Load data from Berger for 6.5G

[Klem]

52,

Of course there is a conflict of interest here. A conflict is where a person stands to gain a personal benefit, in this case financially in the advice you give, without full disclosure. All this would go away if you were to fully disclose your interest every time you advise new posters to purchase anything you are selling.

This side show is not about the efficacy of QL vs. your books. It is about you slamming QL and in the same breath advocating your books. Whether you appreciate it or not it qualifies as a conflict of interest.

Mate, I don't care that you think you are doing the calibre a favor - Or that you went to a lot of trouble to perfect your product. And I have no doubt there is a lot of good information in them. But that does not give you latitude where a conflict is perceived.

And maybe QL is not for everyone, indeed I use it as one source of information to cross compare.

Just be up front and declare it every time - then you can slam QL and plug your products till the cows come home.

[Zeneffect]

Zene,

That is interesting - My Quickload predictions are not as precise as yours. It is more like 30fps out compared to the Labradar. Even with playing around with the parameters to suit the MV and measuring water case capacity. I put it down to ambient variables like temperature and the vagaries of a whole lot of compounding variables like powder batches in a computer program.

I have V3.9.0.11

What do you have?

same version but with the 2021 database. waiting on (of all things) a stupid cd rom to convert the disc into an iso then load it to be up to latest.

[Klem]

same version but with the 2021 database. waiting on (of all things) a stupid cd rom to convert the disc into an iso then load it to be up to latest.

Aint that the truth - I had to source an old CD reader just to upload it. And when that didn't work $100 in IT advice and for them to load it. The UK rep reckons it has something to do with copyright, which is of course BS.

[MikeyMosin]

2520, LT-30, Tac, and H322

[LRRPF52]

52,

Of course there is a conflict of interest here. A conflict is where a person stands to gain a personal benefit, in this case financially in the advice you give, without full disclosure. All this would go away if you were to fully disclose your interest every time you advise new posters to purchase anything you are selling.

This side show is not about the efficacy of QL vs. your books. It is about you slamming QL and in the same breath advocating your books. Whether you appreciate it or not it qualifies as a conflict of interest.

Mate, I don't care that you think you are doing the calibre a favor - Or that you went to a lot of trouble to perfect your product. And I have no doubt there is a lot of good information in them. But that does not give you latitude where a conflict is perceived.

And maybe QL is not for everyone, indeed I use it as one source of information to cross compare.

Just be up front and declare it every time - then you can slam QL and plug your products till the cows come home.

The purpose of the Handbooks started off because I wanted a single book I could go to myself, like One Book, One Caliber series. Why? Safety, then a user-friendly hard data set with known loads.

That grew into a larger effort with 4 co-authors. There really isn’t money in it or personal gain. I’m sure the printers are turning a profit, but you’re mischaracterizing my efforts.

Anytime I mention the Handbooks, it is meant for the benefit of those shooting 6.5 Grendel, not just hand-loaders, but the layman who is looking for relevant data about all of the subjects therein. Number one motivator for me is safety, number two is the same thing I wanted, but for others: a useful set of data.

Anytime I mention QuickLoad, it isn’t to slam QL, but to caution people from relying on predictive engines without solid pressure test data.

The developers of QL did not invest in pressure test breeches for every cartridge in their library. You literally have no way of knowing if the data being kicked out by QL is giving you an accurate chamber pressure simulation.

From their own site:

WARNING: QuickLOAD is a computer simulation of centerfire cartridge performance. YOU MUST NEVER just “plug in the numbers” and use QuickLOAD’s output for a load recipe. That is foolish and dangerous. There are many reasons why the data QuickLOAD generates may not be safe in YOUR gun. Before loading live ammunition, you should always check with the powder-makers’ most recent load data. In fact, you should check multiple sources if possible, and consult with individuals who actually load for that cartridge. Sierra Bullets offers free load maps which, in general, are fairly conservative. Even when using manufacturers’ load data, start 10% low and work up. Differences in brass, primer brand, and seating depth can make huge differences in pressure. Always reload conservatively and always double- and triple-check QuickLOAD’s output against reliable load data supplied by the powder-makers.

So why use it and continue to recommend against the warnings of the engineer who developed 6.5 Grendel, then lash out at me claiming some type of conflict of interest?

You literally have no way of knowing if your loads are running higher than SAAMI MAP pressures if you rely on QL.

Reloaders who shoot other short, fat cartridges say they have experienced similar departures from reality and what is predicted in QL.

I’ve been relaxed but a bit perturbed every time you push QL, knowing what I know, but have let being polite win over each time.

But now you’ve crossed the line again, and made it personal.

Let your ego aside and understand that safety is my #1 priority, especially as we have a new wave of reloaders entering the discipline.

Most of them have grown up learning to trust technology more than previous generations’ experience, so something like QL might be very appealing to them.

In this case, just as QL boldly declares up front, you need to use published load data and work up from those start loads.

So back at you. Every time you post QL simulations of what a mathematical engine thinks is happening in your chamber, I’ll just require you to post that bold faced red font QL warning. If I don’t see it, I’ll add it myself.

We published every manufacturer’s exact PDF sheets with their relevant warnings in the Grendel Handbooks, after consulting with each of them and gaining permissions. That’s called due diligence.

Unlike One Book, One Caliber, who just copy and poorly-bind every major manufacturer’s data without their permission, we actually reached out to gain those.

[MikeyMosin]

on the hunt for all the stuff that's no where to be found rn, 8208, PP varment, Varget, 4198, AR Comp...ect, Hit brownells on a good day to get the 3lbs I have, the LT-30 came from a local cabellas, and the blurb on the back stated it was a good powder for 6.5 grendel so i snatched it up....

[Klem]

52,

As I said before, this is not about the efficacy of QL vs. your books - This is about the conflict-of-interest your post represents.

By all means discredit QL and advocate the effort and credibility behind your books - but it is ethical to declare your role in the revenues.

[LRRPF52]

My interest: Safety, useful data for the layman/hand-loader
Financial interest: I’ve stated here many times that the handbooks have been a net loss, a labor of love.
Look at all the other relatively new cartridges out there with large followings.
How many of them have a dedicated set of Reloading Handbooks? Zero that I am aware of.

So there is no conflict of interest. My interests and my recommendations for purchasing the Handbooks are completely in harmony with each other.

It might come as a surprise, but reloading handbooks aren’t exactly #1 Best-sellers.
It might come as another surprise that a niche cartidge within the world of cartridges has limited market share.

But I know you wouldn’t be surprised by those realities, because you’re not an ignoramus. To the contrary.

Which brings the question of why you take issue with me emphasizing safety on the forum, the problems that QL presents to that end?

[biodsl]

My purchase of the Grendel Handbooks was the best money I ever spent on anything Grendel related.

[kmon]

H4895, CFE223 and Leverevolution all work well in the Grendel with 130gr bullets.

I use CFE223 after getting some good loads with it I bought several more pounds of the same lot. The only Berger bullets I have worked up loads for were with CFE223 and Berger 130 OTM and 129gr Nosler LRAB. 30.6 gr with 2.265 COAL in Lapua brass gave me a bit over 2500 (98 degree day) from the 22 inch boltaction with half MOA or better accuracy. Now that is in a bolt action but others have reported that as being at or near the top in their ARs. My AR is its most accurate with 30.3gr CFE223.

H4895 is another good powder for it though a little less on velocity it is more temp stable.

Nosler lists 31gr as top load for CFE and 129 and 130 gr bullets. I had stopped at 30.9 on testing as accuracy was headed the wrong direction and worked up those lads before much data was available and tried it in the AR after more data came out.

[MikeyMosin]

thanks for the info, Ive been checking on Leverevolution but havent seen it in stock anywhere yet, I hear this is one of the best powders to use with heavier grain projectiles. Im going to grab a few boxes of bullets ranging from 85 to 123 when I see some in stock. I havent shot the rifle yet so I really dont know what its going to like eating. Its an 18" odin works barrel with a matched bolt on an areo upper. I really like the rifle only problem is when i put the optic on it she weighed in at 9.6 pounds

[LRRPF52]

What I will say in QuickLoad’s favor is for people who have pressure test data for their load from a pressure test breech, you can then go input the values and use the program to determine relatively accurate models of what happens when you change seating depth, assuming your chamber is a mirror of the pressure test breech chamber.

If you input multiple test breech data points and built a set of brackets for various real-world pressure values, you can make the program useful for predicting actual chamber pressures.

If you are just loading based off of what it recommends, contrary to the warnings of the developers, you have no way of knowing what your actual chamber pressures are, which then steers you back to checking your specifics against published data from powder and bullet manufacturers, who have actually invested in pressure test breeches, calibrated them, and then recording strings of readings to get reasonably-safety numbers for their combinations.

If you talk with ballistics engineers at any of the big name companies, they will tell you that this process is ongoing, always chasing the tail of the tiger. They chuckle at some of the things they see online, especially the few people who have purchased pressure trace equipment and immediately started uploading their results online, without even calibrating the apparatus with known test loads, gauge equipment validation, gauge placement accuracy, and all the things that are entailed with building a pressure test breech.

[Kosh65]

LRRPF52;
How much will pressures increase as seating depth increases? Is there a formula that would give a accurate estimate?
I would assume that there could a lot of variables involved in calculating this?

Example: if my reloads were @ 51,000 (Just throwing a number out) with current seating depth. How much of a pressure increase could I expect to see for each additional.005” of depth?

[Zeneffect]

The short answer is no. The reasons are due to endless variables and no way to actually control them to make the requisite constants for said formula. In a lab, sure. In the real world, nope, not to the degree of accuracy to "ride the edge" and say for certain you will be at or under max pressure at all times.

To LRRPF52's point, how do you know your chamber pressure to begin with? I'm pretty much guessing at mine while cross referencing data points... it makes me feel good about "not being over pressure" but the reality is, I don't know if the cat in the box is dead or alive and can only make an assumption based on external observations (which pretty much all manifest after you have gone way over 52k)

[grayfox]

In terms of an "accurate" estimate, and since you don't know your actual starting pressure, and it's primarily a theoretical issue anyway... and it will depend upon, among other things, which powder/bullet/case/primer combo you use, what your actual chamber sizing is, which increment of 0.005" you are doing (ie, how close you are to compression), etc etc etc for - idk - maybe 20-30 other parameters... o yeah and how warm your chamber is...

The answer as to a "formula" is either QL or GRT, both of which are mathematical models that depend heavily on all the input parameters (many input parameters) and on how much you trust their results...
One prediction from GRT with a 100 gr nosler BT and xbr that I have modeled... if you were "only" at 99.6% fill the pressure increase is ~200-300 psi. But if you were at 100.6% capacity the pressure goes up 2000 psi.

These are only mathematical estimates and have not been validated in any way by real pressure testing, but there you go. As always, ym WILL v.
Now the question here is, are you at 99.6% full or 100.6% full? That's another factor I don't think we've been able to measure precisely at the bench.
Both of those models, QL and GRT, are relatively complex models.

Most guys use an MV ladder and study the results to see what their loads are doing for them.

[lazyengineer]

Intersting thread, not sure why the resurrection of it.

Regarding Berger - in my own analysis 130 and 140 seem a bit heavy for ideal Grendel ballistics. 140 doesn't look so great at all to me. And Berger is a very premium very expensive, bullet. Why pay premium for a sub-premium sub-optimal load?

As to QL, I've been running Gordon's, and don't really trust its Grendel results very much. It indicates gross overpressure on common loads, and so using it just causes angst in my experience. I think these tools are more curve-fits than their developers care to admit. Extrapolation into cartridges they didn't specifically curve fit can get goofy.

[LRRPF52]

LRRPF52;
How much will pressures increase as seating depth increases? Is there a formula that would give a accurate estimate?
I would assume that there could a lot of variables involved in calculating this?

Example: if my reloads were @ 51,000 (Just throwing a number out) with current seating depth. How much of a pressure increase could I expect to see for each additional.005” of depth?

It depends on the chamber, specifically where the lands are. If you have a lot of freebore, as you increase volume by seating the bullet out longer without changing the propellant mass, you will drop pressure as long as you aren’t jamming the lands.

You can get more velocity by increasing both the seating depth and charge weight, while staying at the same chamber pressure because you correspondingly increased charge weight and volume.

If you seat the projectile deeper into the case without reducing the charge weight, start pressure can increase. There has been a debate about this with a theory called primer-initiated projectile jump.

Some have thought they refuted the theory by loading only a primer and then attempted to see if the projectile will jump, but this doesn’t even remotely duplicate the volume portion of the equation because they’re using an empty case instead of one filled with powder.

You would have to duplicate the powder configuration and mass somehow to see if there was primer-initiated projectile jump, and since the ignition of the powder happens so rapidly at the base of the propellant column, the proposition is difficult to measure.

It also brings into question the relationship between neck tension and crimping vs the initial impulse from the primer. Does the primer have enough energy to force start inertia on the projectile? I’ve seen some tests that indicated yes and no, depending on how the experiment was set up.

As a layman, you are again left with resorting to published data, absolutely starting with manufacturer listed start loads, working up in 1% case volume increments over a chronograph, and seeing where your measured data falls relative to the published range.

[LRRPF52]

Intersting thread, not sure why the resurrection of it.

Regarding Berger - in my own analysis 130 and 140 seem a bit heavy for ideal Grendel ballistics. 140 doesn't look so great at all to me. And Berger is a very premium very expensive, bullet. Why pay premium for a sub-premium sub-optimal load?

As to QL, I've been running Gordon's, and don't really trust its Grendel results very much. It indicates gross overpressure on common loads, and so using it just causes angst in my experience. I think these tools are more curve-fits than their developers care to admit. Extrapolation into cartridges they didn't specifically curve fit can get goofy.

Checking the mathematical engines against known pressure test data is one of the first indicators of whether the particular program is kicking out relevant data.

Hodgdon’s publishes their pressures, but rounded to the nearest 100psi.

A fun one to enter into the internal ballistics models is Hodgdon’s published data on the 90gr TNT on top of Benchmark, a compressed load.

2.200” COL
30.5gr compressed load
90gr TNT
47,000psi

It’s one of the lowest published chamber pressures for a max charge in 6.5 Grendel that I’m aware of. They couldn’t get anymore in the case basically even with a compressed load, at the short COL that is driven by such a short bullet.

An even lower one is this:

90gr TNT
8208XBR
31.0gr Compressed
2.220” COL
42,400psi

Enter those in and see what either of the internal engines kicks out for you.

[LRRPF52]

In a non-standard chamber advertised as SAAMI 6.5 Grendel but really with conventional freebore and a 1.5 degree leade, those pressures will decrease assuming all other things are equal (big assumption).

Using a freebore like that doesn’t really help us out though since the magazine restricts us to 2.260” COL in many cases, but it helps out a company wanting to crank out barrels with as much reamer wear as possible and still staying away from short chambers.

We ordered a very specific reamer from Manson, a true 6.5 Grendel with compound throat, but then had it set to a reamer dimension that would be common halfway through the reamer’s life, instead of a fresh and new reamer that would be on one end of the spectrum and not very representative of all the SAAMI chambers.

If you dropped that reamer into most of the chambers on the market, I doubt you would be able to remove much material. On my own Manson reamer, I have cleaned up some short throats before with it, but they had lands that were jamming factory and less than 2.260” COL common projectiles.

[Kosh65]

Thanks for the replies. I figured that the variables would most likely be to great.