Serious error in Quick Load?

[HoustonBob]

I would like for one of the people who also has a copy of Quick Load (I have version 3.9) to try this load and see if you get the same results I did.

Cartridge: 300 Win Mag (Sammi)
Bullet: Hornady 110 grain Vmax (308)

Cartridge Over all length 3.300"

Powder Varget

Amount 73.0 grains.

Barrel length 26"

My version of the program says this produces a pressure of 57185 psi and a velocity of 3644 fps.

Unfortunately this is not even vaguely close to what happens in the real world.

When I put the round on my chrono it gave an average velocity of 3860 fps (10 rounds). I got one mildly "sticky bolt" in the 10 shot string. Looking at the latest Hornady book - 73 grains of Varget is way over the maximum load of 69 grains - which is rated at 3800 fps out of a 25" barrel. The rest of the powder loads from my copy of Quick Load are similarly at variance with the Hornady loads for this bullet.

I feel lucky I got nothing more serious than a slightly raised rim on the impression of the firing pin on the primer on one cartridge - causing the sticky bolt.

Can anyone confirm my program's output?

[olddav]

Quick load is a tool and is not to be used as a substitute for a reloading manual. Don't take anything that comes from the program as fact, it is only a tool/guide.

[disseminator]

Are you using the default value for case volume? Because if you are using brass with a different case volume than what is indicated by QL, your pressures and velocities will be off as you have noted.

You shouldn't just work up a load in QL and then go shoot it without cross referencing some other load data and starting lower and working up.

As mentioned, QL is NOT a replacement for good load data.

Even if you did use the correct volume in QL, you will likely still see variance from what QL is indicating as it is just doing math and cannot account for altitude, humidity, temperature*, different primers, etc.

*does have some ability for temp but is using 70 as a default I believe.

[HoustonBob]

Thanks guys - I know all of the things that you have said. However I specifically asked if other people get the same bogus result that I got. I want to make sure that my computer isn't throwing errors.

I thought I had checked the load against the Hornady manual - however I have mild dyslexia, and sometimes what I think I see is not in fact there.

[HoustonBob]

Are you using the default value for case volume? Because if you are using brass with a different case volume than what is indicated by QL, your pressures and velocities will be off as you have noted.

I was using Hornady brass - which I put through a full sizing die. That should be very close to the SAMMI spec and has been pretty close to the Quick Load projections on heavier bullets. I would think to produce the velocities that I saw, the cases would have to be seriously under sized. In any case the real world velocities are in line with the Hornady manual.

All of my copy of Quick Load's indications with the 110 grain Vmax and a variety of powders are in wide conflict with the Hornady manual.

Once again I'm looking to see if it is just my copy - or do others get the same result I got from the PROGRAM.

As a computer design engineer with 40 years experience in the field I am well aware of the ways that computer simulations can go wrong.

If others get the same result I got then we need to inform the author of the program - so that he can trace down the error. If not I need to trace down what is causing the software to issue false projections at my end, and correct my errors.

[mehavey]

NOTE THE QUICKLOAD 300WinMag Case Designations:
Max Capacity Overflow in grains
[@] stands for the saami spec 91.5
[F] Federal 92.0
[N] Norma 95.5
[R] Remington 88.0
[W] Winchester 93.8

Unless you actually measured the water capacity in the fired* Hornady brass, let me show you the QL variation:

In Norma (Largest Cap): 53,256psi/3,568fps
In Remington (smallest): 62,859psi/3,723fps

Let me also show you what happens when individual "tight" barrels affect rate rate:

Rem Brass/Std Ba = 0.6150 --> 62,859psi/3,723fps
Rem Brass/+5%Ba= 0.6407 --> 67,106psi/3,785fps
Rem Brass/+10%Ba= 0.6712 --> 72,139psii/3,846fps

I fly QuickLoad "blind" quite often when absolutely no manual data is available.
- BUT - I pick a load combo 10% below Max , then adjust (fired) case volume/(effective) burn rate (off the chrono) before proceeding further

[T. O'Heir]

73.0 grains of Varget is .5 over the current max (72.5 at 3,660 fps out of a 24" barrel) according to Hodgdon's site. Variation is manuals is normal.
QuickLoad is a computer program written by some programmer who very likely has never seen a real firearm. It is not, under any circumstances, a substitute for a proper manual. Far too many variables for any program.

[mehavey]

QuickLoad is a computer program written by some programmer who very likely has never seen a real firearm

Before anyone else ever says or repeats that again, they might want to refer to the facts that just about any Google search will produce.

One might also listen to people who actually use, and understand QuickLoad:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...24&postcount=1

QuickLoad is not just one of the better reloading software packages.
It is the best of anything you can find anywhere.
Prepare to get educated in areas you never considered before.
Key word is educated.

That said, it does have limitations -- which its author Helmut Brömel
is very honest about -- but which in no way detract from its usefulness,
particularly when looking at comparative results across multiple combinations
& permutations of bullets, seating depths, ballistic shapes, case volumes,
powder types, etc etc.

And like any powertool, it is not idiot-proof. It helps to read the instructions
before turning it on and expecting push-button perfection.

Again, look at Post#6

[HoustonBob]

Hi - would one of you people - after you are through lecturing me about how I am an idiot who doesn't know what the bleep he is doing - please spend two minutes and do what I asked in the original post and verify or not that your copy of Quick Load produces the same results as mine?

The question I am asking is like somebody in a phone conversation asking "Is my house on fire?" and having the person on the other end of the conversation - who can see the house in question - give him a lecture on fire safety - all while refusing to tell him whether or not his house is on fire.

Everything you folks have said is absolutely fascinating - but please answer my question - which for some reason none of you seem to want to do.

A little information about me might be useful:

I am a Vietnam Vet.

When I started designing computers in the 1970's there were only about 50 of us in the world who could design a computer. The reason for that is at that time there were no computer simulation programs available nor was anything at a basic a level of test equipment such as a logic analyzer available. Anyone who could design a computer had to be able to simulate and trouble shoot the operation of the whole machine in his head. That is a very rare talent - which is why there were so few of us who could design the machines. Today there are simulation programs and useful test equipment available so I would expect anyone with a PhD in electrical engineering - with a minor in computer science to be able to design a computer.

My computer designs held the microcomputer world speed records from 1978 through 1985. I also designed Microsoft's first multi user computer. Bill Gates told me he was very happy with the machine.

In the early 1990's - while working in industry as a design engineer - I had a second job as a bouncer at the topless bar where Anna Nicole Smith worked before she became famous.

I have won a few state and a national title in a minor Olympic sport.

I hold 7th Degree Black Belts in Judo and Aikido.

I spent the last ten years of my working career designing custom computerized test equipment for NASA's premier test laboratory. The level of complexity in Quick Load is something I am very used to dealing with.

I am currently trying to develop software to simulate actual barrel harmonics so as to predict how accurate a given load will be. This is an extension of what Chris Long did with his optimal barrel time theory - but much more complete, and I am trying to use Quick Load as part of that process - in much the same way he did.

That is why I need my question answered.

[mehavey]

With your exact data: 57,085psi/3,641fps (close enuf to your results to be the same).

The point in Post #6 above, is that it's all about the going-in assumptions.
Have you measured the actual water volume of a fired case? .... and we'll start from there.



BTW: Pressure generally goes as V-cubed.
So w/ your data again: (3860/3644)^3*57185 = 68,000psi
Note again: Rem Brass/+5%Ba= 0.6407 --> 67,106psi/3,785fps
Ya gotta look at the results and adjust the input.

[HoustonBob]

With your exact data: 57,085psi/3,641fps (close enuf to your results to be the same).

The point in Post #6 above, is that it's all about the going-in assumptions.
Have you measured the actual water volume of a fired case? .... and we'll start from there.



BTW: Pressure generally goes as V-cubed.
So w/ your data again: (3860/3644)^3*57185 = 68,000psi
Note again: Rem Brass/+5%Ba= 0.6407 --> 67,106psi/3,785fps
Ya gotta look at the results and adjust the input.

Thanks for answering my question, I really appreciate it.

No - I haven't measured what the volume of my cleaned, resized and reprimed brass is. However other people have measured Hornady brass in the past and found it was as close to the Sammi specs as just about anything out there.

In my other load use - Quick Load has been quite close to my actual results - so I have no reason to believe that the Hornady brass was substantially off the Sammi spec.

The conflict that concerned me the most was the conflict between Quick Loads' data and the Hornady load data (which also used Hornady brass) and not so much as the difference between my actual load and what Quick Load predicted.

The last part of your post is really good info. Thank you so much.

[mehavey]

If you want some real fun, look at 2003/6th ed Hornady manual:

25" barrel
110gr VMax
Hornady Case
3.3" OAL
VARGET/69.0 MAX
Velocity + 3,700fps

and you can see why even looking at Manuals as the sole reference is also flying blind
(except you think you've got a firm grip on the horizon)


- Coupla' manuals
- QuickLoad
- Chronograph
- Measured case volume/bullet length
......and some vewy vewy careful wet thumb work...

... is your safest bet

.

[Stats Shooter]

I load extensively for the .300 wm, as many folks on this forum can confirm. I also use Quickload. I have found it to be spot on or within about 20 fps most of the time. I have 3 different .300wm's I load for.

A couple of pointers for getting things in the program right for the .300wm.
First, as others have mentioned, make sure you have the correct case-water volume. I use both Norma (95.5 gr water) and Winchester (93.8)... Remington is down around 88 or so. My load in Norma brass would be wayyy over pressure in Remington.

2: Use 0.39 weight factor for the .300wm. I think the default is 0.5. This will make several thousand psi difference.

3. Make sure you have your trim length put in, that can make a couple thousand psi difference.

4: allow some variation for powder lot.

My guess is that getting the correct case-water volume, and weighting factor will get you much closer to what you see in velocity.

If you already knew all of this and did it, then disregard.i have tried every other brass in .300 wm except hornady and RWS so I don't know their approximate volumes. But the .300 wm is one of the few cartridges with extreme differences between brass brands.


Hope that helps

[disseminator]

Hi - would one of you people - after you are through lecturing me about how I am an idiot who doesn't know what the bleep he is doing - please spend two minutes and do what I asked in the original post and verify or not that your copy of Quick Load produces the same results as mine?

If you had read the manual for QL, you would understand why the question of case volume is so essential. I would have gladly answered your question if you had answered mine: "are you using the default value for case capacity?"

It has been shown here by multiple posters how important this is. You are asking about a difference between the projected velocities and pressures and what your measuring on the chronograph and then lecture us about how smart you are without listening to anything we have said.

You should measure the volume of your brass AFTER it has been fired and PRIOR to resizing. this will give the value you need to accurately predict pressures in that particular rifle.

A SAAMI spec is worthless is this context unless it has been DEMONSTRATED that your brass, fired in your gun, matches it exactly.

Good luck with your project.

[Stats Shooter]

FIFW,

At SAAMI case capacity, 0.39 weight factor, trimmed 2.620, COAL 3.300 and 73 gr Varget. 26" barrel.

I get 3699 fps. To get the velocity you saw, holding all else constant, I get 76.5 gr Varget =3859 fps= 62772 psi.

Hornady brass in other cartridges I have tried has shown it to be soft, so since you are near max, if it is a bit soft, a sticky bolt isn't surprising.

As far as Quickload being off, I would be more inclined to believe you have a hotter lot of powder. 76.5 is about 3.4% more than 73...I have personally witnessed powder lots vary by as much as 3-5% . When that happens I adjust the powder up to get the velocity I am seeing to get a pressure estimate.

The lot variation issue is why I began buying powder in bulk...I got sick of needing to rework my loads all the time

[std7mag]

Quick Load is a good guide. Not the diffinitive.

I don't use it at all when loading for my 7mm-08AI.

And after ordering my barrel from E.R.Shaw in 284Win, I'm finding that the pressure spec is 63,000 psi. For some reason CIP lists this pressure, where the original SAAMI pressure is 56,000.

[mehavey]

Would you believe.... 56,000 CUP ?
(QuickLoad says 60.2Kpsi)

Actually, it's more like 52KCUP for the 7mm-08
('don't know why the AI would be different)

See SAAMI page 13 for CUP, and 61Kpsi/page 18.

[std7mag]

Mehavey,

Like others have said, the volume is way off for my AI.

Highest loading I've seen from Hodgdon's 52,300 CUP for the 284 Win.

[HoustonBob]

I suspect there is a generic error involving Hornady's Vmax bullets. I got a similar disagreement with the Hornady manual when I tried the software on a 40 grain Vmax in .223 Remington.

When I get back from the range I'll try other calibers with Vmax.

[HoustonBob]

If you had read the manual for QL, you would understand why the question of case volume is so essential. I would have gladly answered your question if you had answered mine: "are you using the default value for case capacity?"

I just measured a cleaned resized case trimmed to 2.620" with a new Winchester large rifle magnum primer full of distilled water - it held 91.3 grains of H20.

By the way, you are assuming I was concerned more with what my actual load produced in my rifle. I was far more concerned with the difference of the projected load by QL and the Hornady load data.

Ok here is what I am talking about:

300 Win Mag 25" barrel length Hornady brass Winchester LRM primer 63.9 Grains of IMR4350 COL = 3.340" 208 Gr ELD-M. Hornady manual says 2700 fps. Quick Load says 2698 fps (by the way - reducing the case volume in Quick Load to my measured 91.3 grains of H20 gives a velocity 2707 fps -not enough difference to worry about.)

So we see a great agreement between QL and Hornady.

However when we look at 110 grain bullets QL and Hornady disagree by quite a bit:

Hornady: 25" barrel Hornady brass Winchester WLRM primer 110 VMAX 69.0 grains of Varget COL 3.300" 3700 fps. Max Load for Hornady.

Quick Load: 25" barrel SAMMI brass 110 VMAX 69.0 grains of Varget COL = 3.300" : 3431 fps (with my measured case volume of 91.3 gr H20 3444 fps) Quick Load graph - barely over the bottom of the "yellow" area pressure wise.

Difference in projection 3700 fps - 3444 fps = 256 fps difference. Plus real world Max Load vs bare minimum "yellow" load indicated in Quick load pressure of 49430 psi.

It gets worse with other 110 grain bullets

110 gr spire point velocity (my 91.3 gr H20 specs) 3700 Hornady -3407 QL = 293 fps difference.

110 round nose 3.125" COL (my 91.3 gr H20 specs) 3700 Hornady - 3405 QL = 295 fps difference.

I think those discrepancies with these bullets are significant.

[Stats Shooter]

Have you tried a load workup to see what the actual results are? If not, maybe Hornady is wrong.

[disseminator]

I just measured a cleaned resized case trimmed to 2.620" with a new Winchester large rifle magnum primer full of distilled water - it held 91.3 grains of H20.

By the way, you are assuming I was concerned more with what my actual load produced in my rifle. I was far more concerned with the difference of the projected load by QL and the Hornady load data.

So, the reason behind measuring the FIRED brass capacity is that is what is important in YOUR rifle. You are never going to be able to replicate the Hornady loads from the manual 100% UNLESS you have the exact same lot of brass, powder, primers, bullets, and importantly the same gun that Hornady used to work up the data. And by that I mean literally THE gun Hornady used.

Why? Your logic that the same pressure will result from two different chambers is the thing. I have one rifle that has a tight chamber and the body of it's brass hardly grows at all when I shoot it. Then I have another rifle that the case volume is increased by 6 full grains of powder from a "cleaned resized case"

If you factor powder lot variations etc you can see why they do not match up exactly.

So if you have a large chamber in YOUR rifle that results in a 5 or 6 grain increase when fired, your pressure will be less than if the chamber were holding the brass to 91.3 grains.

[higgite]

Originally Posted by HoustonBob

I just measured a cleaned resized case trimmed to 2.620" with a new Winchester large rifle magnum primer full of distilled water - it held 91.3 grains of H20.
.
.
Hornady: 25" barrel Hornady brass Winchester WLRM primer 110 VMAX 69.0 grains of Varget COL 3.300" 3700 fps. Max Load for Hornady.

Curious as to why you use the resized case volume while the QL manual says to use fired case volume, not resized, for cartridges with peak pressures over 30,000 psi.

[Stats Shooter]

Why? Your logic that the same pressure will result from two different chambers is the thing. I have one rifle that has a tight chamber and the body of it's brass hardly grows at all when I shoot it. Then I have another rifle that the case volume is increased by 6 full grains of powder from a "cleaned resized case"

Dessiminator's point here is amplified in the .300wm. The .300wm is unique in how much a factory, unfired, case grows in the first firing. Using my case gauge, I measure Norma Brass from casehead to datum to be 2.55". Upon firing, that same measurement is 2.700-2.7005". So almost 0.15" growth, and that's in my tight chambered competition gun. In some rifles with different brands of brass, when headspaced off the belt as factory new, the may grow up to 0.20" from casehead to Datum....Most other cartridges do not grow nearly that much, and Also, for that reason, it is critical to headspace a .300wm load off the shoulder or else you risk casehead separation after just 1 load. the difference between a "go" gauge and field gauge in the .300wm is 0.007".

Also, my competition load pushes as 225 gr bullet 2905 fps at approximately 59k psi in my .300wm. If I were to use Remington brass, I would be over 75k psi and over 3100 fps.

Also, as I mentioned above, testing over a chronograph would be useful in determining who is closer to your velocities. However I am betting it is Quickload. I have hornady manuals, Lyman, Sierra, nosler, Speer, Barnes, and use Hodgdon's website. I have found Lyman to be the closest to what I am able to achieve, but not as close as Quickload who is usually within 1% or less.

[HoustonBob]

Also, as I mentioned above, testing over a chronograph would be useful in determining who is closer to your velocities. However I am betting it is Quickload. I have hornady manuals, Lyman, Sierra, nosler, Speer, Barnes, and use Hodgdon's website. I have found Lyman to be the closest to what I am able to achieve, but not as close as Quickload who is usually within 1% or less.

I have chronographed my loads with heavy bullets on my Remington 700 Long Range (26" Barrel) they are very close to both Quickload and the Hornady manual - both of which pretty much agree. What started this whole thread was when I used a Chronograph on my load with 110 grain bullets (I was looking for an accuracy node that my alpha level resonance software predicted would exist) and the chronographed results were in line with the Hornady manual (25" barrel) and not close to the Quickload data. That is why I think Hornady is correct and Quickload is throwing spurious results with 110 grain bullets.

It is difficult for me to see why heavy bullets give chronograph readings in line with both Hornady and Quickload, then give readings in line with Hornady with 110 grain bullets - but not in line with Quickload - and somehow the problem lies with my rifle and Hornady, and not with Quickload.