that I will probably not get a chance to play with the new scale is that I have three that work.

 

[amlevin]

The way that I evaluate knife edges for sharpness is to look at them straight on, and if I see shiny spots, they need work. As to to the asmytretical knife edge load, I doubt that it make much difference, although in line seems better. The reason that I will probably not get a chance to play with the new scale is that I have three that work.

I too examine the knife edges for shiny spots. I also have "adjusted" the agate retainers so they "float" and align with the knife edges. The only real purpose of the retainers should be to keep the agate bearings from falling out.

 

[Flouncer]

Cat, have you ever used a Lee scale ?

 

[sonofagun231]

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.

OK - here's a few features I thought would be an improvement:

-Usable right or left handed (already been covered). Nice to see RCBS finally realized this idea. Now let's see if they "adopt" any of these:

-Zero indicator on same end of beam as the pan - eliminates glancing back & forth from the pan to the pointer on the opposite end of beam.
-Pan is ridgidly attached to the beam to eliminate it swinging (or at least some way to limit the swinging). Must it swing for accuracy's sake?
-Built in bracket to hold funnel for adding charges to cases.

Plus all the other usual features - leveling bubble and screw(s) + a carrying case?

 

[amlevin]

-Pan is ridgidly attached to the beam to eliminate it swinging (or at least some way to limit the swinging). Must it swing for accuracy's sake?

It has to be able to move so the weight is applied to the beam at exactly the same distance from the pivot every time you weigh a charge. If it doesn't "swing" the readings will never be the same and worse, you'd have to have the powder in EXACTLY the same place in the pan every time.

 

[BillPa]

-Built in bracket to hold funnel for adding charges to cases.

I use Lyman funnel pans weighted to match the originals. Throw the charge, weigh-trickle then dump it in the case and repeat. No fiddling around with a separate funnel.

Bill

 

[sonofagun231]

Yes, the funnel pans are a good idea but not everyone has them.

 

[BillPa]

Yes, the funnel pans are a good idea but not everyone has them.

Midway, Bass Pro, Cheaper Than Dirt have them ( Lyman) to name a few . IIRC I bought the two I have from Midway when they first came out. The only problem, the smallest you can use them with is a 22 cal unless you make an adapter for 17s'-20s', why I have two. One weighted for >22 and one w/adaptor for <22.

Bill

 

[Flouncer]

This is Benchrest and Accuracy.com but people also look here to see what works for shooting. I stated that the Lee Safety scale was in the sweet spot of the posted subject. Where almost all our loads fall between 5 and 55 or even 75 gains weight, and the industry standard is scales that go to 500 or 1,000 grains. Another individual posted that scales are most accurate in the middle of their range. The Lee scale range is 0 or 1.0 to 100.0, thus it's range is therotically more useable than the vast majority of industry scales. I firmly believe these scales are not "garbage". At the fringe, the end of the precision scale, a level of repeatability and accuracy is utmost to succeed on the field of competition. For NEW people in the sport, and we need them, the costs of this sport are daunting. I answered one response years ago about competing even in "F" class " that these guys spend more on a tank of fuel for their motorhomes to drive to the competition than I have in my weapon. An exaggeration but it hits home.

In an environment of $1,000 actions and $2,000 scopes, a $25 scale just seems wrong. But it is not garbage. My gut tells me so and I decided to check up on my Lee Safety scale purchased in 1996 in a kit with the powder measure and dies, etc. For $129. I have never checked the scale since I purchased it. never. So here goes:

Here is the scale set to zero. I never set it to zero so this was a first time in 19 years. 19 years.

here is the scale after being cleaned with a tissue and a Q-tip:

Here is the scale re-set to zero, it took three granules of IMR4831 (not H4831) to balance the beam.

I'll stick with my garbage scale, thank you. The sport needs new younger people in it or it will die. It's that simple. Look around you at the next match. And the majority of new people can't and won't drop hundreds of $$ a scale. The majority of people reloading don't need anything else. I don't think a Safety scale is a misdirect in that regards.

 

[chkunz]

This is Benchrest and Accuracy.com but people also look here to see what works for shooting. I stated that the Lee Safety scale was in the sweet spot of the posted subject. Where almost all our loads fall between 5 and 55 or even 75 gains weight, and the industry standard is scales that go to 500 or 1,000 grains. Another individual posted that scales are most accurate in the middle of their range. The Lee scale range is 0 or 1.0 to 100.0, thus it's range is therotically more useable than the vast majority of industry scales. I firmly believe these scales are not "garbage". At the fringe, the end of the precision scale, a level of repeatability and accuracy is utmost to succeed on the field of competition. For NEW people in the sport, and we need them, the costs of this sport are daunting. I answered one response years ago about competing even in "F" class " that these guys spend more on a tank of fuel for their motorhomes to drive to the competition than I have in my weapon. An exaggeration but it hits home.

In an environment of $1,000 actions and $2,000 scopes, a $25 scale just seems wrong. But it is not garbage. My gut tells me so and I decided to check up on my Lee Safety scale purchased in 1996 in a kit with the powder measure and dies, etc. For $129. I have never checked the scale since I purchased it. never. So here goes:

Here is the scale set to zero. I never set it to zero so this was a first time in 19 years. 19 years.

here is the scale after being cleaned with a tissue and a Q-tip:

Here is the scale re-set to zero, it took three granules of IMR4831 (not H4831) to balance the beam.

I'll stick with my garbage scale, thank you. The sport needs new younger people in it or it will die. It's that simple. Look around you at the next match. And the majority of new people can't and won't drop hundreds of $$ a scale. The majority of people reloading don't need anything else. I don't think a Safety scale is a misdirect in that regards.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply. I am the originator of this subject and most replies were sincere an some very informative but most were off the subject. Some were most inaccurate. We do have forum bullies that intimidate folks who have great information to share but do not choose to take the abuse. The most important point you make is about $. Folks who have a lot of money simply buy the most expensive product and throw money at the problem. But what about the new, young shooter who has a limited income and other family obligations? If the $20 Lee is as accurate as the $300 RCBS, then he needs to know that. Lee has always offered innovative product as a low price but they work. Yes they are sometimes klunkey but more often as good or better than the high price spread. Again, thank you for your response.

 

[1066]

As I said in a previous post (38) the Lee scale has some good design features:

* It covers the range of weight we are mostly interested in for weighing powder 0-100 grains.

* It is very sensitive - this is due to the razor sharp knife edge.

* I has a single point pan suspension system - the traditional stirrup is the cause of many scale problems.

* It has an approach to weight system - Very similar to the system used on the now obsolete RCBS 10/10

* The 10 grain ball poise system is almost fool-proof.

The down side:

- The scale is just too physically small and so the beam too short to make use of the excellent sensitivity.

- The vernier poise system, although clever, is far from fool-proof, it's fiddly to adjust and can be miss-read. - Remember this scale is given away with beginner kits.

- The damping could easily be improved - Using a copper blade would increase production cost pennies but may improve damping 50%.

- The single point pan system works well but would be better if there was a platform and a separate pan.

- The pointer is not precise enough to take advantage of the inherent sensitivity.

This scale first appeared around twenty years ago - It was introduced as a budget scale and has been used to good effect by ten of thousands of new reloaders. I'm just disappointed that a Mk 2 version hasn't appeared, bigger and better and not quite so "budget"

Just my thoughts of course.

Here's a couple that have been looked at.

 

[chkunz]

I have just completed testing (accuracy, repeatability, sensitivity) the RCBS 130 and had previously tested the Lee, both are in the 100 grain range of powder weighing. As noted in previous replies, these are very clunky and are lacking in some desirable features but are amazingly accurate. For a new reloader starting out on a budget these will definitely get the job done. It would be good to see one of the major suppliers of reloading equipment offer one in the 100 grain range with some of the quality features that have been identified. I am sure this has been considered but we reloaders are relatively small market and we are fortunate to have some good choices at a reasonable price.

 

[IdahoSharpshooter]

I prefer one that would read to 750gr. That way I can use it to sort my 550 Gibbs and 470 NE bullets. I like big bore rifles, and I hunt Africa.

Rich

 

[Webster]

Most folks are loading powder charges less than 100 grains. So why are beam balance scales that are marketed for hand loading mostly 500 (or 1000 grains) capacity? Most of these scales are very accurate in the less than 100 grain range so it is not a problem. But, in general, instrument accuracy is somewhat a function of full scale reading so why are we using an instrument that is an order of magnitude higher in capability than what we need?

My guess as to why the beams are long enough to weigh 500 grams. If you made the beam shorter the notches for the slide weights would have to be much finer, closer and made with more accuracy. For a small change in weight on the pan the arm would flip a large distance.

 

[1066]

My guess as to why the beams are long enough to weigh 500 grams. If you made the beam shorter the notches for the slide weights would have to be much finer, closer and made with more accuracy. For a small change in weight on the pan the arm would flip a large distance.

No, just the opposite Webster. You wouldn't want a shorter arm, you could have the same length beam with only a fifth of the notches, a much more positive and foolproof arrangement.
Yes, a small weight on the pan would give a greater beam deflection, surely a good thing.

 

[Webster]

No, just the opposite Webster. You wouldn't want a shorter arm, you could have the same length beam with only a fifth of the notches, a much more positive and foolproof arrangement.
Yes, a small weight on the pan would give a greater beam deflection, surely a good thing.

I believe you are correct, long beam notches farther apart for a 100 grain ballance. You don't want a shorter beam. I was not suggesting a shorter beam. The reason for an off center pivot point is so you can have smaller increments on the right side. There must be a logical reason that 99% of the beam ballances are made in a similar fashion. Weighing bullets? Is it only to create a bigger sales market for people other than reloaders? This is something we don't need to worry about.