Balance Beam vs Milligram Electronic Scale

[@ewathoughts8476]

One of the variables that we can do nothing to improve is the propellant granules themselves. Be it a stick, flake, ball, or other shape type, the amount of energy in each granule is not uniform. Therefore, even if you were able to weigh the propellant to within .1 milligram, the energy per charge will vary to some degree. The larger the charge amount the less this matters. In some propellants the granules (mostly ball types) the mix of granule sizes is great. It can happen that one charge will contain a different ratio of fine to coarse granules than the next. That variation even with a uniform weight will exhibit somewhat different burn rates. Happens with stick propellants as well to a lesser amount. There are some things we just can not control. To some extent if we obtain loads that exhibit very good velocity SD/ES numbers, we are just lucky to have the variables in play add and substract in a kindly manner.

[@SEOKLADUCKIN]

But as sd's under 5 fps on a lots of loads now , how much would it really benefit????

[@jaycee30865]

Always nice to hear someone intelligent speaking. I feel more than a notch less alone. Thank you for taking the time to do and share what you do.

[@Jeff-hn7gi]

I shoot service rifle competition as a high master and one thing I have learned just throw the damn powder charges I have fooled around with every powder every combination and with my rifle it does not seem to matter The rifle is still going to shoot under an MOA typically unless that's way out then it does need tuning. The key is pick a good bullet pick a good powder by a good barrel and get some good brass in the rifle is just going to darn well shoot if it stops shooting it's more likely you I think we forget how many variables there are that we cannot control and like you said maybe gives us some peace of mind however in the end there's just too many variables especially us. But a challenge anyone to get Lapua brass burger bullets and throw the power charges and see if all of this fancy stuff really makes a difference with an unbiased opinion decide for yourself. I believe it was Bill hodgdon that said plus or minus one kernel is not going to change your point of impact

[@rogerbro]

Try to control what you can control; your skill, your mindset, your preparation. The other stuff as you stated just needs to be good enough.

[@konrad1853]

It might also depend what you are using to throw those charges. Autotrickler, Harrels, Dillon, kitchen measuring spoon, etc. Each shooter defines what his/her tolerance is for ammo that puts the bullet outside of their call.

[@Jeff-hn7gi]

Consistency is king.

[@prone_wolf8871]

At what distance was hodgdon talking?

[@Jeff-hn7gi]

600yd

[@axelpuhl6221]

Always enjoy your videos ! Thanks !

[@JARNOLD-xi2vt]

Keith, you did a wonderful job of explaining the issues with scale resolution and accuracy and with the issues with testing.

[@emmettdibble8404]

Thank you for sharing. You give the most quantifiable information I have ever seen without an agenda.

[@charlesking8542]

I'm glad to see this speaks significantly to the context of finding the harmonic node on the target, which can be reliably done with a few shots, vs those who focus strictly on a chrono which requires many more shots and does not insure optiumum results on the target. Audette was a genius.

[@stephenkrampert3430]

Thank you great comparison ,have had several well tuned balance beams, need to go to the set up;You have behind you and skip all the load cell Scales in between drifting and static electricity is your enemy. having had several of each (green,red )before I settled on a V4 -120 xi . that a few non-scientific comparisons just trading a Weighed charge back-and-forth between the two in the beginning.

[@jimg.4913]

I do some competition shooting. I used to use a balance beam scale - now I use the Autotrickler V3. It's just so much faster. It is dishing out a charge while I'm seating a bullet. 60% decrease in the amount of time it takes me to load 300 rds.

[@DadWil]

I prefer the 502 balances over the 505 balances. (2 verses 3 poise scale). Of the electronic scales that I could afford to try I've found they all tended to wander around.

[@oldschooljack3479]

There is one more major factor... The loose nut behind the trigger. Can you repeat your form and fundamentals enough times to not effect the outcomes when you're shooting?

[@sjohnson1776]

Great info and thanks for sharing it! I switched over to an automatic trickler simply to speed up the loading process. I strive for 0.5 MOA accuracy and that's good enough for me.

[@shanesmith6815]

I might aspire to a high level of precision, but I have to wiegh buying a very accurate electronic scale against feeding my family, so I am stuck for the time being with my 40 year old 10-10 RCBS balance beam scale. Having said that I do enjoy watching you videos, thanks for your insight and taking the time to share it.

[@CplSkiUSMC]

That RCBS scale comes close to that very accurate electronic scale - .0004gr difference in variation - and beats the snot out of less expensive electronic scales. I think you're in good shape with the RCBS and you're getting better precision than 95% of all the electronic scales on the market.

[@ron4hunting]

@@CplSkiUSMC you are right . my old ohus 10 - 10 scales weigh the same and been tuned . same scale only gray lol . and are within 1/10th gr to my charge master . using same pan and power .

[@CplSkiUSMC]

@@ron4hunting YT won't let me edit my reply... My mistake, the difference is .04gr or four hundredths of a grain, not four ten-thousandths. I was working on shoulder bump and seating depths last night and thousandths were stuck in my head.

[@texpatriot8462]

@@ron4huntingwhere did you get it tuned?

[@ron4hunting]

@@texpatriot8462 i tune them myself .

[@turckskidoo]

You made this make absolute sense. Well done

[@georgeclarke4235]

I use a chargemaster lite backed up by 10-10 scales. I weigh and adjust while the chargemaster delivers the next charge. Just loaded 50, 25prc loads using reloader 22 and only had to adjust 4 out of the 50. Others were on the money. I’ve been impressed with the lite. Same with loading 280ai. I’ll stick with the manual scale, as a good milligram scale/thrower system is way to much for my style of shooting. Longest range I have available is 500 yards. At my age, benchrest is easiest for me.

[@dougwilkinson-uq3xr]

Your videos are the best on the internet for reloading content.

[@thepracticalrifleman]

But that dude that wanted to sell me a $650 primer seater told me only a Prometheus is worth owning. I figure the best we can do is to control variation of things we can, and let the results speak for themselves.

[@SEOKLADUCKIN]

I have a 1976 model rcbs cheap scale that i have loaded a 6.5-284 with a SD of 5 , But i want a great dispenser.

[@rafenatho5406]

My head is spinning but you did an excellent job of describing the difficulties with comparing the 2!

[@gold_3]

great job! thank you Sir

[@donbenson5292]

Consistency as close to your goal is what is important. I load in 50 round blocks. I do each one the same and feel the process. When i measure things it it is pretty dang close. I measured 50 rounds of ball powder charges thrown on my Reddings. I couldnt measure any difference with a beam scale nor a electronic scale. Same cycle every time, same timeing, same bump, same speed. Consistency in repetition. When i seat primers the same way. My primer pockets are the sane depth and feel the seat. I must be doing something right with 10fps extreme spread being very common. I also saw a study once between volume consistency vs weight consistency. With thst particular test and variables. Volume consistency won. There is the biggest variable of them all. "IT DEPENDS" lol. Keith as always great info and analysis.

[@weekenddistractions]

Mostly, the biggest factor for my accuracy is ME! and I don't behave like a normal distribution! Very nice video!

[@mab0852]

I have a coulpe vintage tuned Lyman scales that will read smaller than any single powder grain or kernal I load with. Not knocking the digitals for speed and convenience, but they aren't any better for accuracy or repeatability. I really only care about repeatability since I always set the charge weight with calibrated lab weights and beams don't drift.

[@conunpocodefe]

I still use a balance beam but very good digital scales are in the offing. With the beam I trickle up to a little under balance then tap the arm gently down. When it settles out it is spot on. This mystifies me but I'm hoping it's consistent.

[@GuyonaMoose]

This took the rabbit hole into a black hole. However i do know this; THE only constant we have in shooting/reloading is Gravity. A balance beam scale is just that, a balance. It will only be as accurate as the standard its been calibrated against. Repeatability is 100% up to the user. An electronic scale can and will fail. They bring in a ton more variables that a balance beam does not suffer from. The temperature of the room, air currents, humidity, the power source quality, and voltage. I spent many years inside a metrology room at a manufacturing facility. The amount of calibration and standardization that goes into a simple measuring device/tool is mind boggling. A balance beam scale has been in use by civilization going back to something like 2000bc. Gravity was the same then as it is now. A well made, precisely calibrated, and taken care of balance scale will continue to be the most accurate method to easily obtain accurate measurements.

[@gristlepounder]

I use a vintage O Haus 10-10 (which I think they were better back then). I made a bracket to hold a Teslong borescope camera so I can magnify the pointer. When doing this magnified you can see movement on a single kernal. I use RCBS Chargemaster to throw, then trickle with Omega Trickler. Has been accurate enough to shoot HM at 1000 in FTR.

[@stevehollifield]

You are also eliminating the parallax of reading the scale with a fixed camera instead of your eye with head movement. Excellent tip. Thanks for sharing.

[@josephhomen]

I have a tuned beam scale that is repeatable to with in 0.03 grains. It’s very very slooooow to use. I only use it to double check my rcbs lite when doing load development. It was pretty easy to tune it there’s lots of older videos on KZbin showing how.

[@telerooo5213]

After listening to Eric Cortina and other top shooters in their videos, I think Keith is right. You have to decide for yourself if spending quite a bit of money for tools, annealers, powder measuring tools, presses, automation is worth it to you to save more of your TIME. There are and have been many great top shooters who loaded their ammo on some very basic tools. It certainly can be and has been done. The more time you spend working on the basics, dry fire, sight picture, practicing your hold, breathing & trigger control is where you'll improve the most. It's about the Time you have and how you want, or can afford to spend it.......JMHO...of course...

[@bitogre]

Great analysis. I would love a similar analysis between a measuring every charge vs using just a volumetric power charger like those used on a progressive press. I am sure the volumetric power charger is more inconsistent but which shooting sports is that inconsistency a problem. I assume you need to measure every charge for F class but what about PRS or hunting or 3-Gun?

[@mtbadger1346]

BUT... Will that electronic scale work after an EMP, or grid down (when the gas generator runs out)? 😅 And yes, i did stay at a holiday inn Express last night. 😂

[@RF-cz4ln]

This is exactly why I have 2 beam scales that I prefer over my shitty $400 digital rcbs . 👍🏻🇺🇸

[@wagon9082]

Good video

[@rdsii64]

The equipment I have now is more than adequate for my needs. The only reason I am considering an FX120i with the dispenser is the time it will save me.

[@ron4hunting]

funny thing i have noticed , at least in some of my loads . is that one loads goes into just under 1/4 in at 100 yards . but the sd is at 52 ! everytime i get the load under that it opens up to over a 1/2 inch ! never figured that out . even seen it happen to johnny , johnnys reloading bench . yes i'm using a ar with a 24 inch bull barrel , krieger barrel . maybe you should look into that one lol . i say it is that one load is what my gun likes . but it just don't make sense . but like you are saying lots of stuff comes into play from shot to shot .

[@userJohnSmith]

It has to do with barrel exit time. I shoot ARs too, not that that matters to the problem, but I have a .284 with .3 minute groups that will group .5 minutes vertical at 1000, with 30 fps SDs. The F class and bench rest guys shooting with me last time I was with them kept scratching their heads. Positive compensation is a thing and sometimes barrels just have less noise where velocity spreads are higher. Get a tuner, it might help, or you may see better performance down range than you expect.

[@ron4hunting]

@@userJohnSmith i have thought on getting a tuner but i got my barrel in nice and tight afraid i might not get it back in the same . not threaded and everyone in my area wants the barrel removed before they will thread it . at 24 inches it should fit in a leigh without being removed . i just use it for yotes and a little target shooting . it drops yotes out to 350 yards in one shot so it's good to go . only sd is high in my best load , but it works great .

[@userJohnSmith]

@@ron4hunting Been in similar boats. Had a load for my 6ARC dialed in and got a silencer in. Had to complete switch bullets and load strategies before it shot again. Just swapped the handguard so we'll see if I have to do it all over again. The best trick I use for barrel tightness is aluminum foil. It's usually about .00005 thick and your barrel extension should be oversized 1-5 thou or so. Heat the upper and or your barrel in the fridge/freezer then wrapp your extension in the foil until things are just comfortably slip fit. When temps equalize you should have something just tight enough that it's tough to remove (but possible). When it comes time to take it out heat should loosen things up (aluminum had a higher CTE then steel). If you're paranoid grease the foil.

[@ron4hunting]

@@userJohnSmith thats how i do mine . only i got a lot of stainless shim stock in a lot of sizes .

[@userJohnSmith]

@@ron4hunting I like the aluminum because it's so thin and consistent. My real job involves optic and 5um is where I start calling things right. Where are you getting the steel?

[@sbcclydesdale3275]

Interesting analysis but I went back to my balance beam scale and my accuracy improved. I thing that the only constant means of measure is gravity, regardless of what an electronic scale says. Thanks for your video.

[@noellewis6358]

Please give us a short version for mugs.

[@willsimmons8578]

Love your channel .. so much helpful info .. i would like to propose a challenge though. I would like to see a load development/accuracy ability from a stock straight wall deer rifle. e.g. 450 bushmaster

[@Lucysdad66]

Your lower budget scales don't have as much shilding so just haveing a cell phone to close will cause the scale to wonder other things can effect it to like a tablet will also cause wondering when iam dumping powder i remove my tablet and cell phone from the room and i do not have wondering problems hope that helps.

[@javiersp01]

Thanks man !!

[@joearledge1]

Not directly related to this video, but why don't we have a greater emphasis on Median values in shooting?? We can all agree that in a perfect world, we would all shoot 100, 100-shot groups to evaluate a load, or component, or whatever we're testing. In the setting of a valid sample size, the mean value of whatever is generally preferred. However, in the shooting community, we try to find a balance between breaking the bank burning barrels, and accurately developing a good load. This inevitably leads to small sample sizes. In the world of small sample sizes, median values are usually more accurate than mean values because they are more resistant to outliers than the mean.

[@TheTraveler807]

I might have missed the part where the charges weighed by each scale were verified on a third unit with better resolution than the 2 being tested? I work in a field that includes gauge testing, and our test gauges are accurate to .25%, vs the ones we're actually testing which are only verified to be within +/- 1%. So a factor of 4 times the required accuracy is applied. Simply taking a charge from the 5-0-5 and weighing it on the FX-120 doesn't tell you which scale is correct, just that there's a "difference of opinion". I'm not saying the FX is no better than the 5-0-5, this is just an observation on my part. Having said that, I think Keith hit the nail on the head saying that there's a lot of other variables that play into actual velocity numbers besides the scale you use. Also interesting that the 223 tends to magnify any variations in your loading routine, compared to a larger cartridge. This doesn't surprise me, I've noticed that in my own experience with it. Finicky little devil..

[@S.A.U.1489]

My big concern is durability. I had an electronic powder dispenser and it worked great until it died on me. From then on, I just stick with the balance beam scale.

[@hoobeydoobey1267]

What kind of range or equipment did you use for your ladder test to record the order of fire so you knew which was 3 and which was 5, etc? I do not have access to an electronic NRA range that does that for the shooter. What range did you use? I found that when I did it at 100 The group size was small enough that I couldn't tell for sure where the shots fell after the 3rd shot. I DIY'd a camera system using a drone camera but it didn't transmit the 300 yards like it should have.

[@toddb930]

He was using his own Shot Marker system. It records the order and location of impacts at the target as shown in the picture.

[@hoobeydoobey1267]

Shot Marker. Got it. @@toddb930

[@mikecollins8241]

I use all Lee equipment, and have for 30+ years.. I hunt mostly, and shoot targets (out to 500 yards, so far) for fun. I've managed to get dozens of rifles, both new and used, to shoot well under 1 MOA in the hands of a mediocre shooter, off a crappy "rest".. Not ONE of the animals I've shot has gotten away, nor have they asked me what I use to make up my ammo... In fact, they never even asked if I was shooting my Remington 700 custom 308, or my Savage Axis 22-250.. it's almost like the targets don't care... 🤔

[@whliving]

I know that you have your scale on that piece of granite, but do you do anything else to help your electronic scale with stability (electrical line conditioner, anti-vibration pad under granite, etc)?

[@winninginthewind]

It is electrically grounded just to eliminate static electricity. Nothing else seems necessary.

[@lemonaid1605]

Dang it! I was hoping to see 20 rounds shot with one scale vs. 20 rounds shot with the other. That would tell if one was better, or no difference by measuring the group sizes.

[@skaggsccdw]

You should probably rewatch the video

[@lemonaid1605]

Do you like videos that have shooting in them or not? I like seeing rounds on target vs. lots of talk.@@skaggsccdw

[@userJohnSmith]

All things being equal a balance break is theoretically more accurate. Those scales were great when they were released, but that was a very long time ago. Better ones are available from scientific vendors.

[@toddb930]

Can you suggest a good balance beam scale that doesn't have the hysteresis Keith's scale has?

[@thetexasrat]

The Lyman brass smith powder trickler is the best one on the market. I think you would have enjoyed using it far better than that RCBS one.

[@curtisp5696]

Does anyone use a Chargemaster scale just curious? I do and I love that thing. I thought 1/10 was pretty accurate which is about 3 or 4 kernels of extruded powder on that scale. I guess its become somewhat of a dinosour but then again I don't compete.

[@CabinOnTheWater]

This is why I only use 1 shot groups to verify my loads. Every shot hits exactly where it was supposed to hit based on all the load variables inside. lol /jk

[@michaellane1316]

Yes. With your signage I would surmise as myself that if there is a cabin on the water then tranquility exists within and after that it's like Kentucky windage and be happy. Keith always does an excellent job in explaining a few of the points we all seem to find evading at times. Myself, never get too excited over es or sd. Military snipers get what they are given and some may even go down the hole a bit. Time, what is relevant to some, not so to others. Many things in this equation that affect results. We all have points to ponder, finding in each of us our bit we can come away with is what helps this community be successful and grow. Thank you Kieth, & to you sir, any content is great, so long as we can facilitate an open mind when viewing.

[@Dragonfiregum]

Putting my comment here before watching as a prediction for myself. - There will be no difference because the inaccuracy in powder themselves is greater than what we are measuring at. Because i can't imagine getting down to less than 1-3fps or less SD when a FA intellidropper is already providing single digit.

[@Tanglerwr]

If you carefully read the specs for the FX 120i, it says, "repeatability 0.001g (standard deviation)". First, 0.001g is 0.01543 gr which of course is significantly better than 0.02 gr. The catch is that "standard deviation". Normally, a standard deviation is +/-1SD, and 68% of our data should lie within +/-1 SD. That leaves about 32% outside the +/-1 SD. Typically we would use +/-2 SD as that is where we expect 95% of our data to lie. As I'm sure you know, that means we can only expect the FX 120i to have a repeatability of -0.0309gr to +0.0309 gr. That means our repeatable variation range would be 0.06172 gr. The question is, what do they really mean by the "standard deviation" qualifier?

[@brack14]

They mean that it’s electronic, and it won’t work perfectly 100% of the time. :) You could always lift the pan off the scale and put it back on to confirm the reading. I have to do this with my Gempro.

[@Tanglerwr]

​@@brack14 It doesn't have anything to do with it being electronic. The spec, "0.001g (standard deviation)", tells us how much repeatable accuracy we can expect from the scale. In the video, the beam balance had more variation than the FX 120i. So it's repeatability could and should also be specified in statistical terms. The question is not whether it has variation or not, it's how much variation according to the specification. The "0.001g (standard deviation)" could mean 0.001g is the maximum variation, although not likely, or it could mean +/-1 standard deviation, or +/-2 standard deviations. All three of these are well established specifications. They put the "standard deviation there for a reason.

[@CplSkiUSMC]

At issue is the cost factor. The FX120i cost 10x what the RCBS does. So is a .04gr difference (RCBS @ .0006 variation vs FX120i @ .0002 variation) worth ten times the amount of money out of your wallet? All of the evidence you cited says no. I'd be curious to see a comparison of the RCBS 505 vs FX120i vs cheaper digital scales that most people use. Both the 505 and the 120 would beat the snot out of them. So, for the cost, and supported by all of your numerical evidence, I'd go with the 505 all day long. If I had money to burn and wanted to spend the dough for a 120, then I'd get one. But that kind of money is better spent on other things. Thanks for the empirical comparison.

[@jetthreat5000]

The AT with the 120 is much faster than the chargemaster and the beam scale and more accurate. On time savings alone of your loading a lot the AT pays for itself in time saved. Same goes things like the Giraud or Henderson trimmer. The time saved trimming is worth the cost. If you are a large volume loader it saves to pay more for a better piece of equipment. :)

[@CplSkiUSMC]

@@jetthreat5000 That's true, but for the average working stiff, a lot of that equipment is prohibitively priced. Small town jobs don't pay the big bucks that big city jobs do and there's a trade off to be sure. A beam scale is an accurate piece of equipment, even if you have to wait for it to settle, so you're sacrificing very little in terms of precision... but you do spend the time. For many hand loaders, that's enjoyable time. It's the same as any hobby that anyone would enjoy. If you have deep pockets, there's no end of gadgetry available to make loading faster and easier... but not necessarily better. Better falls to the skills of the hand loader and you can still accomplish that on a budget.

[@jetthreat5000]

@@CplSkiUSMC all I can say is save up. I loaded 4-5000 rounds last year. Doing that on a manual beam scale is where time really starts adding up and that’s only one piece of time saving equipment that doesn’t give up precision in the process. Not saying these things aren’t expensive, but there comes a point when a loader will need transition to faster/better equipment or eat the time and is something a lot of people don’t have. We also aren’t built to do repetitive tasks without fatigue. Which is why machine shops eventually get CNCs to keep up with work loads and maintain quality. :)

[@CplSkiUSMC]

@@jetthreat5000 There's no arguing that, if you're loading that much then you need some equipment that will make you more efficient. I get around some of that by not using the beam scale for everything, just precision loads for bolt actions or test loads. For most of my ARs, I try to use ball powder and once I find a load, I will bulk load using my powder drop which does a fairly good job and is quick. I'm used to making due with what I've got or using equipment that won't set me back as much as a new rifle or scope. Rather than saving up and buying a $1500 AMP annealing machine, I spend $170 on a hand held induction heater and do it manually with good results. I still use an RCBS Rockchucker IV and standard dies... not quite as good as an AMP press and L.E. Wilson dies, but then again I'm not shooting bench rest competition. I get excellent results with what I do and let's face it, there's an entire segment of the shooting industry whose sole purpose is to separate you from your money. One has to discern the true innovators from the truly greedy. Again, I wouldn't argue that there's equipment out there that will definitely help make life easier for a hand loader... I just have to look for ways to accomplish the job that give me a maximum return on investment.

[@jetthreat5000]

@@CplSkiUSMC I haven’t taken anything you’ve said as argumentative. We’re both right. I started off with the worst equipment, except for a Lee press I avoided that. I used multiple deployments to pay for all of my good equipment: Henderson Precision Tri-trimmer, AMP with AMP Mate, Zero Press, Primal Rights Primer, V3 AutoTrickler with IP trickler, SAC bullet/headspace comparators and a few other things. I will say having the good stuff makes life easy and things more predictable in how they behave. Prior to the Zero press I used a Forster Co-Ax. I always tended to have issues with the Co-Ax with bumping shoulders back consistently. Shoulder bumps would be -.001-.005 from each other. With the Zero press it went to dead on consistently or occasionally .001” off. I also built my own induction annealer from the ground up at one point before the AMP (GinaErik annealer) and I will say you will need to water cool that hand unit you’re using. Otherwise that units induction board will blow rather early.

[@thetexasrat]

On the psychological end of the scale, I do not trust computers. But I do trust mechanical stuff that is in excellent condition. Crying shame that you did not do this test with a brand new 505 scale, that was not worn out, as to be more ethical.

[@johnwatson1651]

Wow! This was a very informative video! Thank you! ...I just hope my wife doesn't see this video because all that expensive reloading equipment I bought that I justified to her is now suspect 😅! (She can do math). On a different note, now I see why some of the F-class champions can get away with reloading on a progressive like the Dillon XL550/650/750 which uses a simple powder thrower. I have seen other videos that show that concentricity is not as critical as I once thought... seeing how the variables stack and tend to cancel out is paramount in understanding this. So, would you now say the best way to improve precision is to "chase down" and minimize the extreme spread? Yes or no? please explain. Thanks!

[@DougJohnson-g5f]

I think you could use some of the best knowledge out there for shooters with the least amount of bias

[@justinrhains8213]

Wait, you're suppose to clean your scale?

[@FOPRange]

I'm impressed. And I'm not easily impressed.

[@jcjustice3786]

👍👍👍👌

[@user60521123]

I really don’t like the RCBS trickler either. Frankford Arsenal makes a trickler that is much nicer to use and cheaper.

[@RichardThompson-m5t]

With a mid-range electronic scale I can see the flex of the floor of my reloading room with deviations of +/- 0.1 grain. Movement of the desk can give +/- 0.2 grain. Obviously, I take steps to mitigate this but a mg scale would drive me insane. Nice video.

[@francoisdavel1786]

I am industrial engineer with a masters degree and a lean six sigma black belt. I cant explain it better than Keith does.

[@tairandeng3090]

Lol

[@geraldclemens1682]

Balance, and electronic scale is good enough for what I do. Slower yes but paying $600 for a scale, or over 4 digits for a primer seater is ridiculous. If competition is your life then what ever makes ya happy. I'm thinking no matter what scale anyone uses you will never get the perfect set up ever. Doesn't exist. Just cause the scale says 10gr read out every time always a margin for error. So why fight it. Imo.

[@thompsonjerry3412]

What amazes me is how much people believe a chronograph.

[@jdogi1]

Lol. That was one of my first thoughts. I was sure that he'd mention it. I don't think he did🤷‍♂️

[@SEOKLADUCKIN]

But it is a great tool, Been giving my new Garmin a spin. Very happy so far

[@thompsonjerry3412]

@@SEOKLADUCKIN do not believe they are accurate enough to do statistics with. Try using a lab radar and a garmin on the same shots and see if they are the same.

[@userJohnSmith]

Radar's pretty accurate. The 0.1% they usually claim is likely better.

[@thompsonjerry3412]

@@userJohnSmith only way to know is test, if you have both, try it.

[@fredwilliams7551]

never has a human said so much but said nothng

[@rotasaustralis]

Excellent video as usual. Anybody who understands statical analysis knows that small samples # introduces problems but, you very often come up with ways to make the real world application do-able, at least for the average punter. I think as far as definitive results are concerned, you've proven that it's not realistically provable to test data to the degree that would be acceptable which, is the main issue here. Not withstanding the true validity of the statistical results, I prefer to believe that there is a realistic compromise which satisfies a realistic general outcome. To change the subject, I recall a piece released by LEE loading about their claim for the precision & repeatability of the LEE balance scale compared to other balance scales due to the inherently reduced balance beam mass which can be applied to the LEE scale. Strangely, I have neglected testing of the scale however, it would be much appreciated if you could test the precision & repeatability of the LEE balance scale for shits & giggles. I would very much like to see your results compared to both the electronic & 505 scale. Once again, great video &, thank you very much for the time & effort.