the hammers have the lowest of any other bullet on quickload. which until they were added it was pretty hard to model them in quickloadI'd suspect that the Hammer would have a lot less engraving pressure.
you asked for the numbers. for whatever reason people always want to compare everything to hammers. personally, they are not my cup of teaWith respect, I don't want this thread to get derailed with Hammer discussing lol. I'll run the numbers and give a brief summary on how the 124 HH compares, and that's it, because it might at least be worth comparing those two.
I know that the bore rider will lower engraving forces and friction too, but will produce much less drag in flight vs the multiple drive bands of the Hammer. So even with a higher MV with the Hammer, the overall BC has the high potential of being better with the Afterburner and retaining more velocity as a result.
Yep. Just trying to get ahead of it lolyou asked for the numbers. for whatever reason people always want to compare everything to hammers. personally, they are not my cup of tea
I appreciate you providing those numbers. Thanks. I didn't mean to come off like you were derailing this post. I just wanted to say other than that requested comparison, which I agree would be worth posting, I don't want this particular post to get cluttered with too much other bullet talk unless it's actually pertinent is all. I wasn't directing that towards anyone in particular. Just wanted to clarify that.you asked for the numbers. for whatever reason people always want to compare everything to hammers. personally, they are not my cup of tea
A Pressure Trace II setup is on my short list of things to acquire, after other discussions with you. I'm pretty good at QL though, for as good as it can be used for, so for now I'll use it along with real world results and make the best of it.As far as QuickLoad is concerned, to get powders to fit properly in pressure and velocity to the PTII, without trying to adjust burn rate too much, we've had to raise the shot start initiation pressure as high as 7200 psi and lower it to as low as 350 psi, and adjust the weighting factor from .55 to as low as .21 in our 300 WM just within the 4350 burn rate powders. It gets wonkier the more that's tested and deviated in bullet weight and/or powder burn rate.
In the end, QuickLoad is great for case fill comparison and starting loads. From there, physical testing is the proper validation, as you plan to do. Way too many contributors to the burn cycle that QuickLoad just can't account for. Real pressure testing is the only rock-solid solution, with observed load development being the traditional, but very good second option.
totally understand the thread being derailed so no problem here.I appreciate you providing those numbers. Thanks. I didn't mean to come off like you were derailing this post. I just wanted to say other than that requested comparison, which I agree would be worth posting, I don't want this particular post to get cluttered with too much other bullet talk unless it's actually pertinent is all. I wasn't directing that towards anyone in particular. Just wanted to clarify that.
I do think part of this testing should be viewed as how this bullet compares to others, I just don't want any bickering going on, if it can be helped. I've seen it happen too much in other threads, unfortunately.
I agree. There's a plethora of variables not accounted for in QL. Things just like you mentioned, primers used (and thus initial ignition and peak chamber pressures), shoulder bump, neck tension, free bore length, bullet jump to lands, type of rifling, etc, etc all are not calculated in the mix.totally understand the thread being derailed so no problem here.
wish there was a bearing surface or a rifling contact patch measurement in quickload bullet profile to help aid in calculations. these newer monos have been difficult to predict over a variety of powders and/or even from start to finish during a load workup. good luck on these and will be waiting for your write up