Darkker's Great Weight v. Volume Debate

[darkker]

I guess, but talking about getting started the "quality" argument is a bit out of place. My Lee kit has had no issues for better than a decade.
The RCBS powder measure has no volumetric calibration, random numbers. That is the dumbest thing there is. A volumetric device, with no tie to volume; and factory directions confusing people by stating to use it as a weight device.... Very bad form. The trickler is a gimmick if you are loading extruded powder. But very few understand how burning rates are controlled, or lot variances; so they think 0.1gr increments are critical, so they sell.

[schnyd112]

Different approaches. I can respect that, but trying to get someone into reloading and explaining to them weight doesn't matter, even though you are only talking about extruded powders, is a dangerous game. I only really use the powder measure for pistols. hence my opinion on the lee, meh.

I load by weight, the way I was taught and the way most of the books explain. I trickle everything I put in a rifle case. Therefore, a trickler is a very useful tool on my bench. If that makes me wrong, I must be really lucky because I get great results.

[darkker]

Different approaches. I can respect that, but trying to get someone into reloading and explaining to them weight doesn't matter, even though you are only talking about extruded powders, is a dangerous game. I only really use the powder measure for pistols. hence my opinion on the lee, meh.

I load by weight, the way I was taught and the way most of the books explain. I trickle everything I put in a rifle case. Therefore, a trickler is a very useful tool on my bench. If that makes me wrong, I must be really lucky because I get great results.

I agree different strokes, but discounting personal preference, the RCBS system is confusing the purpose, and doesn't offer $100 more in value.

As for telling people weight doesn't matter being dangerous, you are misinformed about how powder actually works. To not completely steal this thread, the shirt version is:
Extruded powder has its burning rate controlled by geometry. It does this by having a very closely tied relationship of energy and volume. Loading by weight ignores that volume, and so ignores any changes in burning rate. Ignoring that volume change therefore ignores changing case fill, which further changes burning rate.
That is how extruded works. NOT teaching someone that, or to ignore that info, there is your dangerous game

[J.Baker]

I split these into their own thread as they didn't belong in the other.

As for the great debate, I have to question the volume logic for the simple fact that every loading manual that's printed measures smokeless powder charge's by weight, not volume. It's the the recommended method and the industry standard. To say weight means nothing with extruded powders IS a dangerous notion to put forth to those new to reloading as schnyd112 pointed out. Where does one start if measuring by volume if there are no recommendations for starting and max volumes?

My collected chronograph data from loading weighed charges with extruded powders contradicts your claims. If a slight variation in the volume of my charges caused by adding/removing kernels to achieve matched weights would cause a drastic or dangerous performance (pressure) difference from load to load my velocity, E.S. and S.D would show it. I can see where you're coming from in theory, but in reality it just doesn't add up - at least not in my experience. Maybe if we were talking naval artillery where a single grain of powder is the size of a beer can, but not with the powders we're working with in our rifles.

Furthermore, if the "danger" of measuring extruded by weight were as great as you want us to believe, the powder manufacturers would clearly state we should measure them by volume. But they don't. Given the litigious society we live in I can guarantee that if there were even an inkling of danger present regarding measuring extruded powder charges by weight rather than volume the lawyers for the powder manufacturers would have a dozen huge warning labels on every bottle and in every manual stating such and instructing us to measure by volume instead. But that's not the case.

[J.Baker]

Forgot to add that the amount of powder in a given volume of space can also vary depending on how it stacks or compacts. One can get charges that differ by up to a half a grain using Lee Dippers just by varying their dipping technique so going off volume is no more consistent than measuring by weight.

[foxx]

^^^ I always figured as much, just thought I was an inept "dipper".

[Texas10]

Forgot to add that the amount of powder in a given volume of space can also vary depending on how it stacks or compacts. Once can get charges that differ by up to a half a grain using Lee Dippers just by varying their dipping technique so going off volume is no more consistent than measuring by weight.

In his book Metallic Cartridge Handloading, Pursuit Of The Perfect Cartridge, MicMcPherson 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 consistency.

He goes on to say that dropping charges thru a tube and charging the cartridge from the base upwards has the effect of improving charge-weight density and that this is probably what makes for the more consistent groups that Benchrest competitors experience. He was able to document significant volumetric density improvements using this technique.

Another way he recommends is to use a spiral charge technique after weighing. This is accomplished by slowly pouring the weighed charge into the funnel such that is swirls around like a toilet flushing before going into the cartridge. This help settle the powder as it fall into the cartridge.

To test this idea, I roughly poured stick powder (3031) into a cartridge until it was filled to the top of the mouth. Leveled it off, then poured that powder back into a pan and charged the cartridge again using the same powder but using the swirl technique. By changing the technique and repeating, i was able to work out the best method.

I now use this method every time I load and it does seem to help shrink groups, although I am still not shooting paper at 600 yds like some of you.

BTW: Here's previous thread on the subject from February. http://www.savageshooters.com/showth...=Mic+McPherson

[J.Baker]

I've read Mic's book, and I've also met him on a couple different occasions over the years. Great guy and always a pleasure to talk to.

The comment made here however was in regard to measuring charges by weight v. volume and that measuring extruded powders by weight is inherently dangerous. I think we can all agree that statement is untrue for the reasons I outlined above. If it weren't everyone who reloads would likely have blown themselves up already. That's the only reason I responded to this as that statement goes against everything the industry has said and published for the last 100+ years regarding all smokeless powders. The last thing we want is someone new to reloading to come on here and read that, take it as the gospel and then go out and blow himself up as a result. That's my only stake in this discussion.

Personally I'm not a "weight every charge" kind of guy. When I'm reloading I set my Lyman #55 up, weight a couple test throws to make sure it's where I want it and throwing consistently (within a tenth either way), then I commence to dispensing my charges without weighing any more. Typically I use a powder that fills the case up into the shoulder area so it's easy to eyeball and verify they're all the same and one didn't significantly short or over charge. If I'm doing load development via ladder tests I'll take the extra step to weight each charge, then dump it into the case via funnel using the spiral technique (mostly just to make sure stick powders don't log jam in the funnel). I stagger my ladders in 0.3 grain increments which covers my usual +/-0.1gr tolerance when loading.

As for density, yes drop tubes will help you cram more powder into a case by using gravity and velocity to pack it more tightly. That's nothing new. However, unless it's a compressed load it's a moot point because as soon as you lay the case on it's side in your action or magazine the powder shifts and won't be as condensed anymore and any potential benefit will have been mitigated. Now an argument can be made in that regard as to which is better - a fuller case of a slower powder or a less than full case of a faster powder, but I have neither the desire nor the inclination to open that can of worms.

BTW, if you ever have the pleasure of talking to Mic, ask him about the time he and By Smalley went on a prairie dog safari with a cannon full of bird shot. It's a hum-dinger of a tale!

[LongRange]

i never got back to the thread i started because i just dont have the time right now...i will say though from my short test time i still have my doubts about volume vs weighing charges...for short range shooting i think drop charges would be fine for longer distance stuff not so much.

[Robinhood]

Bingo LongRange, I do not know any shooters from 300 out that drop charges. If they are around there scores are so bad they do not even talk about there loading process. My question is, Darrker, can you name one top shooter in the country that shoots 300 or more yards and drops charges? If you can, your argument just got some validation.

I expect the response will be Crickets.

[Doug Kennedy]

In his book Metallic Cartridge Handloading, Pursuit Of The Perfect Cartridge, MicMcPherson 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 consistency.

He goes on to say that dropping charges thru a tube and charging the cartridge from the base upwards has the effect of improving charge-weight density and that this is probably what makes for the more consistent groups that Benchrest competitors experience. He was able to document significant volumetric density improvements using this technique.

Another way he recommends is to use a spiral charge technique after weighing. This is accomplished by slowly pouring the weighed charge into the funnel such that is swirls around like a toilet flushing before going into the cartridge. This help settle the powder as it fall into the cartridge.

To test this idea, I roughly poured stick powder (3031) into a cartridge until it was filled to the top of the mouth. Leveled it off, then poured that powder back into a pan and charged the cartridge again using the same powder but using the swirl technique. By changing the technique and repeating, i was able to work out the best method.

I now use this method every time I load and it does seem to help shrink groups, although I am still not shooting paper at 600 yds like some of you.

BTW: Here's previous thread on the subject from February. http://www.savageshooters.com/showth...=Mic+McPherson

You need to go to a bench rest shoot. They do in fact weight there charges. There are quite a few rcbs charge masters at a bench rest shoot. Also read Tony Boyer's book,Tony talks about how he weights his powder charges.

Ed Matunas and I had a discussion on weight vs volumn back in the 80s. I haven't loaded by volumn since than.

[Doug Kennedy]

I guess, but talking about getting started the "quality" argument is a bit out of place. My Lee kit has had no issues for better than a decade.
The RCBS powder measure has no volumetric calibration, random numbers. That is the dumbest thing there is. A volumetric device, with no tie to volume; and factory directions confusing people by stating to use it as a weight device.... Very bad form. The trickler is a gimmick if you are loading extruded powder. But very few understand how burning rates are controlled, or lot variances; so they think 0.1gr increments are critical, so they sell.

You like to load by volumn,I say knock yourself out. Your postings on a few different forums about volumn vs weight,is having the same effect as fingers on a chalk board.

[RC20]

Per the below, I have a number of issues.

1. In fact what I believe to be true is that the variations for 300 yds or less is not relevant in the shot, ergo, go with volume and a safe load level and not enough variation to be of any significance.
Longer range it factors in and 300 yds seems to be the cam over point. In other words its quick for the result which makes no difference.
And to add into that, the only way it stays charge weight, is if there is no room in the case left, exactly none (assumes burn profile is at issue). So you charge volume weight it and then the charge opens up in the case and you get what? Weight is the same. No bullet variation in seating might be a factor, compress it, change the COAL and its out the door.

2. That is a lot of technique involved in the consistent loads and that is not what is safe. Ergo, per Mr. Furious, standard is weight and that should be your basis of load. Individual that want to range afield is another matter but its not a good practice unless you have it nailed down tight and very experienced and I suspect many still do not do it.

3. Pistol loads are ver5y subject to small variation having huge results, 5 tenths in most pistol case is a lot and massive in some, I don't dip pistol loads either, I always weight them.

In his book Metallic Cartridge Handloading, Pursuit Of The Perfect Cartridge, MicMcPherson 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 consistency.

He goes on to say that dropping charges thru a tube and charging the cartridge from the base upwards has the effect of improving charge-weight density and that this is probably what makes for the more consistent groups that Benchrest competitors experience. He was able to document significant volumetric density improvements using this technique.

Another way he recommends is to use a spiral charge technique after weighing. This is accomplished by slowly pouring the weighed charge into the funnel such that is swirls around like a toilet flushing before going into the cartridge. This help settle the powder as it fall into the cartridge.

To test this idea, I roughly poured stick powder (3031) into a cartridge until it was filled to the top of the mouth. Leveled it off, then poured that powder back into a pan and charged the cartridge again using the same powder but using the swirl technique. By changing the technique and repeating, i was able to work out the best method.

I now use this method every time I load and it does seem to help shrink groups, although I am still not shooting paper at 600 yds like some of you.

BTW: Here's previous thread on the subject from February. http://www.savageshooters.com/showth...=Mic+McPherson

[darkker]

A1) I have to question the volume logic for the simple fact that every loading manual that's printed measures smokeless powder charge's by weight, not volume.
A2) It's the the recommended method and the industry standard.
A3) To say weight means nothing with extruded powders IS a dangerous notion to put forth to those new to reloading as schnyd112 pointed out.
A4) Where does one start if measuring by volume if there are no recommendations for starting and max volumes?
A5) My collected chronograph data from loading weighed charges with extruded powders contradicts your claims.
A6) If a slight variation in the volume of my charges caused by adding/removing kernels to achieve matched weights would cause a drastic or dangerous performance (pressure) difference from load to load my velocity, E.S. and S.D would show it.
A7) Furthermore, if the "danger" of measuring extruded by weight were as great as you want us to believe, the powder manufacturers would clearly state....

B1) Forgot to add that the amount of powder in a given volume of space can also vary depending on how it stacks or compacts.
B2) One can get charges that differ by up to a half a grain using Lee Dippers just by varying their dipping technique so going off volume is no more consistent than measuring by weight.

C1) The comment made here however was in regard to measuring charges by weight v. volume and that measuring extruded powders by weight is inherently dangerous. I think we can all agree that statement is untrue for the reasons I outlined above.
C2) If it weren't everyone who reloads would likely have blown themselves up already.
C3) That's the only reason I responded to this as that statement goes against everything the industry has said and published for the last 100+ years regarding all smokeless powders.
C4) The last thing we want is someone new to reloading to come on here and read that, take it as the gospel and then go out and blow himself up as a result. That's my only stake in this discussion.

C5) Personally I'm not a "weight every charge" kind of guy. When I'm reloading I set my Lyman #55 up, weight a couple test throws to make sure it's where I want it and throwing consistently (within a tenth either way), then I commence to dispensing my charges without weighing any more.... I stagger my ladders in 0.3 grain increments which covers my usual +/-0.1gr tolerance when loading.

Pretty good Trick you got there!!! Thank you for the split in the thread, I was wondering how I started a thread in my sleep, HA!!!
So just so I can keep a train of though I have to number things, just easier for me to not ramble(unavoidable).

A1) That isn't true, but I get your point, Today most list weight, not all, and it wasn't always weight. If you are old enough, or strange enought to follow the rabbit hole, you know a great deal of the load data WAS in volume previously.
A2) I was also recomended not to sail too far, as the earth was flat. While widely accepted as fact, may not have been the best advice, no? It is widely done for the handloader, no arguement there. But it is absolutely not the industry standard. Industry being shooting or ammo production, there is no major ammo manufacturer who loads a weight of powder in their cases, they all load volume. So perhaps the better question is why don't the reloaders follow the industry?
A3) Lets remember context here, and keep sane. Schnyd112 was of the opinion that telling people they don't have to load by weight, was dangerous. I contended that not informing people how powder works, and ignoring that info is dangerous. But on face value alone, no it isn't IF you understand the method.
A4) So If you want to do volume, but cannot find data in such; you use your measured VMD and start with the associated number. THIS is why most people cannot wrap their head around volume, This is an association ONLY. Take the start load in grains, and multiply by your VMD for that bottle.
A5, A6, A7) Remember the context. Suggesting you can load by another method than weight, got me called out as being "dangerous", by someone who doesn't understand my system, Nor how powder works or is built. I pushed the "dangerous" part back after touching on how things actually work. Either way is perfectly acceptable if you reasonably follow common sense. This is an arguement of minutia. I was told the world was flat by a non-sailor, and we are discussing it. Not which will cause the decline of western civilization.
As for the powder manufacturers, THEY actually DO tell you loads in volume. The names and companies you think you know, don't make Shizz. They are marketing brands alone. The manufacturers are Defense Contractors, Governmental conglomorates, or State Owned Defense contractors. They flush surplused powder to the waste market, which is where the names you do know, get a hold of it and create names and sloagans about those names.

B1) Yes, which doesn't play against me. It actually compounds if using weight. Back to the VMD/BR tie I spoke of.
B2) That mentality is exactly why people continue to get confused, bad info... Weight IS NOT Volume. You are judging a volumetric devices ac curacy, not by testing against another volumetric measuring device; that's poor form. Furthermore you are ignoring what I said earlier about powder having a shifting BD/BR tie (although suddenly I think I incorrectly wrote vmd...) Powder has a changing BD, that is how the burning rate gets kept in check. Of course the weight is going to change!! Using the dippers, CONSISTENTLY, will ALWAYS yield a moving weight. They will deliver a consistent volume, but because of how the powder is made, a consistent volume has a moving weight target.

C1) My statement is no more incorrect, than telling someone volume is dangerous. What have you outlined? That no one lists volume? Well actually they do, you were mistaken. That they never have? Again they did. That The manufacturers don't list in volume? Because ya, they do. The resellers you know about however don't. Of course.... They also don't do much in-house testing of pressure, gets farmed out. And it's done with Copper Crushers, which was widely bemoaned by everyone in SAAMI for not being accurate above @ 45,000 PSI.... 15-20,000 psi wrong, when used outside it's operation range. They won't list nominal variance specs for what they resell... Yeah, I think they sound exactly like an upstanding company who should be considered the "expert" voice in this subject. :)
C2) Again, nuance discussion. Neither way is "bad", but one method ignores how powder gets built, and actually works.
C3) This is flat wrong, you are just to young. There was a very great deal of info published in volume for a long time, specifically by Olin, but have a few other manuals listing it; and of course Lee continues to list volume.
C4) I have no issue with this. That's why I briefly touched on how volume works.
C5) Now wait a tick..... You argued in B2 that volume devices are going to vary by a grain, now you claim that they are within a tenth?? You can't have it both ways jim . Although you are confused about how to properly use each method. What you are doing is throwing a consistent VOLUME, not weight :)
This specifically goes to my conversation about BR/BD shifts, and the fact that essentially no one but Eurenco lists any of this info. SOME lots of powder are consistent in BD, but some are not. Go back to WC844 and WC846. Those powders are ONLY different on the "as-built" side. There is only one recipie, but no two loaves of bread are ever the same... Speaking of those powders and what "the industry" tells us: You know that WC846 has it's original patent from the 1930's! So much for Hodgdon's fluff telling you that H335 was designed for the 223.

[darkker]

You like to load by volumn,I say knock yourself out. Your postings on a few different forums about volumn vs weight,is having the same effect as fingers on a chalk board.

Fingers on a chalk board only to those who don't understand what the reloading market really is, Doug.

[J.Baker]

Pretty good Trick you got there!!! Thank you for the split in the thread, I was wondering how I started a thread in my sleep, HA!!!
So just so I can keep a train of though I have to number things, just easier for me to not ramble(unavoidable).

A1) That isn't true, but I get your point, Today most list weight, not all, and it wasn't always weight. If you are old enough, or strange enought to follow the rabbit hole, you know a great deal of the load data WAS in volume previously.
A2) I was also recomended not to sail too far, as the earth was flat. While widely accepted as fact, may not have been the best advice, no? It is widely done for the handloader, no arguement there. But it is absolutely not the industry standard. Industry being shooting or ammo production, there is no major ammo manufacturer who loads a weight of powder in their cases, they all load volume. So perhaps the better question is why don't the reloaders follow the industry?
A3) Lets remember context here, and keep sane. Schnyd112 was of the opinion that telling people they don't have to load by weight, was dangerous. I contended that not informing people how powder works, and ignoring that info is dangerous. But on face value alone, no it isn't IF you understand the method.
A4) So If you want to do volume, but cannot find data in such; you use your measured VMD and start with the associated number. THIS is why most people cannot wrap their head around volume, This is an association ONLY. Take the start load in grains, and multiply by your VMD for that bottle.
A5, A6, A7) Remember the context. Suggesting you can load by another method than weight, got me called out as being "dangerous", by someone who doesn't understand my system, Nor how powder works or is built. I pushed the "dangerous" part back after touching on how things actually work. Either way is perfectly acceptable if you reasonably follow common sense. This is an arguement of minutia. I was told the world was flat by a non-sailor, and we are discussing it. Not which will cause the decline of western civilization.
As for the powder manufacturers, THEY actually DO tell you loads in volume. The names and companies you think you know, don't make Shizz. They are marketing brands alone. The manufacturers are Defense Contractors, Governmental conglomorates, or State Owned Defense contractors. They flush surplused powder to the waste market, which is where the names you do know, get a hold of it and create names and sloagans about those names.

B1) Yes, which doesn't play against me. It actually compounds if using weight. Back to the VMD/BR tie I spoke of.
B2) That mentality is exactly why people continue to get confused, bad info... Weight IS NOT Volume. You are judging a volumetric devices ac curacy, not by testing against another volumetric measuring device; that's poor form. Furthermore you are ignoring what I said earlier about powder having a shifting BD/BR tie (although suddenly I think I incorrectly wrote vmd...) Powder has a changing BD, that is how the burning rate gets kept in check. Of course the weight is going to change!! Using the dippers, CONSISTENTLY, will ALWAYS yield a moving weight. They will deliver a consistent volume, but because of how the powder is made, a consistent volume has a moving weight target.

C1) My statement is no more incorrect, than telling someone volume is dangerous. What have you outlined? That no one lists volume? Well actually they do, you were mistaken. That they never have? Again they did. That The manufacturers don't list in volume? Because ya, they do. The resellers you know about however don't. Of course.... They also don't do much in-house testing of pressure, gets farmed out. And it's done with Copper Crushers, which was widely bemoaned by everyone in SAAMI for not being accurate above @ 45,000 PSI.... 15-20,000 psi wrong, when used outside it's operation range. They won't list nominal variance specs for what they resell... Yeah, I think they sound exactly like an upstanding company who should be considered the "expert" voice in this subject. :)
C2) Again, nuance discussion. Neither way is "bad", but one method ignores how powder gets built, and actually works.
C3) This is flat wrong, you are just to young. There was a very great deal of info published in volume for a long time, specifically by Olin, but have a few other manuals listing it; and of course Lee continues to list volume.
C4) I have no issue with this. That's why I briefly touched on how volume works.
C5) Now wait a tick..... You argued in B2 that volume devices are going to vary by a grain, now you claim that they are within a tenth?? You can't have it both ways jim . Although you are confused about how to properly use each method. What you are doing is throwing a consistent VOLUME, not weight :)
This specifically goes to my conversation about BR/BD shifts, and the fact that essentially no one but Eurenco lists any of this info. SOME lots of powder are consistent in BD, but some are not. Go back to WC844 and WC846. Those powders are ONLY different on the "as-built" side. There is only one recipie, but no two loaves of bread are ever the same... Speaking of those powders and what "the industry" tells us: You know that WC846 has it's original patent from the 1930's! So much for Hodgdon's fluff telling you that H335 was designed for the 223.

You aren't related to BigEdP51 are you? He's the only other person I know around here that could turn the simple task of measuring out a charge of powder into a 4-year doctorate program at Harvard.

[wbm]

Think I will keep weighing mine. If I want something shot past 500, I'll hire somebody.

[Robinhood]

You aren't related to BigEdP51 are you? He's the only other person I know around here that could turn the simple task of measuring out a charge of powder into a 4-year doctorate program at Harvard.

Hehe yep.

Time and technology has changed things. We used to have party lines and rotary dialed phones. Analog video and audio. Times have changed. Some good some not so good. But for all of those ignorant bastages shooting unbelievable groups at long range that weigh charges, thankfully we have accurate digital and beam scales.

[J.Baker]

I think most everyone who reloads knows that all but the latest electronic powder measure/scale combos dispense by volume, not weight. I think most everyone also realizes that any numbers or markings on said powder measures have absolutely no correlation to the actual weight of the charge being dispensed. Ya'll can argue which is better or worse until your blue in the face and a black hole sucks up the entirety of the universe, but it's not going to make a lick of difference. 99.9% of the people will continue to verify their charges by weight, and the obscure 0.1% will continue to verify their charges by volume because that's what they firmly believe in.

[cowtownup]

So let me get this straight...

Darkker, are you saying that in order to get ultimate consistency in MV, outstanding SD and ES and the utmost accuracy out of my 1000 yard F-Class rifle, that I should use the Lee Perfect Powder measure and drop charges instead of a set of beams and a gimmicky trickler?

[sharpshooter]

I have yet to see a loading manual that specifies powder charges in cc's, cubic inches or fluid oz.

[RC20]

And while I use one of them thar volume dispensers, its set to deliver below what I want and I trickle in to the proscribed weight (using a digital scale)

Actually am pretty fast at it, almost as good as an RCBS auto unit.

[darkker]

You aren't related to BigEdP51 are you? He's the only other person I know around here that could turn the simple task of measuring out a charge of powder into a 4-year doctorate program at Harvard.

HA! I may share the same illness, but no, definitely a different animal.

So let me get this straight...

Darkker, are you saying that in order to get ultimate consistency in MV, outstanding SD and ES and the utmost accuracy out of my 1000 yard F-Class rifle, that I should use the Lee Perfect Powder measure and drop charges instead of a set of beams and a gimmicky trickler?

No. I'm saying if you use extruded powder, as per it's design, you should see better results in anything using this method. Other than needing my scale to corrolate a VMD for each lot of powder, I haven't weighed powder in a decade for anything I shoot. Whether or not you will see a practical difference, that's up to your particular method. As with anything consistency is always the key, but if consistency and swiftness is your game, then it is easier to be such using volume.


In order to be brief My contention is that volume, while widely misunderstood, is not dangerous compared to weight. If running scales makes you happy, or you have achieved the results that work for you, Party-on Garth!

[cowtownup]

Best of luck to you.. I'll keep an open mind to your theory as I continue the journey...

[bearcatrp]

About the same argument as metric and US measurement. Go with what works and comfortable. Only been reloading 3 years and will sick with the manual. Works for me.