Powder dippers - more consistent than you might think

[spacecoast]

As to the original post and the 7,000 grains?

I have no doubt that the pound I started out with was not exactly 7,000 grains, but I would think it reasonably close since it was an individual pound. I just thought it was neat that it yielded exactly the expected number of rounds using a rather imprecise (but on average relatively consistent) dispensing method. I learned some things in this thread (especially about the value of leveling the dipper) and am glad that it spurred so much discussion.

 

[Reloadron]

I have no doubt that the pound I started out with was not exactly 7,000 grains, but I would think it reasonably close since it was an individual pound. I just thought it was neat that it yielded exactly the expected number of rounds using a rather imprecise (but on average relatively consistent) dispensing method. I learned some things in this thread (especially about the value of leveling the dipper) and am glad that it spurred so much discussion.

I am not totally doubting yopu but the odds were phenomenal of things working out that way. Yes, by all means the dippers always make for some good and informative conversation. My old posted data was IMR 4064, I tried again today using H335 powder and collected more data. Interesting in that with IMR 4064 all of my dips were below what I expected for the dipper. Using the H335 all my dips were above the expected weight. That includes leveled and unleveled. Go figure?

Ron

 

[F. Guffey]

I learned some things in this thread (especially about the value of leveling the dipper) and am glad that it spurred so much discussion.

Lee made it a point he loaded with dippers with a friend that had the best business card fro raking. Problem, he was paid to load and test the rounds and furnish the load data in grains.

With a big HA HA HA he explained the two of them returned to the shop and weighted the raked off dippers full of powder and then weighed the loads in grains. I liked the part about the scientific dipper. He said he had the perfect diameter for the cone of powder above the dipper. He said the cone would not support a single grain of powder above the maximum load.

F, Guffey

 

[Reloadron]

FGuffey:

Lee made it a point he loaded with dippers with a friend that had the best business card fro raking. Problem, he was paid to load and test the rounds and furnish the load data in grains.

With a big HA HA HA he explained the two of them returned to the shop and weighted the raked off dippers full of powder and then weighed the loads in grains. I liked the part about the scientific dipper. He said he had the perfect diameter for the cone of powder above the dipper. He said the cone would not support a single grain of powder above the maximum load.

As much as I would like to agree with Mr. Lee I see some of that latter as BS. Here is what I base things on. Following is the Excel sheet I worked up using IMR 4064 which according to Lee has a VMD of 0.0745 right off Mr. Lee's VMD for powder chart. I used one of Mr. Lee's 2.8cc dippers so according to formula VMD X Charge Weight Grains = Volume in cc. Therefore 2.8 / .0745 = 37.6 grains. Note how things worked out both leveled and unleveled:

Yeah, the loads do come up below the expected 37.6 grains and that is no real surprise considering that IMR 4064 is a stick powder. Plenty of air between the sticks of powder. The leveled loads were below the expected nominal value. While that is all well and fine things did not work out as well with H335 a ball or spherical type powder. I used the same 2.8cc dipper with H335 powder having a VMD of 0.0645 so we get 2.8 / .0645 = 43.4 grains.

Every single dipped charge was over the expected 43.4 grains. I filled the 2.8cc dipper with some distilled water (as close as I have to pure water) and weighed the water which came in right at 2.80 grams or 43.21 grains. So the dipper is correct in volume leading me to question the VMD listed on the chart. What Lee fails to mention is the Volume Metered Density of powder changes lot to lot and I believe powder manufacturers allow themselves +/- 15% from a nominal value.

While the dippers do work they are not very repeatable, even when the user repeats the same motions using them and they are not very accurate when used with Lee's published VMD data.Anyone else feel free to use a dipper and then weigh the charges, try at least ten charges. I also noticed the cone before leveling above the top of the dipper changes depending on the powder. The IMR4064 yielded a taller cone than the H335. The dippers have served for decades and just about every reloader or hand loader has used them.

Ron

 

[Snyper]

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

If they had only used metric there would have been no problems.
It issue was mistakenly using two different systems at the same time.

 

[Reloadron]

If they had only used metric there would have been no problems.
It issue was mistakenly using two different systems at the same time.

Then there was this The Gimli Glider:

The subsequent investigation revealed a combination of company failures and a chain of human errors that defeated built-in safeguards. The amount of fuel that had been loaded was miscalculated because of a confusion as to the calculation of the weight of fuel using the metric system, which had recently replaced the imperial system for use with the 767...

The crew and passengers were fortunate in that case. Pesky systems of measurement.

Ron

 

[F. Guffey]

If they had only used metric there would have been no problems.
It issue was mistakenly using two different systems at the same time.

Anyper, forgive, the automatic response had to do with going to the moon, and always the response has to do with the no country that uses the metric system has managed to go to the moon.

And then there was that time we went to Mars, the trip was spec 'ted metric and we did not converted to inches, feet, yards and miles.

F. Guffey

 

[F. Guffey]

FANTASTIC!

I have no doubt that the pound I started out with was not exactly 7,000 grains, but I would think it reasonably close since it was an individual pound. I just thought it was neat that it yielded exactly the expected number of rounds using a rather imprecise (but on average relatively consistent) dispensing method. I learned some things in this thread (especially about the value of leveling the dipper) and am glad that it spurred so much discussion.

I agree, then there is the lack of ability to use tools. When I started reloaders were calling the Wilson case gage a drop-in gage, they suggested it was designed to be used with the thumb nail. From the big inning I use a straight edge, that is what Wilson suggested in the beginning, he even listed places where a straight edge could be found starting with the shirt pocket. That was back when shirts had pocket. He suggested using a pocket rule, I added the companion to the press tool the feeler gage. Most reloaders were trying to sell other reloaders 'another tool' but the Wilson case gage is a datum based tool meaning no other tool was necessary.

The dipper, by Lee's description and design; he said the height of the cone of powder above the dipper will not allow for an over charge and the angle of the cone above the dipper is the came ever time. It is like hot horse shoes, it does not take me long to look at it, I do not need a spread sheet and if I did not rake the top of the dipper with a good card I would be wasting my time, discipline and a good understanding of tool use is most helpful.

F. Guffey

 

[Pathfinder45]

Everyone that sells anything by weight or volume, sooner or later, gets checked out by their state's bureau of weights and measures. If you buy a pound of powder, it should have not less than a pound of it. It's OK with me if it goes over.....

 

[Reloadron]

Everyone that sells anything by weight or volume, sooner or later, gets checked out by their state's bureau of weights and measures. If you buy a pound of powder, it should have not less than a pound of it. It's OK with me if it goes over.....

OK with me if my gallon of gasoline exceeds a US gallon. My mom caught the butcher once resting his hand on the scale as he weighed her ham, that got very, very ugly.

Ron

 

[buck460XVR]

Everyone that sells anything by weight or volume, sooner or later, gets checked out by their state's bureau of weights and measures. If you buy a pound of powder, it should have not less than a pound of it. It's OK with me if it goes over.....

...and for the most part, companies tend to error on the side of overfilling, that way there's less of a chance that they will get volumes in their package, less than advertised. Of course, their price reflects this. They also tend to package in containers that give us the impression we are getting more than what we pay for, and then use the disclaimer "this package is sold by weight, not volume, some settling of the contends may occur".

 

[NoSecondBest]

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.

Yep, and a wooden yardstick and a vernier caliper both measure inches. For some people that's all they need to know. Depending on where you're at with gage R&R knowledge and the use of precision instruments, etc, it can be a waste of time to explain or take much more time than can be allotted here in this post. The simplest explanation is that the human element adds a lot to the outcome. Dipping vs. pumping a handle can make a difference. Even with the powder measure you can get more or less precision depending on the operator and other variables. From a personal perspective, I could care less how you do it. It probably won't make that much difference in your results unless you're the shakiest hand in the west.

 

[jmr40]

I started loading with dippers. It is all about technique, if you're doing it right it is very consistent and can net very accurate loads. I no longer use them, except to dip powder into the pan on the scales then finish with a trickler.

While they can be accurate I always found one dipper gave me just over a starting load and the next size up would be over the max. No way to get anything in between.

 

[F. Guffey]

While they can be accurate I always found one dipper gave me just over a starting load and the next size up would be over the max. No way to get anything in between

For many years I have said R. Lee did not test Federal primers, he did say he did not test Federal primers because they did not donate primers to be tested. And now I believe I am the only owner of R. Lee's book or I am the only one that has read it.

F. Guffey

 

[Reloadron]

Which book?

LEE RELOADING HANDBOOK. FIRST EDITION. Paperback – 1960

A link would have been nice or at least a title? Yes, I guess you are the only one who read the book. I am sure many of us have read other similar books.Incidentally the Second Edition of Lee's reloading manual is out and available.

Lee Precision Modern Reloading 2nd Edition New Format The second edition of Lee's book was not written by Lee.

I have to agree with nearly every reviewer, high and low. This book is a mixed bag and delivers some pretty strong pros and cons.

Pros:
1. This is great for a beginner, but not for obvious reasons. Because this seems to be an advertisement for Lee in its entirety, the novice will find themselves confused about certain reloading techniques, or specific "opinions" offered throughout the narrative. Due to this confusion, the reader will undoubtedly need to do more research on their own and thereby better enrich their knowledge prior to reloading.
2. This is also good because Lee is simply a good brand. They produce cheap, high quality reloading tools which can be easily replaced and are highly effective. That said, the advice given in this book is very much like sitting down to lunch with an old friend who's been reloading for decades. You don't necessarily get everything you need, but you get a good start. Those are the good things; the narrative and subject matter are approachable and the book acts as a springboard for further reading.

Cons:
1. Because this is an advertisement, you find yourself getting hung up on innocuous opinions, or confusing chapters. Moreover, I was particularly frustrated with the resizing information as the narrative seemed to jump back and forth between Full-Resizing and Neck-Expanding. These are two completely different terms (dies/procedures/etc) but the book never really goes into any depth about the difference, or the instances in which you would resort to one or the other. I believe you will find that's the case with a handful of terms throughout.
2. As some others have mentioned, the reloading data is AMAZING for exotic loads, but pretty basic for popular loads. Don't get me wrong, if you're reloading .30-06 or .45 ACP, you'll find some basic loads you're looking for, but this is most certainly not the end all say all on charging. Also, Lee goes back and forth between Grains and CCs, which can be distracting at best. This leads us back to our "This book is an advertisement" problem because Lee happens to sell an inexpensive collection of CC scoops, and thus the necessity to describe everything in CC and grains.

Overall, this book is handy to have on your shelf, especially for the data on exotic loads. In fact, I think the loading data is really the most useful aspect of the book because the charts are straight forward and the diagrams included are easy to read. Also, the price on this book is perfect, falling under $20 and acting as a good starting point. I think any good reloader is going to tell you to buy at least two reloading handbooks anyway, so this should be one of them. If you can overlook the blatant advertising, limited data and occassional back-and-forth between jargon (CCs/Grains, Expander/Resizer, etc), then this could be a great first book.

Now can we move along?

Ron

 

[buck460XVR]

Depending on where you're at with gage R&R knowledge and the use of precision instruments, etc, it can be a waste of time to explain or take much more time than can be allotted here in this post. The simplest explanation is that the human element adds a lot to the outcome

Gage R&R is not rocket science and is basically what the discussion of this thread is all about.......the amount of variation in the measurement system arising from the measurement device and the people taking the measurement.

It probably won't make that much difference in your results unless you're the shakiest hand in the west.

Actually having the shakiest hand in the west would probably give you the most consistent volumes with either a thrower or dippers because you are settling the contents and removing air space. Kinda why may folks add some sort of vibration device to their powder thrower.

You will get no argument from me than either dippers or throwers can give inconsistent weights. But using either of them properly can give very consistent volume. Kinda the point of the OP.

 

[5whiskey]

OK here comes the smart Alec with useless science knowledge. A cubic centimeter is a measure of volume. Liquids, solids, and gasses can be measured with volume. The milliliter was actually based of of the cubic centimeter. Yes, the two are one and he same.

Now back to the heart of the discussion. I usually weigh each and every charge for ANY rifle ammo I load. I have loaded with dippers and found I can dip a charge as accurately as a Lee auto-disk every time. I have even committed to accepting the weight variance and loading the ammo with the charge, even if weight is a bit off (I usually set my tolerance at +/- 1%, so 22gn charges in .223 are given a +/- .2gns allowance. For my one test I threw out my tolerance requirements). I found that 30 rounds of this commitment showed no accuracy difference between ammo that I reduced my tolerance to 0.5% (+/- .1gn). So... I think many other variables make way more difference than being so anal about charge weight.

I would love to test further and removing the possibility of bias

 

[F. Guffey]

OK here comes the smart Alec with useless science knowledge. A cubic centimeter is a measure of volume. Liquids, solids, and gasses can be measured with volume. The milliliter was actually based of of the cubic centimeter. Yes, the two are one and he same.

That is close, the millimeter came first, with no more than a metric ruler a rational person can determine volume, weight and distance. All other are required to have a scale, and buckets, lots of buckets large and small bucket and a tape measure. And as we all know it is not possible to go to the moon with the metric system.

F. Guffey

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Which book?

LEE RELOADING HANDBOOK. FIRST EDITION. Paperback – 1960

A link would have been nice or at least a title? Yes, I guess you are the only one who read the book. I am sure many of us have read other similar books.Incidentally the Second Edition of Lee's reloading manual is out and available.

Lee Precision Modern Reloading 2nd Edition New Format The second edition of Lee's book was not written by Lee.

I remember reading the anecdote in question so here is your answer. Richard Lee did in fact write the book and he was referring to Dean Grenell, who would use the dippers to figure out a good load, then go home and measure that load to share with his readers.

 

[F. Guffey]

Quote:
Which book?

LEE RELOADING HANDBOOK. FIRST EDITION. Paperback – 1960

A link would have been nice or at least a title? Yes, I guess you are the only one who read the book. I am sure many of us have read other similar books.Incidentally the Second Edition of Lee's reloading manual is out and available.

Lee Precision Modern Reloading 2nd Edition New Format The second edition of Lee's book was not written by Lee.



I remember reading the anecdote in question so here is your answer. Richard Lee did in fact write the book and he was referring to Dean Grenell, who would use the dippers to figure out a good load, then go home and measure that load to share with his readers.

Wat_Tyler, thank you, nice to read a response from someone that is not angry.

R. Lee said he developed loads with dippers but his customer wanted the data to be listed in grains. It was nothing to do but weigh the dipper loads in grains.
He developed the loads in starting and maximum with his scientifically designed dippers.

F. Guffey