Quickload information

[jasper2408]

I emailed Quickload the message below:

My version of Quickload , which is 3.9 and has the October 2023 update installed, defaults to 37.50 for the case capacity on the 6.5 Grendel. I would like to know if this is the correct default case capacity and why you upped it from 35.99. Could you please clarify this for me.

Edit: My version has the September 2023 installed instead. There is no October 2023 update. I bought the update in October 2023 but it was the September 2023 update.

Here is the reply that I received:

Apparently there are different Lapua cases around.

I guess that is a "YES",we did up the case capacity, and "different Lapua cases around" is why.

That is just my interpretation and it may not be right. That is a strange answer.

[JASmith]

I checked with NECO QuickLoad Technical support and got this answer:

" the case capacity is an average of different mfgs. Always measure your own cases to have the specific capacity needed."
Renée
QL Tech Support/NECO

But, I waited to check some of my own data before posting to help put the NECO response on better context.

Whoever penned the response to Jasper seems to have been acting defensively rather than pointing out that the range of case volumes between sources can easily be more than two grains. My private data from 2014 shows a range from as low as 35.4 to a high of 37.9 for just three different manufacturers.

Hence, it is important to measure your own volumes in as-fired brass both because of differences between makers AND since your chamber volume will likely be different from that of other shooters too.

[kmon]

You are correct about different manufactures case volumes and measuring your own fired from your gun to get the most accurate volume for your gun. 2.5 gr Mr. Smith showed is about what I have seen with the Grendel but have seen as much as 10 gr difference in larger cases.

[jasper2408]

I replied back to QL again and still could not get a yes or no. I decided to answer the question in my first post myself.

I deleted all of the files that had anything to do with Quickload and then reinstalled from my DVD, which is version 3.9.15 that I bought in 2020. Here are the default SAAMI and CIP case capacities for 6.5 Grendel. I am giving no opinion as to whether you should use that value or not. Just showing the facts as they are.

This is the SAAMI version:
[url=][/url]


This is the CIP version:
[url=][/url]


Here is info from the readme.txt file from the install directory about changing values of case capacity and powder burn rate. This info is from QL and not from me.

Powder burning rate anomalies related to case design, size and insufficient
ignition:
This anomaly has only proven to produce QuickLOAD calculations indicating
higher than actual pressure and velocity.

In certain small-caliber cartridges, those types with relatively small
combustion chambers and in some big-bore cartridges, those types with almost
cylindrical cases (which often require the same types of propellant),
QuickLOAD often significantly deviates from suggested published reloading
data.

For such cartridges, it can be meaningful to adapt an existing propellant
data file. The resulting powder data file is applicable only to the
specifically verified cartridges. Store this data record with a special name.

(Candidate cartridges include the following and similar chamberings:
45-70 Government, .458 Win Mag, .22 Hornet, .30 Carbine, .416 Rem Mag, and
all the old Nitro Express cartridges.) For example, propellants in the
.458 Win Mag, .416 Rem Mag and .22 Hornet demonstrate a somewhat better
efficiency than QuickLOAD's standard calculation suggests. This results in
QuickLOAD predicting increased pressure and velocity, when compared to
published data or chronograph results.

To correct predictions is possible to enter a somewhat bigger cartridge case
volume, compared to what actually exists. This causes a corrective effect.
For example, in the .416 Rem Mag, misrepresenting case capacity about
+7% often results in good correspondence with published loading data.

This method limits the effects of input data alteration to the specific
cartridge, which seems better than creating an imaginary powder data file
that will only be useful and appropriate with a specific cartridge or
possibly a small class of cartridges.

The only problem with this approach is that it prevents direct assessment of
powder loading ratio. That can be secondarily derived by temporarily
reverting to the actual case capacity.

Lot-to-lot dependent adaptations:
When the user notes differences between the properties of a reference powder
lot (which is stored in the program file) and a new propellant lot, an
adaptation of the propellant data is necessary. Such differences will occur
with practically each new powder lot. Sometimes these differences can be
significant. For example: with many manufacturers, when the nominal Heat of
Explosion is 4000 J/g, accepted lot-to-lot variation is between 3900 to 4100
J/g.

So long as no new values for the Heat of explosion are admitted by the
manufacturer the old Qex values are retained and only the Ratio of specific
Heats cp/cv and linear burning rate Ba are changed, as necessary.

When calculated velocity (and pressure) are too high, the value for cp/cv is
reduced. cp/cv-1 is approximately 0.25 and corresponds to the 'efficiency' of
the transformation of the Heat of Explosion into propellant gases, which
produce chamber pressure. (A propellant with cp/cv = 1 generates no gases,
cp/cv = 2 signifies, that 100% of the available energy is converted into
pressure.) Carefully change this value in 0.001-steps to correctly accomplish
this adaptation. Increasing cp/cv increases both velocity and pressure
(and vice versa).

To adapt pressure together with this (lowering cp/cv), change the burning
rate coefficient Ba. An increase of Ba increases pressure, a decrease reduces
pressure. With this adjustment, velocity also changes. Change cp/cv and Ba
until sufficient approximation to test result is achieved.

When completely new propellant properties are available, the user can also
change other properties.

[Scrape hunter]

Jasper after seeing how much crap,you have been through with this computer simulation .Ain't no way in hell I'd ever trust the figures coming from it way to many variables for this cat .

[jasper2408]

Jasper after seeing how much crap,you have been through with this computer simulation .Ain't no way in hell I'd ever trust the figures coming from it way to many variables for this cat .

Yep there always is a spirited discussion when QL is mentioned.

[Klem]

Jasper,
And yet you wrote earlier that you update your QL on an annual basis. Surely it has some utility for you. I keep saying this regarding GIGO, measure the volume of your own cases, especially now we have established how much difference there is between brands.

Scrape,
Yet you asked the Forum to run QL for you. We then established that in the 100Barnes hypothetical comparing Barnes' actual tests with QL's simulation it is as close as 0.4gns. Even I was surprised as to how close QL is here.

(I don't have a conflict of interest where QL is concerned but the bashing it gets from people who are not prepared to enter precise data is revealing. If you think the program is too complex then by all means rely on manufacturer tables, but don't bash what you don't understand).

[jasper2408]

Here is how I setup and use QuickLOAD.

Box colors:
Blue boxes: psi value and mv value
Green boxes: changing powder values
Yellow boxes: psi value, case capacity, Weighting Factor
Red boxes: COAL, case length, barrel length

This screen has all of the Barnes data that Barnes says is safe. Hornady case using my value of 35.6gr, 2.235" COAL and 1.506" case length. Before anyone says anything, I did figure it up using 36.5gr and 35.2gr which were the actual user values. I will give those values at the end.

We have a problem. The top blue box is showing red and is over pressure compared to the top yellow box. My opinion is that Barnes says this data is safe so the number that QL spit out for pressure is now just a number and not pressure. I am not going to change anything in QL such as powder or case capacity to get that number down. Barnes says this data is safe so I am saying that the number in the pressure box is safe. This number is the same or close every time I enter this safe Barnes data. I turned the pressure value into just a number that QL spit out and to me this number is safe with this Barnes data only. All the data on the first pic is safe to use according to Barnes and QL.

[url=][/url]


So what I am doing in this pic is inserting the number that was in the red box and using it to replace the number in the top yellow box. Sometimes you have to use a number that is 1 number over the value so that it will stop being red. It is now just a number that is the ceiling that I can't go over.


[url=][/url]

[trubulator]

While we are playing with QL, anyone care to run the following? I cast some 140 grain bullets that I will lube and gas check. I am planning on trying them in a bolt gun at 2.26" over H4895 and a CCI 41 primer. Plan was to start at 16 grains and work up, perhaps into the low 20s. I think this should be OK, but I will happily take QL results if anyone wants to run it.

[kmon]

Klem, I fully agree.

(I don't have a conflict of interest where QL is concerned but the bashing it gets from people who are not prepared to enter precise data is revealing. If you think the program is too complex then by all means rely on manufacturer tables, but don't bash what you don't understand).(I don't have a conflict of interest where QL is concerned but the bashing it gets from people who are not prepared to enter precise data is revealing. If you think the program is too complex then by all means rely on manufacturer tables, but don't bash what you don't understand).

Something I did find interesting with QL, even though the pressures were high in its output from known data the velocity was very close to measured velocity. With some velocity was less than 20fps off the QL predicted velocity.

[jasper2408]

On this pic I changed the values in the red box to 2.200" COAL and 1.510" case length. These are the values that the user wanted to know about. If you look at the blue box you will notice that it is showing red again, which tells me that it is over pressure.

[url=][/url]


What I did in this pic is change the charge weight in the green box until the value in the blue box is either lower or the same as the value in the yellow box. I did not have to change any powder values or make any too-large case capacities to make it work. I used actual case capacity and actual powder values. The MV is pretty close on this bullet but on other bullets it may not be correct. I figure if I want to find out for sure then I will go out and chrono it. Also, if you notice, the final charge weight is 29.12gr. My scale goes in .02gr increments so that value is for me. If your scale only goes in .1gr increments then the value is 29.1gr.

[url=][/url]


This method also works in GRT. I do not use this method on powders or bullets that I do not have published data for. This method can be used to find loads when you are seating the bullet either deeper or out further than published data values to determine if you have to take out powder or can add some powder or are changing the case length.

Now as far as the 36.5gr case capacity, it came out to 29.14gr for it and I will not show the number that I got for 35.2gr as it was quite a bit lower.

And as I always do:
Disclaimer: Do not use any loads configured with Quickload software. These loads are unsafe and can damage your rifle and cause you bodily harm.

Hopefully I presented everything clear enough.

[Klem]

Jasper,

Yes, I can see what you are doing.

With me I am not changing the SAAMI Pmax at all. I figure this is a industry safety constant that ought not be changed in the program, even though you can.

I am changing the Burn Rate factor, in 8208 for example from 0.62 (default) to .615. Entering the exact water capacity of the cases I use. Obviously cartridge OAL, and case trim length (mine, 38.5mm). That gets me pretty close in velocity to what the load is giving in velocity across the chronograph. I figure it will never be exact, in part due to ambient temp differences, and the starting friction of the bullet ('static coefficient of friction').

If all this is too far different than manufacturer tables then I defer to the manufacturer. Manufacturers will have used a pressure trace on a test barrel and fired actual rounds for evidence.

Have to remember to return the powder to its default burning values as the program does not do this automatically when exiting.

Did experiment with varying the Weighting Factor some time ago but never could get it to match ladders of increasing OCW testing. I leave it at 0.5.

[Scrape hunter]

Klem, not bashing any program or anyone here just merely giving my opinion .Was just merely checking all my options when I asked for a QL check sorry for all the confusion I have created for merely asking for a simple QL run .