What Is Better — Weighed Powder Charge or Volumetric Charge?
When we first ran this story a while back, it spurred a hot debate, with strong opinions on both sides of the issue. Some guys argued vehemently that volumetric powder dispensing was best — citing the experience of short-range benchresters, most of whom still throw their charges. Others say weighing your charges is best, so long as you have a very precise, and very repeatable scale. Many of the top F-Class and 1000-yard shooters now weigh their charges to the kernel.
Most competitive long-range shooters weigh powder charges for their handloads. Some even use ultra-precise magnetic force restoration scales to load to single-kernel tolerances. But is weight-based measuring always the best way to fill a case with powder? Another option is volumetric charging. This method fills a precisely-sized cavity with powder and then dumps the charge into the case. A Harrell’s rotary powder measure works this way, as does the sliding powder filler on a Dillon progressive press.
For long-range applications, most people believe that precise weighing of powder charges is the best way to achieve optimal accuracy and low ES/SD. However, those short-range Benchrest guys do pretty darn well with their thrown charges, at least at 100 and 200 yards.
Our friend Dennis Santiago recently observed something that made him scratch his head and wonder about weighing charges. His AR-15 match rifle shot better with volumetric (cavity-measured) charges than with weighed charges dispensed by an RCBS ChargeMaster. Here’s what he reports:
Cavity vs. Dribble (Dennis Santiago Report)
I had the chance to compare nominally identical ammunition loaded two ways. These were all .223 Remington match loads using 77gr Sierra Match Kings over 23.4 grains of Hodgdon Varget. Same gun. However I loaded some ammo with charges dispensed with a Lee cavity-style powder measure while other rounds were loaded with powder weighed/dispensed by an RCBS ChargeMaster. The cavity-drop ammo (with powder dropped from the Lee unit) was consistently better than the weighed-charge ammo. I have no idea why…
So, ladies and gentlemen — what do you think? Why did Mr. Santiago’s volumetrically-charged ammo shoot better than ammo filled with weighed charges? What’s your theory? Gary Eliseo suspects that Dennis’s Chargemaster might have been drifting. What do you think? Post your theories in the comments area below.
Similar Posts:
- Weight vs. Volume — The Great Debate
- The Great Debate — Weight vs. Volume in Powder Dispensing
- Thrown (Volume) Charges vs. Weighed Charges — What is Better?
- Cortina’s Corner: ChargeMaster Tips (The Trickle Test)
- RCBS ChargeMaster Slow-Motion Video
Share the post "What Is Better — Weighed Powder Charge or Volumetric Charge?"
Tags: Dennis Santiago, Powder Dispenser, Varget, Volume Powder dispensing
Looking at the two pictures, specifically the one with the Chargemaster, I would consider electromagnetic interference from the bunched up power cord and extension cord sitting next the the unit. Probably the first suspect for drifting.
Big assumption the weights are the same… looking at the set up I would determine it to be the drop tube lengths. The Lee system looks like it has a 6″ drop tube the powder funnel is under 1″. The drop tube allows for a better pour and packs the powder tighter with smaller and fewer air gaps giving a more uniform burn.
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/drop-tube/
The ChargeMaster is not consistently accurate. I use one, but rely on my Gempro for fine tunning, checked for accuracy by my old trusty Ohause. Thinking of trying a volume dispenser in place of the ChargrMaster for the initial weight.
Volume better than weighed, using Varget??? Hilarious.
My takeaway from the ‘volume vs. weighed’ story from the Houston warehouse BR guys was they reported that weighed was better for non compressed loads i.e. air space between the powder column and the bullet. They did state that once the bullet held the powder column still / compressed the volume method gave more consistent accuracy.
They didn’t list any chronograph data – would have been an interesting comparison of that data.