Big issue with QuickLoad & Ramshot Powders

[Pyrocat]

Hi All,

I have been playing around with QL for months now and it's still a mystery on how to get reliable data. I see tons of people working exclusively with it so I guess it's something with my setup...

I'm handloading for a .308 win bolt action rifle, 26" barrel 1:12 using ramshot TAC (that's the only one I was able to source at the time) with Sierra HPBT 175 gr (#2275). Measured case capacity is 55 gr H2O, case length 50.95 mm, OAL 71.08 mm.

According to quickload, with 42.00 gr of TAC I should get speeds of 2532 fps. With 41.96 gr I measured 2647 fps (avg on 50 shots), 19 fps stdev. I tried different loads and it's always ~100 fps difference while I see on forums & youtube people talking about much better agreement.

Also, when I compare the Ramshot tables with QL it's a complete mess!

Manual v8 gives 2690 fps @ 43.2 gr, QL 2536 fps which is about the difference I measure in my shots. More troubling is that according to the manual, that load should give the max pressure while QL says we're fine by more than 15%! QL will let you go up to 45.5 gr to reach the pressure reported by the manual @ 43.2 gr.

It gets even worse with the Big Game: manuals says to load 180 gr Sierra SP with 50.3 gr for max pressure, QL says it's 20% above max. Same for the Sierra 200 gr bullets...

Am I missing something here? That's super scary to base a load on QL data because I may either start my minimal load close to the actual max load or, worse, be way underloaded thinking that I would get much more pressure at the end.

 

[rustyinbend]

I've developed tons of loads with QL, and learned two main things that help me:
1. The data you get is dependent upon how complete your entries are (COAL, H2O, Barrel length, etc.)
2. Use the mid-point to check accuracy, and then make adjustments based on actual velocities
Basically ... enter all possible data about the cartridge, and start at the mid-point and adjust from there.
If you're looking for QL to exactly match reality ... that probably won't happen.
Think of it as a "Suggestion" ... not a "Solution".

 

[nn8734]

Why are you relying on QL?

Just do a pressure ladder over a chrono and let the rifle tell you where on the charge weight curve is too much. Then back off by a grain or two grains (specifically how much will depend on cartridge, etc) and do seating depth trials until it groups as you’d like.

 

[Holliday]

Hi All,

I have been playing around with QL for months now and it's still a mystery on how to get reliable data. I see tons of people working exclusively with it so I guess it's something with my setup...

I'm handloading for a .308 win bolt action rifle, 26" barrel 1:12 using ramshot TAC (that's the only one I was able to source at the time) with Sierra HPBT 175 gr (#2275). Measured case capacity is 55 gr H2O, case length 50.95 mm, OAL 71.08 mm.

According to quickload, with 42.00 gr of TAC I should get speeds of 2532 fps. With 41.96 gr I measured 2647 fps (avg on 50 shots), 19 fps stdev. I tried different loads and it's always ~100 fps difference while I see on forums & youtube people talking about much better agreement.

Also, when I compare the Ramshot tables with QL it's a complete mess!

Manual v8 gives 2690 fps @ 43.2 gr, QL 2536 fps which is about the difference I measure in my shots. More troubling is that according to the manual, that load should give the max pressure while QL says we're fine by more than 15%! QL will let you go up to 45.5 gr to reach the pressure reported by the manual @ 43.2 gr.

It gets even worse with the Big Game: manuals says to load 180 gr Sierra SP with 50.3 gr for max pressure, QL says it's 20% above max. Same for the Sierra 200 gr bullets...

Am I missing something here? That's super scary to base a load on QL data because I may either start my minimal load close to the actual max load or, worse, be way underloaded thinking that I would get much more pressure at the end.

I use QL and it is simple to use as a reference. Like was said already get all clean data inputed including case H2O.

Then start very low and log velocities. Adjust velocities by adjusting burn rate to correlate. Line up your powder temp while you do this. Write down the original burn rate before you start and you should be within 10%.

I have found that monitoring and correcting powder humidity really helps line things up. Here in Wyoming our powder tends to dry out over time which means it burns faster, and it weighs less. I was always getting very fast readings compared to QL until I figured this out.

QL is a guide and reference for analyzing empirical data. Real world is god.

 

[simonp]

Tagged for QL tips, QL is possibly the least user friendly software I’ve ever used apart from MS Visio & thinking back even Visio was easier

 

[Sheldon N]

There are things that Quickload is not going to get perfect. Some powder lots are are faster/dryer than other lots, some barrels are tighter than others, some powder doesn't behave completely linearly with temperature or as you approach max pressure, it might not take into account case specific things like neck tension/carbon rings that could add pressure, etc. However big picture I do find it fairly decent as a reference.

My suggestion would be to double check all your measurement inputs to make sure they are correct. Then once you have some preliminary test loads fired to get a velocity you can manually adjust the "Burning Rate Factor Ba" field to match up Quickload's predicted velocity with the actual measured velocity. You'll need to click the icon at the top left of the Propellant section to be able to adjust the inputs.

Once you've "trued up" the data you will have a half-decent indication of what kind of pressure the load is making.

Of course, real world pressure signs trump anything Quickload would say, so use common sense.

 

[straightshooter1]

Hi All,

I have been playing around with QL for months now and it's still a mystery on how to get reliable data. I see tons of people working exclusively with it so I guess it's something with my setup...

I'm handloading for a .308 win bolt action rifle, 26" barrel 1:12 using ramshot TAC (that's the only one I was able to source at the time) with Sierra HPBT 175 gr (#2275). Measured case capacity is 55 gr H2O, case length 50.95 mm, OAL 71.08 mm.

According to quickload, with 42.00 gr of TAC I should get speeds of 2532 fps. With 41.96 gr I measured 2647 fps (avg on 50 shots), 19 fps stdev. I tried different loads and it's always ~100 fps difference while I see on forums & youtube people talking about much better agreement.

Also, when I compare the Ramshot tables with QL it's a complete mess!

Manual v8 gives 2690 fps @ 43.2 gr, QL 2536 fps which is about the difference I measure in my shots. More troubling is that according to the manual, that load should give the max pressure while QL says we're fine by more than 15%! QL will let you go up to 45.5 gr to reach the pressure reported by the manual @ 43.2 gr.

It gets even worse with the Big Game: manuals says to load 180 gr Sierra SP with 50.3 gr for max pressure, QL says it's 20% above max. Same for the Sierra 200 gr bullets...

Am I missing something here? That's super scary to base a load on QL data because I may either start my minimal load close to the actual max load or, worse, be way underloaded thinking that I would get much more pressure at the end.

Yes . . . you DON'T load based on QL's default numbers. It's the numbers you actually measure that need to be input into quick load to gives a base for any other changes you make (like seating depths, different bullets, changes in temperature, etc.) Use loading manuals to decide where to start then get your actual data to input into QL. Note too that the Weighting Factor is something to work with to help get calculations that are more accurate. . . like for the .308, use .53 (but that might need a little tweaking too. And don't forget your temperature input then change the Ba number until you get the QL's velocity you averaged on your Chrono. And hopefully, your chrono is pretty accurate.

Interesting to me that you've measured your case capacity and only get 55.0 grs of H2O. That seems low to me for a measurement from a fired case, but then again, there are few brands that are that low . . .??? For Lapua and other cases, I often see 55.5 - 55.9 grs. I'm just pointing this out that you measured a fired case, though the smaller volume does lend to higher velocity.

 

[Pyrocat]

Yes . . . you DON'T load based on QL's default numbers. It's the numbers you actually measure that need to be input into quick load to gives a base for any other changes you make (like seating depths, different bullets, changes in temperature, etc.) Use loading manuals to decide where to start then get your actual data to input into QL. Note too that the Weighting Factor is something to work with to help get calculations that are more accurate. . . like for the .308, use .53 (but that might need a little tweaking too. And don't forget your temperature input then change the Ba number until you get the QL's velocity you averaged on your Chrono. And hopefully, your chrono is pretty accurate.

Interesting to me that you've measured your case capacity and only get 55.0 grs of H2O. That seems low to me for a measurement from a fired case, but then again, there are few brands that are that low . . .??? For Lapua and other cases, I often see 55.5 - 55.9 grs. I'm just pointing this out that you measured a fired case, though the smaller volume does lend to higher velocity.

View attachment 8118799

View attachment 8118800

Thanks for all your detailed answers!

I measured case capacity on fired cases using water until it form a non-flowing convex meniscus. Ammo are GGG which have good reputation. I have plenty of them so I never had to buy Lapua or other. They are relatively thick brass and have crimped primers so it's a bit more work to prepare them.

I didn't mention but I did a partial FL size with 0.002" set-back, deburred the flash hole and trimmed all the cases within 0.05 mm to achieve maximum consistency. Loads were matched better than 0.02 gr.

From the ladder, the optimal load (min group, min sd) was 41.5 gr - 42.0 gr of TAC. At 42 gr bolt was hard to lift on a few cases so I did not get higher than that.

I discussed a bit with my gunsmith and apparently people are complaining about handloading with that specific rifle. One even asked for a refund because he couldn't work up a load that didn't kill the brass after 1 or 2 firings. On the other hand, it's working like a charm with factory ammo -- 0.5' with all match ammo I tried! Rifle is NIMROD, small production of high quality parts.

 

[straightshooter1]

Thanks for all your detailed answers!

I measured case capacity on fired cases using water until it form a non-flowing convex meniscus. Ammo are GGG which have good reputation. I have plenty of them so I never had to buy Lapua or other. They are relatively thick brass and have crimped primers so it's a bit more work to prepare them.

I didn't mention but I did a partial FL size with 0.002" set-back, deburred the flash hole and trimmed all the cases within 0.05 mm to achieve maximum consistency. Loads were matched better than 0.02 gr.

From the ladder, the optimal load (min group, min sd) was 41.5 gr - 42.0 gr of TAC. At 42 gr bolt was hard to lift on a few cases so I did not get higher than that.

I discussed a bit with my gunsmith and apparently people are complaining about handloading with that specific rifle. One even asked for a refund because he couldn't work up a load that didn't kill the brass after 1 or 2 firings. On the other hand, it's working like a charm with factory ammo -- 0.5' with all match ammo I tried! Rifle is NIMROD, small production of high quality parts.

As you can see in my pic of QL, it doesn't look to me like the powder charge is producing enough pressure to be the cause of the hard bolt lift at 42.0 grs of TAC. But, that "partial FL size with 0.002" set-back" might be the culprit. . . . especially if the chamber in your NIMROD has tight clearances??? I might try adding another thousandth to the setback???

 

[Pyrocat]

As you can see in my pic of QL, it doesn't look to me like the powder charge is producing enough pressure to be the cause of the hard bolt lift at 42.0 grs of TAC. But, that "partial FL size with 0.002" set-back" might be the culprit. . . . especially if the chamber in your NIMROD has tight clearances???

View attachment 8118867

Same here, which is the thing that makes me a bit anxious with the data provided by QL concerning the MAP load. At 42 gr I get velocities that correspond to QL maximum loads :-/ and since it's a 26" barrel I can't compare with the manual directly.

It's difficult for me to judge for other signs of pressure because my rifle leaves ejector mark on all ammo (including factory ammo) and the firing pin seems to be quite aggressive as well on the primers. I'll take some pictures after my next session to share them here.

I had to discard batch #1 after 3 reloads because of alarming signs of case-head separation. Batch #2 is at its 3rd reload (unshot yet) and batch #3 and #4 at 1st reload. Depending on who I talk to at the range, I should expect between 6 and 10 firing with that brand of cases.

these are my first handloading attempts so it's possible that I screwed up batch #1 with excessive resizing. I did pay a lot of attention thought and used multiple metrology techniques to double-check everything at each step.

 

[straightshooter1]

Same here, which is the thing that makes me a bit anxious with the data provided by QL concerning the MAP load. At 42 gr I get velocities that correspond to QL maximum loads :-/ and since it's a 26" barrel I can't compare with the manual directly.

It's difficult for me to judge for other signs of pressure because my rifle leaves ejector mark on all ammo (including factory ammo) and the firing pin seems to be quite aggressive as well on the primers. I'll take some pictures after my next session to share them here.

I had to discard batch #1 after 3 reloads because of alarming signs of case-head separation. Batch #2 is at its 3rd reload (unshot yet) and batch #3 and #4 at 1st reload. Depending on who I talk to at the range, I should expect between 6 and 10 firing with that brand of cases.

these are my first handloading attempts so it's possible that I screwed up batch #1 with excessive resizing. I did pay a lot of attention thought and used multiple metrology techniques to double-check everything at each step.

Am curious, did you fire form your cases before determining how to set up your die for your .002" setback? Being that GGG brass is "thick brass", it'd probably take 2 firings just to get them fire formed.

 

[Pyrocat]

Am curious, did you fire form your cases before determining how to set up your die for your .002" setback? Being that GGG brass is "thick brass", it'd probably take 2 firings just to get them fire formed.

That's probably where I screwed up in batch #1; the initial firing was probably not enough and I took an expanded reference that wasn't the actual chamber size or anything close to it.

On the next batch I necksized them for the first reload and they did increase a touch more. They didn't expand further after. So the first "0.002" was probably more 0.004-0.006.

I measured them using Hornady tool and sized the cases using redding competition holder set, starting from the largest one and going smaller until they lost 0.002" to the max size I measured.

 

[BCP]

Try inputting different water capacity until you get near your field results? Maybe how you measure case capacity is a little different than how QL thinks case capacity is measured.

I shoot lots of TAC and 42gr in that brass with a 175smk is about right, or 40.7gr.

Also I full length resize everything because it is for an AR10 and the military brass still lasts quite awhile. Necks split after 4-5 loadings????

 

[Pyrocat]

I went to the shooting range yesterday. Tried 41.44 gr (0.02 gr accuracy) at 14°C. Average speed was 2570 fps which is very close to my previous experiments at that temperature despite the rounds (and rifle) had been sitting around unused for almost 2 years.

No sticky bolt, no warning signs on the primers. The only thing I spotted was that the primers seems to have been seated a bit deep. I joined a picture, tell me if you spot anything odd but they look fine to me.

The only thing I'm a bit disappointed is the spread: SD 25 fps, ES 120 fps (50 rounds). I measured the H2O capacity of all cases and the unprimed weights of the case. I get big spread of up to 1.6 gr H2O and 4 gr for the brass! Unfortunately the measures does not correlate with recorded speed (R²<0.1)... I'll keep investigating and apply myself. MOA is good enough for what I have to do (0.5' on 10x 5 rounds).