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

[44MAG#1]

New sized Starline case, 1.618 long. CPB 440 gr .902 long Hornady 500 gr 1.013 long.

[John Ross]

New sized Starline case, 1.618 long. CPB 440 gr .902 long Hornady 500 gr 1.013 long.

Well, that's a small part of the explanation. The bullets I thought were CP that I measured were .950" long. Using the corrected dimension you provided, QL still predicts 131% density and 122,000 PSI.

[44MAG#1]

Well, that's a small part of the explanation. The bullets I thought were CP that I measured were .950" long. Using the corrected dimension you provided, QL still predicts 131% density and 122,000 PSI.

The Cast Performance bullets I have were the one I used to determine the 43 gr charge or AA 1680.
Either I am crazy or Quickload is. I double checked my weights. To the bottom of the bullet is 43 grains of AA1680.
If my 43 gr is correct for 100 percent wouldn't 130 percent be 55.9 gr? And if 43 is 130 percent wouldn't 100 percent be 33.1 grains?
Either QL is crazy in this instance or I am.
Which one is it?
Mr Ross, you are the brains of this. Cant you determine which one is incorrect? Maybe I don't know how to determine 100 percent capacity. What am I doing wrong? it must be me as we know it can't be QL.

[John Ross]

I cannot fault your arithmetic. I'm a bit crippled up right now with a bruised spinal cord or I'd dig out my own components and duplicate your efforts. Alternating between sitting at the keyboard in my pajamas for a bit then going back to bed until I feel better.

If it's not too much trouble, tell me what charge of your 1680 fills your sized Starline case full to the brim. That's what I'll do when I feel up to negotiating stairs again.

[44MAG#1]

I cannot fault your arithmetic. I'm a bit crippled up right now with a bruised spinal cord or I'd dig out my own components and duplicate your efforts. Alternating between sitting at the keyboard in my pajamas for a bit then going back to bed until I feel better.

I understand but since I am not very smart I will go ahead and say I am the one that is wrong. I have been shown more than once that I am wrong about what I say.

[44MAG#1]

The full case of 1680 is 67.6 gr. Powder poured in not settled just poured in carefully skimmed off.

[John Ross]

The full case of 1680 is 67.6 gr. Powder poured in not settled just poured in carefully skimmed off.

I think we may have found the culprit! Quickload says 100% case capacity of the .500 full to the brim (.001" seating depth) is 61.0 grains of 1680 and 62.75 grains of H110. This is for a case with water capacity of 63.5 grains (their default.)

You show 11% greater total case capacity for a full case of 1680 compared to what Quickload uses. This percentage differential will of course increase as you start taking away case capacity by increasing seating depth...

[44MAG#1]

I think we may have found the culprit! Quickload says 100% case capacity of the .500 full to the brim (.001" seating depth) is 61.0 grains of 1680 and 62.75 grains of H110. This is for a case with water capacity of 63.5 grains (their default.)

You show 11% greater total case capacity for a full case of 1680 compared to what Quickload uses. This percentage differential will of course increase as you start taking away case capacity by increasing seating depth...

I used a new Starline case. Sized. Just poured in the powder as one would if one were weighing each charge.
No tapping of the case, just pouring in and striking off the top carefully. Did it a couple times.
Something is rotten somewhere. Either the case they based their data on was screwball thick or something.
Now we have established that even QL Must have a glitch if I can be believed on what I have done.
Now what or who do we believe. Larry Gibson found a glitch in Hodgdons data. You have found a glitch in AA data. If what I have told you is correct we have found a glitch in QL.
Now what about Lyman and Hornady?
I just bought a new Hornady and a New Lyman. Did I waste my money? I hope I didn't.
I think I am going to dig out all my old manuals and start using them. I have some dating back many many years.

[Michael J. Spangler]

I’ve been really enjoying this thread.
Though I wouldn’t say wuicklads has a glitch. From playing with the program recently and doing a fair amount of reading on it it seems more like quick loads needs some honing to get it right.
There are so many inputs that are set at baselines with the components tested at the time the same way powder manufacturers do.
One company might set data with a starling case and the other with a Winchester case. One could have a slow lot of powder and the other a fast.

I am learning that you cannot trust quickload presets when working at the high end hairy pressure loads for some of these cartridges, but quickloads never suggested we do that without the proper measurements of all components.

There was a good video on YouTube of a guy working up some data for a high end load for a 22-250 I believe. Once he input the actual case capacity, seating depth and tweaked the burn rate to match the confirmed velocity he had a whole new set of outputs that were spot on to the results the shooter was seeing.

Pretty awesome program.
What I’m taking away from all of this is check and double check because all of the data and possible components start stacking tolerances which is dangerous.

Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread. It’s awesome and should be a sticky as a reminder of why we do the research and not just stuff powder into cases on a whim or by a suggestion on the internet.

[44MAG#1]

I've got a Lyman manual written in 1970 and am now, after all this, thinking about going back to it.

[HangFireW8]

Silly question, but is QL working with (what it thinks is) a cast, or a jacketed projectile?

[John Ross]

Silly question, but is QL working with (what it thinks is) a cast, or a jacketed projectile?

It doesn't differentiate per se, but it does have a variable that can be changed called "friction proofed" which I think is to account for moly-coated bullets.

I haven't gotten that far in my use of the program but as Michael Spangler points out, Quickload is designed to be fine-tuned using real-world testing results, so we may end up with an adjustment factor to account for jacketed vs. cast.

The more I use the program the more I'm convinced that the kraut who designed it is a Teutonic genius. It's the best $160 I've ever spent on a piece of reloading equipment...

[HangFireW8]

It doesn't differentiate per se, but it does have a variable that can be changed called "friction proofed" which I think is to account for moly-coated bullets.

I haven't gotten that far in my use of the program but as Michael Spangler points out, Quickload is designed to be fine-tuned using real-world testing results, so we may end up with an adjustment factor to account for jacketed vs. cast.

The more I use the program the more I'm convinced that the kraut who designed it is a Teutonic genius. It's the best $160 I've ever spent on a piece of reloading equipment...

Uh... yes it does differentiate.

If you look at the *.bul CSV files for cast versus jacketed, (usually) you'll see the last column has an "8" in it for cast, and a "25" in it for jacketed. The distinction is easiest to see in hornady.bul, since Hornady sells both lead and jacketed projectiles.

So to answer my own question, the original post bullet appears to be this one:
".500, 500, Hornady FP-XTP 50105 ","500","1.01","","","","","",".500",".185",".185" ,"","","","","","","","","","15"

The curious "15" has an engraving force somewhere between the usual 8 and 25, indicating a short shank bullet, often with open hollow point or exposed lead tip. This makes sense, because such bullets obturate more easily than something totally encapsulated in copper and with a long shank.

Not sure if this helps this discussion any, but that's the variable we casters want to play with when modelling new-to-QL boolits.

And I agree, it is a wonderful program.

[John Ross]

Uh... yes it does differentiate.

If you look at the *.bul CSV files for cast versus jacketed, (usually) you'll see the last column has an "8" in it for cast, and a "25" in it for jacketed. The distinction is easiest to see in hornady.bul, since Hornady sells both lead and jacketed projectiles.

So to answer my own question, the original post bullet appears to be this one:
".500, 500, Hornady FP-XTP 50105 ","500","1.01","","","","","",".500",".185",".185" ,"","","","","","","","","","15"

The curious "15" has an engraving force somewhere between the usual 8 and 25, indicating a short shank bullet, often with open hollow point or exposed lead tip. This makes sense, because such bullets obturate more easily than something totally encapsulated in copper and with a long shank.

Not sure if this helps this discussion any, but that's the variable we casters want to play with when modelling new-to-QL boolits.

And I agree, it is a wonderful program.

Thanks for setting me straight, but... I have no idea how to do as you've instructed! And if QL does differentiate between cast and jacketed, what does it do when I add my own bullets to the list? What "engraving force" does it assign to ".501, 550 gr Ross Long Range"?

[HangFireW8]

Thanks for setting me straight, but... I have no idea how to do as you've instructed! And if QL does differentiate between cast and jacketed, what does it do when I add my own bullets to the list? What "engraving force" does it assign to ".501, 550 gr Ross Long Range"?

Adding a new file full of new boolits is part of the User Interface, I did it for noe.bul which I downloaded and IIRC it was easy... let's see.

MENU Data Add,Change,Load,Save->Projectile/Bullet Data->Load a bullet file.
The resulting dialog will also give you the path of where your current bullet files are stored, mostly likely including hornady.bul.

To modify an existing file, use the path you found above to locate the bullet file, and then open it using your favorite text editor. You might want to copy the existing one aside in case you mess up.

You assign the engraving force in your modified or new bullet file.

[HangFireW8]

So I re-read the thread and I guessing what happened here is JR edited an existing bullet in the user interface for his calculations. This is often 'close enough' but as things get to extremes, such as full and overfull cases, more accurate editing at the file level may be required.

If this is how the load calc was arrived at, it might explain some of the discrepancy between published loads and calculated loads. Or, not.

There is another thing to consider. My seemingly crazy friend clarkm is both a QL user and probably the current reigning champion of real world overload testing. To summarize a lot of his considerable real world findings all-too-briefly, he has found QL often overestimates compressed load pressures. QL is usually right when it says a given load is an overload, but usually overestimates the resulting pressure.

Richard Lee mentioned in his first edition that compressed loads don't seem to get to the promised overpressures. I have duplicated some of Clark and Lee's research and can confirm that. (I don't publish, or continue to use, these loads, however).

The reasons involve a lot of factors of interior ballistics, primarily the timing of initial debulleting, and flame front propagation. In short, a bullet moving out of its crimp sooner (as often happens in compressed loads) lowers peak pressures, and a compressed powder column has a smaller surface area of ongoing deflagration. But keep in mind these two primary factors are in contention with each other, sometimes in non-intuitive ways, such as a too-quick debulleting can introduce a larger deflagration surface area (and higher pressures), while a too-firm crimp can keep it smaller and result in (relatively) lower pressures than expected, which is the opposite of what is expected in normal non-compressed loadings.

Not surprisingly, QL uses a more linear formula that builds pressures more quickly as more powder is (over)loaded, and doesn't seem to compensate for these factors. That's OK, the important thing to remember that if QL says it's an overload, and your input data is correct (remember GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out), it's probably an overload.

[DukeInFlorida]

In General, there are a few things that I have relied on over the years as an instructor of reloading:

• Unlike the olden days of creating a dedicated "test barrel" with the adapter, and copper disks (so called, "CUP" pressure), the trend today is to use standard manufactured guns, with a pressure transducer attached. Lead wires connect to software on a laptop, and actual PSI pressures can be read. Many of the manufacturers tout that they actually test most, if not all of the loads they publish, in this new way. The test gun is usually mentioned in the "Title Page" for each chambering.
• In between loads can be calculated by interpolation, and some of the listings can be developed that way.
• EVERY publisher of load data books comes out with ERRATA data, with the resultant warnings. Most of those updates are reported by reloaders, who found clerical data errors (typos, etc). Those errata updates make their way into the next published version of the book.

So, the prudent thing to do in this instance is to call the manufacturer with the errant data, and ask them to review the information. I have made it my habit to call them (usually the powder manufacturer, rather than the bullet manufacturer) and ask for confirmation, especially when my load intentions are slightly different than what they "tested". Changes such as Hi-Tek coated bullets (vs the plated or jacketed, or lead) cause me to call.

That's what I would do. Ask them to double check their numbers. I love my 500 S&W Magnum, and load mostly TrailBoss because I value what's left of my wrist. I don't venture much off the straight and narrow path when it comes to that chambering. My hat off to John for his courageous experimentations.

[Petander]

I think we may have found the culprit! Quickload says 100% case capacity of the .500 full to the brim (.001" seating depth) is 61.0 grains of 1680 and 62.75 grains of H110. This is for a case with water capacity of 63.5 grains (their default.)

You show 11% greater total case capacity for a full case of 1680 compared to what Quickload uses. This percentage differential will of course increase as you start taking away case capacity by increasing seating depth...

Yes we should always start with measuring and using our own H2O case capacity parameter when using Quick Load.

I use Magtech brass for 500,just because it's availability. No mixed results.

I have two completely different 300WM load sets,one for PMC brass,the other for Sako. Sako has one full cubic centimeter more case capacity.

[dougader]

I saw a load on the Hodgdon online data site that showed a 2,000 psi load difference between their start load and max load of Lil' Gun in 357 magnum. No way.... can't say if the data is dangerous or not, but typos/mistakes like that make me question data from every source and check multiple references on the data I intend to use.

[Petander]

Yes there is too much information circulating too fast. All this quick technology makes it scary.

I was reading a nail gun manual in a hardware store once. You know, the usual air compressor powered nail gun.

The auto-translated instructions said it's "a good gun for hunting seals ".