Digital Scale Controversy

A place to discuss calibers, ammunition, and reloading

Digital Scale Controversy

Postby Seismic Sam on Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:04 pm

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST!!

The purpose of this post is just to document some facts about a particular (and not very cheap!) scale where the manufacturer told the truth, and had no idea what the implications of his statement were. It's likely that most of the other cheap digital scales out there with an accuracy of .01 gram/0.1 grain are as bad or worse, and to get an accurate scale you need a jewler's scale with an accuracy on the order of AT LEAST .005 gram, and preferably .002 or .001 gram. All of this has been re-hashed over and over, and there's no need to respond to this post. It's only here so a convenient link can be posted to it in topics where the subject of electronic scales or data from them comes up.

Here's the initial post by Ahrens/Rugersol:

Not to open a big can of worms ... I think it's already been opened ... and shut, again. I'm only posting this as I've actually received a response from the manufacturer ... and figured it was worth sharing.

I think most folks 'round here are aware of the whole "0.1gr/0.01g" deallie. Fer thems that ain't, the conversion from grams to grains is 15.4323584 ... and most such scales (if not all) actually weigh in grams, and then do the simple math, to show grains. At which, a scale that measures 0.02g might show (quite accurately) 0.3gr ... but when it measures 0.05g, it would most likely show 0.8gr (0.77, rounded up) ... and when it measures 0.04g, it would most likely show 0.6gr (without dropping places, after conversion, that's 0.617294336). Even if it didn't round, and rather truncated, there would still be an issue with the scale "skipping" tenth grains.

I had called Dillon, who referred me to CED (the manufacturer of the scale). I talked to a couple women, initially ... they weren't making much sense ... and told me to send an email, which I did. That was over 2wk ago ... I finally got a response, yesterday ... here it is:

“The current D-Terminator electronic scale is measuring in gram and then convert the reading to grain. The error due to unit conversation will be within +-0.05 grain (equal to 0.003 gram)

No matter how, the error due to unit conversion will always be there. It is just a matter of which unit measure is more important for the application. “

Respectfully, Charles Hardy - CED


This may seem like an awkward response ... that's because the question I asked him was ... "is the scale measuring to 0.01g, and then converting to grains, or is it measuring 0.1gr, and converting to grams?" Oddly enough, if the scale accurately measured in 0.1gr, and then converted to grams, and rounded to hunderdths, ya'd see relatively few gaps in the hunderdths for grams, but it would otherwise be accurate to 0.1gr (it would then actually be accurate to 0.00648g, so conversion aside, anyone else happy with 0.01g, would never know the difference). So, by his response (above), even without admitting the "error due to unit conversation", by stating that it measures to 0.01g, and then converts to grains, he's confirmed the "error" ... and in all, has confirmed it, twice.

However, his statement, while he admits there's an "error due to unit conversation" of "+-0.05 grain", is not the whole story. The 0.05gr "error" is simply due to the conversion. As the scale only displays to tenths ... not hunderdths ... you don't get the benefit of seeing when/where this "error" occurs. Instead, you see jumps of 0.2gr, instead of only 0.1gr.

At which, I see this as confirmation from the manufacturer that Dillon's $140 electronic scale (that I was dumb 'nuff to buy, to start with, 'cause it said RIGHT ON IT, was good to "0.1gr" ), is in fact, not one bit better than any other $30 electronic scale which has the same "error". Point of fact ... you would have to get a scale that's good to 0.005g (technically, roughly 0.00648), in order to get accurate readings to 0.1gr.

I'm in no way suggesting that this "error" isn't otherwise acceptable. If you're loading that hot, you need to be working up slowly, long before that point, and watching for pressure signs. And you could otherwise double or triple the number of drops, and divide back out for an "each" weight.

I'm only suggesting one needn't pay an extra $110.

Anyone who'd like to call "BS" on me, is more 'n welcome to pay me $80 for my "as new" Dillon D-Terminator electronic scale ... an absolute BARGAIN

First response from me on Oct. 2, 2010:

Okay, I created a spreadsheet of values in .01 gram increments, and then converted those to 0.1 grain weights, meaning that I calculated the exact grain weight and then rounded off the value to 1 decimal place like the scale does. The results are WAAAYYY worse than I thought they would look like. And remember, ALL the possible gram weights that the scale can measure in this range are represented, so there aren't any holes in the gram data.

Image

So, this is the error JUST from going from .01 gram accuracy to 0.1 grain accuaracy!! Even if the scale is reading the weights absolutely perfectly, this is the error that can NOT be taken out of the system.

Add to that the fact that the scale is going to have problems with weights that are nearly halfway between .01 and .02 (such as.014, .015, .016) and for those weights the scale will report a value in grams that is between .004 and .006 grams off the real value.

Then add to that additional error from static electricity and noise from flourescent lights, and possibly drafts. (Note, if there is a draft with a beam balance, you can SEE it. With a digital, you probably won't!)

Add that all together, and you have a real mess on your hands.

NOTE: In 52 gram data points, I count no less than 29 skips in the calculated grain weight!!! That's over a 50% rate of the grain data being mis-reported just from the calculation roundoff from the gram weight!! To put it another way, in a series of 52 linear gram weights that are .01 grams apart, there are 29 grain weights that the scale will NEVER show on its readout!!

After some more jawing back and forth, the other shoe dropped inside my head, and I posted this:

Thank you mitch, and we were both missing something, and it was bugging the hell out of me until I figured out the right graphical presentation of the data. It took me four tries to get the graph to show what I wanted.

The statement that the actual grain weight varies from the displayed weight by a maximum of .05 grains is in fact true. That statement, however, carries with it some assumptions that the variability is centered about the actual weight (that is actually true) and the variability is a normal gaussian distribution, which in this case is hideously false, and the BIG lie as far as this data is concerned. So: I did a chart of the variance between actual grain weight (four decimal places, based on the four figure conversion factor of 15.43 grains per gram)) calculated from a gram weight (with a precision of .01 grams) and the displayed grain weight with a precision of 0.1 grains. (1 decimal place)

The graph of the variances is shown below:

Image

OHHHH!!! Bet you weren't expecting that!! (I wasn't either... :oops: )

The variance is NOT gaussian, but linear, and much worse that that, it flip-flops from a erroneous high weight to an erroneous low weight with every increase of .01 gram, and then repeats the cycle with every increase of .1 gram. So, at the worst, an increase of .02 gram will take your from a grain weight that is .05 grains high STRAIGHT to one that is .05 grains low!! And let's be clear about the real problem here: You have NO IDEA where you are on this chart with any given powder charge!! Maybe you're going up and down by .01 grains, and maybe you're going up and down by .05 grains, You will NEVER have a clue without a reference balance to check your data, which means this digital balance is NOT reliable.

And consider the most likely scenario for loading up a string of loads over a range of 0.1 grain increments: Chrono data!! You load up ten strings of 5 loads each in .1 grain increments, and you are GUARANTEED that you will cross over one of those up .05 - down .05 transitions. That means that in actuality, you will have TWO 5 shot strings that are the same weight (when they are supposed to be 0.2 grains apart), and they will either be on the high side or the low side, but in any case your chrono data will be thoroughly screwed up.

The WHOLE point of load development and chronoing your loads is to establish a predictable relationship between powder weight and velocity, and with this kind of ramped flip-flop behavior in variance you might as well never even bother to take you gun out of the safe.

So, that extra powder isn't dangerous per se, but it COMPLETELY blocks you from doing any RELIABLE load development work. For THIS you want to pay good money??
User avatar
Seismic Sam
Gone but not forgotten
 
Posts: 5515 [View]
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Pass By-You, Loosianana

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby noylj on Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:55 pm

I think you are over-thinking and looking for problems.
If you are REALLY this concerned, then a beam balance would NOT be your choice either and you will need to go to a top of the line Mettler or Sartorius Analytical balance (perhaps a Sartorius Cubis 220 gram x 0.01 mg). You will also never touch your balance with your hands (always wear clean white cotton gloves) and keep the balance inside an enclosed case.
It is strange that gold, diamonds, platinum, and other very precious materials are weighed on the same types of balances and everyone else is perfectly happy.
noylj
 
Posts: 107 [View]
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:38 am

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby grousemaster on Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:11 pm

noylj wrote:I think you are over-thinking and looking for problems.
If you are REALLY this concerned, then a beam balance would NOT be your choice either and you will need to go to a top of the line Mettler or Sartorius Analytical balance (perhaps a Sartorius Cubis 220 gram x 0.01 mg). You will also never touch your balance with your hands (always wear clean white cotton gloves) and keep the balance inside an enclosed case.
It is strange that gold, diamonds, platinum, and other very precious materials are weighed on the same types of balances and everyone else is perfectly happy.



Hef,

Is that you? ;) :stirthepot:
01 FFL
NRA Life Member
NRA Business Alliance
User avatar
grousemaster
 
Posts: 3493 [View]
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Waconia

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby s4s4u on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:58 pm

I just drop charges from my Lyman 55's ;-)
Know guns, Know peace, Know safety.
No guns, No peace, No safety. NRA
s4s4u
 
Posts: 132 [View]
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby Seismic Sam on Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:06 am

noylj wrote:I think you are over-thinking and looking for problems.
If you are REALLY this concerned, then a beam balance would NOT be your choice either and you will need to go to a top of the line Mettler or Sartorius Analytical balance (perhaps a Sartorius Cubis 220 gram x 0.01 mg). You will also never touch your balance with your hands (always wear clean white cotton gloves) and keep the balance inside an enclosed case.
It is strange that gold, diamonds, platinum, and other very precious materials are weighed on the same types of balances and everyone else is perfectly happy.


WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG!! I'm not over thinking anything, as I had a Bachelor of Science in organic Chemistry, and spent over 40 years using various kinds of balances, so I am quite aware of their limitations. And quite frankly, I had never come across such a crappy electronic balance unitl I went and blew $80 bucks, first on two Lyman's which wouldn't work, and all I ever got from Lyman was replacements with the same problem. Then I got a Cabela's scale with a pastic weighing pan that would generate enough static electricity to power the flourescent lights overhead. :roll: Plus the scale had a vicious zero drift, so if you weighed 10 powder charges the weight shown was up by .3 - .4 grains. And fundamentally, there is the problem with most powder scales that their spec is .01 grams or 0.1 grains. Those two numbers are nowhere near equivalent, so it's the same as saying that a feed scale is accurate to 1 pound or 24 ounces. One is 50% greater than the other, which is one hell of a mismatch.

As far as wearing clean white cotton gloves, yes, that is done, but only with analytical scales that weigh to .0001 gram (1,10,000th of a gram), and I actually experimentally determined that one of my fingerprints weighs .0002 - .0004 gram. As such, wearing clean white cotton gloves with a balance accurate to .1 grain is a totally laughable concept, as a .0004 gram fingerprint weighs .006 grains, which is 16 TIMES smaller than .1 grain. NO chance of that affecting the balance at all.

And finally, my post said that what you wanted was a JEWELER'S scale accurate to .002 or .001 gram, so obviously you misread my post, and jewler's balances are nowhere near the same accuracy as powder balances.

And to sum it all up, the real danger here, which was nicely summed up by Wrench in a PM, is that in the totally digital age we live in these days, we are all too ready to trust ANYTHING with a digital readout. Well, it HAS to be accurate if it's digital, doesn't it?? So you get a reloading newb measuring out powder with some piece of crap, and he got his load data off the Alliant website which only lists the MAX load for their powders, and he's off by .3 - .4 grains on the high side. Gee, that scenario could never happen, could it?? :roll: :roll: :roll: And to go back to Rugersol's original post, EVEN the CEO of a company that makes the $140 Dillon blanace has NO CLUE what his product is doing when it converts .01 grams to .1 grains, so this is an issue that is a real sleeper, just waiting to bite some trusting soul right in the butt.
User avatar
Seismic Sam
Gone but not forgotten
 
Posts: 5515 [View]
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Pass By-You, Loosianana

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby Ron Burgundy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:41 am

Not a reloader (yet). I've been following this from a distance. What scale can a n00b reloader trust?
User avatar
Ron Burgundy
 
Posts: 981 [View]
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:28 pm

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby SkyRock on Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:03 am

Ron Burgundy wrote:Not a reloader (yet). I've been following this from a distance. What scale can a n00b reloader trust?

I started with a used Pacific balance scale, and some Lyman check weights. After a while, I "graduated" to an RCBS digital scale (not the battery powered one).

Before each reloading session, I calibrate the digital scale with the weights provided. Occasionally, I check the scale using the Lyman check weights, but so far, no variance.

Ask around, and see what people have been using for some time. Longevity means something. :!:
SkyRock
 
Posts: 542 [View]
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:31 am
Location: Southern Metro

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby rugersol on Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:44 am

Ron Burgundy wrote:Not a reloader (yet). I've been following this from a distance. What scale can a n00b reloader trust?

Frankly, ya can "trust" most any scale ... properly zero'd ... and set to read "gr" (grains) vs. "g" (grams) ... to be accurate to within 0.3gr ... if it's "marketed" as a "0.1 grain" resolution scale!

My original point was, ya don't need to spend $140 for that! :shock:

It's been my experience, most "reloading" scales are overpriced ... vs. "jewelers" scales! IOW, ya get better quality fer yer money, in a "jewelers" scale ... and there's simply NO other difference between 'em!

I've used this one ... http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/jennings-jscale-jsvg40.html ... with great success! It ain't the cheapest ... and it ain't the most expensive ... it's accurate to 0.005g (true 0.1gr resolution)! Ya can get a scale that's accurate down to 0.003g ('er better) that'll give ya "true" 0.05gr resolution ... however, what ya'll find is, the capacity will be significantly less than lower resolution scales! The Jennings JSVG40 has a 617gr capacity ... I like that, so, if I need to, I can weigh completed cartridges! ;) The Jennings also has a 40yr warranty! :shock:

Sam may disagree ... and to his point, if the scale don't perform, as it's designed, I wouldn't use it neither ... but most any $30 digital scale "marketed" as "0.1gr" resolution, will allow you to set a powder drop to within 0.3gr, jest fine! Moreover, if ya weigh 10 consecutive drops, and divide the total by 10, there's yer "true" 0.1gr resolution!

However, if yer tryin' to trickle loads, now yer back to maybe 0.2gr resolution ... not horrible ... but if yer gonna trickle, it's nice to at least do better than a case-activated measure! :|

At the very least, if ya do insist on spending $140+ ... buy an Ohaus ... or something that's actually worth the money! ;)

... jest takin' a quick peek, fer $135, here's a nice GemPro ... http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/my-weigh-gempro-500.html ... that's good to "0.05gr" (0.002g ... so probly actually a hair over 0.05gr) ... with a 1,543gr capacity! ... that's 'bout a gazillion times better scale than the Dillon!

Here's a $250 Ohaus fer Sam (in case he ever decides to take the plunge, again! :shock: ) ... http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/ohaus-taj203.html ... 0.02gr resolution! :shock: ... 617gr capacity! ... ****in' nice scale! Image

ETA: ... jest realized the Jennings JSVG20 ... http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/jennings-jscale-jsvg20.html ... is identical to the 40, except it's got "0.05gr" resolution ... and only 308gr capacity (half) ... fer the same exact price! ... jest be sure not to plop a loaded .45-70 cartridge on it! :?

ETA: ... while I'm at ... may as well list the $30 Jennings ... http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/jennings-jscale-hp100x.html ... "0.01g" (it says it's "0.1gr" ... but this would actually read closer to 0.2gr or even 0.3gr, depending on use ... but, again, jest weigh 10 consecutive drops, and divide by 10 ;) )
Last edited by rugersol on Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"as to the Colt's Commander, a pox on you for selling this after I made the house payment." - Pete RIP
"I, for one, welcome our new Moderator Overlords ..." - Squib Joe
User avatar
rugersol
 
Posts: 5691 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:33 am

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby rugersol on Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:49 am

Seismic Sam wrote:And to go back to Rugersol's original post, EVEN the CEO of a company that makes the $140 Dillon blanace digital has NO CLUE

I agree 100% that the CEO of CED, and Dillon, probly have NO CLUE their scale's a POS! :cheers:

... but, jest so we're clear ... the response from the manufacturer (CED) was not signed by the "CEO" ... rather, I believe it was signed "- CED" ... so I knew which company he was with! :?


ETA: then again, I really couldn't say, if Charles Hardy is/was the CEO of CED?! Image
"as to the Colt's Commander, a pox on you for selling this after I made the house payment." - Pete RIP
"I, for one, welcome our new Moderator Overlords ..." - Squib Joe
User avatar
rugersol
 
Posts: 5691 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:33 am

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby rugersol on Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:06 pm

... oh, and with a lotta these digital scales, if it ain't clear it already comes with one, don't forget to pick up a nice aluminum pan! ... http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/ohaus-5077-00-scoop.html ...

Image

As I'm sure Sam's pointed out, somewhere ... them plastic pans take/hold a purdy significant static charge! :|
"as to the Colt's Commander, a pox on you for selling this after I made the house payment." - Pete RIP
"I, for one, welcome our new Moderator Overlords ..." - Squib Joe
User avatar
rugersol
 
Posts: 5691 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:33 am

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby DanM on Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:57 pm

Cut and pasted from the Yahoo handloading group, message 81907, Wed Aug 8, 2012 2:47 PM:

Hi all,
A point that nobody I'm aware of has mentioned is that beam balances
and electronic scales are actually two different animals in the ways that
they are generally used. The beam balance is usually preset to an amount that
you would want as a powder charge for example. It is also possible to weigh
items that already have a fixed weight such as a bullet, by successive
approximation. This means that you move the poise(s) which are the sliding
parts of the beam to approximate points where the beam starts to balance. You
continue to move the poise(s) until the beam zeros. Hence the word
"balance" which is what this type of weighing device is called. They work
perfectly well for weighing repeated amounts, but this system of weighing though
very accurate is less convenient for unknown weights. The balance also has
little tolerance for out-of-range weights since the zeroing range is very
small - usually plus or minus 0.5 grains for reloading balances. As such, a
method for a slow approach to desired weight is needed such as a powder
trickler. Enter the electronic scale. No presets are necessary at all. Just
start adding powder until the correct weight is reached. Of course a trickler
is probably still desirable near the "top" of the charge, but at least you
see the desired weight coming up right from the beginning instead of being
surprised when the minus 0.5 charge level is reached. In fact it's so easy to
miss the approach that many people often overshoot the desired weight on a
balance and need to scoop some powder out of the pan and partially start
over with the weighing cycle. And weighing a fixed weight object with an
uncertain weight such as a case or a bullet is very much easier with an
electronic scale. Just place the item on the scale and read the display.
In an ideal world, reloaders (at least this one) would own both a
balance and an electronic scale, which I do in several models. I really wouldn't
want to do without either type since they are both useful in their own right
even if preferred one over the other in certain circumstances.
Not to be construed as a commentary on which is overall better, less
expensive, etc. (we've succeeded in beating that topic to death), just my
observations through experience of using both types of devices.

Best,
Joe


I agree with Joe that they each have their uses (strengths and weaknesses). I also agree with Sam that some digital scales are not as accurate as we are lead to believe by their specs. Having both can be useful when they are used within their limitations. :ugeek:
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
DanM
 
Posts: 670 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: mild mild SW burbs

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby gman1868 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:16 pm

As long as it's reasonably accurate and you're not trying to push the limits of powder charges, what's important is consistency in measurements so that each cartridge has the same load.

I would not use a scale that couldn't measure the same weight consistently.

It would be important that the scale is accurate for a couple reasons. You're trying to build +P+ type rounds or you're trying to get right on the edge of a power factor for competition.

Flame On!

Image
Living the Armed Lifestyle
User avatar
gman1868
 
Posts: 3790 [View]
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: SW Metro and East Bethel

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby sgruenhagen44 on Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:20 am

I have a cheap Rockford Arsenal DIGITAL scale!!!! :o I Guess i will take my chances. I never push the limit with my loads. Plus, I charge my loads with a lee auto disk. It comes with a chart that gives me approx. weight for each disk cavity. When I check my charge I would be concerned if it was a grain off or something but either way, the evil death maurading digital scale has always been within .3 of a grain anyow. If I'm charging barely over the minimum I'm thinking I'll be fine. Even if I did charge over an extra grain I would still be alright with my loads. PLus, in the lee reloading manual it says weight is the most inaccurate way to measure powder. The only true way to measure is with volume. This is coming straight out of one of those manuals you told me to read Sam. Were all going to need to upgrade our reloading gear! But like I said before, I'm not trying to be the guy shooting the max pressure loads just to show I can.
User avatar
sgruenhagen44
 
Posts: 894 [View]
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Rockford

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby rugersol on Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:51 am

sgruenhagen44 wrote:PLus, in the lee reloading manual it says weight is the most inaccurate way to measure powder. The only true way to measure is with volume.

I can see why someone might say that ... but I'd hafta see it in print myself, to believe it!

It's purdy tough to screw up a dipper ... but even then, if you're not consistent in how ya use it, ya can easily be off by 0.5gr, or more!

As for volumetric powder measures (which I use almost exclusively), if ya've never actually seen powder "bridge", yer in for a real treat! ;)

There's consistency, and there's accuracy! I don't really trust any scale to be accurate to the nth degree! But I rely on it to set my volumetric measures. Once set, I rely on my volumetric measures to drop consistently! ... which is more important, IMO, for smaller groups, than whether the load is x.1gr 'er x.9gr!

But, again, if, for whatever reason, the volumetric measure don't drop consistently, all bets are off!
"as to the Colt's Commander, a pox on you for selling this after I made the house payment." - Pete RIP
"I, for one, welcome our new Moderator Overlords ..." - Squib Joe
User avatar
rugersol
 
Posts: 5691 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:33 am

Re: Digital Scale Controversy

Postby sgruenhagen44 on Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:07 am

rugersol wrote:
sgruenhagen44 wrote:PLus, in the lee reloading manual it says weight is the most inaccurate way to measure powder. The only true way to measure is with volume.

I can see why someone might say that ... but I'd hafta see it in print myself, to believe it!

It's purdy tough to screw up a dipper ... but even then, if you're not consistent in how ya use it, ya can easily be off by 0.5gr, or more!

As for volumetric powder measures (which I use almost exclusively), if ya've never actually seen powder "bridge", yer in for a real treat! ;)

There's consistency, and there's accuracy! I don't really trust any scale to be accurate to the nth degree! But I rely on it to set my volumetric measures. Once set, I rely on my volumetric measures to drop consistently! ... which is more important, IMO, for smaller groups, than whether the load is x.1gr 'er x.9gr!

But, again, if, for whatever reason, the volumetric measure don't drop consistently, all bets are off!




Well what I typed was not word to word. But that was the basics. Before I started reloading, I borrowed promods Lee reloading manual. It was something that stuck with me because I found it interesting. I have a cheap scale because my goal for reloading is just to get more trigger time. I don't feel the need to trickle charge all of my loads. Could I be more accurate? Yes. Bottom line is it's easy to go through $85 worth of 44 mag ammo in a day.
User avatar
sgruenhagen44
 
Posts: 894 [View]
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Rockford

Next

Return to Ammunition & Reloading

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron