Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 10/24/2010 12:06:54 PM EDT
Im new to all of this and have not even tried a beam style yet. But i will have both, and use both to verify before i go pumping out rounds.

I've loaded a few up on a friends single stage and he uses a local stores scale. It needed to be zeroed alot. It was accurate as long as you used it right after you reset it.

Im piecing  my equipment together as i cant afford it all at once. This month im buying dies, case prep, and either a case cleaner or a scale.
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 1:01:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Just a digital scale, a scale and dispenser and whats your budget?

For just a "plain old" digital scale I have a Pact Digital Precision or some such. Decent enough scale. If I were to do it again and wanted a dispenser I'd probably go with a RCBS Chargemaster based on this article but really I have no complaints about the Pact.

Now if I really need to do some reloading I also have a Denver Instruments MXX-123. Great scale but the scale alone runs near what some of the combo units above run. Article.
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 1:48:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Lyman has a nice inexpensive digital scale.
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 1:58:50 PM EDT
[#3]
I was looking at the pact scales this one in perticular.

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Shooting/Reloading/Tumblers-Scales|/pc/104792580/c/104761080/sc/104661180/PACT-BBK2-Electronic-Scale-with-AC-Adapter/739981.uts?destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fbrowse%2Fshooting-reloading-tumblers-scales%2F_%2FN-1100197%2FNs-CATEGORY_SEQ_104661180

Hot link for above Pact BBK2

Or the step up for 99 bucks.

http://www.cabelas.com/fryprod2-1/739979.shtml?type=product&WT_tsrc=CSE&WT_mc_id=GoogleBaseUSA&WT_z_mc_id1=739979&RID=40&mr:trackingCode=DF117452-F5D2-DF11-82EF-001B21631C34&mr:referralID=NA

Hot link for above Pact DP powder scale

I cant decide.

To post hot links use the second Icon from the right , paper clip on globe, on the Insert Tags: line.

I would go with the second one. dryflash3
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 2:52:27 PM EDT
[#4]
I would not recommend the BBK simply because it cannot interface to the automatic powder dispenser. The Digital Precision (The 2nd link) is the exact one I have and its a fine scale. Additionally if you should choose to purchase the auto dispenser down the road you wouldnt have to get a new scale. If you went with a BBK you would need to go buy another scale.

I'm sure you would be quite happy with the Pact Digital Precision. You'll also want a powder trickler sometime soon as well. I have the Redding and am happy with it. It has a weighted base so the trickler is solid on the desk. Perhaps others are weighted as well I dont know.

Powder trickler
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 3:52:15 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
I would not recommend the BBK simply because it cannot interface to the automatic powder dispenser. The Digital Precision (The 2nd link) is the exact one I have and its a fine scale. Additionally if you should choose to purchase the auto dispenser down the road you wouldnt have to get a new scale. If you went with a BBK you would need to go buy another scale.

I'm sure you would be quite happy with the Pact Digital Precision. You'll also want a powder trickler sometime soon as well. I have the Redding and am happy with it. It has a weighted base so the trickler is solid on the desk. Perhaps others are weighted as well I dont know.

Powder trickler


I have this exact same trickler and use it with RCBS and have not had a single issue

Link Posted: 10/24/2010 3:53:51 PM EDT
[#6]
I recently just bought the dillon electronic scale, the d-terminator, and I love it. There's no way I could ever could go back to a lee balance scale. There's a guy on the for sale forum sellin one for 115 which is a great price it's under the for sale Florida ad
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 5:16:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Jennings Mack 100 or Jennings Mack 20 I have a Mack 20 and it is super accurate but I wish now that I had gotten the Mack 100.
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 5:24:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Man those jennings scales looks nice. The 100 is only 74 bucks.
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 5:39:37 PM EDT
[#9]
The RCBS Range Master is about the best cheaper digital scale you can get, I say this because I own a Charge Master, 2-Range Masters, Dillon D-Terminator, & Pact Digital scale(the one with the IR dispenser port) and after using all of them the one that stays stable the best and requires the least amount of calibration is the Range Master(well second to the Charge Master but you are asking about the cheaper option) so that's the one I recommend.

The Pact is also a good scale but is "very" sensitive to wind drift and also tends to drift on it's own requiring more frequent zeroing & calibration, it's best to turn it on an hour or so before using so it can warm up very well, I have found this helps allot with the drifting problem, in a nut shell I just don't have time to mess with the Pact when I can turn the RCBS on and it works instantly, does not drift at all, and only needs calibrating every few uses.
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 5:40:51 PM EDT
[#10]
I've got an RCBS Chargemaster and an MTM digital scale. The MTM scale is small and inexpensive and has worked fine for weighing bullets and quality checks on the Chargemaster every now and again.
Look here for the MTM I have:
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=785229
And here if you haven't seen a Chargemaster yet:
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=772151
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 6:14:25 PM EDT
[#11]
The best bang for the buck is probably the one Brian Enos offers for 75bucks http://brianenos.com/store/be.scale.html works great
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 3:34:24 AM EDT
[#12]
i bought a lyman 1500 for around $175 i think and i ended sending it back. has a real cheap junky feel to it, wouldn't zero etc, wouldn't turn off w/out pulling the plug. got a dillon beam and like it a lot. have had their elec one for years and liked it too.
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 4:07:39 AM EDT
[#13]
Don't buy a Frankford Arsenal.  Mine is junk.  It won't hold zero.  I have to rezero it constantly.
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 5:48:17 AM EDT
[#14]
I like my Dillon D terminator even though it's big and clunky by today's standards.  Been reliable now for over 10 or 15 years, had so long I don't know when I got it!




Link Posted: 10/25/2010 9:39:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Repeatability is what your looking for in a digital scale. Reloader grade scales have repeatability of 2/10ths of a grain. To get better results precision shooters often use pharamaceutical grade with repeatbility of .002/10ths. That said your just as well off buying a $ 50.00 reloader grade scale as you are  a $150.00 reloader grade scale. Log onto MidwayUSA and read reviews posted of the scales you are interested in. If wanting precision look into AccuLabs. You'll have to google it.
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 10:19:58 AM EDT
[#16]
Denver Instruments
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 11:56:13 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Denver Instruments


That would probably be breaking the bank.
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 12:02:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
The best bang for the buck is probably the one Brian Enos offers for 75bucks http://brianenos.com/store/be.scale.html works great


I use the Brian Enos scale.  It comes with a 20-YEAR WARRANTY!
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 2:00:28 PM EDT
[#19]
I'll skimp on dam near anything...but a scale isn't one of them.

Cheap Lee Powder Measure? Sure.  Cheap Lee Hand Primer? Why not.  The one thing that can differentiate between a boom and a ka-boom....no thanks.
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 2:11:08 PM EDT
[#20]
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 2:55:07 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The best bang for the buck is probably the one Brian Enos offers for 75bucks http://brianenos.com/store/be.scale.html works great


I use the Brian Enos scale.  It comes with a 20-YEAR WARRANTY!




I believe Jennings makes that scale also. (My Mack 20 also has a 20 year warranty)
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 6:32:26 PM EDT
[#22]
My personal opinion is this is your best bang for the buck.  The extra decimal point makes it very nice.  I have one and its been very good.

MiniPro-50
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 6:50:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Link Posted: 10/25/2010 7:08:26 PM EDT
[#24]
I've got a RCBS rangemaster 750 and I like it.
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 7:17:25 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
My personal opinion is this is your best bang for the buck.  The extra decimal point makes it very nice.  I have one and its been very good.

MiniPro-50


I wonder if it truly can get .001g accuracy... The scales that are certified to be that accurate cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars more.  If it sounds too good to be true...
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 9:45:53 AM EDT
[#26]
I wonder if it truly can get .001g accuracy... The scales that are certified to be that accurate cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars more. If it sounds too good to be true...



The scales I've seen that get that kind of repeatable accuracy are made by AccuLabs and runs four digits. I'm sure they're are other brands, point being they're price tags run 4 digits.


eta: I'd been meaning to order this scale for months. Now it's done.
AccuLab Vic 123 AccuLab has discontinued this scale. Ordered too late.

Went with this instead.
Veritas S123

I have a picture of this scale with a funnel dropped in center of draft shield with trickler beside funnel. If I could figure how to post I would. This is the best rifle set up I have ever seen. When it gets here next wek I will take photos and post.
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 10:33:56 AM EDT
[#27]
Yes, probably close.  However, remember 0.001 gram is 1 milligram and that is actually equivalent to 0.02 grains which is what we all measure powder by.  I use this one:

http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/my-weigh-gempro-250.aspx

which I would recommend.  It is not cheap i.e. under $100 but you know that anything that cheap will not give you the accuracy you need or be rugged enough to last more than a few months.  

When I weight my powder, I weight the case+primer first, then the powder, then the case+primer+powder and with this scale, the difference between the first and last number is my check and usually comes out almost exactly the same as the powder weight +/- about 0.02 grains which I think is very good.

If you get the GemPro 250, I would suggest also buying the 50 gram optional calibration weight which is needed for linear calibration.
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 4:23:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
My personal opinion is this is your best bang for the buck.  The extra decimal point makes it very nice.  I have one and its been very good.

MiniPro-50


I wonder if it truly can get .001g accuracy... The scales that are certified to be that accurate cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars more.  If it sounds too good to be true...


I dont know how accurate it is?  It calibrates fine.  But having the extra decimal point is very helpful.  Most reloading scales (from the major brands) you cant see if your on the high side or low side, but with the extra decimal point to keep things consistent.  It was more accurate and repeatable then a Dillon scale I had for a while.  If you want to pay more look around the net - that place I found was the cheapest Ive seen that scale sell for - also I cannot vouch for the seller, I got mine at a flee market for $40.00
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 7:35:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 7:41:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
I wonder if it truly can get .001g accuracy... The scales that are certified to be that accurate cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars more. If it sounds too good to be true...



The scales I've seen that get that kind of repeatable accuracy are made by AccuLabs and runs four digits. I'm sure they're are other brands, point being they're price tags run 4 digits.


eta: I'd been meaning to order this scale for months. Now it's done.
AccuLab Vic 123 AccuLab has discontinued this scale. Ordered too late.

Went with this instead.
Veritas S123

I have a picture of this scale with a funnel dropped in center of draft shield with trickler beside funnel. If I could figure how to post I would. This is the best rifle set up I have ever seen. When it gets here next wek I will take photos and post.


I use the MXX-123 which is another case on a Acculabs 123. Great scale. Damn finicky, you'll know about a breeze you didnt even feel but once its dialed in and working its a hell of a thing. Frankly, probably overkill for me but what the heck.
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 11:32:46 PM EDT
[#31]
When using my Son's Vic 123 we have to shut off the central air. Slightest draft can affect reading by .003. One granule of Varget weighs .002. I know that's splitting hairs. Given the groups we're getting the extra attention to charge consistancy is worth the price of scale.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 3:55:26 AM EDT
[#32]
RCBS Chargemaster - $279 at Natchez.

RCBS has a $50 rebate (which I missed by days - bought too early)

$229

But once, cry once

I have one - well worth the investment.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 6:31:20 AM EDT
[#33]
If you're going to stay under a $100 bucks I'd probably stick with a good beam scale.  

When you have more funds add an electronic dispenser with IR communicating scale.

JMHO.

I always check my electronic scale's accuracy with the beam scale at the beginning of a session or when I suspect a drifting zero.  Just a confidence saftey thing in my head.  I'm old school and never completely trust anything electronic except maybe my toaster.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 12:12:57 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
RCBS Chargemaster - $279 at Natchez.

RCBS has a $50 rebate (which I missed by days - bought too early)

$229

But once, cry once

I have one - well worth the investment.


This!

I bought mine back in the early part of the summer and I wish I would have bought one years ago. I know the OP doesn't want to spend a lot but to me the $279 spent was worth every cent. Before getting the Chargemaster I used a RCBS electronic scale I bought back in the 90s, and it has been a good one. I don't think they produce that model anymore, but I know when I bought it, around 1997 IIRC, it was about $140. I love the load memory of the Chargemaster. I used to absolutely hate charging cases, but not anymore.
Link Posted: 10/27/2010 12:48:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Actually, to be accurate, there is a difference between the digital scales that we have been recommending and the automated powder dispensers like the RCBS ChargeMaster (apart from price).  I think the automated powder dispensers are best used for doing large batches of rounds that do not have to have extremely accurate amounts of powder i.e. the RCBS unit for example is rated for +/- 0.1 grain accuracy.  If you want volume but reasonable accuracy, they are the thing.  

If you want the highest degree of accuracy in powder weighing i.e. +/- 0.02 grain, then using the digital scales with the 0.02 grain accuracy is the way to go although they are slower.  Some of us use a combination of the Lee Pro Auto-Disk Powder Measure to throw an approximate weight which is 0.1 to 0.2 grain short of the final desire weight and drop the final amount in with a powder trickler.  This is a surprisingly fast method.

The Gempro 250 use a trick to give you better “perceived” stability by reporting only even numbers.  What I mean is that if you are trying to weight 23.20 grains, you will never see the numbers 23.19 or 23.21 as you get close, only 23.18, 23.20, and 23.22.  It’s disconcerting at first, but once you figure out that you are still getting 0.02 to 0.04 grain accuracy, you know it is OK.

Link Posted: 10/27/2010 7:06:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Actually, to be accurate, there is a difference between the digital scales that we have been recommending and the automated powder dispensers like the RCBS ChargeMaster (apart from price).  I think the automated powder dispensers are best used for doing large batches of rounds that do not have to have extremely accurate amounts of powder i.e. the RCBS unit for example is rated for +/- 0.1 grain accuracy.  If you want volume but reasonable accuracy, they are the thing.  

If you want the highest degree of accuracy in powder weighing i.e. +/- 0.02 grain, then using the digital scales with the 0.02 grain accuracy is the way to go although they are slower.  Some of us use a combination of the Lee Pro Auto-Disk Powder Measure to throw an approximate weight which is 0.1 to 0.2 grain short of the final desire weight and drop the final amount in with a powder trickler.  This is a surprisingly fast method.

The Gempro 250 use a trick to give you better “perceived” stability by reporting only even numbers.  What I mean is that if you are trying to weight 23.20 grains, you will never see the numbers 23.19 or 23.21 as you get close, only 23.18, 23.20, and 23.22.  It’s disconcerting at first, but once you figure out that you are still getting 0.02 to 0.04 grain accuracy, you know it is OK.



What are the ES & SD of your rounds using a scale like that?

While I'm sure it's a good scale I find that the Charge Master has as good of a scale(load cell) as any of the precision scales that display to a higher resolution, all my loads charged with the CM have ES's in the teens and SD's in the single digits so I find it hard to believe that any scale can give a more consistent charge plus the CM is not near as finicky to use under a small draft as the scales that are trying to display to .02 gr.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 4:35:14 AM EDT
[#37]
Hi EWP,

Before I reply, can you clarify as to what you mean by ES and SD?

Actually I am not the only person to have this opinion.  On page 318 of Zediker's book "Handloading for Competition", he says in his own funny style "Fancy schmacy dispenser units like this (RCBS Powdermaster) are honestly not as accurate as weighting them yourself, no more accurate than a truly good meter, and slow, slow."

Not to push this to Zediker, but this is also my opinion and experience.  My own experience with a Lee Pro Auto-Disk Powder Measure equipped with a baffle is that it can throw +/- 0.1 grain of Varget (and that is a bad boy extruded powder) that means for a 24.5 grain target between 24.4 to 24.6 grain which is what the RCBC is spec for and of course much faster as Zediker says.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 10:20:47 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Actually, to be accurate, there is a difference between the digital scales that we have been recommending and the automated powder dispensers like the RCBS ChargeMaster (apart from price).  I think the automated powder dispensers are best used for doing large batches of rounds that do not have to have extremely accurate amounts of powder i.e. the RCBS unit for example is rated for +/- 0.1 grain accuracy.  If you want volume but reasonable accuracy, they are the thing.  

If you want the highest degree of accuracy in powder weighing i.e. +/- 0.02 grain, then using the digital scales with the 0.02 grain accuracy is the way to go although they are slower.  Some of us use a combination of the Lee Pro Auto-Disk Powder Measure to throw an approximate weight which is 0.1 to 0.2 grain short of the final desire weight and drop the final amount in with a powder trickler.  This is a surprisingly fast method.

The Gempro 250 use a trick to give you better “perceived” stability by reporting only even numbers.  What I mean is that if you are trying to weight 23.20 grains, you will never see the numbers 23.19 or 23.21 as you get close, only 23.18, 23.20, and 23.22.  It’s disconcerting at first, but once you figure out that you are still getting 0.02 to 0.04 grain accuracy, you know it is OK.



Sir, I've avoided comment in this thread because largely which scale is better than another is subjective.  The arguments regarding the relative merit of precisely weighed charges invites my comment.  FWIW, I have a Redding 505 balance beam type scale in addition to a PACT digital powder scale/powder dispenser combination.  I also use a Redding 3BR powder measure.

I also use a PACT XP chronograph in load development.  Some years ago I decided to do some experimentation regarding the merit of weighing individual charges vs. charges directly from the powder measure.  Given groups of primed brass of approximately equal weight I charged ten cases with powder charges weighed individually on the PACT digital scale and did a chronograph comparison to an equal group of cases that each powder charge was dispensed directly from the powder measure.  All other parameters such as bullet weight, neck tension, case prep, etc. were identical.  I made no special changes to my rifle and simply fired all rounds across the chronograph from a bench at two different SRC targets at a distance of 200yds.  Neither group of cartridges exhibited any noticeable difference from the other on the target.  Chronographed velocity measurements and the ES and SD of the two groups were for all intents and purposes identical.

As you may already know the PACT scale/dispenser already allows the user to "trickle" up to a predetermined value.  The user can do the same with a balance beam type scale and some form of powder trickler.  Just as an aside I don't use a trickler as shown in some of the previous posts in this thread, I simply fill an empty case two thirds full of powder and roll the case between thumb and forefinger with the neck tilted over the scale powder pan.  Regardless how you weigh the powder charge and the tolerance you use for accuracy based in my chronograph measurements there will be no measurable improvement nor detioration of MV, ES, or SD when you fire your reloaded cartridges across a chronograph.

For my purposes the Redding powder measure throws charges consitantly within the customary tolerance for accruacy of plus or minus .1gr, and individually weighed charges do not represent a significant improvement to the consistancy of the end product.  JMHO, 7zero1.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 1:11:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Hi 7zero1,

Thanks for your post, looks like EWP was asking about stats from the chrono which makes sense, so thanks for clarifying this.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but this is a very interesting topic as I have thought about the same thing many times.  The problem I always have and got stuck with every time I use this logic is what if it does make a difference but I have other variables which I don’t know about which is affecting the data and so I can’t see the effect from the noise.  To be fair, this is really a question unfortunately that we can ask just about not just weighting powder but all the nice little refinements that we put in our reloading.  

The fact is if we can make absolutely sure that ALL variables are held absolutely constant, then we can just change one single variable, run the experiment, and we would know exactly how much effect that variable will have on our shooting.  The unfortunate truth is that not only can we not hold all our variables except one constant; we actually don’t know what all the possible variable are!

The unfortunate result of this is that ALL variables then becomes suspect since it is difficult to prove guilt/innocence, we treat all of them as being guilty and thus the relentless push for consistency in all quarters.  Am I wrong about this?
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 2:54:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Hi 7zero1,

Thanks for your post, looks like EWP was asking about stats from the chrono which makes sense, so thanks for clarifying this.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but this is a very interesting topic as I have thought about the same thing many times.  The problem I always have and got stuck with every time I use this logic is what if it does make a difference but I have other variables which I don’t know about which is affecting the data and so I can’t see the effect from the noise.  To be fair, this is really a question unfortunately that we can ask just about not just weighting powder but all the nice little refinements that we put in our reloading.  

The fact is if we can make absolutely sure that ALL variables are held absolutely constant, then we can just change one single variable, run the experiment, and we would know exactly how much effect that variable will have on our shooting.  The unfortunate truth is that not only can we not hold all our variables except one constant; we actually don’t know what all the possible variable are!

The unfortunate result of this is that ALL variables then becomes suspect since it is difficult to prove guilt/innocence, we treat all of them as being guilty and thus the relentless push for consistency in all quarters.  Am I wrong about this?


I think most variables can be controlled enough to reasonably exclude them if desired in the course of load testing.

Does a .001 difference in case length make a difference? Perhaps but the more important question is does that difference make a noticeable and provable difference? Assuming all other variables are removed what would the change in group size be when cases are trimmed .001 longer or shorter than the rest of the lot? I think it would be coined "statistically insignificant" to all but the top shooters in the world. And even then I dont know if they could sit down and at the end of the session be confident that the cases that were .001 longer had a clear impact on their group size as opposed to the cases trimmed to the desired length.

If I cant control the variables to an absolute degree I can at least control them to be "good enough".
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 3:46:28 PM EDT
[#41]
I don’t know.  Obviously in a situation like this, some variables are going to have less of an effect than others.  I would agree that a one thousands difference in case length is probably a safe bet in terms of low effect.  However, I am not sure that I would be as confident to come to the same conclusion with some of the others.

For example, the influence of the case prep is to me a more difficult one to gauge.  Let’s just say that I FLR the case, trim to the same length, chamfer/deburr, clean the primer pocket out, make sure I use the brass from the same manufacturer, and I will even throw in that I weight all the brass and sorted them and only use brass for one of 16 different bins.  Most people would say that I am being pretty OCD already, so GTO?  

Well, how about concentricity of the primer pocket/flash hole/mouth, tightness of the primer pocket, flash hole diameter, has the inside of the flash hole been deburred, how about viability of the internal volume due to variability in where the thickness of the head, body, wall, and neck is, how even is the neck walls in thickness, the list seems to go on and especially problematic are the ones that you cannot measure and account for.  The other problem here is even by some miracle that each of these numerous variables only has a minor effect, is anyone comfortable with ignoring the possibility that the sum of all of these poorly controlled variables each with a minor effect will not have a significant effect?

So you are in the end right, we cannot control the variable to an absolute degree, but we end up trying to control them to either “good enough” or “to the best of our ability” and that is the crux of the question for powder weight precision.
Link Posted: 10/28/2010 4:26:53 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Don't buy a Frankford Arsenal.  Mine is junk.  It won't hold zero.  I have to rezero it constantly.


I killed two of them.

back to my beams now,


Link Posted: 10/29/2010 6:33:21 AM EDT
[#43]
i think it was davis tubbs that once said that the problem is that we can make ammo that is better than we can shoot it. our shooting skills don't equal our ammo making skills. the time spent making perfect ammo would be better spent on the range. sure is true in my case. still, i want to eliminate all the variables i reasonably can.
Link Posted: 10/29/2010 8:23:23 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
i think it was davis tubbs that once said that the problem is that we can make ammo that is better than we can shoot it. our shooting skills don't equal our ammo making skills. the time spent making perfect ammo would be better spent on the range. sure is true in my case. still, i want to eliminate all the variables i reasonably can.


This is definately true for me in terms of my 9 mm for IDPA and the 52 grain handloads I use for the 100 yards match.  Not so sure about the 77 grains I use for the 600 yards shoot, those are the ones I really worry about and concentrate on.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top