ryleecarr2006
Member
Good idea!
Spreadsheet for reloading
- Thread starter Mike6158
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I spread my load data all over hell. Email, cloud, usb drives. Don't want to lose it.
bonie
Well-Known Member
I spread the sheets of test load targets out on the bench and go from there.
Thanks. I have a new version for powder testing. It calculates Avg Velocity, ES, and SD from up to 5 shot strings then calculates the difference between shots (which highlights a node if it's there). Unfortunately I haven't been able to upload it (I'll try to attach it to this post). It worked. I had to archive the files but the attached Zip file has a Mac and Windows versions in it (Numbers and Excel). The blue numbers are calculated so don't put anything there or you will break it.
I finally got to try the spreadsheet out with a suppressed and supersonic load for a pair of 8.6BLK AR10's. Both were first time loads (by me) for the rifles. I approached "with caution" lol and it shows with the load data. I'll reload the rounds based on the data I picked up. Velocity as from a Garmin. My LabRadar (yes I still have one) trigger isn't reliable on my AR's (the barrel is under the hand guard). The Garmin did great so I'll be using it more. Takeaways:
(1) Based on the data I can see that I approached load development "carefully". Subs were very sub and supers were barely super after the 2nd group.
(2) Not a fan of AA1660. It's dirty. I could even tell which case had been fired with it by the smell coming off of the annealer. The next test will be with something else. I could try N110 but I'd like to have more case fill.
(3) There are some oddities in the velocity groups. The last 4 in the supers (2nd sheet) are out of order. I'm not sure how that happened but that's what it looks like to me. The last group of the subs, 9, is a sighter load. The load notes I keep at my bench say I loaded 8 groups not 9. The powder charge for sighters is not correct. I decided to lower the sighters until I knew what the Barnes bullet was going to do. The sheet says TTSX and I loaded a .338 280gr. LRX. Good thing I keep notes as I load :/
(4) The last four columns of the Delta calc have the wrong formula in them :/ Just copy a good value over each box and it'll be correct. When I have access to Excel again I'll post a correction for those that aren't familiar with Excel. For me, the sheet pointed out some things that I did wrong or documented wrong. The next test should give me more useful data.
Subs
Supers
(1) Based on the data I can see that I approached load development "carefully". Subs were very sub and supers were barely super after the 2nd group.
(2) Not a fan of AA1660. It's dirty. I could even tell which case had been fired with it by the smell coming off of the annealer. The next test will be with something else. I could try N110 but I'd like to have more case fill.
(3) There are some oddities in the velocity groups. The last 4 in the supers (2nd sheet) are out of order. I'm not sure how that happened but that's what it looks like to me. The last group of the subs, 9, is a sighter load. The load notes I keep at my bench say I loaded 8 groups not 9. The powder charge for sighters is not correct. I decided to lower the sighters until I knew what the Barnes bullet was going to do. The sheet says TTSX and I loaded a .338 280gr. LRX. Good thing I keep notes as I load :/
(4) The last four columns of the Delta calc have the wrong formula in them :/ Just copy a good value over each box and it'll be correct. When I have access to Excel again I'll post a correction for those that aren't familiar with Excel. For me, the sheet pointed out some things that I did wrong or documented wrong. The next test should give me more useful data.
Subs
Supers
Hugnot
Well-Known Member
Here is one of my latest efforts:
I am working up loads with the 62 gr. .224 H ELDVX - fyne accuracy with 7.7 twist @ just under 3,600 fps with VN 540 but failure with 9 twist .223.
73 ELDM at 1.04 inches, Sg 1.68, 9 twist at 2850, .223 shoots real good. The length diff between .224 62 ELDMVT & .224 73 ELDM is only .01 inches, like 10 thou. Plastic tip lengths same.
.223 - 62 ELDMVT at 1.05 inches, Sg 1.33, 9 twist at 2950, .223, 3 foot groups, not good - this indicates the Miller process is not working with this bullet. I suspect the reason is a wide separation between center of mass & center of pressure. About 1/4 of the inner bullet is void. A 1.33 Sg would indicate marginal stability with good groups but slight degradation of ballistics - not realizing BC. Possibly the lead core might be replaced core with tin/copper sinter mix like the Barnes Varmint Grenade & bullet shortened slightly and plastic tip.
.22-.250 - 62 ELDMVT at 1.05 inches, Sg 1.92, 7.7 twist, G7 BC of 1.99 is great - RPM's at 336,623 - just under 3,600 fps, no indications of failure. Able to hit 3 inch steel consistently but slowly at 300, using 1 MOA elevation from 200 yard zero. Hornady sez 8 twist on box. Happy!
This gotta be a killer rodent bullet up to 500 from my 7.7 twist .22-.250's.
I am working up loads with the 62 gr. .224 H ELDVX - fyne accuracy with 7.7 twist @ just under 3,600 fps with VN 540 but failure with 9 twist .223.
73 ELDM at 1.04 inches, Sg 1.68, 9 twist at 2850, .223 shoots real good. The length diff between .224 62 ELDMVT & .224 73 ELDM is only .01 inches, like 10 thou. Plastic tip lengths same.
.223 - 62 ELDMVT at 1.05 inches, Sg 1.33, 9 twist at 2950, .223, 3 foot groups, not good - this indicates the Miller process is not working with this bullet. I suspect the reason is a wide separation between center of mass & center of pressure. About 1/4 of the inner bullet is void. A 1.33 Sg would indicate marginal stability with good groups but slight degradation of ballistics - not realizing BC. Possibly the lead core might be replaced core with tin/copper sinter mix like the Barnes Varmint Grenade & bullet shortened slightly and plastic tip.
.22-.250 - 62 ELDMVT at 1.05 inches, Sg 1.92, 7.7 twist, G7 BC of 1.99 is great - RPM's at 336,623 - just under 3,600 fps, no indications of failure. Able to hit 3 inch steel consistently but slowly at 300, using 1 MOA elevation from 200 yard zero. Hornady sez 8 twist on box. Happy!
This gotta be a killer rodent bullet up to 500 from my 7.7 twist .22-.250's.
Last edited:
Headshothills
Member
Thanks for sharing
Stefan Wild
Member
I take it these are 3 shot sampling tests. I am not trying to disparage anyone but statistically speaking a 3 shot sample isn't a large enough sample to make a decision with. Don't get me wrong, 5 shots is not enough of a sample size to make an accurate decision with either.
As a test, re run one of your test groups and see how or even if they correlate at all.
I would be willing to bet your top group of 9 samples from the spreadsheet above, if rerun, would so significantly different results.
VenatusDominus
Well-Known Member
^^^ THIS ^^^
Lol... There's always going to be someone that won't be satisfied until you shoot a brick of primers, 8#'s of powder, and 500 rounds of bullets to "prove" that setting off an explosion in a confined space, in front a less than perfect barrel and projectile, in less than perfect conditions, is repeatable.
They're freakin subs out of a crappy little short barrel with a round that isn't even SAAMI spec man. I'm not going to enter any F class matches with that rifle or that load. I had ZERO expectations for that thing. It just happened to be the most recent thing that I shot when I made that post. I've got a pile of 7mm Rem Mag sheets if you want to look over them.
The spreadsheet is the topic not the load data. If you can't see any value in it then don't use it. Either way it costs you nothing and I could care less.
Sometimes I shoot 3 per group, especially if it's the first time to load for the cartridge. Sometimes I shoot 5 per group. Sometimes I shoot 10 per group.
I haven't shot that rifle since I borescoped the (Faxon) barrel and saw that it was a train wreck. The new barrel is here but I have other rifles being tested. You know... go to the range, shoot, measure speed, go home, analyze data, see if the there are any with a decent ES or SD, repeat, plan the next test around the "good" loads, if there are any, rinse and repeat. Sometimes it's just not going to happen. Sometimes I care, sometimes, like with the 8.6BLK, I don't. It's purpose built for inside 100 yards. But I still put it through testing, just to get the best I can out of it.
You boys with deep pockets should show us what you're getting with your 100 round testing sessions.
They're freakin subs out of a crappy little short barrel with a round that isn't even SAAMI spec man. I'm not going to enter any F class matches with that rifle or that load. I had ZERO expectations for that thing. It just happened to be the most recent thing that I shot when I made that post. I've got a pile of 7mm Rem Mag sheets if you want to look over them.
The spreadsheet is the topic not the load data. If you can't see any value in it then don't use it. Either way it costs you nothing and I could care less.
Sometimes I shoot 3 per group, especially if it's the first time to load for the cartridge. Sometimes I shoot 5 per group. Sometimes I shoot 10 per group.
I haven't shot that rifle since I borescoped the (Faxon) barrel and saw that it was a train wreck. The new barrel is here but I have other rifles being tested. You know... go to the range, shoot, measure speed, go home, analyze data, see if the there are any with a decent ES or SD, repeat, plan the next test around the "good" loads, if there are any, rinse and repeat. Sometimes it's just not going to happen. Sometimes I care, sometimes, like with the 8.6BLK, I don't. It's purpose built for inside 100 yards. But I still put it through testing, just to get the best I can out of it.
You boys with deep pockets should show us what you're getting with your 100 round testing sessions.
Stefan Wild
Member
Wrong. Entirely wrong. Your entire wall of text has made assumptions that are as wrong as being able to accurately make good decisions with a sample of 3. Or 5. I don't have the desire to waste my money and materials making pointless groups that are not going to do anything but give me a warm and false fuzzy feeling.
I can tell from your reply you have never tried to duplicate your results. Might as well make a target with numbers at various random locations and then stand back 20 ft and throw darts for your load development.
First: I am not trying to threaten anyone's methodology. You do you. But at the very least, if you are going to use statistical analysis tools you should have a clue regarding the what and why.
I am going to stop right here. I am sure the insults will follow, it won't bother me, I am an adult and my skin is not so thin. Add to that: I know what is correct and what is wrong.
No.. what you should take from my response is that this is a spreadsheet thread, not a how to tune a load thread. You're trying too hard to be right about a subject for another thread.
Most people don't read long posts. You didn't read two, starting with the one I made about a spreadsheet in Feb 2024. I don't blame you. I'll save you some time. Here's the last sentence in the first post you replied to: "The next test should give me more useful data." That statement was optimistic and irrelevant to the subject. The next test didn't give me anything but a headache and I ended up pulling the barrel and ordering a new one.
I'm shooting the new 8.6BLK barrel today.1:3 twist, 280gr bullet. One shot groups spaced 0.5 grains down from a known velocity
. the first test was 19.2gr of N133. Avg FPS: 1208. ES: 29.4. SD: 10.0. 10 shots into a steel plate. Hand held AR 10. I didn't bother measuring the groups because it's not time for that. I'm about to load them again then step out the back door and shoot some steel. I'm trying to find subsonic velocity at today's temperature and see how it compares to the calculated value I have added to the spreadsheet. Then, tomorrow, I'll see how it groups at 100 yards. If I can get an inch out it I'll be happy. If not, I'll change powders. The 8.6BLK is a round that tests ones patience...
It's not unusual to run into non-repeating loads and, when I care about it, I load that cartridge again, with a different powder or seating depth. Or maybe I change primers. If it doesn't repeat it's a useless load. I've seen 1/4 minute at 300 yards with my 7mm Rem Mag, gone home, loaded 20, came back for a tuner test, and the magic was gone. It had a tuner on it when I shot the 1/4 MOA group but it failed the repeatability test on the next round of testing.
Most people don't read long posts. You didn't read two, starting with the one I made about a spreadsheet in Feb 2024. I don't blame you. I'll save you some time. Here's the last sentence in the first post you replied to: "The next test should give me more useful data." That statement was optimistic and irrelevant to the subject. The next test didn't give me anything but a headache and I ended up pulling the barrel and ordering a new one.
I'm shooting the new 8.6BLK barrel today.1:3 twist, 280gr bullet. One shot groups spaced 0.5 grains down from a known velocity
. the first test was 19.2gr of N133. Avg FPS: 1208. ES: 29.4. SD: 10.0. 10 shots into a steel plate. Hand held AR 10. I didn't bother measuring the groups because it's not time for that. I'm about to load them again then step out the back door and shoot some steel. I'm trying to find subsonic velocity at today's temperature and see how it compares to the calculated value I have added to the spreadsheet. Then, tomorrow, I'll see how it groups at 100 yards. If I can get an inch out it I'll be happy. If not, I'll change powders. The 8.6BLK is a round that tests ones patience...It's not unusual to run into non-repeating loads and, when I care about it, I load that cartridge again, with a different powder or seating depth. Or maybe I change primers. If it doesn't repeat it's a useless load. I've seen 1/4 minute at 300 yards with my 7mm Rem Mag, gone home, loaded 20, came back for a tuner test, and the magic was gone. It had a tuner on it when I shot the 1/4 MOA group but it failed the repeatability test on the next round of testing.
