ShtrRdy
Well-Known Member
I do that and use to get good results from QL. After I updated QL a few months ago it doesn't seem to be working as well. I'll probably contact QL after I put together an example or two.
QuickLOAD way off from reality. Solutions?
- Thread starter entoptics
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
waveslayer
Well-Known Member
There are a few food cheat sheets out there for QL. But adjust what we listed above a s you should be good
muzzletalk
Active Member
No, not really. I hold no judgment so if you don't understand an acronym, just ask. I'll help where I can.
JKPhoto
Active Member
I will share something that I ran across recently, as it affects powder charge. I left some N570 in the hopper of my Chargemaster Lite for three days before I was able to get back to Load Development ... humidity is low here in NJ this time of year. When I loaded the next test rounds I found that my muzzle velocity increased about 50-60fps from the last test. Confused me.
Research led me to the possibility of moisture content of the powder being reduced as it gave up some of its moisture to the air in the room. So I did a test of counting out 30 kernels of powder from the hopper and 30 kernels from the jug of powder. They weighed differently. The powder that was in the hopper weighed less than the fresh powder, causing MORE KERNELS to be used to get to the same charge weight.
So I offer this as one possibility of why your results could be different than QuickLoad. Your powder may be different than "factory specs" due to storage issues? Nonetheless, to adapt to actual powder performance, I end up adjusting the Ba Burn Rate (mine tends to be about 5% higher than QL), and the Weighting Factor (I use as an example 0.39 for 6.5 PRC and 300 PRC) so that MV matches the chronographed tested velocities.
I have not figured out how to "change the slope" of the velocities so that they match all the way up and down the line instead of at a couple of charge weights. Anyone know how to do that?
Research led me to the possibility of moisture content of the powder being reduced as it gave up some of its moisture to the air in the room. So I did a test of counting out 30 kernels of powder from the hopper and 30 kernels from the jug of powder. They weighed differently. The powder that was in the hopper weighed less than the fresh powder, causing MORE KERNELS to be used to get to the same charge weight.
So I offer this as one possibility of why your results could be different than QuickLoad. Your powder may be different than "factory specs" due to storage issues? Nonetheless, to adapt to actual powder performance, I end up adjusting the Ba Burn Rate (mine tends to be about 5% higher than QL), and the Weighting Factor (I use as an example 0.39 for 6.5 PRC and 300 PRC) so that MV matches the chronographed tested velocities.
I have not figured out how to "change the slope" of the velocities so that they match all the way up and down the line instead of at a couple of charge weights. Anyone know how to do that?
Last edited:
TommyBreaux
Active Member
The weighing factor is:
It is different for each gun based on the case capacity of YOUR rounds.
I use both GRT and Quickload. Quickload more than GRT. I have found it to be very accurate in predicting loads provided you are putting accurate parameters and then calibrating it by modifying the Ba and the actual temperature at the time of firing the loads. Otherwise garbage in equal garbage out.
I use these tools to try to get the most accurate loads by looking at the optimal barrel times and adjusting my loads to get barrel time predicted. I don't try to achieve maximum velocity and that keeps me away from maximum pressure. If you haven't read Chris Long's Optimal Barrel Time Theory White Paper then you are missing the true value of Quickload.
I use both GRT and Quickload. Quickload more than GRT. I have found it to be very accurate in predicting loads provided you are putting accurate parameters and then calibrating it by modifying the Ba and the actual temperature at the time of firing the loads. Otherwise garbage in equal garbage out.
I use these tools to try to get the most accurate loads by looking at the optimal barrel times and adjusting my loads to get barrel time predicted. I don't try to achieve maximum velocity and that keeps me away from maximum pressure. If you haven't read Chris Long's Optimal Barrel Time Theory White Paper then you are missing the true value of Quickload.
muzzletalk
Active Member
If you're interested in learning a little more about humidity, here's an interesting observation. Just thought I'd add a little tid bit of info since you were already looking into humidity.
How does humidity affect powder?
You may have heard about a relationship between humidity and bullet velocity either in a book, on a reloading forum, or from a crusty benchrest shooter right after saying they get better ES/SD̵…
chronoplotter.com
WildRose
Well-Known Member
Never be afraid to ask when you are unsure, none of us are born knowing all of this stuff and it's a whole new language if you're new to shooting/hunting and/or reloading.
Better to ask rather than bull your way through especially when it comes to reloading where small errors can have catastrophic results.
Salmotrutta
Member
I have been running QL since 2010 with excellent results. Early on I was also having difficulty getting it tuned. Both the original developer and the ballistician at Western powders weighed in and helped me out. Each new combination of components needs to be tweaked. It's not a one and done process, nor do I think having "friends" model a load for you, is a good idea, unless you give them a reasonable amount of load/velocity data and all your cartridge and rifle specifics, AND they know what they are doing. I did my master's thesis on ballistics modeling, so I understand how to run a model. This is a model. I do not claim to be an expert either. So do what is right/safe for you - not what some "expert" said on the interwebs! Having said that. Here is what I do - for every unique combination of components/rifle AND every change in powder lot.
Start with actual COL, barrel length, bore cross sectional area (usually only necessary if you are having difficulty getting good results). Load 5 shells of your intended components in .5g powder increments, within the published max powder charge. Get velocities from a Labradar or magneto speed, preferred. Tweek the case capacity value down if your real velocity is faster than the model, up if the model is showing faster velocity than reality. I typically stop tweeking case capacity after I get ~5% from measured case capacity and move on to shot start/initiation pressure if I am still not matched up.
Next I tweek the shot start/initiation psi variable up if I still need to speed up the model, and vice versa.
At the time I was told that the shot start/initiation value in QL was not a measured value, but a starting point largely based on bullet design. Mono bullets were using an un-grooved assumption, so likely newer TSX, TTSX, LRX designs the shot start pressure can be lowered to get your model to be accurate.
That was the process provided by the ballistician at Western, who used QL extensively for load development then measured the results in a pressure barrel. I was told to be mindful of the pressure = velocity equation. You can't have one without the other. If QL says you are at 65,000 psi at 3100 fps - believe it!
What do you mean change the slope of the velocities?
Are you saying that when you run quickload at different charge weights and then graph the velocity vs. charge weight curve it is not a straight line? If that's what your saying, then the answer is because Burn Rate is not a constant with increasing fill capacity and change in powder pack density of the cartridge, and therefore pressure and therefore velocity will not be constant in terms of fps per grain of charge weight either.
You may be trying to fool nature? Can't Be done......though lots try it......especially these days in so many upside down ways......
capona
Well-Known Member
| QL H2O | Real H2 |
where are you getting QL H20 values from? I've never seen them listed in QL. It's a QL setting you have to supply after measuring your brass or using a typical known value, but maybe I'm learning something new here today. I am not aware of QL publishing those values .
muzzletalk
Active Member
It's a measured value. Take an empty (fired) case and weigh it. fill it water and weigh it again. The delta in grains is what you add into QL. For instance, my 6.5 CM is 52.26 grains and I change the "Max Case Capacity, overflow".
entoptics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2018
- Messages
- 878
QL does provide a default value for each cartridge. I changed the value down until I got the real world velocity. That is the value in "QL H2O". I only posted it to show how outrageously far off the model was from my real conditions.
"Real H2O" is the actual capacity of my cases, which is what was used to get the "QL FPS" value (which was way below reality).
"QL Charge" is the charge QL required to get the "Real FPS" value, using "real H2O" values.
PNWdude67
Well-Known Member
We just ran some QL for bergers in 7SS/RL26 and 6.5x47/H4350 and was pleased with how accurate the velocity was predicted to what was actually achieved and measured with lab radar. I am not an expert with it and rely on a buddy to get all the data points entered right and it seems to be working for us.
USE THE MEASURED CASE CAPACITY FOR THE BRASS YOU ARE LOADING.
Fine tune the Ba Burn rate to match actual velocities, not the case volume.
You will get much better matches.
