Titan Grinder Project: Can it Beat the Mazzer Robur? - Page 3

[another_jim]

Tale of the Tape

The Rancilio Rocky is the most popular semi-commercial grinder among espresso enthusiasts by a long way; and it is easy to see why. It is internally identical to the commercial MD40 model, it feels very solid, and runs fast and quiet. All this for a price about $100 less than any small commercial grinder. I received the doserless model from Jeff Sawdy to try out, and even in this configuration, it runs quickly enough, around 1 second per gram, not to strain ones patience when doing a double shot. Finally, it has very little of the dreaded "doserless clumpfest." The grinds are about as usable as those from doser flat burr models.

However, this grinder has a small burr size, 50mm, and shorter grind path, 6.6mm, than even the Mini's 7.1mm. The burr size, and especially the length of the grind path, have been good predictors of how well a grinder will do against the Robur; so the short one makes it a distinct underdog.


The Fight

In the first two rounds, at 16.5 gram doses, the Rocky produced what I think of as over-dosed and under-extracted flavors, rough, not sweet enough, not creamy enough. In addition, there was a lingering bitterness in the aftertaste. The shots weren't horrible, or even bad; I had tried some on their own prior to testing, and thought them average. But compared to the Robur's, they came up very far short. The Rocky had better crema on the second round, but was still 12 points back after two rounds.

In the third round, at 13.5 grams, I got a surprise when I flipped over the IDs: the Rocky produced the creamier, more rounded shot. It was hard to decide whether it was a difference in taste or mouthfeel, so I scored it a half point each. The Rocky takes back 4 points going into the final round. Will it rival its namesake?

In the final round, also at 13.5 grams, one shot was massively seductive, a lot creamier and sweeter than the other, winning the round by a whopping 8 points. When I flipped over the IDs, it turned out to be the Rocky. I was shocked, but after the 3rd round, not all that surprised. So in true movie fashion, the Rocky comes in dead even, getting knocked out in the first two rounds, and delivering knock outs in the second two.

The Rocky has been in several grinder comparisons, and has always lost against the Mini and the Innova/Lux style conical grinders. This is not surprising, since the testers were making 17 to 18 gram doubles, and the Rocky pretty well sucks at that dose, the worst of all grinders tested. The big news for Rocky owners is that it is an absolutely terrific low dose grinder, the best of the group tested so far. So if you own one, get yourself used to making 12 to 14 grams shots. For prospective buyers, it's harder to give advice. Most Silvia/Rocky buyers seem to be looking for Vivace like shots; and this setup isn't even going to get into the same zip code, never mind close. But the Italian sized doubles from this combo were, quite simply, great.

BTW, these shots were made at a setting 1 click above the burr-touching zero point.

Detailed Scores

Table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grinder  Dose  Shot ExtG  ExtR  CPer  CApp  Flav  Body   Swee  Acid  Bitr  Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky    16.5  1.1   21.4 22.6    0     0    -1    -0.5   -1     0     2    -6
Rocky    16.5  1.1   22.6 22.0    1     1    -1    -0.5   -1.5   0     2    -6
Rocky    13.5  1.1   23.6 25.1    0     0     0.5   0.5    0.5   0     0     4
Rocky    13.5  1.1   22.1 23.6    1    -1     1.5   0.5    2     0     0     8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:
Shot: 0 is tight, 1 is good, 2 is loose, first figure is the test grinder, second the Robur. All shots run to 50mL with crema. If the time difference is more than 6 seconds, the test is redone. Tight/Loose mean differences of 4 to 5 seconds.
ExtG, ExtR: Percentage solubles extracted, G is the test grinder, R the robur
CPer, CApp: Crema persistence and appearance. Negative scores means the Robur wins, Positive means the Test grinder. These scores are added to the final tally
Flav, Bod: Flavor and Body. These scores are multiplied by four for the final tally.
Swee, Acid, Bitr: Sweetness, Acidity Bitterness: organoleptic categories NOT added to the score.
Total: The total score, CPer + CApp + 4*Flav + 4*Body


Running Score Sheet

Table:

Grinder          Score       Rounds Won-Tied-Lost
-------------------------------------------------
Nemox Lux         -7              1-0-3
Mazzer Mini      -15              0-0-4
Versalab M3      -10.5            2-0-2     
Macap MXK         +3              2-0-2
Macap M7K         -3              1-1-2
Fiorenzato Doge   -0.5            1-1-2
Compak WBC        +1              1-1-2
Cimbali Max       +4              2-0-2
Pede Manual      -13              0-0-4
Mazzer Jolly      -1.5            2-0-2
Rancilo Rocky      0              2-0-2

(Edited) Tomorrow, blind taste testing with Marc Klein

[jesawdy]

So in true movie fashion, the Rocky comes in dead even, getting knocked out in the first two rounds, and delivering knock outs in the second two.

Well, that was a surprise! Just FYI, the burrs are brand new, I only ran about 1/3 pound of Paradise Roasters S.O. India Sitara through them before Rocky went to Chicago. I was at a very fine grind setting as well, but I had attributed that to the robusta.

[Fullsack]

The Fight

In the actual contest with my test blend, which is less bright and heavier bodied, the difference wasn't as marked. The Pede did lose every round on flavor, but it wasn't a blow out except the 3rd, where it lost by 1.5 points. The others were all close 1/2 point rounds. The final score was all rounds to the Robur, with 13 points total.

I'm not sure this was a fair fight. I own several hand grinders, mostly Zass. Some of these grinders can run circles around my Mazzer Mini and some of them can't hold a candle to it.

To make this fair, several different hand grinders need to be in the test.

[k7qz]

Hey Jim:

I've been playing with Major vs. Kony here in my kitchen to try and taste for myself how a monster flat burr stacks up against Robur's little brother. I wonder how the Major would fare against your Robur in this series. Any chance you could drum up a Major there in Chicago land to run in the 'Beat the Robur' sweepstakes?

[another_jim]

Hey Jim:

I've been playing with Major vs. Kony here in my kitchen to try and taste for myself how a monster flat burr stacks up against Robur's little brother. I wonder how the Major would fare against your Robur in this series. Any chance you could drum up a Major there in Chicago land to run in the 'Beat the Robur' sweepstakes?

Usual answer: send one, and I'll run it.

[another_jim]

The blind tasting scheduled for today fell through; so without further ado, the final Robur bout:



Tale of the Tape

The Kony is the Robur's little brother; except it's not so little. Although it is a 62mm conical like the Macap MXK, it has a beefier, 500 watt motor and comes in a larger body. It is as large and heavy as other manufacturers' 68mm conicals. However, it isn't nearly as fast; the grind speed is a bit faster than the MXK, but it is far slower than the 68mm conicals, the Jolly or the Max.

Several amateurs have bought the Kony as a grinder at the limit of domestic usability. From these early adopters a curious story has been making the rounds. The Kony is an awesome grinder, 100% crema, totally consistent, but BRIGHT, very very bright. This impression has been shared by the Titan grinder testers. Today is my first day with the Kony, and I've thrown it right into the beat the Robur stakes. Will it get sour-pussed right out of the ring?


The Fight

The first two rounds, at 16.5 grams, confirmed all the stories about the Kony. The crema had a consistent edge over the already excellent Robur, coming out a hint redder, a hint more flecked, and a hint deeper. It did this like clock work, in all four rounds. At 16.5, the Kony was more acidic. It was also less sweet than the Robur. I gave it a half point edge, because the acidity was pleasant, and the flavors and aromas more detailed.

The story changes in the second two, 13.5 gram rounds, where the Kony tasted flat, both less sweet and less acidic than the Robur. Because of the edge in crema appearance, the Kony drew the Robur both in rounds and points despite getting an overall lower taste score.

My early conclusion is that the Kony may be workable by dose for acidity, with down dosed shots being less acidic. However, the grinder may have a dryness problem. I found the consistently slightly less sweet shots puzzling.

It should be noticed that this is not a bad grinder; in fact it is a very good one indeed. But people expecting the profile they got from the Robur or the 68mm conical at their local cafe or roasterie lab will be disappointed.

Detailed Scores

Table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grinder  Dose  Shot ExtG  ExtR  CPer  CApp  Flav  Body   Swee  Acid  Bitr  Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kony     16.5  1.1   20.2 21.4    0     1     0.5   0     -1     1     0     3
Kony     16.5  1.1   22.0 22.0    0     1     0.5   0     -1     1     0     3
Kony     13.5  1.1   20.6 20.6    0     1    -1     0     -1    -1     0    -3
Kony     13.5  1.1   19.8 21.3    0     1    -1     0     -1    -1     0    -3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:
Shot: 0 is tight, 1 is good, 2 is loose, first figure is the test grinder, second the Robur. All shots run to 50mL with crema. If the time difference is more than 6 seconds, the test is redone. Tight/Loose mean differences of 4 to 5 seconds.
ExtG, ExtR: Percentage solubles extracted, G is the test grinder, R the robur
CPer, CApp: Crema persistence and appearance. Negative scores means the Robur wins, Positive means the Test grinder. These scores are added to the final tally
Flav, Bod: Flavor and Body. These scores are multiplied by four for the final tally.
Swee, Acid, Bitr: Sweetness, Acidity Bitterness: organoleptic categories NOT added to the score.
Total: The total score, CPer + CApp + 4*Flav + 4*Body

Running Score Sheet

Table:

Grinder          Score       Rounds Won-Tied-Lost
-------------------------------------------------
Nemox Lux         -7              1-0-3
Mazzer Mini      -15              0-0-4
Versalab M3      -10.5            2-0-2     
Macap MXK         +3              2-0-2
Macap M7K         -3              1-1-2
Fiorenzato Doge   -0.5            1-1-2
Compak WBC        +1              1-1-2
Cimbali Max       +4              2-0-2
Pede Manual      -13              0-0-4
Mazzer Jolly      -1.5            2-0-2
Rancilo Rocky      0              2-0-2
Mazzer Kony        0              2-0-2

[julioale]

Wow, Robur and Rocky with the same score, I can't believe it.

[another_jim]

Wow, Robur and Rocky with the same score, I can't believe it.

Nor can I. But that's why they actually play the games -- long shots occasionally do win.

[A2chromepeacock]

So if you own one, get yourself used to making 12 to 14 grams shots.

yeee-hah! it's a good day for pavoni owners, what with our (ahem) small baskets!

derek

p.s. thanks for curing (well, maybe delaying) my upgrade-itis to the mini...

[peacecup]

Referring to test of the PeDe hand grinder, Fullsack wrote:

I'm not sure this was a fair fight. I own several hand grinders, mostly Zass. Some of these grinders can run circles around my Mazzer Mini and some of them can't hold a candle to it.

To make this fair, several different hand grinders need to be in the test.

I purposely sent Jim a well-used grinder, to be sure that it would represent one that someone could get from an Ebay auction for ~$50, and sometimes for less. I bought that particular PeDe 3-4 years ago, and it has seen daily use since. About once a year I disassemble it, brush off the burrs, and grease the one ball bearing. Considering it was probably around 50 years old, I'm willing to concede that it may not quite keep up with the Robur anymore. I've posted some videos of just average shots I've pulled with it and my spring lever machine:

http://www.home-barista.com/forum...r-video-t3687.html

I asked Jim to run these tests because I'm often asked about hand grinders, and I've never used a good electric grinder. I'm now convinced that they represent a great value for someone who wants to brew good espresso, but who does not want to spend $200+ for a good electric grinder. I can assure you that the La Pavoni PA electric burr grinder ($50 new) I had is a POC compared to any reasonable hand grinder.

And, after all, it not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game, right? Hand-grinding coffee is almost as pleasurable as drinking it - maybe Jim needs to add a column or two for aesthetics....

PC

[another_jim]

Beat the Robur: Some Conclusions

• Most importantly, on its own, this is not a thorough test of any of the grinders (except perhaps the Robur itself). It is one small part of the review process.
  
• The overall range of scores is fairly narrow. The way the scoring works, a 4 point difference per round translates to a rating difference of around 5 points out of 100. Basically, all the grinders in this group averaged within a 5 point range. I think this range is pretty close to what buyers of a commercial espresso grinder can expect if they either get one that perfectly suits the coffee and machine, or one that totally misses.
  
• These tests do not reflect user friendliness. Every shot from every grinder was sifted, declumped, weighed, etc, etc, no matter how much trouble that entailed. In the real world, the most consistent, least fuss shots come from grinders producing fluffy, clump free grinds. As a rule, larger burrs do this better than small ones, conicals better than flat, doser grinders better than doserless grinders, and lower rotation ones better than higher rotation ones. The Versalab M3, despite all its faults, is uniquely excellent in having an engineered "fluffer" at the burr exit. This is a design feature that commercial grinder manufacturers and our very own mad geniuses should consider.
  
• Bigger is generally more consistent, and all around better. I have little doubt, after two months with this range of grinders, that if I tested them for several years with lots of coffees and machines, the bigger grinders would end up averaging better than the small ones. However, the tests show that there is enough variability to create horses for courses. For a new combination of coffee, dose, machine, etc, a smart bookie wouldn't be making the big boys heavy favorites or giving out very long odds on the smaller grinders.

[Randy G.]

...The Versalab M3, despite all its faults, is uniquely excellent in having an engineered "fluffer" at the burr exit. This is a design feature that commercial grinder manufacturers and our very own mad geniuses should consider.

This is something that I have been thinking about as well. At first I thought that a device that uses the WDT combined with something that looks like a little flour sifter, but that just deals with a solution to a problem, but eliminating the problem is the goal. Now I am thinking that having slanting blades in the doser instead of vertical, and having a screen (possibly laser cut from sheet stock) over the exit chute through which the grounds are forced and 'sifted' may be an easy solution.
Anyone think the "Mazzer Fluffer" would sell? Let's run it by marketing...

[RapidCoffee]

This is something that I have been thinking about as well. At first I thought that a device that uses the WDT combined with something that looks like a little flour sifter, but that just deals with a solution to a problem, but eliminating the problem is the goal. Now I am thinking that having slanting blades in the doser instead of vertical, and having a screen (possibly laser cut from sheet stock) over the exit chute through which the grounds are forced and 'sifted' may be an easy solution.
Anyone think the "Mazzer Fluffer" would sell? Let's run it by marketing...

I'm not a big fan of dosers, but Dan proposed a flour sifter doser mod last fall. He may have made this post with tongue in cheek, but I thought it was a great idea.

Grinders should have a straight drop to the filter basket (or doser) from the burrs, not a horizontal chute that encourages clumping. IMHO, that is one of the big pluses in the M3's innovative design.

[Ken Fox]

I'm not a big fan of dosers, but Dan proposed a flour sifter doser mod last fall. He may have made this post with tongue in cheek, but I thought it was a great idea.

Grinders should have a straight drop to the filter basket (or doser) from the burrs, not a horizontal chute that encourages clumping. IMHO, that is one of the big pluses in the M3's innovative design.

My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that the issue of grounds clumping and form, is hugely more important when one updoses than when one doses a quantity for which the espresso machines were designed in the first place. By this I mean PF basket doses of 12-15g.

All of the stuff that is used for what I'll term "basket preparation," e.g. distribution, breaking up clumps by whatever means, and tamping, become basically unnecessary fluff in the context of proper dosing.

I have an email from Jim Schulman from 3 or more months ago, in which he said that low basket doses basically will not channel. I didn't believe him at the time, but I sure believe him now.

I have to believe that a whole bunch of techniques would never have been developed in the first place, had we (in N. America, and in the enthusiast community) dosed like the Italians have always dosed. To me, as I have stated in another thread, updosing probably represents a spectacular wrong turn that can be attributed largely to Mr. Schomer and people who follow him.

So, I think that doing something with the dosers may have some merit, but in the context of proper dosing, there is little need for it.

Just think what would have happened in the absence of updosing; there would have been no need for at least half the posts that have ever been made on all the coffee internet venues, and we could have put all that time to much better use

ken

[Randy G.]

...........Just think what would have happened in the absence of updosing; there would have been no need for at least half the posts that have ever been made on all the coffee internet venues, and we could have put all that time to much better use ken

I have been following the 'downdosing' discussions and have been practicing same of late. I need to get one of those .1g digital scales and I am awaiting a new (to me) grinder but my preliminary observations have been promising. Also, the OPV spring on my Vibiemme seems to be one of the wonky ones, and I am awaiting a replacement before getting terribly serious about reporting results. But so far, it is something I plan to stick with- grind finer, thwack frequently, dose lower, tamp softer, drink happy. .. words to live by...

[AndyS]

I have to believe that a whole bunch of techniques would never have been developed in the first place, had we (in N. America, and in the enthusiast community) dosed like the Italians have always dosed. To me, as I have stated in another thread, updosing probably represents a spectacular wrong turn that can be attributed largely to Mr. Schomer and people who follow him.

To my good friend Ken:

ENOUGH ALREADY. It is getting tiresome to read your daily bleating about the evils of updosing.

Every open-minded barista comes to the realization that the size of the dose is one variable that may be used to manipulate the taste of a shot. It is just as valid to updose or downdose as it is to select greens, adjust roast profiles, create new blends, or experiment with extraction temperatures, pressures, baskets and portafilters.

You are no doubt aware that Heather Perry is the reigning US Barista Champion and won the silver medal at the World Barista Championships. She also won the prize for "Best Espresso" at the World Championships. When you buy her WBC blend, the enclosed instructions say "Heather prefers the dose up method with 22-24 grams of coffee."

Are you seriously trying to tell us that Heather doesn't know what she's doing? Do you really believe she updoses because it says in Schomer's book that you're supposed to do it that way? Are you saying that the WBC judges didn't know what great espresso tastes like? Nonsense.

Your comments are a slap in the face to good baristas who sweat the details using their own tastebuds, and who constantly experiment to find what tastes best with their coffee. And you make the mistake of thinking that simply because downdosing makes it easier to pull a nice-looking bottomless extraction, that's all that matters. On the contrary, last time I checked, most of us still prefer to taste the espresso before we make up our mind how good it is.

I have been fortunate to have experienced some spectacular, updosed espresso shots pulled by baristas far more skilled than I. I know you have, too, although in your present giddy state you have probably forgotten. My heart goes out to you in your current state of confusion.

Downdosing is not some miraculous magic that will right all the wrongs in our espresso universe. With certain coffees, certain tastebuds, and perhaps with certain grinders, downdosing is a great technique. But let's not take this technique to ridiculous extremes.

[another_jim]

You are no doubt aware that Heather Perry is the reigning US Barista Champion and won the silver medal at the World Barista Championships. She also won the prize for "Best Espresso" at the World Championships. When you buy her WBC blend, the enclosed instructions say "Heather prefers the dose up method with 22-24 grams of coffee."

I was actually very surprised by this. I got the blend without the instructions (as a donor) and found it bright enough to only dose at 14 grams. It did mellow out while I had it (4 to 10 days after roasting), and I'm sorry to say I didn't revisit the dose, so I don't know if it would have benefited from a higher dose.

Ken is just being his usual forceful self; but he has a point. Espresso machines are designed to make roughly 25 mL singles or 50 mL doubles in roughly 25 to 30 seconds, from 90 to 95 C water at 8 to 10 bar from 6 to 8 or 12 to 16 gram doses. The grinders and machines are engineered to work in this range. These are all variables, and they all have design bounds.

Now, sometimes one can go well outside those bounds and get equally good or even better results. But I'm beginning to find there is a distinction. Shots within these bounds will work passably well on all competently made equipment, because that is where they are designed to work. Going outside these bounds may not work at all. I've been forcefully confronted with this fact several times this year. The first is when I got the Elektra. On it shots degrade when the puck hits the shower screen. If I want to updose, I need to switch to a triple basket. Obviously the LM does not have this characteristic. The second was in this grinder test. The conical grinders are, at least from what I'm seeing, not happy doing long duration ristrettos. I used to have no problem doing 40 second shots from the Mini or M3 and get equal or even improved results; this has not been the case with these conicals.

My point is simple. Each shot making variable has a design range, and a range outside that. If you are starting on a new machine, grinder or coffee, or giving someone advice for equipment you don't know, you can be fairly confident going with around 50mL, 92C, and 9 bar; and work out from there. The design range for dose is 6 to 8, or 12 to 16 grams; so why are we telling people to start out with 18 gram doses? It seems fairly unassailable to me that one should also start out at the design dose of around 14 grams.

[Ken Fox]

ENOUGH ALREADY. It is getting tiresome to read your daily bleating about the evils of updosing.

Every open-minded barista comes to the realization that the size of the dose is one variable that may be used to manipulate the taste of a shot.

(many expletives deleted)

No, it isn't.

If you make a double shot with 24g of coffee, in my opinion it is not an espresso, anymore than those 18% alcohol sweet Zinfandels are a good glass of wine. Maybe you like to have (what amounts to) a glass of port with your meal, but as far as I am concerned the stuff is unbalanced and unsuitable for accompanying a meal.

The same can be said for 22 or 24g shots made by anyone you'd care to name. If something has to assault your senses to get you to notice it, then as far as I am concerned it is overdone and assaultive.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with Aaron De Lazzer in Vancouver, in June. Aaron, former CG columnist and barista trainer and roaster and current "Director of Coffee" for the roasting company Ethical Bean in Vancouver, told me about how he had stopped drinking espressos altogether for two years after finding them simply too much, to assaultive on his person, to be able to tolerate any longer. The reason was the way that we overdo espresso in N. America. I was already primed for this point of view after extensive conversations with Jim Schulman regarding his dosing experimentation.

I also had occasion, today, to order a few parts from our favorite genuine Italian coffee personality,



Angelo Minicozzi, in Los Angeles. He told me how he had given up trying to convince people about proper dosing, but that it was an obvious fact known to any Italian who knew anything about espresso.

So no, my dear friend Andy, I do not accept that there is any good espresso varietal or blend that requires "updosing" to show well, and if it does, it is not a "good" blend or varietal, in my opinion, no matter who pulls the shot or prepares the basket, and I for one do not want to drink it.

Fondly,

ken

[RapidCoffee]

Italian baristi are notorious for breaking the "rules" of espresso technique. Their modus operandi is reportedly to give one or two swipes of the doser, a light upward tamp on the grinder's built-in tamper, and then pull a perfectly acceptable shot. I believe Jim and Ken have explained at least part of this phenomenon: the Italians are using low doses. However, this is not only way, or necessarily the best way, to make espresso.

You are no doubt aware that Heather Perry is the reigning US Barista Champion and won the silver medal at the World Barista Championships. She also won the prize for "Best Espresso" at the World Championships. When you buy her WBC blend, the enclosed instructions say "Heather prefers the dose up method with 22-24 grams of coffee."

I was wondering when someone would point this out. And it's not just Heather, whose updosing borders on the extreme (at least for double baskets). Pure speculation, but I'll hazard a guess that few top-flight baristi dose under 16g, especially in competition. Higher doses are obviously capable of producing true excellence in the cup. On a related note, Italian baristi have not been dominating the WBC. Perhaps downdosing is a good way to ensure decent, but relatively unspectacular, pours.

Every open-minded barista comes to the realization that the size of the dose is one variable that may be used to manipulate the taste of a shot. It is just as valid to updose or downdose as it is to select greens, adjust roast profiles, create new blends, or experiment with extraction temperatures, pressures, baskets and portafilters.

I think this strikes to the heart of the matter. And it's good to see dosing receive more attention. For one of the most critical variables in espresso, it tends to get relatively little airplay.

[jesawdy]

From here, Coffee Klatch has clarfied that the the 22-24g dose is for 2 ounces (~60ml),

I must clarify. We include the detailed instructions but I may need to correct so there is not a misunderstanding. You see, we only use double baskets and portafilters so when I say one ounce I mean one ounce each side. Still a lot of coffee but where we like best (and fortunately the judges). As for 21 days, we have opened bags at three weeks and enjoyed killer espresso, but I would not want to open the day you receive and still be using 21 days later. To clarify, I believe the espresso is best between the 5th and 12th day with the 8th day being what we used for competition and what we recommend in our instructions. Hope this clarifies our instruction sheet, we will correct for future buyers.

mike

While Ken's comments (rants?), may seem tiresome to some, I think he may only be stressing it so much so that people might actually take a moment to try it out. Perhaps Ken wants to be the "low dose" (proper dose?) evangelist.

But, when it comes down to it, we are really splitting hairs here when comparing to the Klatch Blend dose. Ken has said here, that he likes to pull 1.25 - 1.5 ounces (37 - 44 ml). If we assume that Ken is using 14 grams, the equivalent ratio of an "updosed" shot to result in Heather's 2 ounces is 19-23 grams. That not too far from 22-24 grams now is it? Now, 24 grams for a single 1 - 1.25 ounces shot is a different story.

If you can get there with less rigor and machinations at 14g versus 20+g, why not just give it a try?