Grains or grams?

[Tim N]

What do you use?
Someone stated they use grams not grains as they loose resolution.
1gn = 0.064g
You might get 1 more decimal place with grams but is there much difference?
My small brain prefers grains as that's what most of us talk in.

[RAVEN]

Hi Tim (champ)
I'm no expert but one would think if a grain weight was selected and lost resolution why wouldn't it do the same with grams?
what you’re looking for is repeatability
weight measuring precision isn't important as SD of measurement.
RB

[BRETT B]

Hey Tim , The A&D will weigh to .02 of a grain which is 1 kernal of 2209 !! enough said !!

[BATattack]

From whay ive seen 1 kernal of 2209 is worth about 1fps in a SAUM. Is it worth trying to weigh to a fraction of a fps?

[Tim N]

I’m more than happy with using grains as the measure, as you say the A&Ds are accurate to the kernel!
Which is probably more accurate than needed

my question was more for the benefit of someone who may think there’s more accuracy in grams to 3 decimal points rather than grains to 2 decimal points.

[Steve N]

I reckon keep it simple when weighing powder and stick to grains even if to just prevent mistakes. I'd rather rely on my scales than my maths.

[Brad Y]

If you told them to use kilograms then they will be working with more decimals

[bsouthernau]

I’m more than happy with using grains as the measure, as you say the A&Ds are accurate to the kernel!
Which is probably more accurate than needed

my question was more for the benefit of someone who may think there’s more accuracy in grams to 3 decimal points rather than grains to 2 decimal points.

My observation is that a granule of 2209 averages out at a bit more than .02gr so it's not only more accurate than NEEDED, it's got more accuracy than you can USE.

As for your original Dorothy Dix question - what's in a name? Whether you call it 1mg or .02gr it's still the same amount of stuff.

[basil]

Resolution, nothing to do with decimal places.

[Normmatzen]

I use an old Ohaus TS200 for loading both my 6BRX and 284 WIN, as well as a couple other odd rifles.
I can switch between grains and grams (mg) and when in Grams, the resolution is essentially truncated to +/- 0.02 grains on the grain scale and +/- 1mg on the gram scale. 1mg is 0.01543 grains. So, depending on the weight of one granule of powder, I switch back and forth depending on how much overshoot I get when trickling. I seem to have an easier time holding 1 granule with RL-16 on the gram scale and with Varget on the grain scale.

[Bigtravoz]

Hmm 15 point something grains to a gram, makes 0.1 grain far more accurate a measure than 0.1 grams in my book. Anyone measuring powder in grams is not safe to load ammunition and therefore unsafe to shoot near.

[sungazer]

But what if your scales will show 0.001 grams but only 0.02 grns. Now what do you think? There is actually a bit more to it than that with electronic scales and there are other specifications that need to be looked at as well as just the resolution. Mainly to see if the resolution is a good guide of accuracy.

[RDavies]

Hmm 15 point something grains to a gram, makes 0.1 grain far more accurate a measure than 0.1 grams in my book. Anyone measuring powder in grams is not safe to load ammunition and therefore unsafe to shoot near.

Better not shoot near me then as the scale I use for long range loads only reads in grams.

[bainp]

SOOO, that's your secret Rod.
Cheers - Philip

[lonerider43]

i use digital scales in gr.
1 kernel of 2208 [depending on the size of said kernel ] is the difference between 45.80 and 45.82.
not worth pissin about with.