I need a good digital scale

While the op may have disappeared or already have the information needed, there were quite a few comments above that suggested there's an assumption that people want digital because of perceived accuracy--in fact I think that was the prevailing viewpoint.

There are several reasons I chose digital, mostly having to do with the way I've chosen to load and what I'm loading.

1. I've got at least two powders that I find simply have to be weighed--using a thrown weight isn't an option. One is 800X because it simply cannot be dropped in my equipment and at my desired throw weight without a 100% variation from charge to charge. The other is 4198 and anything like it, because the grains simply choke the powder measure--it won't rotate and chop those grains when they bridge across the cavity and the hopper.

2. I find it easy, fast and comforting to read my charge weight in big ol' 3/4" or 1" tall digits. I simply like seeing a weight readout.

3. I load some powders by trickling directly into the case--either literally into the case mouth, or into a funnel jammed into the case mouth. It takes me a few seconds to dump 40 gr of powder into the case, and I'm ready for the next. So, it's important to have a fairly fast tare function and quick damping. Case goes on the pan, hit tare, trickle, remove the case, repeat. If the scales reads well within a range I find negligible, I don't bother taring the scale at all--not going to worry 0.02 gr vs 0.00 gr for example. I like this method--with a speed trickler I find it fast and it eliminates any handling or pouring of the propellant (except to load the trickler once, etc).

4. When doing small handgun loads for chronography, I have often wanted a good number of loads at each of many different charges, but each charge differing by only .1 gr or so, for example Clays or Solo 1000 loads down around 3-4 gr. So, rather than trying to hit 3.1 g as closely as possible and not overshoot to 3.2, I set the scale to milligrams. This lets me see higher resolution, move faster to the desired charge, and not overshoot by large chunks. This isn't a matter of wanting extraordinary accuracy (or precision, either) because I think it's going to improve my shooting--I just want to generate a plot from the best possible source data. That's fun for me. :confused:

So anyway, digital for this application makes sense to me and is my preferred way to go. Other than maybe on the microwave oven or at the gas pump, I can't think of any other places in my day-to-day living where I don't prefer an analog readout (e.g., clocks, weather thermometers, auto dashboard).
 
Last edited:
As for price, I have two digital scales. One is a Mack 10 (sold everywhere) that I think I paid about $55 for at Old Will Knott (online). I also have a Sartorius AY123 precision scale (capacity is 120 g, accuracy 0.001 g), that sells right now for just around $300.

Now, I can't weight heavy bullets on the Mack because of it's low capacity, and it's fairly slow to tare. But, I've compared samples on both of these scales and I believe they've always been to within a few mg of one another. The cheaper Mack 10 sits on my bench in an unheated garage year after year getting knocked around, getting dust on it, etc. It has always worked well with batteries being the only think its needed (about twice in 5 years). It does exhibit a little drift sometimes--put a 10.0 gr charge on it and come back 2 hours later--it might read 9.9--but this isn't a routine behavior. It's in a garage.

My opinion is that most digital scales you can buy that have say a 50 g capacity and readout to +/- 0.010 mg are going to be very accurate--meaning they will give you the same reading for the same weight each time you perform the weighing. They are all very linear--extraordinarily so--meaning a 0.05 gr change in charge at 10 gr is a 0.05 gr change at 50 gr. Most if not all are temperature compensated--even in the $50 range.

So, honestly, I wouldn't worry about whether they're 'accurate' or not. I'd be way more concerned about how they're actually packaged--does the pan area have a lot of nooks and crannies to collect debris, is there a removable pan or surface that can be cleaned, is there a built-in or removable cover, batteries only or AC adaptor (if you care), capacity sufficient to weigh those 500 gr bullets, what units are selectable (almost all have at least 5 or 6), and what is the resolution.

There are a bajillion choices--I would most definitely NOT limit my choices to the scales offered by the reloading companies. Actually those wouldn't be my first choice at all--I'd look at the predominant brands (there are like 4) and find one on eBay shipped to the door for $40-60.
 
I do precision reloading with a beam scale no problem and a higher rate can be accomplished with refinements in technique.
Click to expand...

It could very well be the OP doesn't yet have a scale at all, it which case he's faced with a few choices. I don't see any obvious advantage a beam scale would provide a person in that situation--cost, accuracy, convenience, compactness and versatility don't seem to be areas where a beam scale provides any big advantage.

For me and the way I load, the beam balance means at least one extra step. Using a scoop means two extra steps, both of them handling powder in my hands (with little wee scoops and pans, etc). I sure don't argue you can do work that's every bit as good with those tools, I just can't find any single reason to choose to do it that way over other methods if you're not already doing it that way.

Yours is a fair question though, for sure. If someone were to start a thread entitled "I need a good beam balance scale" I imagine one of the first responses would also be "Why?". :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top