Shooters Forum banner

21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,604 Posts
You can make the same comparison in Gordon's Reloading Tool, which you can download a beta version of for free, here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
Thanks, Nick. When I did an internet search GRT came up, looks like they have some US made powders in there now.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,604 Posts
Yes. And they allow you to share the program with others as long as you don't alter it.

I've had some contact with people working on that project here and in Germany and they are actively trying to get data from people on powders via any measurements they make (Pressure Trace data in particular, but all other data such as as-fired case capacity and load details and barrel length and velocity are all helpful to confirm their modeling attempts). This way they are gradually building and adjust their database. It's not as good as QuickLOAD's method, IMHO, as more deduction is involved. QuickLOAD's author, Hartmut Broemel buys actual samples of powders and puts them through a vivacity bomb test, a closed bomb pressure vs. time test to determine the rates at which gas is evolved from the powder as it progresses through a burn, and then his algorithm deduces the other powder properties applicable to his combustion model from that. The GRT folks seem to be curve-fitting gathered data, which is tough because individual guns vary so much. They do make an approximation from QuickLOAD's data, but they use a three-inflection-point model rather than QL's two-inflection-point model, I think to try to model lower loads better, but QL's information does not translate directly into it. However, over time, with enough gathered data, the gun variability and model difference tend to average out.

Broemel's method has the same limitation bullet companies and other non-powder companies making load databooks do, and that is that they don't know how representative the samples of a powder they buy for testing happen to be. You can see this in data for powders that are identical but differently branded like HP-38/231 or H110/296. Many databooks give a little bit different load data for them because they bought test lot samples that were in different places in the burn rate tolerance range. Only when Hodgdon became the distributor for both pairs of powders did you see identical load data appear for them because Hodgdon is filling the jars from the same purchased lots.

I find I still use QuickLOAD the most just because I've been using it for decades now and am so familiar with it. With time and effort, though, I can usually make either one model pretty well. GRT is certainly coming along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shooter444

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Nick, you lost me completely between the first and last sentences, I guess these formulae are not for simple people like me who have only just progressed from an abacus and still type with one finger off of each hand, doh🤥.
I'd like to kid myself it would be useful for me but I know deep down that it would only take up memory on my pc.
 

·
The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
·
8,398 Posts
He explained the difference between an educated guess, and a wild arsed guess.

Understanding the difference between the two, is important.

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: shooter444

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Call Barnes if you can or possibly email them. I have talked to Ty many times, head ballistician I think?, and he has been very helpful. In my opinion the bands helped with pressure but the bullets still seem to show pressure signs faster than a lead core bullet.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,604 Posts
That's probably a good way to look at it. Most of the advice on the Internet won't be intentionally bad, but it won't be confirmed by testing, either. With all the software loads, as with Internet loads, you have to cross-check that they seem within reason based on published data, if there is any. In either case, you reduce the recommended charge and work up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shooter444

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
Drone, Hopefully by now you've loaded a few. If not, I suggest you start these at least .050 off the lands, or even .100. I load my 150 TSX's .150 in my Remington 760 and get great accuracy. BTW, I am not the only one who says this for TSX bullets, many have said the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Received this e-mail from greg at barnes bullets
"
Hello,

We do not have any load data with those powders. You could reference the data from Hodgdon for lead core. You can reduce the min charge by 2%. Work up slowly and watch for pressure signs.

Thanks

"
Hope this helps someone in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Loaded up 5 each of cfe 223 loads 51.0 grns, 51.5 grns , 52 grns, 52.5 grns and 53 grains.
Only used the first two loads, 51 grns got 3020 fps with an sd of 18, 51.5 got 3040 with an sd 0f 20.
The 51 shot 1/2" the 51.5 shot 1.5".
Loading up 50 of the 51 grn loads plenty fast enough and accuracy the best I've seen out of my rifle to date.
Cases are once fired GGG match cases, neck sized only. Please remember these loads suit my rifle which is a ruger#1, they may not suit yours.
There's some pix showing the primers after firing, the 51 grn loads are unmarked the 51.5 grn loads have an X on the head.
101565
130 grn tsx.JPG
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top