Dillon Powder Measure Tuning

I love reloading on my Dillon. I usually use it for straight wall pistol ammunition. Once it is set up and dialed I can crank out plenty of 9mm and 45 to feed our shooting habit. My wife even likes the Dillon as it saves money on ammo and she thinks that sound of me reloading on the Dillon and reaching into the brass bucket reminds her of the Pink Floyd song Money.

In the past I have usually reloaded my rifle ammunition on a single stage press. For no particular reason I wanted to reload some rifle rounds on the Dillon. I started with 30-06 as I had the dies and I could use the shellplate, buttons, etc from other rounds that I already reloaded.


I set the Dillon up with the 30-06 dies and filled the powder measure up with some IMR-4895. This load was going to be for the Garand so it will not be too hot. About 45 grains of 4895 behind a 168gr SMK. I was trying to get the powder measure dialed in but I kept on noticing that when I brought the handle up I still had grains of powder dropping out. After about ten repetitions of handle I had a noticeable amount of powder sprinkled around the shellplate and surrounding area.

Long grain extruded powders are known to have a bit of an issue metering through the Dillon but this seemed to be problem to me. I decided to throw about 30 rounds and I would weigh each one on two different scales to see what kind of a shot to shot difference I was getting. I measured each round twice and then added the powder back into the powder measure.

30 measurements everything stock

Min: 44.4
Max 44.9
Range: 0.5
Mean: 44.62
Std Dev: 0.16

I then tried to add a powder baffle from UniqueTek. This baffle is supposed to provide an uniform flow of powder  even as the level of powder in the measure changes. Since I was pouring the powder back in after every measure I did not really test the baffle for what it was designed for.

30 measurements with powder baffle

Min: 44.1
Max 45.4
Range: 1.3
Mean: 44.84
Std Dev: 0.33

That did not work out very well. A 1.3 grain difference and the standard deviation doubled.

I took the baffle out and while I had the powder measure apart I pulled out my dremel and some went to work. I started with a scotch brite pad bit and finished up with a polishing pad and some jewelers rouge.

I polished up the entire funnel, the mouth, and all parts of the powder bar inside and out. I did not remove any metal but I polished it up and made it smooth. You can see the difference between an untouched measure and an "improved" measure.

Now I put it back together without the baffle and measured another 30 rounds. This time I also decided to slow down the stroke I was using. When reloading pistol ammunition you can crank out some rounds but when reloading rifle and using extruded powders you should slow down a bit. I chose a 4 count from the time the powder bar starts to move until the the powder bar stops moving. Four was an arbitrary number but it seemed to be about right and I needed to make each stroke as repeatable as possible. It is not like I just made some numbers up called my self a climate scientist and made a movie about it.

30 measurements with polished funnel and 4 count stroke.

Min: 44.0
Max 44.3
Range: 0.3
Mean: 44.15
Std Dev: 0.08

Now that is what I am talking about! 30 rounds and the largest difference was only 0.3 grains. I think that will be accurate enough for me. I just need to hold the rifle steady now.

Just to ease my curiosity I put the powder baffle back in and tried again.
30 measurements with polished funnel, powder baffle, and 4 count stroke.

Min: 44.3
Max 44.8
Range: 0.5
Mean: 44.595
Std Dev: 0.13

Again the standard deviation increased with the baffle installed. Granted, I did not test with a varying amount of powder in the measure but to have this much of an impact on the measurement at this stage makes me want to leave it out.

So what does all this mean. When reloading bottle neck rifle cases on a Dillon with extruded powders you should polish up your funnel and powder bar and sloooow down with handle especially on the down stroke.

Magic Numbers

If you do not like the numbers make up some new ones.

This article will probably get buried so read it here from the Star Tribune.


WASHINGTON - The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.
Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It's no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.
That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.
The new rules, quietly published last month in a memorandum to federal agencies, mark the White House's latest response to criticism about the way it counts jobs credited to the stimulus. When The Associated Press first reported flaws in the job counts in October, the White House said errors were being corrected and future counts would provide a full and correct accounting of just how many stimulus jobs were saved or created.
Numbers published later identified more than 640,000 jobs linked to stimulus projects around the country. The White House said the public could have confidence in those new numbers, which officials argued proved the administration was on track to keep Obama's promise that the stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year.
But more errors were found, with tens of thousands of problems documented in corrected counts, from the substantive to the clerical. Republicans have used those flaws to attack what so far is the signature domestic policy approved during Obama's presidency.

The new rules are intended to streamline the process, said Tom Gavin, spokesman for the White House's Office of Management and Budget. They came in response to grant recipients who complained the reporting was too complicated, from lawmakers who complained the job counts were inconsistent and from watchdog groups who complained the information was unreliable, Gavin said.
"We're trying to make this as consistent and as uniform as we possibly can," he said.
The new stimulus job reports will continue to offer details about jobs and projects. But they were never expected to be the public accounting of Obama's goal to save or create 3.5 million jobs, Gavin said.
The quarterly job reports posted on the Web site for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board reflect only a fraction of the jobs created under the program and can't account for job creation stemming from other stimulus programs such as tax rebates and other federal aid, the spokesman said.
One scenario could see job counts on some projects decrease from the number that would have been reported under the old rules, if saved full-time jobs are converted into partial jobs under the new reporting rules. But other job counts for projects likely will increase, with recipients now required to add jobs under new rules that previously weren't counted because they were not in jeopardy.
The changes are in line with Government Accountability Office recommendations and "should reduce the debate around these figures," said Elizabeth Oxhorn, a spokeswoman for the White House recovery office.
But the result of the new rules will be that future claims of job creation from the stimulus will be even more misleading, said Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"It is troubling that the administration is changing the rules and further inflating the Recovery Act's impact and masking the failure of the stimulus to produce sustainable economic growth or real job creation," Issa said in a letter sent last week to the government board monitoring stimulus spending.

Recipients of recovery money no longer have to show that a job would have been lost without the stimulus help, and they no longer are required to keep an ongoing tally of jobs saved or created. The new rules allow stimulus recipients to limit the job tally to quarterly reports, making it impossible to avoid double-counting a job that was created in one quarter and continued into the next.
Issa wants the Recovery Board, the government's independent oversight panel, to change how it identifies the count of stimulus jobs and to add a note on its Recovery.gov Web site explaining that there is now a different definition for what constitutes a job under the stimulus.

NC Star Mark III Review

Up for review this month is the NC Star Mark III Tactical Scope. I got this from Midway with a coupon for about $115. I was kind of apprehensive about this purchase as I had read a couple of not so hot reviews and I am usually of the mind that you get what you pay for.

Anyhow this is a 3 to 9 variable power scope with illuminated mildot reticules. It comes with an integrated quick release weaver style mount. My intention was to put this scope one of my flat top ARs.

The package from Midway was packaged adequately as usual and I pulled the scope box out to take a look. The box packaging looked decent and I did not see any damage to the box.

 The end of the box shows the 3-9X with a 42mm objective. the actual model number is STM3942G.

I carefully removed the scope from the box and checked it out. One of the reasons that I picked this one is that it has the built in bullet drop compensator that is calibrated for 223. It is actually calibrated for a 55gr M193 round and I usually shoot 69 or 75 gr. Supposedly you sight it in for 100 yds and then you can adjust the compensator out to 500 yds. I never actually got that far with it.

Some of the negative reviews I read indicated that the mount did not hold onto the rail very well and would come loose. I followed the instructions and mounted mine, then put a drop of loctite on the locking screw.
I do not forsee this thing coming loose and after 200 rds it has not budged at all. Here is a shot if it mounted on my AR.

Here is another shot zoomed out a little bit with the included dust covers on.

Now I have never had a scope with illuminated reticules before so I wanted to try this out. Supposedly the illumination will help in low light situations. However I found that even on the dimmest settings the illumination destroyed my night vision and I could barely see anything well enough to shoot it. Here is a shot from the aft end of the scope at night.
It is a little out of focus but you can get the idea, it is very bright and that is lowest setting.

The view was only a little better with the green light. Again it is a little out of focus but you get the point I hope.








Alright enough of the fancy stuff how well does it shoot? I was not expecting great clarity out of a scope this price but at 100yds and with the scope at maximum magnification 9x, I could make out most ( not all ) of the 22 cal holes. Not that bad I suppose. I went through 200rds of 55gr ball ammo that I got on sale back before the election of 08. Not the most accurate stuff in the world but it puts holes in the paper. As I was shooting something seemed strange and I was not sure what was going on. So I opened up the bipod and set up the bench to make myself  nice and stable. I got the rifle sighted in so that I could put my shots into a group the size of a quarter at 100yds with the scope at  9x.

Then I loaded up the magazine hunkered down and put 6 shots into the center of the target. I then carefully moved the power from 9x to 8x and took 3 more shots. Then moved the power to 7x and took 3 more shots. I continued this at 6x, 5x, 4x, and finally 3x. You can see the results to the right. With each change in power the point of impact changed. After 5x I was no longer even on the paper. At this point I was kind of disgusted and it was starting to get late so I called it a day.


I don't know about you but the point of impact should not be moving when I change the magnification level. I could accept a little bit of a change but to be off the paper is unacceptable. There is supposed to be a lifetime warranty from NCStar on these. At this point I am glad I bought this with my American Express as I can definitely get my money back. I am undecided if I should deal with trying to get warranty replacement or just return it. At this juncture in time I cannot recommend one of these scopes. Let me know what you think in the comments.