Quickload has me stumped

[Handley]

Hello. I have been developing loads for a Win/Miroku 1886 in 45-70 using the Hammer 250g bullet, and QL has me stumped. I used Barnes published data for their 250g TSX at 42000psi for a starting point. I tried several powders. Due to bullet design having a greater impact on case capacity, my starting loads were pretty hot. I got to see pressure signs like marks on the case head and sticky lever. I backed off and worked back up to an accurate load with I4198, all before checking QL. Once I got QL up and running and updated, it showed I was likely still beyond Barnes notional limit of 42000psi - closer to 50000psi. Looking for an alternative I ran my actual component data with VV N120, which showed promising results- similar velocity with a full case, 99%+ powder burnt, and several thousand psi less pressure.

After getting the powder, it doesn’t behave like the QL model. In fact, I get a sticky lever about 2-2.5 full grains before my predicted velocity would be achieved. It generates more pressure than 4198 for a given velocity, not less.

I ran Barnes data hoping to find a clue, everything is spot on with n120 and their bullet, velocity within 100fps right at the 41.9kpsi.

I adjusted burn rate ratios for both i4198 and n120, but it requires greater than 10% adjustment in opposite directions. That seems excessive.

I’m using actual measured component data, which results in lower psi in both powders. With other calibers I generally just have to measure my components well and get results I can then correlate to other powders or brass or bullets.

Anybody ever see anything similar? Any ideas

 

[Krogen]

A wild guess, here: Check your case capacity in grains of water. Measure it carefully, dribbling water into the case with something like a needle oiler. Fill the case just to the point of overflow as Quickload specifies. You might find the Quickload database doesn't have the right capacity for your case. I learned this with .223 Remington. Quickload's case capacity was off enough to predict significant over-pressure for known good loads. Adjusting the case capacity gave more believable Quickload results.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Here's another possibility: in my hands, the VV powder files I have used in QL (N140 and N150) seem way off, and I mean WWWAAAYYY off. The Ba adjustments necessary to match predicted and actual velocity are HUGE, and the resultant pressure outputs change markedly. I am not the only person that has noticed this discrepancy with VV powder files. I cannot tell you what the issue is or why they might be off, but if some are off, then perhaps many of them are off.

 

[Jager]

A couple years ago I ran into a similar issue with Accurate 4350 in .243 Win... an initial ladder was producing significantly less velocity than my QL model predicted. According to published load data, the charge weight I would need to get expected velocity would put me deep into never never land.

After debating with myself for awhile, I decided to trust QL (and my chrono). I made what seemed like a pretty drastic burn rate change in QL. All turned out well. Ended up simply being a soft batch of powder.

The QL developers don't do any closed bomb testing. So they have to get their data from the powder manufacturers. Sometimes that data might be wrong. Sometimes it might change. And sometimes it might just get input into the QL database wrong.

As @Krogen mentions above, though, it's critical that you first get case capacity exactly, precisely right. Even the lot-to-lot variation common in some headstamps can make a difference.

If you've got a chronograph that you trust, and you have determined actual case capacity, my advice would be to go ahead and make the Ba change in QL so that your model lines up with the velocities you're actually seeing in the field.

Keep us posted.

 

[Laurie]

Here's another possibility: in my hands, the VV powder files I have used in QL (N140 and N150), seem way off, and I mean WWWAAAYYY off. The Ba adjustments necessary to match predicted and actual velocity are HUGE, and the resultant pressure outputs change markedly. I am not the only person that has noticed this discrepancy with VV powder files. I cannot tell you what the issue is or why they might be off, but if some are off, then perhaps many of them are off.

I agree 100%. Viht serially produces burn rate values that are far too 'slow', so actual pressures / MVs are well above predictions. QL changed the Ba value of N160 (one of the worst offenders) in a recent update, but it's still too 'slow' IMO. N550 is so far 'out' as to be dangerous.

A couple years ago I ran into a similar issue with Accurate 4350 in .243 Win... an initial ladder was producing significantly less velocity than my QL model predicted. According to published load data, the charge weight I would need to get expected velocity would put me deep into never never land.

Accurate 4350 has always been a much slower burner than the H or IMR versions going back to its Czech manufactured Accurate Arms Co. XBR4350 days. We don't get the Canadian manufactured modern 'Accurate' version in the UK, but still get the original under its Lovex brand designation (Lovex S070). It is so slow burning compared to H4350, I couldn't get enough into a long-throat 7mm-08 to give full MVs and come anywhere near H4350 MVs. (Americans have this powder again under the Shooters World SW4350 name.)

http://www.targetshooter.co.uk/?p=3657

For both N550 'over-fast' and S070 'over-slow' results. (As far as I can see, the Canadian Accurate-4350 retains these characteristics from comments on this forum and elsewhere.)

Incidentally, printed burn rate charts rely on exactly the same manufacturer data as QL, which is why they are at best imperfect guides, and should certainly never be used to select charge weights based on so-called equivalents.

 

[Handley]

A wild guess, here: Check your case capacity in grains of water. Measure it carefully, dribbling water into the case with something like a needle oiler. Fill the case just to the point of overflow as Quickload specifies. You might find the Quickload database doesn't have the right capacity for your case. I learned this with .223 Remington. Quickload's case capacity was off enough to predict significant over-pressure for known good loads. Adjusting the case capacity gave more believable Quickload results.

Thanks, that is the first thing I did, thinking my case capacity was less than the default. But they average .5g more. I only measured 4 cases, and I measured them after firing.

 

[jepp2]

Fill the case just to the point of overflow as Quickload specifies.

Actually you want to fill the case to a flat meniscus, not overflow.

Quickload is most accurate on bottleneck cartridge cases. For straightwall cases, the model is less accurate.

 

[SeabeeKen]

If all your measurements are right, then I would adjust the Ba to match the chrono. Then its right for YOUR rifle and components. I've had some QL predictions that were out far enough to scare me. I pick a middle of the rd book load, load and fire over a chrono and then adjust the Ba or in GRT I run the OBT calculator and adjust it. BTW, you might want to try some Accurate 5744 in that 4570.

 

[FeMan]

Some QL factors I often have to adjust are Weighting Factor, Case Capacity, Shot Start Pressure, and Burning Rate Factor (Ba). Like SeabeeKen and others have mentioned, I have had to adjust Ba a LOT on some powders, so what you are seeing is not entirely unusual in my experience either.

If you haven't increased the Shot Start Pressure to compensate for the solid bullet that may be part of the issue. Another is undoubtedly using a Barnes to model a Hammer. I do the same thing for Hammer loads since QL doesn't have the profiles for Hammers. In that case I take the notion that WAG input = WAG output.

Good luck and let us know where you end up if you get the model adjusted to your satisfaction. I have little experience using QL for straight wall cases and am curious.

 

[Handley]

First thanks for the responses, much appreciated. What I'm seeing is my i4198 load pushing the 250g Hammer to 2500-ish. One might be 2487, or 2530, or even 2550. Not great SD, I think it has to do with one or several things... a straight walled case, possible inconsistent crimp, or because it's a compressed load? I have to be very careful to achieve the same OAL each time, that has helped. Also, QL gives only about a 94% burn in my 24" barrel. I hoped to correlate results from one powder to another, as 4198 doesnt seem to be ideal...or available, either. I just hadn't seen this much variation in QL results before. So I'm thinking to really know if there's anything better I'm just gonna have to buy it and shoot it and find out. Think I'll try Lt 30, 31, and maybe n130.

 

[Handley]

Some QL factors I often have to adjust are Weighting Factor, Case Capacity, Shot Start Pressure, and Burning Rate Factor (Ba). Like SeabeeKen and others have mentioned, I have had to adjust Ba a LOT on some powders, so what you are seeing is not entirely unusual in my experience either.

If you haven't increased the Shot Start Pressure to compensate for the solid bullet that may be part of the issue. Another is undoubtedly using a Barnes to model a Hammer. I do the same thing for Hammer loads since QL doesn't have the profiles for Hammers. In that case I take the notion that WAG input = WAG output.

Good luck and let us know where you end up if you get the model adjusted to your satisfaction. I have little experience using QL for straight wall cases and am curious.

They have Hammer in the newest update! I did use Barnes as a guide for what potential results I hoped to achieve, and to see what powders they used. Which is a wag, I know...

 

[Handley]

If all your measurements are right, then I would adjust the Ba to match the chrono. Then its right for YOUR rifle and components. I've had some QL predictions that were out far enough to scare me. I pick a middle of the rd book load, load and fire over a chrono and then adjust the Ba or in GRT I run the OBT calculator and adjust it. BTW, you might want to try some Accurate 5744 in that 4570.

I'll add a5744 to the list, thank you

 

[xr650rRider]

I load the Hornady FTX 325 gr, .458" to 2100 fps with H-4198 in a Turnbull/Winchester takedown 1886, so getting near 2500 fps with a 250 doesn't sound crazy. Have you checked OAL of your cases? I know with other 45-70 levers, the 325 requires quite a bit of case trimming for them to chamber or your jamming them hard. Maybe the 250 Hammer has same problem, never seen one, so might not be related.

****** Running my load thru Quickload and it matches pretty close to what I'm seeing. Shows right at 40,000 psig for 2050 fps. 92% burn but I don't pay much attention to that.

 

[FeMan]

They have Hammer in the newest update! I did use Barnes as a guide for what potential results I hoped to achieve, and to see what powders they used. Which is a wag, I know...

Sounds like I need an update to my QL. Thanks!

 

[Webster]

Hello. I have been developing loads for a Win/Miroku 1886 in 45-70 using the Hammer 250g bullet, and QL has me stumped. I used Barnes published data for their 250g TSX at 42000psi for a starting point. I tried several powders. Due to bullet design having a greater impact on case capacity, my starting loads were pretty hot. I got to see pressure signs like marks on the case head and sticky lever. I backed off and worked back up to an accurate load with I4198, all before checking QL. Once I got QL up and running and updated, it showed I was likely still beyond Barnes notional limit of 42000psi - closer to 50000psi. Looking for an alternative I ran my actual component data with VV N120, which showed promising results- similar velocity with a full case, 99%+ powder burnt, and several thousand psi less pressure.

After getting the powder, it doesn’t behave like the QL model. In fact, I get a sticky lever about 2-2.5 full grains before my predicted velocity would be achieved. It generates more pressure than 4198 for a given velocity, not less.

I ran Barnes data hoping to find a clue, everything is spot on with n120 and their bullet, velocity within 100fps right at the 41.9kpsi.

I adjusted burn rate ratios for both i4198 and n120, but it requires greater than 10% adjustment in opposite directions. That seems excessive.

I’m using actual measured component data, which results in lower psi in both powders. With other calibers I generally just have to measure my components well and get results I can then correlate to other powders or brass or bullets.

Anybody ever see anything similar? Any ideas

Look up as much reloading data as you can on internet. From what I read if your over about 1350 fps your too probably hot. Some published data says don't go over around 30,000 PSI. You think 42,000 may be ok? Be careful don't get hurt. I would go to actual published reloading data as a guide and forget about computer generated guestimates.

Added later: The Sierra reloading manual has 45-70 data. With 1873 Trap door Springfield with a 300 gr bullet they give a max fps of 1700. There is probably free reloading data on their website. What fps were you getting with your reloads?

Who knows what a safe load is you have actions that may be cast iron made in 1870 or a very strong action made recently with very good forged steel. The limits are different for every gun.

 

[Krogen]

Actually you want to fill the case to a flat meniscus, not overflow.

Quickload is most accurate on bottleneck cartridge cases. For straightwall cases, the model is less accurate.

View attachment 1481759

Quickload is inconsistent (surprise!) The data entry window shows overflow as Renee has also explained to me. However, the manual shows what you quote above. It it surely counter-intuitive to fill the case to the point of overflow, but in my experience that has been a better method.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I agree 100%. Viht serially produces burn rate values that are far too 'slow', so actual pressures / MVs are well above predictions. QL changed the Ba value of N160 (one of the worst offenders) in a recent update, but it's still too 'slow' IMO. N550 is so far 'out' as to be dangerous.



Accurate 4350 has always been a much slower burner than the H or IMR versions going back to its Czech manufactured Accurate Arms Co. XBR4350 days. We don't get the Canadian manufactured modern 'Accurate' version in the UK, but still get the original under its Lovex brand designation (Lovex S070). It is so slow burning compared to H4350, I couldn't get enough into a long-throat 7mm-08 to give full MVs and come anywhere near H4350 MVs. (Americans have this powder again under the Shooters World SW4350 name.)

http://www.targetshooter.co.uk/?p=3657

For both N550 'over-fast' and S070 'over-slow' results. (As far as I can see, the Canadian Accurate-4350 retains these characteristics from comments on this forum and elsewhere.)

Incidentally, printed burn rate charts rely on exactly the same manufacturer data as QL, which is why they are at best imperfect guides, and should certainly never be used to select charge weights based on so-called equivalents.

Laurie - I recently got around to doing a preliminary test load with N150 in a .308 F-TR rifle. I had very good QL inputs, with the sole exception of the burn rate (Ba) for N150. The predicted velocity with the factory preset burn rate using 43.0 gr of N150 was 2469 fps. As a match load would be anticipated to be in excess of 2600 fps, I thought the 43.0 gr charge weight would be a sufficient reduction. For comparison, I use approximately 44.0-ish gr of Varget with the same bullet. The [measured] average velocity (5 shots) was 2552 fps, which was quite a bit higher than the prediction. The test load was predicted to be above SAAMI MAX pressure, even though I thought from the initial QL prediction that it would be under MAX pressure by a substantial margin. I can thus imagine it's a good idea to reduce the initial charge weight when making QL predictions with the factory preset burn rate for VV powders, then reduce it some more just for safety's sake. Although the pressure in this particular circumstance wasn't really a safety issue, with a different cartridge and brass manufacturer, it could have been.

 

[Handley]

Look up as much reloading data as you can on internet. From what I read if your over about 1350 fps your too probably hot. Some published data says don't go over around 30,000 PSI. You think 42,000 may be ok? Be careful don't get hurt. I would go to actual published reloading data as a guide and forget about computer generated guestimates.

Added later: The Sierra reloading manual has 45-70 data. With 1873 Trap door Springfield with a 300 gr bullet they give a max fps of 1700. There is probably free reloading data on their website. What fps were you getting with your reloads?

Who knows what a safe load is you have actions that may be cast iron made in 1870 or a very strong action made recently with very good forged steel. The limits are different for every gun.

https://www.barnesbullets.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/45-70Marlin1895Web.pdf

I used Barnes' data as a starting point for the Hammer 250g. The data is only for modern lever rifles, such as my 1886 and Marlin. While SAAMI is 28000psi, Barnes tested their rifle to 42000psi, according to their notes. What I discovered is that my rifle developed pressure signs with the Hammer bullet before reaching the Barnes' max loads. So yes, you can never assume the max load from a manual will be safe, or that one 250g bullet will be similar to another in terms of psi for a given powder charge.

I have published data from Sierra, Hornady, Lyman, Nosler, Western Powders, Berger, Barnes, A-square...maybe more. Most is for shooting heavy bullets at moderate pressures. Only Barnes published data to this level that I know of. But, there are discussions on another forum about what pressures the modern 1886 and Marlin actions are good for. I can't really comment on that, but it's interesting I guess. I trust Barnes though.

 

[Straightshooter1]

One of the things I've learned to do whenever I get a new jug/bottles of powder is to run a little pressure test ladder to get me where I can use my QL app more effectively. When I get definite pressure signs, I use that data to bring my Ba number into alignment.

 

[Webster]

https://www.barnesbullets.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/45-70Marlin1895Web.pdf

I used Barnes' data as a starting point for the Hammer 250g. The data is only for modern lever rifles, such as my 1886 and Marlin. While SAAMI is 28000psi, Barnes tested their rifle to 42000psi, according to their notes. What I discovered is that my rifle developed pressure signs with the Hammer bullet before reaching the Barnes' max loads. So yes, you can never assume the max load from a manual will be safe, or that one 250g bullet will be similar to another in terms of psi for a given powder charge.

I have published data from Sierra, Hornady, Lyman, Nosler, Western Powders, Berger, Barnes, A-square...maybe more. Most is for shooting heavy bullets at moderate pressures. Only Barnes published data to this level that I know of. But, there are discussions on another forum about what pressures the modern 1886 and Marlin actions are good for. I can't really comment on that, but it's interesting I guess. I trust Barnes though.

QL doesn't know what the pressure limit is for your rifles action. You have to know the proper limits for your rifle. A friend of mine was shooting a Mosant WWI rifle at the range with mild loads. The action opened up with a big crack. No-one was hurt.