Odd Quickload results for 230gn Berger/RL17 - any advice what to try next?

[numlock]

I've had some very good results using Quickload to work out optimal loads for my .308 rifles with 155, 175 and 185 bullets. I'm now trying to get 230s working in my 32" 10-twist barrel but things aren't going to plan...

I'm using Berger 230 Hybrids in Lapua brass with Reloder 17. The OAL is around 3.22" (barrel has been chambered specifically for the heavy Bergers).

A couple of days ago I tried loads from 41.6gn to 45.5gn of R-17 and every shot was chrono'd. When I plugged the results into Quickload and adjusted the Ba variable to match the measured MV of one of the loads, I find that when I then change the charge weight to match one of the tested loads, the predicted MV is way out. I've tried tweaking bullet weight and weighting factor but I can't find any way to make the velocities tie up with my test data across the range of loads I tested.

This means I can't currently use it to work out loads based on the OBT method.

Does anyone know why this is going wrong and whether there's something else I should be doing to get this to work with this bullet/powder combination?

I've double checked the bullet measurements and case capacity to make sure they're spot on.

Here's an example of what I'm getting:

Load Actual MV QL MV with Ba changed to match 41.6 load
41.6 2257 2257
43 2355 2328
44 2430 2379
45 2500 2429

If I correct the Ba to match the 45gn load I get this:

Load Actual MV QL MV with Ba changed to match 45 load
41.6 2257 2337
43 2355 2405
44 2430 2453
45 2500 2500

I don't know what to try next, other than to go back to ladder tests and group tests to try and find the nodes.

 

[AP2020]

I've had some very good results using Quickload to work out optimal loads for my .308 rifles with 155, 175 and 185 bullets. I'm now trying to get 230s working in my 32" 10-twist barrel but things aren't going to plan...

I'm using Berger 230 Hybrids in Lapua brass with Reloder 17. The OAL is around 3.22" (barrel has been chambered specifically for the heavy Bergers).

A couple of days ago I tried loads from 41.6gn to 45.5gn of R-17 and every shot was chrono'd. When I plugged the results into Quickload and adjusted the Ba variable to match the measured MV of one of the loads, I find that when I then change the charge weight to match one of the tested loads, the predicted MV is way out. I've tried tweaking bullet weight and weighting factor but I can't find any way to make the velocities tie up with my test data across the range of loads I tested.

This means I can't currently use it to work out loads based on the OBT method.

Does anyone know why this is going wrong and whether there's something else I should be doing to get this to work with this bullet/powder combination?

I've double checked the bullet measurements and case capacity to make sure they're spot on.

Here's an example of what I'm getting:

Load Actual MV QL MV with Ba changed to match 41.6 load
41.6 2257 2257
43 2355 2328
44 2430 2379
45 2500 2429

If I correct the Ba to match the 45gn load I get this:

Load Actual MV QL MV with Ba changed to match 45 load
41.6 2257 2337
43 2355 2405
44 2430 2453
45 2500 2500

I don't know what to try next, other than to go back to ladder tests and group tests to try and find the nodes.

as in water case capacity?

did you measure the bullet length and change accordingly in QL?

 

[AP2020]

...did you adjust the powder temperature correction factor?

waiting on my V3.6 upgrade disk...I don't show the 230 gr. Berger Hybrid yet!



I used to load RL17 when I had a 6.5WSSM; velocities were always HIGHER no matter what I tweaked within reason in QL.....look at the pressure curve for RL17 = pretty dramatic relatively speaking.....

 

[numlock]

Yes, I've carefully checked all bullet dimensions (had to input 230 myself as it's not in Ver 3.6) and case water capacity. I've adjusted temperature to the actual figure on the day and I'm adjusting the burn rate (Ba) in order to make the measured velocity match the figure in QL with one of the actual powder charges. Once I've done all this, I change the powder charge in QL, but the velocity then doesn't come close enough to the actual measured MV and the further I go from the charge I used to calibrate the powder burn rate, the worse it gets.

 

[normmatzen]

I, too, have had the exact same problem with RL-17. It seems the model for RL-17, and others, is not accurate enough for good data.

In trying loads for my 6BRX I find that Quickload is WAY off on not only Varget powder, but no models for Berger Hybrids and even their water capacity is way off. I measure 40.45 gr and they say 43.0! And there is only one case mfg for that round . Their capacity for the 6 Dasher is 41.0 and that sounds right based on my 6BRX measurements, but way off based on their 6BRX data.
When I finally got the 6BRX to agree with my chrony data, the pressure was off the screen! Then I found their max pressure for 6BRX was around 58,700psi and for the 6 Dasher 65,000psi? What's up.

I use a friends computer for my load calculations. I would like to buy my own copy, but not till they get a bit more reasonable accuracy.

Based on the price of this software, this is unacceptable

 

[numlock]

I did a bit more searching last night and found a mention that Quickload had a data update around June this year, which might include a better model for the Reloder powders.

I checked in May when I first looked at the heavy Bergers because they weren't in there and at the time I know I had the latest data, but now I'm wondering if I get this data update it might improve the results I'm getting with R-17.

I'll check today.

Did anyone here get the data update and how would I know if I already had it? Are the 215/230 Hybrid Bergers in it?

 

[40X Guy]

Numlock, I just downloaded my update to QL and all the various Hybrids are in it along with updated RL-17 specs. I callled Neco a few weeks ago and he said the RL-17 data was pretty far off. I think the update cost me 22 bucks? I am messing around with Hybrids in 3 different calibers and using RL-17 in one of them. Love QL!

Frank

 

[numlock]

That's encouraging (as long as you mean RL-17 was off BEFORE the new data!)

I've spoken to the UK distributor and he didn't know anything about a data update, but he's going to ask in the next couple of days so I'm hoping I'll be able to order a disc off him next week.

In the meantime, I'll have to go back to the traditional methods to find a good node for this combination, I suppose.

 

[AP2020]

I did a bit more searching last night and found a mention that Quickload had a data update around June this year, which might include a better model for the Reloder powders.

I checked in May when I first looked at the heavy Bergers because they weren't in there and at the time I know I had the latest data, but now I'm wondering if I get this data update it might improve the results I'm getting with R-17.

I'll check today.

Did anyone here get the data update and how would I know if I already had it? Are the 215/230 Hybrid Bergers in it?

..you're in LUCK...got my V3.6 loaded, and Yes the Berger 230 gr. Hybrid is in there

tell me your water cap

.this is what I am showing for the Berger

.308, 230, Berger Hybrid OTM G7 #30110

WIN7 O/S = took 3 weeks to get delivered = the story I got is that NECO had to get the disk from Europe...


anyways...I am running the load right now...be right back!

 

[AP2020]

OBT for a 32" barrel

Node 4 = 1.457
Node 5 = 1.633
Node 6 = 1.735

.308 WIN (CIP)
Max Press. = 60191 psi
COL = 3.220"
Water Cap. = 56.0 gr.

to get to the 5th Node @ 1.633

45.43 gr. RL-17, 95.3% fill

Pmax = 52351
Velocity = 2,522 fps
Barrel Time = 1.633 ms

 

[numlock]

OK, that's interesting, but have you selected the 230 Tactical OTM?
I'm using the 230 Hybrid (#30428) and I've moly coated it.

Can you run it again using that bullet and see if there's much difference?

In testing at 600yds, I found the 41.6 gn load was the most accurate, but the velocity is not quite up to it for long range use.

The next best load was around 45.3 gn but when I shot it the following day, the vertical wasn't looking too good, so I abandoned it.

There should be a node somewhere between the two, which could be worth a try,

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Now I see the problem....

In my very limited experience, the QL simulation does not correspond well with coated bullets. In my case, I was using Varget, and the Ba had to be increased ~9% with naked bullets. Once I did that, the simulation lined up well. On the other hand, when I used WS2, the Ba had to be reduced back to the original value to be close to the observed velocity, but the simulation did not track well over the entire pressure curve.

BTW, clicking the friction coated button does nothing compared to the actual result of firing coated bullets.

My testing was done with 215 Hybrids in a 308.

 

[AP2020]

.308 WIN (CIP)
Max Press. = 60191 psi
COL = 3.220"
Water Cap. = 56.0 gr.


.308 , 230, Berger Hybrid G7 #30428

41.6 gr. RL-17
39,242 psi
Barrel Time = 1.834ms
Velocity = 2,334 fps

43.4 gr. RL-17
44,714 psi
Barrel Time = 1.735 ms
Velocity = 2,424 fps

45.3 gr. RL-17
53,157 psi
Barrel Time = 1.639 ms
Velocity = 2,515 fps

 

[numlock]

I'm doing more range testing with this load on Tuesday, so let's see if that proves anything.

The 41.6 load was very accurate in the previous test, but that's the one which is out the most on MV and BT in QL. Let's see what real world testing shows.

 

[numlock]

My faith in Quickload has been restored!

Did a lot more range testing today across a wider load/velocity spread and carried out group testing while chrono'ing every round.

The results are summarised in this graph:

The yellow line graphs the velocities against powder charge using the default powder data in Quickload.
The green line uses the same powder charge numbers but the Ba variable has been tweaked down to match one of the actual velocities I measured.
The red line is the same powder charge numbers but all the velocities are actual ones measured today.
As you can see, with the Ba tweaked, the actual and predicted velocities are a very close match, particularly once I get above approx. 44.2 grains.

I've concluded from this that the main reason the previous results didn't add up was because I simply didn't have enough data across a wide enough load spread. My previous tests were with loads between 41.6 and 44 grains of R-17. As you can see from the graph, my data at the lower charge rates was obviously inaccurate, so it looked to me as though the real vs. predicted velocities would diverge as the charge weight increases, but once I added more data, it matches well.

At this point, it's probably a good idea for me to remind everyone that this load is based on my component/rifle combination and should not be used by anyone else without working up to it and checking for signs of over-pressure as you do.

I hope my experience with this has been useful to other QL users. Feel free to look for any mistakes I might have made in my interpretation - I'm still learning!

(Edited due to original graph being completely wrong due to me not noticing the X-axis was screwed!)

 

[louielouie]

If the bearing surface is longer with the 230's then a slight adjustment to the 'initial pressure' may be in order too. With my 6.5mm I have a formula to add pressure based on bearing surface length that I've posted here before. Quantifying pressure jump from different primers causing velocity differences would be good to know, also - I use +200psi for GM210's compared to Tula's in my 260.