loading by volume...

[chukarmandoo]

To chime in here a little. I started loading by volume about 2 years ago or maybe less. Someone on here suggested I get the book by Richard Lee Modern Loading second edition. I think it was "darkker". Could have been another member? Anyway I got the book, read the high points and started loading. Well moving to a resent build and having real trouble, and blaming the new to me rifle and getting comments from people here with lots of knowledge I started to rethink the whole thing over again.
Then this thread came up and I went back to the book! I have started to read it from the beginning and there is a lot to take in. Not only about loading by volume but also what really happens with burn rates as they relate to different charges, whether they are lite loads or heavy loads, and what results you can expect.
Anyway I'll chime in more the further I get. I've got a new understanding of loading now and thanks "darkker" for the charts. The book explained it very well.
Thank you for this thread and keep it going.

[darkker]

my question now is theres a LOT of numbers when converted to CCs like 3.06675cc or 3.34225...with the PPM i know that i set it on 3 and then go 3 more turns then to 4 on the thimble but what about the 225?

This has me a little puzzled. The PPM works in hundredth's... think I spelled that correctly:rolleyes:. There really isn't any "more" things to do than with grains, just a different system. As to how the 225 works, I can't say. I don't *THINK*, but don't know, that they are random marks; not tied to a volumetric measurement.



To chime in here a little. I started loading by volume about 2 years ago or maybe less. Someone on here suggested I get the book by Richard Lee Modern Loading second edition. I think it was "darkker". Could have been another member? Anyway I got the book, read the high points and started loading. Well moving to a resent build and having real trouble, and blaming the new to me rifle and getting comments from people here with lots of knowledge I started to rethink the whole thing over again.
Then this thread came up and I went back to the book! I have started to read it from the beginning and there is a lot to take in. Not only about loading by volume but also what really happens with burn rates as they relate to different charges, whether they are lite loads or heavy loads, and what results you can expect.
Anyway I'll chime in more the further I get. I've got a new understanding of loading now and thanks "darkker" for the charts. The book explained it very well.
Thank you for this thread and keep it going.


Don't know if it was me or not, but I'm glad you took someone's advice and are learning what you can!

Cheers

[LongRange]

darkker what I did was take the numbers in grains and convert them to CCs using the VMD number...
So 45.8gx.0725=3.3205CC and so on...

im going to shoot an OCW but am going to run my charges by volume and some of the charge weights produce 6 digits so like I said do I just not worry about the last three numbers? Or for instance in the number above just go to 3 on the handle then 3 more turns then to the 2 on the thimble and not worry about the 05?

[BillPa]

This has me a little puzzled. The PPM works in hundredth's... think I spelled that correctly:rolleyes:. There really isn't any "more" things to do than with grains, just a different system. As to how the 225 works, I can't say. I don't *THINK*, but don't know, that they are random marks; not tied to a volumetric measurement.


Maybe I can shed a little daylight on the subject. The tubes (aka;Metering Chamber Assembly) for both the Lee PPM and the new Classic are calibrated to .01 in CCs. To find the setting you multiply the target powder charge volume by the powder's VMD (Volume Measure Density). For example, for a 43gr target volume charge of Varget, 43 x .0731 = a setting of 3.14 CCs, 45gs, 45 x .0731=3.29 and etc. The tube settings rounded off to the nearest hundredth CC.

Bill

PS..ya beat me to it LR!!!

[LongRange]

You said it better Bill...and are correct about the PPM rounding the CC.

[Pet-Rock]

darkker what I did was take the numbers in grains and convert them to CCs using the VMD number...
So 45.8gx.0725=3.3205CC and so on...

im going to shoot an OCW but am going to run my charges by volume and some of the charge weights produce 6 digits so like I said do I just not worry about the last three numbers? Or for instance in the number above just go to 3 on the handle then 3 more turns then to the 2 on the thimble and not worry about the 05?

This rounding issue goes back to your science classes haha. The essence of it is that you can not end up with a more accurate number than any that you started with. In math terms, you always round to the number with the least amount of significant figures.

So in this case, you took 45.8gx.0725=3.3205CC

45.8 has three significant digits
0.0725 also has three significant digits (leading zeros dont count)

So your answer can only have three significant digits (If one of the numbers only had two sig figs then you would only use two)

So in this case, your final number can only be accurate to 3.32cc
Any more than that, and you're magically getting a number more accurate than any you started with. I hope this helps any confusion

[LongRange]

Yes it does....it just confirms what I thought...that you need to round to the nearest number as you only have three numbers to work with on the PPM...good thing with have engineers to keeps us roofers in check lol!

[Pet-Rock]

Hah, Im just glad I was able to put something I paid to learn here to good use! ;)

[cm12setx]

Chukarmandoo, thanks for the tip on modern reloading by Lee. I had to go dig it out of storage and re-read parts of it.

[scooterf79]

What he said, I'm really interested in this. I think I understand it...especially with the baking analogy.....Im the sweets maker here at the house so that worked great lol. <br />
Scooter<br />
<br />
a picture in your bakers apron or it didnt happen!!
😢 that hurt LR....Ill see if what i can do. Lol
Scooter

[darkker]

im going to shoot an OCW but am going to run my charges by volume and some of the charge weights...

Pet got us covered in the hundredths answer. But this last part makes me question again.
First, in not sure it's "allowed" do do an OCW :p
We are doing volume, no? So that needs to be something like OCV. :)
Anyway, on that vein, remember volume isn't weight, so the numbers don't just cross over. So what was acceptable by weight, may or may not give the same results in volume.

[doctnj]

Would it matter if the powder is "settled" vs kind of "fluffed up"? If there is such a thing? I know in my industry we measure a lot of things and have to be sure they are compacted the same every time after the entire product is tumbled first. This is trying to present the same conditions from measure to measure on different days.

If a measuring devise has .01 error, is it .01 up and down or .01 total i.e. .05 up and down? Hope that makes sense. Because .01 up an down could be significant.

It may be beside the point of the challenge of the act, but wouldnt it just be easier to find the ocw then adjust the volume thrown to equal the weight on the scale by math/guesswork/ and scale? Once you find it reliably throwing that weight just go with it? Although I dont see this method in my near future, I have been following along and want to learn it. I just got the chargemaster adjusted to go faster than I can put a bullet in a case.

[chukarmandoo]

http://www.savageshooters.com/showthread.php?30033-Measuring-Powder

[LongRange]

Pet got us covered in the hundredths answer. But this last part makes me question again.
First, in not sure it's "allowed" do do an OCW :p
We are doing volume, no? So that needs to be something like OCV. :)
Anyway, on that vein, remember volume isn't weight, so the numbers don't just cross over. So what was acceptable by weight, may or may not give the same results in volume.

i meant an OCV lol...i really want to give this a fair chance and since its about volume not weight i figure why even bring weight into it other than to have numbers to convert to CCs...so ive got all of my OCW numbers converted to OCV numbers...i also think H4831sc is a good powder for this test as its a little more forgiving than say H4350...i also think that RL-17 would be another good powder to try(and i may)as the kernels meter a little better...best thing is this should keep me busy for a couple of weekends.


Would it matter if the powder is "settled" vs kind of "fluffed up"? If there is such a thing? I know in my industry we measure a lot of things and have to be sure they are compacted the same every time after the entire product is tumbled first. This is trying to present the same conditions from measure to measure on different days.

If a measuring devise has .01 error, is it .01 up and down or .01 total i.e. .05 up and down? Hope that makes sense. Because .01 up an down could be significant.

It may be beside the point of the challenge of the act, but wouldnt it just be easier to find the ocw then adjust the volume thrown to equal the weight on the scale by math/guesswork/ and scale? Once you find it reliably throwing that weight just go with it? Although I dont see this method in my near future, I have been following along and want to learn it. I just got the chargemaster adjusted to go faster than I can put a bullet in a case.

yes(i think)it will make a difference if the powder is settled or fluffed and why i threw 70 charges different ways to see what the most consistent way would be and i also thought about running an OCW by weight and after finding a load converting it to volume...then i thought why not just run the entire test by volume since this is what this is all about anyway.
i already know what this barrel likes by weight so we will see where it ends up by volume...45.8g H4831sc,CCI BR2 and a 142g smk in lapua brass is the cats a$$ in this barrel...ive got those numbers in CCs and will load up 5 by weight and 5 by volume shoot them and see what the difference is.

the volume test is going to be shot with peterson brass as i bought 25 pieces to test out...now i can get two things done in one test...if the brass holds up well during this test i will run 5 pieces up to some higher pressures and see if this brass is worth the money...its about the same as lapua maybe a bit more depending on where the lapua comes from.

[LongRange]

http://www.savageshooters.com/showthread.php?30033-Measuring-Powder

your tread just kinda died...what were your results with the test loads you had?

[yobuck]

Im using a 60 year old powder measure made by Belding & Mull. It dumps powder into an adjustable drop tube
which can then be dumped onto a scale or directly into the case without weighing. There are no grain measurments
on the drop tube. Only lines and numbers for reference which dont correlate to anything on the scale. So in my view
its a vollume measure. Certainly the type of powder in terms of grain size make the weight/vollume more uniform from charge to charge
as for weight when checked on the scale. But, in terms of accuracy (at least for me) i see little to no difference wether i weigh the
charges or if i dont. So in view of this i question for whos/what benefit do i bother weighing charges? This would in essence be no different
than making one of the cheap plastic Lee scoops level full and dumping it directly into the case. Would this not be considered vollume loading?
And if so, why is it necessary to know any more about it? Why not just find the equivilant vollume of powder youve been using and stop weighing the loads?

[LongRange]

well buck because personally and honestly i dont think this is going to work out for me or produce what i look for in an accurate load but i do want to give it a fair chance.
and yes id assume that using the dippers is the same thing but i also think i can fine tune my loads better with the lee powder measure than i can with dippers.
also as i said above i know what this barrel likes and will shoot 5 each by weight and 5 each by volume and see what happens.

[Texas10]

Some observations from a newby regarding loading by volume. I don't drop charges, I weigh, just so you know where I'm coming from.

First of all, everything I've read about developing the skills necessary to drop a charge in a consistant manner advises to WEIGH the dropped charges to confirm consistancy.

Isn't that contradictory to the whole concept of charge volume vs charge weight? It seems to me that in order to confirm charge volume you need to have a calibrated VOLUME measurement device that also takes into consideration granule packing density. I have yet to see such a tool.

I suspect that the practice of dropping a charge is necessitated by the problems associated with weighing a charge while on the bench or on-site at a shoot. Volume loading certainly eliminates a lot of problems that loading outdoors brings into play.

While developing a load using the OCW method, I have experienced nodes that were nearly a grain wide in powder weight, an ideal situation since such a load would be very reliable despite small weight inconsistancies. Dropping a particular charge weight in the middle of such a node would be ideal also. But when the node is quite small, a tenth of a grain or so wide, dropping can be problematic. Hence the need to load to the match conditions of the day. I can see where a "click or two" adjustment would be quick and easy under such circumstances, when your best load is tickling the edge of a node.

In his book Metallic Cartridge Handloading, Pursuit Of The Perfect Cartridge, Mic McPherson writes (starting on pg. 183) that weight variation of dropped charges is always greater than weighed charges, yet Benchrest competitors long ago gave up on weighing charges. And that there can be only one reason for this, that dropped charges produce more consistant results than weighed charges. Hence, something is more important than charge-weight consistancy.

He goes on to write that granule packing scheme is the likely the reason for the better SD measurements he saw, and advocates weighing when possible and using a "swirl-charge" method of transferring the powder from the pan to the cartridge. He was able to document an 8 percent decrease in charge volume using this technique. The advantages of this become clear when loading to 100% or more of cartridge capacity, and powder is crushed during bullet seating. Ideally a load is either not crushed, or crushed firmly, but never lightly crushed as the packing scheme is inconsistently modifed by a light crush.

There is no doubt in my mind that those shooters who are skilled enough to compete on a National or World level must posses above average muscle memory skills, and therefore have the inate ability to consistantly drop a charge on-site, to a ridiculously small tolerance, as well as the knowledge of how to adjust that charge for the environmental conditions present at the time.

I will never be one of those shooters.

I load a day or two before a trip to the range, and although I keep notes on weather conditions during the last outing with a particular load, I have no way of knowing what conditions will be like when I get around to shooting that load. Yet, I manage to shoot a lot of 1/4 to 1/3 moa groups with a factory barrel, with no high priced changes or additions besides basic bedding. But I also tend to shoot a pencil eraser sized group right before a half dollar sized one, so I am definitely still the big variable in the equation.

I must be doing something right at the loading bench to get those small groups. I just need to work more on the nut behind the bolt….LOL.

[LongRange]

good info thanks tex...and like i always say when i have a bad day its not my load,my rifle or weather conditions thats to blame.

[Pet-Rock]

Interesting info Texas, thanks for sharing that