Powder dippers - more consistent than you might think

S

spacecoast

New member
I finished off my first pound of Varget for .223 reloading today, and when starting with the pound I weighed 20 or so 1.6CC dippers and determined that each dip yielded 22.8 grains of powder on average. Over the course of 6 months I first did a dozen or so test rounds and then several sessions of 100 or so rounds each. Today I stopped when I ran out of powder after the 307th round.

307 x 22.8 = 6999.6 grains (a pound is 7000 grains).

Pretty remarkable when you consider that each dipperful is just eyeballed to make sure it's fairly level before it goes into the case.
 
I have had the opposite experience, the dippers only get close
and close is not good enough !!
I dip and then trickle to the correct weight
 
All I've ever used. They are best when the powder is fine grain. Wouldn't use them on a stick powder like IMR.
 
Isnt the proper method to dip then card off the "heap"? Pretty sure thats what I read from lee years back.
Click to expand...
That would be the most consistent method to assure accurate results.
 
Dippers are fine for ball powder, and quite often you can make a really accurate load with a dipper. Really time consuming though, and a Lee PPM is equally accurate with ball powder, so I think it's a good upgrade becuase it can really speed you up.

But I still have a set of dippers, for just in case.

Jimro
 
I use dippers all the time for small lots of reloads. I do measure and weigh each "dipped" charge and over time I have found this system to be very unreliable. I use a dipper that comes up short and then top it off with a powder trickler. After several years of doing this, I can't support the contention that dipping is repeatable and reproduceable. I'll base that on fifty years of reloading and forty years of working as a statistical quality engineer. Some powders are better suited than others, but nothing works as well as a GOOD powder measure.
 
Isn't the proper method to dip then card off the "heap"? Pretty sure that's what I read from lee years back.
Click to expand...

I dd a small scale experiment on that a few years ago. I forget the powder I used. I do recall it was an extruded stick type powder, possibly IMR 4895 or IMR 4064, Been so long and I don't know where my notes are. Anyway, anyone can do this and get your own results.

Using a 2.8cc dipper I dipped ten samples weighing each and not leveling or skimming the dipper. I followed this getting ten additional samples and skimming each sample. The chart reflects the delta I found. Wish I could recall the VMD number for the powder used so we would have a nominal number.

Dipper%20Excel.png


Also, I don't believe the VMD of powder is a constant, I believe manufacturers allow themselves a 16% tolerance from lot to lot. Then there are other factors like environment humidity with the latter not really changing things too much.

<EDIT> I found my notes on the above chart. The powder was IMR 4064 having a VMD of 0.0745. So using the 2.8cc dipper the nominal charge weight should have been 2.8 / 0.0745 = 37.58 or 37.6 grains. </EDIT>




Ron
 
Last edited:
I use dippers all the time for small lots of reloads. I do measure and weigh each "dipped" charge and over time I have found this system to be very unreliable. I use a dipper that comes up short and then top it off with a powder trickler. After several years of doing this, I can't support the contention that dipping is repeatable and reproduceable. I'll base that on fifty years of reloading and forty years of working as a statistical quality engineer. Some powders are better suited than others, but nothing works as well as a GOOD powder measure.
Click to expand...

Maybe as a statistical quality engineer, you can tell me what the difference is between a powder measure and a dipper, other than the measure is a mechanized dipper. Both use a cavity(fixed or adjustable), gravity to settle the contents within the cavity and some form of leveling off the contents at the top of the cavity when used correctly. Seems powder measures/throwers are more prone to major errors than dippers, since we are told to always look into the cases before seating a bullet to make sure all our cases are charged and are charged relatively the same. This is because we cannot see the contents on the cavity of the measure to know if it was full when dropped or had powder bridge and not fill the cavity. Just as with a powder measure/thrower, consistency of technique is important with dippers. What I see many times is while volume may be constant, weight is not. This happens many times with powders that have large granules like TraillBoss or is fluffy like Unique. Still both of those powder shoot very consistently when measured by volume as opposed to just by weight. IME, I've found that even if the charge is off by a tenth or two, that if the volume was the same, they shoot just as consistently than when they are measured and charged by weight. This is one reason folks that use dippers prefer those powders. I know of competition shooters that swear by measuring by volume once they find that sweet spot. Also IME, I have found that works well for one reloader does not always work just as well for someone else. Still, I cannot see how the cavity of a dipper is less accurate than the cavity of a powder measure.
 
With all of the measures you have to be consistent in how you fill the void or dipper. Put powder in tap it to settle powder then level or drop. Key with the drippers is to not rely on the tables. Each lot of powder has a different density and will not drop the same as indicated in the table.
 
The real issue is that CC's are a metric unit of liquid volume and have nothing whatever to do with gun powder. The only thing they're good for is getting close on a scale then finishing with a trickler.
 
How sure are you the 1 pound container was exactly 7,000 grains?

That's still impressive that it stopped right at 6999,but I'd bet the pound was at least 1 or 2% off to start.
 
The real issue is that CC's are a metric unit of liquid volume and have nothing whatever to do with gun powder. The only thing they're good for is getting close on a scale then finishing with a trickler.
Click to expand...
CC's are a measure of volume, period.
The term defines an empty space, and nothing else.

ML's (milliliters) are a measure of liquid volume, even though they both are identical amounts. It defines a quantity of liquid.

It really makes no difference what the space inside a measuring device is called, or what material is being measured in most cases.

It's still just units of empty space.
 
Powder dippers - more consistent than you might think
Click to expand...
Not really, I have R. Lee's book on modern reloading, when I read through threads about reloaders using dippers I get the feeling I am the only one that owns and has read R. Lee's book.

There is no eyeballing, it is scientific, R. Lee talks about a friend that has the best business card for his powder dippers. And then R. Lee talks about the scientific design; seems the cone of powder above the dipper is the maximum load and a scientifically raked with a good business card is the starting load.

I have three sets of dippers, one set is black, another set is yellow and the other set is red. And then there is my favorite, it is adjustable. It goes all the way back to 1900 +/- a few years.

F. Guffey
 
ML's (milliliters) are a measure of liquid volume, even though they both are identical amounts. It defines a quantity of liquid.
Click to expand...

Always; After metric anything comes the quote about going to the moon and never making it because they used the metric system.:)

F. Guffey
 
Last edited:
The metric system: I purchased a two gallon tub of dial indicators, there was one metric dial indicator and 4 electronic digital indicators that have quick change button.

Because I was a volume buyer the seller gave me a dial caliper, being free I did not look at it until I got home. It has a small bump at about 1.500", just before I tore it apart to see if anything on this one would fit my other dial calipers I found a crack on the rack. I believe I will apply the leaver policy and leaver the way I founder.

I was hoping the bump was caused by dirt.

F. Guffey
 
Last edited:
Years ago automotive engines were measured in displacement in cubic inches. The GM 350 cubic inch block is today's 5.7 Liter engine. Use the US standard or the metric standard, it matters not, it's all a matter of volume.

As to the Dippers? Sitting down with a cup of powder (of your choosing) and a dipper go ahead and dip ten charges weighing each one, try ten with the dipper leveled and ten with the dipper unlevel. That is what I did above with the posted excel table. Running your own comparisons is not complicated or difficult. Apply the powder VMD (Volume Measured Density) and note what you should have and what you actually have.

In my example I used a 2.8cc (cubic centimeter) dipper. The powder was IMR 4064. IMR 4064 has a VMD of about .0745 and we say about because the VMD of any given powder, lot to lot will vary. There are other variables like temperature and relative humidity because as we know powder is hydroscopic stuff. Hygroscopy is the phenomenon of attracting and holding water molecules from the surrounding, usually at normal or room temperature, environment. Does it matter? Not likely to come in use of the application in this case. The dipper I used was not quite giving a high measure of repeatability nor was it spot on with respect to the 37.6 grains which should have been my charge weight. Your mileage may vary.

All of that said people have been loading perfectly good ammunition using Lee Dippers for decades. People have also managed plenty good enough powder charges with the RCBS Uniflow and similar powder throws which rely on volume charge to charge. I watch bench rest shooters load on the range using high end volume powder throws like the Harrell's Precision versions.

As to the original post and the 7,000 grains? Personally, based on my own observations, I do not see it happening unless it was a one in several million long shot. All methods for measuring the weight of powder charges come with some uncertainty, the only thing that matters is will that uncertainty come in light of the intended application?

Ron
 
I've used dippers for decades...

Most of my loading is done with dippers, but most of my loading is not near max...

Anything I am working up for accuracy or near max is weighed individually...
 
For years I dippered all of my loads for .30-06, .243, and .300 Savage using IMR 4064.

I got very consistent results when I was paying attention to what I was doing, and in my .243 I was able to routinely get sub 1/2" groups.

IMR powders are exceptionally forgiving to variations in charge weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top