Armory Sponsor
Posted: 3/17/2014 6:32:10 PM EDT
|
any one have input on a decent one ? was looking at the hornady one that you plug into the wall... I like this one cause the price is right and the scale can "warm up" giving less chance of fluctuation but I am open to other opinions
EDIT: I got my gempro 250 in the mail yesterday and used it last night with my horndady lnl trickler... wow this digital scale is freaking awesome, and accurate as all hell thanks for the heads up guys |
|
Quoted:
I didn't have the one you plug into an outlet, but I did have the battery operated one and it lasted 2 months. I replaced it with a inexpensive Frankfurt arsenal and haven't had any problems. I have a little mcm case guard one and its not bad at all just wanted one I could warm up for 30 before I used it |
|
I've purchased a Pact BBK for my cousin, a Dillon D-terminator for my brother, and a Lyman 1200 for myself. These were all cheapie ($100-150 range) strain gauge scales; but I actually found both the Dillon and the Lyman to be more than adequate for reloading. I did not like the Pact BBK. All plug in to an outlet. They also can operate on batteries as well (at least, the Lyman can… I think the others do as well)
So, if I had to recommend an inexpensive scale that was adequate for most reloading, I'd go with the Lyman. I don't think they make mine anymore, but it looked like the balance on the right in this picture (a Lyman 1000-LE) 
If I wanted a better scale, I'd recommend not fooling around with strain gauge type balances, and go to the lower end magnetic force restoration balances. I've been very happy with my AND FX120i, a lower priced balance (I think it was near $600). |
|
Quoted:
I didn't have the one you plug into an outlet, but I did have the battery operated one and it lasted 2 months. I replaced it with a inexpensive Frankfurt arsenal and haven't had any problems. Have the frankford myself. Cheap, yet decent scale. Had mine for about 3 years now and have had no complaints. Frankford Arsenal DS-750 |
|
Quoted:
If I wanted a better scale, I'd recommend not fooling around with strain gauge type balances, and go to the lower end magnetic force restoration balances. I've been very happy with my AND FX120i, a lower priced balance (I think it was near $600). I bought my FX120i for about $430 shipped through Cambridge |
|
I have a Denver Instruments MX-123 = high recommended but expensive, I bought used for $200
I have a Dillon Terminator scale = good to 900 grains, no where near as accurate as MX-123. I had an RCBS electronic scale - only 750 grains, needed 900 minimum to weight sort cases and 50BMG target projectiles, so I sold it. I have a RCBS ChargeMaster 1500 = worked good for 5 years, RCBS wants $200 to exchange for a new one, = PRICEY Repair Option. I have 2 Smart Reloader ISD Electronic powder measures, quality sucks but they work after re-programming each usage. First unit was a total failure but replaced on warranty I have 3 Frankfort Arsenal Scales that are PURE JUNK. Enuf said.. |
| The only digital that I've been fully satisfied with is Dillon's D-terminator. It runs batter or AC, stabilizes quickly and remains very accurate, and doesn't seem to be affected by fluorescent bulbs. My conclusion after 30 yrs or reloading is that regardless of the type of scale you will use, don't skimp on quality. |
|
Quoted:
See an awful lot of threads complaining of problems with digital scales, see damn few threads complaining about beam scales. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I've worked with beam balances a lot in my younger days. But, in my lab, virtually everything was done on Mettler digital balances (and one of which was used for reloading until I purchased the slightly inferior Lyman). The only time I used a beam balance was using a cheap dual platform Ohaus to balance centrifuge tubes by squirting fluid into the tubes or the tube carriers -- an operation which was too messy for a digital balance; all other analytical and preparative procedures were performed on the Mettlers. My complaints with beam balances are that they are slow and they do not have an easy time taring multiple items. The beam balances are also not very practical for sorting bullets or cases by weight. The taring of multiple samples is important in the way that I add propellant to the cases: I tare ("zero") the case, drop powder directly into the case, reweigh, and add or subtract powder until my goal is met with a hundredth of a grain precision), then insert a bullet immediately to prevent any "static flyaway" propellant. The bullets are then seated to proper depth using an arbor press. At any rate, this method is for good for small (35 to 200 rounds), precision reloads, and it is pretty cumbersome on a beam balance, but very easy to do on a digital. The reason you do not see complaints about beams is that they are fairly simple and work; but the reason I do not like them is that they do not support my style of reloading. |
|
Quoted:
I bought my FX120i for about $430 shipped through Cambridge Quoted:
Quoted:
If I wanted a better scale, I'd recommend not fooling around with strain gauge type balances, and go to the lower end magnetic force restoration balances. I've been very happy with my AND FX120i, a lower priced balance (I think it was near $600). I bought my FX120i for about $430 shipped through Cambridge WOW! I must admit, I don't think I paid that little! |
|
Quoted:
All comes down to your budget. I started with a GemPro 250 and now have moved on to a RCBS Chargemaster Combo. I also have a Frankford Arsenal cheapo as a backup. Do you check the RCBS charges with the GemPro? From the reviews I read, the Chargemaster Combo was the best for consistent charges |
|
Quoted:
See an awful lot of threads complaining of problems with digital scales, see damn few threads complaining about beam scales. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Because people don't know how to use them, or understand them. Biggest complaint due to lack of understanding is drift. The rest of it is technique. But WTF do I know my Gem Pro works. |
|
Quoted:
This. Quoted:
Quoted:
I like my GemPro 250. It reads right on my RCBS check weights every time. This. My gempro and fx120i both agree that my RCBS check weights are off a bit. I have 2 20gr weights, one is 19.96 and the other is 20.04 and the common digital reloading scales would see both as 20gr. I wish I could find my old balance to compare it to |
|
Quoted:
See an awful lot of threads complaining of problems with digital scales, see damn few threads complaining about beam scales. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This. I had the Hornady GS-1500 and I think Hornady actually tried to make that scale suck, there is no way it sucks that bad after production... I work with digital scales everyday and even the $30k ultra micro balance fluctuates around its error margin and has to warm up and stay warmed up to work properly. I switched to the new hornady beam scale and it's the best move I've ever made. I absolutely love that scale! It is accurate to 0.1gr every single time and the weights check perfectly with my check weights. You don't ever have to worry about warmup or fluctuations EVER! The value you see is always the value it is, never a question about accuracy. Do yourself a favor, get a cheap electronic scale to measure approximate values and get a good beam scale to measure exact values. I use the Hornady when I have an unknown weight (like a pulled bullet) to get approximate values, but my beam scale is always used when measuring charges. Some laboratory scales are on the order of $20-30k and are only accurate to 0.01gr and you expect me to trust a balance that's $120 and accurate to 0.02gr? You don't even need that accuracy because most extruded powder weighs ~0.05-0.1gr per stick, so there is no point in getting a balance more accurate than the individual grains your measuring! TL/DR: Get a beam scale, electronic scales that we can afford suck ass. Beams are always accurate regardless of fluorescent lights, temperature, humidity, etc. |
|
Quoted:
I've worked with beam balances a lot in my younger days. But, in my lab, virtually everything was done on Mettler digital balances (and one of which was used for reloading until I purchased the slightly inferior Lyman). The only time I used a beam balance was using a cheap dual platform Ohaus to balance centrifuge tubes by squirting fluid into the tubes or the tube carriers -- an operation which was too messy for a digital balance; all other analytical and preparative procedures were performed on the Mettlers. My complaints with digital balances are that they are slow and they do not have an easy time taring multiple items. The beam balances are also not very practical for sorting bullets or cases by weight. The taring of multiple samples is important in the way that I add propellant to the cases: I tare ("zero") the case, drop powder directly into the case, reweigh, and add or subtract powder until my goal is met with a hundredth of a grain precision), then insert a bullet immediately to prevent any "static flyaway" propellant. The bullets are then seated to proper depth using an arbor press. At any rate, this method is for good for small (35 to 200 rounds), precision reloads, and it is pretty cumbersome on a beam balance, but very easy to do on a digital. The reason you do not see complaints about beams is that they are fairly simple and work; but the reason I do not like them is that they do not support my style of reloading. Quoted:
Quoted:
See an awful lot of threads complaining of problems with digital scales, see damn few threads complaining about beam scales. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I've worked with beam balances a lot in my younger days. But, in my lab, virtually everything was done on Mettler digital balances (and one of which was used for reloading until I purchased the slightly inferior Lyman). The only time I used a beam balance was using a cheap dual platform Ohaus to balance centrifuge tubes by squirting fluid into the tubes or the tube carriers -- an operation which was too messy for a digital balance; all other analytical and preparative procedures were performed on the Mettlers. My complaints with digital balances are that they are slow and they do not have an easy time taring multiple items. The beam balances are also not very practical for sorting bullets or cases by weight. The taring of multiple samples is important in the way that I add propellant to the cases: I tare ("zero") the case, drop powder directly into the case, reweigh, and add or subtract powder until my goal is met with a hundredth of a grain precision), then insert a bullet immediately to prevent any "static flyaway" propellant. The bullets are then seated to proper depth using an arbor press. At any rate, this method is for good for small (35 to 200 rounds), precision reloads, and it is pretty cumbersome on a beam balance, but very easy to do on a digital. The reason you do not see complaints about beams is that they are fairly simple and work; but the reason I do not like them is that they do not support my style of reloading. That's because the lab had at least $10k to purchase these balances and because they're typically accurate to 0.5mg (~0.01gr). OP: If price is not an issue I would recommend a &xrefPartType=From&savings=0.0&xrefEvent=1395231929487_0&searchType=PROD&hasPromo=0]Sartorius Cubis Ultra Micro Balance, it's only $32k and accurate to 0.0001mg (~0.0000015gr). This is what I made my check weights on, use one every day. I'm being a smart ass in case you're wondering. Point is, don't spend $32k on a balance when a $60 beam balance is more accurate than you could ever need. Edit: Sorry for the screwy link, the url has brackets in it and it's messing with the url coding.. Link still works though. |
|
Quoted:
Point is, don't spend $32k on a balance when a $60 beam balance is more accurate than you could ever need….. The beam balances are not good at various operations that I need (taring multiple items, sorting by weight); it is not a matter of accuracy since most balances are accurate enough. And $32K seems like a bit high when most adequate strain gauge balances are available at under $300 and good magnetic force restoration balannces can be had at under $600. |
|
Quoted:
Have the frankford myself. Cheap, yet decent scale. Had mine for about 3 years now and have had no complaints. Frankford Arsenal DS-750 Quoted:
Quoted:
I didn't have the one you plug into an outlet, but I did have the battery operated one and it lasted 2 months. I replaced it with a inexpensive Frankfurt arsenal and haven't had any problems. Have the frankford myself. Cheap, yet decent scale. Had mine for about 3 years now and have had no complaints. Frankford Arsenal DS-750 Same one I got. Works pretty good. |
| I have a fairly new Lyman digital (maybe 4 yrs old) that has been a headache as long as I've owned it. The problem it has is the value displayed drifts by a few tenths of a grain. It drives me crazy. I use my 70s vintage rcbs beam scale exclusively now and am pretty happy with it. Keep it simple. |
|
Quoted:
Same one I got. Works pretty good. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I didn't have the one you plug into an outlet, but I did have the battery operated one and it lasted 2 months. I replaced it with a inexpensive Frankfurt arsenal and haven't had any problems. Have the frankford myself. Cheap, yet decent scale. Had mine for about 3 years now and have had no complaints. Frankford Arsenal DS-750 Same one I got. Works pretty good. I have this one as well. I snagged a vintage RCBS 5-10 beam scale off of Ebay to use as a method of double checking though. |
|
+1 on the Gempro 250. I have one and it has been spot on. Recently upgraded to an A&D FX120i, but the only difference between it and the Gempro has been speed when weighing single kernels of extruded powder. The Gempro will register a kernel in ~8-10 secs, the A&D in about 3secs. I will keep the gempro since it is more portable than the A&D.
For the 'I don't trust digital' guys I also have an RCBS 10-10 that I use occasionally, but prefer my digital scales, as they suit my loading routine better than the beam scale. Have yet to have a problem with my digitals. SY |
| If you don't like dealing with the static and drift issues check out the newer lyman line gen5, gen6 (wich are both dispensers as well) they do make a stand alone scale but not sure if it incorperates the same ANTI-STATIC technology. I have my gen 5 for about 8 months love it way more accurite than their older model and never had any drift of course I always check it with my OHAUS 10-10 |
|
Quoted:
If you don't like dealing with the static and drift issues check out the newer lyman line gen5, gen6 (wich are both dispensers as well) they do make a stand alone scale but not sure if it incorperates the same ANTI-STATIC technology. I have my gen 5 for about 8 months love it way more accurite than their older model and never had any drift of course I always check it with my OHAUS 10-10 My Lyman is looking pretty old in comparison. I'm not sure I like Touch Screen (as opposed to real buttons), but otherwise, they look pretty good. Nice infomercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4QFfFHoSkU It looks like Lymans come with a few weight calibrating standards, as did mine. I only mention this since a beam balance can be wrong too -- it requires perfect cutting of the notches in the beam and perfect placement of the slider in the notches -- and you had mentioned that you check your digital against an Ohaus 10-10 beam. I guess it is more accurate to check your balance against weight standards, but it is more satisfying to weigh powder on both scales. |
Armory Sponsor