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

[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…

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

Well you must be luckier than just about all of us. Most who have used it on a few calibers have never found the case capacity remotely close. If you have, maybe you can tell us your actual experience i.e. the type of cases that matched. And yea, you don't adjust Ba to match your MV and you wonder why the numbers are off. The more you talk, the more you tell us that you have no idea what you are talking about...

As to the actual question of the original post assumes that the both sets of numbers you put up are correct and based on my efforts to help which involves setting up QL to check those numbers, I gave you what I found i.e. one set may not be correct.

If you don’t appreciate my efforts and input, that is fine. I personally have wasted enough time on it so I will not be wasting anymore of your time.

 

[johnfred1965]

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.

As far as CUP vs PSI, while there is no direct correlation, the max pressure is max pressure regardless of how it is measured. 49,900 CUP may be close to max with that measurement, but 72,000 PSI is definitely over max on that measurement scale. You may not be able to infer loads below maximum, but the upper limit is the upper limit, no matter how you measure it.

 

[mikecr]

Hodgdon doesn't know any more about your barrel/chamber than anyone else.
With QL, you can at least calibrate your predictions after a few conservative trips to the range with a good chronograph.

Whatever your starting load, it needs to be less than 100% fill.

 

[Ggmac]

If using a dated (older) reload book don't use modern powders interchangably . Powders have become , slower , faster and should be used with books of the powders age . I hope this makes sense . It's also a good idea if you have a question regarding a load in say #12 manual , check the #13 manual to see if it's a typo . Always double check with other load manuals . I must have 20-25 dif manuals , yes my wife complains .
Gary

 

[jsthntn247]

Have you tried to seat a 175 to 2.800 with 49gr of powder??? You would know something wasn't right immediately.

 

[M99]

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.

You might want to contact Hodgon and let them know. It sure sounds as if they just made a mistake in their book. It happens. That's why you cross check with other books to get a sense of where to start load development.

 

[JarheadAZ]

I agree that book info is just about reasonable starting loads, and am gratified to discover that Boyd's system of initial case pressure testing corresponds to my own.

I strongly believe that any correlation between specific reloading measurements/values and my own chamber/barrel are simply coincidental. That's a relationship that my pressure testing regimen is intended to establish.

I am not interested in exploring the upper limits of load tolerance and velocity. I believe that any load testing that does not take case and bore life as a very high priority is chasing an ambiguous goal. I believe that pushing max downplays the importance of wind skills, no matter how hot the load; and increases copper fouling unnecessarily.

I start closely around min and increment until I hit the first/lowest node. I don't think there's any compellingly necessary reason to seek a higher node (for defeating the elusive paper beast).

My hunting loads are usually simply my target loads with the substitution of a hunting compatible bullet from the same maker at the closest possible weight. Usually the resulting load shoots acceptably enough not to require tuning.

Greg

 

[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.

You might want to contact Hodgon and let them know. It sure sounds as if they just made a mistake in their book. It happens. That's why you cross check with other books to get a sense of where to start load development.

I did call them today and asked that they verify the data. The rep seemed a little surprised that I asked this. And the only thing he did was run the same online program. I asked him if he thought that 49 gr in a 7mm-08 case was a lot he said it should be about "mid neck". He said the load was tried and true.

Then I called Ed at Neco just to double check my QL program and make sure I did not screw it up somehow. We ran it together over the phone and got the same numbers. The only way we could get 49 grs to not be in the red was to increase the case capacity to 59. We did not have actual bullet length because I have not bought these yet but unless they are way shorter than what is in QL I don't see that having a major change. QL bullet length matches what's on the Nosler site, but as I said before I always have to adjust the bullet input. Ed also recommended doing case volume measurements on a fired case and see how much that changes things.

I was starting to think if Hodgdons cases were way bigger and the bullet is really shorter then those numbers might make sense. But then I went back to the Nosler site and they show 41 start and 45 max, which (surprise) makes more sense in QL, in fact slightly conservative. But ... heres where it gets weird again, Nosler has case capacity for 7mm-08 at 47.2 !? Remington cases which are the thickest 7mm-08 I know are about 53. Where the hell are they getting 47.2? I have not tried Nosler brass or the new Lapuas in 7mm-08 could they really be that small?

So what does this all mean? Trust no one and start low!!!


Thanks

 

[Sheldon N]

But ... heres where it gets weird again, Nosler has case capacity for 7mm-08 at 47.2 !? Remington cases which are the thickest 7mm-08 I know are about 53. Where the hell are they getting 47.2? I have not tried Nosler brass or the new Lapuas in 7mm-08 could they really be that small?

Perhaps they are measuring effective case capacity with the bullet seated or capacity up to the neck/shoulder junction. I don't see how it could be that low. My Lapua 308 brass measures 55.6g of H20, and the only difference would be neck diameter.

 

[rogn]

Just had to check for myself. The daughter child has all the 7-08 brass, so i dug out a Norma 308 case, once fiird and FLS. The case weighed 166gr with a primer in place so the case is of good capacity for a 308. Also only had H4831SC. The case filled to the brim w/ a six inch drop tube weighed in at 55.0gr. The same case loaded with 49.0 gr came to the base of the neck, using the same drop tube. This is mind you w/ the same 6" drop tube and the same short cut powder. S standard H4831 would probably not fit 49gr in the 7-08 case. A little more of interest is that Hodgdon lists the same powder for the 7x57 which has about 3% more capacity than the 08 and they list the max at 40.0 gr and he pressure as 49K. Clearly a befuddle here somewhere. Probably spelled with an "H".

 

[Brians356]

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.

Au contraire. You can convert from CUP to PSI and back again. The two systems correlate quite well enough for rifle cartridges. However (quoted from below) "Since the numbers you are converting do not precisely represent actual chamber pressure, the results you get from the conversion will not be precise. About 2/3 of the time, the formula will land you within 3,000 PSI."

https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf

Using the CUP to PSI formula described in the article, 49,400 CUP converts to 56,988 PSI.

Given the limits of the conversion described above, it's true the conversion may not be accurate enough for certain purposes, i.e. QuickLoad, depending on QL's internals, the details of which I am not privy to.

 

[Zero333]

I trust QL but only after adjusting all the different variables. Thus far 99% of QL predicted velocities are within 20 fps of actual average velocities obtained at the range.