This same system would work well with larger panels - you will just need drive panels sufficiently large enough to drive a bigger motor like a 12v windscreen motor.

Thank you TJ - I believe you are the 1.6 millionth viewer. :)

😂

I machined it out of Delrin and used an O ring for the tyre.

This video clip was with just using a cheap Chinese bi-pod and a sandbag under the butt - the filming was done on my phone with a homemade cardboard tube adapter.

Thank you 😋

Thank you sir - I appreciate the comment and support.

I believe I was instrumental in bringing the idea of using a phone to view the scales around 12 years ago. bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2012/07/monitor-balance-beam-with-magnified-image-on-smartphone/

Interesting - can you explain that technique a little more fully?

Sorry about that - It all went together well and still working perfectly - I couldn't do without it now. i.imgur.com/fe0jhPvl.png

I really don't think it's that much of a disadvantage - Both Redding and Hornady use steel bearings. Heat treated/hardened carbon steel and Agate are just about the same hardness at about 6-7 Mohs, with Diamond being 10.

You have a point there - You do need to be able to see your fall of shot - for longer range this might be a dust splash on a bank. Shooting at 1,000 yds, you might have spotting disc on your target.

@@Targetmaster1066 well I kinda figured it out; just point the reticle to where you aimed and then adjust the crosshairs to the bullet hole. Great video!

Got it in one - that's it in a nutshell.

@@Targetmaster1066 Ty!

Thank you.. You can see a small panel with this idea working here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eoHZc3SHZbyDaq8

Thank you - just a simple cheap 2:1 system that works well.

Thank you Boyd - This was an idea I kicked around with several years ago. If you investigate really high-end mechanical scales of the 1950-60's you will see that they are capable of incredible resolution, way down in the micro-milligram range, tens of times better that a standard reloading scale and would have no problem differentiating sizes of individual powder kernels. stanton-instruments.co.uk/page19.html So- how do these super-scales achieve their sensitivity? Just a sharp edge on a hard surface, no more, every other pivot just adds friction. The biggest problem with common reloading scales is the short moment length, this makes it very difficult to see the very small movement of a sensitive scale. The good laboratory mechanical scales usually have a long moment length, typically 2-3 times as long as a basic reloading scale and then an optical projector/screen or some sort microscope to read a graduated scale. Fitting a camera to a common scale goes a long way to remedy this problem - The agate bearing used on most scales is quite hard and suitable for our purpose but the knife edge used is quite poor, obviously cheap to produce and manufacture and robust enough to withstand hard use. Using a replaceable hardened steel razor edge, in the form of a craft knife blade makes sense, cheap, readily available, easily replaceable and will give a performance approaching a laboratory micro balance. The pan holder stirrup on the common scale is also a weakness causing unnecessary friction even if perfectly set-up, a single point suspension if far superior. In hind sight it would have been better to have a fixed pin on the beam and a receiving cup on the pan carrier rather than as shown in the video. The adjustable sensitivity works well. By altering the centre of gravity over the knife edge you can adjust the sensitivity to suit your needs. The low mass carbon fibre beam means it is very temperature stable and quick to respond to small variations. The 0-70gn range covers almost all powder measuring requirements, most being in the mid range section, using a common scale most powder charges only use the first one tenth of the range making it even more difficult to see any movement. This "add on" beam, if a suitable manufacturer could be found, could be produced for fairly minimal cost and would give better than "tuned" performance "out of the box". This idea, being a weight comparator rather than a "scale" would have no problems concerning certified weight calibrations etc. The required weight of powder is set using third party checkweights or a second scale.

On the reloading side, it is not so much that we need to hit a load to such a small increment, but that we need to make a set of loads that are identical so that we can minimize velocity variations. Given that reality, a regular tuned scale could be used to arrive at a load, and your comparitor scale could be used to produce a set of loads, using a weight manufactured by the loader, using his tuned scale for a reference. If you comparitor was fitted with a mirror and laser like in the video I sent, it would be interesting to compare the results with one of the popular magnetic force restoration scales that are used to trickle up to loads by long range shooters. @@Targetmaster1066

Couldn't find any video you sent Boyd but I have tried using a laser reflected off a mirror mounted on the beam and onto the wall a couple of yards away. A set-up like that certainly shows minute deflections of the beam but just too inconvenient for practical use. The comparator easily detects a single kernel of Varget and the Targetmaster auto trickler can be set up to deliver a very fine feed. I too look for repeatable weights for my long distance loads but for me a single kernel +/- is good enough. No matter how many decimal places a scale resolves to I really won't be cutting kernels. Increasing the beam length is the easy way to get better resolution. A Lee scale fitted with a 10" beam has remarkably fine resolution.

Not sure what you're saying here? This was a .22lr but the same principal applies if you're shooting a .308 at 1,000 yards or a .223 at 200yds.

Thanks for the tip - unfortunately not so easy in the UK.

Thanks, but unfortunately no - I rarely work from drawings, just make it up as I go along. I've made about a dozen of these, every one a little different.

:) Only 6.5-284 but it shoots very well. That's about 8 out of 10 into a 8" group.

Excellent, pleased you found some of my videos helpful.

Thank you for the kind words Nick, much appreciated. Unfortunately I have no other photos at present but I do still have the pistol somewhere so might take a few more pictures when I locate it again. It was an interesting exercise, made when I had plenty of spare time but few tools.

@@Targetmaster1066thanks for getting back to me. I love it, brass frame nicely shaped and polished and a little thing I didn't know about these is the barrel swiveling to the side.

The history and development of firearms through the ages is fascinating, and some of the workmanship with the rather crude tools of the day, truly remarkable - way, way above my humble scratching.