GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2013, 14:07   #21
F106 Fan
Senior Member
 
F106 Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,062
I guess my problem with QuickLoad is "Who says so?". For all the data that is presented have there been ANY actual calibration measurements? Where did the equations come from? Where did the powder burn rate info come from? Where did the science come from? Who says so?

I'm neither for nor against QuickLoad. It's kind of expensive and I still don't know "Who says so?". Despite all the money I spend on shooting, I just can't justify this expense. For me...

We have to assume that reloading manuals are providing safe data. Some manuals are clearly safer than others. Those manuals that have been scrubbed by lawyers seem to have the lower MAX loads but I might feel comfortable using any published data as long as I worked up slowly. Tens of thousands of reloaders use these manuals every day and most of them do so safely.

So, I decided to go with Sierra for rifle loads. My pistol loads are middle of the road and just about any manual will do. Of course, my rifle loads are just middlin' velocity as well.

I don't see the need to get anywhere near MAX. For me... Others may have a need for higher velocities but my suggestion would be to just change powder.

Richard
__________________
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." - Lily Tomlin

Last edited by F106 Fan; 09-08-2013 at 14:08..
F106 Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 17:03   #22
steve4102
Senior Member
 
steve4102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by themighty9mm View Post
And this is exactly where I ran into issues. Of my three manuals, the two that had relevant info in them are in a very similar situatioin to as you described. Though I did not see any pressure signs in the cases or primers. I have decided to back off the powder charge, and in this case ignore the lyman data. (Even though the lyman data shows I am well within what is acceptable) Instead I will listen to speer. With the quickload showing near identical velocities, and telling me. "hey, you are pushing the upper limit, watch yourself". I will go ahead and listen to it as well. As it also apparently seems to support what speer is telling me.

I did not know about the quickload program before. First time I had heard of it
I would not listen to "Speer" or "Lyman" or anyone but Accurate Powders when it comes to 2230.

Like I said earlier, 2230 has changed in the past few years and most all data is obsolete except for Accurate/Ramshot/Western Powders.

Here!
http://www.accuratepowder.com/
__________________
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
steve4102 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 17:31   #23
steve4102
Senior Member
 
steve4102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by F106 Fan View Post
I guess my problem with QuickLoad is "Who says so?". For all the data that is presented have there been ANY actual calibration measurements? Where did the equations come from? Where did the powder burn rate info come from? Where did the science come from? Who says so?

I'm neither for nor against QuickLoad. It's kind of expensive and I still don't know "Who says so?". Despite all the money I spend on shooting, I just can't justify this expense. For me...

We have to assume that reloading manuals are providing safe data. Some manuals are clearly safer than others. Those manuals that have been scrubbed by lawyers seem to have the lower MAX loads but I might feel comfortable using any published data as long as I worked up slowly. Tens of thousands of reloaders use these manuals every day and most of them do so safely.

So, I decided to go with Sierra for rifle loads. My pistol loads are middle of the road and just about any manual will do. Of course, my rifle loads are just middlin' velocity as well.



Richard
I can't answer your questions about QL as to how it works or why it works or "Who says". I can tell you that is is a very complex computer program with the guts and the workings well beyond anything either one of us know anything about or ever will.
It's kinda like asking NASA, "Who Says" when it comes to their mathematical and computer generated solutions for space travel. We watch it and we see it, but the average Joe will never understand it.

As for your decision to "go with Sierra" data for your rifle loads, Why?
Sierra does not list actual tested pressures like the powder manufacturer's and Lyman does. Why is that? Answer, they do not know what the actual pressure of the tested loads is or was.
Sierra does not have or use pressure testing equipment, they guess just like you and I do with fallible and inaccurate techniques. Techniques like CHE and PRE, reading primers, chrony data and all the other "shoot-em and Look for signs" techniques. Of all the data available, I trust Sierra the least. As a matter of fact, if I had to choose between QL and Sierra, I would go with QL hands down evey time.
__________________
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
steve4102 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 18:19   #24
fredj338
Senior Member
 
fredj338's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: so.cal.
Posts: 21,863
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
A lot of times that easier said than done. Load data varies from one data source to the next often times it is impossible.

For example.

Hodgdon data. 223 Rem, 60gr Hornady V-Max, 2.250 OAL.
Varget Powder, Start=25gr, Max=27.0gr.


Hornady Data. 223 Rem, 60gr Hornady V-Max, 2.250 OAL.
Varget Powder, Start=21.7gr, Max=24.9gr.

It is not uncommon to find a situation like this where the Max charge in one manual is less than the "Start" charge in another. Same bullet, same OAL, same powder, yet completely different results.

As I said, staying within book data is often time difficult if not impossible. Quickload is certainly not perfect, but neither are the loading manuals.
Where exp comes in. When I am going to a new bullet/powder or calibner combo, I use avg book data & work up. Using a chrono, comparing vel to book data, modififed for bbl length of course, it's a safe way to work up loads w/ no guessing involved. Like data manuals, LQ is another good tool, but not to be trusted as the final word.
__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".

Last edited by fredj338; 09-08-2013 at 18:21..
fredj338 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 19:21   #25
steve4102
Senior Member
 
steve4102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredj338 View Post
Where exp comes in. When I am going to a new bullet/powder or calibner combo, I use avg book data & work up. Using a chrono, comparing vel to book data, modififed for bbl length of course, it's a safe way to work up loads w/ no guessing involved. Like data manuals, LQ is another good tool, but not to be trusted as the final word.
Velocity "Modified for barrel length", How much for each inch of barrel? Is this the same for rifle as it is for pistol. Where did you get your "Modified for barrel length" number? Is there a hard and fast rule for this or is it an educated Guess?
__________________
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
steve4102 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 13:54   #26
fredj338
Senior Member
 
fredj338's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: so.cal.
Posts: 21,863
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
Velocity "Modified for barrel length", How much for each inch of barrel? Is this the same for rifle as it is for pistol. Where did you get your "Modified for barrel length" number? Is there a hard and fast rule for this or is it an educated Guess?
There are few hard & fast rules in reloading. For rifles, 40-50fps is the avg vel loss per 1" of bbl. Yeah, it's based on various tests through out the year, but it is a guide line. For handguns 30-40fps +/-, again, based on past tests. My point, you can't look at book data for say the 223 w/ 24" bbl & try to get sim results w/ a 16" bbl AR or 44mag loads in a 4" from 7 1/2" data. None of this is new, w/ QL just being a better WAG. The only true numbers come from a chrono & pressure test in your gun. Even pressure tested data in the books is good for ONLY that gun & those exact components.
__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".

Last edited by fredj338; 09-09-2013 at 13:54..
fredj338 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 16:06   #27
steve4102
Senior Member
 
steve4102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,075
Right, so following published data is pretty much a WAG as is Quickload.
__________________
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
steve4102 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 16:13   #28
steve4102
Senior Member
 
steve4102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,075
delete double post
__________________
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.

Last edited by steve4102; 09-09-2013 at 16:14..
steve4102 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 16:54   #29
fredj338
Senior Member
 
fredj338's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: so.cal.
Posts: 21,863
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
Right, so following published data is pretty much a WAG as is Quickload.
Both are educated WAG. QL, no gun, no actual testing, just average numbers. In a manual loads are tested in a single gun. So your results will vary, sometimes quite a lot. The only way to accurately work up loads is in your gun, chrono & pressure testing. Since none of us do that, we have some extrapolating to do, but you can never, with finality, say what the pressure is in your load/gun combo.
__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".
fredj338 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:20.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 518
127 Members
391 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31