EXTREME RELOADING (SPECIAL EDITION): How Precise is the RCBS MatchMaster Powder Scale?

[@jamesrobertson6255]

I’ve only been reloading for a year, but im very detail oriented.( Prior Airline Capt. And Chief Pilot. Im very happy to come across your videos. Thank you.

[@sdkweber]

Welcome to our channel. If you like, feel free to subscribe. We are just getting into a new season of Extreme Reloading. Detail oriented folks tend to be good reloaders. :)

[@Rico11b]

You've made a solid point to give serious thought too. The exact powder charge is suspect to say the least. There are MANY videos on youtube showing a bullet exiting the muzzle in slo-motion. What can commonly be seen is lots of grains of powder chasing the bullet from the bore without ever igniting. Basically it gets pushed out and sprayed out. It does make sense because the firing sequence begins at the Primer in the rear and it ignites the rear area of the powder charge. In that instant the pressure builds as the powder burns. As the pressure begins to PUSH the bullet out of of the case there is also powder that gets pressed against the back of the bullet and is pushed along with it as the pressure expands as more powder is being burned. I think only a powder that burns fast enough BEFORE the bullet exits the barrel has a chance to burn ALL the kernels.

[@sdkweber]

Thanks for watching and posting Rico11b. Ideally, we get 100% burn in the bore but as you noted, that is not always the case. BTW, MOS 11-bravo? I was 95-bravo.

[@Rico11b]

@sdkweber yep, I've got multiple, but my heart belongs to the Infantry. :) Having a shot spewing unburned powder from the muzzle is quite common, especially if the powder burn rate is too slow for the length of the barrel used. Handguns do it on most shots. The only way to see it is in super slow motion.

[@sdkweber]

@@Rico11b I think I have seen slo-mo videos like this. While some unburned powder is inevitable, too much is a waste. But too little results in a detriment to velocity.

[@jasonmako343]

I received my MatchMaster a few days ago, and finally got around to running checks on it today. I also have a Sartorius balance. After letting it warm up, and calibrating it and the Sartorius I ran checks against the measurements. I had it on match mode, fast, and was throwing 42.50gn of Reloder 15. After 15 throws, they measured between 42.50 and 42.54 which is within their .04 accuracy claim. I then compared the thrown/measured charge weights against the Sartorius and they were between -.02 and +.05 off with an average of .03gn difference. Good enough for my needs as long as it maintains this accuracy over time.

[@sdkweber]

For what its worth, I am still using this same RCBS unit and it continues to work very well for me. Thanks for watching and posting.

[@pacifist86az]

Fantastic video! I've been curious about powder variances (and the accuracy of the scales used) as I've watched other channels work up loads, do ladder tests, and such. I find it especially fascinating when a ladder test does not show a linear relationship between powder increase and velocities on the chronograph and always wonder what happened. By chance, I also was doing some research/comparison between the ChargeMaster vs MatchMaster today, so for me your video is spot on!

[@sdkweber]

Glad to hear it. Thank you for watching and posting.

[@justice1327]

A few things to note. You can use the McDonalds straw trick and use an electric line filter. Lastly, it is better to sort bullets by base to ogive. You will have a greater return on investment. Brian Litz discussed this.

[@sdkweber]

Hello DW None, thanks for watching. I always use a line conditioner. Looks like you could not see it on the video but I use the APC line-R 600. More recently I purchased Hornday's Bullet Comparator kit. This will allow me to measure length from base to ogive. I am planning to continue sorting by weight first, then by the length. I could reverse the order of sorting and have not decided on that yet.

[@dominiceatherton7576]

Based on the final table you presented, it would appear that the lowest neck tension set produced the smallest group and had the second lowest velocity deviation. However it would appear that no variable had a consistent effect on group size. Which begs the question: "does any of this matter?" I was hoping your very scientific approach would result in a clear standout variable we should be working to control. Through no fault of yours, I'm left with the same question as before. Any thoughts as to what we should be working to hold consistent?

[@sdkweber]

Good questions Dominic and the answer is that many things (variables) matter but they all have tolerances. Some variables have very tight tolerances and these are things we should work to hold constant. Others have more generous or broad tolerances which can be met more or less "out of the box". In my years of reloading and experimentation/testing we need to spend our time on (BTW, I will preface this with the caveat that this refers to standard barrels/chambers, i.e., factory rifles)): 1. Primer pocket/flash hole uniformity and use of premium primers. 2. Powder charges should be thrown to 0.1 gr. The match mode available with the MatchMaster scale is not necessary. However, be sure to identify the OCW for your particular load. 3. Seating depth with a consistent CBTO demonstrated to work well in your rifle (+/- 0.002") My testing has NOT shown a benefit from weighing and sorting bullets or brass, but just keep your brass sorted by headstamp. In addition, I have NOY seen a benefit to turning necks but instead a consistent neck tension can be achieved by annealing and using an expander mandrel (some testing to see what your rifle "prefers" is needed). I am not 100% convinced the annealing is absolutely necessary but it seems to prolong brass life. I hope this helps.

[@ej7447]

Thank you for a very detailed investigation.....

[@sdkweber]

You are welcome. Thank you for watching and posting.

[@Dwayne7834]

Good scales. Would not have thought the speed would affect the weight. Did you try speed 1to2 to check the difference. Thanks for sharing.

[@sdkweber]

I did not notice much difference in the amount of time required to throw a charge at different speeds, but the faster speeds (e.g., 4) were definitely faster than 1, yet may not have been as precise. Thus on the cylindrical powders I use a slow speed. I was most amazed at how the 1-2 "kernels" of powder was a difference with this scale. Thanks for watching.

[@B-rad303]

My main question is....Does it bounce the fine ball powder aka Ramshot. Out of the pan all over the bench? Like my Lyman does with the shity pan design. I use a Dixie cup when using these fine powders to keep it from getting all over my bench and wasting powder.

[@sdkweber]

Not at all, I have used both TAC and A2230 and that never happened. It flows like water and is so easy to meter through the MatchMaster Scale.

[@B-rad303]

@@sdkweber good to know. Thanks!

[@sdkweber]

@@B-rad303 You are welcome. And thanks for watching.

[@nathanbanks7091]

Your test of the RCBS MatchMaster was a good video.... Then it went off the rails.

[@michaelwagoner5336]

I would have found a couple velocity node’s then use the matchmaster’s precision to show the SD.

[@sdkweber]

Good idea. BTW, the load used here was at one velocity node. Thanks for watching.

[@jonathanm1854]

Book says in match mode, you’re at 0.04 accuracy, so it wasn’t a mistake.

[@sdkweber]

Thanks Jonathan for confirming.

[@Strophighlander]

Was the brass annealed?

[@sdkweber]

No, the brass was not annealed prior to this.

[@Strophighlander]

@@sdkweber Would have less deviations, if the brass was annealed, that’s my opinion.

[@jamesrobertson6255]

@@Strophighlander this would be interesting to see!