Scrape,
All good, I re-seat old primers too when weighing capacity. I also did not know case volumes are so different between brands (I've only ever used Lapua). Makes you think that manufacturer tables will have come from a particular brand of case, which can then be sketchy if a shooter uses a different brand. Obviously there's a margin of conservative built in to all manufacturer recommendations and QL, to avoid accidents and litigation.
Look, I don't have an issue with anyone saying my QL max loads are too hot, or Barnes' recommendations being too hot. Loading at the raggedy edge of a calibre's safety ought to have a margin of safety, not a fine line. And that of course includes the quality of parts in the gun.
So, running the numbers again to compare QL with Barnes' tables...
At Barnes' 2.235" OAL, using your Hornady 36.5gns water capacity (they used Hornady cases), same case trim length, bullet and powder, my QL recommends a max of 29.1gns @ 102.8% fill. 2,639fps/51,956lbs pressure.
Barnes' max is 29.5gns.
If it were me I'd be weighing up how conservative I think both manufacturer and QL are, while appreciating how small differences like case length and volume make big changes in pressure, when using a [relatively] fast compressed powder. Also, it's fair to assume Barnes is telling the truth when they actually tested this. Barnes is empirical evidence, whereas QL is a computer simulation. To my mind both Barnes and QL are close here, so I'd be also close but less than both - I'd use Barnes as the confident benchmark, and QL to do what-if's for things like different seating depths, and in your case, case capacities.
All good, I re-seat old primers too when weighing capacity. I also did not know case volumes are so different between brands (I've only ever used Lapua). Makes you think that manufacturer tables will have come from a particular brand of case, which can then be sketchy if a shooter uses a different brand. Obviously there's a margin of conservative built in to all manufacturer recommendations and QL, to avoid accidents and litigation.
Look, I don't have an issue with anyone saying my QL max loads are too hot, or Barnes' recommendations being too hot. Loading at the raggedy edge of a calibre's safety ought to have a margin of safety, not a fine line. And that of course includes the quality of parts in the gun.
So, running the numbers again to compare QL with Barnes' tables...
At Barnes' 2.235" OAL, using your Hornady 36.5gns water capacity (they used Hornady cases), same case trim length, bullet and powder, my QL recommends a max of 29.1gns @ 102.8% fill. 2,639fps/51,956lbs pressure.
Barnes' max is 29.5gns.
If it were me I'd be weighing up how conservative I think both manufacturer and QL are, while appreciating how small differences like case length and volume make big changes in pressure, when using a [relatively] fast compressed powder. Also, it's fair to assume Barnes is telling the truth when they actually tested this. Barnes is empirical evidence, whereas QL is a computer simulation. To my mind both Barnes and QL are close here, so I'd be also close but less than both - I'd use Barnes as the confident benchmark, and QL to do what-if's for things like different seating depths, and in your case, case capacities.