-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Best electronic powder scale out there?
- Thread starter rady
- Start date
I love his quote "I had to come up with something that was a little bit better so Ill show you what I came up with--- *swaps hadfuls of crap*--- now this god awful mess..."
I'm still crying laughing over "Drunk in a bar 30 years ago I could regurgitate at least 10 phone numbers of girls we met just for fun."
Only reason I'm clicking this thread 3 days later is for gems like that.
You guys can hate on me all you want, but that just affirms a fragile ego centric mind set you feel a need to protect. Ego creates a blindness to anything better and until you can appreciate that better is possible, ego will simply defend what you do and what you think you know. As the saying goes, mediocrity knows nothing greater than itself.
Guys here seem to idolize Cortina and that's fine, he has his accolades, but that does not mean evolution cannot improve upon whatever he did or does. 10 years from now, Cortinas' scores will be middle of the pack. I've witnessed the evolution of F Class over the last 25 years or so and how much has changed over that time. When I started shooting F Class the V Bull was 1 MOA, not 1/2 MOA like it is today. That change came about as a result of this evolution.
There was a period from about 20-25 years ago where I won every single 300 to 600 yard match I went into and I was using a Dillon 1 decimal place scale. I remember one particular match where I shot 117 V Bulls in a row at 300 yards, 3 x 20 round strings per day for 2 days. The 3 Vs I dropped were my first 3 on score on the first target on the first day and I realized I just should have taken more fouling shots to settle that squeaky clean barrel down before going on score. That was a record at that time, but those 3 dropped Vs have always haunted me as I was the first to clean it, but I would have been the first to clean the match with all 120 Vs. Well times change and that is no longer what it takes to win, especially now that we are on a smaller target.
Cortina did a series of interviews with Jack Neary. If you follow some of Jacks videos on YouTube you will be exposed to how misleading some of Cortinas videos have been. One of the problems with Cortinas videos is that he often makes blanket statements that people assume applies to them and its just not the case. That's why I tend to pick at Erik. He is not wrong, but he leaves out the prequalification criteria that makes it true only for top level rifles and probably not to yours. I could literally write a book on this distinction.
Here's a link as an example of a Jack Neary video where he gets into critical details Cortina does not mention.
If you think reloading is easy as Erik says, you just don't know enough about reloading and chamber design to understand why for a top level competitor it is not.
Don't forget, we are all just standing on the shoulders of giants. Advancements are made by guys who look past the common man and go one step further. Fighting against such advancement is a detriment to the sport.
I realize that I can get condescending at times and that is not fun for me either, but I hope some of you can get past that and draw something positive from some of the points made here.
Guys here seem to idolize Cortina and that's fine, he has his accolades, but that does not mean evolution cannot improve upon whatever he did or does. 10 years from now, Cortinas' scores will be middle of the pack. I've witnessed the evolution of F Class over the last 25 years or so and how much has changed over that time. When I started shooting F Class the V Bull was 1 MOA, not 1/2 MOA like it is today. That change came about as a result of this evolution.
There was a period from about 20-25 years ago where I won every single 300 to 600 yard match I went into and I was using a Dillon 1 decimal place scale. I remember one particular match where I shot 117 V Bulls in a row at 300 yards, 3 x 20 round strings per day for 2 days. The 3 Vs I dropped were my first 3 on score on the first target on the first day and I realized I just should have taken more fouling shots to settle that squeaky clean barrel down before going on score. That was a record at that time, but those 3 dropped Vs have always haunted me as I was the first to clean it, but I would have been the first to clean the match with all 120 Vs. Well times change and that is no longer what it takes to win, especially now that we are on a smaller target.
Cortina did a series of interviews with Jack Neary. If you follow some of Jacks videos on YouTube you will be exposed to how misleading some of Cortinas videos have been. One of the problems with Cortinas videos is that he often makes blanket statements that people assume applies to them and its just not the case. That's why I tend to pick at Erik. He is not wrong, but he leaves out the prequalification criteria that makes it true only for top level rifles and probably not to yours. I could literally write a book on this distinction.
Here's a link as an example of a Jack Neary video where he gets into critical details Cortina does not mention.
If you think reloading is easy as Erik says, you just don't know enough about reloading and chamber design to understand why for a top level competitor it is not.
Don't forget, we are all just standing on the shoulders of giants. Advancements are made by guys who look past the common man and go one step further. Fighting against such advancement is a detriment to the sport.
I realize that I can get condescending at times and that is not fun for me either, but I hope some of you can get past that and draw something positive from some of the points made here.
Last edited:
The problem with reloading and making absolute statements, is that there are so many different factors, not all of which are easy or even really possible to test without huge amounts of resources.
I will say that to your point, controlling a variable to the best of your ability is only going to help, not hinder your chase in the pursuit of ultimate precision. However, how much that variable is going to help your pursuit, and whether it's a worthwhile expenditure is something to consider.
Having the industry best press, scale, powder dispenser, annealer, dies, etc. is certainly not going to be a hindrance. You can spend $100,000+ on having the absolute best equipment imaginable for this purpose. But how much better is it going to make your precision then a $5,000 dollar reloading setup?
Is that $100,000 in reloading equipment going to make a big difference when your barrel isn't 100% uniform and consistent through the bore to the 3rd or 4th decimal point? When your projectiles vary in uniformity by a few thou? Variations in brass?
You can only be as precise as your least precise input, so at what point are you just spending money to see no real return?
On top of that, even the highest level competitive benchrest shooters can't agree on how to reload. Many insist that turning necks results in more precise loads. However, Sam Hall and Bart Sauter, two of the best shooters in the sport, have tested this and found it to be a myth. They no longer turn necks, and still set records.
Reloading can be pretty simple, there's no need to overcomplicate it. Yes, that requires a proper chamber, that was spun up by a competent gunsmith. It also requires a good barrel blank. But with a good quality components (for me that's Berger bullets, Lapua brass, etc.), good reloading equipment, and consistency in your process, then reloading is easy and simple.
If you are looking at setting world records, where squeezing out every thousandth of an inch in precision counts, then reloading can become more complicated (though some top level shooters will disagree with that assertation). I would argue that pushing the sport forward in making more precise rounds has much, much more to it then just using the most expensive lab grade scale you can buy. You can only be as precise as your least precise input, and I guarantee that's not going to be an autotrickler + fx120i. Pushing the sport forward in a way that you describe is going to require an entire step change in the ammo and reloading industry.
I will say that to your point, controlling a variable to the best of your ability is only going to help, not hinder your chase in the pursuit of ultimate precision. However, how much that variable is going to help your pursuit, and whether it's a worthwhile expenditure is something to consider.
Having the industry best press, scale, powder dispenser, annealer, dies, etc. is certainly not going to be a hindrance. You can spend $100,000+ on having the absolute best equipment imaginable for this purpose. But how much better is it going to make your precision then a $5,000 dollar reloading setup?
Is that $100,000 in reloading equipment going to make a big difference when your barrel isn't 100% uniform and consistent through the bore to the 3rd or 4th decimal point? When your projectiles vary in uniformity by a few thou? Variations in brass?
You can only be as precise as your least precise input, so at what point are you just spending money to see no real return?
On top of that, even the highest level competitive benchrest shooters can't agree on how to reload. Many insist that turning necks results in more precise loads. However, Sam Hall and Bart Sauter, two of the best shooters in the sport, have tested this and found it to be a myth. They no longer turn necks, and still set records.
Reloading can be pretty simple, there's no need to overcomplicate it. Yes, that requires a proper chamber, that was spun up by a competent gunsmith. It also requires a good barrel blank. But with a good quality components (for me that's Berger bullets, Lapua brass, etc.), good reloading equipment, and consistency in your process, then reloading is easy and simple.
If you are looking at setting world records, where squeezing out every thousandth of an inch in precision counts, then reloading can become more complicated (though some top level shooters will disagree with that assertation). I would argue that pushing the sport forward in making more precise rounds has much, much more to it then just using the most expensive lab grade scale you can buy. You can only be as precise as your least precise input, and I guarantee that's not going to be an autotrickler + fx120i. Pushing the sport forward in a way that you describe is going to require an entire step change in the ammo and reloading industry.
So, what would be the biggest impacts to precision, besides powder charge accuracy? I'd like to hear that thoughts on that with this group and others too. I could start a separate thread if need be.
It's really a bit of everything. Charge accuracy to the .000001 grain is useless if you have poor brass prep or if the gun doesn't like the load. One thing I know in reloading is there is almost no absolutes. There are so many ways to skin the cat, if you are comfortable and confident in the load you have and the equipment you use who is to say you are wrong?
I would start by listening to the Applied Ballistics crew's podcast episodes on the Every Day Sniper podcast.
That group has tested a bunch of variables, and they dispel some myths and talk about what they have found makes a difference.
That's the kind of info I'd like. I know the ins and outs but I'd be interested to know what really does matter for me, and what isn't a good use of my very limited time
thanks. Midsouth had them for $179 so I picked one up. I don’t compete, only hunt and sometimes target shoot for recreation. This should speed up my reloading vs hand dropping powder on a rangemaster 1500 scale.
What records or championships can your methods using your scale claim
We have a guy here telling us that the scale of choice of some members here is "crappy", but those using it are winning and setting records. Meanwhile, in another thread he talks about how stupid it is to buy more precise/repeatable trimmers that save the hand loader time in the reloading room because, its just too darn expensive.
He can only answer specifically anything but the accuracy of the scale, rather than real-world results.
He wants to say this is because EGO, but the poster wants you to believe as he does, subscribe to his way as the only way, dismisses those that are WINNING and setting RECORDS as being inferior because their methods are different than his preferred method. Oh, and he's better than them all, but he's not a national champion, world champion, etc. because he doesn't want to be.
He doesn't understand that powder charge to the umptenth decible doesn't necessarily make much difference in the real world, while there are other variables that aren't as controlled...and nodes are much, much wider than the fraction of a kernal. How many "necessary" methods and techniques have changed over the years because they were irrelevant when put to the task?
All the while, the entirety of his posts on the thread does nothing to help the OP because it doesn't suit his needs, his budget, or application. But he still feels the need to come and tout his superiority, well that which exists only in his head.
He can only answer specifically anything but the accuracy of the scale, rather than real-world results.
He wants to say this is because EGO, but the poster wants you to believe as he does, subscribe to his way as the only way, dismisses those that are WINNING and setting RECORDS as being inferior because their methods are different than his preferred method. Oh, and he's better than them all, but he's not a national champion, world champion, etc. because he doesn't want to be.
He doesn't understand that powder charge to the umptenth decible doesn't necessarily make much difference in the real world, while there are other variables that aren't as controlled...and nodes are much, much wider than the fraction of a kernal. How many "necessary" methods and techniques have changed over the years because they were irrelevant when put to the task?
All the while, the entirety of his posts on the thread does nothing to help the OP because it doesn't suit his needs, his budget, or application. But he still feels the need to come and tout his superiority, well that which exists only in his head.
You guys will have first shot at naming my new varget chopper.
It's a calibrated feed on a conveyor system into a guillotine.
Much more accurate than a handheld razor blade.
For when it really matters at the next target.
It's a calibrated feed on a conveyor system into a guillotine.
Much more accurate than a handheld razor blade.
For when it really matters at the next target.
Hey Tyler... Is English a second language for you?
Or do you just have a comprehension problem?
Dropped on your head when you were a baby maybe?
You have repeatedly twisted your own pathetic insecurities into statements I've made.
Read my actual statements and ignore the dysfunctional voices in your own little head when you do it.
I really don't care what you do, its entirely your choice.
If you are waiting to replicate what some record setting guy did, you will never be the next record setting guy.
You will show up for a match tomorrow while trying to replicate what the winner did yesterday and you will not win.
Do you want to be a chaser, a poser, or a leader?
I have shared with you one little element of what it takes to win tomorrow and you are fighting it because you are full of fear and doubt and insecurities.
Grab your nuts and make the call for yourself.
If you don't have the vision to get out in front of the problem, you have already lost. I'm sorry but you are not a leader and never will be.
Last edited:
Is that really the best you've got? How pathetic....I mean, I know you're desperate to feel validated and all. But you can continue to lead in your head...the real world knows you're just a pathetic Canadian with a hard micro-pecker for your scale, and you can't even attest to its usefulness outside of theory.
But hey, you're a LEADER that doesn't win and nobody's heard of.
Now, I’m not going to get into this shit show…or no more than I already have! Lol
But if I remember my math and science correctly, if you want accuracy to two decimal places then you need an instrument the has precision to three places.
Dropping the Least significant digit, rounding up/down, and all that, right?
But if I remember my math and science correctly, if you want accuracy to two decimal places then you need an instrument the has precision to three places.
Dropping the Least significant digit, rounding up/down, and all that, right?
Last edited:
You really need to stop projecting your own insecurities onto others little guy.
If I had a need to feel validated I would spend my retirement fund chasing medals at matches in the states, so guys like you would have heard of me.
Who I am or am not has nothing to do with what you chose to do. I really don't care what you do buddy, I don't care if any of you buy a different scale. Use what you have for all I care, it's entirely your choice. I have no dog in this fight. I have nothing to gain either way. I have simply stated facts that you are more than welcome to ignore.
There's a quote from somewhere that people spend money they don't have to buy things they don't need to impress people they don't even like. I'm good with it.
I bought the scale for myself many years ago because I found justification for it, and I couldn't give a rats ass if you do.
You need a true internal resolution that is finer than half that of the displayed the increments.
You can actually apply Nyquists theorem here where the lightest kernel you want to ”count” or weigh is analogous to the smallest wave you want to accurately represent in binary form.
Last edited:
You guys want to knock this crap off, before I let the ban cat loose?
