The World of Cartridges and Compromises........

BCBrad, I've never used QL so I have no idea if what you preach is true. I've always just used experience to tune loads for new rifles and yeah sometimes it takes some trial and error. If QL does what you say it does and it's consistent...it would be revolutionary to handloading.

If you're willing, help me out with this.

I have a Kimber Montana in .308 that I haven't really gone to depths trying to find the perfect load. I started with win 748 cause I have a bunch of it. The load I use is accurate but quite slow. I have a good variety of powder and projectiles to play with. What does QL say? I should be able to get any info you need about rifle brass etc. Might be an interesting experiment.
 
Quick Load is like any other educated guess, but the one element it can't get beyond is the individuality of each rifle, and the choice of components other than powder and bullet that might be chosen, and can't deal particularly well outside of standard for cartridge bullet weights, or propellant burn rates. In the case of the .378 Weatherby, before the advent of Federal 215 primers, it was a common practice to load a base load of Bullseye to kick off the 112 gr load of H-4831. I bet QL can't tell you how much Bullseye to put between the main powder charge and a standard LR primer. How about duplex loads of Somchem Powders, huh, can't do that one either.
 
c-fbmi said:
BCBRAD..........As I suspected you addressed none of my questions about internal or external ballistics..........I realize that you understand your computer program and it assists you in your load development, which is all fine and well, but it was you who demeaned me as to not understanding internal or external ballistics and called me a "dummy" not the other way around, as I seldom, if ever get involved in name calling and personal insults. I can assure you there is nothing you can or have done with that computer program that I have not done without it. You may call my methods "old school" and look down upon me as antiquated but I can assure you I have gone so far beyond what that computer program can do for you, it would literally boggle your mind. I am not adverse to new technology but I can assure you your precious computer program knows nothing that I don't already know. It takes established norms and spits out a load that SHOULD be good, but it can't find the different nodes of different rifle barrels, it can't recognize the eccentricities of particular rifles, it doesn't take into account the different hardness of different manufacturers brass. For all it can do there is so much more it cannot do, and this is where my methods shine as each rifle, brass, cartridge, primer, powder and bullet combination is unique and must be treated as such to gain the utmost from each individual rifle..........your computer just simply cannot and will not do this......period.
I'm still interested in what your computer program and loading experience has to say about extended flash tubes, multiple flash holes, duplex loads, frictional coefficients and the like. Anytime you'd care to compare notes I'm here............
Click to expand...

Your ability to dismiss something that you have little knowledge about is what provokes me to use the word dum-b. Now most people would look at something new and try to figure out how it would work for them, as I have done. The QL program and LabRadar in combination and used with some understanding will yield positive results.

Simply put QL will give you a pressure (psi), the pressure is caused by turning a solid into a gas in a confined space, the rate of gas produced is determined how a given powder burns in that space, this expanding gas will produce enough pressure to move the bullet down the bore, the peak pressure along with the duration/volume of the expanding gas will determine the velocity, this velocity is ultimately attenuated by the bullet weight, barrel length and frictional coefficient.

LabRadar will easily record velocities with an error up to 0.1%, there are other devices that work but find this the most convenient.

Using the 30-06 load discussed early I can use generic weights and measure to the program but is much better to use what you measure (0.001") and (0.01 grains). With this kind of resolution it is best to take an average of 10 components to arrive at number to input to the program.

Now, I look at appropriate powders for the 30-06 and especially a 150 class bullet, there are several compatible powders but H4350 gives the best 'optimized' burn of any modeled so that's what I go with.

Load an upper mid-range load and fire 5 shots, record velocities. Come back to the program and make adjustments to get the predicted to line up with the actual field test. In this process I've also produced a 5 shot group that you can drool over.

Adjustments can include powder burn rate (Ba), bullet weight, form factor, charge weight and case volume.

Sounds easy so far and it is, but you must take an understanding what /why to the table.

You now have a load that is as close to perfect as humanly possible, but will it group to the max ability of your platform? Maybe but unlikely.

Now you proceed to tune that load to a barrel node (mS) in a 570mm barrel there is a node at 1.041 mS which coincides with targeted velocity of ~2950 ft/s, its actually 2946 ft/s. Due to the precise crown on the sample rifle 10,304 psi exit pressure is tolerable, however, less is better.

c-fbmi, if you read what I have written over the past several posts most of your questions have been answered......save probably the duplex load which is totally unnecessary in a sporting firearm.

You been lead to water!
 
Last edited:
Iron Sighted said:
What is the cost of a Labradar, and who retails them in Canada? I have a CED chronograph that I have generally been fairly happy with, but if I can get something that is repeatedly more accurate regardless of light conditions I would prefer that, though I assume they are probably way more money than I'm currently willing to spend.
Click to expand...


Around $950 Cdn
 
Boomer said:
Quick Load is like any other educated guess, but the one element it can't get beyond is the individuality of each rifle, and the choice of components other than powder and bullet that might be chosen, and can't deal particularly well outside of standard for cartridge bullet weights, or propellant burn rates. In the case of the .378 Weatherby, before the advent of Federal 215 primers, it was a common practice to load a base load of Bullseye to kick off the 112 gr load of H-4831. I bet QL can't tell you how much Bullseye to put between the main powder charge and a standard LR primer. How about duplex loads of Somchem Powders, huh, can't do that one either.
Click to expand...

I have never used a duplex load, but then I have never blown up a rifle.
 
cdn shooter said:
BCBrad, I've never used QL so I have no idea if what you preach is true. I've always just used experience to tune loads for new rifles and yeah sometimes it takes some trial and error. If QL does what you say it does and it's consistent...it would be revolutionary to handloading.

If you're willing, help me out with this.

I have a Kimber Montana in .308 that I haven't really gone to depths trying to find the perfect load. I started with win 748 cause I have a bunch of it. The load I use is accurate but quite slow. I have a good variety of powder and projectiles to play with. What does QL say? I should be able to get any info you need about rifle brass etc. Might be an interesting experiment.
Click to expand...

308Win has probably more written about it when it comes to load development, suggest you study the possibilities. With out QL and understanding I would just be throwing numbers out.
 
Boomer said:
No guts - no glory. I used QL and did blow up a rifle, but never blew one up using duplex loads; go figure.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with the use of duplex loads if done carefully and properly, also with good researching before.
I've used them for years starting with duplex BP loads and going from there.
As it is today with the huge variety of powders with different burning rates they are not necessary but at one time the suitable powder for a given cartridge simply did not exist.
I too have never blown a gun up... period... either with duplex or standard loads.
 
c-fbmi said:
BCBRAD..........As I suspected you addressed none of my questions about internal or external ballistics..........I realize that you understand your computer program and it assists you in your load development, which is all fine and well, but it was you who demeaned me as to not understanding internal or external ballistics and called me a "dummy" not the other way around, as I seldom, if ever get involved in name calling and personal insults. I can assure you there is nothing you can or have done with that computer program that I have not done without it. You may call my methods "old school" and look down upon me as antiquated but I can assure you I have gone so far beyond what that computer program can do for you, it would literally boggle your mind. I am not adverse to new technology but I can assure you your precious computer program knows nothing that I don't already know. It takes established norms and spits out a load that SHOULD be good, but it can't find the different nodes of different rifle barrels, it can't recognize the eccentricities of particular rifles, it doesn't take into account the different hardness of different manufacturers brass. For all it can do there is so much more it cannot do, and this is where my methods shine as each rifle, brass, cartridge, primer, powder and bullet combination is unique and must be treated as such to gain the utmost from each individual rifle..........your computer just simply cannot and will not do this......period.
I'm still interested in what your computer program and loading experience has to say about extended flash tubes, multiple flash holes, duplex loads, frictional coefficients and the like. Anytime you'd care to compare notes I'm here............
Click to expand...


OK, I'll entertain your questions point by point.

" called me a dummy" not your knowledge/experience but you resistance to explore something foreign to you and the ability to dismiss same.

"Old Skööl" There as been a step change, QL has been around a long time but with the availability of accurate velocity measuring devices with consistent performance and understanding of barrel harmonics (with out a PhD) in combination results in that change. The common methods work but are onerous in time and resources.

"Look down upon me" not in my thoughts at all, be wonderment at your resistances, yes.

"Computer program knows nothing that I don't already know" you may know a lot but do you understand the physics, thermodynamics and rifle mechanics in a quantitative way. If it works I want to why same as if it doesn't. Most hand loaders until the last several years loaded ammo by excepted norms plus trial and error.

"It takes established norms and spits it out" no it does not, I have had these 'tools' for about 6 months before I came to an understanding what was going on ...a real education, this was not done alone but with help from published articles and a shooting friend that challenges me every step of the way.

"It doesn't take into account different hardness of brass and eccentricities" It does but it isn't handed to you. Once you have a base line and know the pressure and all is good, then one day you get new brass from the same manufacturer and the headstamp has an ejector mark on it, you could say that brass is 'softer' than the previous brass or this H-4350 runs faster than the last batch, then you could say that that powder is 'faster' than the previous lot. The program allows you to adjust and carry on with the same velocity and the exit point of the bullet on a the node.

"My methods shine for each individual rifle" With the method I have been describing the ammo is compatible for best performance. Interior ballistics require optimized burn of the powder, twist rate compatible to the bullet used, and exit pressure. If it doesn't group well then look at your platform or bench technique as opposed to chasing loads endlessly.

"Frictional coefficients" are accounted for in the program.

" Duplex loads" QL is a smokeless powder program. Anyway I am not a black powder shooter and have no concerns about a dirty bore due to BP.

"I am still interested in your computer program etc etc etc....." I don't think you are, you are more interested in rejecting a different methodology.
 
Last edited:
Boomer.........we are trying to preach to the deaf.......or use visual aids in the blind class........He is open to nothing that cannot and will not fit into the little boxes of his computer programs. He states that he has answered all my questions about internal and external ballistics, when in fact he has addressed none of them except possibly being able to come close to a node...........oh, but wait, we still have to go out and shoot it to see. His knowledge is so limited after 40 claimed years of reloading, that all he can do is shout out computer spewed numbers from inside the confines of the little box he has chosen to imprison himself in, to the exclusion of all other knowledge. I don't think he even knows what a duplex load is or an extended flash tube or frictional coefficient...........there is no boxes for these on his computer program, how could he? I can guarantee that he has never made barrels, designed cartridges and built the rifles to fire them, played with duplex loads or anything else that there is no box to check.
This is like trying to explain calculus to a grade 4 student who has the basics of math, but no real understanding of the depth of it. He is like an employee I had once, when I questioned him about his inability to trouble shoot a relatively easy electrical problem (he was a certified journeyman), and then explain to him where he was seeing it the wrong way...........he simply stated that "I know what I know and I don't need to know any more"............I fired him.

And like him Mr. BCBRAD, consider yourself fired and I have no desire to attempt to teach you anything more, that you obviously don't want to know.
 
Why is it that you insist on doing things the modern way while looking down on those who do them the old fashioned way? Especially when the net yield is the same result?.......

Why can't a guy enjoy the experience of reloading his way without some ballistic masturbator coming on here touting the latest and greatest while accusing the old guard of being "dummer"?..... Some people like old ways and traditions, and like spending the time finding that perfect load..... We may find your computer program interesting, but that doesn't mean we feel the need to use it or are "dummer" for not using it....

BTW, I am 41, a fairly new reloader and an engineer.... and even I can appreciate the old ways.....
 
^^^^

You are wrong on so many levels, it is seen in the bravado of your defense.

You do not understand so just fire 'em, just like banning anything... you know handguns, AR's etc. a fascist mind set to say the least.

Not so many years ago at one club I belong to a good group of 10" was enough to be top group of the shoot, Today if you are not sub 5 inches forget it and when conditions are perfect better be sub 3" at 1000 yards. An excellent handload will uncover any mechanical deficiencies, your still wondering is it the rifle/platform, the load, but certainly not the shooter.

We differ in in how we view things, you at some point decided you know it all or at least enough, me....can never know enough and the more I learn the less I know. But one thing is certain the methods and tools I describe has changed my view on hand loading smokeless powder cartridges.



Wonder why, its knowledge and embracing new technology that works and rejecting things that do not work as well.

On a personal note, the worst comes out in you when challenged. You have only stated what you do, not why you do it.

You boys carry on :)
 
Superbrad said:
Why is it that you insist on doing things the modern way while looking down on those who do them the old fashioned way? Especially when the net yield is the same result?.......

Why can't a guy enjoy the experience of reloading his way without some ballistic masturbator coming on here touting the latest and greatest while accusing the old guard of being "dummer"?..... Some people like old ways and traditions, and like spending the time finding that perfect load..... We may find your computer program interesting, but that doesn't mean we feel the need to use it or are "dummer" for not using it....

BTW, I am 41, a fairly new reloader and an engineer.... and even I can appreciate the old ways.....
Click to expand...

As explained earlier the attitude is 'dummer' not the knowledge base or doing things the old fashion way. Me, I'd rather find the golden nugget with out a blindfold.
 
c-fbmi said:
This is like trying to explain calculus to a grade 4 student who has the basics of math, but no real understanding of the depth of it. He is like an employee I had once, when I questioned him about his inability to trouble shoot a relatively easy electrical problem (he was a certified journeyman), and then explain to him where he was seeing it the wrong way...........he simply stated that "I know what I know and I don't need to know any more"............I fired him.

And like him Mr. BCBRAD, consider yourself fired and I have no desire to attempt to teach you anything more, that you obviously don't want to know.
Click to expand...

That's a funny analogy. Somewhat ironic, really. In this conversation, I view you as a math student who was handed a calculator to streamline things, but refuses to use it, and/or the employee who decided he already knew enough. I haven't seen BC Brad refuse to accept any of your knowledge, all I've seen is you claim there is nothing you have to learn from him, and refuse to acknowledge that a computer may be an asset in load development.

Computers are used in everything today, designing, modeling, engineering, manufacturing....The tools are out there if you want to use them. You can still frame a house with a hammer, but I prefer using an air nailer. YMMV. :)
 
While this is all interesting, both sides are arguing the same point, simply arriving at the point from different methods.

There are a few loaders in this forum that have shot more pounds of powder than i have shot individual loads. To them i defer and tip my hat.

The process is like the difference of sailing out to go fishing, then using the kicker and electric downriggers. I like fishing, but like the process of sailing to where i fish almost as much. If others want to get there in 1/4 the time and burn $50 or a $100, to me they are missing at least half the fun.

When it comes to reloading i guess i am more old school, enjoy the process, as much as the result.
 
BCBRAD said:
As explained earlier the attitude is 'dummer' not the knowledge base or doing things the old fashion way. Me, I'd rather find the golden nugget with out a blindfold.
Click to expand...

Everyone has their own methodology..... I could do a crossword puzzle really quickly if I looked at the answer key and just wrote the letters in the boxes..... But to some of us, there is a sense of achievement that comes from going through the motions and attaining the answers ourselves.....
 
nowarningshot said:
While this is all interesting, both sides are arguing the same point, simply arriving at the point from different methods.

There are a few loaders in this forum that have shot more pounds of powder than i have shot individual loads. To them i defer and tip my hat.

The process is like the difference of sailing out to go fishing, then using the kicker and electric downriggers. I like fishing, but like the process of sailing to where i fish almost as much. If others want to get there in 1/4 the time and burn $50 or a $100, to me they are missing at least half the fun.

When it comes to reloading i guess i am more old school, enjoy the process, as much as the result.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you are saying, I enjoy hauling my reloading gear to the range, working up loads and trying different things, but ultimately, time is our most precious commodity. I'm still going to enjoy the process even if I am starting with the very best information from the beginning and ending up where I want to be a- little faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom