mally use spherical powders which are extremely easy to throw with a measure. I just finished loading some 204 Ruger and 243 Winchester loads, both of which use BL-C(2), a spherical powder. While I use a scale to ensure my powder mea- sure throws correct charges, I certainly don’t weigh each charge. And rest as- sured, when it comes to 223 Remington, the cartridge that I shoot the most, I never scale charges. My first step in charging cases is to
zero the scales. I use an RCBS electronic (digital) scale as well as an old RCBS/ Ohaus 304 scale. After zeroing, I always open my log book and check the load. I know my 220 Swift load by heart: 33 grains of Varget. But I still check my records every single time. Allow me to digress a minute
about digital scales. These days they are all the rage; like automatic trans- missions, many younger readers have never used anything else. But they are not without issue. Anyone who has studied electrical engineering knows the formula E=IR, where voltage is equal to current times resistance. Resistance is a function of temperature. Early on, I noticed my RCBS scale would measure differently after it had been plugged in for 30 minutes and “warmed up.” Today, I leave my scale plugged in all the time. While I scale my powder charges, I
still use a powder measure. My favorite measure is a BR-30 by Redding. I start by adjusting the measure so that it throws a few tenths less than the weight I am scaling. For example, my Swift load is 33.0 grains of Varget. I will adjust my measure until it throws about 32.8 grains; this will vary by +/- .1 grain. I then place the powder on my digital scale and trickle in powder grain by grain until the weight shows 33.0. As I
add powder, I will tap the powder pan slightly. Once it hits 33.0, I gently “lift” the pan so the scale shows less than 33 grains. I wait to see if it returns to 33.0. I then tap it down to see if it comes back to 33.0. If so, I place it on my RCBS 304 scale and verify the weight. It is some- times not exactly the same weight as the digital scale, most especially if the bullet of known weight was off by a tenth of a grain. If the two don’t match, I check the zero and calibration of both scales until they do match. Digital scales are wonderful, but
they are not perfect. My digital scales are over ten years old, so maybe new ones are more reliable, but I suspect many readers out there have digital scales of equal vintage. Here is one ex- ercise you can do with yours: after you zero the scale according to the manufac- turer’s instructions, place a bullet on the pan. Note the weight. Every time you zero the scale, this bullet should weigh the same. So should the powder pan (before you zero out the pan weight). If the bullet or powder pan doesn’t weigh the same every time, then your scale is not measuring correctly. Here is another exercise: tap the
powder in the pan while it is on the scale. Does it return to the previous reading? Do the same thing, only lift up on the pan. It should return to the previous reading. Normally it will, but mine is not always repeatable, and for that reason I frequently cross-check us- ing my 304 scale. In practice, this is not difficult. After scaling the powder on my digital scale, I transfer it over to my 304 beam scale. While that scale settles out, I throw another powder charge and put it on the digital scale, then trickle powder to bring it up to the tar- get weight. Once there, the beam scale
has settled out. Nine times out of ten, it will be right on, so I take the powder off the beam scale and dump it into the next empty case. Normally, I cross check every other charge. Some readers may be rolling their
eyes at this point over my compulsive behavior with respect to scaling powder. While it may be a bit of overkill, it does give me confidence, and confidence is the name of the game. After all cases are full, I empty the
powder measure. I never leave powder in it because I may forget just which powder it is. Bullet seating is next. In my opin-
ion, the most important step in crafting accurate handloads is bullet seating depth. Establishing the optimum over- all seating length is something I have written about before, so I will only touch on it here. The first step is to de- termine the seating length where the bullet engages the rifling; let’s call this the maximum OAL. There are several methods you can use. Hornady offers a tool that allows you to measure the depth directly. I have used a number of other methods. One simple way is to take an empty case and split the neck with a rotary tool such as a Dremel tool. Seat a bullet in this case with your fingers so that the overall length is obviously far longer than normal. Now chamber this dummy cartridge. When the bullet engages the rifling, it will be pushed into the case because of the lighter tension resulting from the verti- cal cut. Now carefully extract the case and measure the overall length. One disadvantage to this method is that the bullet can become “stuck” in the rifling, and when you extract the case, it can be pulled out slightly, which will give you the wrong maximum OAL. “Smoking”
This case annealing kit is sold by Hornady.
Page 178 Spring 2013
The Hornady case annealing kit contains three different cartridge holders that are mounted in a variable speed drill. As the drill rotates the case, the user applies a flame against the neck.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196