Quickload Data 300 Norma Mag 230 gr Berger Hybrid OTM Tactical

[Bruce K]

Just my perspective on a starting point.

I ordered an Accuracy International AXSR in 300 Norma Magnum and 5 boxes of Berger 230 grain Hybrid OTM Tactical cartridges for the Lapua Brass and later load development. I like Vihtavuori N500 series powders for the 300 Norma Magnum.

Using the Vihtavuori load calculator, it suggested N560, N565 and N570 powders. However, running Quickload my first assessment suggested N568 was the ideal powder based on a case capacity fill of 98% at 63,412 p.s.i. (near max), and a burn rate of 100% out of a 27 inch barrel at 2,981 f.p.s. While reviewing the “Table of powders and Cartridge Data” showing comparable powders, many powders have a 100% burnt propellant factor. However, looking at another table ”Estimates of the progress of combustion” we can see when the propellant achieves 100% as it travels down the barrel.

Powders reaching 100% early suggest a powder burn rate that is too fast, powders never reaching 100% suggest a powder burn rate to slow.

Safe reloading practices dictate a charge starting point well below max utilizing what is commonly known as a “ladder” or “Satterlee ladder test.” There are several variations of this but you’re looking for that range of charges that produce the least variance in velocity known as a “node.” There may be several nodes too. This first ladder test can have some wide increments, say .3 grains or whatever you wish. More on this later.

In searching for favorable “nodes” your bullet seating depth is not critical at this point, so start at .0003 off the lands and shoot your groups to find a node or nodes. Now the range of seating depth will depend on several factors, what is your chamber dimensions (SAAMI or custom), single or magazine feed will determine your possible range of COAL.

Once you determined your seating depth, it’s likely different from your initial starting point and therefore your case capacity is slightly different, and you should redo the “ladder test” again in smaller increments +- .5 grains on either side of your new starting charge weight in .1 grain increments to fine tune your adjusted charge weight.

When seating bullets within the range in your “node”, start at the longest length within your node range since barrel erosion only goes one way.

While I have not evaluated this, Erik Cortina says much of the bullet seating testing can be replaced with a tuner. I’m not sure, just passing along what I understood him to say.

DO NOT RELY ON ANY INFORMATION IN MY POST, CHECK EVERYTHING INDEPENDENTLY.

 

[NiteQwill]

Welcome to the internet

 

[Maurygold]

Berger hybrid shoots best 30-40 thou off lands. This is according to extensive Berger testing and is very commonly accepted. I would not to my testing that close to the lands on a hybrid

 

[Bruce K]

You may be right, but as long as I'm not jamming the lands I won't have pressure issues and with an initial node test in
.003 increments I can be .045 off the lands in 15 shots.

 

[Maurygold]

You may be right, but as long as I'm not jamming the lands I won't have pressure issues and with an initial node test in
.003 increments I can be .045 off the lands in 15 shots.

Your ladder testing of powder will be more accurate and valuable at 30-40 thou off - where that bullet was designed to shoot from.

15 shots? You mean 15 loads right? What would a single shot tell you about load length?

I have test the hybrids a good bit and they’re pretty insensitive to length once you get past 30 thou. I usually set mine there and leave them for lifecycle of barrel since the erosion keeps them in that window they were designed for and have been very successful with this.

I shot my best group ever at 2500 rounds down a 300 wm last week and I’ve never once adjusted the hybrids for erosion

 

[wkarma]

Waste of time and money imho. Work up for pressure, set to mag length if required, send it.

 

[Runnineh]

I worked up some loads with n570 a while back using the bergers and had a 27 tube. I was getting between 3020-3025. When I get home I'll check to see if I still have the notes. I ended up using rl33

 

[Bruce K]

Your ladder testing of powder will be more accurate and valuable at 30-40 thou off - where that bullet was designed to shoot from.

15 shots? You mean 15 loads right? What would a single shot tell you about load length?

I have test the hybrids a good bit and they’re pretty insensitive to length once you get past 30 thou. I usually set mine there and leave them for lifecycle of barrel since the erosion keeps them in that window they were designed for and have been very successful with this.

I shot my best group ever at 2500 rounds down a 300 wm last week and I’ve never once adjusted the hybrids for erosion

View attachment 8758547

What I mean is starting from .003 off the lands and moving back in .003 increments. after shooting one round and moving back .003 and firing another round, after 15 rounds I'll be be .048 off the lands. If there is evidence further "rough" testing might show additional nodes I can test further.

With a preliminary powder charge range in mind along with a freebore range I can then test for a charge node in .001 increments.

I've been reloading precision ammo for decades and found out long ago people like Bryan Litz and Mitch at Applied Ballistics, Erik Cortina, Mark Gordon of Short Action Customs, Eric Andersen of Blue Mountain Precision, Frank Green of Bartlein Barrels, Jim Borden of Borden Actions, Tom Jacobs of Vapor Trail bullets, Thomas "Speedy" Gonzales renowned and hall of Fame benchrest shooter and gunsmith, Todd Henderson formerly of Henderson Precision, John Perkins of 21st Century Precision, John Maset aka F-Class John and others, JOhn Whidden of Whidden Gunworks, Tod Hendricks (2021 F-Open National Champion), Jack Neary, many of whom I've purchased products from or talked with about issues and listen to their podcasts have shown me how much more there is to learn.

For those that feel what works for them is the end all, great, but people like Bryan Litz and Erik Cortina continue to test and learn about ballistics. In an interview with Erik Cortina, one six time champion said he is always testing new things because if you don't, your competitors are and you'll soon fall behind.

I have three reloading rooms filled with precision tools, most I like, some I rarely use, but I learned something from using everyone one of them. As "NiteQwill" said, "welcome to the internet."

As for your best group after 2500 rounds with a 300 WM that's impressive, but it can be argued 3 shot groups are not statistically meaningful for evaluating a rifles true precision since a "bug-hole" 3-shot group can also produce a much larger group later, showing that a small, tight group was merely a statistical fluke.

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination and with 40 years of reloading and shooting experience I'm still learning about ballistics and tips from those that share the belief there is always more to learn.

 

[Bruce K]

I worked up some loads with n570 a while back using the bergers and had a 27 tube. I was getting between 3020-3025. When I get home I'll check to see if I still have the notes. I ended up using rl33

I'm interested to know your results and why you settled on Rl33.

I'm going to test of the n100 Vihtavuori powders as well vs the N500 powders. The N100 series single-base powders known for their versatility, stability, and typically lower peak pressure for comparable velocities, while the N500 series are "semi double-base" powders incorporating nitroglycerin for higher energy and increased velocity, often with a hotter flame and greater temperature sensitivity, making them suited for maximum ballistic performance and long-range shooting. The N100 series are generally preferred for benchrest and temperature-sensitive applications, whereas the N500 series are chosen when maximum speed is the priority, despite the higher potential for barrel erosion.

In my initial Quickload test of N568 vs N165, N568 at similar pressures was 156 fps faster shooting a Berger 30 Caliber 230 Grain Hybrid OTM Tactical Rifle Bullet showing the difference between single and semi-double-base powders.

As I continue to learn Quickload after years of use, I continue to dig deeper into its functions appreciating some of its finer nuances.

 

[Maurygold]

What I mean is starting from .003 off the lands and moving back in .003 increments. after shooting one round and moving back .003 and firing another round, after 15 rounds I'll be be .048 off the lands. If there is evidence further "rough" testing might show additional nodes I can test further.

With a preliminary powder charge range in mind along with a freebore range I can then test for a charge node in .001 increments.

I've been reloading precision ammo for decades and found out long ago people like Bryan Litz and Mitch at Applied Ballistics, Erik Cortina, Mark Gordon of Short Action Customs, Eric Andersen of Blue Mountain Precision, Frank Green of Bartlein Barrels, Jim Borden of Borden Actions, Tom Jacobs of Vapor Trail bullets, Thomas "Speedy" Gonzales renowned and hall of Fame benchrest shooter and gunsmith, Todd Henderson formerly of Henderson Precision, John Perkins of 21st Century Precision, John Maset aka F-Class John and others, JOhn Whidden of Whidden Gunworks, Tod Hendricks (2021 F-Open National Champion), Jack Neary, many of whom I've purchased products from or talked with about issues and listen to their podcasts have shown me how much more there is to learn.

For those that feel what works for them is the end all, great, but people like Bryan Litz and Erik Cortina continue to test and learn about ballistics. In an interview with Erik Cortina, one six time champion said he is always testing new things because if you don't, your competitors are and you'll soon fall behind.

I have three reloading rooms filled with precision tools, most I like, some I rarely use, but I learned something from using everyone one of them. As "NiteQwill" said, "welcome to the internet."

As for your best group after 2500 rounds with a 300 WM that's impressive, but it can be argued 3 shot groups are not statistically meaningful for evaluating a rifles true precision since a "bug-hole" 3-shot group can also produce a much larger group later, showing that a small, tight group was merely a statistical fluke.

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination and with 40 years of reloading and shooting experience I'm still learning about ballistics and tips from those that share the belief there is always more to learn.

The more I shoot the less sure I am about nodes. And yes I’ve listened to every cortina podcast with most of those people and then some.

I’ve also never seen someone luck their way into tiny groups at distance.

 

[Bruce K]

The more I shoot the less sure I am about nodes. And yes I’ve listened to every cortina podcast with most of those people and then some.

I’ve also never seen someone luck their way into tiny groups at distance.

If you appreciate guys like Bryan Litz and Erik Cortina, have read Bryan's books, have an AMP annealer, Area 419 press and A&D powder scale and auto tricker I'm confident you find testing fun and somewhat important.

 

[Bruce K]

Geekiness and precision reloading.

The only constant in the observable universe is change itself. Alvin Tofffler wrote about the accelerated rate of technological change being difficult for many people to adapt manifesting as “information overload.”

This is the case in precision reloading with the advancements in ballistic theory and technology, computational modeling, and a deeper understanding of complex physics to enhance ballistic theory. These innovations have revolutionized the study of projectiles, from internal ballistics (inside the firearm) to external ballistics (in flight) and terminal ballistics (on impact).

Programs like Quickload, a commercial interior ballistics software program simulates and predicts the performance of handloaded ammunition, helping reloaders understand how changes in bullet seating, powder, and other variables affect pressure, muzzle velocity, and other factors before testing at the range. It aids with load development, especially for non-standard or custom cartridges, by providing a starting point and helping to optimize load combinations.

When evaluating modern gunpowders, also known as smokeless powders, they vary significantly in their composition, burn rate, and other characteristics to achieve a vast variety of performance outcomes. Quickload allows me to run simulations of all known gunpowders based on specific criteria and weapons, looking at but not limited to max pressure, burn rate, muzzle velocity, case capacity and fill.

With this information I can narrow down the list of powders to test searching for velocity and bullet seating depth nodes. Nodes will show the variance of incremental change for powder charge weight and bullet seating depth. The goal is to find where these nodes exist and select the widest node range having the least variance per incremental change allowing for the greatest ballistic consistency, something critical for long distance shooting.

By way of example testing two powders from Vihtavuori, N568 and N165 for a 300 Norma Magnum, N100 series are single-base powders known for their versatility, stability, and typically lower peak pressure for comparable velocities, while the N500 series are "semi double-base" powders incorporating nitroglycerin for higher energy and increased velocity, often with a hotter flame and greater temperature sensitivity, making them suited for maximum ballistic performance and long-range shooting.

We see the single-base N165 loaded to a similar pressure as the semi double-based N568 powder produces approximately 156 feet per second less velocity with both having burnt 100% before reaching the muzzle. Case fill is 98% vs 93% respectively, so within an acceptable case fill range.

In reviewing the Quickload data we see N1165 reaches 100% burnt rate sooner than N568 suggesting its burn rate is a bit to fast, but acceptable.

What is important, especially shooting magnum loads or those known as “barrel burners” is to see what the tradeoff is. Higher velocity for the same bullet will deliver a flatter trajectory and better wind bucking performance, however in certain circumstances shorter barrel life. Depending on the cartridge and load criteria, acceptable barrel life can be as short as 800 rounds. Acceptable being the operative term.

Using the online Berger Ballistic Calculator for Berger Norma Magnum 230gr Hybrid OTM Tactical Rifle Ammunition at two velocities, N568 (2,981 fps) and N165 (2,825 fps) we get the following table (see picture) showing velocity, elevation drop, and time of flight at distances from 600 to 1,800 yards for both powders. Based on your specific needs you can select which powder best suits your needs, the faster and hotter N568 or the slower N165.

 

[Bruce K]

Maurygold, I did not mean to suggest your group was luck, rather a general comment on small groups which I know you're well aware of having read Bryan Litz's book and listening to others.

"I’ve also never seen someone luck their way into tiny groups at distance."

That group, especially if it is representative of the precision of your rifle and loads is exceptional.

 

[NiteQwill]

I feel like we are getting duped by AI.

Is this real?

Are we contributing something new for knowledge or is there a question being asked?

 

[Runnineh]

I'm interested to know your results and why you settled on Rl33.

I'm going to test of the n100 Vihtavuori powders as well vs the N500 powders. The N100 series single-base powders known for their versatility, stability, and typically lower peak pressure for comparable velocities, while the N500 series are "semi double-base" powders incorporating nitroglycerin for higher energy and increased velocity, often with a hotter flame and greater temperature sensitivity, making them suited for maximum ballistic performance and long-range shooting. The N100 series are generally preferred for benchrest and temperature-sensitive applications, whereas the N500 series are chosen when maximum speed is the priority, despite the higher potential for barrel erosion.

In my initial Quickload test of N568 vs N165, N568 at similar pressures was 156 fps faster shooting a Berger 30 Caliber 230 Grain Hybrid OTM Tactical Rifle Bullet showing the difference between single and semi-double-base powders.

As I continue to learn Quickload after years of use, I continue to dig deeper into its functions appreciating some of its finer nuances.

I don't have my notes anymore for n570. I settled on 33 because I got better velocity (3050) with decent sd's of about 12-15. I've read about temp variations, but I haven't seen much. Granted I'm in socal, but I've shot in the desert when it's 40 and high 90s and haven't seen anything crazy. I would say just like everyone else: use programs as a guide, take notes (don't lose them) of actual results and tweak as you see fit.

 

[Bruce K]

I'm planning on experimenting with the Vihtavuori powders, but will also run Quickload using H1000 and Retumbo powders.

 

[Maurygold]

Nice to have your support and informative comments.

They’re mostly intrigued by your unprompted paragraphs of information with no one asking questions.

It’s great you like reloading but you’re giving your own masterclass to yourself deep diving things that really arent critical or complex.

Picking a powder is pretty easy for magnum cartridges - h1000, or n570. I don’t like retumbo as much but it’s a third option.

 

[Dogtown]

Yeah, feels very stream of consciousness....

Anyway, the VV powders have great options for 300NM, otherwise everyone seems to shoot H1000 if they can find it. N570 feels the most optimized VV powder for the cartridge in that it works very well with a pretty wide range of bullets, at the expense of excessive heat (lots of guys complain about dirty bore and faster throat erosion with N570). N170 is an excellent option if you want to extend the life of the throat in exchange for a bit less velocity. N565 and N568 work well too if you're shooting the 215-220gr bullets, I find.

 

[Bruce K]

OK, I didn’t realize the Sniper’s Hide etiquette was don’t post detailed observations unless responding to a question.

I see people posting load data frequently on his site, however, without a “Quickload” type analysis showing pressure, propellant burn rate within barrel, case capacity, max pressure and velocity how do you compare the efficiency of one load against another.

Without data you’re guessing on the differences between load data and therefore have no real idea on knowing if further optimization is worth pursuing. If this type of information is not of interest to the community I won’t post what I thought was helpful data to perhaps those loading the 300 Norma Magnum and sharing the difference between single base vs semi double-base powders.

There are some very knowledgeable people on the site, but it seems by posts I’ve seen that someone might have found the information helpful. I did start the post saying this was just my perspective as a starting point.

 

[NiteQwill]

The issue is Quick Load is just one cog in the wheel. The important real life test is rounds down range and impacts on target. Some of the best shooters in the world that I personally know... None of them use Quick Load. My subjective observation.

Your posts come off as an advertisement and/or a odd banter.

 

[Dogtown]

There are cartridge specific threads where people share and discuss loads - 300NM is a long one. And yes, QL gets used for some analysis, but it’s not ground truth; it’s merely a tool for coarse simulation of components. Yes, the parameters can be tuned to a load to be more predictive, but I think you’ll find most people rely on it for ballpark estimates and/or in lieu of an absence of published load data.

But now be prepared for random people messaging you and asking if you can run some QL numbers for them.

 

[Bruce K]

I won't share in the future and my post said a starting point. Good grief.