SAFETY WARNING to people who load for .500 S&W Magnum!

[JNG3]

I like Western Powders. I use a lot of it for jacketed loads. That said, there IS something screwy with their data at times. I've put my 556 and 7.62x39 projects on hold for now due to extremely high velocities at starting loads. These velocities often met or EXCEEDED the max loads. Had I started at the max or near max I'm confident I would of blown both rifles to bits.

BTW, these loads were from their published data!

[Skipper]

Just a question...why would anyone place any utility/reliance/validity on a computer simulation when good, pressure transducer tested, real world data is available from so many sources?

Here is a quote from QuickLOAD, “Based on a theoretical model and not on empirical data from any tests. Ballistic programs such as QuickLOAD cannot predict EXACT internal ballistic results. Therefore one CANNOT use the software as a substitute for information gleaned from a reloading manual along with standard handload development and practices. QuickLOAD is designed and
intended only for use by those persons who are completely familiar will all safe handloading practices.

[44MAG#1]

It's people that love a challenge. We know that there are errors in loading data. Maybe it's good we have people that point them out for whatever the reason.

[curioushooter]

John, simply amazing! Either something is up with Quickload (software I've no experience with) or somebody mis-calibrated the instrument they use to measure pressure, which is hard for me to believe.

[44MAG#1]

Why would it be hard to believe? Man is doing the testing aren't they? I find it equally hard to believe that anyone would expect no mistakes.

[John Ross]

Just a question...why would anyone place any utility/reliance/validity on a computer simulation when good, pressure transducer tested, real world data is available from so many sources?

SNIP quote from Quickload

Sigh. Did you actually read all of my comments in this thread?

I am well aware of QL's disclaimer. They have to say that. Furthermore, I am not advocating using a computer simulation instead of pressure transducer tested empirical data. I used a simulation to get a second opinion about something that looked very wrong to me.

My main point is that it doesn't matter if you have all the test equipment known to man, you physically can't put 47.5 grains of 1680 in a .500 case and seat a 440 grain bullet to an OAL of 2.005".

Something is wrong with Western's published data.

I have now received four (so far) private messages from people who read my posts and told me they used Western Powder's 5744 and 1680 published data (in calibers other than the .500) and got blown primers.

Western needs to run their tests again, make sure their equipment (and the people running it) are working properly, and that everything else (especially OAL) is correct.

As I pointed out before, all of this could be adequately explained by a typo in the OAL dimension.

[44MAG#1]

Guess what. Starline case (new), Cast performance 440 gr bullet, 47.5 grains AA1680 tried it and seated the bullet to 2.006 without much effort.
If a "lot" of that powder was more dense it would be not much of a problem. If it was less dense yes it would.
"Can't"and "never" are two words that need to be used carefully.
I would not want to drop the hammer on it but then again, I AM CAUTIOUS OF SUSPICIOUS THINGS.

[curioushooter]

44MAG#1: It's hard for me to believe since powder companies definitely have something to lose if they screw up something like this. The software, on the other hand, already disclaims it self of liability. Usually when somebody or a company has something to lose (reputation, perhaps suffer a lawsuit), they usually get it right. I work work in metrology of sophisticated medical instruments, not much unlike pressure transducers, and the thought that the instrument could be mis-calibrated or a transcription error of this magnitude could be made defies belief! In fact, that the company's QC department has procedures that would allow for that level of error to go undetected defies belief. Sorry if I offended you in some way, but that John is putting out this warning is something that SHOULD NEVER NEED TO HAPPEN.

[JNG3]

Well I certainly don't know squat about the .500 revolvers but I will tell you this-

Following Westerns own published data for the 7.62x39 and 1680 powder resulted in me shooting exactly 3 shots and pulling the rest. I even called Western and inquired about possible recalls on that lot of powder and was told there was none thinking something was amiss with the powder I had bought. I don't have the data #'s in front of me as I'm at work. People make mistakes. Errors occur.

[44MAG#1]

44MAG#1: It's hard for me to believe since powder companies definitely have something to lose if they screw up something like this. The software, on the other hand, already disclaims it self of liability. Usually when somebody or a company has something to lose (reputation, perhaps suffer a lawsuit), they usually get it right. I work work in metrology of sophisticated medical instruments, not much unlike pressure transducers, and the thought that the instrument could be mis-calibrated or a transcription error of this magnitude could be made defies belief! In fact, that the company's QC department has procedures that would allow for that level of error to go undetected defies belief. Sorry if I offended you in some way, but that John is putting out this warning is something that SHOULD NEVER NEED TO HAPPEN.

This is my stance. Be that as it may. Not to long ago the esteemed Larry Gibson pointed out an error in Hodgdons data on a rifle caliber.
What he pointed out to us who have reloaded for years was only a reminder to be careful when working a load, handgun, or rifle.
It wasn't something that was new. Just a reminder on using ANY data.
Mr Ross is now doing the same thing, albeit a good thing. But, you will have people swooning, moaning, doing the nervous dance over this.
It is good to have conscientious people here. They are good to give us reminders to be careful.
But that is it.
In reloading, guns have been blown up and will continue to be blown up. Either by bad data, the reloader asleep at the controls, drunken, distracted and a host of other thing that are probably more likely than bad data even though there is some that exists.
What about the person that reaches for the correct power and pick up another that looks very similar?
Danger lurks around every turn. Even driving to the range is a potential danger.
What do we do while waiting on perfect data and us being the only one on the road to the range?

[Skipper]

Sigh. Did you actually read all of my comments in this thread?

I am well aware of QL's disclaimer. They have to say that. Furthermore, I am not advocating using a computer simulation instead of pressure transducer tested empirical data. I used a simulation to get a second opinion about something that looked very wrong to me.

My main point is that it doesn't matter if you have all the test equipment known to man, you physically can't put 47.5 grains of 1680 in a .500 case and seat a 440 grain bullet to an OAL of 2.005".

Something is wrong with Western's published data.

I have now received four (so far) private messages from people who read my posts and told me they used Western Powder's 5744 and 1680 published data (in calibers other than the .500) and got blown primers.

Western needs to run their tests again, make sure their equipment (and the people running it) are working properly, and that everything else (especially OAL) is correct.

As I pointed out before, all of this could be adequately explained by a typo in the OAL dimension.

I made no mention of you, period. Your inference is not valid. I was talking about the Quickload program and similar software.

[35remington]

If someone counsels caution and points out a potential problem, what harm will it cause to regard it as possibly valid? Your critique of Quickload is missing the point of this thread. The commentary about Quickload is not relevant to what is being attempted as a public service here.

[44MAG#1]

"The commentary about Quickload is not relevant to what is being attempted as a public service here."

Although I have nothing against Quickload myself I would like to address the PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT thing.
What everyone needs to understand is that all loading data is only true concerning what the lab came up with at the time any load is tested. If one "lot" of any given component is changes and the test is run again back to back with the first result the second test will more than likely be different.
Also if we will always remember that any data is subject to error we will be more careful.
There are so many variables in data from any source the true PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCMENT should be is to use caution when using any of it. Period.
What do we do in this case? Use a warning that scrolls and flashed at the top of every forum and are announced by a siren?
Really I don't know. What can we do to protect ourselves from ourselves?

[earlmck]

No powder company is going to suggest loads exceeding about 105% load density. I'd guess there is one misprint in the COAL, rather than a whole series of errors in powder weight. Does inputting a more likely COAL into QuickLoad bring all the pressures into believable range?

[John Ross]

No powder company is going to suggest loads exceeding about 105% load density. I'd guess there is one misprint in the COAL, rather than a whole series of errors in powder weight. Does inputting a more likely COAL into QuickLoad bring all the pressures into believable range?

In a word, yes. See post #12 on the first page of this thread.

[44MAG#1]

Post #27.

[44MAG#1]

"Okay, let's try the Cast Performance 440 grain WFN loaded to an OAL of 2.005" with these last two powders:

5744
Starting load 36.3 grains and (according to Quickload) 43,100 PSI. (107% loading density)
Max load 42.7 Gr. They say 55,400 PSI, QL says 89,600. QL puts this charge at 126% loading density.

1680
Starting load 42.7 grains and (according to Quickload) 89,500 PSI for a starting load! (126% loading density)
Max load 47.5 Gr. They say 47,750 PSI, QL says 182,900 PSI! QL puts this charge at 140% loading density. I am at a loss for words..."

For one I went to the shed to do another test. In a new sized Starline 500 case with the AA1680 powder column up to the base of a CPB 440 gr seated to the desired length the case held 43 gr AA1680 to touch the base of the bullet. To me that is 100% not the 126% density as Quickload said. Now I may be wrong as I don't know their definition of density or 100% in their lingo.
Now with a more dense lot of powder or a less dense lot of powder that charge weight will be different.
The charge I got was NOT compressed at all.
So here we go again.

[John Ross]

I think the 680 I have, and maybe the one on which QL based their data, is less dense than yours.

[44MAG#1]

Still 126 percent? Something is wrong somewhere. I know most think the wrong is me. But, I may have fallen off the turnip truck but it wasn't last night. But then again????

[BHill]

Could either of you give me the dimensions of the cast performance 440 grain mentioned above?

I have multiple lots of 680/1680 both surplus and commercial. They stay within 1.5% of each other for weight/volume so maybe my stuff is to old.

Quickload has been scary reliable for me in the past in regards to volume in cases and expected velocities. Only big changes come about when I have compressed a load and it spiked vs being linier as predicted. I was working up .44 special loads in a .44 magnum and the velocity shot up dramatically more than predicted.

Thanks