Lil'Gun in QuickLOAD ?!

[SL1]

When Lil'Gun first came out, it attacted my attention because Hodgdon's data showed it producing the same or better velocities than H-110 with pressures several thousand psi lower in the .357 Magnum cartridge with Hornady 158 gr XTP JHPs. Also, some gun writers started publishing loads that showed even higher velocities (but no pressure testing).

When I bought QuickLOAD, I tried comparing Lil'Gun with H-110/WW-296, but they look almost the same in the results. Instead of seeing slightly greater charges produce similar velocities at substantially lower pressures, I am seeing about the same velocities and pressures at the same charge weights.

I can get about 40 fps more velocity with Lil'Gun than H-110 at the same pressure, but that requires a 0.2 grain LOWER powder charge for Lil'Gun than for H-110. Hodgdon's data seems to indicate more than a grain LARGER charges for Lil'Gun than H-110, and substantially lower pressures for about the same velocities.

For reference:

Hodgdon manual:

      H-110    15.0 gr = 1418 fps, 28,600 CUP
               16.7 gr = 1591 fps, 40,700 CUP
      Lil'Gun  16.0 gr = 1504 fps, 24,000 CUP
               18.0 gr = 1577 fps, 25,800 CUP

SO, is there something wrong with Hodgdon's data, or is Lil'Gun not represented adequately with the approximations used in QuickLOAD?

Unclenick, can you ask Hartmut about this?

SL1

[WESHOOT2]

Lesseenow, Hodgdon's data collection, or Quik-Load?
Hmmmm....


FWIW, there have been reports of abrasive damage from L'IL GUN, and erratic velocities, and difficult ignition under certain circumstances.
NOT knocking L'IL GUN, just pointing out TANSTAAFL can rear its head.

[RidgwayCO]

On the powder burn rate charts I have access to, Lil' Gun shows up as very slightly faster than H110. I understand that these charts aren't carved in stone, but it's hard to understand how you could charge a case with so much more Lil' Gun and get so much less pressure.

Gun writers are notorious for stuffing powder in a case, getting higher velocities, and then patting themselves on the back for being so much more creative than the bullet or powder companies. Of course it makes it much easier if they aren't measuring the resultant pressures.

I also find it interesting that Hodgdon is publishing their pressure data for Lil' Gun in CUP (copper units of pressure). I thought PSI (from pressure transducers) was the preferred method today.

Roger on the TANSTAAFL...

[SL1]

WeShoot2,

I was asking about QuickLOAD's representation of Lil'Gun because my practice is to try to match published data with QuickLOAD before I try to use QuickLOAD to see what would happen with a different bullet make, COL, etc.

But, there is NO reasonable way to match Hodgdon's 158 gr .357 Magnum data with QuickLOAD. I am suspecting that it is not behaving (in this particular application) in a manner that is similar to the equations that QuickLOAD uses to represent powder burning phenomena. The data itself suggests that something wierd is going on in this particular load. Lil'Gun seems to behave more normally in Hodgdon's data for other cartridges and even with other bullet weights in the .357 Magunum.

So, I am actually more than a little hesitant to use Hodgdon's DATA for this particular load because I am not sure that this powder won't sometimes act more like the it does in other loads and the QuickLOAD simulation - -that is, give HIGHER pressures than the DATA indicates. In this case, believing that data may NOT be the prudent move. If you think data is always right (even disregarding the possibility of misprints), read some old manuals for Blue Dot loads and then read the "sticky" at the top of this forum.

RidgewayCO,

The SAAMI standards still allows use of the older CUP standard. Because the new psi standards are conspicuously lower pressure loads (lower charge weights and lower velocities) for the .357 and .44 Magnums, many powder companies cling to the older standard for their powders in these two cartridges. To do otherwise puts them at a disadvantage in trying to sell their powders against the other companies who publish their data showing higher maximum velocities using the CUP standard.

And, I am glad that they do. There was never a good reason for downloading those two cartridges by about 100 fps. I still advocate SAAMI adopting a +P .357 Magnum designation that gives psi values for the same loads that met the older CUP standard. Those pressures are what my guns were designed for, and they have been safe enough in those guns for decades. I would like to see new data for modern powders at that pressure level.

SL1

[WESHOOT2]

There is no reasonable way to match Hodgdon's data with Quil-Load.
I will, however, point out that Hodgdon is the responsible party for its powder, and its data....

I do not use L'IL GUN in any application, as I consider it too 'variable' in its potential.
I instead use AA9 and 2400 and N110 and H110 and W296 (and Blue Dot in specific 10mm loads ONLY), and maybe some others.


I NEVER "think" data is "right", as it was not generated directly from my personal launch platforms.
And regardless of one source's data, I confirm data from my library of data first.
I have alotta data...




My oldest manual is Hornady's #2; I paid $5.90.

[WESHOOT2]

I suggest checking other sources for L'IL GUN data to see if they align more closely with your Quik-Load results.

Maybe the odd behavior is due to the specific bullet?
(I checked all my Hodgdon data but it has remained consistent for this load.)

[SL1]

There isn't much pressure-tested Lil'Gun data to work with.

And, only this particular load for 158 gr XTPs in the .357 Magnum seems to have such a big velocity vs pressure advantage. So, comparing other loads does not help me trust this one.

I suspect that Hodgdon really did get those pressure measurements (rather than leaving a typo uncorrected for years). But, I don't think I want to count on getting the same powder burning characteristics in MY guns, too. It just appears too good to be true and is not consistent with any other indications that I can find in print.

So, to date I have not bought any Lil'Gun and am awaiting more info from others.

SL1

[WESHOOT2]

Any reason(s) you feel compelled to test L'IL GUN?

(Especially since I am personally aware of its specific 'issues', I have not bought any, either. And there's those pounds and pounds and pounds of other choices I still have 'available'....)


One other note; I have been involved in numerous exanmples where Quik-Load did not mirror actual 'events'.
Sometimes it doesn't have the ability to mimic the actual 'event'.

(No knock on the software, either, but I am a firm believer in test variables.)

[SL1]

Weshoot2,

Don't get me wrong. I don't feel compelled to use or test Lil'Gun. It is just a new powder that has some data showing that it could be advantageous for loading max power .357 Magnum 158 grain loads. That attracted my attention because I tend to use the .357 Magnum as a compromise/do-it-all type tool. (Please don't redirect this thread to debating the adequacies/inadequacies of the .357 Magnum.) So, I try to have a real full-house load in addition to mid-range, target, mouse-fart, and snake loads. I probably spend more time experimenting/developing loads for the .357 than any of the other cartridges I shoot. It has been a vehicle for learning that I can take lessons from to use elsewhere.

I also think of QuickLOAD as a tool that offers me some good learning opportunities. But, as you said, it is not always realistic in its results. So, I pay particular attention to any indications that it is outside its envelope of realistic performance. This MIGHT be one such example, but then again, it might be that Lil'Gun will at least SOMETIMES act the way QuickLOAD predicts rather than the way the Hodgdon data indicates. After all, QuickLOAD is not so far off for this powder in other applications.

A mismatch like this is one of the things that I have found to be wise to take seriously as a reason for caution. I actually found it because I tried to use QuickLOAD to investigate reports of excessive forcing cone erosion with Lil'Gun. I wanted to see how its pressure vs bullet-travel curve compared with the WW-296 curve. I expected to see a wider curve with a lower peak. What I got was a MUCH higher peak with the Hodgdon max charge. Well, THAT could certainly cause barrel erosion! And, there are some published (but not pressure tested) loads where handloading gun writers have gotten SUBSTANTIALLY higher velocities with Lil'Gun than WW-296, which also suggests that pressures in their loads MIGHT be much higher than anybody realizes.

So, my reason for this thread is to see if people like Unclenick and Hartmut have some additional understanding of what is going on with Lil'Gun's burning characterisitics. I understand that Hartmut has put a lot of time into reviewing powder combustion data for the powders he has included in QuickLOAD, and I would like to gain any additional insights that he has for this particular situation.

Whatever I learn will only make me a better/safer reloader. And, I don't consider any failure of QuickLOAD (to be fully realistic) to be a threat to QuickLOAD's usefulness. I have built computer models myself and realize that they all have their limits. It is knowing where the limits are that allow you to use the models for what they are really good for without being mislead when you take them beyond their capabilities.

So, I am still hoping for Unclenick to chime-in with something that I don't yet know.

SL1

[WESHOOT2]

But it has its limits.
So do Load Manuals, as both describe unique specific events only.
Software 'guesses', and every manual uses a gun or test gear different than mine.

And L'IL GUN seems to be one of 'those' components that acts on its own....

(Try N350 in hottie 357 under heavier bullets; I own two GPs and one Redhawk in 357; I like the cartridge, too.)