Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ammunition & Reloading' started by Smiddy, Oct 3, 2013.
GR(.0648)=G Its not a complicated formula. If your going the other way its G(15.432)=GR
Grains to grams? They have conversion tables/convertors for all units of measure.
Did you blow something up?
Were you drunk or high or a combination of both while posting this thread?
:laugh: I dont think I was drunk at the time. I want to buy a scale that measures milligrams. I looked on a couple forums to find a inexpensive scale that can accurately measure at this level. You know, some good old internet feedback. I just found a bunch of posts imploring OPs to buy scales that weigh in grains. Fears of getting the formula's wrong, etc. Original threads weren't from this forum, but I wanted to make a rant on my favorite forum. If there were multiple steps to some crazy formula I would understand the hesitation but I think this is pretty straight forward.
42grain load x .0648 = 2.722 grams to the milligram.
42.5 grain x .0648 = 2.754 grams to the milligram.
Lol. I just laugh every time I think of this thread. The thread title is just a decimal number and then a 2 line formula in the message body. It just makes me laugh a little. I understand the logic behind the post, but it was so vague that it didn't make its existence seems productive. Hahah. I'd change the thread title to something like "unit conversion formula" or something.
Yes. Twas a little vague.
Go grains whatever you do.
A scale that reads in grams as well as grains is useful if you keep track of the density of your powder from lot to lot--doing the math is a LOT easier in metric--something perhaps less necessary these days, but I still do it.
Almost any available reloading scale is good enough. If you want better than +/- 0.1gn (I hate "gr" for grains as I tend to read it as grams, whereas "gn" is clearer to me), than you need to go to an analytical balance that probably only reads grams.
See Mettler and Sartorius.
See the Hubble telescope.. for a while there, it could hardly see.
When it was not seeing as some folks thought it should---they spent a lot more tax payer's money to "fix" it. Since there was no other hubble bubble to compare with, how do we know what it is "seeing" now is correct? What that has to do with being over picky about powder charges I could not say..............
Maybe this thread should have been titled 4:20
Actually, the Hubble could see quite well, just not as well as it was designed. Insert a contact lens and bingo--sharp images into deepest space.
a pint is a pound the world round
but how much is a hogs head?
63 gallons or 504 pints