Reloading again - powder weight vs. volume?

[L_Kilkenny]

For the last decade plus all my reloading has been done with a cheap Lee safety scale and a Lee powder measure. I've thought about upgrading both of those items but lately I've been thinking about going the other way and doing all my reloading with a Lee auto disk with double disc and micro disk adders. Never touching a scale again and going completely by volume. No more messing with scales or micro adjusting powder measures.

The good, the bad and the ugly?

LK

[Don McDowell]

That's not a particularly good idea, unless you are dealing strictly with blackpowder substitutes, which are the ONLY powders designed to be used on a volume basis.
Using a good powder measure and scale isn't that much of a headache , and it's certainly well worth the peice of mind that when your gun goes up in schards a chunk of it won't go thru the temple of the person standing beside you .
I've found that the Lyman dps system is very fast and accurate for loading everything from 32 h&r's up to the big bpcr cartridges, just punch in the grain setting you want hit the auto repeat button and awaay you go...

[earlmck]

I'm almost where you want to be, LK -- the micrometer settings on my Redding BR30 are so repeatable that I just record the setting in my load book and can return to it within seconds. But I'd be awful nervous if I couldn't verify this setting with the powder scale (I use an ancient Herter's scale). So that's what I do: dial in the micrometer setting and then check the first charge on the scale and then check that this is really the charge I want to throw of the powder I am using for the cartridge I am loading. Then I do a visual of each charge just to make sure I didn't get a "hang-up" somewhere along the line. Been a long time since I caught a scary error, but I still gotta' check...

[Old Savage]

From what I know about some target shooters they have volume settings and don't even know the weights at times. I think that volume must measure something like surface area that is important. It even worked with my less than very consistent weight wise Dillon measure. Weight also works and also controls something - weight. I could see that one or the other might be more accurate in SD with different powders. You have to see what works with the combo of components that you are using.

[Terry Murbach]

THIS IS AND WILL BE UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR THE WORST IDEA PROPOSED ON THIS SITE. UPON REFLECTION AFTER SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT THIS, IT MIGHT BE THE ALL-TIME WORST SUGGESTION ON THIS SITE EVER.

THERE IS NO-NO-NO-NO-NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS WHATSOEVER.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I AM NO LONGER SURPRISED AT THE SILLYNESS I SEE HERE ANYMORE. I CAN REMEMBER WHEN THIS WAS ONE OF THE TWO OR THREE PREMIER GUN-SHOOTING- SITES ON THE INTERNET. THOSE DAYS ARE LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG GONE. YE GADS, WHAT A PITY, GUYS. IT IS EMBARRASSING TO SEE.

[COSteve]

I take it Terry isn't happy with the OP's original post and replys .............................................................. however, I could be wrong!

[mikld]

The only embarrassment I experience is when "you-know-who" posts insults in all caps. Some new reader might think all the old-timers around here are like that...

[rbertalotto]

The LEE powder measure uses volume only. But the first "drop" can be verified by a scale, but from then on, all cartridges are loaded by volume. Just like every progressive loading system made.

The LEE powder measure comes with a list of powders and the various discs to use for the load (weight) required. In verifying my LEE 1000 progressive loaders, these values are usually spot on, but I always weigh a drop or two before I start loading caes with powder.

I bought the variable adapters for my LEE 1000 units, thinking I could zero in on a load a little easier, but I've abandoned this method as the discs are just so darn easy and accurate.

All (or 99%) of Benchrest shooters load by volume only. They will use a scale to verify the first drop or two, and then load all cases by volume.

Many of them do not use a scale what-so-ever. They use a "Culver" type powder drop that has a series of "clicks" and is amazingly repeatable. They know where the "mid point" of the load will be and they will "click" up and down to vary the load as the conditions warrant. No scale is involved in this phase of powder loading.

It still blows my mind how some folks think the extra two or three little pieces of powder they trickle into a case holding upwards of 60 grains of powder will have any bearing on accuracy. I've done this test many times over a chronograph and shooting for group with cartridges from 6PPC up to 338 Win Mag and there is zero improvement by trickling VS volume loading.

But, if it makes you feel more confident in your shooting to weigh each and every charge....have at it. After all, 50% of precision shooting is in the mind!

[Pisgah]

The only embarrassment I experience is when "you-know-who" posts insults in all caps. Some new reader might think all the old-timers around here are like that...

Perhaps it is a bit abrasive, but the fact is we "old-timers" ARE like that -- particularly when we see a stupid and/or dangerous idea proclaimed.

Please note -- there is no insinuation that the person with the stupid idea is stupid. Geniuses have as many stupid ideas as anyone else, maybe more. But responsible, experienced people will speak up forthrightly when something so potentially dangerous is voiced. A certain lack of tact is pretty appropriate in the circumstance.

No doubt about it -- volumetric devices, be they scoops or finely-adjustable mechanical measures, are great labor-and-time savers, and I use them prodigiously; but never, ever would I use one without verifying it regularly with scales, nor would I suggest it to anyone.

[Buck Elliott]

I AGREE WITH TERRY!!!

WE DIDN'T GET TO BE THE "OLD" HANDS AT THIS GAME BY "ACCIDENT..!!!"

[Mike Rintoul]

Smokeless powders can change volumetric space slightly depending on the moisture content (humidity- external and absorbed-internal). Also, the same labeled powder has been know to gain or lose volumetic space per fixed weight from lot to lot. You will never be able to squeeze out the accuracy and consistency that is possible with a weighed charge when relying on volumetric charges. I am not going to comment on the merits of the idea like the posts preceeding this, but I also discourage the idea for a variety of reasons that are important to me. Of importance to everyone is safety. You may find two powders that fill the same volumetric space, however weigh drastically different amounts per that sized space. If you unintentionally had the wrong powder in the volumetric device, the results could be catostrophic.

[Buck Elliott]

To those who feel somehow threatened, intimidated or insulted by the use of ALL CAPS....

GROW SOME BARK, BUILD A BACKBONE, THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE, and get over it.. !!!

When you post a comment, you have no authority to dictate the manner of a reply..

JUST SAYIN'!!!

[rbertalotto]

You may find two powders that fill the same volumetric space, however weigh drastically different amounts per that sized space.

I'm always willing to learn.........

Do powders burn and create energy by volume or by weight?

[Buck Elliott]

By mass and burning rate, relative to capacity and resistence....

[Idiot]

It has been my experience that the Lee powder measures don't always (almost never) match the powder weight it is referenced to. I think the Lee companny knows this and always measures thier powders significantly less than the weight it represents.

When doing precise "safe maximum" reloading I use the powder measure cup closest to the weight I want, place the powder in a scale cup, and then trickle in the balance using a scale as the final step. I cuts down on time and works, and my cartridges are accurate and safe.

Even when "progressively" reloading, I constantly verify with a scale - and believe me, I'm thankful that I do. There are a number of things, including a failing powder measure itself, that can contribute to differing powder throws. And BTW, I don't have anything in my loading kit that even comes close the precise, and expensive, powder measures the benchresters are using. Besides, I think I load a whole lot more and whole lot more varied cartridges and loads than the benchresters do.

And that's just a little two cents from another old guy who's walked a lot of different paths, long before the internet and dozens and dozens of reloading manuals, speaking from a, now, well worn rut that works. I ain't an expert like Terry and Buck, but I shoot well, using both of my eyes and holding my gun with both of my hands with all of my fingers.

[earlmck]

Thanks for a really fine post you made here, LK. Sure got some folks' blood circulating extra good for a while.

[L_Kilkenny]

Thanks for the interesting comments. For a little more info I should add that I rarely if ever load to the max and am almost as likely to be shooting a reduced load. All my loads, no matter the source or how the loads came to be, ARE VERIFIED BY ME IN MY OWN GUNS PRIOR TO LOADING BATCHES.

While I'm still undecided about this I don't see how it could be as bad as some would insinuate. Like most things I'd bet that the truth is somewhere in the middle. It probably isn't the cat's rearend that I'm hoping it would be or everyone and their brother would be doing it and at the same time I'm betting it's not the end all to reloading safety that some here might lead you to believe. Liability alone would drive the sale of volume devices out and let's face it, almost all of us reload strictly by volume anyway, either by purchased or homemade dippers or the use of a powder measure. We may confirm loads every ten, every 20, 100, or never with a scale but except for small batches they use some sort volume device.

Personally, I'd like to see the naysayers, right or wrong, explain to my simple minded self the downfalls and actually participate in a discussion. Inquiring minds need to know before natural selection rears it's ugly head. Maybe I'm dreaming?

BTW, Lee actually has a decent write up in their manual on the merits of volume loading. I'll have to go read it again.

LK

[Don McDowell]

of volume devices out and let's face it, almost all of us reload strictly by volume anyway, either by purchased or homemade dippers or the use of a powder measure. We may confirm loads every ten, every 20, 100, or never with a scale but except for small batches they use some sort volume device.
LK

That's somewhat of a lame arguement about the volume thing.
Just how do you know how much is in that "volume"? You either take somebodies word for how many grains weight of a powder the volume thing holds, or you varify the weight yourself on a scale.
Yes the charges might be dropped by "volume" but I defy anyone to show me a powder scale that reads out in volumes, or just exactly where to get a volume to weight conversions table or formula.
Like it or not your powder charges are thrown for a grains weight, whether or not you yourself know how many grains that dipper actually holds or not, who ever built it has a reasonable expectation of what the actual grains weight of that charge should be.

Yes you can make some quality reloads using a some sort of "volume" thrower, but the folks that thrive on accuracy know that that powder measure is set to throw an exact grains weight, right down to a tenth of a grain powder charge. Those same accuracy nuts buy their powder in kegs of the same lot number, and when that lot number is gone they rework the load for the new lot.

[Idiot]

Never touching a scale again and going completely by volume.

BTW, Lee actually has a decent write up in their manual on the merits of volume loading. I'll have to go read it again.

I've read that section a number of times too. Primarily because I'm lazy and don't like the process of verifying everything by scale either. But I've never been able to leave the scale behind, and get good load results or feel fully confident in my loads without it. Besides, in addition to what I wrote above, I've witnessed a 45 SAA become a granade once, because of lazy and negligent reloading, and decided to take the extra step to make sure I was safe.

I've also learned to take loading manuals with a grain of salt as well. Some of the data is out dated, some is only for the purpose of selling products, and some is just incorrect. So, I start low and work up - testing with the gun I intend to shoot the cartridges in - and eventually arrive at a safe load for my application. I simply could not do this without a scale. So, the idea of abandoning a scale doesn't make sense to me. In fact, when teaching my kids, and now grandkids, how to reload I always tell them to get a good scale, because it will be the baseline and foundation of all their reloading equiptment, and the act of reloading itself.

[Hobie]

LK,

I don't care if you never load to the max, never take any OTHER chances, etc... It seems to me that deliberately loading without a scale to double check the supposed volumetric accuracy is negligence. Sure, people load great volumes of powder using measures which are based on the volume of a given space BUT, even the loading companies do so with much background testing as appropriate. How can we, as reloaders, not knowing for certain where or in what our ammo will ultimately be shot do any less?

Progressive loader users check their measures constantly and when they don't we get to read about a few of those incidents and it is never to the good, one way or the other. Some have recounted in this very forum how they narrowly avoided a life changing misfortune connected to damaged, malfunctioning or incorrectly set measures.

I know that for every time a question is asked, 10 others have had the same thought and a percentage have surely acted on it without further review. Most every shortcut is proposed out of a desire to save money or work. I, for one, don't want to be remembered at my funeral as that cheap, lazy, stupid so-and-so. Worse yet would be to know that I was the cause of another's maiming or death due to my inability to step up and do what is right.

Now, I know you said, "...I rarely if ever load to the max and am almost as likely to be shooting a reduced load." Uh huh... Sooner or later you will come to want to do something closer to the edge and lacking the correct equipment to do so will be tempted and fail to resist that temptation to go ahead.

As for Mr. Lee's well-written article supporting volumetric measurement it is my opinion that he often is very good at making a shortcoming into a "feature". I use some of his stuff, but it is what it is, no more and no less. The same applies to volumetric measuring of powder (or anything else), when the measuring tool is properly sized to the material being weighed and the machine/tools are properly operated all is well but when we fail to maintain, double-check (do quality control checks) or take other short cuts WHEN WE HAD THE ABILITY TO DO THE JOB CORRECTLY AND NO NEED FOR SHORTCUTS we do ourselves and others around us a disservice.

I personally dip and throw every charge into a scale to weigh the charge. I have thus loaded many 10s of thousands of rounds. I have seen what every one of those charges was and I can not see my way clear to rely on volumetric measuring alone.

I also suggest that you get a set of scale check weights.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old, bold pilots."

[AJMD429]

For the last decade plus all my reloading has been done with a cheap Lee safety scale and a Lee powder measure. I've thought about upgrading both of those items but lately I've been thinking about going the other way and doing all my reloading with a Lee auto disk with double disc and micro disk adders. Never touching a scale again and going completely by volume. No more messing with scales or micro adjusting powder measures.

Personally, I would feel VERY comfortable going with the Lee Disk 'Pro' version I have for all powder measurements, in terms of it being accurate and reproducible - if the disk throws 23.4 grains of IMR-4831 today, I am confident that it will throw 23.4 grains of the same lot of IMR 4831 tomorrow, and even in five years if I still have some. I'm also confident that it will throw darned near 23.4 grains of a different lot of IMR-4831 in five years, all this without 'verifying' by scale. HOWEVER....

...I ALWAYS check on a scale to verify that the thrown charge is the weight it is supposed to be, even if I'm just coming back to the same can of powder and untouched measure after taking a sandwich break. It is NOT because I don't think the volume-measure is accurate, even if the humidity and so on are different, because that kind of change is going to be pretty minute and I'm not an accurate enough shot to detect the difference, nor do I push anywhere close to 'hot' loads that such an error would matter. I double-check it because the BIG error, that is potentially deadly, is ME - I may think I picked disk 'E' when the chart said to use 'B', or something like that.

I've never noticed enough difference between lots of powder to be an issue, though if my goal is 23.4 grains, and disks 'B' and 'F' yield that charge today, I wouldn't be surprised if another can of powder two years from now might weigh 23.6 grains. If that happened, I would 'catch' it on my preliminary weight-check, and either just go ahead and use it, if it were well within the bracket of 'acceptable' moderate loads I've found work fine, or if I were really wanting perfection, I'd switch to disks 'C' and 'G' or whatever to get back my 23.4 grains.

My most accurate 6mm Remington load would shoot under half-inch 5-shot groups at 100 yards, and I loaded them exclusively with a Lee 'Target Model' loader - the ones you use a mallet to whack, only with a micrometer seater and inside neck reamer. I used a scale to weigh each charge, but one day I was out of ammo and a friend wanted to just 'shoot a gun' but was only able to visit a few minutes. I reasoned that since the powder charges I used were under listed maximum, and were compressed, it should be safe to just 'dip' the cartridges into a bowl of powder, shake them level with the neck, and dump enough out to get the bullet started seating. We took ten such hastily-loaded rounds back to the range, and each shot five off a solid rest. Groups for both of us were both under one inch. This experience doesn't mean any-old-load is safe, or that volume is as good as weight, but it does illustrate that if you're within the 'minimum' and 'maximum' charges that you know are safe, you should get SAFE ammo, and it just may be plenty accurate!

If I were pushing "Ruger-only" loads, I'd be less cavalier, but with moderate loads, I can't imagine that the small amount of variability using 'volume' based measurements would take a person 'out of range' - the purpose of 'weighing to confirm' for me is not to be sure the powder measure is accurate, but rather to be sure I didn't set it up wrong...

[L_Kilkenny]

I can't imagine that the small amount of variability using 'volume' based measurements would take a person 'out of range' - the purpose of 'weighing to confirm' for me is not to be sure the powder measure is accurate, but rather to be sure I didn't set it up wrong...

Perhaps the best and most thought provoking argument yet. I'm sure that any powder out of spec to the point of being dangerous would be equally dangerous whether the load was throw by volume or weighed. But the double check on one's self is a whole nother matter and a dang good one.

Most every shortcut is proposed out of a desire to save money or work. I, for one, don't want to be remembered at my funeral as that cheap, lazy, stupid so-and-so.

I personally dip and throw every charge into a scale to weigh the charge.

I also suggest that you get a set of scale check weights.

Brother Hobie, for the record powder measures themselves are a shortcut. One you choose not to take so kudo's to you. but at a minimum I'm not giving up my powder measure. Your last comment about the scale weights is a great idea and as a matter of fact is one of the reasons I was leaning towards going volume. After all I'm putting alot of faith in my good ol' $20 scale ain't I. In reality, checking weight with volume in reverse of what AJMD does might make a great idea. After all, it is just as possible to set up a scale wrong or have it out of calibration as it would be to set up an auto disk wrong or grab the wrong dipper. Actually, I might worry more about a scale than I would about a fixed hole in a disk or tube.

That's somewhat of a lame argument about the volume thing.
Just how do you know how much is in that "volume"? You either take somebodies word for how many grains weight of a powder the volume thing holds, or you verify the weight yourself on a scale.
Yes the charges might be dropped by "volume" but I defy anyone to show me a powder scale that reads out in volumes, or just exactly where to get a volume to weight conversions table or formula.
Like it or not your powder charges are thrown for a grains weight, whether or not you yourself know how many grains that dipper actually holds or not, who ever built it has a reasonable expectation of what the actual grains weight of that charge should be.

Actually, if my argument for volume is lame than that makes your argument for weight just as lame. Until we verify for ourselves the safety of a load we are only taking some one's word for it whether it be listed by weight or volume. If a manual says xx cc's is safe then why should I trust their weight measurement more? Also, Lee's Manual pps 162-169 does exactly what your ask for. It gives volume per grain for most powders, capacity of it's dippers for most powders and capacity of it's various disks available. Are they accurate? Just like any load listed by weight it's up to you to confirm the load.


LK

[Don McDowell]

IActually, if my argument for volume is lame than that makes your argument for weight just as lame. Until we verify for ourselves the safety of a load we are only taking some one's word for it whether it be listed by weight or volume. If a manual says xx cc's is safe then why should I trust their weight measurement more? Also, Lee's Manual pps 162-169 does exactly what your ask for. It gives volume per grain for most powders, capacity of it's dippers for most powders and capacity of it's various disks available. Are they accurate? Just like any load listed by weight it's up to you to confirm the load.


LK

When you get some real experience under your belt you'll find that seldom do the Lee dippers throw the amount of powder they are supposed to. Same with the powder bushings in their Loadall shotshell loaders, or the infamous powder dribbler known as the auto disc. Sometimes they throw more sometimes less. Less is better , more maybe not so good..
No that is not a list of volume conversions, it is a list of how much of what powder a particular dipper is supposed to throw. It still takes a scale to verify the load is safe. And there are powders that an underload is as hazardous as an over charge.
So enough of your shortcuts, use a scale in conjunction with your dippers, and KNOW what the charge is your putting in those cases.

[L_Kilkenny]

When you get some real experience under your belt you'll find that seldom do the Lee dippers throw the amount of powder they are supposed to. Same with the powder bushings in their Loadall shotshell loaders, or the infamous powder dribbler known as the auto disc. Sometimes they throw more sometimes less. Less is better , more maybe not so good..
No that is not a list of volume conversions, it is a list of how much of what powder a particular dipper is supposed to throw. It still takes a scale to verify the load is safe. And there are powders that an underload is as hazardous as an over charge.
So enough of your shortcuts, use a scale in conjunction with your dippers, and KNOW what the charge is your putting in those cases.

Tell me Don, where in my OP did I mention dippers? As a matter of fact I see many potential issues with dippers if used alone except that their list is the next size smaller than their minimum load. No way would I want to try a max load with a dipper for even I can see enough variation in the way a powder measure drops depending on the user, amount of powder in the hopper and technique to know that a dipper won't have much in the way of consistency unless the utmost care is taken. As for issues you have with the auto disk I'm all ears. You're the first I've heard for substantial downside remarks against it and I'd truly like to know what issues you've had. Lee's manual.............. IT DOES HAVE an almost complete (older addition) list of powders and their volume per grain, not just dipper and auto disk charts. Is their list accurate? Who knows. IMO they might be but more than likely it is probably on the lean side for a little added safety factor. But who cares. After all we start at the bottom and work up to an accurate safe load right? If we start 15% below max instead of 10% it's not the end of the world is it?

LK

BTW, where 's the line for "reall experience"? 1000 rounds? 10,000, 100,000? Or is it dollars spent on reloading equipment?Just like to know so I know when I'm no longer wet behind the ears.

[Don McDowell]

The auto disc unless they have substantially improoved the thing, slobbers powder like a toothless old horse slobbers grain.
The discs don't throw the amount of powder they are supposed to , at least the discs with the one I bought sure don't even come close.
The powder bushings with the Loadall shotshell loader are so far off as to make them nonusable with the powder I use for shotshell loading, and if you want problems real quick you make a variation in shotshell recipes....
Real experience has little to do with the number of rounds fired, it has more to do with actual experience trying different things. If you haven't figured out why it's important to keep a scale around to check on whether or not the lee dippers, bushings or discs are accurate in the amount of powder they throw , then you still short on real experience.
Might just for kicks and grins get ahold of one of the Lyman Reloading Handbooks and see what they have to tell you about measuring powder charges.

[Hobie]

I think I implied that powder measures were a shortcut and that all "shortcuts" should be used with safeguards. In measuring things that are to be measured by weight but rather by volume, a periodic check by scale is recommended. Scale weights to check the scale are recommended. ALL sorts of things change, indeed the powders themselves change. I feel that a scale is a necessary tool for the reloader regardless of the method/tools used.

[AJMD429]

In reality, checking weight with volume in reverse of what AJMD does might make a great idea. After all, it is just as possible to set up a scale wrong or have it out of calibration as it would be to set up an auto disk wrong or grab the wrong dipper. Actually, I might worry more about a scale than I would about a fixed hole in a disk or tube.

THAT is an interesting point - if you do use a scale for all your powder measurements, double-checking the VOLUME of a thrown charge to make sure it is 'within reason' could be a lifesaver, not so much checking the scale for a 10% error, but your setting of the scale for a 200% one.

If a manual says xx cc's is safe then why should I trust their weight measurement more? Also, Lee's Manual pps 162-169 does exactly what your ask for. It gives volume per grain for most powders, capacity of it's dippers for most powders and capacity of it's various disks available. Are they accurate? Just like any load listed by weight it's up to you to confirm the load.

Good points.

Yes the charges might be dropped by "volume" but I defy anyone to show me a powder scale that reads out in volumes, or just exactly where to get a volume to weight conversions table or formula.

These are a start... the second one is easier to read. (volumes are in cubic centimeters)

• http://www.leeprecision.com/cgi-data/in ... ippers.pdf
  http://www.leeprecision.com/cgi-data/instruct/VMD.pdf

This thread got me thinking (dangerous, I know... )...

• I wonder how the commercial manufacturers meter-out their powder - volume or weight...? I'd think with the sheer speed of manufacture, they'd have to go by volume, and it would (in that setting) surely be far less likely to be 'way' off, vs. any weight method that was automated and fast enough to load the thousands-per-hour they must have to produce. I realize they no doubt calibrate each 'lot' of powder in some fashion, and alter the volume accordingly, but it would be interesting to know their protocol.

Regardless of whether using volume OR weight, I think the GRAVE errors (pun intended) probably all result from a human error involving tens or even hundreds of per cent error, and the ACCURACY errors might result a bit more if relying on volume measurement, which could result in maybe one to five per cent errors at most. I'm not a good enough shot to pick those up, personally...

[Griff]

L-K,

Terry, Buck, Mike, Hobie & Don have given you excellent advice. I've been reloading for 35 years and only in industry writeups have I seen such an excellent explanation regarding the whys and hows of volumetric deviations as Mike wrote. Look at his signature line. It should tell you something regarding his "bone fides." Terry has probably forgotten more about reloading that I've learned, to use an old homily.

I use volumetric powder measures... but, they are always checked and rechecked, and periodically rechecked some more against a scale!

[L_Kilkenny]

Must be the cold medicine kickin in, night all.
Chris

[El Chivo]

I started off weighing each round, didn't buy a powder dispenser with my loading setup. Once I was confident I made up custom dippers for certain everyday (reduced) loads. No problems, but accuracy suffered. Now I'm back to weighing each round. I figure, if I am going to the trouble of shooting it, I want it to be as accurate as possible. You pay for the bullet, powder, and primer, you drive to the range, pay the fees, etc., just to spray bullets around?

By the way, it's possible to get hurt by weighing also. One old timer with all his fingers was telling me about the time he had a too-hot load. He pulled his bullets and checked the weight. All fine. But, he had had that can of powder for a long time, so he sent a sample in to the manufacturer. They called him and told him to destroy the rest of the powder right now and sent him a coupon for new powder. They wouldn't give him details, but he speculated that his old powder had dried out and that affected the weight.

[Old Time Hunter]

Hmmmm, wonder how Hornady loads theirs, by weight or volume???

Been to two ammunition plants and during both audits, they stressed that the method used in mass production was volmetric with a ppm QA reconcilliation determined by weight. Random selection by X/m on the QA pull. One allows a variance of .3 (suppose this is determined by the kind of powder though), the other by a percentage from mean +/-.

Personally I figure out volume, then adjust by weight checking each one (usually the first five or so), then randomly pull at 10, 16, 23, and so on...this changes but always within 10. If any weight discrepency occurs I dump powder back to the last bench mark and adjust again.

By the way, have always loaded BP by volume...never knew another way.

[Don McDowell]

.

By the way, have always loaded BP by volume...never knew another way.

You talking real blackpowder or some of the fake stuff?

[COSteve]

All this 'excitement' over weight vs volume got me to thinking (something that may get me into trouble at times). I believe that it's actually a mute point when using powder measures and free flowing powders such as ball powders. Yes, I know that powder measures only meter by powder volume, however, we set the volume dropped based upon it's weight as measured, not it's volume. Because powder is formulated to contain grains of equal size, shape, and density, the density of the same sized volume is the same from throw to throw. It then follows that if one adjusts the powder measure's volume to dispense a given weight, one should expect that each time the powder measure releases that volume the weight should be the same.

Yes, it's true that you can fail to operate the powder measure correctly and cause it to release different volumes, however, there are simple ways to avoid that. My Dillon powder measures have an internal baffle to reduce the effects of the weight of the powder column and when I keep the hopper at least 1/2 full and operate my press in a smooth fashion I've found that my powder measures drop very consistent amounts when using ball powders. I reload using ball powders exclusively and I've yet to see a single one of my 7 powder measures (yes, I'm lazy) to vary by more than 0.1 grain total over 1,000 rds runs.

When we check our charge weights during reloading runs, we are verifying that the weight of the charge is consistent. However, we adjust the charge weights by varying the volume of the charge dropped. On a related note, I called Gary at Dillon on this subject a few years ago and he told me that Dillon's 'spec' calls for their powder measures to drop volumes that vary in weight by no more than ± 0.1 grain (0.2 total variation) when using ball powders and ± 0.15 grain (0.3 total variation) when using extruded powders.

[earlmck]

They wouldn't give him details, but he speculated that his old powder had dried out and that affected the weight.

Very interesting. I too have some cans of powder that have been in my accumulation for many years. I've only had my super-repeatable setting Redding measure for about 20 years, recording the settings in my load book during that time. I do notice that when I use one of the old cans of powder I have had for all that time, the old powder measure setting throws a bit lighter charge than originally recorded. What I have done is accept the volume as correct and record the new weight, assuming (there's that danged word again that gets us into trouble!) that the velocity/pressure will be the same for that volume even though the weight decreased. I wish I had been better about checking and recording velocities over those years but I wasn't so can't supply any data backing up or disproving my assumption. But I'm only talking a few tenths of a grain in a 40 grain charge weight here, not something you'd expect to blow any corks.

[mikld]

To those who feel somehow threatened, intimidated or insulted by the use of ALL CAPS....

GROW SOME BARK, BUILD A BACKBONE, THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE, and get over it.. !!!

When you post a comment, you have no authority to dictate the manner of a reply..

JUST SAYIN'!!!

HEY BUCK,

I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IF THERE WAS ANY MERIT IN MR. M'S POST. IT IS MERELY A CLASSLESS INSULT. NO MENTION OF WHY HE DISAGREES WITH THE OP, NOR DOES HE OFFER ANY INFO TO HELP THE OP (SOUNDS LIKE HE DOESN'T KNOW), JUST A CHILDISH RANT. I DID THINK BEFORE I POSTED, THAT'S WHY MY POST WAS AS MILD AS IT WAS.

BARK? BACKBONE? YOU MUST ASCRIBE TO MURDOCH'S SCHOOL OF INSULTS, TOO BAD. WHAT'S THE NUMBER OF POSTS TO BECOME AN OLDTIMER AND THEN A BUTT? I'D LIKE TO REACH THAT POINT SO I CAN FREELY CHALLENGE YOUR POSESSION OF COJONES ON LEVERGUNS.COM...

JUST SAYIN'...

[foxtrapper]

I'm 100 percent with you mikid. Funny how some folk "speak" to one another sight unseen.

[L_Kilkenny]

mikld and foxttrapper, let it slide. Not the first time TERRY has tried to come over the top and ya know what it's just not worth it. Personally, I'd like to hear some honest input/discussion from him for he's reloaded more ammo than me and all the people I know put together but let it ruin my day? Not gonna happen.

Yes, it's true that you can fail to operate the powder measure correctly and cause it to release different volumes, however, there are simple ways to avoid that. My Dillon powder measures have an internal baffle to reduce the effects of the weight of the powder column and when I keep the hopper at least 1/2 full and operate my press in a smooth fashion I've found that my powder measures drop very consistent amounts when using ball powders. I reload using ball powders exclusively and I've yet to see a single one of my 7 powder measures (yes, I'm lazy) to vary by more than 0.1 grain total over 1,000 rds runs.

Good point. I had to really work on the best way to run my el'cheapo Lee. Keeping the hopper over half full helps tremendously but I also tap the side of it 3 times on the up stroke and again to empty it. The less than stellar smoothness of the Lee creates a lot of jerky motion that varies the load it fills and drops. The taps on the side can make quite a difference in extra weight it drops. Doing those to things it drops very consistently with about any powder I use.

LK

[Nath]

Simple points, I am very simple me.

The two methods alone have flaws, together they compliment each other!

Check the scales with a bullet of known weight.

Get the scales set up so it is less fatiguing to check a throw!

Old timer has it.

God bless gents.

N.

[Ray Newman]

For rifle cartridges, I weigh each powder charge. If warranted, I the use my thumb and forefinger to drop enough powder to desired weight.

For pistol shooting, I weigh every tenth charge, even when reloading with the Dillon, which has an extremely accurate powder measure.

I weigh charges with an RCBS 10-10 scale. It is almost 30 years old and was rebuilt this Spring when I noticed that it did not read the scale weights correctly.

As an aide:

--When weighing charges, I place the scale on an eye level pull out shelf on the reloading bench. This gives me a far more accurate reading of the balance beam pointer.

--Periodically, I take a Q-tip and wipe of the balance beam knife edges and the groove in the gate bearings.

[Old Time Hunter]

.

By the way, have always loaded BP by volume...never knew another way.

You talking real blackpowder or some of the fake stuff?

I like the fake stuff...especially Pyrodex RS, smells just like a fanny burp from day old buffalo wings. Just kidd'n, doesn't matter that much to me whether or not fake or "real". 62.5 grains of RS is pretty close to 70grains of FFg "real" stuff.

[Don McDowell]

Yeh I think I remember us having this conversation before.
Pyrodex is designed to be used on a volume basis from a powder measure set to throw grains weight measure of blackpowder.
With a measure set to throw 70 grs of 2f black , by the scale the Pyrodcrap charge will weigh about 57 grs, the pressures from the pyrodcrp will be half again as high as the black, but the velocity will be about the same...
When Hogdons brought that stuff out, I doubt they had any idea the confusion it would cause in some folks minds years later down the road.

[Griff]

Volumetric loading of smokeless powders has 2 pitfalls both related to density. As Mike said, humidity will increase the weight of most powders. The other problem is compaction. The reason Dillon gives themselves a tight goal and if they meet it, the reason they do, is that inverted "V" in the bottom of the hopper. This is too keep an even pressure on the powder next to the charge bar. Without that as the level of powder changed, so too would the weight of the powder being forced into the volumetric measure. As the amount powder in the hopper decreases, so will your charge weight, unless you introduce some outside influence, like tapping on the side of the hopper.

Dipping has a similar issue. If you dip straight outta the can, the deeper you go the more settled and denser the contents, hence a denser and heavier charge. Even if you pour it out into another container, can you pour it to the exact same, uniform density.

Yes, ball & flake propellants meter much more consistently than extruded ones. And they can seriously impact a volumetric measure. But even ball & flake powders can vary more that a few tenths depending on how vigorously you operate your equipment. In pistol cartridges where a ½ grain spells the difference between a moderate and a maximum load.

Given our litigious society, and increasingly controlling gov't, all it would take, I fear, would be a rash of "accidents" caused by irresponsible handloaders to have even more draconian laws enacted. Remember, "They" don't have to repeal the 2nd Am. or take away your guns; they only have to take away your ability to feed your weapons. The sheeple will support all their efforts to make them feel safer.

Don't get me wrong, volumetric measuring to load is a useful, time-saving tool, one I use myself, but.. and it’s a big but, failure to check for proper weight, regardless of what the tables say, is asking for the 800 lb. gorilla in the room to use you as his stuffed toy.

[AJMD429]

I've always wondered, if the powder's density increases with humidity, either the powder would physically have to shrink, which seems doubtful, OR the powder would have to have enough hygroscopic properties to absorb some moisture from the air, thus adding 'weight' - but as water. So would you not be loading the same physical amount of powder - i.e. the same weight of powder - just with some more moisture?

I believe the moisture could affect things (I'd think it would slow burn down, but that's just speculation), and I'd think it might even swell the grains slightly, so you'd have less powder in a given volume, but whatever the case, it seems odd that we 'verify' a charge with a weight-scale in case humidity altered the weight of a given volume of powder, if the increased weight is likely NOT powder, but merely water.

It would be like using a scale to weigh dry vs. wet firewood, worrying that using the wet firewood, where a 'rick' of it weighed more, would somehow generate more heat. It would be the 'rick' or volume of firewood that actually contained the same burnable material, not the same scale-weight of it when moist vs. dry.

Not trying to re-kindle any side-taking debate or ALL CAPS flaming, but just wondering aloud.

I still think that the biggest reason to do ANY double-checking is the 'operator error' factor, vs. a small percentage of weight change halfway through a reloading session with the same measure settings, same powder, and same technique (double-checking during a re-set-up, or with a new lot of powder, makes a bit more sense, certainly). If a powder/load is THAT sensitive to max-out with such a minor deviation, I don't want to use it...!

[claybob86]

Water can be injected into internal combustion engines which will increase mass flow through the engine and thereby increase power. I guess the water flashing into steam during combustion might add a little zip to the operation too. I dunno if these effects would be present with powder exposed to high humidity or not...

[AJMD429]

Water can be injected into internal combustion engines which will increase mass flow through the engine and thereby increase power. I guess the water flashing into steam during combustion might add a little zip to the operation too. I dunno if these effects would be present with powder exposed to high humidity or not...

Fascinating! I suppose even 'trace' amounts of anything, including water, could serve as a 'catalyst' of some sort, and of course 100% water is not really compressable as is 100% air, so the 'elasticity' of the expanding gasses could even vary, if the water acted as an incompressible substance, essentially reducing case capacity.

I still can't imagine that when I'm loading a .44 Mag case with 19.0 grains of 2400 powder, because that's what my 'Auto-Disk' throws and seems to be most accurate, and I have already 'bracketed' from 18.4 grains up to 20.5 grains per the loading manual and found all those loads safe, that some alteration in humidity or other such variable would take me 'over the top' safety-wise. If I were loading 20.3 grains, maybe, but I think the likelier blow-up would be if I mistakenly set the powder measure wrong, or with the complex ones that have tubes or passages they might get clogged (or un-clogged) and under or over-charge a case.

Like others have posted, the same human or mechanical error could easily happen when using a weight-scale, so I agree that checking before any loading session should be considered vital, preferably using volume to verify weight, or vice versa, (or I guess one could also use two different weight-scales or two different volume-measurers).

Really the simplest and most fool-proof method would be the basic 'dipper' method; there is nothing to clog/unclog, or get out of calibration, etc. The only 'variables' other than lot-to-lot powder variation (which could confound either weight OR volume measurements) would be 'technique' which is pretty easy to control and certainly wouldn't make huge variations in thrown charges, and once again 'human error' - you would have to be SURE you had the right dipper, double-checked what powder you had, what dipper-volume you should be using, AND I still think importantly double-checked it on a powder scale.

Bottom-line is like cutting expensive trim-wood - "Measure twice, cut once" - maybe with gunpowder, I'd say "measure three times, at least one of them with a different ruler".

[Griff]

Water can be injected into internal combustion engines which will increase mass flow through the engine and thereby increase power. I guess the water flashing into steam during combustion might add a little zip to the operation too. I dunno if these effects would be present with powder exposed to high humidity or not...

..I still can't imagine that when I'm loading a .44 Mag case with 19.0 grains of 2400 powder, because that's what my 'Auto-Disk' throws and seems to be most accurate, and I have already 'bracketed' from 18.4 grains up to 20.5 grains per the loading manual and found all those loads safe, that some alteration in humidity or other such variable would take me 'over the top' safety-wise. If I were loading 20.3 grains, maybe, but I think the likelier blow-up would be if I mistakenly set the powder measure wrong, or with the complex ones that have tubes or passages they might get clogged (or un-clogged) and under or over-charge a case.

Like others have posted, the same human or mechanical error could easily happen when using a weight-scale, so I agree that checking before any loading session should be considered vital, preferably using weight to verify the volume (or I guess one could also use two different weight-scales or two different volume-measurers).

Really the simplest and most fool-proof method would be the basic 'dipper' method; there is nothing to clog/unclog, or get out of calibration, etc. The only 'variables' other than lot-to-lot powder variation (which could confound either weight OR volume measurements) would be 'technique' which is pretty easy to control and certainly wouldn't make huge variations in thrown charges, and once again 'human error' - you would have to be SURE you had the right dipper, double-checked what powder you had, what dipper-volume you should be using, AND I still think importantly double-checked it on a powder scale.

Bottom-line is like cutting expensive trim-wood - "Measure twice, cut once" - maybe with gunpowder, I'd say "measure three times, at least one of them with a different ruler".

There, fixed that for ya. (I think.) Actualy Doc, those technique changes can make huge variancesin weights. When confirmation becomes most important is using "fast" powders that use small charges. Take my Clays load for a 185grain bullet in .45ACP, min. recommended load calls for 4.5 grains whille the recommended max is only 4.9. Not much wiggle room. Case volume differences can make huge changes in velocity and pressure.

[Hobie]

To those who feel somehow threatened, intimidated or insulted by the use of ALL CAPS....

GROW SOME BARK, BUILD A BACKBONE, THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE, and get over it.. !!!

When you post a comment, you have no authority to dictate the manner of a reply..

JUST SAYIN'!!!

HEY BUCK,

I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IF THERE WAS ANY MERIT IN MR. M'S POST. IT IS MERELY A CLASSLESS INSULT. NO MENTION OF WHY HE DISAGREES WITH THE OP, NOR DOES HE OFFER ANY INFO TO HELP THE OP (SOUNDS LIKE HE DOESN'T KNOW), JUST A CHILDISH RANT. I DID THINK BEFORE I POSTED, THAT'S WHY MY POST WAS AS MILD AS IT WAS.

BARK? BACKBONE? YOU MUST ASCRIBE TO MURDOCH'S SCHOOL OF INSULTS, TOO BAD. WHAT'S THE NUMBER OF POSTS TO BECOME AN OLDTIMER AND THEN A BUTT? I'D LIKE TO REACH THAT POINT SO I CAN FREELY CHALLENGE YOUR POSESSION OF COJONES ON LEVERGUNS.COM...

JUST SAYIN'...

Appears to be 613... but what do I know?

Seriously now, if I had taken offense at everything some have said to me on the back channels I'd have to cry myself to sleep every night after pounding down a quart of Everclear. I've noticed that numerous and repeated cautions against the suggested practice of measuring powder solely by volume and such have failed to make an impression despite the fact that such cautions accompany just about all printed data and have since the early days of smokeless powder production.

I have to say that I disagree with the idea that all caps is anything more than an artificial construct of self-absorbed nerds and take no offense at typing in all caps. Perhaps my years of dealing with ALL-CAP Royal 440 typewriters has inured me to this now "basic" social standard but I don't think so. You might notice that I don't type that way and I do so in following the unofficial Leverguns motto, "Because I can."

I further disagree that expressing one's opinion is offensive. Terry didn't suggest that we jump in the truck and hie ourselves over to visit Mr. Kilkenny to reduce the chance that he might produce off-spring.

For the last decade plus all my reloading has been done with a cheap Lee safety scale and a Lee powder measure. I've thought about upgrading both of those items but lately I've been thinking about going the other way and doing all my reloading with a Lee auto disk with double disc and micro disk adders. Never touching a scale again and going completely by volume. No more messing with scales or micro adjusting powder measures.

The good, the bad and the ugly?

LK

He wanted the good, the bad and the ugly. Mr. Murbach's post was proceeded by eminently sensible suggestions to reconsider and why. Rather than REPEAT what had already been posted we got this...

THIS IS AND WILL BE UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR THE WORST IDEA PROPOSED ON THIS SITE. UPON REFLECTION AFTER SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT THIS, IT MIGHT BE THE ALL-TIME WORST SUGGESTION ON THIS SITE EVER.

THERE IS NO-NO-NO-NO-NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS WHATSOEVER.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I AM NO LONGER SURPRISED AT THE SILLYNESS I SEE HERE ANYMORE. I CAN REMEMBER WHEN THIS WAS ONE OF THE TWO OR THREE PREMIER GUN-SHOOTING- SITES ON THE INTERNET. THOSE DAYS ARE LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG GONE. YE GADS, WHAT A PITY, GUYS. IT IS EMBARRASSING TO SEE.

Other than the aforementioned "offensive" use of capitalization Mr. Murbach is simply and bluntly bemoaning the sadly, ill-considered proposal.

Now, those of you who think it is incumbent upon the membership to support all sorts of inane day dreams or the convoluted conceptualizations of the sleep-deprived mind you might reconsider. If you think I'm breaking bad in favor of my Terry you might review all your posts that might have been questionable to somebody or another that I either didn't delete or did take the time to respond to with actual, considered advice. You might also remember that while this isn't a forum where you might be sent packing for admittedly owning the "wrong" product, it also isn't the land of broken toys. If you don't like how somebody in the family is behaving, take a moment, go into another room and take a deep breath. Maybe research the question a bit and contribute something constructive or just accept that you don't agree and move on.

[AJMD429]

There, fixed that for ya. (I think.)

Actually, I meant to say that either confirming volume by using weight, or confirming a weight by using volume, can accomplish the task of making sure you're not WAY off, as in the 'human error' factor, and that using another method of measurement, or at least another instrument of the same method, has an advantage over 'double checking' by just using the same powder measure or same weight scale (or same tape-measure, or whatever). Using a different device, or even a different measurement, helps reduce the chance of the kinds of mistakes people make, like digit transposition, forgetting a tare-weight, wrong powder-cylinder, etc...

Actualy Doc, those technique changes can make huge variances in weights. When confirmation becomes most important is using "fast" powders that use small charges. Take my Clays load for a 185grain bullet in .45ACP, min. recommended load calls for 4.5 grains whille the recommended max is only 4.9. Not much wiggle room.

True, I think whether you use a 'volume' or a 'weight' measurement, you really must be sure your margin-of-error is well under the limits needed for whatever your load is - plus-or-minus 1% isn't too much to ask for any one-dimensional measuring device - it would be equivalent to having a yard-stick that you expected to be accurate to within 1/4" or so. Most 'scales' should do that easily, but for volume to be that accurate requires two of the three dimensions to be pretty small vs. the 'variable' one (like a chemistry-lab buret), and lots of powder-measures have a pretty 'cubic' or stubby-cylinder shaped measuring chamber, making the stability of the 'cutoff' dimension (or the levelness of the top of the filled dipper) pretty critical.

I think if I were going to use that .45 ACP load with a 'dipper' for instance, I would only do it IF I could take the proper dipper (that threw the 4.5 grains when the top were perfectly level) and 'heap' it with as much powder as would pile on top without falling off, and the dipper thusly threw no more than 4.9 grains. Otherwise, I'd be using a scale and trickler or some other measuring device (or a different powder and load ).

Case volume differences can make huge changes in velocity and pressure.

Yeah, THAT is a whole 'nother stressful story about reloading, huh...! I read an article where someone used a piezo-device on a 9mm barrel, and just by seating the bullet progressively deeper, pressures skyrocketed to double or triple the SAAMI specs. I remember thinking I'd either want to use a bulky powder that would keep the bullet from getting shoved back in the case, or be REALLY sure I crimped very firmly.

The scary thing is, I've bought factory ammo that had some of the bullets pushed in 0.05" or even 0.1" deeper in some rounds than others. Some was .45 ACP, some was .223 (commercial reloads), and some was 9mm. I shot up the .45, just inspecting each one before shooting it in a revolver, returned the 9mm to the box-store for an exchange to another brand (and wrote 'defective' on the box so they wouldn't re-sell it), and pulled the .223's but called the reloader to let them know.

[Griff]

No problem, Doc. I wasn't 100% sure I understood, hence my qualifier. I really try to be cautious in my reloading. One of my mentors is a gent about 12 years older than myself, with loads more reloading experience. He told me that you can undercharge a LOT of times, but you might only get one overcharge. Problematic, in that so many want to push the envelope. Your 2400, for instance has a nice, wide lattitude for slight errors in measurement. Still, as you say, measuring by weight with two different sources is a good double check. I, personally, still wouldn't double check a volumetric load with any other volume device.

As all reloading guides I'm aware of state, always work up to the maximum loads in any reloading. Take my .45ACP example, using that max load in my particular gun might be perfectly safe and sane... might even not be the max load the gun's capable of... but that same load in another gun might be fatally over-charged.

'Nuff said, I'm out for the night.

[rbertalotto]

Water can be injected into internal combustion engines which will increase mass flow through the engine and thereby increase power.

Umm...I don't think so. All water injection does in an internal combustion engine is allow you to advance the spark considerably and use water to limit predetonition, thereby increasing power.

In internal combustion engines, water injection, also known as anti-detonant injection, is spraying water into the cylinder or incoming fuel-air mixture to cool the combustion chambers of the engine, allowing for greater compression ratios and largely eliminating the problem of engine knocking (detonation). This effectively increases the octane rating of the fuel, meaning that performance gains can be obtained when used in conjunction with a supercharger, turbocharger, altered spark ignition timing, and other modifications. Increasing the octane rating allows for a higher compression ratio which increases the power output and efficiency of the engine. Depending on the engine, improvements in power and fuel efficiency can also be obtained solely by injecting water.[1] Water injection may also be used to reduce NOx or carbon monoxide emissions.

If powder absorbes water, it will swell and grow in volume for a given energy potential....and the H2O will slow down the burn a bit.

Both of which will reduce the potential for an overloaded charge. You can't fit as much "swelled" powder in a volumetric container so you will have a lower pressure charge and the moisture will reduce the pressure again.

But we are talking infantisimal amounts here. Unless the pwder was stored totally improperly. I live right on the Atlantic ocean and store my powder in a wooden locker in a relatively damp basement and have used powder stored in this environment after ten years and it still performs in my 6BR benchrest rifle the same as "new" powder. No difference in velocity or POI.