QL and Hornady loads

[stagpanther]

Quickload commonly uses Hornady bullets in their cartridge database--but I have found rather frequently that max loads listed in Hornady's reload manual--including ones I've used for years before getting QL--throw over-pressure and "do not use this load!" warnings, typically with excessive compression.

Have others encountered this as well--and if so "which side of caution" do you defer to? It's a hard choice to make since typically going down on the QL load results in a significant loss of performance and a possible compromise while using the load in a hunting situation. Increasingly though, I'm less willing to "push the boat" out there even if I'm seeing no pressure signs in my spent cases.

[T. O'Heir]

"QuickLoad is a computer program written by people who very likely have never seen a real firearm. QuickLoad does not replace a proper manual either.
However, the make of the bullet doesn't matter when you're working up a load. You do not work up the load according to the brand. You work up the load according to the weight of the bullet and cast or jacketed.
This is from accurateshooter.com's article regarding the programme.
WARNING: QuickLOAD is a computer simulation of centerfire cartridge performance. YOU MUST NEVER just “plug in the numbers” and use QuickLOAD’s output for a load recipe. That is foolish and dangerous. There are many reasons why the data QuickLOAD generates may not be safe in YOUR gun. Before loading live ammunition, you should always check with the powder-makers’ most recent load data. In fact, you should check multiple sources if possible, and consult with individuals who actually load for that cartridge. Sierra Bullets offers free load maps which, in general, are fairly conservative. Even when using manufacturers’ load data, start 10% low and work up. Differences in brass, primer brand, and seating depth can make huge differences in pressure. Always reload conservatively and always double- and triple-check QuickLOAD’s output against reliable load data supplied by the powder-makers."

[stagpanther]

I was talking about a "reverse" situation--one in which the published manufacturer's data indicate within SAAMI specs but QL says "way out of bounds." I know eough about normal work-up of loads and even which ones tend to spike a little faster under compression--I'm just trying to see which side of the "conservative" people tend to lean towards.

[Unclenick]

T. O'Hier sometimes makes blanket assertions about things without doing his homework. His assertion about bullet weight being the only factor in load development is out of date. Former Speer employee Allan Jones explains why in this article. He is also off the mark suggesting QuickLOAD was authored by people who've never seen a gun. QuickLOAD has just one author, Hartmut Broemel, who is a highly respected European ballistics authority who writes software for the CIP, among others, and who developed the basic program while working on government 20 mm gun studies. This was in the late 1960's, and as computer technology changed, he updated and circulated a basic version of it among industry insiders exclusively. This went on for a couple of decades before, at the encouragement of those same insiders, he wrote the published version. Dr. Ken Oehler said at the 24 hr Campfire, that Broemel had probably seen more real pressure data than anyone else.

All that said, the warning T. O'Hier copied from Accurate Shooter is the one thing in his post that is completely right. This is for two reasons: First is that the QuickLOAD model uses powder data derived from vivacity bomb testing of purchased samples. Just like load manual authors, unless you work for the powder company itself, you have no way to know whether a particular pound of powder you bought is on the high or low end of the burn rate tolerance range, so you always have the difference between QuickLOAD's test lot and the powder company's lot and your lot to consider. Click on the icon for a table with the + - at the bottom. Scroll down the result to see burn rate variation effects of pressure and velocity.

Second, QuickLOAD has a large number of arguments that may be individually tweaked for each load. It is very easy for an incomplete set of adjustments to these arguments to bring about a wrong result. For example, to err on the side of caution, the cartridge cases in QuickLOAD's database are mostly on the small side of actual case capacity and the chamber dimensions assume minimum headspace. For example, if you load the .223 Remington files, you see a case capacity of 28 grains. There is only one case I've ever seen measure that small. The average is more like 30.5 grains. Or .308 shows 56 grains capacity. Hodgdon develops its data with Winchester .308 brass which has closer to 59 grains water capacity. So if you use those default capacities in the program for those cartridges, results will tend to be high. Indeed, you want to measure the water capacity of your fired cases to get the most accurate reflection of pressure in your own gun.

Provide a specific example, and perhaps we can ferret out the cause of the error.

[stagpanther]

Ah yes--another case of me not seeing the forest through the trees--thanks unclenick (oops)--I forgot about the weighing factor--not to mention not measuring the volume myself. I've checked Hornady's 358 win and 10mm loads and occasionally they go way off the charts towards the upper end weights when I ran them through QL without adjusting the volume factor to known precise measurements.

[mehavey]

UncleNick... you are too kind.

For the record, I would not be without QuickLoad & a chronograph at
this point in my life for all the reloading manuals I own. (and I own
50 years' worth).

It fills in absolutely incredible paint-by-the-numbers gaps in those manuals,
and provides options with those cartridges & components wherein -- for all
intents and purposes -- NO data exists at all.

[cryogenic419]

Quickload can actually be pretty spot on when it comes to velocity so long as you enter in as much info as you can about your actual components and firearm.

[Unclenick]

Federal .308 Winchester 168 grain Gold Medal Match ammunition uses 43.5 grains of special order IMR 4064 under a 168 grain Sierra MatchKing seated to 2.800" COL. They claim 2650 fps from a 24" barrel. Put that load together in QuickLOAD using 57 grains (typical for Federal) case water capacity and change nothing else. Note the predicted velocity.

[stagpanther]

Federal .308 Winchester 168 grain Gold Medal Match ammunition uses 43.5 grains of special order IMR 4064 under a 168 grain Sierra MatchKing seated to 2.800" COL. They claim 2650 fps from a 24" barrel. Put that load together in QuickLOAD using 57 grains (typical for Federal) case water capacity and change nothing else. Note the predicted velocity.

Need bullet length to establish seating depth.

[DaleA]

It fills in absolutely incredible paint-by-the-numbers gaps in those manuals,

I love the phrase 'paint-by-the-numbers' in the above quote. That describes my reloading expertise to a 'T'. I'm going to use that phrase in future. Thanks. (I know this is NOT something to be proud of but it is SO accurate as it applies to me it's priceless.)

[Unclenick]

Stagpanther,

If you have QuickLOAD, length comes up automatically when you select the 168 grain Sierra MatchKing.

If you don't have QuickLOAD and are doing something else, that bullet's length and the lengths of many others are in the Lengths page at the JBM site.

[stagpanther]

Stagpanther,

If you have QuickLOAD, length comes up automatically when you select the 168 grain Sierra MatchKing.

Forgot to load the sierra data ; ) Anyways-- I got very close to Federal's with 2648 fps using maximum case capacity of 57 and 43.5 of IMR 4064 and a barrel length of 24. Did I do something wrong?

[Unclenick]

Nope. That's my result. Just a demo of how accurate QuickLOAD can be if the arguments are set up correctly.