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

[John Ross]

SAFETY WARNING!

Many of you know I focus my development efforts on the .500 S&W. I have designed bullets, developed loads, done extensive testing, had the S&W factory pressure test my ammunition, and even had them build a limited production gun to my specifications. One S&W engineer flatly states that I have done more load development for this cartridge than either the S&W factory itself or the powder companies. I thought this last might be an exaggeration but after something I saw today, I'm not so sure.

I have been using the computer simulation Quickload and have found it to be very close in velocity and pressure predictions to the empirical results I have obtained both from my own chronograph sessions and S&W's pressure testing of ammunition that I loaded.

Whenever I see load data from a powder company that includes pressure figures (such as Hodgdon), I run the numbers through Quickload to see how they come out. In almost all cases the numbers agree pretty closely, but once in a while something makes me scratch my head a bit.

Well.

Yesterday I went over some new published data I hadn't seen before, and my hair stood on end. Go to http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WesternLoadGuide1-2016_Web-1.pdf and scroll down to Page 21 for S&W .500 data.

I haven't checked every load with Quickload, but some of this data looks absolutely insane! Let's look at their data for the .500 using the Hornady 500 grain Jacketed Soft Point. They load this bullet to an OAL of 2.070".

They list pressure data only for max loads, not suggested "starting" loads.

4100 Powder
Starting load 28.3 grains and (according to Quickload) 39,700 PSI.
Max load 33.2 Gr. They say 52,300 PSI, QL says 64,200. Okay, I've doubtless loaded some rounds at this pressure...

Ramshot Enforcer
Starting load 28.3 grains and (according to Quickload) 45,200 PSI.
Max load 33.2 Gr. They say 52,300 PSI, QL says 73,000. This is starting to worry me...

Accurate 5744
Starting load 33.9 grains and (according to Quickload) 64,300 PSI. I don't like this...
Max load 39.9 Gr. They say 52,300 PSI, QL says 117,600. QL also puts this charge at 127% loading density(!)

Accurate 1680
Starting load 39.4 grains and (according to Quickload) 67,300 PSI. (115% loading density)
Max load 43.7 grains. They say 54,700 PSI, QL says 112,400. QL puts this charge at 128% loading density.

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...

Somebody please double check my numbers...

[Don Purcell]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Since I know you have relied on Quickload with accurate results over the years then there should be little reason to believe these numbers are wrong. It's enough to turn your hair white.

[pmer]

I don't have a .500 but I suppose one could load a case to one of max charges and see it looks like it's at 140 % load density. (if you have some 1680 on hand...don't shoot it that way..LOL..)

[John Ross]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Since I know you have relied on Quickload with accurate results over the years...

Not exactly. I used a shareware DOS program from 1988 written by the now-deceased Louis Sayre called Suggest-A-Load to do estimations and assist in my .500 load development. It was (and is) very good, but Quickload takes things to a much higher level with its vast database of powders and their burning characteristics. I have been using Quickload for not quite a month.

Suggest-A-Load will ask you for all parameters including peak pressure and will give you suggested charge weights of a few powders. I found the results to be very close to empirical data. However, the program will not let you specify a peak pressure that is higher than 55,000 PSI. You also cannot ask it for results with specific powders--it selects them for you.

This is not really a bad thing, but you can't just input the data for someone else's load and see if it agrees with what they say the pressure was. You have to input the pressure and see if it comes up with a load that is similar.

Using SAL and inputting data for the 440 gr. Cast Performance bullet at an OAL of 2.005" and peak pressure of 55,000 PSI, it recommends a slightly compressed load of 35 grains of either H110 or 296 for a velocity of 1630 FPS and pressure of 52,300 PSI. H110/296 was the ONLY recommendation for powder that it gave me for a pressure level near 55,000 PSI using this bullet.

Inputting 35 gr. H110, 440 CP @OAL of 2.005" into Quickload results in 102% loading density and 51,500 PSI. Close enough for me, and very similar to empirical results reported by others.

This data supplied by the folks who actually make Accurate Powder really bothers me...

[Michael J. Spangler]

Subscribed

[BCB]

I don't have a .500 but I suppose one could load a case to one of max charges and see it looks like it's at 140 % load density. (if you have some 1680 on hand...don't shoot it that way..LOL..)

I agree with this. I have done the same thing...

Good-luck...BCB

[44MAG#1]

If you are concerned what I would do, if you haven't already, is get my data in order and call the manufacturer and tell them.
If you haven't already done this or your not going to then the concern would, to me, seem unwarranted or not important.
I know from use of AA1680 it take roughly 4 grains of it to equal H110 in the 500 S&W.
Could I be wrong oh yes. I seem to be wrong most of the time anyway. According to most that is.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I would start calling the Mfg's and get some more data that either supports or disputes your findings.

Quickload may be the problem.

Typically when many sources say one thing and then one disagrees, it is the one who disagrees that is at fault. (not talking about politics here!!!)

However sometimes it goes the other way, and that is where you must actually be able to confirm your findings with empirical tests, and more than one test facility should be used to confirm that.

All the powder Manufacturers have ballistic labs with pressure testing equipment that is used and calibrated daily. Everybody is using PSI as the measurement now so the results will eventually become consistent as CPU falls by the way side. That alone will get rid of many anomalies as most people don't know the difference between the two.

Lots of times Computer programs that use Algorithms to calculate data suffer from "algorithm wander" at the low and high ends of the range. In other words the algorithm has a sweet spot or area that it functions fine within, but as you get to the fringes it becomes less accurate. You can see this happening when the results go askew at the ends of the spectrum compared to other published data, which is linier in change.

Charge weight versus pressure is a pretty linier graph. If there are spikes in the pressure curve due to changes in charge weight chances are it is the program. Other factors can create spikes, but charge weight changes are generally linier in nature.

All things must be considered,,, and relying on one source for load data is not good practice. The reason why you cross reference data between sources is to find typos which occur simply because people enter the wrong numbers into the charts. Generally there is a disclaimer attached which states that you need to use caution.

Like I said at the start I would start contacting manufacturers and comparing their results with yours, and if you get consistent evidence that they are in fact correct then maybe Quickload should go in the trash.

My .02

Randy

[M-Tecs]

All the powder Manufacturers have ballistic labs with pressure testing equipment that is used and calibrated daily.

Agreed. It's difficult to argue with actual testing.

[44MAG#1]

The newest Hornady manual list for ENFORCER AND the 500 gr 33.1 gr as max at 1300 fps at 2.065" OAL
They list for 1680 at 44 gr at the same length.
Lyman's newest manual list for 4100 max at 29 grains at the same OAL
They list for Enforcer 28 grain max at the OAL same.

As they say "oh well". What do you do now?

[35remington]

Question because I have not tried it.

Is it possible to successfully seat a bullet given 126-140 percent loading density? Given the data, that implies it can, it’s safety otherwise notwithstanding. But I do wonder. Much depends upon the powder used and its compressibility.

[John Ross]

It's not that I haven't considered these things.

The real sticking point is that short OAL that they use, and it's printed right there in their data. I haven't seen .500 data with these charge levels and such meager OALs elsewhere.

I KNOW just by looking at their page that it's ridiculous to try to seat a 440 grain bullet over 47.5 grains of 1680 to a COAL of barely two inches.

But here's the kicker: According to Quickload, if you load to 2.300" OAL instead of 2.005", that 47.5 grain charge of 1680 goes from 140% density at over 180,000 PSI to 99% density and 47,000 PSI, and that is a load I have used myself with fine success.

But the company's data sheet says 2.005" OAL, not 2.300", and we're told to trust the manuals, and some guy who doesn't have as much experience as I do with the .500 is going to follow their directions to the letter instead of saying to himself "Wait a minute, that just doesn't look right..."

No luck so far in finding anyone at the company to talk to about this. Sending an email...

[obssd1958]

Well,
I happen to have on hand - Accurate 5744, Hornady 500gr. XTP FP bullets #50105, and brand new Hornady .500 S&W brass. I popped a used primer in the case, and measured out 39.9 grains of the 5744. Dropped the powder in the case and measured (approximately) the space left in the case from the top of the powder = .40 - .42 inches
If the Hornady bullet is seated in the case to an OAL of 2.070, then there is .565 inches of the bullet in the case. I'm not claiming anything about pressures for this particular load, but I would think that trying to compress a stick powder like 5744 that much, would not be a good thing! It also shows that the load density figures that John showed are probably pretty close.

Just my observations...



Don

[35remington]

Any answers to the question I posted above?

[44MAG#1]

Any remarks on the Hornady and Lyman data I posted above?

[John Ross]

The newest Hornady manual list for ENFORCER AND the 500 gr 33.1 gr as max at 1300 fps at 2.065" OAL
SNIP
Lyman's newest manual... list for Enforcer 28 grain max at the OAL same.



Hornady and Lyman show max loads that are FIVE GRAINS different with the same bullet, powder, and OAL?

This is getting weird...

[John Ross]

Any answers to the question I posted above?

Using powders that are known to behave when compressed, like BLC-2, I have achieved 120% loading density. However, such compression contributes to bullets jumping crimp under recoil.

I don't think 140% is possible, without the bullet coming back out of the case some before it gets to the crimp die.

[35remington]

I have more than a little experience with compressed loads, just not in this cartridge.

How about the powders posted in the data specific to the cartridge?

I am not suggesting the data is harmless, but if the load simply will not fit in the case, the highest predicted pressures are not achievable, and they also have some additional explaining to do beyond the primary issue of load safety. Like how could they get the powder to fit in the first place.

This is consonant with the question that begs to be asked, which is, “what were you guys thinking?”

[John Ross]

I have more than a little experience with compressed loads, just not in this cartridge.

How about the powders posted in the data specific to the cartridge?

I am not suggesting the data is harmless, but if the load simply will not fit in the case, the highest predicted pressures are not achievable, and they also have some additional explaining to do beyond the primary issue of load safety. Like how could they get the powder to fit in the first place.

This is consonant with the question that begs to be asked, which is, “what were you guys thinking?”

I do not yet have any experience with the first three of the powders listed but quite a lot with 1680. It is a ball powder like H110/296 or BLC-2. I have loaded it at density levels of around 110% but you have to watch for loads jumping crimp. I think 140% would be impossible as stated above.

My nagging suspicion in all of this is a bunch of typos made by a secretary that was hung over when she transcribed the figures her boss handed her...

[frank505]

I would trust western powders data having spent time in their lab and around their equipment. You could try talking to doug at the lab. Either he or Keith can answer your questions.

[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

[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.

https://i.postimg.cc/GpfNjSfR/IMG-20210112-150206.jpg

[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 ".

[Blood Trail]

Very interesting thread, has I’ve been playing around with those 700 gr behemoth boolits I’ve been caring for my .500 on top of 26 grs of H110.

John Ross - I know this is an old thread, but any updates?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S.B.]

Thank you John for the heads up.
Steve

[Dieselhorses]

First of all I don’t go anywhere close to QL! I’d rather use data from a comic book considering the cost and big margin of error. Second, S&W clearly does NOT endorse reloads for their firearms! Now you may have talked to just the right person but I’ve corresponded several times getting the same answer over and over. Not trying to be a sour puss but reloading for this cannon is an art in itself!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S.B.]

First of all I don’t go anywhere close to QL! I’d rather use data from a comic book considering the cost and big margin of error. Second, S&W clearly does NOT endorse reloads for their firearms! Now you may have talked to just the right person but I’ve corresponded several times getting the same answer over and over. Not trying to be a sour puss but reloading for this cannon is an art in itself!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doesn't sound like you're much of a handloader IMHO?
Steve

[Dieselhorses]

I haven’t reloaded for 50
Years like you but yes, I am and I load for 29 calibers with much success. I make my own “smokeless “ and “BP”, I reload primers, cast with 63 different molds and I’m currently working on a fuel to burn in my truck that’s a lot cheaper than buying gas at the station. So no, I wouldn’t write anything off that I thought was useful. I don’t spend a lot of time in the “waiting room” or “slow lane”. Nevertheless, I do credit this site and many pro’s on here for getting me where I’m at (with the reloading anyway).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S.B.]

You actually reload primers, how cost effective is that?
Steve

[rintinglen]

Off topic, but at times like these, when primers cannot be had for love or money, the ability to reload them is a very useful skill to have. It might not be as swift as placing a dozen Benjamins on the counter and strolling down the high way with a sleeve of SP under your arms, but for those of us not encumbered by excessively fat wallets, being able to replace our spent primers at the coast of a few dollars and a bit of time is a pleasant thing to contemplate.

On topic, I see that Hodgdon still lists the same information cited in the OP's first writings.

[Fitz]

I just took a brand new case that has been through a sizing die primed with used primer and filled to top of case with 1680 , tapped case to settle, filled again then weighed powder on balance beam scale, came to 68.6 grains of powder.

[243winxb]

As said above-
Quickload may be the problem. I have read online, QL doesnt work well with straight walled pistol cases.

After reading this, i dont need QL. https://www.accurateshooter.com/gear-reviews/test-quickload-review/

Old review at link.

[Dieselhorses]

You actually reload primers, how cost effective is that?
Steve

Grant it, it’s somewhat time consuming but once you get a system down it’s very rewarding, therapeutic and you get very close/consistent results to commercial primers. Once you understand the basics and pay attention to the weights and measures, you’ll be happy to see you’re no longer dependent on “monopolies”! For the record, I apologize about first post- didn’t mean to come off like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TurnipEaterDown]

This seems a LOT of tither over something that is being speculated on.

I Have a 500 Linebaugh Long. This it can be argued is a reincarnation of the 500 Super Mag (think this was Lee Juras creation circa 1970s).
Take a look at case dimensions. It IS what S&W copied, reduced bullet diameter 0.012", and then jacked the operating pressure to nearly double to make the 500 S&W.

The 500 Linebaugh Long is a 30,000 psi Max gun.
I have run mine w/ 436 gr LBT WFN, Federal 155, 46 gr WC680, and get 1325-1400 fps. Statistical spread, ambient temperature, etc explains variance. It is a max load, but it is a 30K psi gun.
It most certainly is not grossly compressed. It most Certainly is no 100K+ psi load. It IS a ~ 30K psi load.

This load I use and has been pressure tested by/for Linebaugh is a virtual duplicate of the 500 S&W, 440 Cast, 47.5 gr Accurate 1680, "dangerous load" that would supposedly make 182,900 psi.

Somebody here is in a tither about something that they know little about, and it seems that there is also a lot of speculation about what Western did wrong with a drunken technician or secretary.

Sad. Little facts, seemingly little experience, and lots of terror.

[P Flados]

This thread was started based on using QL without ensuring that the program had the correct case capacity. I have QL and adjusted the default case capacity until it matched the case capacity in 1680 as measured. With case capacity corrected, results became much more reasonable and nothing to cause concern.

It does serve as a warning to QL users on making sure inputs and default values are correct. I have had a similar problem evaluating Lil Gun in 357 Max.