Quickload vs book, who do you trust your face too?

[thefitter]

Got a substantial discrepancy between QL and the Hodgdon online load data.

Max load:
Hodgdon says 49gr = 49,400 CUP
QL says 49gr = 72,854 PSI

I’m thinking that 49gr is a lot of powder for a 7mm-08

FYI Hodgdon start load 47 is still almost 62,000 PSI per QL

What do you all think? Am I missing something?

 

[BoydAllen]

Just a little suggestion, I think that the best use of any manual or program is just to come up with a safe starting load to work up from, so the top end loads are of little interest to me. The first thing that I do is to shoot o one shot per load test, in the case of your cartridge, with half grain steps, all on the same target, over flags, trying to shoot them all in the same condition. In just a few shots, I have my maximum load, and hopefully a cluster or two that I can test with three shot groups. I load at the range, so all of this goes rather quickly. Sometimes I have found that a manual load could be exceeded by quite a bit, other time it would have been hotter than I would care to use. By doing my test, I find out the top load for my particular rifle.

 

[thefitter]

Just a little suggestion, I think that the best use of any manual or program is just to come up with a safe starting load to work up from, so the top end loads are of little interest to me. The first thing that I do is to shoot o one shot per load test, in the case of your cartridge, with half grain steps, all on the same target, over flags, trying to shoot them all in the same condition. In just a few shots, I have my maximum load, and hopefully a cluster or two that I can test with three shot groups. I load at the range, so all of this goes rather quickly. Sometimes I have found that a manual load could be exceeded by quite a bit, other time it would have been hotter than I would care to use. By doing my test, I find out the top load for my particular rifle.

I agree, but Hogdons start load is 47 gr and like I said QL has that at 62,000 PSI.

 

[dmoran]

H4831 is pretty slow burning. It will take a full case of it I would think in a 7-08.
Myself, I believe Hodgdon's internal predictions would be closer of the two in your 7-08 scenario.
I have a pressure trace system, and find QL predictions to be wrong very often (at times not even close) to actual.
Donovan

 

[thefitter]

H4831 is pretty slow burning. It will take a full case of it I would think in a 7-08.
Myself, I believe Hodgdon's internal predictions would be closer of the two in your 7-08 scenario.
I have a pressure trace system, and find QL predictions to be wrong very often (at times not even close) to actual.
Donovan

In which direction? QL is overly conservative in your experience?

Thanks

 

[jlow]

I took a quick look at the QL data you put up and noticed that you are basically using default information like “cartridge length”, “Maximum Case Capacity, overflow”, and “Burning rate Factor Ba” that comes with QL.

FWIW, you simply cannot do that. QL expects you to adjust these numbers using real data that you collect for your rifle, your case, and your OAL, before you use it to predict anything - this is your problem. If you don’t understand this, take some time to do research before using the software or someone may get hurt…

 

[Ggmac]

Each rifle is a law unto itself . Use manuals , read the manual , start at the low and work up . Slowly , in small .5 grain increments . Change only 1 thing at a time , everything else stays the same , bullet manuf , weight , type ,lot # , case same manuf ,same case prep , neck turned , case length ,full length or neck sized , primer , same manufacturer, same type , prefer same lot # .
Once you have your most accurate load , not hottest ,at this point play with seating depth , primer types , etc . Always just change 1 at a time . Pressure can appear normal than spike in as little as 1 grain , with certain conditions .

 

[savagedasher]

Both larry

 

[thefitter]

I took a quick look at the QL data you put up and noticed that you are basically using default information like “cartridge length”, “Maximum Case Capacity, overflow”, and “Burning rate Factor Ba” that comes with QL.

FWIW, you simply cannot do that. QL expects you to adjust these numbers using real data that you collect for your rifle, your case, and your OAL, before you use it to predict anything - this is your problem. If you don’t understand this, take some time to do research before using the software or someone may get hurt…

I'm using actual case capacity and if you look I matched what Hodgdon has on their site for cartridge length etc,. But thanks anyway.

 

[jlow]

I took a quick look at the QL data you put up and noticed that you are basically using default information like “cartridge length”, “Maximum Case Capacity, overflow”, and “Burning rate Factor Ba” that comes with QL.

FWIW, you simply cannot do that. QL expects you to adjust these numbers using real data that you collect for your rifle, your case, and your OAL, before you use it to predict anything - this is your problem. If you don’t understand this, take some time to do research before using the software or someone may get hurt…

I'm using actual case capacity and if you look I matched what Hodgdon has on their site for cartridge length etc,. But thanks anyway.

If you are using your actual case capacity, then it would appear that your case capacity 3.571 cc just happen to be exactly the same as the default capacity of QL in my machine which is 3.571 cc???? You can perhaps understand why I am just a bit skeptical?

 

[savagedasher]

I have found errors in both. When I load a case I know nothing about I use Both. They both are man made and I never found a man that hasn't made a mistake. When you cutting lumber measure twice and cut once .
Reloading should be no different. Larry

 

[hmcsr]

I noticed that Hodgdon says 49gr = 49,400 CUP. Suggest you open QL, select the cartridge dimensions window, then on the selected cartridge side hover your cursor over the Pmax entry window. This will give you a popup. Also do the same for the measurement method window. Both should give you some understanding of the difference between piezo and cup measurements. Bottom line, QL requires piezo measurements.

Bill 8)

 

[Sheldon N]

I'm pretty skeptical of Hodgdon's data in this situation, on just a few common sense fronts.

49g of powder is a LOT to fit into a 7mm-08 case, which has less capacity than a 308 case. Note that it's nearly a 120% compressed load, which is just unrealistic. I start getting compressed loads around 43.5g in my 308 cases.

Hodgdon's data is MUCH higher than either Sierra or Nosler's reloading data. My Sierra manual puts max load at 45.5g for H4831 SC, and Nosler's online data for the 175g Spitz says 45.0g of H4831 for max load.

Agree with all the posters above that safe bet is to start low and work up, with any data. If you force me to pick who's right in this case, my vote goes to QL.

 

[BoydAllen]

I pulled my old Nosler #4 manual off of the shelf, and looking at the 175 Partition, H4831, Remington case, WLR primer, 26" barrel, the starting load is 41.0 gr. giving 2,510 FPS, and the top load is 45.0 grains which gave 2,510 FPS. When starting with a new cartridge, bullet weight or powder I survey all of the many manuals on my shelf. (From what I could gather all of this was done at 2.8" OAL)

 

[johnfred1965]

This is a good reason always to have more than one source of load data, hodgdon must have let this one slip by. I have a 7mm08 and there is no way I would shoot that load in my rifle, let alone even get that much powder in the case. I use 4831 in my 6.5x284 and 50gr fills that big case to the bottom of the shoulder. I'm glad you were safety conscious enough to double check and ask around before trying these loads. just my two cents.

John

 

[thefitter]

I took a quick look at the QL data you put up and noticed that you are basically using default information like “cartridge length”, “Maximum Case Capacity, overflow”, and “Burning rate Factor Ba” that comes with QL.

FWIW, you simply cannot do that. QL expects you to adjust these numbers using real data that you collect for your rifle, your case, and your OAL, before you use it to predict anything - this is your problem. If you don’t understand this, take some time to do research before using the software or someone may get hurt…

I'm using actual case capacity and if you look I matched what Hodgdon has on their site for cartridge length etc,. But thanks anyway.

If you are using your actual case capacity, then it would appear that your case capacity 3.571 cc just happen to be exactly the same as the default capacity of QL in my machine which is 3.571 cc???? You can perhaps understand why I am just a bit skeptical?

Not sure why you would think someone is BSing you...
When I started this build I measured case capacity of a half dozen Norma 7mm-08 cases. The average was 55gr. In my limited experience using QL (less than 10 calibers) I have found that its case capacity is usually pretty close. Where I found more inaccuracy is in the bullet length data. I always have to adjust that more than case capacity.

 

[thefitter]

I noticed that Hodgdon says 49gr = 49,400 CUP. Suggest you open QL, select the cartridge dimensions window, then on the selected cartridge side hover your cursor over the Pmax entry window. This will give you a popup. Also do the same for the measurement method window. Both should give you some understanding of the difference between piezo and cup measurements. Bottom line, QL requires piezo measurements.

Bill 8)

That's why I noted in the OP that Hogdons was CUP and CL was PSI. There is no direct correlation between CUP and PSI that I know of, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 49,400 CUP = 72,854 PSI.

 

[thefitter]

This is a good reason always to have more than one source of load data, hodgdon must have let this one slip by. I have a 7mm08 and there is no way I would shoot that load in my rifle, let alone even get that much powder in the case. I use 4831 in my 6.5x284 and 50gr fills that big case to the bottom of the shoulder. I'm glad you were safety conscious enough to double check and ask around before trying these loads. just my two cents.

John

This is one of the primary reasons I purchased QL was as a cross reference. Not necessarily because I think the books could be wrong, but to double check my own work.

When I'm developing loads I use the books, QL and what others are using in their own loads. Always moving from the bottom up in the charge.

 

[jlow]

OK, you said BS not me… Since you ask I will give you the whole rationale as to why I don’t believe you.

First as already mentioned, you case capacity 3.571 cc is exactly the same as the QL default number of 3.571 cc.

Second, and most important, your Ba number of 0.4301 is again the same as QL default number of 0.4301.

Anyone who has actually used QL knows that their default numbers are generally off and the Ba number has to be adjusted to match actual MV but yours appears to be exactly the same i.e. no adjustment necessary.

Finally, so you are telling us that you have “limited experience using QL (less than 10 calibers)” that its case capacity is usually pretty close.

Dude, no one who actually have any experience with QL will believe that you have any experience with this software. My advice is not knowing how to use QL is not a problem, we have all been there, but continuing on your trend of pure BS when someone calls you on it is just stupid…

 

[thefitter]

OK, you said BS not me… Since you ask I will give you the whole rationale as to why I don’t believe you.

First as already mentioned, you case capacity 3.571 cc is exactly the same as the QL default number of 3.571 cc.

Second, and most important, your Ba number of 0.4301 is again the same as QL default number of 0.4301.

Anyone who has actually used QL knows that their default numbers are generally off and the Ba number has to be adjusted to match actual MV but yours appears to be exactly the same i.e. no adjustment necessary.

Finally, so you are telling us that you have “limited experience using QL (less than 10 calibers)” that its case capacity is usually pretty close.

Dude, no one who actually have any experience with QL will believe that you have any experience with this software. My advice is not knowing how to use QL is not a problem, we have all been there, but continuing on your trend of pure BS when someone calls you on it is just stupid…

My experience with the software is that the case capacity is usually pretty close. Take it or leave it. And I do not adjust BA when I'm researching a new caliber.

Why not address the actual question of the original post, instead of posting condescending comments? None of your points would explain the size of the discrepancy between the two datas would they? Dude